OsteoporosisAVOID FractureNCT00388908
Addressing Vertebral Osteoporosis Incidentally Detected to Prevent Future Fractures
A study testing Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counselling in people with Osteoporosis, run by University of Alberta at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Osteoporosis is a common and progressive condition that leads to broken bones (fractures), which cause pain, disability, deformity, and even death. There are new treatments available that can decrease the risk of a fracture by 50%, and the people who benefit the most are those with osteoporosis who have already had a… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Osteoporosis
- What is being tested?
- Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counselling
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 240 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Nov 2006to Jul 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 60 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- age 60 years or greater
- chest radiograph that reports the presence of a vertebral fracture
- discharged home.
Who cannot join
- unable to provide simple informed consent or unwilling to participate in the study
- unable to read, understand, and converse in English
- admitted to hospital
- currently enrolled in the pilot study or other osteoporosis-related studies
- currently taking any prescription osteoporosis treatment
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Addressing Vertebral Osteoporosis Incidentally Detected to Prevent Future Fractures: The AVOID FRACTURE Study
Osteoporosis is a common and progressive condition that leads to broken bones (fractures), which cause pain, disability, deformity, and even death. There are new treatments available that can decrease the risk of a fracture by 50%, and the people who benefit the most are those with osteoporosis who have already had a fracture, like a vertebral (spine) fracture. Vertebral fractures are usually "silent," and ~20% of people over the age of 60 years have had one although they don't know it. Many of these people have had chest x-rays done for other reasons, and these x-rays can incidentally detect these silent fractures. Although most people with a vertebral fracture should be tested and treated for osteoporosis, studies demonstrate that less than one-quarter of older people with a vertebral fracture are ever investigated or even treated. This reflects a gap between evidence-based best practice and everyday practice in the community. The proposed research addresses this care-gap by using a quality improvement intervention that uses chest x-rays done in the Emergency Department to remind family physicians about osteoporosis while providing them with evidence-based treatment guidelines - with or without educating and empowering patients about osteoporosis. The effectiveness of this intervention will be compared to usual care in a controlled trial. The intent of this research is to improve quality of care for patients at high risk of fracture, by increasing rates of testing and treatment of osteoporosis.
Read the detailed description
Objective: To improve the quality of care for elderly patients with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures incidentally detected by a chest radiograph in the Emergency Department.
Background: Osteoporosis leads to decreased bone mass, skeletal fragility, and fractures. Osteoporosis affects at least 1.4 million Canadians, 25% of women and 12% of men >60 years of age. The most common osteoporotic fractures are vertebral (spinal), two-thirds of which are asymptomatic. Irrespective of symptoms, these "silent" fractures cause disability, deformity, and death. Compared to those with normal bones and no fracture, the patient with osteoporosis and vertebral fracture has a 20-fold increased risk of future fracture. Guidelines recommend aggressive treatment because rate of re-fracture is 20% within 1 year and treatment reduces risk by 40-50%. Guidelines do not, however, recommend population screening for vertebral fractures. We reported (Arch Intern Med, 2005) that chest radiographs performed in the Emergency Department detected "incidental" fractures in 16% of elderly patients, although only 25% of patients were treated for osteoporosis. The care gap between evidence-based best practice and usual care needs to be urgently addressed.
Hypothesis: The proposed intervention will improve rates of diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in high-risk patients. The intervention will be directed at physicians (patient-specific reminders and opinion leader generated 1-page guidelines) with or without patient-activation (leaflets and telephone-based counseling).
Specific Aims: To determine whether exposure to a physician-directed quality improvement intervention can- Aim #1. Increase rates of osteoporosis treatment in patients with newly recognized vertebral fracture(s); Aim #2. Increase patients' self-reported diagnosis of osteoporosis and other related knowledge; Aim #3. Be further augmented by the addition of patient-activation.
Study Design: A single-center prospective nonrandomized controlled trial with blinded (allocation-concealed) ascertainment of outcomes comparing the proposed physician-intervention to usual care controls. We define usual care as notification of the patients' physician of chest radiograph results. Allocation will be on the basis of an alternate-week time series design, with the proposed intervention "on" for all patients for one week, followed by the intervention being "off" (i.e., usual care) the next week. After 3 months, controls will be offered the physician-intervention plus patient-activation, with outcomes recollected 3 months later. Eligible patients will be >60 years of age who present to the Emergency Department: (1) with a chest radiograph reporting the presence of a vertebral fracture, (2) are not taking prescription osteoporosis treatment, and (3) are discharged home. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients starting prescription osteoporosis treatment within 3 months of fracture recognition; secondary outcomes include BMD testing and diagnosis of osteoporosis. The intervention is expected to increase the primary outcome by at least 20% (absolute) over usual care rates of 10%. With alpha=0.05, beta=0.80, 20% losses-to-followup, and additional power to address secondary outcomes and effects of patient-activation, the required sample size is 240 patients.
Pilot Data and Feasibility: Our pilot study (AJR, 2004) found institutional true-positive reporting rates for vertebral fractures were 60%, with 100% specificity, compared with reference standard. A 1-year feasibility study of a random sample of ~5000 radiographs was then undertaken (Arch Intern Med, 2005). Based on these data, we expect to enroll 3-4 patients/week, complete recruitment in ~20 months, ascertain outcomes by 30 months, and finish the study in 3 years. The research team has generated pilot data, systematically reviewed pertinent literature, recruited opinion leaders to create guidelines, trained research staff, refined methods for outcomes ascertainment; and conducted related studies of wrist (Annals Intern Med, 2004) and hip fractures.
Significance: To our knowledge, there are no studies examining strategies to improve care for this vulnerable and high-risk population, and we believe our results will be important regardless of findings. If "negative" it will provide evidence that more costly and laborious interventions will be needed to overcome clinical inertia; if positive, however, our intervention should be widely applicable. In addition, positive results can be easily extended to other related populations (e.g., routine chest radiographs done for admission to nursing homes) and can be adapted for implementation via other modalities (e.g., computerized decision support, telemedicine).
- Conditions
- Osteoporosis
- Being tested
- Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counselling, Usual Care
- Keywords
- vertebral fractures, osteoporosis, prevention, case-finding, quality improvement
- Medical subject headings
- Osteoporosis, Spinal Fractures
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counsellingBehavioural
Usual CareOther
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| A | Experimental | Multifaceted intervention Receives: Behavioral: Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counselling |
| B | Active comparator | Usual Care Receives: Other: Usual Care |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The primary outcome is the proportion of patients starting prescription osteoporosis treatment within 3 months of fracture recognition
Measured: 3 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
Secondary outcomes include BMD testing, diagnosis of osteoporosis, knowledge, and quality of life.
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Oct 2006 (estimated)
- Study startNov 2006
- Primary completionDec 2010
- Study completionJul 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for OsteoporosisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of AlbertaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 240 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Alberta
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Sumit R. Majumdar, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, University of Alberta
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00388908
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CIHR-MOP-79325
- Acronym
- AVOID Fracture
- Status last verified
- Jul 2015
- First submitted
- 16 Oct 2006
- Last updated
- 11 Apr 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Kim N, Rowe BH, Raymond G, Jen H, Colman I, Jackson SA, Siminoski KG, Chahal AM, Folk D, Majumdar SR. Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Feb;182(2):297-300. doi: 10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820297.
PubMed 14736649Majumdar SR, Kim N, Colman I, Chahal AM, Raymond G, Jen H, Siminoski KG, Hanley DA, Rowe BH. Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Apr 25;165(8):905-9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.8.905.
PubMed 15851642Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Johnson JA, Bellerose D, Siminoski K, Hanley DA, Qazi I, Lier DA, Lambert RG, Russell AS, Rowe BH. Interventions to increase osteoporosis treatment in patients with 'incidentally' detected vertebral fractures. Am J Med. 2012 Sep;125(9):929-36. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.02.021.
PubMed 22938928Majumdar SR, Lier DA, McAlister FA, Rowe BH, Siminoski K, Hanley DA, Russell AS, Johnson JA. Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions for 'incidental' vertebral fractures. Am J Med. 2013 Feb;126(2):169.e9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.10.009.
PubMed 23331449
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Apr 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Addressing Vertebral Osteoporosis Incidentally Detected to Prevent Future Fractures: The AVOID FRACTURE Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00388908
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AVOID Fracture / CIHR-MOP-79325
- Conditions
- Osteoporosis
- Keywords
- vertebral fractures, osteoporosis, prevention, case-finding, quality improvement
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 240 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AlbertaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
- Study start
- Nov 2006
- Primary completion
- Dec 2010 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Oct 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Osteoporosis is a common and progressive condition that leads to broken bones (fractures), which cause pain, disability, deformity, and even death. There are new treatments available that can decrease the risk of a fracture by 50%, and the people who benefit the most are those with osteoporosis who have already had a fracture, like a vertebral (spine) fracture. Vertebral fractures are usually "silent," and ~20% of people over the age of 60 years have had one although they don't know it. Many of these people have had chest x-rays done for other reasons, and these x-rays can incidentally detect these silent fractures. Although most people with a vertebral fracture should be tested and treated for osteoporosis, studies demonstrate that less than one-quarter of older people with a vertebral fracture are ever investigated or even treated. This reflects a gap between evidence-based best practice and everyday practice in the community. The proposed research addresses this care-gap by using a quality improvement intervention that uses chest x-rays done in the Emergency Department to remind family physicians about osteoporosis while providing them with evidence-based treatment guidelines - with or without educating and empowering patients about osteoporosis. The effectiveness of this intervention will be compared to usual care in a controlled trial. The intent of this research is to improve quality of care for patients at high risk of fracture, by increasing rates of testing and treatment of osteoporosis.
Detailed description
Objective: To improve the quality of care for elderly patients with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures incidentally detected by a chest radiograph in the Emergency Department.
Background: Osteoporosis leads to decreased bone mass, skeletal fragility, and fractures. Osteoporosis affects at least 1.4 million Canadians, 25% of women and 12% of men >60 years of age. The most common osteoporotic fractures are vertebral (spinal), two-thirds of which are asymptomatic. Irrespective of symptoms, these "silent" fractures cause disability, deformity, and death. Compared to those with normal bones and no fracture, the patient with osteoporosis and vertebral fracture has a 20-fold increased risk of future fracture. Guidelines recommend aggressive treatment because rate of re-fracture is 20% within 1 year and treatment reduces risk by 40-50%. Guidelines do not, however, recommend population screening for vertebral fractures. We reported (Arch Intern Med, 2005) that chest radiographs performed in the Emergency Department detected "incidental" fractures in 16% of elderly patients, although only 25% of patients were treated for osteoporosis. The care gap between evidence-based best practice and usual care needs to be urgently addressed.
Hypothesis: The proposed intervention will improve rates of diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in high-risk patients. The intervention will be directed at physicians (patient-specific reminders and opinion leader generated 1-page guidelines) with or without patient-activation (leaflets and telephone-based counseling).
Specific Aims: To determine whether exposure to a physician-directed quality improvement intervention can- Aim #1. Increase rates of osteoporosis treatment in patients with newly recognized vertebral fracture(s); Aim #2. Increase patients' self-reported diagnosis of osteoporosis and other related knowledge; Aim #3. Be further augmented by the addition of patient-activation.
Study Design: A single-center prospective nonrandomized controlled trial with blinded (allocation-concealed) ascertainment of outcomes comparing the proposed physician-intervention to usual care controls. We define usual care as notification of the patients' physician of chest radiograph results. Allocation will be on the basis of an alternate-week time series design, with the proposed intervention "on" for all patients for one week, followed by the intervention being "off" (i.e., usual care) the next week. After 3 months, controls will be offered the physician-intervention plus patient-activation, with outcomes recollected 3 months later. Eligible patients will be >60 years of age who present to the Emergency Department: (1) with a chest radiograph reporting the presence of a vertebral fracture, (2) are not taking prescription osteoporosis treatment, and (3) are discharged home. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients starting prescription osteoporosis treatment within 3 months of fracture recognition; secondary outcomes include BMD testing and diagnosis of osteoporosis. The intervention is expected to increase the primary outcome by at least 20% (absolute) over usual care rates of 10%. With alpha=0.05, beta=0.80, 20% losses-to-followup, and additional power to address secondary outcomes and effects of patient-activation, the required sample size is 240 patients.
Pilot Data and Feasibility: Our pilot study (AJR, 2004) found institutional true-positive reporting rates for vertebral fractures were 60%, with 100% specificity, compared with reference standard. A 1-year feasibility study of a random sample of ~5000 radiographs was then undertaken (Arch Intern Med, 2005). Based on these data, we expect to enroll 3-4 patients/week, complete recruitment in ~20 months, ascertain outcomes by 30 months, and finish the study in 3 years. The research team has generated pilot data, systematically reviewed pertinent literature, recruited opinion leaders to create guidelines, trained research staff, refined methods for outcomes ascertainment; and conducted related studies of wrist (Annals Intern Med, 2004) and hip fractures.
Significance: To our knowledge, there are no studies examining strategies to improve care for this vulnerable and high-risk population, and we believe our results will be important regardless of findings. If "negative" it will provide evidence that more costly and laborious interventions will be needed to overcome clinical inertia; if positive, however, our intervention should be widely applicable. In addition, positive results can be easily extended to other related populations (e.g., routine chest radiographs done for admission to nursing homes) and can be adapted for implementation via other modalities (e.g., computerized decision support, telemedicine).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| A | Experimental | Behavioral: Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counsellingMultifaceted intervention |
| B | Active comparator | Other: Usual CareUsual Care |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- age 60 years or greater
- chest radiograph that reports the presence of a vertebral fracture
- discharged home.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- unable to provide simple informed consent or unwilling to participate in the study
- unable to read, understand, and converse in English
- admitted to hospital
- currently enrolled in the pilot study or other osteoporosis-related studies
- currently taking any prescription osteoporosis treatment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counselling | Behavioural | A |
| Usual Care | Other | B |
Primary outcome
The primary outcome is the proportion of patients starting prescription osteoporosis treatment within 3 months of fracture recognition
Time frame: 3 months
1 secondary outcome
Secondary outcomes include BMD testing, diagnosis of osteoporosis, knowledge, and quality of life.
Time frame: 3 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Apr 2022.
- Background: PubMed 14736649Kim N, Rowe BH, Raymond G, Jen H, Colman I, Jackson SA, Siminoski KG, Chahal AM, Folk D, Majumdar SR. Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Feb;182(2):297-300. doi: 10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820297.
- Background: PubMed 15851642Majumdar SR, Kim N, Colman I, Chahal AM, Raymond G, Jen H, Siminoski KG, Hanley DA, Rowe BH. Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Apr 25;165(8):905-9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.8.905.
- Results publication: PubMed 22938928Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Johnson JA, Bellerose D, Siminoski K, Hanley DA, Qazi I, Lier DA, Lambert RG, Russell AS, Rowe BH. Interventions to increase osteoporosis treatment in patients with 'incidentally' detected vertebral fractures. Am J Med. 2012 Sep;125(9):929-36. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.02.021.
- Results publication: PubMed 23331449Majumdar SR, Lier DA, McAlister FA, Rowe BH, Siminoski K, Hanley DA, Russell AS, Johnson JA. Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions for 'incidental' vertebral fractures. Am J Med. 2013 Feb;126(2):169.e9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.10.009.
Related trials for Osteoporosis
RecruitingObservational study
A Clinical Study to Collect Real-wordt Data on Safety and Clinical Performance of the VCFix Spinal System for Treatment of Vertebral Compression Fractures of (Suspected) Osteoporotic Origin.
Vertebra Compression Fracture
Active, not recruitingObservational study
The Impact of Osteosarcopenia on Falls, Kinesiophobia, and Quality of Life in Postmenopausal Women
Osteosarcopenia, Sarcopenia
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
TCM Formula vs. HMB in Pre-Frail Elders: Muscle Strength and Bone Status
Pre-Frailty, Sarcopenia
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Romosozumab and Denosumab Combination Therapy for Osteoporosis
Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
RecruitingObservational study
Assessment and Comparison of Osteoporosis Risk Factors After Stroke
Stroke, Osteoporosis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sumit R. Majumdar, MD, MPH principal investigator
University of Alberta
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Reminders and opinion leader generated guidelines +/- leaflets and counselling in people with Osteoporosis, run by University of Alberta at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Apr 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The primary outcome is the proportion of patients starting prescription osteoporosis treatment within 3 months of fracture recognition (time frame: 3 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00388908, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Apr 2022.