BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a major cause of morbidity. Treatment of osteoporosis reduces the risk of fracture, particularly for postmenopausal women with a history of fracture. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using the automated databases of 7 health maintenance organizations to evaluate the use of drugs recommended for secondary prevention of osteoporotic fracture. Women 60 years and older with an inpatient or outpatient diagnostic code for a fracture of the hip, vertebra, or wrist between October 1, 1994, and September 30, 1996, and at least 1 year of continuous enrollment with a drug benefit plan following the date of fracture, were identified. The frequency of use of medications for the treatment of osteoporosis (estrogen replacement therapy, bisphosphonates, and calcitonin) during the 1-year period following the date of the initial fracture was estimated overall and according to patient age, fracture site, and year of fracture. RESULTS: During the study period, 3492 women 60 years and older were diagnosed with a fracture of the hip, vertebra, or wrist, and met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 822 (24%) received a drug for osteoporosis treatment during the year following the fracture. The proportion of women receiving treatment for osteoporosis was approximately 2-fold higher among those with a fracture of the vertebra (44%) than among those with a fracture of the hip (21%) or wrist (23%) (P<.001). Of the 2605 women who had not been treated for osteoporosis in the 90 days before a fracture, 14% received treatment for osteoporosis in the year following a fracture. Increasing age was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving osteoporosis treatment (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the older women who had experienced a fracture of the hip, vertebra, or wrist did not receive drug treatment for osteoporosis within 1 year following the fracture. Interventions to improve the detection and treatment of osteoporosis in high-risk patients need to be developed.

Summary: We studied nursing home residents with osteoporosis or recent fracture to determine the frequency and predictors of osteoporosis treatment. There was wide variation in performance, and both clinical and systems variables predicted use. This study shows that improvement in osteoporosis care is possible and important for many nursing homes. INTRODUCTION: We determined the prevalence and predictors of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in high-risk nursing home residents. METHODS: We identified 67 nursing facilities in North Carolina and Arizona with > 10 residents with osteoporosis or recent hip fracture. Medical records (n=895) were abstracted for osteoporosis evaluation [dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), vitamin D level, serum calcium), treatment (calcium, vitamin D, osteoporosis medication, hip protectors), clinical, and systems covariates. Data were analyzed at the facility level using mixed models to account for the complex nesting of residents within providers and nursing facilities. RESULTS: Calcium and vitamin D was prescribed for 69% of residents, bisphosphonates for 19%, calcitonin for 14%, other pharmacologic therapies for 6%, and hip protectors for 2%. Overall, 36% received any bone protection (medication or hip protectors), with wide variation among facilities (0-85%). Factors significantly associated with any bone protection included female gender [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, (1.5-3.7)] and nonurban/suburban location [1.5, (1.1-2.2)]. Residents with esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease (PUD), or dysphagia [0.6, (0.4-0.9)] and alcohol abuse [0.2, (0.0-0.9)] were less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the quality of osteoporosis treatment across nursing homes. Interventions that improve osteoporosis quality of care are needed.

OBJECTIVES: To review the current evidence regarding the value of measuring procalcitonin (PCT) levels in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases, with a focus on the evidence for diagnostic and analytical performance of this biomarker. A brief description of the pathophysiological basis of this biomarker is also included. METHODS: Using PubMed from the National Library of Medicine, relevant English literature on PCT in patients with different systemic autoimmune diseases, from 1990 to 2009, was reviewed. The search used keywords referring to procalcitonin and systemic lupus erythematosus, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated systemic vasculitis, Goodpasture syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and giant cell arteritis. RESULTS: When used in the appropriate clinical setting, the measurement of serum PCT levels is valuable as a marker of severe systemic bacterial and fungal infections and sepsis. Information regarding plasma PCT levels in patients with active underlying systemic autoimmune diseases is limited, primarily from observational studies and case series, with considerable variability of patient characteristics and clinical settings. In the detection of systemic infection concomitant with autoimmune diseases, PCT had a diagnostic sensitivity of 53 to 100% and a specificity of 84 to 97% (depending on the selection criteria) and was superior to other inflammatory markers tested. Most of the studies used a semiquantitative test for PCT measurement (functional assay sensitivity <0.5 ng/mL), which can explain the low sensitivity of the test. PCT levels were not significantly affected by renal function abnormalities or immunosuppressive agents. Although high PCT levels commonly occurred with infection, elevated levels of PCT could be found in patients with vasculitis without evidence of infection, often correlated with high disease activity scores. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly elevated PCT levels offer good specificity and sensitivity for systemic infection in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases, regardless of the use of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive agents. PCT measurement may add to diagnostic accuracy in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases who present with a febrile illness, especially when highly sensitive PCT assays and specific PCT cutoff ranges are used in a predefined clinical setting (reflecting the likelihood of infection versus an autoimmune disease flare). However, there are limitations when using this biomarker in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases. PCT levels should not replace the necessary extensive diagnostic workup, which should include a thorough history and physical examination, combined with appropriate immunological, microbiological, radiological, and histological data.