No abstract

BackgroundOsteoporosis is a major public health problem with the ageing population in the UK. However, there is no known national algorithm for the management of osteoporosis in primary care. Therefore, a treatment pathway was developed in secondary care for patients in the community.AimThis audit cycle investigates whether patients at a GP practice with a population of 14 000 have been appropriately identified, coded as osteoporosis, treated, and have followed the recommended pathway.MethodA search of the practice clinical system was undertaken for three groups of patients coded as: patients currently on the existing osteoporosis register; patients with a code of ‘osteoporosis’ or ‘fragility fracture’ but not prescribed an osteoporosis treatment; and patients currently prescribed an osteoporosis treatment with no coding for ‘osteoporosis’ or ‘fragility fracture’. The words ‘osteoporosis’, ‘fragility fracture’, ‘QOF’, and all individual drug names were used in the search engine.ResultsThe completed audit cycle shows an increase in the proportion of patients following the local guidelines pathway, from 75% in 2018 to 81% in 2019, emphasising the importance of having a guideline for GPs to follow in order to optimise treatment and prevent future fragility fractures.ConclusionThis is a pilot project to assess the ability to identify patients who have osteoporosis and review their treatment pathway. The results are promising as the analysed data indicate that GP practice lists can be used to identify and treat high-risk patients for osteoporosis and assess the adherence to the pathway. Using the pathway, GPs can more efficiently diagnose and manage patients.

Introduction: Osteoporosis is a common bone condition in the United Kingdom (UK). The risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures increases with age, and with the ageing population in the UK, the incidence is growing. It is imperative that General Practitioners (GPs) correctly diagnose and manage their patients with osteoporosis. To improve the awareness, a treatment pathway was developed in secondary care to guide local GPs. The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients at a GP practice with a population of 14,000 have been appropriately identified, coded as osteoporosis, treated, and have followed the recommended treatment pathway.Methods: This retrospective study identified three patient groups through a search of the practice IT system, using the words 'osteoporosis', 'fragility fracture', 'Quality and Outcomes Framework', and names of all medications that are used to treat osteoporosis. Group 1 consisted of patients currently on the practice osteoporosis register. Group 2 consisted of patients with a coding of 'osteoporosis' or 'fragility fracture', but not currently on osteoporosis treatment. Group 3 consisted of patients currently on osteoporosis treatment with no coding for 'osteoporosis' or 'fragility fracture'.Results: In Group 1, 62% were found to be following the local treatment pathway in the first cycle of the study, and 70% in the second cycle. In Group 2, 45% were found to be following the local treatment pathway in the first cycle of the study, and 43% in the second cycle. In Group 3, 86% were found to be following the local treatment pathway in the first cycle of the study, and 96% in the second cycle. The completed study cycle shows an improvement of adherence of the pathway, from 75% in the first cycle to 81% in the second cycle. The first cycle of the study was presented at the GP practice meeting, which improved the awareness of the treatment pathway.Conclusion: This study illustrates that there is a need for improvement in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in primary care. This can be achieved by improving awareness through continuing medical education about following the appropriate pathway to enhance the management of osteoporosis. Resources need to be allocated for prioritising osteoporosis care to prevent falls and fragility fractures, which have devastating effects on individual patients and the healthcare system.

No abstract

BackgroundThe Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) is a patient reported outcome (PRO) used in the monitoring of axial spondyloarthropathy (axSpA). It is completed by the patient and based on their assessment of disease severity and therefore quite a subjective measure of disease (1). There has been research around the relationship between ethnicity and patient perception in Rheumatology. Many studies have demonstrated that non-Caucasian patients especially South Asians are less likely to engage with patient education, abandon their disease modifying therapy early and have more mistrust with the medical establishment (2). Quite a large population study in America examining axSpA severity in Caucasians, Afro-Caribbean’s and Latinos found Afro-Caribbean and Latino patients to score themselves higher on BASDAI compared to Caucasians (3).With Leicester being such a diverse area, with a particularly high South Asian population we took this opportunity to investigate whether there were ethnic variations in disease severity.ObjectivesThe aim was to investigate whether there is a relationship between patient-reported outcome BASDAI and ethnicity. The secondary aim was to investigate the relationship between ethnicity and radiographic findings and extra-articular manifestations.MethodsData was collected by retrospective analysis of axSpA patients attending University of Leicester (UHL) axSpA services. Inclusion criteria entailed a diagnosis of axSpA with a documented BASDAI within a year of MRI spine + sacroiliac joints, prior to starting any biological treatment.Data of 149 patients was collected on demographic characteristics, extra-articular manifestations (uveitis, inflammatory back pain, enthesitis, peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease), family history, response to NSAIDs, and HLA-B27 status.Data was analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software to assess the relationship between ethnicity and collected data using Pearson’s chi squared.ResultsOf the 149 patients 68% were White Caucasian, 30% Asian and 1% Black. The average age was 43 and 66% were male and 34% female. The mean BASDAI was 6.5, there was no observable correlation between BASDAI and ethnicity (p=0.668).There was no significant relationship between ethnicity and active sacroiliitis (p=0.926), chronic sacroiliitis (p= 0.218) or axial disease (p=0.307). 64 Caucasian patients were HLA-B27 positive compared with 27 Asian and no Black patients were positive however there was no statistical correlation between ethnicity and HLA-B27 (p=0.383). Overall, Caucasians consistently had a greater incidence of extra-articular manifestations compared with non-Caucasians however no significant p values were observed here or with response to NSAIDs, family history or familial HLA-B27 and BASDAI scores, results are summarised in Table 1.Table 1.Correlation with ethnicity and extra-articular manifestations, family history and HLA-B27.Number of patientsCorrelation with ethnicityUveitis36p=0.470Peripheral arthritis24p=0.304Enthesitis22p=0.959Psoriasis7p=0.062Inflammatory bowel disease7P=0.947Dactylitis6P=0.173HLA-B27103p=0.383Inflammatory back pain139p=0.062Response to NSAIDs46p=0.718Family history of axSpA20p=0.800HLA-B27 in family10p=0.221HLA-B27= Human leukocyte antigen B27, NSAIDs= non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, axSpA= Axial Spondyloarthropathy.ConclusionThis study did not demonstrate statistically significant finding of ethnic variations in BASDAI. There was also no relationship between ethnicity and other data sets. However, the main limitation of this study is the sample size and unequal representation of ethnicities with there being far more Caucasians than non-Caucasian patients. Though this study provides an insight into quite a limited area of research, a larger study with equal ethnic patient population samples is required to obtain more meaningful results.References[1]Zochling J. Measures of symptoms and disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Scale (ASQoL), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Score (BAS-G), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), Dougados Functional Index (DFI), and Health Assessment Questionnaire for the Spondylarthropathies (HAQ-S). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(11):47-58.[2]Kumar K, Klocke R. Ethnicity in rheumatic disease. Clin Med (Lond). 2010;10(4):370-372.[3]Jamalyaria F, Ward M, Assassi S, Learch T, Lee M. Gensler L et al. Ethnicity and disease severity in ankylosing spondylitis a cross-sectional analysis of three ethnic groups. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(10):2359-2364.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared