Abstract
Purpose
Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are associated with significant morbidity for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). New quality indicators (QI) for SLE advise bone mineral density testing, calcium and vitamin D use, and antiresorptive or anabolic treatment for specific subgroups of patients using high-dose steroids.
Methods
Subjects were participants in the University of California San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study, an ongoing longitudinal study of patients with physician-confirmed SLE, in 2007–2008. Patients responded to an annual telephone survey and were queried regarding demographic, clinical, and other healthcare-related variables. Multiple logistic regression was used to predict receipt of care per the QIs described above.
Results
One hundred and twenty seven patients met criteria for the formal definitions of the denominators for QI I (Screening) and QI II (Calcium and Vitamin D); 91 met formal criteria for QI III (Treatment). The proportions of patients receiving care consistent with the QIs were 74%, 58%, and 56% for QIs I, II, and III, respectively. In a sensitivity analysis of all steroid users (n=427 for QI I and II; n = 224 for QI III), rates were slightly lower. Predictors of receiving care varied by QI and by denominator; however, female sex, older age, Caucasian race, and longer disease duration were associated with higher quality care.
Conclusions
Bone health-related care in this community-based cohort of SLE patients is suboptimal. Quality-improvement efforts should address osteoporosis prevention and care among all SLE patients, especially those taking high-dose, prolonged steroids.
In the past50 years, SLE-related mortality has improved significantly. Lupus patients are living longer and suffering increased morbidity from complications related to chronic inflammation and long-term medication use, including coronary artery disease, malignancies, and osteoporotic fractures.1,2,3
Although estimates for the prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in SLE have varied, some of the largest studies indicate that the burden of osteoporosis may be over 20%.4,5 Individuals with SLE are at particular risk for osteoporosis compared with age-matched controls because of high disease activity, vitamin D deficiency due to sun avoidance, early menopause from use of cytotoxic agents, and glucocorticoid use.6,7,8 The minimum dose of glucocorticoid that poses an increased risk of osteoporosis is debated, as many studies have found glucocorticoid use in SLE to be associated with low bone mineral density (BMD),9,10,11,12,13,14,15 while others have not confirmed this association after adjusting for disease damage and duration.16,17 Some studies suggest that SLE patients may have a baseline increased risk of low bone density that is independent of glucocorticoid use or disease duration. 18,19
Developed through a process that combined systematic literature reviews with formal expert consensus processes, the first set of quality indicators (QIs) for SLE was published in 2009. 20 As opposed to clinical guidelines, which define optimal health care practices in the context of complex clinical decision-making, QIs specify a minimally acceptable standard of care for a specific patient population.21 Three out of the 20 published QIs addressed bone health-related care and set a glucocorticoid dose of 7.5 mg of prednisone daily for at least 3 months as the threshold above which patients should be advised to use calcium, vitamin D, and to obtain screening for osteoporosis with a BMD test. As expected, guidelines regarding osteoporosis care (not specific to SLE patients)set a higher bar for screening and prevention: the American College of Rheumatology (2001) suggests that patients using more than 5 mg of prednisone daily for 3 months be screened for osteoporosis and given calcium and vitamin D prophylaxis.22 Guidelines from the National Osteoporosis Foundation (1999) go further by suggesting that patients on 5 mg of prednisone daily for an unspecified length of time or patients with any chronic condition associated with low bone mass should receive calcium, vitamin D, and screening for osteoporosis. 23
The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of osteoporosis screening, prevention, and treatment in a community-based cohort of patients with physician-confirmed SLE. We applied the measures developed in the SLE Quality Indicator project to examine the proportion of patients who met criteria for each osteoporosis-related QI.
Methods
Patients
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Lupus Outcomes Study (LOS) is an ongoing longitudinal survey of patients with confirmed SLE recruited between 2002 and 2009. Patients were originally recruited from academic rheumatology offices (22%), community rheumatology offices (11%), and other community-based sources (66%), such as SLE support groups, the Internet, and media advertisements. Two-thirds of the participants were residents of California while the remainder lived in 40 other US states. Patients were required to carry a diagnosis of SLE provided by a physician. SLE diagnoses for all LOS participants were additionally confirmed by a formal chart review to document American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE.24
Questions regarding osteoporosis care and prevention were introduced into the LOS in 2007–2008, during the sixth wave of interviews. Seven hundred and seventy nine individuals were interviewed as part of wave 6. Thirty-seven of these patients (4.8%) were excluded because of incomplete data for the outcomes or main predictors, leaving 742 patients eligible for this analysis.
Data
Data were collected via an annual, structured, 1-hour-long telephone survey conducted by trained interviewers. The survey included validated items covering the following domains: demographics and socioeconomic status, SLE symptoms and disease status, disability, general health and social functioning, employment, psychological and cognitive status, health care utilization, medications, and health insurance coverage.
The UCSF and Stanford Committees on Human Research approved the study protocol. All participants provided informed consent prior to the interviews.
Measures
Demographic/socioeconomic variables
Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics included age, sex, self-reported race/ethnicity (Caucasian, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, other/multiple), education level (high school or less, some college or vocational school, college graduate), and income (annual household income at or below 125% of the federal poverty threshold in the year prior to interview).
Health insurance
The insurance section of the questionnaire, derived from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, included items regarding the type of health plan (health maintenance organization versus fee-for-service) and source of coverage, if any (employment based, individually purchased plan, Medicare, or Medicaid).25
Clinical variables
SLE-specific variables included disease duration and disease activity, captured using the SLAQ, a validated self-report measure of SLE activity (possible range 0–44).26,27 Patients were also queried regarding their physical functioning (using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36) and menopausal status.28 Presence of non-traumatic (fragility) fracture was determined by asking a series of questions (“Has a doctor told you that you broke or fractured a bone or had a spinal compression fracture?” If yes, “Which bone did you break?” If the reply included a spine or hip fracture, “Was it from a traumatic injury such as from playing a sport or a car accident?”). Self-reported diagnoses of osteoporosis were based on the following question: “Do you have or are you being treated for osteoporosis or thinning bones?”
Health care utilization
The health care utilization section of the questionnaire asked participants about their medical care over the prior12 months. It included an enumeration of all healthcare practitioner visits by specialty, including hospitalizations. Participants were asked directly about who serves as their “main SLE doctor” (rheumatologist, nephrologist, internist, general practice, other, or none).
Subjects were asked about the use of medications since the previous survey, including drugs used for common comorbid conditions, glucocorticoids (oral and intravenous), and disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We created a measure of pill burden by summing the number of medications each patient reported taking (range 0–15); this sum excluded calcium or vitamin D use or drugs taken for the treatment of osteoporosis.
Outcomes
The primary outcome of interest was receipt of care as described in each of the 3 osteoporosis quality indicators. This was determined by calculating the proportion of patients eligible for the measure (denominator) who met criteria for care consistent with that measure (numerator). Numerators and denominators for each of the QIs are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1.
Description of numerators and denominators for osteoporosis-related quality indicators in systemic lupus erythematosus
| Quality Indicator | I - Screening | II - Ca/VitD | III - Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerator | Patients who have received a bone mineral density test within 12 months prior or 6 months following initiation of glucocorticoid therapy* or who are receiving antiresorptive or anabolic therapy | Patients who are taking calcium and vitamin D or have their recommendation documented in the medical record | Patients who are being treated with antiresorptive or anabolic therapy |
| Denominators FORMAL | Patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 3 months | Patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 3 months | Patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 1 month, and either have a central T score of less than or equal to −2.5** or have a history of fragility fracture |
| ALL STEROID | Patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months | Patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months | Patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months with either a central T score of less than or equal to −2.5** or have a history of fragility fracture |
study proxy: BMD test within 24 months of interview
study proxy: carries a diagnosis of osteoporosis
In order to define the stability of the QI’s to changes in the denominator, we measured the receipt of the QIs in 2 non-mutually exclusive groups of patients: First, we assessed the QIs as they were written, using the formal denominators listed in Table 1 (FORMAL denominator). Second, we examined patients taking glucocorticoids at any dose, for any period of time (QI I (Screening) and QI II (Calcium and Vitamin D)) or among patients taking glucocorticoids at any dose for any period of time who also had a history of osteoporosis or fragility fracture (QI III (Treatment)) (ALL STEROID denominator).
Outcomes and eligibility (i.e., numerators and denominators) were determined based on questions posed during the survey, including direct questions about BMD testing, calcium, vitamin D, and antiresorptive and anabolic use. Qualifying antiresorptives/anabolics included alendronate, residronate, ibandronate, etidronate, pamidronate, zolendronic acid, calcitonin nasal spray, raloxifene, and teriparatide.
Because questions about BMD testing were posed in all waves of the LOS, we were able to determine whether patients had received BMD testing at any time within the past 24 months. We chose a 24-month window because (1) the QIs do not provide a specific timeframe for BMD testing and (2) the majority of insurance companies, including Medicare, cover the cost of BMD testing for qualifying patients at least once every 24 months.29
Statistical analysis
We calculated the percent of patients who received the individual outcomes of BMD testing, calcium, vitamin D, and antiresorptives or anabolics. We determined the proportions of patients in each denominator (FORMAL and ALL STEROID) who received care consistent with each QI. We used bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression to assess the association between baseline characteristics and the QI outcomes. Variables in the multivariate models were determined a-priori based on prior studies of osteoporosis care and included age, ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, disease duration, disease activity, daily pill burden, and the specialty of the main SLE physician.30,31 All covariates were tested to ensure non-collinearity. In the models for the FORMAL denominator, some of the covariate categories were collapsed because of the small number of events. SAS 9.2 (Cary, NC) was used for all analyses.
Results
We analyzed data from 742 subjects from wave 6 of the LOS. Of these, 127 met eligibility criteria for the FORMAL denominator for QIs I (Screening) and II (Calcium and Vitamin D), and 91 for the FORMAL denominator for QI III (Treatment). Four hundred and twenty seven met criteria for the ALL STEROID denominator for QIs I (Screening) and II (Calcium and Vitamin D), and 224 for the ALL STEROID denominator for QI III (Treatment). Baseline characteristics of individuals meeting eligibility criteria for each denominator are listed in Table 2.
Table 2.
Baseline characteristics of individuals from the UCSF Lupus Outcomes Study in the FORMAL and ALL STEROID denominators for quality indicators I, II, and III.
| Baseline characteristic | All patients | FORMAL I/IIa | FORMAL IIIb | ALL STEROID I/IIc | ALL STEROID IIId |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 742 | n = 127 | n = 91 | n = 427 | n = 224 | |
| Female, n (%) | 682 (91.9) | 119 (93.7) | 88 (96.7) | 393 (92.0) | 210 (93.8) |
| Age, mean (SD) | 50.6 (12.6) | 46.0 (11.5) | 50.2 (11.4) | 49.6 (12.6) | 52.2 (11.8) |
| Ethnicity, n (%) | |||||
| Caucasian | 449 (60.5) | 63 (49.6) | 54 (59.3) | 235 (55.0) | 138 (61.6) |
| Hispanic | 72 (9.7) | 16 (12.6) | 9 (9.9) | 43 (10.1) | 15 (6.7) |
| African-American | 66 (8.9) | 17 (13.4) | 9 (9.9) | 50 (11.7) | 21 (9.4) |
| Asian | 75 (10.1) | 16 (12.6) | 7 (7.7) | 48 (11.2) | 21 (8.4) |
| Other/Multiple | 80 (10.8) | 15 (11.8) | 12 (13.2) | 51 (11.9) | 29 (12.9) |
| Education, n (%) | |||||
| High school or less | 113 (15.2) | 19 (15.0) | 14 (15.4) | 60 (14.0) | 35 (15.6) |
| Vocational/trade/some college | 325 (43.8) | 69 (54.3) | 49 (53.8) | 197 (46.1) | 103 (46.0) |
| College or beyond | 304 (41.0) | 39 (30.7) | 28 (30.8) | 170 (39.8) | 86 (38.4) |
| Below poverty, n (%) | 86 (12.6) | 22 (17.3) | 12 (13.2) | 65 (15.2) | 37 (16.5) |
| Principal Insurance, n (%) | |||||
| Employer-based | 409 (55.1) | 66 (52.0) | 45 (49.4) | 227 (53.2) | 109 (48.7) |
| Medicare | 207 (27.9) | 38 (29.9) | 34 (37.4) | 129 (30.2) | 84 (37.5) |
| Medicaid | 42 (5.7) | 8 (6.3) | 4 (4.4) | 27 (6.3) | 11 (4.9) |
| Other Insurance | 71 (9.6) | 12 (9.4) | 7 (7.7) | 37 (8.7) | 18 (8.0) |
| No Insurance | 13 (1.8) | 3 (2.4) | 1 (1.1) | 7 (1.6) | 2 (0.9) |
| Clinical variables | |||||
| Disease duration (years), mean (SD) | 16.8 (8.6) | 15.6 (8.1) | 18.1 (7.6) | 17.2 (8.4) | 18.7 (8.0) |
| SLAQ score, mean (SD) | 11.7 (7.8) | 13.6 (7.7) | 14.5 (8.0) | 13.0 (8.1) | 13.9 (8.3) |
| History of osteoporosis or fracture, n (%) | 327 (44.1) | 78 (61.4) | 91 (100.0) | 224 (52.5) | 224 (100.0) |
| Post-menopausal, n (%) | 373 (54.7) | 60 (50.4) | 56 (61.5) | 215 (54.7) | 137 (61.2) |
| SF36 physical function score, mean (SD) | 59.2 (29.8) | 49.5 (28.2) | 46.2 (27.6) | 54.3 (29.5) | 50.2 (28.3) |
| Main SLE physician, n (%) | |||||
| Rheumatologist | 554 (74.7) | 111 (87.4) | 80 (87.9) | 338 (79.2) | 176 (78.6) |
| Nephrologist | 35 (4.7) | 10 (7.9) | 6 (6.6) | 27 (6.3) | 12 (5.3) |
| Internist | 62 (8.4) | 5 (3.9) | 3 (3.3) | 26 (6.1) | 17 (7.6) |
| General practice | 45 (6.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 (3.3) | 8 (3.6) |
| Other | 13 (1.8) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (1.1) | 6 (1.4) | 3 (1.3) |
| None | 33 (4.4) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.1) | 16 (3.8) | 8 (3.6) |
| Health care utilization within the past 12 months | |||||
| Number of daily medications, n(%)* | 3.3 (1.9) | 4.3 (1.6) | 4.6 (1.7) | 4.2 (1.7) | 4.3 (1.8) |
| Disease modifying agent use, n(%) | 512 (69.0) | 111 (87.4) | 78 (85.7) | 344 (80.6) | 181 (80.8) |
| Number of rheumatologist visits, mean (SD) | 3.2 (3.4) | 5.3 (4.6) | 5.0 (3.5) | 4.1 (3.9) | 3.8 (3.3) |
| Hospitalized at least once, n (%) | 142 (19.2) | 39 (31.0) | 31 (34.1) | 106 (24.9) | 61 (27.2) |
| Individual outcomes used in quality indicator numerators | |||||
| BMD testing within 24 months | 378 (50.9) | 77 (60.6) | 63 (69.2) | 251 (58.8) | 161 (71.9) |
| Calcium use within 12 months | 464 (62.5) | 92 (72.4) | 70 (76.9) | 293 (68.6) | 170 (75.9) |
| Vitamin D use within 12 months | 410 (55.3) | 79 (62.2) | 62 (68.1) | 263 (61.6) | 153 (68.3) |
| Antiresorptive or anabolic use within 12 months | 202 (27.2) | 52 (40.9) | 51 (56.0) | 152 (35.6) | 122 (54.5) |
Patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 3 months
Patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 1 month, and either a history of osteoporosis or fragility fracture
Patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months
Patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months and either a history of osteoporosis or fragility fracture
SLAQ: Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire
SF-36: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36
number of daily medications: excludes calcium, vitamin d, and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy
Figure 1 shows the proportion of eligible patients receiving care consistent with each of the quality indicators for the 2 denominators of interest (FORMAL and ALL STEROID, see Table 1). The proportion of patients receiving the care described in the QIs ranged from 54 to 74% and was slightly higher in the FORMAL group compared with the ALL STEROID group. Of note, when we assessed QI III (Treatment) among men and post-menopausal women only, the proportions of patients receiving care per the QI were essentially unchanged at 57% for the FORMAL denominator (n = 56) and 54% in the ALL STEROID denominator(n = 137).
Figure 1.
The x-axis is marked by the quality indicators I, II, and III for the FORMAL and ALL STEROID denominators. a: Patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 3 months. b: Patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 1 month, and either a history of osteoporosis or fragility fracture. c: Patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months. d: Patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months and either a history of osteoporosis or fragility fracture.
Percent of eligible patients to receive each osteoporosis care-related quality indicator among patients from the UCSF Lupus Outcomes Study in the FORMAL and ALL STEROID denominators
In the bivariate analyses (unadjusted) of the FORMAL denominator patients, receipt of QI I (Screening) was predicted by age, Caucasian race, and disease duration (see Table 3). The multivariate (adjusted) model showed only older age as predicting QI I (Screening) receipt (per 10 years OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1). Multivariate analysis for QI II (Calcium and Vitamin D) in the FORMAL denominator showed a significant predictor to be Caucasian race (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.9, 9.6). The multivariate model for QI III (Treatment) did not reveal any significant predictors.
Table 3.
Logistic regression model predicting receipt of care consistent with osteoporosis-related quality indicators for patients in the UCSF Lupus Outcomes Study (FORMAL denominator)
| FORMAL DENOMINATOR | QI I - Screeninga | QI II - Calcium and Vitamin Da | QI III - Treatmentb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Univariate OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)* | Univariate OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)* | Univariate OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)* |
| Female (referent Male) | 0.9 (0.2, 4.9) | 1.0 (0.1, 7.6) | 0.8 (0.2, 3.6) | 1.0 (0.2, 6.7) | 0.6 (0.1, 7.2) | 0.9 (0.1, 11.7) |
| Age (per 10 years) | 2.1 (1.4, 3.1) | 1.9 (1.2, 3.1) | 1.4 (1.0, 1.9) | 1.5 (1.0, 2.3) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) |
| Caucasian (referent non-Caucasian) | 3.0 (1.3, 6.9) | 1.8 (0.7, 4.7) | 4.7 (2.2, 10.0) | 4.3 (1.9, 9.6) | 1.4 (0.6, 3.2) | 1.3 (0.5, 3.2) |
| Education | ||||||
| High school or less | referent | referent | referent | referent | referent | referent |
| Some college or beyond | 1.8 (0.7, 5.2) | 1.5 (0.4, 6.0) | 1.3 (0.5, 3.5) | 1.3 (0.4, 4.5) | 0.9 (0.3, 3.0) | 0.8 (0.2, 2.9) |
| Income below poverty line (referent above poverty) | 0.3 (0.1, 0.9) | 0.3 (0.1, 1.3) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.3) | 0.6 (0.2, 2.1) | 0.7 (0.2, 2.5) | 0.7 (0.2, 3.1) |
| Insurance | ||||||
| Employer-based | referent | referent | referent | referent | referent | referent |
| Other Insurance/None | 0.7 (0.3, 1.6) | 0.6 (0.2, 1.8) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.9) | 0.6 (0.2, 2.1) | 1.0 (0.4, 2.4) | 1.0 (0.4, 2.9) |
| Disease characteristics | ||||||
| Disease duration (per 10 years) | 2.4 (1.3, 4.4) | 1.7 (0.8, 3.5) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) | 0.6 (0.3, 1.1) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.1) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.4) |
| SLAQ score | 1.0 (1.0, 1.1) | 1.0 (0.9, 1.1) | 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) | 1.0 (0.9, 1.0) | 1.0 (0.9, 1.0) | 1.0 (0.9, 1.1) |
| Number of daily medications | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) | 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.4) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) |
| Rheumatologist SLE physician (referent non-rheumatologist) | 1.3 (0.4, 4.2) | 1.4 (0.4, 5.2) | 1.5 (0.5, 4.2) | 1.1 (0.3, 3.7) | 2.5 (0.7, 9.2) | 2.6 (0.6, 10.3) |
Denominator includes patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 3 months
Denominator includes patients taking at least 7.5 mg of prednisone per day for at least 1 month, and either a history of
SLAQ: Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire
Multivariate models are adjusted for all variables listed in the table
The sensitivity analysis using the ALL STEROID denominator revealed slightly different predictors of receiving care as per the QIs. Multivariate (adjusted) analysis showed female sex (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3, 5.9), older age (per 10 years OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1, 1.6), longer disease duration (per 10 years OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1, 2.1), and rheumatologist subspecialty care (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1, 3.1) to be significant predictors for the receipt of QI I (Screening) (see Table 4). Female sex predicted the receipt of QI II (Calcium and Vitamin D) (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2, 5.5). Having a rheumatologist as the main SLE physician predicted receipt of QI III (Treatment) (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3, 4.6).
Table 4.
Logistic regression model predicting receipt of care consistent with osteoporosis-related quality indicators for patients in the UCSF Lupus Outcomes Study taking any dose of glucocorticoid (ALL STEROID denominator)
| ALL STEROID DENOMINATOR | QI I - Screeningc | QI II - Calcium and Vitamin Dc | QI III - Treatmentd | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Univariate OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)* | Univariate OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)* | Univariate OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI)* |
| Female (referent Male) | 2.7 (1.3, 5.4) | 2.8 (1.3, 5.9) | 2.2 (1.1, 4.6) | 2.6 (1.2, 5.5) | 1.6 (0.5, 4.9) | 1.9 (0.6, 5.9) |
| Age (per 10 years) | 1.4 (1.2, 1.6) | 1.3 (1.1, 1.6) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.4) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.4) | 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) | 1.0 (0.8, 1.3) |
| Caucasian (referent non-Caucasian) | 1.3 (0.9, 2.0) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 1.7 (1.1, 2.5) | 1.5 (1.0, 2.3) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.0) | 1.2 (0.7, 2.2) |
| Education | ||||||
| High school or less | referent | referent | referent | referent | referent | referent |
| Vocational/trade/some college | 1.3 (0.7, 2.5) | 1.3 (0.7, 2.6) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.8) | 1.0 (0.5, 1.8) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.6) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.8) |
| College or beyond | 0.9 (0.5, 1.7) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.9) | 1.6 (0.9, 2.9) | 1.5 (0.8, 3.0) | 1.1 (0.5, 2.4) | 1.2 (0.5, 2.8) |
| Income below poverty line (referent above poverty) | 1.0 (0.5, 1.7) | 1.3 (0.6, 2.7) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.1) | 0.8 (0.4, 1.5) | 0.9 (0.4, 1.7) | 1.1 (0.4, 2.6) |
| Insurance | ||||||
| Employer-based | referent | referent | referent | referent | referent | |
| Medicare | 1.1 (0.7, 1.7) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.3) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.5) | 0.9 (0.6, 1.5) | 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) | 1.2 (0.6, 2.4) |
| Medicaid | 0.7 (0.3, 1.5) | 0.6 (0.2, 1.6) | 0.9 (0.4, 2.0) | 1.6 (0.6, 4.0) | 1.6 (0.4, 5.8) | 2.3 (0.5, 10.4) |
| Other Insurance/None | 1.0 (0.5, 2.0) | 1.0 (0.5, 2.0) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.4) | 0.7 (0.4, 1.4) | 1.4 (0.5, 3.6) | 1.4 (0.5, 3.9) |
| Disease characteristics | ||||||
| Disease duration (per 10 years) | 1.7 (1.3, 2.2) | 1.5 (1.1, 2.1) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.4) | 1.1 (0.8, 1.5) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.5) |
| SLAQ score | 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) | 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) | 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) | 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) | 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) | 1.0 (0.9, 1.0) |
| Number of daily medications | 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) | 1.1 (1.0, 1.2) | 1.1 (1.0, 1.2) | 1.1 (1.0, 1.2) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.4) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.4) |
| Rheumatologist SLE physician (referent non-rheumatologist) | 1.6 (1.0, 2.5) | 1.8 (1.1, 3.1) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.4) | 1.6 (1.0, 2.6) | 2.2 (1.1, 4.1) | 2.3 (1.3, 4.6) |
Denominator includes patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months
Denominator includes patients taking any dose of steroid for any period of time within the prior 12 months and either a history of osteoporosis or fragility fracture
SLAQ: Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire
Multivariate models are adjusted for all variables listed in the table
Discussion
This study examined the screening, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis in a large, community-based cohort of patients with physician-confirmed SLE. Regardless of whether we used lenient or strict definitions to delineate the patient populations eligible for relevant processes of care, the proportion of patients receiving these interventions was similar. Screening for osteoporosis with a BMD test occurred more frequently (69–74%) than calcium and vitamin D use (56–58%), or antiresorptive or anabolic use (54–56%), even when the QI III (Treatment) analysis was restricted to men and post-menopausal women (54–57%). We conclude that osteoporosis screening, prophylaxis, and treatment for SLE patients is suboptimal.
Our results show slightly higher proportions of patients receiving bone health-related care compared with prior estimates. Lee et al. surveyed US women with SLE seen in an academic rheumatology practice. In that study of 204 women, 50% reported calcium use and approximately 45% reported vitamin D use; 62% were post-menopausal, and 50% were currently using glucocorticoids. 32 In our sample, with a comparable fraction of post-menopausal women and patients on glucocorticoids, 62% of patients reported calcium use and 55% reported vitamin D use. Almehed et al. studied 163 women with SLE in Sweden, again with similar fractions of post-menopausal patients and steroid users: 53% of these patients reported taking calcium and vitamin D.4 Only 35% of patients with documented osteoporosis were taking bisphosphonates. In our sample, 47% of patients with documented osteoporosis were taking antiresorptive or anabolic agents. Pineau et al. examined a clinical database to show that that 40% of female SLE patients from the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic received a BMD test over a 5 year period. 33 Our sample showed that 51% of patients reported receiving a BMD test within 2 years. Self-reported use of DXA scans has been shown to have a very high positive predictive value when compared with medical chart review.34 One possible explanation for these discrepancies is that over time, awareness of osteoporosis has increased, and patients and their physicians are taking more care to perform screening, prevention, and treatment. Alternately, these differences may be a result of dissimilarities in health care system factors or the demographics of the populations studied.
We found that the major predictors of receipt of care varied by quality indicator and by denominator. Important factors predicting higher quality care included female sex, older age, Caucasian race, and longer disease duration, although these were not predictive for the receipt of all QIs. Notably, in the model that examined the FORMAL denominator, the only predictive factors were older age (QI I (Screening) only) and Caucasian race (QI II (Calcium and Vitamin D) only).
Our findings regarding predictors of care are not surprising: post-menopausal women without SLE have an indication for BMD testing and osteoporosis prophylaxis.35 In addition, our results are consistent with previous studies: Pineau et al. report that SLE patients who were referred for BMD testing had a greater number of traditional risk factors for osteoporosis, higher SLE activity, renal involvement, increased damage, higher mean glucocorticoid dose, increased use of immunosuppressants, and presence of avascular necrosis.33 In studies of osteoporosis care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), predictors have been similar. Aizer et al. assessed predictors of BMD testing among 2717 RA patients entering the CORRONA database without a prior dual energyX-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan: older age, female sex, history of fracture, and history of steroid use predicted BMD testing within 12 months of entering the study.36 Solomon et al. evaluated osteoporosis care in 236 RA patients taking oral glucocorticoids: rates of BMD testing were low (23%), as were calcium and vitamin D use (42%). 37 Predictors of care included female sex, post-menopausal status, and having no additional comorbidities. Although these studies did not find as association of racial/ethnic groups with quality care, studies of quality indicators for cardiovascular disease, stroke and TIA, and diabetes have found such racial disparities.38,39 The fact that we found few predictors of care may indicate that we were limited in our power to detect differences; however, it is important to note that receipt of the QIs was low overall.
Our results must be interpreted with several caveats. First, data for the LOS, including data used for definitions of the numerators and denominators for the quality indicators, were collected by self-report. There is support in the literature for the validity of self-report for fragility fractures and osteoporosis diagnoses, as well as for BMD testing and medication use, including calcium and vitamin D: The sensitivity and specificity of self-report for documented hip fracture has been found to be very high.40,41 Agreement between self-report and medical record for the diagnosis of osteoporosis appears to be lower, but “false positive” self-reported diagnoses of osteoporosis arerare.42 Self-reported use of DXA scans has a 93% positive predictive value for DXA documented in the medical record. 34 The concordance of self-report for medication use (including calcium and vitamin D use) with medical record or administrative claims data is variable.43,44,45 However, several studies have shown substantial agreement between patient interview and medical records as sources of information regarding medication use and suggest that the impact of possible misclassification on models that predict medication use is minimal.,46,47 Overall, these studies show that the validity self-report for bone-health related care is reasonable, and therefore our results are likely reliable.
Second, few (127) patients met criteria for the formal QI denominators. We may have been underpowered to detect differences in rates of QI receipt among different subgroups of patients in this group. Third, quality indicators are process measures designed to be assessed on physicians or health-care systems and are intended to account for patient refusal of a measure or contraindications to a drug. We do not have information on reasons for drug non-use or contraindications (other than pre-menopausal status) available in this study, so it is possible that some patients were intolerant or otherwise ineligible to take calcium, vitamin D, or antiresorptives/anabolics. In this case, we may be underestimating the proportion of patients receiving care consistent with the quality indicators.
Based on the low receipt of the 3 bone-health-related SLE quality indicators, we have established that there exists a gap between actual and minimally-acceptable care. Quality-improvement efforts should address osteoporosis prevention and treatment among all SLE patients, especially in those taking high-dose, prolonged steroids. Educational initiatives highlighting the SLE quality indicators to SLE patients and their providers will likely improve the rates of quality bone health-related care in these populations.
Acknowledgments
Funding: ACR/REF Physician-Scientist Development Award, National Center for Research Resources, Grant Number: 5-M01-RR-00079, Rosalind Russell Medical Research Center for Arthritis, NIH (Grant Number: R01-AR-44804), State of California Lupus Fund, Arthritis Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (Grant Number: 1-R01-HS-013893, P60-AR-053308)
References
- 1.Uramoto KM, Michet CJ, Jr, Thumboo J, Sunku J, O’Fallon WM, Gabriel SE. Trends in the incidence and mortality of systemic lupus erythematosus, 1950–1992. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:46–50. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199901)42:1<46::AID-ANR6>3.0.CO;2-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cervera R, Khamashta MA, Font J, Sebastiani GD, Gil A, Lavilla P, et al. Morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus during 10-year period: a comparison of early and late manifestations in a cohort of 1,000 patients. Medicine. 2003;82:299–308. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000091181.93122.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zonana-Nacach A, Barr SG, Magder LS, Petri M. Damage in systemic lupus erythematosus and its association with glucocorticoids. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:1801–8. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200008)43:8<1801::AID-ANR16>3.0.CO;2-O. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Almehed K, Forsblad d’Elia H, Kvist G, Ohlsson C, Carlsten H. Prevalence and risk factors of osteoporosis in female SLE patients-extended report. Rheumatology. 2007;46(7):1185–90. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mendoza-Pinto C, García-Carrasco M, Sandoval-Cruz H, Muñoz-Guarneros M, Escárcega RO, Jiménez-Hernández M, et al. Risk factors of vertebral fractures in women with systemic lupuserythematosus. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28(5):579–85. doi: 10.1007/s10067-009-1105-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Becker A, Fischer R, Scherbaum WA, Schneider M. Osteoporosis screening in systemic lupus erythematosus: impact of disease duration and organ damage. Lupus. 2001;10:809–14. doi: 10.1177/096120330101001108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Medeiros MM, Silveira VA, Menezes AP, Carvalho RC. Risk factors for ovarian failure in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001;34:1561–8. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2001001200008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lips P. Vitamin D physiology. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2006;92:4–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2006.02.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Trapani S, Civinini R, Ermini M, Paci E, Falcini F. Osteoporosis in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus: a longitudinal study on the effect of steroids on bone mineral density. Rheumatol Int. 1998;18:45–9. doi: 10.1007/s002960050056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sinigaglia L, Varenna M, Binelli L, Zucchi F, Ghiringhella D, Gallazzi M, et al. Determinants of bone mass in systemic lupus erythematosus: a cross sectional study on premenopausal women. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:1280–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kipen Y, Buchbinder R, Forbes A, Strauss B, Littlejohn G, Morand E. Prevalence of reduced bone mineral density in systemic lupus erythematosus and the role of steroids. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:1922–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kipen Y, Briganti E, Strauss B, Will R, Littlejohn G, Morand E. Three year followup of bone mineral density change in premenopausal women with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hansen M, Halberg P, Kollerup G, Pedersen-Zbinden B, Hørslev-Petersen K, Hyldstrup L, et al. Bone metabolism in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Effect of disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment. Scand J Rheumatol. 1998;27:197–206. doi: 10.1080/030097498440813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jardinet D, Lefebvre C, Depresseux G, Lambert M, Devogelaer J-P, Houssiau FA. Longitudinal analysis of bone mineral density in premenopausal female systemic lupus erythematosus patients: deleterious role of glucocorticoid therapy at the lumbar spine. Rheumatol. 2000;39:389–92. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.4.389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lakshminarayanan S, Walsh S, Mohanraj M, Rothfield N. Factors associated with low bone mineral density in female patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:102–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kalla AA, Fataar AB, Jessop SJ, Bewerunge L. Loss of trabecular bone mineral density in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36:1726–34. doi: 10.1002/art.1780361212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sels F, Dequeker J, Verwilghen J, Mbuyi-Muamba JM. SLE and osteoporosis: dependence and/or independence on glucocorticoids. Lupus. 1996;5:89–92. doi: 10.1177/096120339600500202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lee C, Almagor O, Dunlop DD, Manzi S, Spies S, Chadha AB, et al. Disease damage and low bone mineral density: an analysis of women with systemic lupus erythematosus ever and never receiving glucocorticoids. Rheumatology. 2006;45(1):53–60. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kei079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Houssiau FA, Lefebvre C, Depresseux G, Lambert M, Devogelaer JP, Nagant de Deuxchaisnes C. Trabecular and cortical bone loss in systemic lupus erythematosus. Br J Rheumatol. 1996;35:244–7. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/35.3.244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Yazdany J, Panopalis P, Gillis JZ, Schmajuk G, MacLean CH, Wofsy D, et al. A quality indicator set for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(3):370–7. doi: 10.1002/art.24356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.MacLean CH, Saag KG, Solomon DH, Morton SC, Sampsel S, Klippel JH. Measuring quality in arthritis care: methods for developing the Arthritis Foundation’s quality indicatorset. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51:193–202. doi: 10.1002/art.20248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.American College of Rheumatology. [Accessed August 1, 2009];Recommendations for Treatment and Prevention of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis. Available at http://www.rheumatology.org.
- 23.National Osteoporosis Foundation. [Accessed August 12, 2009];Physician’s guide to the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Available at: http://www.nof.org.
- 24.Tan EM, Cohen AS, Fries JF, Masi AT, McShane DJ, Rothfield NF, et al. The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1982;25:1271–7. doi: 10.1002/art.1780251101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cohen JW, Monheit AC, Beauregard KM, Cohen SB, Lefkowitz DC, Potter DE, et al. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: a national health information resource. Inquiry. 1996–1997;33(4):373–89. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Karlson EW, Daltroy LH, Rivest C, Ramsey-Goldman R, Wright EA, Partridge AJ, et al. Validation of a Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) for population studies. Lupus. 2003;12:280–6. doi: 10.1191/0961203303lu332oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Yazdany J, Yelin EH, Panopalis P, Trupin L, Julian L, Katz PP. Validation of the systemic lupus erythematosus activity questionnaire in a large observational cohort. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(1):136–43. doi: 10.1002/art.23238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. [Accessed August 1, 2009];National Osteoporosis Foundation Reimbursement Facts. http://www.nof.org.
- 30.Farley JF, Blalock SJ. Trends and determinants of prescription medication use for treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66(13):1191–201. doi: 10.2146/ajhp080248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Solomon DH, Katz JN, Jacobs JP, La Tourette AM, Coblyn J. Management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: rates and predictors of care in an academic rheumatology practice. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(12):3136–42. doi: 10.1002/art.10613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lee C, Almagor O, Dunlop DD, Manzi S, Spies S, Ramsey-Goldman R. Self-reported fractures and associated factors in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(10):2018–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Pineau CA, Urowitz MB, Fortin PJ, Ibanez D, Gladman DD. Osteoporosis in systemic lupus erythematosus: factors associated with referral for bone mineral density studies, prevalence of osteoporosis and factors associated with reduced bone density. Lupus. 2004;13:436–441. doi: 10.1191/0961203303lu1036oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Cadarette SM, Beaton DE, Gignac MA, Jaglal SB, Dickson L, Hawker GA. Minimal error in self-report of having had DXA, but self-report of its results was poor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:1306–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:526–8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-137-6-200209170-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Aizer J, Reed G, Onofrei A, Harrison MJ. Predictors of bone density testing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2009;29(8):897–905. doi: 10.1007/s00296-008-0804-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Solomon DH, Katz JN, Jacobs JP, La Tourette AM, Coblyn J. Management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: rates and predictors of care in an academic rheumatology practice. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(12):3136–42. doi: 10.1002/art.10613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Trivedi AN, Zaslavsky AM, Schneider EC, Ayanian JZ. Relationship between quality of care and racial disparities in Medicare health plans. JAMA. 2006;296(16):1998–2004. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.16.1998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Trivedi AN, Zaslavsky AM, Schneider EC, Ayanian JZ. Trends in the quality of care and racial disparitiesin Medicare managed care. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(7):692–700. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa051207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Ivers RQ, Cumming RG, Mitchell P, Peduto AJ. The accuracy of self-reported fractures in older people. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(5):452–7. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00518-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ismail AA, O’Neill TW, Cockerill W, Finn JD, Cannata JB, Hoszowski K, et al. Validity of self-report of fractures: results from a prospective study in men and women across Europe. EPOS Study Group. European Prospective Osteoporosis Study Group. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11(3):248–54. doi: 10.1007/s001980050288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Simpson CF, Boyd CM, Carlson MC, Griswold ME, Guralnik JM, Fried LP. Agreement between self-report of disease diagnoses and medical record validation in disabled older women: factors that modify agreement. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(1):123–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52021.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Garber MC, Nau DP, Erickson SR, Aikens JE, Lawrence JB. The concordance of self-report with other measures of medication adherence: a summary of the literature. Med Care. 2004;42(7):649–52. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000129496.05898.02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Tisnado DM, Adams JL, Liu H, Damberg CL, Chen WP, Hu FA, Carlisle DM, et al. What is the concordance between the medical record and patient self-report as data sources for ambulatory care? Med Care. 2006;44(2):132–40. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000196952.15921.bf. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Satia-Abouta J, Patterson RE, King IB, Stratton KL, Shattuck AL, Kristal AR, et al. Reliability and validity of self-report of vitamin and mineral supplement use in the vitamins and lifestyle study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(10):944–54. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwg039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Solomon DH, Stedman M, Licari A, Weinblatt ME, Maher N, Shadick N. Agreement between patient report and medical record review for medications used for rheumatoid arthritis: the accuracy of self-reported medication information in patient registries. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:234–9. doi: 10.1002/art.22549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Korthuis PT, Asch S, Mancewicz M, Shapiro MF, Mathews WC, Cunningham WE, et al. Measuring medication: do interviews agree with medical record and pharmacy data? Med Care. 2002;40(12):1270–82. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000036410.86742.27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]