Dataset Information

Clinical Management of Women with Newly Diagnosed Osteoporosis: Data from Everyday Practice in Bulgaria.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The real duration of osteoporosis treatment in clinical practice is still not well described. The primary objective is to estimate the proportion of patients who stayed on treatment during a 4-year follow-up, and the secondary objective is to estimate the proportion of patients who switched treatment and the reasons for switch or discontinuation.

Methods

This was a national retrospective chart review, based on routine clinical data. Data were collected electronically from medical records in 33 representative primary care physicians' sites. Inclusion criteria were women with postmenopausal osteoporosis that have received initial treatment prescription following diagnosis by DXA between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014, and at least a 12-month database history after the index date. Exclusion criteria were women receiving treatment for osteoporosis and follow-up at secondary care physicians' sites only. All statistical analyses were performed with the R statistical package.

Results

A total of 1206 female patients with newly diagnosed osteoporosis and treatment initiation were followed for 4 years. The majority (88.3%) had no history of previous fractures. Bone mineral density data were available in 70.1%. Endocrinology was the most common specialty among prescribing specialists (40.0%), followed by rheumatology (30.3%). Bisphosphonates (BPs) were the most common initial treatment (72.7%), followed by denosumab (20.1%). Ibandronate (70.2%) and alendronate (24.2%) constituted the majority of all prescribed BPs; 731 patients remained on treatment during the second year (60.6%), 524 during the third year (43.4%) and 403 (33.4%)-at study end (fourth year). In all groups, except that on denosumab, the most common reason for switching to another treatment was presumed lack of effect. The main reasons for treatment discontinuation were financial on the patient's part.

Conclusions

The duration of osteoporosis treatment in real-world clinical practice is far from optimal: < 3-4 years irrespective of fracture risk. Factors other than medical considerations are at play, mainly limitations set by the Health Insurance Fund. The health authorities should be aware of this.

SUBMITTER: Boyanov MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420150 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:QuestionShould patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. Recommendations Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below. Question Does surgical resection in addition to WBRT improve outcomes when compared with WBRT alone? Target population This recommendation applies to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection; however, the recommendation does not apply to relatively radiosensitive tumors histologies (i.e., small cell lung cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, germ cell tumors and multiple myeloma). Recommendation Surgical resection plus WBRT versus WBRT alone Level 1 Class I evidence supports the use of surgical resection plus post-operative WBRT, as compared to WBRT alone, in patients with good performance status (functionally independent and spending less than 50% of time in bed) and limited extra-cranial disease. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for patients with poor performance scores, advanced systemic disease, or multiple brain metastases.

Project description:QuestionShould patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with other treatment modalities? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with newly diagnosed solid brain metastases amenable to SRS; lesions amenable to SRS are typically defined as measuring less than 3 cm in maximum diameter and producing minimal (less than 1 cm of midline shift) mass effect. Recommendations SRS plus WBRT vs. WBRT alone Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT leads to significantly longer patient survival compared with WBRT alone for patients with single metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or = 70.Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior in terms of local tumor control and maintaining functional status when compared to WBRT alone for patients with 1-4 metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or =70.Level 2 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT may lead to significantly longer patient survival than WBRT alone for patients with 2-3 metastatic brain tumors.Level 3 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS<70 [corrected].Level 4 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS < 70. SRS plus WBRT vs. SRS alone Level 2 Single-dose SRS alone may provide an equivalent survival advantage for patients with brain metastases compared with WBRT + single-dose SRS. There is conflicting class I and II evidence regarding the risk of both local and distant recurrence when SRS is used in isolation, and class I evidence demonstrates a lower risk of distant recurrence with WBRT; thus, regular careful surveillance is warranted for patients treated with SRS alone in order to provide early identification of local and distant recurrences so that salvage therapy can be initiated at the soonest possible time. Surgical Resection plus WBRT vs. SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, vs. SRS plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3: Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. SRS alone vs. WBRT alone Level 3 While both single-dose SRS and WBRT are effective for treating patients with brain metastases, single-dose SRS alone appears to be superior to WBRT alone for patients with up to three metastatic brain tumors in terms of patient survival advantage.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Among Australians aged 50 and over, an estimated 1 in 4 men and 2 in 5 women will experience a minimal trauma fracture during their remaining lifetime. Effective fracture prevention is hindered by substantial undertreatment, even of patients who clearly warrant pharmacological therapy. Poor adherence to osteoporosis treatment is also a leading cause of repeat fractures and hospitalisation. The aim of this study was to identify current osteoporosis treatment patterns and gaps in practice in Australia, using general practice data, and to explore general practitioners' (GPs') attitudes to osteoporosis treatment and their views on patient factors affecting osteoporosis management. METHODS:The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 was a longitudinal retrospective cohort study which utilised data from MedicineInsight - a national general practice data program that extracts longitudinal, de-identified patient data from clinical information systems (CISs) of participating general practices. Phase 2 included semi-structured, in-depth telephone interviews with a sample of MedicineInsight practice GPs. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis method informed by the theory of planned behaviour. RESULTS:A diagnosis of osteoporosis was recorded in 12.4% of patients over the age of 50?years seen in general practice. Of those diagnosed with osteoporosis, almost a quarter were not prescribed osteoporosis medicines. From 2012 to 17, there was a progressive increase in the number of denosumab prescriptions, while prescriptions for bisphosphonates and other osteoporosis medicines decreased. More than 80% of patients who ceased denosumab treatment had no subsequent bisphosphonate prescription recorded. Interviews with GPs revealed beliefs and attitudes that may have influenced their intentions towards prescribing and osteoporosis management. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that within the Australian general practice setting, osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated. In addition, it appears that most patients who ceased denosumab treatment had no record of subsequent antiresorptive therapy, which would place them at risk of further fractures. The study supports the need for the development of clinical education programs addressing GP knowledge gaps and attitudes, and the implementation of specific interventions such as good reminder/recall systems to avoid delays in reviewing and treating patients with osteoporosis.