Autonomy begets adherence: decisions to start and persist with osteoporosis treatment after group medical consultation

Osteopenia: a key target for fracture prevention

Osteopenia was originally a qualitative term denoting bone that appeared to be less dense on radiographs. Since 1994, it has also had the quantitative meaning of a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score between -1·0 and -2·5. More than 60% of White women older than 64 years are osteopenic. Although fracture risk is often lower in osteopenic women than in those with osteoporosis, their greater number means that most fractures occur in osteopenic individuals. Fracture risk varies widely in the osteopenic range, depending on factors including BMD, age, fracture history, and nationality and ethnicity. Therefore, the diagnosis of osteopenia is not an indication for either intervention or reassurance, but BMD is a risk factor that should be incorporated into a quantitative fracture risk calculation. Evidence from trials shows that oral and intravenous bisphosphonates cost-effectively reduce fractures in older osteopenic women. Major osteoporotic fracture risks of 10-15% could be acceptable indications for treatment with generic bisphosphonates in patients older than 65 years motivated to receive treatment. This Review assesses the evidence relating to the management of older adults with osteopenic bone densities.

Women's perspectives regarding osteoporosis, fracture risk, and pharmacologic treatment: a cross-sectional study

We assessed women's perspectives regarding early preventative therapy for osteoporosis. More than a third of early menopausal women were concerned about bone loss and future fractures, and approximately half were willing to take an intravenous or oral bisphosphonate around the time of menopause to preserve bone health.

PURPOSE

Bisphosphonate medications can prevent the substantial bone loss that occurs during early menopause, but little is known about whether women would accept bisphosphonate treatment at this time in their life, when imminent fracture risk is low. We assessed women's perspectives regarding bone loss, fracture risk, and preventative pharmacotherapy in early menopause.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, Canadian women aged ≥ 45 years were recruited via Facebook advertisement to complete an electronic survey. Primary outcome was the proportion of early menopausal respondents (≤ 5 years since final menstrual period) who were worried about bone loss and fractures. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of early menopausal women willing to accept pharmacologic intervention aimed at preventing either bone loss or future fractures. We compared responses between early menopausal women and older women (> 5 years since final menstrual period).

RESULTS

2033 women responded to the Facebook advertisement, 1195 eligible women (aged: 45 to 89 years) started the survey, and 966 completed it. Among early menopausal respondents (N = 98), 38 (42%) were worried about future fractures and 9 of 25 (36%) who had a prior bone mineral density scan were worried about their results. A total of 42 (47%) were willing to start medication to prevent fractures, and 48 (54%) would start medication to prevent bone loss. Responses were comparable between early menopausal women and older women.

CONCLUSION

Menopausal women are concerned about bone loss and fractures. Many women would consider early menopausal pharmacotherapy, with the goals of preserving bone health and lowering their risk of fractures.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I2 = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I2 = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I2 = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I2 = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance

Systematic reviews that examine effectiveness of interventions to improve medicines optimisation do not explain how or why they work. This realist review identified that interventions which effectively optimise medicines use in osteoporosis include opportunities to address patients' perceptions of illness and treatment and/or support primary care clinician decision making.

INTRODUCTION

In people with osteoporosis, adherence to medicines is poorer than other diseases and patients report follow-up is lacking, and multiple unmet information needs. We conducted a rapid realist review to understand what contextual conditions and mechanisms enable interventions to support osteoporosis medication optimisation.

METHODS

A primary search identified observational or interventional studies which aimed to improve medicines adherence or optimisation; a supplementary second search identified research of any design to gain additional insights on emerging findings. Extracted data was interrogated for patterns of context-mechanism-outcome configurations, further discussed in team meetings, informed by background literature and the Practicalities and Perception Approach as an underpinning conceptual framework.

RESULTS

We identified 5 contextual timepoints for the person with osteoporosis (identifying a problem; starting medicine; continuing medicine) and the practitioner and healthcare system (making a diagnosis and giving a treatment recommendation; reviewing medicine). Interventions which support patient-informed decision making appear to influence long-term commitment to treatment. Supporting patients' practical ability to adhere (e.g. by lowering treatment burden and issuing reminders) only appears to be helpful, when combined with other approaches to address patient beliefs and concerns. However, few studies explicitly addressed patients' perceptions of illness and treatment. Supporting primary care clinician decision making and integration of primary and secondary care services also appears to be important, in improving rates of treatment initiation and adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a need for further research to identify a sustainable, integrated, patient-centred, and cost- and clinically effective model of long-term care for people with osteoporosis.

Effectiveness of patient education for patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review

In this systematic review, the effects of osteoporosis patient education were examined. All studies found an effect on physical function, but for the other themes, the results were inconclusive. The findings indicate a need for further research in this topic.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is a chronic disease with serious consequences for the individual and major societal costs. With the aim of fracture prevention, many countries offer osteoporosis patient education. The objectives were to examine the effects and mediators of osteoporosis patient education and describe the characteristics of studies with and without an effect. Though, none of the included studies reported mediators, and therefore, we could not examine that.

METHODS

Six databases were searched in October 2020. Two researchers independently conducted title and abstract screening as well as full-text review. Records were included if participants had osteoporosis, and the patient education was group-based, face-to-face, and addressed two or more aspects, e.g., diet, medication, and exercise. The Cochrane Collaboration tools were used for risk of bias assessment. Finally, data were extracted into a standardized form and presented narratively.

RESULTS

In total, 2934 records were identified, and 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. All six studies examining the effects of patient education on physical function demonstrated improvements. In addition, one out of two RCT studies and one non-randomized study reported improved psychological wellbeing. Just one out of five RCT studies showed improvements regarding physical discomfort and disability. Effects on health-related quality of life, adherence and persistence, and knowledge of osteoporosis were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of osteoporosis patient education. There is a need for high-quality randomized controlled trials, which should describe the characteristics of the interventions and examine the mechanisms of osteoporosis patient education.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020211930.

Patient Outcomes in the Years After a DXA-BMD Treatment Monitoring Test: Improved Medication Adherence in Some, But Too Little Too Late

The role of mid-treatment monitoring dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-bone mineral density (DXA-BMD) for bisphosphonate-treated patients with osteoporosis remains unsettled. A common reason for such monitoring is to encourage ongoing medication adherence. We sought to determine if a DXA-BMD treatment monitoring test was associated with improved medication adherence and whether improved adherence after a DXA-BMD treatment monitoring test was associated with subsequent reduction in fracture rates. Using linked administrative databases within Manitoba, Canada, we performed a retrospective cohort study of women starting and continuing antiresorptive therapy in whom a mid-treatment DXA-BMD monitoring test was performed. From the provincial pharmacy database, we estimated medication adherence by calculating annual medication possession ratio (MPR) and determining the change in MPR with respect to change (stable/decrease) in the DXA-BMD monitoring test, in addition to fracture rates before and after the test. The cohort comprised 3418 women, 90.7% treated with oral bisphosphonate, with pharmacy data for the 3 years before and after the mid-treatment DXA-BMD. Median (interquartile range) MPR was 0.84 (0.49-0.99) in the year before DXA-BMD and 0.84 (0.48-0.99) in the year after DXA-BMD (p = 0.37). Among those whose DXA-BMD declined, MPR in the prior year was 0.54 (0.04-0.92) but improved to 0.70 (0.31-0.92) in the year after DXA-BMD (p < 0.001). Among those whose DXA-BMD monitoring test was stable/improved, the fracture rate before the monitoring DXA-BMD was 10.1 per 1000 person-years and in those whose DXA-BMD monitoring test showed a decrease, the rate was 23.7 per 1000 person-years (p < 0.001). Despite improved adherence in those with DXA-BMD decline, the post DXA-BMD fracture rate was 22.4 per 1000 person-years versus 12.9 per 1000 person-years in those who had stable DXA-BMD (p < 0.001). A mid-treatment DXA-BMD reassessment strategy may be useful to focus attention upon adherence, but for optimal fracture outcomes, treatment adherence should be specifically addressed at the commencement of therapy. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Pharmacotherapy decisions among postmenopausal women attending a group medical consultation or a one-on-one specialist consultation at an osteoporosis center: an observational cohort study

Group medical visits for osteoporosis can improve access to care while being highly accepted by patients. In this study, a similar proportion of women planned to initiate pharmacotherapy after attending a group or traditional one-on-one osteoporosis consultation, indicating that the group consultation model does not produce unexpected treatment decisions.

INTRODUCTION

Group medical consultations for osteoporosis are time-efficient and highly accepted by patients, but effects on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to compare women's decisions to initiate or decline osteoporosis pharmacotherapy after attending either a group or transitional one-on-one osteoporosis consultation.

METHODS

In this observational study, we prospectively evaluated postmenopausal women referred to an osteoporosis clinic who attended a group medical visit and compared their decisions regarding pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment with retrospective data from a cohort of women who attended a traditional consultation. Both consultation types involved interaction with a specialist physician, individualized fracture risk estimation (using FRAX®), and education regarding fracture consequences and available osteoporosis medications. Both forms of consultation emphasized shared decision-making; however, group consultation attendees did not receive personalized treatment recommendations from the physician.

RESULTS

We reviewed the records of 125 women (median age 63 years) who attended a group consultation and 83 women (median age 64 years) who attended a traditional consultation between 2016 and 2019. Twenty-four (19%) of the group cohort and 16 (19%) of the traditional cohort were at high 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture (FRAX® ≥ 20.0%). A similar proportion planned to initiate pharmacologic therapy after the group and traditional consultations (23% vs 16%, p = 0.22); these proportions were comparable among women at high risk (42% vs 50%, p = 0.75) and moderate risk (19% vs 15%, p = 0.77), but a higher proportion of low-risk women planned to initiate therapy after the group consultation (18% vs 0%, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Patient decisions to initiate pharmacologic treatment made during a group visit are similar to those made during traditional one-on-one consultation. The group consultation model represents an alternative to one-on-one assessment for delivering osteoporosis consultative services.