Lebanese guidelines for osteoporosis assessment and treatment: who to test? What measures to use? When to treat?

Adaptation of clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis in a Mexican context. Experience using methodologies ADAPTE, GRADE-ADOLOPMENT, and RAND/UCLA

High quality guidelines are required to enhance clinical practice, but its development is time consuming and a complex process. Adaptation might shorten development time and prevent double effort adjusting recommendations for a local context.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to present our experience in a process in which we combined two methodologies for the adaptation of high quality osteoporosis CPGs for a primary health care context, with the inclusion of a formal consensus.

METHODS

We began an adaptation process with ADAPTE, and required to migrate to GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology, based on GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. To identify high quality clinical practice guidelines, we performed a systematic review as per the PRISMA-statement methodology (PROSPERO: CRD42019138548, August 19th, 2019); methodological quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation version II system. We developed a RAND/UCLA consensus to support the inclusion of good practice statements and feasibility of selected recommendations.

RESULTS

Thirteen clinical questions were integrated, and fracture risk was selected as the main outcome for intervention recommendations analysis. Six high quality guidelines were selected. We prepared final recommendations from selected guides in an evidence synthesis framework. After the consensus, we integrated 50 recommendations.

CONCLUSION

By starting the adaptation process with ADAPTE, we experienced a time consuming process, which we could overcome when migrating to GRADE-Adolopment in combination with a consensus panel.

Nonpharmacological interventions for osteoporosis treatment: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

Objectives

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines to identify nonpharmacologic recommendations for osteoporosis treatment.

Methods

A systematic review of literature following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)-statement methodology for clinical practice guidelines was conducted; PROSPERO CRD42019138548. Assessment of selected clinical practice guidelines with the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation)-II methodological quality instrument was performed, and those graded over 60 points were selected for recommendations extraction and evidence analysis.

Results

Only 6 clinical practice guidelines fulfilled criteria, 69 nonpharmacological recommendations were extracted: 13 from American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology guideline, 16 from Malaysian Osteoporosis Society guideline, 15 from the Ministry of Health in Mexico guideline, 14 from Royal Australian College of General Practitioners guideline, 7 from Sociedad Española de Investigación Ósea y del Metabolismo Mineral guideline, and 7 from National Osteoporosis Guideline Group guideline. Percentage by theme showed that the highest number of recommendations were 12 (17.1%) for vitamin D, 11 (15.7%) for a combination of calcium and vitamin D, and 11 (15.7%) for exercise.

Conclusions

These recommendations address integrating interventions to modify lifestyle, mainly calcium and vitamin D intake, and exercise. Other recommendations include maintaining adequate protein intake, identification and treatment of risk factors for falls, and limiting the consumption of coffee, alcohol and tobacco. Considerations on prescription must be taken.

Screening for osteoporosis: A systematic assessment of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines, using the AGREE II instrument and the IOM Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Numerous clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are published to guide management of osteoporosis. Little is known about their quality or how recommendations have changed over time.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the quality and content of the guidelines on screening for osteoporosis, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards for trustworthy guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for osteoporosis CPGs published between 2002-2016, using multiple databases and guideline websites. Two reviewers appraised the quality of eligible CPGs using the AGREE II. High quality CPGs were considered if they scored ≥ 60 in four or more domains including the domain for rigor of development. Non-parametric tests were used to test for the change of quality over time. One reviewer assessed the guidelines with IOM standards. We summarized the different evidence grading systems and extracted and compared the recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 33 CPGs were identified. The mean scores for AGREE II differed by domain (range: 42% to 71%). CPGs scored higher on domains for clarity of presentation, scope and purpose, and rigor of development. CPGs scored lower on domains for stakeholder involvement, editorial independence and applicability. Assessment of CPGs by IOM standards showed that CPGs scored better on standards for systematic review, establishing evidence foundation and rating strength of recommendation, articulation of recommendation, and establishing transparency. While scored lower on standards for updating, external review, and the development group composition. There was no difference in AGREE II and IOM defined guidelines' quality before and after the introduction of the two tools (P values >0.05). The IOM identified four more guidelines as high quality compared to the AGREE II. Examining these additional guidelines indicated that the two tools may give conflicting results especially for the rigor of development domain. Recommendations in certain areas showed substantial differences between guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Osteoporosis screening CPGs are of variable quality, and their recommendations often differ. Guideline quality as measured by AGREE II and IOM standards has not improved overtime. Guideline developers should work together to improve the quality and consistency of recommendations to improve the likelihood that their guidelines will be used in practice.

The FRAX-based Lebanese osteoporosis treatment guidelines: rationale for a hybrid model

We describe our approach to develop FRAX-based osteoporosis treatment guidelines in Lebanon, a country with low-moderate fracture rates. A hybrid assessment algorithm that combines a fixed 10 % intervention threshold until age 70 years, and an age-dependent threshold thereafter, was deemed most suitable.

INTRODUCTION

The FRAX risk calculator is used to guide intervention thresholds in several national osteoporosis guidelines. This study aimed to describe the approach in developing FRAX-based osteoporosis treatment guidelines in Lebanon, a country with relatively low fracture rates.

METHODS

We reassessed previous national guidelines combined with an evaluation of age-dependent and fixed FRAX-based intervention threshold models used in the UK, the USA, and Canada. We took into consideration the risk for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) and the proportions of subjects considered for therapy using such thresholds, before finalizing a model for Lebanon.

RESULTS

The new Lebanese guidelines retained the recommendation to treat individuals with fragility fracture at the hip or spine. A femoral neck T-score ≤-2.5 in subjects without fractures was dropped, since it would imply consideration of therapy for individuals with a 10-year risk for MOF of <10 %, up to age 75 years in women. After considering the impact of both age-dependent and fixed intervention thresholds, we chose a new hybrid algorithm, combining a fixed 10 % treatment threshold until age 70 years and an age-dependent threshold thereafter.

CONCLUSION

The Lebanese FRAX-based hybrid model takes into consideration the risk for MOF and the proportions of subjects considered for treatment. This model avoids consideration of drug therapy in a large proportion of younger subjects at low risk for fracture and targets high risk elderly individuals. It was deemed most suitable for Lebanon and may be an option for other countries with relatively low fracture rates.

First update of the Lebanese guidelines for osteoporosis assessment and treatment

With the demographic explosion, the human, social, and economic costs of osteoporosis in developing countries, including the Middle East, will continue to rise. In 2002, the Lebanese Guidelines for Osteoporosis Assessment and Treatment were developed to optimize quality of osteoporosis care in Lebanon and the region. They were endorsed by 5 Lebanese medical scientific societies, and by the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office branch of the World Health Organization (WHO). In April 2006, the Lebanese Society for Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disorders (OSTEOS) led an initiative to update several recommendations detailed in the original document, based on relevant new local and international data. Data from a population-based sample of elderly Lebanese validated the following recommendations: fracture risk assessment, expressed as relative risk per standard deviation (RR/SD) decrease, was comparable in Lebanese subjects to similarly derived estimates from Western studies; the use of the NHANES database (hip), and the densitometer American database (spine) was as good, if not superior to the use of a Lebanese database for identifying subjects with prevalent vertebral fractures. The original recommendation regarding the use of a gender-specific western database, densitometer for spine and NHANES for T-score derivation for men, remains unchanged. For skeletal site selection, the update recommends measuring the spine and hip for women < or =65 yr, hip only for subjects >65 yr, and adding the forearm in conditions associated with cortical bone loss or in the case of inability to measure axial sites. The original recommendations for conservative management in premenopausal women were reiterated. This First Update of the Lebanese Osteoporosis Guidelines validates previous recommendations using evidence from a population-based sample of elderly Lebanese, and lays the ground for transitioning the Lebanese Osteoporosis Guidelines to the WHO global fracture risk assessment model.

Application of the 1994 WHO classification to populations other than postmenopausal Caucasian women: the 2005 ISCD Official Positions

In 2003, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) developed Official Positions regarding the applicability of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of bone mineral density to populations other than postmenopausal women. However, these prior Official Positions do not fully address bone mineral density reporting in females prior to menopause, men, and non-whites. During the 2005 ISCD Position Development Conference, members of the ISCD Expert Panel in conjunction with the ISCD Scientific Advisory Committee re-addressed these topics and, based upon stringent reviews of best available data, developed ISCD Official Positions that provide greater specificity and clarification with respect to the following: (1) the utility of the term 'osteopenia'; (2) utilization of T- and Z-scores for bone mineral density reporting; (3) when to apply the WHO densitometric classification; and (4) which normative database(s) should be used for non-white individuals. Briefly, the term "osteopenia" is retained, but 'low bone mass' or 'low bone density' is preferred. Z-scores, not T-scores, are preferred in females prior to menopause and males under age 50. In these individuals, a Z-score of -2.0 or lower is defined as "below the expected range for age" and a Z-score above -2.0 is "within the expected range for age." T-scores are preferred and the WHO classification is applicable for postmenopausal women and men age 50 and older. These Official Positions, rationale and evidence are discussed in the following report.