The Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW): rationale and study design

SUMMARY: The Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) is a prospective cohort study involving 723 physicians and 60,393 women subjects \u3eor=55 years. The data will provide insights into the management of fracture risk in older women over 5 years, patient experience with prevention and treatment, and distribution of risk among older women on an international basis. INTRODUCTION: Data from cohort studies describing the distribution of osteoporosis-related fractures and risk factors are not directly comparable and do not compare regional differences in patterns of patient management and fracture outcomes. METHODS: The GLOW is a prospective, multinational, observational cohort study. Practices typical of each region were identified through primary care networks organized for administrative, research, or educational purposes. Noninstitutionalized patients visiting each practice within the previous 2 years were eligible. Self-administered questionnaires were mailed, with 2:1 oversampling of women \u3eor=65 years. Follow-up questionnaires will be sent at 12-month intervals for 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 723 physicians at 17 sites in ten countries agreed to participate. Baseline surveys were mailed (October 2006 to February 2008) to 140,416 subjects. After the exclusion of 3,265 women who were ineligible or had died, 60,393 agreed to participate. CONCLUSIONS: GLOW will provide contemporary information on patterns of management of fracture risk in older women over a 5-year period. The collection of data in a similar manner in ten countries will permit comparisons of patient experience with prevention and treatment and provide insights into the distribution of risk among older women on an international basis

When, where and how osteoporosis-associated fractures occur: An analysis from the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women (GLOW)

Objective: To examine when, where and how fractures occur in postmenopausal women. Methods: We analyzed data from the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW), including women aged ≥55 years from the United States of America, Canada, Australia and seven European countries. Women completed questionnaires including fracture data at baseline and years 1, 2 and 3. Results: Among 60,393 postmenopausal women, 4122 incident fractures were reported (86% non-hip, non-vertebral [NHNV], 8% presumably clinical vertebral and 6% hip). Hip fractures were more likely to occur in spring, with little seasonal variation for NHNV or spine fractures. Hip fractures occurred equally inside or outside the home, whereas 65% of NHNV fractures occurred outside and 61% of vertebral fractures occurred inside the home. Falls preceded 68-86% of NHNV and 68-83% of hip fractures among women aged ≤64 to ≥85 years, increasing with age. About 45% of vertebral fractures were associated with falls in all age groups except those ≥85 years, when only 24% occurred after falling. Conclusion: In this multi-national cohort, fractures occurred throughout the year, with only hip fracture having a seasonal variation, with a higher proportion in spring. Hip fractures occurred equally within and outside the home, spine fractures more often in the home, and NHNV fractures outside the home. Falls were a proximate cause of most hip and NHNV fractures. Postmenopausal women at risk for fracture need counseling about reducing potentially modifiable fracture risk factors, particularly falls both inside and outside the home and during all seasons of the year. © 2013 Costa et al

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Independent and combined effects of improved water, sanitation, and hygiene, and improved complementary feeding, on child stunting and anaemia in rural Zimbabwe: a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Child stunting reduces survival and impairs neurodevelopment. We tested the independent and combined effects of improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), and improved infant and young child feeding (IYCF) on stunting and anaemia in in Zimbabwe. METHODS: We did a cluster-randomised, community-based, 2 × 2 factorial trial in two rural districts in Zimbabwe. Clusters were defined as the catchment area of between one and four village health workers employed by the Zimbabwe Ministry of Health and Child Care. Women were eligible for inclusion if they permanently lived in clusters and were confirmed pregnant. Clusters were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (52 clusters), IYCF (20 g of a small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplement per day from age 6 to 18 months plus complementary feeding counselling; 53 clusters), WASH (construction of a ventilated improved pit latrine, provision of two handwashing stations, liquid soap, chlorine, and play space plus hygiene counselling; 53 clusters), or IYCF plus WASH (53 clusters). A constrained randomisation technique was used to achieve balance across the groups for 14 variables related to geography, demography, water access, and community-level sanitation coverage. Masking of participants and fieldworkers was not possible. The primary outcomes were infant length-for-age Z score and haemoglobin concentrations at 18 months of age among children born to mothers who were HIV negative during pregnancy. These outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. We estimated the effects of the interventions by comparing the two IYCF groups with the two non-IYCF groups and the two WASH groups with the two non-WASH groups, except for outcomes that had an important statistical interaction between the interventions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01824940. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2012, and March 27, 2015, 5280 pregnant women were enrolled from 211 clusters. 3686 children born to HIV-negative mothers were assessed at age 18 months (884 in the standard of care group from 52 clusters, 893 in the IYCF group from 53 clusters, 918 in the WASH group from 53 clusters, and 991 in the IYCF plus WASH group from 51 clusters). In the IYCF intervention groups, the mean length-for-age Z score was 0·16 (95% CI 0·08-0·23) higher and the mean haemoglobin concentration was 2·03 g/L (1·28-2·79) higher than those in the non-IYCF intervention groups. The IYCF intervention reduced the number of stunted children from 620 (35%) of 1792 to 514 (27%) of 1879, and the number of children with anaemia from 245 (13·9%) of 1759 to 193 (10·5%) of 1845. The WASH intervention had no effect on either primary outcome. Neither intervention reduced the prevalence of diarrhoea at 12 or 18 months. No trial-related serious adverse events, and only three trial-related adverse events, were reported. INTERPRETATION: Household-level elementary WASH interventions implemented in rural areas in low-income countries are unlikely to reduce stunting or anaemia and might not reduce diarrhoea. Implementation of these WASH interventions in combination with IYCF interventions is unlikely to reduce stunting or anaemia more than implementation of IYCF alone. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Department for International Development, Wellcome Trust, Swiss Development Cooperation, UNICEF, and US National Institutes of Health.The SHINE trial is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1021542 and OPP113707); UK Department for International Development; Wellcome Trust, UK (093768/Z/10/Z, 108065/Z/15/Z and 203905/Z/16/Z); Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; US National Institutes of Health (2R01HD060338-06); and UNICEF (PCA-2017-0002)

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Predictors of Treatment with Osteoporosis Medications After Recent Fragility Fractures in a Multinational Cohort of Postmenopausal Women

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of untreated women who reported receiving treatment after incident fracture and to identify factors that predict treatment across an international spectrum of individuals. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. Self-administered questionnaires were mailed at baseline and 1 year. SETTING: Multinational cohort of noninstitutionalized women recruited from 723 primary physician practices in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty thousand three hundred ninety-three postmenopausal women aged 55 and older were recruited with a 2:1 oversampling of women aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Data collected included participant demographics, medical history, fracture occurrence, medications, and risk factors for fracture. Anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) included estrogen, selective estrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates, calcitonin, parathyroid hormone, and strontium. RESULTS: After the first year of follow-up, 1,075 women reported an incident fracture. Of these, 17% had started AOM, including 15% of those with a single fracture and 35% with multiple fractures. Predictors of treatment included baseline calcium use (P = .01), baseline diagnosis of osteoporosis (P \u3c .001), and fracture type (P \u3c .001). In multivariable analysis, women taking calcium supplements at baseline (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67) and with a baseline diagnosis of osteoporosis (OR = 2.55) were more likely to be taking AOM. Hip fracture (OR = 2.61), spine fracture (OR = 6.61), and multiple fractures (OR = 3.79) were associated with AOM treatment. Age, global region, and use of high-risk medications were not associated with treatment. CONCLUSION: More than 80% of older women with new fractures were not treated, despite the availability of AOM. Important factors associated with treatment in this international cohort included diagnosis of osteoporosis before the incident fracture, spine fracture, and to a lesser degree, hip fracture. Geriatrics Society

Evaluation of a Multimodal, Direct-to-Patient Educational Intervention Targeting Barriers to Osteoporosis Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Osteoporosis treatment rates are declining, even among those with past fractures. Novel, low-cost approaches are needed to improve osteoporosis care. We conducted a parallel group, controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating a behavioral intervention for improving osteoporosis medication use. A total of 2684 women with self-reported fracture history after age 45 years not using osteoporosis therapy from US Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) sites were randomized 1:1 to receive a multimodal, tailored, direct-to-patient, video intervention versus usual care. The primary study outcome was self-report of osteoporosis medication use at 6 months. Other outcomes included calcium and vitamin D supplementation, bone mineral density (BMD) testing, readiness for behavioral change, and barriers to treatment. In intent-to-treat analyses, there were no significant differences between groups (intervention versus control) in osteoporosis medication use (11.7% versus 11.4%, p = 0.8), calcium supplementation (31.8% versus 32.6%, p = 0.7), vitamin D intake (41.3% versus 41.9%, p = 0.8), or BMD testing (61.8% versus 57.1%, p = 0.2). In the intervention group, fewer women were in the precontemplative stage of behavior change, more women reported seeing their primary care provider, had concerns regarding osteonecrosis of the jaw, and difficulty in taking/remembering to take osteoporosis medications. We found differences in BMD testing among the subgroup of women with no prior osteoporosis treatment, those who provided contact information, and those with no past BMD testing. In per protocol analyses, women with appreciable exposure to the online intervention (n = 257) were more likely to start nonbisphosphonates (odds ratio [OR] = 2.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-5.79) compared with the usual care group. Although our intervention did not increase the use of osteoporosis therapy at 6 months, it increased nonbisphosphonate medication use and BMD testing in select subgroups, shifted participants' readiness for behavior change, and altered perceptions of barriers to osteoporosis treatment. Achieving changes in osteoporosis care using patient activation approaches alone is challenging. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research