Factors associated with treatment of women with osteoporosis or osteopenia from a national survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health outcomes could be improved if women at high risk for osteoporotic fracture were matched to effective treatment. This study determined the extent to which treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia corresponded to the presence of specific risk factors for osteoporotic fracture.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis of the United States 2007 National Health and Wellness Survey included women age ≥ 40 years who reported having a diagnosis of osteoporosis (69% of 3276) or osteopenia (31% of 3276). Patients were stratified by whether they were or were not taking prescription treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia. Using 34 patient characteristics as covariates, logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Current prescription treatment was reported by 1800 of 3276 (54.9%) women with osteoporosis/osteopenia. The following factors were associated with receiving prescription treatment: patient-reported diagnosis of osteoporosis (versus osteopenia); previous bone mineral density test; ≥ 2 fractures since age 50; older age; lower body mass index; better physical functioning; postmenopausal status; family history of osteoporosis; fewer comorbidities; prescription insurance coverage; higher total prescription count; higher ratio of prescription costs to monthly income; higher income; single status; previous visit to a rheumatologist or gynecologist; and 1 or 2 outpatient visits to healthcare provider (vs. none) in the prior 6 months. Glucocorticoid, tobacco, and daily alcohol use were risk factors for fracture that were not associated with treatment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is a mismatch between those women who could benefit from treatment for osteoporosis and those who are actually treated. For example, self-reported use of glucocorticoids, tobacco, and alcohol were not associated with prescription treatment of osteoporosis. Other clinical and socioeconomic factors were associated with treatment (e.g. prescription drug coverage and higher income) or not (e.g. comorbid osteoarthritis and anxiety) and could be opportunities to improve care.</p

Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals

BACKGROUND: Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients\u27 preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs). METHODS: We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category. RESULTS: Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients\u27 goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers\u27 goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients

Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: A descriptive pilot study

BACKGROUND: Patients increasingly seek more active involvement in health care decisions, but little is known about how to communicate complex risk information to patients. The objective of this study was to elicit patient preferences for the presentation and framing of complex risk information. METHOD: To accomplish this, eight focus group discussions and 15 one-on-one interviews were conducted, where women were presented with risk data in a variety of different graphical formats, metrics, and time horizons. Risk data were based on a hypothetical woman's risk for coronary heart disease, hip fracture, and breast cancer, with and without hormone replacement therapy. Participants' preferences were assessed using likert scales, ranking, and abstractions of focus group discussions. RESULTS: Forty peri- and postmenopausal women were recruited through hospital fliers (n = 25) and a community health fair (n = 15). Mean age was 51 years, 50% were non-Caucasian, and all had completed high school. Bar graphs were preferred by 83% of participants over line graphs, thermometer graphs, 100 representative faces, and survival curves. Lifetime risk estimates were preferred over 10 or 20-year horizons, and absolute risks were preferred over relative risks and number needed to treat. CONCLUSION: Although there are many different formats for presenting and framing risk information, simple bar charts depicting absolute lifetime risk were rated and ranked highest overall for patient preferences for format

Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi)

Objectives To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Setting There has been increasing use of decision support technologies – adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation. Methods Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. Participants Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies. Results IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92). Conclusions This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark

The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the extent to which the elderly have been excluded from trials of drug therapies used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction, to identify factors associated with such exclusions, and to explore the relationship between the exclusion of elderly and the representation of women. DATA SOURCES--We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature from January 1960 through September 1991 to identify all relevant studies of specific pharmacotherapies employed in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. To accomplish this, we searched MEDLINE, major cardiology textbooks, meta-analyses, reviews, editorials, and the bibliographies of all identified articles. STUDY SELECTION--Only trials in which patients were randomly allocated to receive a specific therapeutic regimen or a placebo or nonplacebo control regimen were included for review. DATA EXTRACTION--Studies were abstracted for year of publication, source of support, performance location, drug therapies to which patients were randomized, use of invasive diagnostic tests or therapeutic procedures, exclusion criteria, size and demographic characteristics of the randomized study population, and principal outcome measures. DATA SYNTHESIS--A total of 214 trials met inclusion criteria, involving 150,920 study subjects. Over 60% of trials excluded persons over the age of 75 years. Studies published after 1980 were more likely to have age-based exclusions compared with studies published before 1980 (adjusted odds ratio, 4.92; 95% confidence interval, 2.33 to 10.54). Trials of thrombolytic therapy involving an invasive procedure were more likely to exclude elderly patients compared with other studies (adjusted odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 5.47). Studies with age-based exclusions had a smaller percentage of women compared with those without such exclusions (18% vs 23%; P = .0002), with the mean age of the study population significantly associated with the proportion of women participants (P = .0001, R2 = .29). CONCLUSIONS--Age-based exclusions are frequently used in clinical trials of medications used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Such exclusions limit the ability to generalize study findings to the patient population that experiences the most morbidity and mortality from acute myocardial infarction

Frequency of inclusion of patients with cardiogenic shock in trials of thrombolytic therapy.

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which patients with cardiogenic shock have participated in trials of thrombolytic therapy, to examine factors associated with their exclusion from these trials, and to summarize data on the efficacy of thrombolysis in these patients. Previous publications were searched for all randomized, controlled studies involving the use of thrombolytic medications used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Data were abstracted for year of trial publication, performance location, sample size, maximal allowable delay between symptom onset and treatment, and exclusion criteria. Of the 94 trials included in the analysis, 22% included patients with cardiogenic shock, 37% excluded them, and the remainder contained no information on their inclusion or exclusion. Only 2 trials provided data on the efficacy of thrombolytic therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock. Multivariate analysis revealed that studies conducted exclusively in the U.S. were significantly more likely to exclude patients in cardiogenic shock than those conducted outside of the U.S., as were studies that excluded patients with a previous myocardial infarction, studies published more recently, and smaller trials. Patients with cardiogenic shock have frequently been excluded from clinical trials of thrombolytic agents. As a result, data on the efficacy of thrombolytic agents in these patients is extremely limited

Does aspirin consumption affect the presentation or severity of acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: While consumption of aspirin has been shown to decrease the occurrence of nonfatal cardiac events, the majority of studies have not demonstrated any impact of aspirin intake on cardiovascular mortality. The present population-based study explores the possibility that aspirin consumption affects the presentation and severity of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and hence the likelihood of clinical detection. METHODS: We monitored the use of aspirin before admission for 2114 patients with a validated diagnosis of AMI in 16 hospitals in the Worcester, Mass, metropolitan area during 1986, 1988, and 1990. The AMIs were characterized as Q wave vs non-Q wave and large (peak creatine kinase levels more than five times normal) vs small (peak creatine kinase levels less than two times normal). RESULTS: A total of 332 patients (16%) with validated AMI took aspirin before hospital admission. Nearly 65% of aspirin users had non-Q wave AMIs, compared with 49% of nonaspirin users. Thirty percent of aspirin users sustained small AMIs, compared with 22% of nonaspirin users. These findings persisted after stratifying for previous AMI, history of coronary disease, receipt of thrombolytic therapy, and exclusion of early hospital deaths. Using multivariable regression models to control for age, gender, previous evidence of coronary disease, and use of other medications, prior aspirin consumption remained independently associated with AMI type (non-Q-wave AMI) and smaller infarct size. CONCLUSION: Aspirin consumption appears to modify the presentation of AMI, increasing the likelihood that the infarct will be of the small, non-Q-wave variety

An interactive, online decision aid assessing patient goals and preferences for treatment of aortic stenosis to support physician-led shared decision-making: Early feasibility pilot study.

BackgroundGuidelines recommend shared decision making when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis but implementation has lagged. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a novel decision aid for severe aortic stenosis at point-of-care.MethodsThis prospective multi-site pilot cohort study included adults with severe aortic stenosis and their clinicians. Patients were referred by their heart team when scheduled to discuss treatment options. Outcomes included shared decision-making processes, communication quality, decision-making confidence, decisional conflict, knowledge, stage of decision making, decision quality, and perceptions of the tool. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after using the intervention (T1), and after the clinical encounter (T2); clinicians were assessed at T2. Before the encounter, patients reviewed the intervention, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches (AVITA), an interactive, online decision aid. AVITA presents options, frames decisions, clarifies patient goals and values, and generates a summary to use with clinicians during the encounter.Results30 patients (9 women [30.0%]; mean [SD] age 70.4 years [11.0]) and 14 clinicians (4 women [28.6%], 7 cardiothoracic surgeons [50%]) comprised 28 clinical encounters Most patients [85.7%] and clinicians [84.6%] endorsed AVITA. Patients reported AVITA easy to use [89.3%] and helped them choose treatment [95.5%]. Clinicians reported the AVITA summary helped them understand their patients' values [80.8%] and make values-aligned recommendations [61.5%]. Patient knowledge significantly improved at T1 and T2 (p = 0.004). Decisional conflict, decision-making stage, and decision quality improved at T2 (p = 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.083, respectively). Most patients [60%] changed treatment preference between T0 and T2. Initial treatment preferences were associated with low knowledge, high decisional conflict, and poor decision quality; final preferences were associated with high knowledge, low conflict, and high quality.ConclusionsAVITA was endorsed by patients and clinicians, easy to use, improved shared decision-making quality and helped patients and clinicians arrive at a treatment that reflected patients' values.Trial registrationTrial ID: NCT04755426, Clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426