Recommendations for The Conduct of Economic Evaluations in Osteoporosis: Outcomes of An Experts’ Consensus Meeting Organized by The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) And the US Branch of The International Osteoporosis Foundation

Summary Economic evaluations are increasingly used to assess the value of health interventions, but variable quality and heterogeneity limit the use of these evaluations by decision-makers. These recommendations provide guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards. Introduction This paper aims to provide recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis in order to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards. Methods A working group was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis to make recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, to define an osteoporosis-specific reference case to serve a minimum standard for all economic analyses in osteoporosis, to discuss methodologic challenges and initiate a call for research. A literature review, a face-to-face meeting in New York City (including 11 experts), and a review/approval by a larger group of experts worldwide (including 23 experts in total) were conducted. Results Recommendations on the type of economic evaluation, methods for economic evaluation, modeling aspects, base-case analysis and population, excess mortality, fracture costs and disutility, treatment characteristics, and model validation were provided. Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in osteoporosis were also made and an osteoporosis-specific checklist was designed that includes items to report when performing an economic evaluation in osteoporosis. Further, 12 minimum criteria for economic evaluations in osteoporosis were identified and 12 methodologic challenges and need for further research were discussed. Conclusion While the working group acknowledges challenges and the need for further research, these recommendations are intended to supplement general and national guidelines for economic evaluations, improve transparency, quality, and comparability of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, and maintain methodologic standards to increase their use by decision-makers

Primary hyperparathyroidism: review and recommendations on evaluation, diagnosis, and management. A Canadian and international consensus

The purpose of this review is to assess the most recent evidence in the management of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) and provide updated recommendations for its evaluation, diagnosis and treatment. A Medline search of "Hyperparathyroidism. Primary" was conducted and the literature with the highest levels of evidence were reviewed and used to formulate recommendations. PHPT is a common endocrine disorder usually discovered by routine biochemical screening. PHPT is defined as hypercalcemia with increased or inappropriately normal plasma parathyroid hormone (PTH). It is most commonly seen after the age of 50 years, with women predominating by three to fourfold. In countries with routine multichannel screening, PHPT is identified earlier and may be asymptomatic. Where biochemical testing is not routine, PHPT is more likely to present with skeletal complications, or nephrolithiasis. Parathyroidectomy (PTx) is indicated for those with symptomatic disease. For asymptomatic patients, recent guidelines have recommended criteria for surgery, however PTx can also be considered in those who do not meet criteria, and prefer surgery. Non-surgical therapies are available when surgery is not appropriate. This review presents the current state of the art in the diagnosis and management of PHPT and updates the Canadian Position paper on PHPT. An overview of the impact of PHPT on the skeleton and other target organs is presented with international consensus. Differences in the international presentation of this condition are also summarized

Effective communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk of fragility fracture: a scoping review

SUMMARY: Two scoping reviews were conducted to review recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk, and to investigate communication strategies regarding risk of fracture. Healthcare professionals are invited to apply these recommendations to optimize a patient-centered approach to reducing risk of fracture. INTRODUCTION: To conduct a scoping review of the medical literature regarding recommendations and tools for effective communication between healthcare professionals and patients regarding general health risk and risk of fracture. METHODS: The scoping review was divided into two parts to search for (1) studies presenting recommendations and guidelines for communication regarding general health risk; (2) studies investigating communication regarding risk of fracture for individuals at risk for fractures. Medline was searched in April 2020 to identify relevant studies. RESULTS: The scoping review included 43 studies on communication with regard to general health risk and 25 studies about communication regarding risk of fracture. Recommendations for effective communication with regard to risk are presented. Communication of numeric data on risk should be adapted to the literacy and numeracy levels of the individual patient. Patient understanding of numerical data can be enhanced with appropriate use of visual aids (e.g., pie charts, icon arrays, bar charts, pictograms). The FRAX® tool is the most recommended and most used tool for assessing risk of fracture. Communication sent as individualized letters to patients following DXA scans has been studied, although patient understanding of their risk of fracture is often reported as low using this technique. Use of visual aids may improve patient understanding. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals are encouraged to apply recommendations presented in this scoping review in their clinical practice. Patient understanding of risk of fracture should be confirmed by making sure that patients feel free to ask questions and express their concerns. This will contribute to an optimal patient-centered approach. Developing online tools to convert the probability of fracture into patient-friendly visual presentations could facilitate communication between healthcare professionals and patients about risk of fracture. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00198-021-06151-7

Ibandronate does not increase risk of atrial fibrillation in analysis of pivotal clinical trials

Objective: To determine the incidence of adverse events or serious adverse events of atrial fibrillation in the pivotal trials of ibandronate and to assess whether increasing dose or duration of exposure had any effect on the incidence of atrial fibrillation. Patients and methods: Pooled data from all four pivotal ibandronate clinical trials were analysed to assess the incidence of atrial fibrillation as an adverse event and serious adverse event with ibandronate vs. placebo. The incidence of atrial fibrillation with ibandronate was also assessed by dose, by annual cumulative exposure ( ACE) and by patient age. Results: This analysis included 6830 patients treated with ibandronate and 1924 treated with placebo. The incidence of atrial fibrillation as an adverse event ( ibandronate, 0.8% and placebo, 0.9%) and serious adverse event (0.4% for both ibandronate and placebo) was comparable between the ibandronate and placebo groups. There was no increase in the incidence of atrial fibrillation as an adverse event or serious adverse event with increasing oral or intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate dose. No correlation between the incidence of atrial fibrillation as a serious adverse event and ibandronate duration of exposure was observed. Based on various ACE categories, none of the ibandronate regimens evaluated in these trials was associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation. Conclusions: In this pooled analysis of all four ibandronate pivotal trials, including analysis by ACE, all studied ibandronate regimens, including the licensed doses of 150 mg monthly oral and 3 mg quarterly i.v., were not associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation.Bone and mineral researc

Abaloparatide is an effective treatment option for postmenopausal osteoporosis: review of the number needed to treat compared with teriparatide.

Abaloparatide (ABL) is a 34-amino acid peptide designed to be a selective activator of the parathyroid hormone receptor type 1 signaling pathway. In the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE), subcutaneous ABL reduced the risk of new vertebral, nonvertebral, clinical, and major osteoporotic fracture compared with placebo and of major osteoporotic fracture compared with teriparatide. To further evaluate the effectiveness of ABL, we calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one fracture using ACTIVE data. To estimate the potential effectiveness of ABL in populations at higher fracture risk than in ACTIVE, we calculated NNT for vertebral fracture using reference populations from historical placebo-controlled trials, assuming an 86% relative risk reduction in vertebral fracture with ABL treatment as observed in ACTIVE. NNT was calculated as the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction in ACTIVE. The projected NNT for ABL in other populations was calculated based on incidence rate (IR) for vertebral fractures in the placebo arms of the FREEDOM (placebo IR 7.2%), FIT-1 (placebo IR 15.0%), and FIT-2 (placebo IR 3.8%) trials. NNT for ABL in ACTIVE was 28 for vertebral, 55 for nonvertebral, 37 for clinical, and 34 for major osteoporotic fracture. NNT for these fracture types for teriparatide in ACTIVE were 30, 92, 59, and 75, respectively. Using placebo IRs from FREEDOM, FIT-1, and FIT-2, projected NNTs for vertebral fracture with ABL were 17, 8, and 31. These data are useful for further evaluating ABL for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Ibandronate does not increase risk of atrial fibrillation in analysis of pivotal clinical trials.

Summary Objective:?To determine the incidence of adverse events or serious adverse events of atrial fibrillation in the pivotal trials of ibandronate and to assess whether increasing dose or duration of exposure had any effect on the incidence of atrial fibrillation. Patients and methods:?Pooled data from all four pivotal ibandronate clinical trials were analysed to assess the incidence of atrial fibrillation as an adverse event and serious adverse event with ibandronate vs. placebo. The incidence of atrial fibrillation with ibandronate was also assessed by dose, by annual cumulative exposure (ACE) and by patient age. Results:?This analysis included 6830 patients treated with ibandronate and 1924 treated with placebo. The incidence of atrial fibrillation as an adverse event (ibandronate, 0.8% and placebo, 0.9%) and serious adverse event (0.4% for both ibandronate and placebo) was comparable between the ibandronate and placebo groups. There was no increase in the incidence of atrial fibrillation as an adverse event or serious adverse event with increasing oral or intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate dose. No correlation between the incidence of atrial fibrillation as a serious adverse event and ibandronate duration of exposure was observed. Based on various ACE categories, none of the ibandronate regimens evaluated in these trials was associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation. Conclusions:?In this pooled analysis of all four ibandronate pivotal trials, including analysis by ACE, all studied ibandronate regimens, including the licensed doses of 150?mg monthly oral and 3?mg quarterly i.v., were not associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation