Interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications : an updated systematic review

Summary: An earlier systematic review on interventions to improve adherence and persistence was updated. Fifteen studies investigating the effectiveness of patient education, drug regimen, monitoring and supervision, and interdisciplinary collaboration as a single or multi-component intervention were appraised. Multicomponent interventions with active patient involvement were more effective. Introduction: This study was conducted to update a systematic literature review on interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications. Methods: A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline (using PubMed), Embase (using Ovid), Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, CINHAL, and PsycINFO to search for original studies that assessed interventions to improve adherence (comprising initiation, implementation, and discontinuation) and persistence to anti-osteoporosis medications among patients with osteoporosis, published between July 2012 and December 2018. Quality of included studies was assessed. Results: Of 585 studies initially identified, 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria of which 12 were randomized controlled trials. Interventions were classified as (1) patient education (n = 9), (2) drug regimen (n = 3), (3) monitoring and supervision (n = 2), and (4) interdisciplinary collaboration (n = 1). In most subtypes of interventions, mixed results on adherence (and persistence) were found. Multicomponent interventions based on patient education and counseling were the most effective interventions when aiming to increase adherence and/or persistence to osteoporosis medications. Conclusion: This updated review suggests that patient education, monitoring and supervision, change in drug regimen, and interdisciplinary collaboration have mixed results on medication adherence and persistence, with more positive effects for multicomponent interventions with active patient involvement. Compared with the previous review, a shift towards more patient involvement, counseling and shared decision-making, was seen, suggesting that individualized solutions, based on collaboration between the patient and the healthcare provider, are needed to improve adherence and persistence to osteoporosis medications

A protocol of a randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT)

BACKGROUND: With a steep increase in the number of instrumented spinal fusion procedures, there is a need for comparative data to develop evidence based treatment recommendations. Currently, the available data on cost and clinical effectiveness of the two most frequently performed surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), are not sufficient. Therefore, current guidelines do not advise which is the most appropriate surgical treatment strategy for these patients. Non-randomized studies comparing TLIF and PLIF moreover suggest that TLIF is associated with fewer complications, less blood loss, shorter surgical time and hospital duration. TLIF may therefore be more cost-effective. The results of this study will provide knowledge on short- and long-term clinical and economical effects of TLIF and PLIF procedures, which will lead to recommendations for treating patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Multicenter blinded Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT; blinding for the patient and statistician, not for the clinician and researcher). A total of 144 patients over 18 years old with symptomatic single level lumbar degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic spondylolisthesis whom are candidates for LIF (lumbar interbody fusion) surgery through a posterior approach will be randomly allocated to TLIF or PLIF. The study will consist of three parts: 1) a clinical effectiveness study, 2) a cost-effectiveness study, and 3) a process evaluation. The primary clinical outcome measures are: change in disability measured with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and change in quality adjusted life years (QALY) measured with EQ-5D-5L. Secondary clinical outcome measures are: Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), complications, productivity related costs (iPCQ) and medical costs (iMCQ). Measurements will be carried out at five fixed time points (pre-operatively and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months). DISCUSSION: It is hypothesized that TLIF, compared to PLIF, has similar clinical outcome or is possibly better in reducing disability. Moreover, direct medical costs are expected to be lower due to less surgical morbidity, shorter hospital stay and shorter surgical time. Indirect costs are assumed to be lower for TLIF as well, because we suspect less working days are lost. Currently, prospective data comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of both techniques are not available. Therefore, in clinical practice both techniques are used and the choice for technique is greatly based on surgeon’s preference. The demand for spinal fusion surgery has risen steeply over the last 10 years and is expected to increase even further in the near future. As a result, the burden on society (and the working population) will increase. In case our hypothesis is confirmed, treatment guidelines will be adapted, and TLIF will be recommended as first choice surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Ultimately this will lead to reduction of (direct and indirect) costs and better clinical outcome for spondylolisthesis patients eligible for instrumented spinal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5722 (registration date March 30, 2016)

Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review.

IntroductionThe demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.MethodsSearches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.ResultsOf a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from$8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and$21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from$5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and$50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.Trial registrationProspero-database registration number: CRD42020196869

Transforaminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for symptomatic single-level spondylolisthesis (LIFT): a multicentre controlled, patient blinded, randomised non-inferiority trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: The effectiveness of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients with single-level spondylolisthesis has not been substantiated. To address the evidence gap, a well-powered randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the effectiveness of TLIF with PLIF, entitled the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT), was conducted. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial among five Dutch hospitals, 161 patients were randomly allocated to either TLIF or PLIF (1:1), stratified according to study site. Patients and statisticians were blinded for group assignment. All patients were over 18 years old with symptomatic single-level degenerative, isthmic or iatrogenic lumbar spondylolisthesis, and eligible for lumbar interbody fusion surgery through a posterior approach. The primary outcome was change in disability measured with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) from preoperative to one year postoperative. The non-inferiority limit was set to 7.0 points based on the MCID of ODI. Secondary outcomes were change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) assessed with EuroQol 5 Dimensions, 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), as well as back and leg pain (Numerical rating scale, NRS), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale; HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and complications. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry, number 5722 (registration date March 30, 2016), Lumbar Interbody Fusion Trial (LIFT): A randomized controlled multicenter trial for surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Findings: Patients were included between August 2017 and November 2020. The total study population was 161 patients. Total loss-to-follow-up after one year was 16 patients. Per-protocol analysis included 66 patients in each group. In the TLIF group (mean age 61.6, 36 females), ODI improved from 46.7 to 20.7, whereas in the PLIF group (mean age 61.9, 41 females), it improved from 46.0 to 24.9. This difference (−4.9, 90% CI −12.2 to +2.4) did not reach the non-inferiority limit of 7.0 points in ODI. A significant difference in the secondary outcome measurement, QALY (SF-36), was observed in favor of TLIF (P < 0.05). However, this was not clinically relevant. No difference was found for all other secondary outcome measurements; PROMs (EQ-5D, NRS leg/back, HADS), perioperative blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative and postoperative complications. Interpretation: For patients with single-level spondylolisthesis, TLIF is non-inferior to PLIF in terms of clinical effectiveness. Disability (measured with ODI) did not differ over time between groups. Funding: No funding was received for this trial