Predictors of teriparatide treatment failure in patients with low bone mass

Introduction: While teriparatide is the only skeletal anabolic agent approved in the United States, treatment failure is a major concern which complicates its clinical utility. We sought to identify factors that predict response failure in patients with low bone mass. Method: We performed a retrospective study of adults with osteopenia or osteoporosis (T-scores < −1.0 and −2.5 SD below normal, respectively, at the total hip or lumbar spine) treated with teriparatide at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) between November 2002–December 2012. Trained study investigators blinded to patient outcomes collected electronic medical record data. Potential response failure predictors were identified using univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify independent predictors of treatment failure based on either osteoporotic fragility fracture or BMD response. Results: During the 10-year period, 494 patients received teriparatide treatment and met eligibility criteria. Thirty-five patients had osteoporotic fractures, while 172 did not achieve a ≥ 3% BMD increase. Among predictors as defined by BMD change, both prior bisphosphonate treatment [odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.50 (1.01–2.24)] and vitamin D therapy [1.50 (1.01–2.22)] were significantly (P < 0.05) associated with teriparatide treatment failure. By contrast, no predictors were associated with treatment failure when fracture was the endpoint. Conclusion: These data suggest that prior bisphosphonate or vitamin D exposure may predict response failure to teriparatide therapy. Although these findings may, in part, reflect increased severity or longer duration of disease, this knowledge should help guide clinicians and patients when therapy choices are made

Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

Background A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. Results We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. Conclusions Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed

Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials examining the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in people with diabetes-related lower limb ulcers

Aim: To examine the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in healing diabetes-related lower limb ulcers through a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify appropriate clinical trials. Inclusion required randomized study design and reporting of the proportion of diabetes-related lower limb ulcers that healed. A meta-analysis was performed to examine the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on ulcer healing. The secondary outcomes were minor and major amputations. Results: Nine randomized trials involving 585 participants were included. People allocated to hyperbaric oxygen therapy were more likely to have complete ulcer healing (relative risk 1.95, 95% CI 1.51–2.52; P<0.001), and less likely to require major (relative risk 0.54, 95% CI 0.36–0.81; P=0.003) or minor (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.48–0.98; P=0.040) amputations than control groups. Sensitivity analyses suggested the findings were dependent on the inclusion of one trial. Adverse events included ear barotrauma and a seizure. Many of the trials were noted to have methodological weaknesses including absence of blinding of outcome assessors, lack of a justifiable sample size calculation and limited follow-up. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests hyperbaric oxygen therapy improves the healing of diabetes-related lower limb ulcers and reduces the requirement for amputation. Confidence in these results is limited by significant design weaknesses of previous trials and inconsistent findings. A more rigorous assessment of the efficacy of hyperbaric the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy is needed