Patient-reported reasons for nonadherence to recommended osteoporosis pharmacotherapy

Integrated Care for Comprehensive Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis: Program Development and Implementation

Treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) is often complicated by comorbidities, which put patients at potentially higher risks following operative interventions. Management of these comorbidities is usually separate from orthopaedic care, with patients invited to return to their orthopaedic surgeon once surgical risk factors are better controlled. However, this practice can lead to disjointed care, resulting in uncertainty, mistrust, unmanaged pain, and dissatisfaction for patients. Integrated care teams provide an effective option for coordinated comprehensive nonoperative and preoperative management of patients with knee OA and medical comorbidities. The objective of this article is to summarize the process for implementation of an integrated program to manage patients with symptomatic knee OA and the initial outcomes at our institution as an example of the effects of integrated patient management in orthopaedics. At the author's institution, an integrated program was implemented, successfully addressing the unmet need for coordinated care for patients with bone and joint health problems and medical comorbidities. Patients who completed the full program experienced significant improvements in both pain and function. Potential applications for knee surgeons considering implementing integrated care models could include pre- and postoperative management programs, nonoperative management program, and programs seeking to meet key metrics such as improved readmission rates, patient satisfaction, or value-based care. For effective program implementation, careful planning with convenient referral mechanisms, leadership buy-in, and patient-centered communication protocols are required.

Closing the gap in osteoporosis management: the critical role of primary care in bone health

OBJECTIVE

The World Health Organization issued a call to action for primary care to lead efforts in managing noncommunicable diseases, including osteoporosis. Although common, osteoporosis remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) are critical in identifying individuals at risk for osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures; however, recent advances in assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis have not been incorporated into clinical practice in primary care due to numerous reasons including time constraints and insufficient knowledge. To close this gap in clinical practice, we believe PCPs need a practical strategy to facilitate osteoporosis assessment and management that is easy to implement.

METHODS

In this article, we consolidate information from various global guidelines and highlight areas of agreement to create a streamlined osteoporosis management strategy for a global audience of PCPs.

RESULTS

We present a systematic approach to facilitate osteoporosis assessment and management that includes four steps: (1) identifying patients at risk through proactive screening strategies, (2) investigating and diagnosing patients, (3) intervening with personalized treatment plans, and (4) implementing patient-centered strategies for long-term management and monitoring of patients.

CONCLUSION

Primary care has a central role in ensuring the incorporation of key elements of holistic care as outlined by the World Health Organization in managing noncommunicable diseases including osteoporosis; namely, a people-centered approach, incorporation of specialist services, and multidisciplinary care. This approach is designed to strengthen the health system's response to the growing osteoporosis epidemic.

Exploring the osteoporosis treatment gap after fragility hip fracture at a Tertiary University Medical Center in Thailand

BACKGROUND

(1) To evaluate the prescription rate of anti-osteoporosis medication, and (2) to identify factors associated with patients not receiving anti-osteoporosis medication or, when prescribed, not persisting with medication 1 year after hip fracture treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all fragility hip fracture patients admitted to the orthopedic unit of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. We identified patients who did not receive anti-osteoporosis medication both 6 months and 1 year after fracture treatment. Patients who did not receive the medication 1 year after their treatment were enrolled and interviewed using a no-treatment questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 530 patients with fragility hip fractures were eligible (mean age, 79.0 years), and most (74.5%) were women. Only 148 patients (31.6%) received anti-osteoporosis medication 1 year after hip fracture. Logistic regression analysis identified predictors for not receiving the medication: male sex (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1-3.0), Charlson comorbidity index score ≥ 5 (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.3), and secondary school education or below (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.3). The main reason for not receiving the medication was that healthcare providers neither discussed nor initiated pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis (48.2%). When the medication was prescribed, non-persistence primarily stemmed from transportation difficulties that resulted in patients missing follow-ups (50.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Improved physician attitudes toward anti-osteoporosis medications might enhance the treatment rate. Developing a follow-up team and facilitating access to medications (eg, courier delivery to patients) would promote therapy compliance.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

The protocol for the first phase and second phase was approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand (COA no. Si 180/2021) and for the second phase, patients-informed consent forms used in the cross-sectional component were approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand (COA no. Si 180/2021). The research was registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR number: 20210824002). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Each patient (or a relative/caregiver) provided informed consent in writing or by telephone to participate in this second study phase.

Non-Adherence to Anti-Osteoporosis Medication: Factors Influencing and Strategies to Overcome It. A Narrative Review

To evaluate the reasons for inadequate adherence to osteoporosis therapy and to describe the strategies for improving adherence to and persistence with regular medications, we conducted a review of the literature. The primary outcome of the study was the determination of the factors adverse to the onset and maintenance of anti-osteoporosis therapies. Secondly, we focused on studies whose efforts led to finding different strategies to improve adherence and persistence. We identified a total of 26 articles. The most recurrent and significant factors identified were aging, polypharmacy, and smoking habits. Different strategies to guide patients in their osteoporosis care have been identified, such as monitoring and follow-up via telephone calls, email, and promotional meetings, and proactive care interventions such as medication monitoring, post-fracture care programs, and decision aids. Changes in the drugs regimen and dispensation are strategies tried to lead to better adherence and persistence, but also improved satisfaction of patients undergoing anti-osteoporosis treatment. Patient involvement is an important factor to increase medication persistence while using a flexible drugs regimen.

The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in the USA and the world. It is a subclinical condition until complicated by fracture(s). These fractures place an enormous medical and personal burden on individuals who suffer from them and take a significant economic toll. Any new fracture in an adult aged 50 years or older signifies imminent elevated risk for subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following the initial fracture. What a patient perceives as an unfortunate accident may be seen as a sentinel event indicative of bone fragility and increased future fracture risk even when the result of considerable trauma. Clinical or subclinical vertebral fractures, the most common type of osteoporotic fractures, are associated with a 5-fold increased risk for additional vertebral fractures and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for fractures at other sites. Untreated osteoporosis can lead to a vicious cycle of recurrent fracture(s), often resulting in disability and premature death. In appropriate patients, treatment with effective antifracture medication prevents fractures and improves outcomes. Primary care providers and medical specialists are critical gatekeepers who can identify fractures and initiate proven osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis detection, diagnosis, and treatment should be routine practice in all adult healthcare settings. The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) - formerly the National Osteoporosis Foundation - first published the Clinician's Guide in 1999 to provide accurate information on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Since that time, significant improvements have been made in diagnostic technologies and treatments for osteoporosis. Despite these advances, a disturbing gap persists in patient care. At-risk patients are often not screened to establish fracture probability and not educated about fracture prevention. Most concerning, the majority of highest risk women and men who have a fracture(s) are not diagnosed and do not receive effective, FDA-approved therapies. Even those prescribed appropriate therapy are unlikely to take the medication as prescribed. The Clinician's Guide offers concise recommendations regarding prevention, risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and older. It includes indications for bone densitometry as well as fracture risk thresholds for pharmacologic intervention. Current medications build bone and/or decrease bone breakdown and dramatically reduce incident fractures. All antifracture therapeutics treat but do not cure the disease. Skeletal deterioration resumes sooner or later when a medication is discontinued-sooner for nonbisphosphonates and later for bisphosphonates. Even if normal BMD is achieved, osteoporosis and elevated risk for fracture are still present. The diagnosis of osteoporosis persists even if subsequent DXA T-scores are above - 2.5. Ongoing monitoring and strategic interventions will be necessary if fractures are to be avoided. In addition to pharmacotherapy, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, avoidance of smoking and excessive alcohol intake, weight-bearing and resistance-training exercise, and fall prevention are included in the fracture prevention armamentarium. Where possible, recommendations in this guide are based on evidence from RCTs; however, relevant published data and guidance from expert clinical experience provides the basis for recommendations in those areas where RCT evidence is currently deficient or not applicable to the many osteoporosis patients not considered for RCT participation due to age and morbidity.

Do patients who have newly identified prediabetes lose weight in the following year?

BACKGROUND

Identifying a window of opportunity when patients are motivated to lose weight might improve the effectiveness of weight loss counseling. The onset of chronic disease could create such a window.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether identifying prediabetes was associated with subsequent weight loss.

METHODS

Our retrospective cohort study included adults with obesity and a primary care visit between 2015 and 2017. Data were collected and analysed in 2019/2020. We compared patients who developed prediabetes [haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥5.7 and <6.5] to patients with a normal HbA1c (<5.7). We ran linear regression models to identify the association between identifying prediabetes and percent body mass index (BMI) change at 6 and 12 months. The adjusted model controlled for demographic characteristics at baseline, Charlson comorbidity score, and metformin, antipsychotic, antidepressant and antiobesity medication prescribed in either the first 3 months (for the 6-month outcome) or first 9 months (for 12-month outcome) and clustering within physician.

RESULTS

Of 11 290 participants, 43% developed prediabetes. At 6 months, 15% of the prediabetes group lost ≥5% of their BMI compared with 13% of the comparison group. The results were similar at 12 months with 18% of the prediabetes group losing ≥5% of their BMI compared with 17%. The prediabetes group lost a higher percentage of their BMI (β = -0.7% versus -0.3% at 6 months and β = -0.5% versus 0.01% at 12 months).

CONCLUSIONS

While the percent of BMI change was small, patients with newly identified prediabetes lost more weight than a comparison group.

Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D)

INTRODUCTION

Prevention of fragility fractures, a source of significant economic and personal burden, is hindered by poor uptake of fracture prevention medicines. Enhancing communication of scientific evidence and elicitation of patient medication-related beliefs has the potential to increase patient commitment to treatment. The Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) programme aims to develop and evaluate a theoretically informed, complex intervention consisting of a computerised web-based decision support tool, training package and information resources, to facilitate informed decision-making about fracture prevention treatment, with a long-term aim of improving informed treatment adherence. This protocol focuses on the iFraP Development (iFraP-D) work.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The approach to iFraP-D is informed by the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation framework and the three-step implementation of change model. The context for the study is UK fracture liaison services (FLS), which enact secondary fracture prevention. An evidence synthesis of clinical guidelines and Delphi exercise will be conducted to identify content for the intervention. Focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians and general practitioners and a usual care survey will facilitate understanding of current practice, and investigate barriers and facilitators to change. Design of the iFraP intervention will be informed by decision aid development standards and theories of implementation, behaviour change, acceptability and medicines adherence. The principles of co-design will underpin all elements of the study through a dedicated iFraP community of practice including key stakeholders and patient advisory groups. In-practice testing of the prototype intervention will inform revisions ready for further testing in a subsequent pilot and feasibility randomised trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0559). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through national bodies and networks, publications and presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

researchregistry5041.

Preferences, satisfaction and decision-making processes in osteoporosis treatment: a systematic review of the literature

Aim: To synthesize information available in the literature on patients' preferences and satisfaction with osteoporosis treatment and their unmet needs on the treatment decision-making process. Materials & methods: Systematic literature review consulting international database and grey literature of articles published between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2019. Results: Nineteen publications were reviewed, 79% of them focused on evaluating the importance that patients attached to the mode and frequency of administration, adverse events and treatment efficacy. 21% of them provided information about treatment satisfaction and 26% regarding unmet needs on treatment-decision making process. Conclusion: Aligning treatment with patients' preferences, promoting physician-patient communication and identifying patients' concerns with treatment may contribute to improve treatment satisfaction and adherence and ultimately achieve the treatment goal.

Medication Non-adherence in Patients with Osteoporosis: Implications for Clinical Pharmacists and Osteoporosis Care Providers

Background:

Poor adherence to the prescribed therapy leads to low bone mineral density and enhance the development of osteoporosis complications and unnecessary hospitalization.

Objective:

To explore factors associated with medication non-adherence in patients with osteoporosis. Findings would help guide the development of future pharmaceutical care interventions aim at improving health outcomes for patients with osteoporosis.

Methods:

The study was conducted at an outpatient osteoporosis clinic at the Royal Medical Services Hospital. Variables including socio-demographics and medical factors were collected using medical records and custom-designed questionnaire. Medication adherence was assessed using the validated 4-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. Logistic regression was performed to develop a model with variables that best predicted medication non-adherence in patients with osteoporosis in Jordan.

Results:

A total of 296 patients participated in the study. Most of the study participants (72.3%) were found non-adherent. Patients were found less likely to adhere to the prescribed medications with each unit increase in the number of prescribed medications (OR = 2.503, CI = 1.103-5.680) and if they did not have a trust in the efficacy of the medications (OR = 5.544, CI = 0.990-31.058).

Conclusion:

Medication adherence for patients with osteoporosis has considered scope for improvement in Jordan. Simplifying dosage regimen in addition to taking patients’ preferences when selecting the medications should be taken into account in future interventions designed to improve health outcomes for patients with osteoporosis.

Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan

Decision aids (DAs) are evidence-based tools that support shared decision-making (SDM) implementation in practice; this study aimed to identify existing osteoporosis DAs and assess their quality and efficacy; and to gain feedback from a patient advisory group on findings and implications for further research. We searched multiple bibliographic databases to identify research studies from 2000 to 2019 and undertook an environmental scan (search conducted February 2019, repeated in March 2020). A pair of reviewers, working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, evaluated each trial's risk of bias, and conducted DA quality assessment using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Public contributors (patients and caregivers with experience of osteoporosis and fragility fractures) participated in discussion groups to review a sample of DAs, express preferences for a new DA, and discuss plans for development of a new DA. We identified 6 studies, with high or unclear risk of bias. Across included studies, use of an osteoporosis DA was reported to result in reduced decisional conflict compared with baseline, increased SDM, and increased accuracy of patients' perceived fracture risk compared with controls. Eleven DAs were identified, of which none met the full set of IPDAS criteria for certification for minimization of bias. Public contributors expressed preferences for encounter DAs that are individualized to patients' own needs and risk. Using a systematic review and environmental scan, we identified 11 decision aids to inform patient decisions about osteoporosis treatment and 6 studies evaluating their effectiveness. Use of decision aids increased accuracy of risk perception and shared decision-making but the decision aids themselves fail to comprehensively meet international quality standards and patient needs, underpinning the need for new DA development.

Autonomy begets adherence: decisions to start and persist with osteoporosis treatment after group medical consultation

Many individuals prescribed osteoporosis pharmacotherapy either do not start or do not persist with treatment. In this study, women who attended a group medical visit at an osteoporosis center which involved fracture risk assessment and focused on autonomous decision-making made treatment decisions with high confidence. Those who started pharmacotherapy were highly persistent.

PURPOSE

Adherence and persistence with osteoporosis pharmacotherapy is low, possibly reflecting lack of confidence in physicians' treatment recommendations. We evaluated treatment decisions, decisional confidence, and 12-month treatment adherence among women who attended a group bone health consultation that fostered autonomous decision-making.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed postmenopausal women referred to an osteoporosis clinic who chose to attend a group medical visit in lieu of one-on-one consultation. The group visit was facilitated by a specialist physician and nurse, involving estimation of 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk (using FRAX®) and extensive education regarding fracture consequences and potential advantages and disadvantages of pharmacotherapy. No direct advice was given by the specialist. Post-consult, participants made an autonomous decision regarding treatment intent and followed up with their family physician to enact their chosen plan. Intentions to initiate pharmacotherapy were assessed immediately post-consult. Treatment status and decisional confidence were evaluated 3 and 12 months later. Three-month treatment status was considered to reflect final treatment decision. Persistence was defined as proportion of participants on treatment at 3 months who remained treated at 12 months.

RESULTS

One hundred one women (mean (SD) age, 62.7 years (5.8); median (IQR) FRAX®, 10.7% (8.3-17.6)) participated. Immediately post-consult, 27 (26.7%) intended to initiate treatment. At 3 months, 23 (22.8%) were treated, and at 12 months, 21 (91.3%) remained persistent. Of 89 questionnaire respondents at 12 months, 85 (95.5%) reported confidence in their treatment decision.

CONCLUSION

When postmenopausal women are provided with individualized fracture risk estimates and enabled to make autonomous decisions regarding pharmacotherapy, ultimate decisions to receive treatment are made with confidence and result in high persistence at 12 months.

Outcome of osteoporosis evaluation, treatment, and follow-up in patients referred to a specialized outpatient clinic compared to patients in care of general practitioners

In Denmark, osteoporosis treatment is either handled by general practitioners or at more resource demanding specialist clinics. We evaluated the treatment adherence and persistence in the two settings, which were overall similar. The type of medical support did, however, differ and was provided to two very different patient populations.

PURPOSE

The study aimed to investigate the effect of patient care by general practitioners (GPs) or specialists on treatment adherence among osteoporosis patients initiating treatment with oral bisphosphonates (OB).

METHODS

Dual-energy X-ray absorption (DXA)-scanning data from 2005 to 2013 were extracted. Treatment naïve patients with a T-score ≤ - 2.5 (spine or hip) were included. Information on medical treatment, comorbidities, and socio-economic status was extracted from Danish registries. Scanning results were evaluated by a specialist. Subsequent treatment initiation and follow-up was either handled by GPs or specialists: GP population (GPP) vs. specialist population (SP). Primary adherence was defined as treatment initiating within 12 months from diagnosis and secondary adherence as days with medicine possession rates (MPR) > 80%.

RESULTS

Of 11,201 DXA-scanned patients, 3685 met the inclusion criteria (GPP = 2177, SP = 1508). The GPP consisted of relatively more men, was older, had shorter education, lower income, and more comorbidities. There was no difference in baseline T-score or prior incidence of major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs). The GPP was primarily treated with OB and had better primary adherence (adjusted OR_GPP/SP = 1.52 [1.31-1.75], p < 0.0001) than the SP that to a higher degree received another treatment. Secondary adherence was similar (adjusted OR_GPP/SP: OR_{12 months} = 1.02 [0.83-1.26]; OR_{24 months} = 0.90 [0.73-1.10]; OR_{4 years} = 0.88 [0.71-1.07]; OR_{5 years} = 0.91 [0.74-1.13].

CONCLUSION

Patients in care of specialists were most likely to receive a treatment other than OB. Primary adherence was highest in the GPP, whereas short- and long-term persistence was similar for up to 5 years whether treated by a specialist or a GP.

Declining trend in osteoporosis management and screening following vertebral compression fractures - a national analysis of commercial insurance and medicare advantage beneficiaries

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Despite the increasing national incidence, osteoporosis and its associated comanagement, often remain an overlooked issue in the orthopedic world. Screening and associated management of osteoporosis is often only considered by providers when patients present with multiple fragility fractures. Current evidence with regard to the trends in screening and medical comanagement/antiosteoporotic therapy of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) remains limited.

PURPOSE

To understand trends, costs, and clinical impact associated the utilization of antiosteoporotic medication and screening with the 1 year following occurrences of sentinel/primary osteoporotic VCFs.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review of 2008-2015Q3 Humana Administrative Claims (HAC) database.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The 2008-2015Q3 HAC database was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition (ICD-9) diagnosis codes 805.2 and 805.4 to identify patients with primary closed osteoporotic thoracolumbar VCFs. Patients with a concurrent diagnosis of trauma and/or malignancy were excluded. Patients experiencing a fragility fracture of the hip, distal radius or proximal humerus, and/or those already on osteoporotic medications within the year before the VCF were excluded to prevent an overlap in the screening and/or antiresorptive medication rates. Finally, only those patients who had complete 2-year follow-up data were analyzed.

OUTCOME MEASURES

To understand trends over time in the utilization of medication for osteoporosis and screening within 1 year following sentinel VCFs. The study also aimed to report per-prescription and per-patient average costs associated with different antiosteoporotic medications. As secondary objectives, we also assessed (1) risk factors associated with not receiving antiosteoporotic medication within the year following sentinel VCFs and (2) differences in rates of experiencing a secondary fragility fracture of vertebrae, hip, distal radius, and proximal humerus between patients who received medication following the sentinel VCF versus those who did not receive any medication.

RESULTS

A total of 6,464 primary osteoporotic VCFs were retrieved from the database. A majority of the VCFs were seen in females (N=5,199; 80.4%). Only 28.8% (N=1,860) patients received some form of medication for osteoporosis medication in the year following the VCF. Over a 6-year interval, treatment with medication for osteoporosis declined from 38% in 2008 to 24% in 2014. The average cost of antiosteoporotic treatment per patient was $1,511. The most commonly prescribed treatment and associated average cost/patient was alendronate sodium (N=1,239; 66.6% to $120/patient). The most costly prescribed treatment was Forteo (N=177; 2.7%) with an average cost/patient of $12,074 and cost/injection being $2,373. Only 36.7% (N=2,371) received a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry/bone density scan in the year following the VCF with an average cost/patient of $76. Risk factors associated with no prescription of medication for osteoporosis within 1 year of VCF were male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.17 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.01-1.35]; p=.027), history of cerebrovascular accident/stroke (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.08-2.32]; p=.022), history of diabetes mellitus (OR 1.28 [95% CI 1.04-1.58]; p=.023). Of note, patients in the West versus Midwest (OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.04-1.51]; p=.016) and commercial insurance beneficiaries (OR 1.95 [95% CI 1.08-3.52]; p=.027) were more likely to receive antiosteoporotic medication. Patients who were placed on antiosteoporotic medication were significantly less likely to suffer a second fragility fracture compared with patients that did not receive medication (OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.24-0.31]; p=.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients starting antiosteoporotic medication within a year after a VCF remains low (28.8%). Furthermore, a declining trend of antiosteoporotic medication prescription was noted over time. Providers who care for patients with sentinel VCFs need to be more diligent in their efforts to diagnose and treat the underlying osteoporosis to reduce the burden of future fragility fractures.

At Odds About the Odds: Women's Choices to Accept Osteoporosis Medications Do Not Closely Agree with Physician-Set Treatment Thresholds

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis guidelines recommend pharmacologic therapy based on 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture, which may fail to account for patient-specific experiences and values.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether patient decisions to initiate osteoporosis medication agree with guideline-recommended intervention thresholds.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective cohort study included women aged ≥ 45 with age-associated osteoporosis who attended a group osteoporosis self-management consultation at a tertiary osteoporosis center.

INTERVENTION

A group osteoporosis self-management consultation, during which participants received osteoporosis education and then calculated¹ their 10-year MOF and hip fracture risk using FRAX and² their predicted absolute fracture risk with therapy (assuming 40% relative reduction). Participants then made autonomous decisions regarding treatment initiation.

MAIN MEASURES

We evaluated agreement between treatment decisions and physician-set intervention thresholds (10-year MOF risk ≥ 20%, hip fracture risk ≥ 3%).

KEY RESULTS

Among 85 women (median [IQR] age 62 [58-67]), 27% accepted treatment (median [IQR] MOF risk, 15.1% [9.9-22.0]; hip fracture risk, 3.3% [1.3-5.3]), 46% declined (MOF risk, 9.5% [6.5-11.6]; hip fracture risk, 1.8% [0.6-2.3]), and 27% remained undecided (MOF risk, 14.0% [9.8-20.2]; hip fracture risk, 4.4% [1.7-4.9]). There was wide overlap in fracture risk between treatment acceptors and non-acceptors. Odds of accepting treatment were higher in women with prior fragility fracture (50% accepted; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.9-15.2; p = 0.0015) and with hip fracture risk ≥ 3% (32% accepted; OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.4-9.2; p = 0.012), but not MOF risk ≥ 20% (47% accepted; OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.0-8.5; p = 0.105).

CONCLUSIONS

Informed decisions to start osteoporosis treatment are highly personal and not easily predicted using fracture risk. Guideline-recommended intervention thresholds may not permit sufficient consideration of patient preferences.

A systematic review of factors affecting medication adherence among patients with osteoporosis

The aim of this review was to identify factors that influence patients' adherence to anti-osteoporotic therapy. Factors identified that were associated with poorer medication adherence included polypharmacy, older age, and misconceptions about osteoporosis. Physicians need to be aware of these factors so as to optimize therapeutic outcomes for patients.

INTRODUCTION

To identify factors that influence patients' adherence to anti-osteoporotic therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was performed for articles published up till January 2018 using PubMed®, PsychINFO®, Embase®, and CINAHL®. Peer-reviewed articles which examined factors associated with anti-osteoporotic medication adherence were included. Classes of anti-osteoporotic therapy included bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone-related analogue, denosumab, selective estrogen receptor modulators, estrogen/progestin therapy, calcitonin, and strontium ranelate. Meta-analyses, case reports/series, and other systematic reviews were excluded. Identified factors were classified using the World Health Organization's five dimensions of medication adherence (condition, patient, therapy, health-system, and socio-economic domains).

RESULTS

Of 2404 articles reviewed, 124 relevant articles were identified. The prevalence of medication adherence ranged from 12.9 to 95.4%. Twenty-four factors with 139 sub-factors were identified. Bisphosphonates were the most well-studied class of medication (n = 59, 48%). Condition-related factors that were associated with poorer medication adherence included polypharmacy, and history of falls was associated with higher medication adherence. Patient-related factors which were associated with poorer medication adherence included older age and misconceptions about osteoporosis while therapy-related factors included higher dosing frequency and medication side effects. Health system-based factors associated with poorer medication adherence included care under different medical specialties and lack of patient education. Socio-economic-related factors associated with poorer medication adherence included current smoker and lack of medical insurance coverage.

CONCLUSION

This review identified factors associated with poor medication adherence among osteoporotic patients. To optimize therapeutic outcomes for patients, clinicians need to be aware of the complexity of factors affecting medication adherence.

Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review

This systematic review identified patients have unmet information needs about the nature of osteoporosis, medication, self-management and follow-up. Clinician knowledge and attitudes appear to be of key importance in determining whether these needs are met. Unmet information needs appear to have psychosocial consequences and result in poor treatment adherence.

PURPOSE

Patient education is an integral component of the management of osteoporosis, yet patients are dissatisfied with the information they receive and see this as an area of research priority. This study aimed to describe and summarise the specific expressed information needs of patients in previously published qualitative research.

METHODS

Using terms relating to osteoporosis, fragility fracture and information needs, seven databases were searched. Articles were screened using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text articles selected for inclusion underwent data extraction and quality appraisal. Findings were drawn together using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

The search identified 11,024 articles. Sixteen empirical studies were included in the review. Thematic analysis revealed three overarching themes relating to specific information needs, factors influencing whether information needs are met and the impact of unmet information needs. Specific information needs identified included the following: the nature of osteoporosis/fracture risk; medication; self-management and understanding the role of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry and follow-up. Perceived physician knowledge and attitudes, and the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of patients were important factors in influencing whether information needs were met, in addition to contextual factors and the format of educational resources. Failure to elicit and address information needs appears to be associated with poor treatment adherence, deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship and important psychosocial consequences.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to describe the information needs of patients with osteoporosis and fracture, the impact of this information gap and possible solutions. Further research is needed to co-design and evaluate educational interventions with patients.