Impact of bone marker feedback on adherence to once monthly ibandronate for osteoporosis among Asian postmenopausal women

Scope of Outcomes in Trials and Observational Studies of Interventions Targeting Medication Adherence in Rheumatic Conditions: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Nonadherence to medications is common in rheumatic conditions and associated with increased morbidity. Heterogeneous outcome reporting by researchers compromises the synthesis of evidence of interventions targeting adherence. We aimed to assess the scope of outcomes in interventional studies of medication adherence.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases to February 2019 for published randomized controlled trials and observational studies of interventions with the primary outcome of medication adherence including adults with any rheumatic condition, written in English. We extracted and analyzed all outcome domains and adherence measures with prespecified extraction and analysis protocols.

RESULTS

Overall, 53 studies reported 71 outcome domains classified into adherence (1 domain), health outcomes (38 domains), and adherence-related factors (e.g., medication knowledge; 32 domains). We subdivided adherence into 3 phases: initiation (n = 13 studies, 25%), implementation (n = 32, 60%), persistence (n = 27, 51%), and phase unclear (n = 20, 38%). Thirty-seven different instruments reported adherence in 115 unique ways (this includes different adherence definitions and calculations, metric, and method of aggregation). Forty-one studies (77%) reported health outcomes. The most frequently reported were medication adverse events (n = 24, 45%), disease activity (n = 11, 21%), bone turnover markers/physical function/quality of life (each n = 10, 19%). Thirty-three studies (62%) reported adherence-related factors. The most frequently reported were medication beliefs (n = 8, 15%), illness perception/medication satisfaction/satisfaction with medication information (each n = 5, 9%), condition knowledge/medication knowledge/trust in doctor (each n = 3, 6%).

CONCLUSION

The outcome domains and adherence measures in interventional studies targeting adherence are heterogeneous. Consensus on relevant outcomes will improve the comparison of different strategies to support medication adherence in rheumatology.

The Effects of Feedback on Adherence to Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of RCTs

CONTEXT

The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether providing feedback, guided by subjective or objective measures of adherence, improves adherence to treatment.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, and reference lists of retrieved articles. Only RCTs comparing the effect of feedback on adherence outcome were included. Three independent reviewers extracted data for all potentially eligible studies using an adaptation of the Cochrane Library data extraction sheet. The primary outcome, change in adherence, was obtained by measuring the difference between adherence at baseline visit (prior to feedback) and at the last visit (post-feedback).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic review, and 16 found a significant improvement in adherence in the intervention group (change in adherence range, -13% to +22%), whereas adherence worsened in the control group (change in adherence range, -32% to 10.2%). Meta-analysis included six studies, and the pooled effect showed that mean percentage adherence increased by 10.02% (95% CI=3.15%, 16.89%, p=0.004) more between baseline and follow-up in the intervention groups compared with control groups. Meta-regression confirmed that study quality, form of monitoring adherence, delivery of feedback, or study duration did not influence effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback guided by objective or subjective measures of adherence improves adherence and, perhaps more importantly, prevents worsening of adherence over time even when only small absolute improvements in adherence were noted. Increased use of feedback to improve treatment adherence has the potential to reduce avoidable healthcare costs caused by non-adherence.

Interventions for enhancing medication adherence

BACKGROUND

People who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of interventions intended to enhance patient adherence to prescribed medications for medical conditions, on both medication adherence and clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest) on 11 January 2013 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included unconfounded RCTs of interventions to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and clinical outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive findings at earlier time points.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Pooling results according to one of these characteristics still leaves highly heterogeneous groups, and we could not justify meta-analysis. Instead, we conducted a qualitative analysis with a focus on the RCTs with the lowest risk of bias for study design and the primary clinical outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

The present update included 109 new RCTs published since the previous update in January 2007, bringing the total number of RCTs to 182; we found five RCTs from the previous update to be ineligible and excluded them. Studies were heterogeneous for patients, medical problems, treatment regimens, adherence interventions, and adherence and clinical outcome measurements, and most had high risk of bias. The main changes in comparison with the previous update include that we now: 1) report a lack of convincing evidence also specifically among the studies with the lowest risk of bias; 2) do not try to classify studies according to intervention type any more, due to the large heterogeneity; 3) make our database available for collaboration on sub-analyses, in acknowledgement of the need to make collective advancement in this difficult field of research. Of all 182 RCTs, 17 had the lowest risk of bias for study design features and their primary clinical outcome, 11 from the present update and six from the previous update. The RCTs at lowest risk of bias generally involved complex interventions with multiple components, trying to overcome barriers to adherence by means of tailored ongoing support from allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered intense education, counseling (including motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioral therapy by professionals) or daily treatment support (or both), and sometimes additional support from family or peers. Only five of these RCTs reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common intervention characteristics were apparent. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence or clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Across the body of evidence, effects were inconsistent from study to study, and only a minority of lowest risk of bias RCTs improved both adherence and clinical outcomes. Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. The research in this field needs advances, including improved design of feasible long-term interventions, objective adherence measures, and sufficient study power to detect improvements in patient-important clinical outcomes. By making our comprehensive database available for sharing we hope to contribute to achieving these advances.

PINP as a biological response marker during teriparatide treatment for osteoporosis

Postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis may require treatment with the bone anabolic drug teriparatide. While changes in bone mineral density (BMD) are one measure of response, BMD changes often require a minimum of one year to observe measureable changes. Biochemical markers of bone turnover change within 1 to 3 months of initiating osteoporosis therapy. Monitoring with a marker such as procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP), an osteoblast-derived protein, during teriparatide treatment may provide clinically useful information for managing patients with osteoporosis. Clinical trials have shown consistent increases in PINP within 3 months of initiating teriparatide, increases that are significantly greater than placebo and significantly different from baseline. Increases in PINP concentrations during teriparatide treatment correlate well with increases in skeletal activity assessed by radioisotope bone scans and quantitative bone histomorphometry parameters. Individuals treated with teriparatide in clinical trials usually experienced an increase in PINP > 10 mcg/L from baseline, while those given placebo usually did not. In the clinical setting, patients experiencing a significant increase in PINP > 10 mcg/L after initiating teriparatide therapy may receive an earlier confirmation of anabolic effect, while those who do not may be assessed for adherence, proper injection technique, or undetected secondary conditions that might mitigate an anabolic response. PINP monitoring may provide information supplemental to BMD monitoring and be a useful aid in managing patients receiving anabolic osteoporosis treatment in the same way that biochemical markers of bone resorption are useful in monitoring antiresorptive therapy. This review examines PINP as a biological response marker during teriparatide treatment for osteoporosis.

Use of bone turnover markers in clinical practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the modalities and interest of the use of bone turnover markers (BTMs) in clinical practice for osteoporosis management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide and serum collagen type I crosslinked C-telopeptide are respectively the formation and resorption markers recommended to use as references for bone remodelling assessment in clinical studies.

SUMMARY

Biochemical BTMs reflect changes in bone metabolism. In clinical practice, many factors influencing BTMs, variability needs to be integrated during all of the dosage process. They include sample collection and storage conditions, patient's characteristics and lifestyle habits, recent fracture. The reference intervals are also affected by the type of automated assays used to assess BTMs. Appropriate references measured with the same assay method must be used for the optimum interpretation of results. BTMs have been extensively used as indicators in the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis. However, their interest was mainly demonstrated to reflect changes in bone metabolism under antiosteoporotic treatments in clinical studies. Significant reductions in BTMs associated with fracture risk reduction needs to be determined in the management of osteoporosis. The standardization of BTMs, assays with international reference standards should provide conditions to state on the applications of BTMs in routine clinical practice.