Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis

Healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of osteoporosis medication treatment: a qualitative systematic review

This systematic review aimed to explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences and perspectives of osteoporosis medication treatment through thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. We found themes about how osteoporosis is perceived as a disease, treatment decision-making and what empowers HCPs to provide the best possible care.

PURPOSE

The systematic review aimed to describe the perspectives and experiences of HCPs regarding osteoporosis medication treatment.

METHODS

We performed searches in four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL) from database inception until May 2023 in any language. Data was analysed through inductive thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

We included 27 primary studies that incorporated the views of 495 different HCPs. The following themes were identified: low-priority disease, challenges in treatment decision-making, minimising drug burden, conscious of communication barriers, fragmented care and advice, confidence through experience and collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs were enthusiastic about optimising osteoporosis care through interprofessional collaboration and expertise, as well as educating and monitoring patients on treatment. They advocated for safety, comfort and reducing overall drug burden, especially in older patients with comorbidities. However, they had differences in opinions regarding who has responsibility for diagnosing and treating osteoporosis and struggled to provide the best possible care due to competing priorities, limited time and lack of adequate knowledge or evidence. The findings highlight the important and complementary role of different HCPs in osteoporosis treatment through a multidisciplinary model of care.

Nocebo-associated treatment discontinuation with subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs. A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in randomized-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Nocebo is a concept of therapeutics referring to unpleasant symptoms attributed by a patient to a drug, due to negative anticipation. Patients receiving oral anti-osteoporotic drugs in randomized controlled trials (RCT) can experience adverse events leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment discontinuation for these drugs. In this study we aim to investigate the nocebo effect of subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs with a higher compliance rate than orally administered drugs.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for double-blind trials investigating subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs for osteoporosis (namely, denosumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide and romosozumab) published up to May 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms ("nocebo dropouts").

RESULTS

Data from 17 trials were extracted. Among 10,529 placebo-treated patients the pooled nocebo-dropout percentage was 3 % for denosumab (average: 0.03; 95 % CI: 0.01-0.05), 1 % for romosozumab (average: 0.01; 95 % CI: 0.00-0.03) and 6 % for teriparatide and abaloparatide (average: 0.06; 95 % CI: 0.05-0.07). Nocebo-dropouts were significantly higher in men than women (6 % vs. 3 %, respectively, p = 0.012), in older (mean age >68 years) than in younger patients (5 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.017) and in those with more severe osteoporosis (based on the percentage of participants with prior fragility-related fractures in the study cohort) compared with patients with no prior fracture history (4 % vs. 1 %, respectively, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

Nocebo responses may contribute to treatment discontinuation with subcutaneous anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice. Higher nocebo-related dropout rates in the higher-risk RCT population (older patients, males, those with prior fractures) show that nocebo mechanisms have the potential to hinder therapeutic efforts to specific populations who would benefit most. Prospero registration number CRD42020212843.

Effectiveness, acceptability, and completeness and quality of intervention reporting of psychological interventions for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Mental health difficulties such as anxiety and depression have negative impacts on psychological well-being and are common in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. However, access to psychological treatments is limited. This mixed-method systematic review will: (1) examine the effectiveness of psychological interventions to improve mental health and psychological well-being in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment; (2) examine the effectiveness of these psychological interventions to improve mental health and psychological well-being in informal caregivers; (3) examine potential clinical and methodological moderators associated with effectiveness; (4) explore factors associated with the acceptability of psychological interventions from the perspective of key stakeholders; and (5) examine the completeness and quality of intervention reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Electronic databases (ASSIA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and MEDLINE) will be systematically searched and supplemented with expert contact, reference and citation checking, and grey literature searches. If possible, we will conduct a meta-analysis to examine the overall effectiveness of psychological interventions to improve mental health and psychological well-being in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their informal caregivers; and examine potential clinical and methodological moderators associated with effectiveness. We will conduct a deductive framework synthesis, informed by the theoretical framework of acceptability, to explore factors associated with the acceptability of psychological interventions from the perspective of key stakeholders. In accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance, we will adopt a convergent segregated approach to data synthesis and integration of quantitative and qualitative findings. We will examine the completeness and quality of intervention reporting according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist and guide.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No primary data will be collected, and therefore, ethical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, academic conferences, and plain language summaries.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023400514.

Understanding patient views and acceptability of predictive software in osteoporosis identification

INTRODUCTION

Research into patient and public views on predictive software and its use in healthcare is relatively new. This study aimed to understand older adults' acceptability of an opportunistic bone density assessment for osteoporosis diagnosis (IBEX BH), views on its integration into healthcare, and views on predictive software and AI in healthcare.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with participants aged over 50 years, based in South West England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Analysis was informed by the theoretical framework of acceptability.

RESULTS

Two focus groups were undertaken with a total of 14 participants. Overall, the participants were generally positive about the IBEX BH software, and predictive software's in general stating 'it sounds like a brilliant idea'. Although participants did not understand the intricacies of the software, they did not feel they needed to. Concerns about IBEX BH focussed more on the clinical indications of the software (e.g. more scans or medications), with participants expressing less trust in results if they indicated medication. Questions were also raised about how and who would receive the results of this software. Individual choice was evident in these discussions, however most indicated the preferences for spoken communication 'But I would expect that these results would be given by a human to another human.'

CONCLUSIONS

Focus group participants were generally accepting of the use of predictive software in healthcare.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Thought and care needs to be taken when integrating predictive software into practice. Focusses on empowering patients, providing information on processes and results are key.

Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise

PURPOSE

Worldwide, many people who would benefit from osteoporosis drugs are not offered or receiving them, resulting in an osteoporosis care gap. Adherence with bisphosphonates is particularly low. This study aimed to identify stakeholder research priorities relating to bisphosphonate treatment regimens for prevention of osteoporotic fractures.

METHODS

A three-step approach based on the James Lind Alliance methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions was used. Research uncertainties were gathered from a large programme of related research studies about bisphosphonate regimens and from recent published international clinical guidelines. Clinical and public stakeholders refined the list of uncertainties into research questions. The third step prioritised the questions using a modified nominal group technique.

RESULTS

In total, 34 draft uncertainties were finalised into 33 research questions by stakeholders. The top 10 includes questions relating to which people should be offered intravenous bisphosphonates first line (1); optimal duration of treatment (2); the role of bone turnover markers in treatment breaks (3); support patient need for medicine optimisation (4); support primary care practitioner need regarding bisphosphonates (5); comparing zoledronate given in community vs hospital settings (6); ensuring quality standards are met (7); the long-term model of care (8); best bisphosphonate for people aged under 50 (9); and supporting patient decision-making about bisphosphonates (10).

CONCLUSION

This study reports, for the first time, topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate osteoporosis treatment regimens. These findings have implications for research into implementation to address the care gap and education of healthcare professionals. Using James Lind Alliance methodology, this study reports prioritised topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis. The priorities address how to better implement guidelines to address the care gap, understanding patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, and how to optimise long-term care.

Drug utilization analysis of osteoporosis medications in seven European electronic health databases

We studied the characteristics of patients prescribed osteoporosis medication and patterns of use in European databases. Patients were mostly female, older, had hypertension. There was suboptimal persistence particularly for oral medications. Our findings would be useful to healthcare providers to focus their resources on improving persistence to specific osteoporosis treatments.

PURPOSE

To characterise the patients prescribed osteoporosis therapy and describe the drug utilization patterns.

METHODS

We investigated the treatment patterns of bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) in seven European databases in the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, and Germany. In this cohort study, we included adults aged ≥ 18 years, with ≥ 1 year of registration in the respective databases, who were new users of the osteoporosis medications. The study period was between 01 January 2018 to 31 January 2022.

RESULTS

Overall, patients were most commonly initiated on alendronate. Persistence decreased over time across all medications and databases, ranging from 52-73% at 6 months to 29-53% at 12 months for alendronate. For other oral bisphosphonates, the proportion of persistent users was 50-66% at 6 months and decreased to 30-44% at 12 months. For SERMs, the proportion of persistent users at 6 months was 40-73% and decreased to 25-59% at 12 months. For parenteral treatment groups, the proportions of persistence with denosumab were 50-85% (6 month), 30-63% (12 month) and with teriparatide 40-75% (6 month) decreasing to 21-54% (12 month). Switching occurred most frequently in the alendronate group (2.8-5.8%) and in the teriparatide group (7.1-14%). Switching typically occurred in the first 6 months and decreased over time. Patients in the alendronate group most often switched to other oral or intravenous bisphosphonates and denosumab.

CONCLUSION

Our results show suboptimal persistence to medications that varied across different databases and treatment switching was relatively rare.

Clinicians' views of prescribing oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments.

METHODS

This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation.

RESULTS

The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices.

CONCLUSION

Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

BONEcheck: A digital tool for personalized bone health assessment

Objectives

Osteoporotic fracture is a significant public health burden associated with increased mortality risk and substantial healthcare costs. Accurate and early identification of high-risk individuals and mitigation of their risks is a core part of the treatment and prevention of fractures. Here we introduce a digital tool called 'BONEcheck' for personalized assessment of bone health.

Methods

The development of BONEcheck primarily utilized data from the prospective population-based Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study and the Danish Nationwide Registry. BONEcheck has 3 modules: input data, risk estimates, and risk context. Input variables include age, gender, prior fracture, fall incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), comorbidities, and genetic variants associated with BMD.

Results

Based on the input variables, BONEcheck estimates the probability of any fragility fracture and hip fracture within 5 years, subsequent fracture risk, skeletal age, and time to reach osteoporosis. The probability of fracture is shown in both numeric and human icon array formats. The risk is also contextualized within the framework of treatment and management options on Australian guidelines, with consideration given to the potential fracture risk reduction and survival benefits. Skeletal age was estimated as the sum of chronological age and years of life lost due to a fracture or exposure to risk factors that elevate mortality risk.

Conclusions

BONEcheck is an innovative tool that empowers doctors and patients to engage in well-informed discussions and make decisions based on the patient's risk profile. Public access to BONEcheck is available via https://bonecheck.org and in Apple Store (iOS) and Google Play (Android).

Incorporating FRAX into a nurse-delivered integrated care review: a multi-method qualitative study

BACKGROUND

People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs) are at increased risk of common comorbidities including osteoporosis.

AIM

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of implementing nurse-delivered fracture risk assessments in primary care, in the context of multimorbidity reviews for people with IRCs.

DESIGN & SETTING

A multi-method qualitative study in primary care.

METHOD

As part of a process evaluation in a pilot trial, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients, two nurses, and three GPs. Twenty-four patient-nurse INCLUDE review consultations were audiorecorded and transcribed. A framework analysis was conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

Nurses reported positive views about the value of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and they felt confident to deliver the assessments following training. Barriers to implementation, as identified by TDF, particularly related to the domains of knowledge, skills, professional roles, and environmental context. GPs reported difficulty keeping up to date with osteoporosis guidelines and voiced differing opinions about whether fracture risk assessment was the role of primary or secondary care. Lack of integration of FRAX into IT systems was a barrier to use. GPs and nurses had differing views about the nurse role in communicating risk and acting on FRAX findings; for example, explanations of the FRAX result and action needed were limited. Patients reported limited understanding of FRAX outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that, with appropriate training including risk communication, practice nurses are likely to be confident to play a key role in conducting fracture risk assessments, but further work is needed to address the barriers identified.

Pharmaceutical treatment of bone loss: From animal models and drug development to future treatment strategies

Animal models are fundamental to advance our knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology of bone loss and to study pharmaceutical countermeasures against it. The animal model of post-menopausal osteoporosis from ovariectomy is the most widely used preclinical approach to study skeletal deterioration. However, several other animal models exist, each with unique characteristics such as bone loss from disuse, lactation, glucocorticoid excess, or exposure to hypobaric hypoxia. The present review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of these animal models to emphasize the importance and significance of investigating bone loss and pharmaceutical countermeasures from perspectives other than post-menopausal osteoporosis only. Hence, the pathophysiology and underlying cellular mechanisms involved in the various types of bone loss are different, and this might influence which prevention and treatment strategies are the most effective. In addition, the review sought to map the current landscape of pharmaceutical countermeasures against osteoporosis with an emphasis on how drug development has changed from being driven by clinical observations and enhancement or repurposing of existing drugs to today's use of targeted anti-bodies that are the result of advanced insights into the underlying molecular mechanisms of bone formation and resorption. Moreover, new treatment combinations or repurposing opportunities of already approved drugs with a focus on dabigatran, parathyroid hormone and abaloparatide, growth hormone, inhibitors of the activin signaling pathway, acetazolamide, zoledronate, and romosozumab are discussed. Despite the considerable progress in drug development, there is still a clear need to improve treatment strategies and develop new pharmaceuticals against various types of osteoporosis. The review also highlights that new treatment indications should be explored using multiple animal models of bone loss in order to ensure a broad representation of different types of skeletal deterioration instead of mainly focusing on primary osteoporosis from post-menopausal estrogen deficiency.

Acceptability and engagement amongst patients on oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in older adults

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is common in older adults leading to fragility fractures at enormous individual and economic cost. Improving long-term adherence with bisphosphonate treatments reduces fracture risk, but adherence rates for first-line oral bisphosphonate alendronate remains low. Although alternative treatment regimens, including annual intravenous infusions are available, patient acceptability remains unclear. Therefore, understanding patients' acceptability and engagement in different bisphosphonate regimens is important to ensure optimal treatment benefits.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 78 patients with a mean age of 69.9 years, who had taken or received bisphosphonates for osteoporosis within the last 24 months. Data analysis included iterative categorisation and used the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) to compare the acceptability of treatments regimens.

RESULTS

Treatment acceptability and engagement were influenced by the extent to which patients understood the prescribed treatment, and evidence of the treatment working. Acceptability and engagement were compromised when treatment was perceived as burdensome, personal costs were incurred, and patients' values were incompatible with the regimen. The balancing of these factors contributed to patients' ability to cope with the treatment and their emotional responses. Intravenous treatment was generally perceived as easier to understand, more effective, less burdensome with fewer opportunity costs, and a preferable regimen compared with oral bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual intravenous zoledronate bisphosphonate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients, perceived as more straightforward to engage in, although a small portion of patients on oral bisphosphonates were satisfied with treatment. Further research is needed to identify how acceptability and engagement can be optimised.

Effective Communication and the Osteoporosis Care Gap

Many pharmacological treatments are now available to prevent the occurrence of fragility fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Despite this, concerns persist that many individuals who might benefit from osteoporosis treatment do not receive it-the "osteoporosis treatment gap." The underlying reasons for this gap are diverse and include those who are not identified as being eligible for treatment as well as those who intentionally choose not to take medications because of uncertainty, unanswered questions, or an inability to understand or do what is being asked of them. In this perspective article we highlight the importance of providing information on the causes and consequences of osteoporosis during encounters when treatment is being discussed as well as what osteoporosis treatment can achieve and what it cannot. We also review the importance of communicating the benefits and risks of treatment in absolute terms so that patients can understand what taking treatment will mean for them and discuss the utility of decision aids to assist in these conversations. We suggest it is not the treatment gap that is the problem but the care gap. This language acknowledges the importance of healthcare providers identifying those likely to benefit from treatment and increasing the quality of clinical conversations to promote patient engagement and involvement while respecting that treatment is not suitable or wanted by all. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review of what works, for whom, and in what circumstance

Systematic reviews that examine effectiveness of interventions to improve medicines optimisation do not explain how or why they work. This realist review identified that interventions which effectively optimise medicines use in osteoporosis include opportunities to address patients' perceptions of illness and treatment and/or support primary care clinician decision making.

INTRODUCTION

In people with osteoporosis, adherence to medicines is poorer than other diseases and patients report follow-up is lacking, and multiple unmet information needs. We conducted a rapid realist review to understand what contextual conditions and mechanisms enable interventions to support osteoporosis medication optimisation.

METHODS

A primary search identified observational or interventional studies which aimed to improve medicines adherence or optimisation; a supplementary second search identified research of any design to gain additional insights on emerging findings. Extracted data was interrogated for patterns of context-mechanism-outcome configurations, further discussed in team meetings, informed by background literature and the Practicalities and Perception Approach as an underpinning conceptual framework.

RESULTS

We identified 5 contextual timepoints for the person with osteoporosis (identifying a problem; starting medicine; continuing medicine) and the practitioner and healthcare system (making a diagnosis and giving a treatment recommendation; reviewing medicine). Interventions which support patient-informed decision making appear to influence long-term commitment to treatment. Supporting patients' practical ability to adhere (e.g. by lowering treatment burden and issuing reminders) only appears to be helpful, when combined with other approaches to address patient beliefs and concerns. However, few studies explicitly addressed patients' perceptions of illness and treatment. Supporting primary care clinician decision making and integration of primary and secondary care services also appears to be important, in improving rates of treatment initiation and adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a need for further research to identify a sustainable, integrated, patient-centred, and cost- and clinically effective model of long-term care for people with osteoporosis.

A Qualitative Study to Assess US Patient Preferences between new Transdermal System and Injectable Anabolic Therapies for Osteoporosis Treatment

US patients with osteoporosis included in three focus groups identified efficacy, safety, cost, and convenience as important attributes of treatment when choosing between anabolic therapies with high stated preference for the solid Microstructured Transdermal System.

OBJECTIVE

The current study evaluated patient perspective and relative importance of treatment attributes of in-home daily self-administration of abaloparatide-solid Microstructured Transdermal System (sMTS) compared with other anabolic agents (i.e. in-home daily subcutaneous self-injections, and monthly subcutaneous injections at doctor office) among a group of US patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

The current study included systematic literature reviews, experts' consultation and three online patients focus groups (n=27), including patients ≥50 years of age at high risk for fracture. Nominal Group Technique was used by asking patients to (1) Individually identify characteristics that would be important for them when choosing between anabolic treatments, (2) Share ideas and discuss perspectives with other patients, (3) Review additional attributes generated from a systematic literature review, (4) Select and rank individually the 7 most important characteristics from the list and (5) Report their acceptability and stated preference ranking between the three treatment options.

RESULTS

Twenty women and 7 men with a mean age of 65 (range 51-85 years) participated in the focus groups. Twenty-four treatment characteristics were identified through focus groups and literature review. Efficacy, safety, out-of-pocket costs, strength of evidence and the option to self-administer were ranked as the most important attributes. The majority of patients stated preference for a daily sMTS if prescribed by their doctor.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that efficacy, safety, costs, and convenience are important attributes of osteoporosis treatment for US patients at high risk for fractures when choosing between anabolic therapies, with a high stated preference for sMTS.

Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice

Background

Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled.

Results

Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants’ attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication.

Conclusions

Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05273-1.

Healthcare professionals’ perceptions on barriers and facilitators to DMARD use in rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. However, the full benefits of DMARDs are often not realized because many patients are sub-optimally adherent to their medication. In order to optimize adherence, it is essential that healthcare professionals (HCPs) understand patients’ barriers and facilitators for medication use. Insight in these barriers and facilitators may foster the dialogue about adequate medication use between HCPs and patients. What HCPs perceive as barriers and facilitators has, so far, scarcely been investigated. This study aimed to identify the perceptions of HCPs on patients’ barriers and facilitators that might influence their adherence.

Methods

This qualitative study was performed using semi structured in-depth interviews with HCPs. An interview guide was used, based on an adjusted version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Thematic analysis was conducted to identify factors that influence barriers and facilitators to DMARD use according to HCPs.

Results

Fifteen HCPs (5 rheumatologists, 5 nurses and 5 pharmacists) were interviewed. They mentioned a variety of factors that, according to their perceptions, influence DMARD adherence in patients with RA. Besides therapy-related factors, such as (onset of) medication effectiveness and side-effects, most variation was found within patient-related factors and reflected patients’ beliefs, ways of coping, and (self-management) skills toward medication and their condition. In addition, factors related to the condition (e.g., level of disease activity), healthcare team and system (e.g., trust in HCP), and social and economic context (e.g. support, work shifts) were reported.

Conclusions

This study provided insights in HCPs’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to DMARD use patients with RA. Most factors that were mentioned were patient-related and potentially modifiable. When physicians understand patients’ perceptions on medication use, adherence to DMARDs can probably be optimized in patients with RA leading to more effectiveness of treatment outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07459-0.

Fragility fractures and prescriptions of medications for osteoporosis in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: results from the PMR Cohort Study

Objectives

PMR is a common indication for long-term glucocorticoid treatment, leading to an increased risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures. Guidelines recommend calcium and vitamin D for all patients, in addition to anti-resorptive agents for high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to investigate falls and fragility fracture history and the use of medications for osteoporosis in a PMR cohort.

Methods

Six hundred and fifty-two people with incident PMR responded to a postal survey. Self-reported data on falls, fragility fracture history and medication were collected at baseline. Follow-up data on fragility fractures (hip, wrist and spine) and falls were collected at 12 and 24 months. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between baseline characteristics and fractures.

Results

Fewer than 50% of respondents received osteoporosis treatments, including supplements. One hundred and twelve (17.2%) participants reported a fragility fracture at baseline, 72 participants reported a fracture at 12 months, and 62 reported a fracture at 24 months. Baseline history of falls was most strongly associated with fracture at 12 (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI: 1.35, 4.12) and 24 months (1.91; 1.05, 3.49) when unadjusted for previous fractures.

Conclusion

Fracture reporting is common in people with PMR. To improve fracture prevention, falls assessment and interventions need to be considered. A history of falls could help to inform prescribing decisions around medications for osteoporosis. Future research should consider both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to reducing fracture risk.

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.

Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention

Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation.

PURPOSE

The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the 'model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation' within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study.

METHODS

A Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was 'essential' and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content.

RESULTS

Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.