Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise.
Bisphosphonates
Osteoporosis
Research priorities
Stakeholder
Journal
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA
ISSN: 1433-2965
Titre abrégé: Osteoporos Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9100105
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
09
08
2022
accepted:
23
05
2023
medline:
21
9
2023
pubmed:
9
6
2023
entrez:
9
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37294333
doi: 10.1007/s00198-023-06806-7
pii: 10.1007/s00198-023-06806-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Diphosphonates
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1711-1718Informations de copyright
© 2023. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.
Références
Cooper C, Campion G, Melton LJ (1992) Hip fractures in the elderly: a world-wide projection. Osteoporos Int 2:285–289
doi: 10.1007/BF01623184
pubmed: 1421796
National Osteoporosis Society (2017) NHS RightCare scenario: the variation between sub-optimal and optimal pathways, 1–16. Available at https://www.england.nhs.uk/rightcare/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2017/02/rightcare-susans-story-app2.pdf . Accessed 13 Mar 2023
Harvey N, Dennison E, Cooper C (2010) Osteoporosis: impact on health and economics. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6:99–105
doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2009.260
pubmed: 20125177
National Institute for Health Care Excellence (2017) Bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis, Technology appraisal guidance (TA46) NICE Guidance. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta464 . Accessed 13 Mar 23
Hiligsmann M, Cornelissen D, Vrijens B et al (2019) Determinants, consequences and potential solutions to poor adherence to antiosteoporosis treatment: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for clinical and economic aspects of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal diseases (ESCEO) and the International osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). Osteoporos Int 30:2155–2165
doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05104-5
pubmed: 31388696
pmcid: 6811382
Khosla S, Shane E (2016) A crisis in the treatment of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 31:1485–1487
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2888
pubmed: 27335158
de Wit MP, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Croucher L, Da Silva JA, Glusing B, Gossec L, Hewlett S, Jongkees M, Magnusson D, Scholte-Voshaar M, Richards P, Ziegler C, Abma TA (2011) European league against rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Ann Rheum Dis 70:722–726
doi: 10.1136/ard.2010.135129
pubmed: 21257615
Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I (2015) Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involvement Engagement 1:1
Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jönsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Arch Osteoporos (2017) 12: 45 Page 7 of 8 45 Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. Arch Osteoporos 8:136
doi: 10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1
pubmed: 24113837
pmcid: 3880487
Cooper C (1997) The crippling consequences of fractures and their impact on quality of life. Am J Med 103:S12–S19
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)90022-X
Cochrane methods Priority Setting (2015) Top tips for research priority setting. Available at http://methods.cochrane.org/prioritysetting/top-tips-research-priority-setting-cochrane-vienna2015-workshop . Accessed 13 Mar 2023
Mahmood W, Jinks C, Jayakumar P, Gwilym S, Paskins Z (2016) 115 public priority setting for research in osteoporosis. Rheumatology 55:i109–i110
Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, Taylor R, Beech R, Dziedzic K, Blackburn S, Hughes R, Ong BN (2016) Patient and public involvement in primary care research-an example of ensuring its sustainability. Res Involvement Engagement 2:1
doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0015-1
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383:156–165
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1
pubmed: 24411644
Partridge N, Scadding J (2004) The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials. Lancet 364:1923–1924
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17494-1
pubmed: 15566996
Paskins Z, Jinks C, Mahmood W, Jayakumar P, Sangan CB, Belcher J, Gwilym S (2017) Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a general population survey. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):1–8
doi: 10.1007/s11657-017-0340-5
Cowan K, Oliver S (2020) James Lind Alliance (JLA) Guidebook, Chapter 1 The James Lind Alliance Guidebook Version 9. Available online: https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/downloads/JLA-Guidebook-V9-download-March-2020.pdf . Accessed 13 Mar 2023
Sahota O, Narayanasamy M, Bastounis A, Paskins Z, Bishop S, Langley T, Gittoes N, Davis S, Bailey A, Holmes M, Leonardi-Bee J. BLAST-OFF : bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures; a mixed methods study NIHR HTA. Available at https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR127550 . Accessed 13 Mar 2023
Paskins Z, Crawford-Manning F, Cottrell E et al (2020) Acceptability of bisphosphonates among patients, clinicians and managers: a systematic review and framework synthesis. BMJ Open 10:e040634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040634
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040634
pubmed: 33148763
pmcid: 7640526
Narayanasamy M et al (2022) Acceptability and engagement amongst patients on oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in older adults. Age Ageing 51(11):afa255. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afac255
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac255
Bastounis A, Langley T, Davis S et al (2022) (2022) Assessing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures: an updated systematic review and network meta-analyses. JBMR Plus. 6(5):e10620. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm4
doi: 10.1002/jbm4
pubmed: 35509636
pmcid: 9059468
Bastounis A, Langley T, Davis S et al (2022) Comparing medication adherence in patients receiving bisphosphonates for preventing fragility fractures: a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 33:1223–1233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06350-w
doi: 10.1007/s00198-022-06350-w
pubmed: 35188591
pmcid: 9106630
Richardson MS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J et al (1995) The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions 123:A12. https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12
doi: 10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12
Cowan K, Oliver S, James Lind Alliance (JLA) Guidebook, Chapter 7 Report on JLA PSP online priority setting workshop. Available at https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-lab/Report-on-JLA-PSP-online-priority-setting-workshops.pdf . Accessed 13 Mar 2023
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2008) Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. TAG 160. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/ta160 . Accessed 13 Mar 2023
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2008) Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. TAG 161. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/TA161 . Accessed 13 Mar 2023
Grossman JM, Gordon R, Ranganath VK, Deal C, Caplan L, Chen W, Curtis JR, Furst DE, McMahon M, Patkar NM (2010) American College of Rheumatology (2010) recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res 62:1515–1526
doi: 10.1002/acr.20295
Paskins Z, Babatunde O, Sturrock A, Toh L S, Horne R, Maidment I (2022) On behalf of the effectiveness working group of the royal osteoporosis society osteoporosis and bone research academy, Supporting patients to get the best from their osteoporosis treatment: a rapid realist review. Osteoporos Int 33:2245–2257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06453-4
Paskins Z, Bullock L, Crawford-Manning F et al (2021) Improving uptake of fracture prevention drug treatments: a protocol for development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D). BMJ Open 11:e048811. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048811
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048811
pubmed: 34408051
pmcid: 8375717
Cornelissen D, Boonen A, Evers S et al (2022) Improvement of osteoporosis Care Organized by Nurses: ICON study - protocol of a quasi-experimental study to assess the (cost)-effectiveness of combining a decision aid with motivational interviewing for improving medication persistence in patients with a recent fracture being treated at the fracture liaison service. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22:913. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04743-2
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04743-2
Sale J, Marwah A, Naeem F et al (2019) Evidence of patient beliefs, values, and preferences is not provided in osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines. Osteoporos Int 30:1325–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-04913-y
doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-04913-y
pubmed: 30859238
Hawarden A, Jinks C, Mahmood W, Bullock L, Blackburn S, Gwilym S, Paskins Z (2020) Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study. Arch Osteoporos. 15(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-00766-9
doi: 10.1007/s11657-020-00766-9
pubmed: 32548718
pmcid: 7297850