Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients with very high risk of fracture.
anabolic agents
fracture risk
osteoporosis
perceptions
romosozumab
Journal
Internal medicine journal
ISSN: 1445-5994
Titre abrégé: Intern Med J
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101092952
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Dec 2023
29 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
24
10
2023
accepted:
30
11
2023
medline:
2
1
2024
pubmed:
2
1
2024
entrez:
30
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
International osteoporosis guidelines have recommended treatment approaches based on fracture risk stratification, in particular, anabolic therapy for patients with very high risk (VHR) of fragility fracture. To summarise Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients at VHR of fracture. Australian clinicians invited to educational webinars on anabolic treatments for osteoporosis were surveyed in March and April 2021 about a typical patient they had most recently seen and identified as at VHR of fracture. Of the 268 clinician attendees who were invited to complete the post-webinar surveys, 67 (25%) responded and permitted the publication of aggregated data. A typical patient perceived to have a VHR of fracture was a woman in her 1980s, living at home, who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis between 5 and 10 years ago, and received treatment for 1-5 years' duration, most commonly denosumab. The patient frequently had a T-score below -3.0 SD (standard deviation), multiple fragility fractures and most commonly suffered a vertebral fracture in the past 12 months, whereas on an adequate regimen of osteoporosis medication. There was a mismatch between the patient being eligible for anabolic therapy (64.2%) and actually having been prescribed an anabolic treatment in the past (20.9%). Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients with a VHR of fracture and the use of anabolic agents appear to be heavily influenced by local reimbursement criteria. The mismatch between patients deemed eligible for reimbursed anabolic therapy and those prescribed an anabolic agent suggests treatment inertia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
International osteoporosis guidelines have recommended treatment approaches based on fracture risk stratification, in particular, anabolic therapy for patients with very high risk (VHR) of fragility fracture.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To summarise Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients at VHR of fracture.
METHODS
METHODS
Australian clinicians invited to educational webinars on anabolic treatments for osteoporosis were surveyed in March and April 2021 about a typical patient they had most recently seen and identified as at VHR of fracture.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 268 clinician attendees who were invited to complete the post-webinar surveys, 67 (25%) responded and permitted the publication of aggregated data. A typical patient perceived to have a VHR of fracture was a woman in her 1980s, living at home, who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis between 5 and 10 years ago, and received treatment for 1-5 years' duration, most commonly denosumab. The patient frequently had a T-score below -3.0 SD (standard deviation), multiple fragility fractures and most commonly suffered a vertebral fracture in the past 12 months, whereas on an adequate regimen of osteoporosis medication. There was a mismatch between the patient being eligible for anabolic therapy (64.2%) and actually having been prescribed an anabolic treatment in the past (20.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients with a VHR of fracture and the use of anabolic agents appear to be heavily influenced by local reimbursement criteria. The mismatch between patients deemed eligible for reimbursed anabolic therapy and those prescribed an anabolic agent suggests treatment inertia.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Physicians.
Références
Watts JJ, Abimanyi-Ochom J, Sanders KM. Osteoporosis Costing all Australians - A New Burden of Disease Analysis 2012 to 2022. Osteoporosis Australia; 2013.
Camacho PM, Petak SM, Binkley N, Diab DL, Eldeiry LS, Farooki A et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis - 2020 update. Endocr Pract 2020; 26: 1-46.
Shoback D, Rosen CJ, Black DM, Cheung AM, Murad MH, Eastell R. Pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: an Endocrine Society guideline update. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 105: dgaa048.
Kanis JA, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Bruyère O, Veronese N, Lorentzon M et al. Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2020; 31: 1-12.
Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, Binkley N, Czerwinski E, Ferrari S et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1532-1543.
Saag KG, Petersen J, Brandi ML, Karaplis AC, Lorentzon M, Thomas T et al. Romosozumab or alendronate for fracture prevention in women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1417-1427.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. PBS Criteria for Treatment. Available from URL: https://www.pbs.gov.au
Commonwealth of Australia. The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Canberra; 2007 (updated 2015).
Johansson H, Siggeirsdottir K, Harvey NC, Odén A, Gudnason V, McCloskey E et al. Imminent risk of fracture after fracture. Osteoporos Int 2017; 28: 775-780.
Roux S, Gaboury I, Gionet-Landry N, Garant MP, Beaulieu MC, Carrier N et al. Using a sequential explanatory mixed method to evaluate the therapeutic window of opportunity for initiating osteoporosis treatment following fragility fractures. Osteoporos Int 2018; 29: 961-971.
Balasubramanian A, Zhang J, Chen L, Wenkert D, Daigle SG, Grauer A et al. Risk of subsequent fracture after prior fracture among older women. Osteoporos Int 2019; 30: 79-92.
van Geel TA, van Helden S, Geusens PP, Winkens B, Dinant GJ. Clinical subsequent fractures cluster in time after first fractures. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68: 99-102.
Cosman F, Nieves JW, Dempster DW. Treatment sequence matters: anabolic and antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2017; 32: 198-202.
Khunti S, Khunti K, Seidu S. Therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes: prevalence, causes, consequences and methods to overcome inertia. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab 2019; 10: 2042018819844694.
Australian Government. Medicare Australia Dataset up to Oct 2020 Extrapolated (2020/MI8392), received 12/20.