Summary
This scorecard summarises key indicators of the burden of osteoporosis and its management in the 27 member states of the European Union, as well as the UK and Switzerland. The resulting ...scorecard elements, assembled on a single sheet, provide a unique overview of osteoporosis in Europe.
Introduction
The scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe (SCOPE) is a project of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) that seeks to raise awareness of osteoporosis care in Europe. The aim of this project was to develop a scorecard and background documents to draw attention to gaps and inequalities in the provision of primary and secondary prevention of fractures due to osteoporosis.
Methods
The SCOPE panel reviewed the information available on osteoporosis and the resulting fractures for each of the 27 countries of the European Union plus the UK and Switzerland (termed EU27+2). The information obtained covered four domains: background information (e.g. the burden of osteoporosis and fractures), policy framework, service provision and service uptake, e.g. the proportion of men and women at high risk that do not receive treatment (the treatment gap).
Results
There was a marked difference in fracture risk among the EU27+2 countries. Of concern was the marked heterogeneity in the policy framework, service provision and service uptake for osteoporotic fracture that bore little relation to the fracture burden. For example, despite the wide availability of treatments to prevent fractures, in the majority of the EU27+2, only a minority of patients at high risk receive treatment even after their first fracture. The elements of each domain in each country were scored and coded using a traffic light system (red, orange, green) and used to synthesise a scorecard. The resulting scorecard elements, assembled on a single sheet, provide a unique overview of osteoporosis in Europe.
Conclusions
The scorecard enables healthcare professionals and policy makers to assess their country’s general approach to the disease and provide indicators to inform the future provision of healthcare.
Summary
This report provides an overview and a comparison of the burden and management of fragility fractures in the largest five countries of the European Union plus Sweden (EU6). In 2017, new ...fragility fractures in the EU6 are estimated at 2.7 million with an associated annual cost of €37.5 billion and a loss of 1.0 million quality-adjusted life years.
Introduction
Osteoporosis is characterized by reduced bone mass and strength, which increases the risk of fragility fractures, which in turn, represent the main consequence of the disease. This report provides an overview and a comparison of the burden and management of fragility fractures in the largest five EU countries and Sweden (designated the EU6).
Methods
A series of metrics describing the burden and management of fragility fractures were defined by a scientific steering committee. A working group performed the data collection and analysis. Data were collected from current literature, available retrospective data and public sources. Different methods were applied (e.g. standard statistics and health economic modelling), where appropriate, to perform the analysis for each metric.
Results
Total fragility fractures in the EU6 are estimated to increase from 2.7 million in 2017 to 3.3 million in 2030; a 23% increase. The resulting annual fracture-related costs (€37.5 billion in 2017) are expected to increase by 27%. An estimated 1.0 million quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were lost in 2017 due to fragility fractures. The current disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 1000 individuals age 50 years or more were estimated at 21 years, which is higher than the estimates for stroke or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The treatment gap (percentage of eligible individuals not receiving treatment with osteoporosis drugs) in the EU6 is estimated to be 73% for women and 63% for men; an increase of 17% since 2010. If all patients who fracture in the EU6 were enrolled into fracture liaison services, at least 19,000 fractures every year might be avoided.
Conclusions
Fracture-related burden is expected to increase over the coming decades. Given the substantial treatment gap and proven cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention schemes such as fracture liaison services, urgent action is needed to ensure that all individuals at high risk of fragility fracture are appropriately assessed and treated.
Abstract Objectives Existing practice guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) analyze the evidence behind each proposed treatment but do not prioritize the interventions in a given sequence. The objective ...was to develop a treatment algorithm recommendation that is easier to interpret for the prescribing physician based on the available evidence and that is applicable in Europe and internationally. The knee was used as the model OA joint. Methods ESCEO assembled a task force of 13 international experts (rheumatologists, clinical epidemiologists, and clinical scientists). Existing guidelines were reviewed; all interventions listed and recent evidence were retrieved using established databases. A first schematic flow chart with treatment prioritization was discussed in a 1-day meeting and shaped to the treatment algorithm. Fine-tuning occurred by electronic communication and three consultation rounds until consensus. Results Basic principles consist of the need for a combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment with a core set of initial measures, including information access/education, weight loss if overweight, and an appropriate exercise program. Four multimodal steps are then established. Step 1 consists of background therapy, either non-pharmacological (referral to a physical therapist for re-alignment treatment if needed and sequential introduction of further physical interventions initially and at any time thereafter) or pharmacological. The latter consists of chronic Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for OA (e.g., prescription glucosamine sulfate and/or chondroitin sulfate) with paracetamol at-need; topical NSAIDs are added in the still symptomatic patient. Step 2 consists of the advanced pharmacological management in the persistent symptomatic patient and is centered on the use of oral COX-2 selective or non-selective NSAIDs, chosen based on concomitant risk factors, with intra-articular corticosteroids or hyaluronate for further symptom relief if insufficient. In Step 3, the last pharmacological attempts before surgery are represented by weak opioids and other central analgesics. Finally, Step 4 consists of end-stage disease management and surgery, with classical opioids as a difficult-to-manage alternative when surgery is contraindicated. Conclusions The proposed treatment algorithm may represent a new framework for the development of future guidelines for the management of OA, more easily accessible to physicians.
Before publication of the original version of this report in 1987, practitioners of bone histomorphometry communicated with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general were ...unintelligible to those outside the field. The need for standardization of nomenclature had been recognized for many years, super((1)) during which there had been much talk but no action. To satisfy this need, B Lawrence Riggs (ASBMR President, 1985 to 1986) asked A Michael Parfitt to convene an ASBMR committee to develop a new and unified system of terminology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) as part of its Instructions to Authors. The resulting recommendations were published in 1987 super((2)) and were quickly adopted not only by JBMR but also by all respected journals in the bone field. The recommendations improved markedly the ability of histomorphometrists to communicate with each other and with nonhistomorphometrists, leading to a broader understanding and appreciation of histomorphometric data.
Malnutrition is very prevalent in geriatric patients with hip fracture. Nevertheless, its importance is not fully recognized. The objective of this paper is to review the impact of malnutrition and ...of nutritional treatment upon outcomes and mortality in older people with hip fracture. We searched the PubMed database for studies evaluating nutritional aspects in people aged 70 years and over with hip fracture. The total number of studies included in the review was 44, which analyzed 26,281 subjects (73.5% women, 83.6 ± 7.2 years old). Older people with hip fracture presented an inadequate nutrient intake for their requirements, which caused deterioration in their already compromised nutritional status. The prevalence of malnutrition was approximately 18.7% using the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) (large or short form) as a diagnostic tool, but the prevalence was greater (45.7%) if different criteria were used (such as Body Mass Index (BMI), weight loss, or albumin concentration). Low scores in anthropometric indices were associated with a higher prevalence of complications during hospitalization and with a worse functional recovery. Despite improvements in the treatment of geriatric patients with hip fracture, mortality was still unacceptably high (30% within 1 year and up to 40% within 3 years). Malnutrition was associated with an increase in mortality. Nutritional intervention was cost effective and was associated with an improvement in nutritional status and a greater functional recovery. To conclude, in older people, the prevention of malnutrition and an early nutritional intervention can improve recovery following a hip fracture.
Abstract The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) published a treatment algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) in 2014, ...which provides practical guidance for the prioritization of interventions. Further analysis of real-world data for OA provides additional evidence in support of pharmacological interventions, in terms of management of OA pain and function, avoidance of adverse events, disease-modifying effects and long-term outcomes, e.g., delay of total joint replacement surgery, and pharmacoeconomic factors such as reduction in healthcare resource utilization. This article provides an updated assessment of the literature for selected interventions in OA, focusing on real-life data, with the aim of providing easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment flow in patients with knee OA in primary care clinical practice, in support of the clinicians’ individualized assessment of the patient. In step 1, background maintenance therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) is recommended, for which high-quality evidence is provided only for the prescription formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate. Paracetamol may be added for rescue analgesia only, due to limited efficacy and increasing safety signals. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide additional symptomatic treatment with the same degree of efficacy as oral NSAIDs without the systemic safety concerns. Oral NSAIDs maintain a central role in step 2 advanced management of persistent symptoms. However, oral NSAIDs are highly heterogeneous in terms of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile, and patient stratification with careful treatment selection is advocated to maximize the risk:benefit ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid as a next step provides sustained clinical benefit with effects lasting up to 6 months after a short-course of weekly injections. As a last step before surgery, the slow titration of sustained-release tramadol, a weak opioid, affords sustained analgesia with improved tolerability.
High intakes of alcohol have adverse effects on skeletal health, but evidence for the effects of moderate consumption are less secure. The aim of this study was to quantify this risk on an ...international basis and explore the relationship of this risk with age, sex, and bone mineral density (BMD). We studied 5,939 men and 11,032 women from three prospectively studied cohorts comprising CaMos, DOES, and the Rotterdam Study. Cohorts were followed for a total of 75,433 person-years. The effect of reported alcohol intake on the risk of any fracture, any osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture alone was examined using a Poisson model for each sex from each cohort. Covariates examined included age and BMD. The results of the different studies were merged using weighted beta-coefficients. Alcohol intake was associated with a significant increase in osteoporotic and hip fracture risk, but the effect was nonlinear. No significant increase in risk was observed at intakes of 2 units or less daily. Above this threshold, alcohol intake was associated with an increased risk of any fracture (risk ratio RR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43), any osteoporotic fracture (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.65), or hip fracture (RR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.19-2.36). There was no significant interaction with age, BMD, or time since baseline assessment. Risk ratios were moderately but not significantly higher in men than in women, and there was no evidence for a different threshold for effect by gender. We conclude that reported intake of alcohol confers a risk of some importance beyond that explained by BMD. The validation of this risk factor on an international basis permits its use in case-finding strategies.
Type 2 diabetes and bone Leslie, William D; Rubin, Mishaela R; Schwartz, Ann V ...
Journal of bone and mineral research,
November 2012, Letnik:
27, Številka:
11
Journal Article
Since screening programs identify only a small proportion of the population as eligible for an intervention, genomic prediction of heritable risk factors could decrease the number needing to be ...screened by removing individuals at low genetic risk. We therefore tested whether a polygenic risk score for heel quantitative ultrasound speed of sound (SOS)-a heritable risk factor for osteoporotic fracture-can identify low-risk individuals who can safely be excluded from a fracture risk screening program.
A polygenic risk score for SOS was trained and selected in 2 separate subsets of UK Biobank (comprising 341,449 and 5,335 individuals). The top-performing prediction model was termed "gSOS", and its utility in fracture risk screening was tested in 5 validation cohorts using the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group clinical guidelines (N = 10,522 eligible participants). All individuals were genome-wide genotyped and had measured fracture risk factors. Across the 5 cohorts, the average age ranged from 57 to 75 years, and 54% of studied individuals were women. The main outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity to correctly identify individuals requiring treatment with and without genetic prescreening. The reference standard was a bone mineral density (BMD)-based Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score. The secondary outcomes were the proportions of the screened population requiring clinical-risk-factor-based FRAX (CRF-FRAX) screening and BMD-based FRAX (BMD-FRAX) screening. gSOS was strongly correlated with measured SOS (r2 = 23.2%, 95% CI 22.7% to 23.7%). Without genetic prescreening, guideline recommendations achieved a sensitivity and specificity for correct treatment assignment of 99.6% and 97.1%, respectively, in the validation cohorts. However, 81% of the population required CRF-FRAX tests, and 37% required BMD-FRAX tests to achieve this accuracy. Using gSOS in prescreening and limiting further assessment to those with a low gSOS resulted in small changes to the sensitivity and specificity (93.4% and 98.5%, respectively), but the proportions of individuals requiring CRF-FRAX tests and BMD-FRAX tests were reduced by 37% and 41%, respectively. Study limitations include a reliance on cohorts of predominantly European ethnicity and use of a proxy of fracture risk.
Our results suggest that the use of a polygenic risk score in fracture risk screening could decrease the number of individuals requiring screening tests, including BMD measurement, while maintaining a high sensitivity and specificity to identify individuals who should be recommended an intervention.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
