Summary
The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal ...women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management.
Introduction
The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older.
Methods
Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence.
Results
Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement.
Conclusion
The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.
Background: Simulation is being increasingly used in medical education.
Aim: The aim of this study was to explore in more depth the features of simulation-based teaching that undergraduate medical ...students value using the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Systematic Review features that lead to effective learning as a framework.
Method: Thematic analysis of four semi-structured focus groups with final year medical students who had been taught acute care skills using a medium-fidelity whole-body simulator manikin (SimMan®).
Results: Twelve key themes were identified, namely, feedback, integration into curriculum, learning style, learning environment, realism, teamwork, communication skills, confidence/increased self-efficacy, anxiety, performance, perceptions of foundation year 1 (FY1) and SimMan® as a resource. Each theme is described with supporting quotes.
Conclusion: Six of the ten features listed in the BEME review appeared to be of particular value to the medical students. This study provides a richer understanding of these features. In addition, new insights into the effect of simulation on confidence, anxiety and self-efficacy are discussed which may be affected by the 'performance' nature of simulation role-play. Students also contribute critical thought about the use of SimMan® as a resource and provide novel ideas for reducing 'downtime'.
Developed in 2019, the Community Rapid Intervention Service (CRIS) is a community intervention service aiming to prevent hospital admissions. CRIS provides a response within two hours to patients ...with sub-acute medical needs in their usual place of residence. This evaluation aimed to identify challenges and facilitators to implementation of the service, with a view to informing future service development, optimising patient care and disseminating learning to other areas looking to implement similar services.
This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an evaluation framework. We conducted semi-structured interviews with local healthcare system leaders, clinicians that worked within the CRIS, and clinicians who interfaced with the CRIS. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Two Community of Practice (CoP) meetings were held to gather stakeholders' perspectives of the evaluation.
Three key themes were identified from the analysis of 13 interviews: contextual factors influencing implementation, service identity and navigating complexity. Contextual factors such the influence of the Covid 19 pandemic upon health services and the expansion of the CRIS were discussed by participants. The adaptability of the service was deemed both a facilitator and challenge of implementation. Ways to build-on and improve the existing CRIS model were suggested.
This evaluation has shown that the CRIS may need to be redefined with clarity provided as to how the service interfaces with other urgent and planned care offered in acute, primary, community and social services. Structuring the evaluation around the CFIR was helpful in identifying facilitators and challenges that influenced the implementation of the CRIS.
Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are ...co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking a framework analysis of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project on a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.
Glucocorticoids are associated with increased fracture risk and are the mainstay of treatment in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and giant cell arteritis (GCA). However, fracture risk in these ...conditions has not been previously quantified. The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of fracture among patients with PMR and GCA.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using primary care records from the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Individuals aged 40 years and over, with incident diagnoses of PMR or GCA were separately identified from 1990-2004 and followed up until 2015. For each exposed individual, four age-, sex- and practice-matched controls were randomly selected. Incidence rates of fracture per 10,000 person-years were calculated for each disease group and hazard rates were compared to the unexposed using Cox regression models.
Overall, 12,136 and 2673 cases of PMR and GCA, respectively, were identified. The incidence rate of fracture was 148.05 (95% CI 141.16-155.28) in PMR and 147.15 (132.91-162.91) in GCA per 10,000 person-years. Risk of fracture was increased by 63% in PMR (adjusted hazard ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.54-1.73) and 67% in GCA (1.67, 1.49-1.88) compared to the control populations. Fewer than 13% of glucocorticoid-treated cases were prescribed bisphosphonates.
This study reports, for the first time, a similar increase in fracture risk for patients with PMR and GCA. More needs to be done to improve adherence to guidelines to co-prescribe bisphosphonates. Further research needs to identify whether lower glucocorticoid starting doses and/or aggressive dose reduction reduces fracture risk.
Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral ...fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment.
This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12).
Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language.
The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.
Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and ...persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.
1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.
The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.
Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.
Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.
Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.
Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.
This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in
; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Abstract
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.
Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the ...implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation.
This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5-8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results.
In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. 'Instinctive facilitation' may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation.
This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.
ObjectiveRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune, inflammatory, systemic condition that requires specific drug treatment to suppress disease activity and prevent joint deformity. To manage the ...ongoing symptoms of joint pain and fatigue patients are encouraged to engage in self-management activities. People with RA have an increased incidence of serious illness and mortality, with the potential to impact on quality of life. This study explored patients’ experiences of living with RA on physical, psychological and social well-being as well as their ability to employ self-management skills during the coronavirus pandemic.DesignQualitative, longitudinal (baseline, 16 September to 23 November 2020 and after 2–4 months, 11 January to the 17 January 2021), semistructured telephone interviews.SettingA rheumatology service based in a community hospital.Participants15 adults with RA.Main outcomesData were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.ResultsFive themes were identified that related to impact on (1) fear: the dominant emotion, (2) social connections and work practices, (3) physical health, (4) identity and (5) self-management as a coping mechanism. The overriding emotion was one of fear, which remained high throughout both interviews. The negative impact on social well-being increased as the pandemic progressed. Conversely, physical health was not affected at either time point, although participants reported difficulty in interpreting whether physical symptoms were attributable to their RA or COVID-19. Recognition of increased vulnerability led to a reassessment of self-identity; however, respondents reported using previously learnt self-management techniques to cope in the context of the pandemic.ConclusionsThe main impact was on emotional and social well-being. Levels of fear and vulnerability which affected self-identity remained high throughout the pandemic and the impact on social well-being increased over time. Physical health remained largely unaffected. Self-management skills were used to maintain a sense of well-being.
PDF
