Osteoporosis Management in a Real Clinical Setting: Heterogeneity in Intervention Approach and Discrepancy in Treatment Rates when Compared with the NOGG and NOF Guidelines

Abstract

Objective: The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) proposes intervention thresholds that vary by age. Instead, the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) proposes a fixed threshold for decision. The aim of the present study was to compare the actual therapeutic decisions taken in a routine clinical practice setting with those recommended by the NOF and NOGG guidelines.

Material and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in individuals referred to a densitometric unit who were not receiving antiresorptive therapy. The absolute risk of major and hip fracture was calculated using the British formula provided by the FRAX^® tool. NOGG and NOF guidelines’ therapeutic intervention thresholds were used. Agreement was calculated using Cohen’s kappa.

Results: A total of 640 individuals were included, of which 95% were women, with a median age of 59.4 (IQR=14) years. 31.7% of subjects who were analyzed received treatment for osteoporosis. The type of treatment that was mainly prescribed (71.9%) consisted of bisphosphonates. When applying the NOGG criteria, treatment was recommended in 22.7% of cases; this percentage increased to 42.2% with the NOF guidelines. According to both guidelines, 20.4% of patients would not have received treatment. The concordance, expressed as the kappa index, was low; 0.25 (CI 95% 0.17–0.34) and 0.49 (CI 95% 0.42–0.55), with the NOGG and NOF, respectively.

Conclusions: Important heterogeneity exists in the treatment of osteoporosis in real practice. The choice of guideline has a major impact on the proportion and selection of individuals recommended for treatment and, subsequently, on treatment-related expenditures.

Key words

osteoporosis - antiresorptive agents - FRAX - NOGG - NOF

• References

• 1 Cauley JA. Public health impact of osteoporosis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2013; 68: 1243-1251
• 2 Wainwright SA, Marshall LM, Ensrud KE et al. Hip fracture in women without osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90: 2787-2793
• 3 Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H et al. Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX – assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK. Osteoporos Int 2008; 19: 1395-1408
• 4 National Osteoporosis Foundation. Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis 2014. [cited 2015 Jun 17]. Available from http://nof.org/files/nof/public/content/file/2791/upload/919.pdf
• 5 Compston J, Bowring C, Cooper A et al. Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update. 2013; Maturitas 2013; 75: 392-396
• 6 González-Macías J, Marin F, Vila J et al. Probability of fractures predicted by FRAX^® and observed incidence in the Spanish ECOSAP Study cohort. Bone 2012; 50: 373-377
• 7 Azagra R, Roca G, Encabo G et al. Prediction of absolute risk of fragility fracture at 10 years in a Spanish population: validation of the WHO FRAX TM tool in Spain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 30
• 8 Naranjo A, Ojeda Bruno S. FRAX español: se hace camino al andar. Med Clin (Barc) 2015; 144: 21-23
• 9 Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. Análisis coste-utilidad de los tratamientos farmacológicos para la prevención de fracturas en mujeres con osteoporosis en España. IPE 63/2010. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2010
• 10 Ruskey F. Carla D. Savage. The search for simple symmetric Venn diagrams. Not Am Math Soc 2006; 53: 1304-1311
• 11 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 12 Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H et al. FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 2009; 44: 734-743
• 13 Alvarez-Nebreda ML, Jiménez AB, Rodríguez P et al. Epidemiology of hip fracture in the elderly in Spain. Bone 2008; 42: 278-285
• 14 Sanfélix-Genovés J, Catalá-López F, Sanfélix-Gimeno G et al. Variabilidad en las recomendaciones para el abordaje clínico de la osteoporosis. Med Clin (Barc) 2014; 142: 15-22
• 15 Bolland MJ, Grey A. Disparate outcomes from applying U.K. and U.S. osteoporosis treatment guidelines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95: 1856-1860
• 16 Donaldson MG, Cawthon PM, Lui LY et al. Estimates of the proportion of older white men who would be recommended for pharmacologic treatment by the new US National Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines. J Bone Miner Res 2010; 25: 1506-1511
• 17 Naranjo A, Ojeda-Bruno S, Francisco-Hernández F et al. Aplicación de las guías de prevención secundaria de fractura osteoporótica y del índice FRAX en una cohorte de pacientes con fractura por fragilidad. Med Clin (Barc) 2011; 136: 290-292
• 18 De Felipe R, Cáceres C, Cimas M et al. Características clínicas de los pacientes con tratamiento para la osteoporosis en un centro de Atención Primaria: ¿a quién tratamos en nuestras consultas?. Aten Primaria 2010; 42: 559-563
• 19 Martínez-Laguna D, Sancho-Almela F, Cano-Collado E et al. Uso adecuado en Atención Primaria de los fármacos antirresortivos frente a la osteoporosis. Rev Osteoporos Metab Miner 2011; 3: 77-83
• 20 Thomsen K, Ryg J, Matzen L et al. Choice of osteoporosis guideline has important implications for the treatment decision in elderly women referred to a fall clinic. Dan Med J 2014; 61: A4980
• 21 Hall LN, Shrader SP, Ragucci KR. Evaluation of compliance with osteoporosis treatment guidelines after initiation of a pharmacist-run osteoporosis service at a family medicine clinic. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43: 1781-1786
• 22 Carbonell C, Díez A, Calaf J et al. Initial treatment trends in patient with osteoporosis: use of antiresorptive agents and pharmacologic supplements (calcium and vitamin D) in clinical practice. Reumatol Clin 2012; 8: 3-9
• 23 Halpern R, Becker L, Iqbal SU et al. The association of adherence to osteoporosis therapies with fracture, all-cause medical costs, and all-cause hospitalizations: a retrospective claims analysis of female health plan enrollees with osteoporosis. J Manag Care Pharm 2011; 17: 25-39
• 24 Franceschetti P, Bondanelli M, Caruso G et al. Risk factors for development of atypical femoral fractures in patients on long-term oral bisphosphonate therapy. Bone 2013; 56: 426-431
• 25 Ellis AG, Reginster JY, Luo X et al. Indirect comparison of bazedoxifene vs oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Curr Med Res Opin 2014; 30: 1617-1626
• 26 Akesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ et al. Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24: 2135-2152
• 27 Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Cranney A et al. Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2006; 35: 293-305
• 28 Chami G, Jeys L, Freudmann M et al. Are osteoporotic fractures being adequately investigated? A questionnaire of GP & orthopaedic surgeons. BMC Fam Pract 2006; 7: 7
• 29 Azagra R, Zwart M, Aguyé A et al. Precauciones necesarias al utilizar los umbrales predictivos de la herramienta FRAX^® en la población española para decidir la necesidad de solicitar una densitometría ósea axial. Aten Primaria 2012; 44: 183-184