Osteoporosis: Owens DK

Qaseem A, Snow V, Shekelle P, Hopkins R, Forciea MA, Owens DK, Anonymous00105. · American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #18794560 links to  free full text

Abstract: DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the available evidence on various pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis. METHODS: Published literature on this topic was identified by using MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), the ACP Journal Club database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (no date limits), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (no date limits), Web sites of the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (no date limits), and the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Program (January 1998 to December 2006). Searches were limited to English-language publications and human studies. Keywords for search included terms for osteoporosis, osteopenia, low bone density, and the drugs listed in the key questions. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations according to the ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends that clinicians offer pharmacologic treatment to men and women who have known osteoporosis and to those who have experienced fragility fractures (Grade: strong recommendation; high-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians consider pharmacologic treatment for men and women who are at risk for developing osteoporosis (Grade: weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends that clinicians choose among pharmacologic treatment options for osteoporosis in men and women on the basis of an assessment of risk and benefits in individual patients (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: ACP recommends further research to evaluate treatment of osteoporosis in men and women.

Qaseem A, Snow V, Shekelle P, Hopkins R, Forciea MA, Owens DK, Anonymous00204. · American College of Physicians and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #18458281 links to  free full text

Abstract: DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians developed this guideline to present the available evidence on risk factors and screening tests for osteoporosis in men. METHODS: Published literature on this topic was identified by using MEDLINE (1990 to July 2007). Reference mining was done on the retrieved articles, references of previous reviews, and solicited articles from experts. The inclusion criteria for the studies were measuring risk factors for low bone mineral density or osteoporotic fracture in men or comparing 2 different methods of assessment for the presence of osteoporosis in men. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations by using the American College of Physicians' clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION 1: The American College of Physicians recommends that clinicians periodically perform individualized assessment of risk factors for osteoporosis in older men (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: The American College of Physicians recommends that clinicians obtain dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for men who are at increased risk for osteoporosis and are candidates for drug therapy (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: The American College of Physicians recommends further research to evaluate osteoporosis screening tests in men.

Liu H, Michaud K, Nayak S, Karpf DB, Owens DK, Garber AM. · Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif, USA. · Arch Intern Med. · Pubmed #16772249 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was 11,600 dollars per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was 156,500 dollars per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than 50,000 dollars per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60%, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.

Nayak S, Olkin I, Liu H, Grabe M, Gould MK, Allen IE, Owens DK, Bravata DM. · VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #16754925 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: There is increased interest in quantitative ultrasound for osteoporosis screening because it predicts fracture risk, is portable, and is relatively inexpensive. However, there is no consensus regarding its accuracy for identifying patients with osteoporosis. PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound for identifying patients who meet the World Health Organization's diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used as the reference standard. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to October 2005), EMBASE (1993 to May 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1952 to March 2004), and the Science Citation Index (1945 to April 2004). STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles that evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound for identifying adults with DXA T-scores of -2.5 or less at the hip or spine. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed articles and abstracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: The authors identified 1908 potentially relevant articles, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria, and calculated the sensitivity and specificity of quantitative ultrasound over a range of thresholds. For the quantitative ultrasound index parameter T-score cutoff threshold of -1, sensitivity was 79% (95% CI, 69% to 86%) and specificity was 58% (CI, 44% to 70%) for identifying individuals with DXA T-scores of -2.5 or less at the hip or spine. For a T-score threshold of 0, sensitivity improved to 93% (CI, 87% to 97%) but specificity decreased to 24% (CI, 10% to 47%). At a pretest probability of 22% (for example, a 65-year-old white woman at average risk), the post-test probability of DXA-determined osteoporosis was 34% (CI, 26% to 41%) after a positive result and 10% (CI, 5% to 12%) after a negative result when using a T-score cutoff threshold of -1. Analysis of other quantitative ultrasound parameters (for example, broadband ultrasound attenuation) revealed similar estimates of accuracy. LIMITATIONS: The relatively small number of included studies limited the authors' ability to evaluate the effects of heterogeneous study characteristics on the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: The currently available literature suggests that results of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound at commonly used cutoff thresholds do not definitively exclude or confirm DXA-determined osteoporosis. Additional research is needed before use of this test can be recommended in evidence-based screening programs for osteoporosis.