{ "items": [ "\n\n
INTRODUCTION: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a rare genetic disease associated with multiple fractures throughout life. It is often treated with osteoporosis medications but their effectiveness at preventing fractures is unknown. The Treatment of Osteogenesis Imperfecta with Parathyroid Hormone and Zoledronic Acid trial will determine if therapy with teriparatide (TPTD) followed by zoledronic acid (ZA) can reduce the risk of clinical fractures in OI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Individuals aged \u226518 years with a clinical diagnosis of OI are eligible to take part. At baseline, participants will undergo a spine X-ray, and have bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the spine and hip. Information on previous fractures and previous bone targeted treatments will be collected. Questionnaires will be completed to assess pain and other aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Participants will be randomised to receive a 2-year course of TPTD injections 20 \u00b5g daily followed by a single intravenous infusion of 5\u2009mg ZA, or to receive standard care, which will exclude the use of bone anabolic drugs. Participants will be followed up annually, have a repeat DXA at 2 years and at the end of study. Spine X-rays will be repeated at the end of study. The duration of follow-up will range between 2 and 8\u2009years. The primary endpoint will be new clinical fractures confirmed by X-ray or other imaging. Secondary endpoints will include participant reported fractures, BMD and changes in pain and HRQoL. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval in December 2016. Following completion of the trial, a manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. The results will inform clinical practice by determining if TPTD/ZA can reduce the risk of fractures in OI compared with standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15313991.
\n \n\n \n \nWith established clinical and economic benefits from secondary fracture prevention, the focus is on implementing effective and efficient healthcare models such as Fracture Liaison Services (FLSs). This chapter reviews several critical aspects for successful implementation of FLSs: (a) the conceptual models for FLS with evidence for effectiveness; (b) the steps for implementation, encompassing national policy, coalitions and local level activities; (c) benchmarking at the organisational and patient level and signposting to supporting resources from the International Osteoporosis Foundation.
\n \n\n \n \nUNLABELLED: Hip fractures are strong risk factors for further fractures. However, using the National Hip Fracture Database, we observed that in England and Wales, 64% of patients admitted on oral bisphosphonates were discharged on the same and injectable drug use varies from 0-67% and 0.2%-83.6% were deemed \"inappropriate\" for bone protection. This variability requires further investigation. INTRODUCTION: A key aim for the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) is to encourage secondary fracture prevention of the 75,000 patients who break their hip annually in the UK, through bone health assessment and appropriate provision of anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM). We set out to describe trends in anti-osteoporosis medication prescription and examine the types of oral and injectable AOMs being prescribed both before and after a hip fracture. METHODS: We used data freely available from the NHFD\u00a0 www.nhfd.co.uk \u00a0to analyse trends in oral and injectable AOM prescription across a quarter of a million patients presenting between 2016 and 2020, and more detailed information on the individual type of AOM prescribed for 63,705 patients from 171 hospitals in England and Wales who presented in 2020. RESULTS: Most patients (88.3%) are not taking any AOM when they present with a hip fracture.\u00a0Half of all patients (50.8%) were prescribed AOM treatment by the time of discharge, but the proportion deemed 'inappropriate for AOM' varied hugely (0.2-83.6%) in different hospitals. Nearly two-thirds (64.2%) of those previously taking an oral bisphosphonate were simply discharged on the same type of medication. The total number of patients discharged on oral medication fell by over a quarter in these five years. The number discharged on injectables increased by nearly three-quarters to 14.2% over the same period, but remains hugely variable across the country, with rates ranging from 0-67% across different units. CONCLUSION: A recent hip fracture is a strong risk factor for future fractures. The huge variability in approaches, and in particular the use of injectables, in different trauma units across England and Wales requires further investigation.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Reducing delayed diagnosis is a significant healthcare priority for individuals with rare diseases. Fibrous Dysplasia/ McCune Albright Syndrome (FD/MAS) is a rare bone disease caused by somatic activation mutations of NASA. FD/MAS has a broad clinical phenotype reflecting variable involvement of bone, endocrine and other tissues, distribution and severity. The variable phenotype is likely to prolong the diagnostic journey for patients further. AIM: To describe the time from symptom onset to final diagnosis in individuals living with FDMAS. METHODS: We used the UK-based RUDY research database ( www.rudystudy.org ), where patients self-report their diagnosis of FD/MAS. Participants are invited to complete the diagnostic journey based on the EPIRARE criteria. RESULTS: 51 individuals diagnosed with FD/MAS were included in this analysis. Among them, 70% were female, and the median age was 51.0 years (IQR 34.5-57.5]. 12 (35%) individuals reported McCune Albright Syndrome, 11 (21.6%) craniofacial and 11(21.6%) for each of poly- and mono-ostotic FD and 6 (11.8%) did not know their type of FD/MAS. Pain was the commonest first symptom (58.8%), and 47.1% received another diagnosis before the diagnosis of FD/MAS. The median time to final diagnosis from the first symptom was two years with a wide IQR (1,18) and range (0-59 years). Only 12 (23.5%) of individuals were diagnosed within 12 months of their first symptoms. The type of FD/MAS was not associated with the reported time to diagnosis. Significant independent predictors of longer time to final diagnosis included older current age, younger age at first symptom and diagnosis after 2010. CONCLUSION: Individuals with FDMAS have a variable time to diagnosis that can span decades. This study highlights the need for further research on how to improve diagnostic pathways within Orthopaedic and Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT)/Maxillofacial services. Our data provides a baseline to assess the impact of novel NHS diagnostic networks on reducing the diagnostic odyssey.
\n \n\n \n \nCurrently in the UK and Ireland, after a hip fracture most patients do not receive bone protection medication to reduce the risk of refracture. Yet randomised controlled trial data specifically examining patients with hip fracture have shown that intravenous zoledronate reduces refracture risk by a third. Despite this evidence, use of intravenous zoledronate is highly variable following a hip fracture; many hospitals are providing this treatment, whilst most are currently not. A range of clinical uncertainties, doubts over the evidence base and practical concerns are cited as reasons. This paper discusses these concerns and provides guidance from expert consensus, aiming to assist orthogeriatricians, pharmacists and health services managers establish local protocols to deliver this highly clinically and cost-effective treatment to patients before they leave hospital, in order to reduce costly re-fractures in this frail population.
\n \n\n \n \nThe human, healthcare and financial costs of fragility fracture are considerable and at present there is an apparent need to address the growing gap between those who require treatment and those who actually receive it. Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) have been established to address this gap through the identification, treatment and monitoring of those sustaining fragility fractures with the aim of preventing secondary fractures. In this chapter, we present data from studies which support the instigation of FLS as clinically- and cost-effective initiatives. We provide a step-by-step approach to implementation and benchmarking and provide advice regarding the development of an FLS in a low-resource setting.
\n \n\n \n \nThe case for Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) for the prevention of secondary fractures is clear. With an ageing population, the burden of osteoporosis is set to increase. Despite evidence for the clinical effectiveness of secondary fracture prevention, translation in the real world setting remains disappointing: worldwide, eighty per cent of fragility fracture patients are neither assessed nor treated for osteoporosis or falls risk, with the aim of reducing future fracture incidence. If implemented, a wide variety of service models are used to deliver effective secondary fracture prevention. To support and promote the use of effective models of care across the globe, the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) launched the Capture the Fracture\u00ae (CTF) programme in 2013. This expert-led and evidence-based programme aims to reduce secondary fractures by facilitating the implementation of FLS on a global level. A primary resource developed by CTF is the Best Practice Framework (BPF), which sets standards for FLS, serves as a benchmark for existing FLS and serves as a guidance tool for developing FLS. In an effort to engage the global medical community, CTF offers a Best Practice Recognition programme where FLS can submit their service to IOF for evaluation against the BPF for a gold, silver or bronze star in recognition of achievements. The FLS is then included in the showcase of best practice and plotted on the CTF Map of Best Practice that displays participating FLS and their respective achievement level. To influence change, the map can be used as a visual representation of FLS available worldwide, their achievements, as well as the areas for opportunity and development in secondary fracture prevention.
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVE: To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors. DESIGN: Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events. RESULTS: The results were based on 69 trials (>80\u2009000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; \u03b2=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128391.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Hip fractures are devastating injuries causing disability, dependence, and institutionalisation, yet hospital care is highly variable. This study aimed to determine hospital organisational factors associated with recovery of mobility and change in patient residence after hip fracture. METHODS: A cohort of patients aged 60\u2009+\u2009years in England and Wales, who sustained a hip fracture from 2016 to 2019 was examined. Patient-level Hospital Episodes Statistics, National Hip Fracture Database, and mortality records were linked to 101 factors derived from 18 hospital-level organisational metrics. After adjustment for patient case-mix, multilevel models were used to identify organisational factors associated with patient residence at discharge, and mobility and residence at 120 days after hip fracture. RESULTS: Across 172 hospitals, 165,350 patients survived to discharge, of whom 163,230 (99%) had post-hospital discharge destination recorded. 18,323 (11%) died within 120 days. Among 147,027 survivors, 58,344 (40%) across 143 hospitals had their residence recorded, and 56,959 (39%) across 140 hospitals had their mobility recorded, at 120 days. Nineteen organisational factors independently predicted residence on hospital discharge e.g., return to original residence was 31% (95% confidence interval, CI:17-43%) more likely if the anaesthetic lead for hip fracture had time allocated in their job plan, and 8-13% more likely if hip fracture service clinical governance meetings were attended by an orthopaedic surgeon, physiotherapist or anaesthetist. Seven organisational factors independently predicted residence at 120 days. Patients returning to their pre-fracture residence was 26% (95%CI:4-42%) more likely if hospitals had a dedicated hip fracture ward, and 20% (95%CI:8-30%) more likely if treatment plans were proactively discussed with patients and families on admission. Seventeen organisational factors predicted mobility at 120 days. More patients re-attained their pre-fracture mobility in hospitals where (i) care involved an orthogeriatrician (15% [95%CI:1-28%] improvement), (ii) general anaesthesia was usually accompanied by a nerve block (7% [95%CI:1-12%], and (iii) bedside haemoglobin testing was routine in theatre recovery (13% [95%CI:6-20%]). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple, potentially modifiable, organisational factors are associated with patient outcomes up to 120 days after a hip fracture, these factors if causal should be targeted by service improvement initiatives to reduce variability, improve hospital hip fracture care, and maximise patient independence.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Whole genome sequencing is increasingly being used for the diagnosis of patients with rare diseases. However, the diagnostic yields of many studies, particularly those conducted in a healthcare setting, are often disappointingly low, at 25-30%. This is in part because although entire genomes are sequenced, analysis is often confined to in silico gene panels or coding regions of the genome. METHODS: We undertook WGS on a cohort of 122 unrelated rare disease patients and their relatives (300 genomes) who had been pre-screened by gene panels or arrays. Patients were recruited from a broad spectrum of clinical specialties. We applied a bioinformatics pipeline that would allow comprehensive analysis of all variant types. We combined established bioinformatics tools for phenotypic and genomic analysis with our novel algorithms (SVRare, ALTSPLICE and GREEN-DB) to detect and annotate structural, splice site and non-coding variants. RESULTS: Our diagnostic yield was 43/122 cases (35%), although 47/122 cases (39%) were considered solved when considering novel candidate genes with supporting functional data into account. Structural, splice site and deep intronic variants contributed to 20/47 (43%) of our solved cases. Five genes that are novel, or were novel at the time of discovery, were identified, whilst a further three genes are putative novel disease genes with evidence of causality. We identified variants of uncertain significance in a further fourteen candidate genes. The phenotypic spectrum associated with RMND1 was expanded to include polymicrogyria. Two patients with secondary findings in FBN1 and KCNQ1 were confirmed to have previously unidentified Marfan and long QT syndromes, respectively, and were referred for further clinical interventions. Clinical diagnoses were changed in six patients and treatment adjustments made for eight individuals, which for five patients was considered life-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Genome sequencing is increasingly being considered as a first-line genetic test in routine clinical settings and can make a substantial contribution to rapidly identifying a causal aetiology for many patients, shortening their diagnostic odyssey. We have demonstrated that structural, splice site and intronic variants make a significant contribution to diagnostic yield and that comprehensive analysis of the entire genome is essential to maximise the value of clinical genome sequencing.
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVE: To describe, and explain the rationale for, the methods used and decisions made during development of the updated SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 reporting guidelines. METHODS: We developed SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 together to facilitate harmonisation of the two guidelines, and incorporated content from key extensions. We conducted a scoping review of comments suggesting changes to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and compiled a list of other possible revisions based on existing SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions, other reporting guidelines and personal communications. From this, we generated a list of potential modifications or additions to SPIRIT and CONSORT, which we presented to stakeholders for feedback in an international online Delphi survey. The Delphi survey results were discussed at an online expert consensus meeting attended by 30 invited international participants. We then drafted the updated SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists and revised them based on further feedback from meeting attendees. RESULTS: We compiled 83 suggestions for revisions or additions to SPIRIT and/or CONSORT from the scoping review and 85 from other sources, from which we generated 33 potential changes to SPIRIT (n=5) or CONSORT (n=28). Of 465 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 317 (68%) responded to Round 1, 303 (65%) to Round 2 and 290 (63%) to Round 3. Two additional potential checklist changes were added to the Delphi survey based on Round 1 comments. Overall, 14/35 (SPIRIT n=0; CONSORT n=14)) proposed changes reached the predefined consensus threshold (\u226580% agreement), and participants provided 3,580 free-text comments. The consensus meeting participants agreed with implementing 11/14 of the proposed changes that reached consensus in the Delphi and supported implementing a further 4/21 changes (SPIRIT n=2; CONSORT n=2) that had not reached the Delphi threshold. They also recommended further changes to refine key concepts and for clarity. CONCLUSION: The forthcoming SPIRIT 2024 and CONSORT 2024 Statements will provide updated, harmonised guidance for reporting randomised controlled trial protocols and results, respectively. The simultaneous development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists has been informed by current empirical evidence and extensive input from stakeholders. We hope that this report of the methods used will be helpful for developers of future reporting guidelines.
\n \n\n \n \nThe CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.
\n \n\n \n \nThis document details the proposed statistical analysis and presentation of the results for the main paper reporting the findings from the NIHR funded Clinical Prediction Rule for Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery after Cardiac Surgery -the PARADISE Score. This plan is intended to establish the rules that will be followed, as closely as possible, when modelling and reporting the prediction model.\nThis analysis plan will be available on request after submitting the main papers for publication in a scientific journal. Any deviations from the statistical analysis plan will be described and justified in the final report of the study. An identified, appropriately qualified, and experienced statistician will conduct the analysis, as well as ensuring the integrity of the data during their processing. Examples of such procedures include quality control and evaluation procedures.
\n \n\n \n \nmRNA vaccine technologies introduced following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have highlighted the need to better understand the interaction of adjuvants and the early innate immune response. Type I interferon (IFN-I) is an integral part of this early innate response that primes several components of the adaptive immune response. Women are widely reported to respond better than men to tri- and quadrivalent influenza vaccines. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) are the primary cell type responsible for IFN-I production, and female pDCs produce more IFN-I than male pDCs since the upstream pattern recognition receptor Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) is encoded by X chromosome and is biallelically expressed by up to 30% of female immune cells. Additionally, the TLR7 promoter contains several putative androgen response elements, and androgens have been reported to suppress pDC IFN-I in vitro. Unexpectedly, therefore, we recently observed that male adolescents mount stronger antibody responses to the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine than female adolescents after controlling for natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. We here examined pDC behaviour in this same cohort to determine the impact of IFN-I on anti-spike and anti-receptor-binding domain IgG titres to BNT162b2. Through flow cytometry and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) modelling, we determined that serum-free testosterone was associated with reduced pDC IFN-I, but contrary to the well-described immunosuppressive role for androgens, the most bioactive androgen dihydrotestosterone was associated with increased IgG titres to BNT162b2. Also unexpectedly, we observed that co-vaccination with live attenuated influenza vaccine boosted the magnitude of IgG responses to BNT162b2. Together, these data support a model where systemic IFN-I increases vaccine-mediated immune responses, yet for vaccines with intracellular stages, modulation of the local IFN-I response may alter antigen longevity and consequently improve vaccine-driven immunity.
\n \n\n \n \n