Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa

Relationship between changes in bone mineral density and vertebral fracture risk associated with risedronate: greater increases in bone mineral density do not relate to greater decreases in fracture risk

Low bone mineral density (BMD) is correlated with increased fracture risk. Whether greater BMD increases induced by osteoporosis drugs are related to greater decreases in fracture risk is controversial. We analyzed the relationship between BMD change and fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporotic women receiving antiresorptive treatment. The analysis combined data from three pivotal risedronate fracture end-point trials. Women received risedronate (n = 2047) or placebo (n = 1177) daily for up to 3 yr. The BMD and vertebral radiographs were assessed periodically during 3 yr. The estimated risk of new vertebral fracture was compared between patients whose BMD increased and those whose BMD decreased. Risedronate-treated patients whose BMD decreased were at a significantly greater risk (p = 0.003) of sustaining a vertebral fracture than patients whose BMD increased. The fracture risk was similar (about 10%) in risedronate-treated patients whose increases in BMD were < 5% (the median change from baseline) and in those whose increases were >/= 5% (p = 0.453). The changes in lumbar spine BMD explained only 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%, 26%; p < 0.001) of risedronates vertebral fracture efficacy. Although patients showing an increase in BMD had a lower fracture risk than patients showing a decrease in BMD, greater increases in BMD did not necessarily predict greater decreases in fracture risk.

Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: Putting them to the test

What to prescribe for a patient in general practice when the choice of treatments has a limited evidence base? Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa and colleagues argue that using electronic health records to enter patients into randomised trials of treatments in real time could provide the answer

Risk of fracture after bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom: population based, retrospective cohort study

Objectives To estimate fracture risk in patients receiving bariatric surgery versus matched controls. Design Population based, retrospective cohort study. Setting Use of records from the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database, now known as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (from January 1987 to December 2010). Participants Patients with a body mass index of at least 30, with a record of bariatric surgery (n=2079), and matched controls without a record (n=10 442). Each bariatric surgery patient was matched to up to six controls by age, sex, practice, year, and body mass index. Patients were followed from the date of bariatric surgery for the occurrence of any fracture. We used time dependent Cox regression to calculate relative rates of fracture, adjusted for disease and previous drug treatment, and time-interaction terms to evaluate fracture timing patterns. Main outcome measure Relative rates of any, osteoporotic, and non-osteoporotic fractures. Results Mean follow-up time was 2.2 years. Overall, there was no significantly increased risk of fracture in patients who underwent bariatric surgery, compared with controls (8.8 v 8.2 per 1000 person years; adjusted relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.33). Bariatric surgery also did not affect risk of osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic fractures. However, we saw a trend towards an increased fracture risk after three to five years following surgery, as well as in patients who had a greater decrease in body mass index after surgery, but this was not significant. Conclusion Bariatric surgery does not have a significant effect on the risk of fracture. For the first few years after surgery, these results are reassuring for patients undergoing such operations, but do not exclude a more protracted adverse influence on skeletal health in the longer term.

The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: Evaluations of two exemplar trials

BACKGROUND Pragmatic trials compare the effects of different decisions in usual clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To develop and evaluate methods to implement simple pragmatic trials using routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) and recruiting patients at the point of care; to identify the barriers and facilitators for general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the experiences of trial participants. DESIGN Two exemplar randomised trials (Retropro and eLung) with qualitative evaluations. SETTING Four hundred and fifty-nine English and Scottish general practices contributing EHRs to a research database, of which 17 participated in the trials. PARTICIPANTS Retropro aimed to recruit 300 patients with hypercholesterolaemia and high cardiovascular risk and eLung aimed to recruit 150 patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. INTERVENTIONS Retropro randomised between simvastatin and atorvastatin and eLung between immediate antibiotics and deferred or non-use. eLung recruited during an unscheduled consultation using EHR flagging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Successful trial completion with implementation of information technology (IT) system for flagging and data processing and documentation of operational and scientific experiences. DATA SOURCES EHR research database. RESULTS The governance approval process took over 3 years. A total of 58.8% of the practices (n = 270) expressed interest in participating. The number of interested practices dropped substantially with each stage of the governance process. In Retropro, 6.5% of the practices (n = 30) were eventually approved and 3.7% (n = 17) recruited patients; in eLung, these numbers were 6.8% (n = 31) and 1.3% (n = 6) respectively. Retropro successfully completed recruitment (301 patients) whereas eLung recruited 31 patients. Retropro recruited 20.6% of all statin starters in recruiting practices and 1.1% in the EHR database; the comparable numbers for eLung were 32.3% and 0.9% respectively. The IT system allowed for complex eligibility criteria with central on and off control of recruitment and flagging at a practice. Good Clinical Practice guidelines, governance and consent procedures were found to have substantially affected the intended simple nature of the trials. One qualitative study of 13 clinicians found that clinicians were generally positive about the principle of computerised trial recruitment (flagging during consultation). However, trials which did not include patients with acute illness were favoured. The second qualitative process evaluation interviewed 27 GPs about their actual experiences, including declining, recruiting and non-recruiting GPs. Opportunistic patient recruitment during a routine GP consultation was found to be the most controversial element. The actual experiences of recruiting patients during unscheduled consultation were generally more positive than the hypothetical views of GPs. Several of the recruiting GPs reported the process took 5 minutes and was straightforward and feasible on most occasions. Almost all GPs expressed their strong support for the use of EHRs for trials. Ten eLung participants were interviewed, all of whom considered it acceptable to be recruited during a consultation and to use EHRs for trials. CONCLUSIONS EHR point-of-care trials are feasible, although the recruitment of clinicians is a major challenge owing to the complexity of trial approvals. These trials will provide substantial evidence on clinical effectiveness only if trial interventions and participating clinicians and patients are typical of usual clinical care and trials are simple to initiate and conduct. Recommendations for research include the development of evidence and implementation of risk proportionality in trial governance and conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33113202 and ISRCTN72035428. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the Wellcome Trust and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A study of the effects of exposure misclassification due to the time-window design in pharmacoepidemiologic studies.

This paper considers the effects of the time-window design on the validity of risk estimates in record linkage studies. A time-window constitutes the number of exposure days assigned to each prescription, often fixed time-intervals. Prescription information was drawn from 36 Dutch pharmacies. Persons, assuming full compliance to the dosage regimen, used NSAIDs during 58% of the 30 day window time (31% with 90 day window). This proportion ranged from 51 to 81% for different NSAIDs; from 75% for elderly to 35% for younger persons. We observed with longer windows a substantive attenuation of incidence rates of peptic ulcer therapy. Simulations also showed that the assignment of equal windows to groups with different durations of drug use can bias risk comparisons, either away from the null or towards the null. We concluded that the choice of prescription time-windows can influence the estimates of exposure risks. Time-windows should cover the period with potential excess risk and be validated.

A comparison of cost effectiveness using data from randomized trials or actual clinical practice: selective cox-2 inhibitors as an example.

Tjeerd-Pieter van Staa and colleagues estimate the likely cost effectiveness of selective Cox-2 inhibitors prescribed during routine clinical practice, as compared to the cost effectiveness predicted from randomized controlled trial data.

The efficiency of cardiovascular risk assessment: do the right patients get statin treatment?

Objective To evaluate targeting of statin prescribing for primary prevention to those with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Design Two cohort studies including the general population and initiators of statins aged 35–74 years. Setting UK primary care records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Patients 3.8 million general population patients and 300 914 statin users. Intervention Statin prescribing. Main outcome measures Statin prescribing by CVD risk; observed 5-year CVD risks; variability between practices. Results Statin prescribing increased substantially over time to patients with high 10-year CVD risk (≥20%): 7.0% of these received a statin prior to 2007, and 30.4% in 2007 onwards. Prescribing to patients with low risk (<15%) also increased (from 1.9% to 5.0%). Only about half the patients initiating statin treatment were high risk according to CVD risk score. The 5-year CVD risks, as observed during statin treatment, reduced over calendar time (from 17.0% to 7.1%). There was a large variation between general practices in the percentage of high-risk patients prescribed a statin in 2007 onwards, ranging from 8.2% to 61.5%. For low-risk patients, these varied from 2.1% to 29.1%. Conclusions There appeared to be substantive overuse in low CVD risk and underuse in high CVD risk (600 000 and 850 000 patients, respectively, in the UK since 2007). There is wide variation between practices in statin prescribing to patients at high CVD risk. There is a clear need for randomised trials for the best strategy to target statin treatment and manage CVD risk for primary prevention.

Incidence of fractures in patients with multiple sclerosis: the Danish National Health Registers

Background: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are potentially at high risk of fracture due to falls and osteoporosis. Objective: To estimate incidence rates of fractures in MS patients, stratified by fracture type, sex and age, and to compare these rates with controls. Methods: The case population consisted of all patients with an accepted diagnosis of MS in the Danish MS Registry (1949–2007). Data were linked to the National Hospital Discharge Register (1977–2007). Patients with MS (n = 11,157) were 1:6 matched by year of birth, gender, calendar time and region to persons without MS (controls). Incidence rates of fracture were estimated as the number of fractures per 1000 person-years. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated by dividing fracture rates in MS patients by fracture rates in controls. Results: Among patients with MS, the incidence rate of any fracture yielded 22.8 per 1000 person-years. The IRR of any fracture between MS patients and controls was 1.40 (95% CI 1.33–1.46). In particular, IRRs of tibia fracture (3.36 [2.75–4.11]), femur fracture (6.66 [5.06–8.76]) and hip fracture (3.20 [2.83–3.62]) were elevated in MS patients versus controls. Conclusion: Fractures occurred more often in patients with MS, especially fractures of the tibia, hip and femur.

Concomitant use of ibuprofen and paracetamol and the risk of major clinical safety outcomes

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol are widely used analgesics in the prescription and non-prescription settings. Although both classes of drug are generally well tolerated, they can lead to well-characterized adverse effects. Both drugs are widely co-prescribed and it is of interest to understand better safety outcomes when the two drugs are taken concomitantly. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS?: Relative rates and hazard ratio patterns of safety outcomes were broadly similar for patients prescribed ibuprofen alone, paracetamol alone and concomitant ibuprofen and paracetamol. The risks of the various safety outcomes examined do not appear to be modified by concomitant use of ibuprofen and paracetamol compared with paracetamol or ibuprofen alone. AIMS To evaluate and compare the risk of specific safety outcomes in patients prescribed ibuprofen and paracetamol concomitantly with those in patients prescribed ibuprofen or paracetamol alone. The outcomes were evaluated according to dose, duration and exposure. METHODS The study used a retrospective longitudinal cohort design with data from the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD). The study population included patients aged 18 years or over who were prescribed ibuprofen alone, paracetamol alone or concomitant ibuprofen and paracetamol (tablets or capsules only). The safety outcomes evaluated were upper gastrointestinal events, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure (excluding chronic), congestive heart failure, intentional or accidental overdose, suicidal behaviour and mortality. Time-dependent Cox regression was used to estimate relative rates for the safety outcomes, by treatment group. A further analysis evaluated whether the hazard rates (i.e. absolute risks) varied over time with changes in drug exposure. RESULTS The study population included 1.2 million patients. There was considerable heterogeneity in both patient and exposure characteristics. When comparing with past users, for most safety outcomes, current users of concomitant paracetamol and ibuprofen had relative rates between those for current users of ibuprofen alone and paracetamol alone. The hazard rates were generally proportional over time, from current to past exposure, following a prescription for concomitant paracetamol and ibuprofen compared with ibuprofen alone or paracetamol alone. CONCLUSIONS The known risk of the safety outcomes examined does not appear to be modified by concomitant use of ibuprofen and paracetamol compared with paracetamol or ibuprofen alone.

Use of thiazolidinediones and risk of osteoporotic fracture: disease or drugs?†

Clinical and observational studies suggest that use of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) is associated with an increased fracture risk. In addition, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a risk factor for osteoporotic fracture. Our aim was to estimate fracture risks in TZD users and users of other antidiabetic drugs, classified according to proxies of disease severity.