Real-world evidence: new opportunities for osteoporosis research. Recommendations from a Working Group from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

This narrative review summarises the recommendations of a Working Group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for the conduct and reporting of real-world evidence studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. PURPOSE: Vast amounts of data are routinely generated at every healthcare contact and activity, and there is increasing recognition that these real-world data can be analysed to generate scientific evidence. Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to delineate the natural history of disease, assess real-life drug effectiveness, understand adverse events and in health economic analysis. The aim of this work was to understand the benefits and limitations of this type of data and outline approaches to ensure that transparent and high-quality evidence is generated. METHODS: A ESCEO Working Group was convened in December 2022 to discuss the applicability of RWE to osteoporosis research and approaches to best practice. RESULTS: This narrative review summarises the agreed recommendations for the conduct and reporting of RWE studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative that research using real-world data is conducted to the highest standards with close attention to limitations and biases of these data, and with transparency at all stages of study design, data acquisition and curation, analysis and reporting to increase the trustworthiness of RWE study findings.

Fracture rates and economic outcomes in patients with osteoporosis prescribed risedronate gastro-resistant versus other oral bisphosphonates: a claims data analysis.

Patients with osteoporosis prescribed risedronate gastro-resistant had a lower incidence of fractures versus those prescribed other oral bisphosphonates. Administration of risedronate gastric-resistant does not require fasting, and this more convenient dosing administration may explain its improved efficacy. PURPOSE: Up to half of patients do not follow complex dosing instructions of immediate-release bisphosphonates used for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures, which can result in suboptimal effectiveness. Risedronate gastro-resistant (GR) offers a more convenient dosing option by eliminating the need for fasting. This study compares fracture rates and outcomes between osteoporosis women treated with risedronate GR (GR cohort) versus other oral bisphosphonates (other cohort). METHODS: Claims from women with osteoporosis in the USA were analyzed. Patients were classified into the two cohorts based on the first oral bisphosphonate observed (index date) and matched 1:1 based on patient characteristics. Patients were observed for ≥ 2 years following the index date. Fracture rates, health care resource utilization and costs, and treatment persistence were compared. RESULTS: In total, 2,726 patients were selected in each cohort (median age: 60.0 years). The incidence of fractures was lower in the GR versus the other cohort for any fracture sites (incidence rate ratio, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.70-0.97) and spine fractures (0.71, 0.54-0.95), although the respective rate of medication discontinuation at 2 years was 80.5% and 74.4%. Time to first fracture was delayed for the GR cohort, reaching statistical significance after 36 months. The GR cohort incurred fewer hospitalizations (incidence rate per 1,000 patient-years: GR = 106.74; other = 124.20, p < 0.05) translating into lower hospitalization costs per patient per year (GR = $3,611; other = $4,603, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed risedronate GR versus other bisphosphonates had a lower incidence of fractures, which may be explained by the fact that the GR formulation is absorbed even when taken with food.

[Risk assessment in osteoporosis : Time-tested and new approaches]. / Risikoassessment bei Osteoporose : Bewährtes und Neues.

Fracture risk cannot be determined by bone density alone. It is important to identify and consider risk factors that individually increase the risk of fractures when they occur. Risk calculators have been developed worldwide to determine fracture risk. The risk factors currently listed in the Dachverbands Osteologie (DVO) S3 Guidelines for the "Diagnosis and Therapy of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis and Male Osteoporosis" are diverse and should be prioritized, since not every fracture risk factor present increases the risk of a vertebral or femoral neck fracture to the same extent. Due to the unknown interaction between risk factors, no more than two risk factors in addition to age, gender, and bone density measurement should be considered per patient. For risk assessment, it is important that the two thresholds defined by the German guideline are reached, above which diagnostic workup or specific therapy for fracture risk reduction should be recommended. These thresholds are currently defined as 20% for diagnostics and 30% for therapy, based on the absolute 10-year risk for vertebral and femoral neck fractures. The threshold for diagnostics is reached with the presence of a risk factor mentioned in the guideline. To reach the threshold for therapy, the bone density measurement result is required to reach the age-specific T­score. However, typical fragile fractures of the vertebral bodies or femur increase the fracture risk so substantially that therapy can be recommended even without a bone density result.