Epidemiology of osteoporosis in Mexico. Present and future directions.

This position paper has been written by a multidisciplinary group of experts appointed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its aim is to present the state of the art of knowledge about osteoporosis in Mexico. A review of the scientific papers in Mexico and information about diagnostics tools and treatment is discussed along with some research recommendations for the future.

Osteoporosis severa: fundamentos para su terapia farmacológica en México / Severe osteoporosis: Principles for pharmacological therapy in Mexico

Antecedentes: El presente artículo muestra la evidencia y recomendaciones de la eficacia y seguridad de las terapias hasta hoy aprobadas y disponibles en México para el tratamiento de la osteoporosis en su etapa severa o establecida, con la finalidad de establecer una postura terapéutica acerca de la eficacia y seguridad para esta etapa del padecimiento, de acuerdo con las cédulas descriptivas del Cuadro Básico y Catálogo de Medicamentos del Sector Salud en México. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática y narrativa de la evidencia de teriparatida y denosumab, desde su perfil farmacológico, efectividad y seguridad derivado de ensayos clínicos, además de un análisis de las recomendaciones generales de las principales guías de práctica clínica nacionales e internacionales. Resultados: La evidencia establece que teriparatida y denosumab pertenecen a clases terapéuticas distintas, con mecanismos de acción biológicamente opuestos e indicaciones de uso claramente diferenciadas en sus respectivas cédulas, por lo cual no son sustituibles ni intercambiables en la terapia de osteoporosis severa. Ambas representan la mejor opción disponible hasta el momento para esta etapa del padecimiento. Son similares en su eficacia de prevención de nuevas fracturas vertebrales por fragilidad, con un RR de 0,35 (IC 95%: 0,22-0,55) para teriparatida, y de 0,32 (IC 95%: 0,26-0,41) para denosumab. La reducción absoluta del riesgo es mayor con teriparatida 9,3% (21 meses) que con denosumab 4,8% (36 meses). Conclusiones: Nuestros resultados concuerdan con las recomendaciones disponibles en las principales guías de práctica clínica nacionales e internacionales, por lo que son propuestas ambas terapias como consecutivas y nunca como sustitutivas.(AU)

Background: This article presents evidence and recommendations regarding the efficacy and safety of the approved and available therapies in Mexico to treat severe or established osteoporosis with the aim of developing a position regarding therapeutics in this stage of the disease, according to the descriptive cards of the National Drug Formulary of the National General Health Council of Mexico. Methods: We performed a systematic and narrative review of the evidence of teriparatide and denosumab, from their pharmacological profile, effectiveness, and safety derived from clinical trials, as well as an analysis of the general recommendations of the national and international clinical practice guidelines. Results: The evidence establishes that teriparatide and denosumab belong to different therapeutic classes, with biologically opposed mechanisms of action and indications of use, which are clearly differentiated in their respective national codes, therefore these drugs cannot be substitutable or interchangeable in severe osteoporosis therapy. Both represent the best options currently available for this stage of the disease; being similar in their efficacy in preventing new vertebral fragility fractures, with an RR of .35 (CI 95%; .22-.55) for teriparatide, and .32 (CI 95%: .26-.41) for denosumab. The absolute risk reduction is higher with teriparatide 9.3% (21 months) compared with denosumab at 4.8% (36 months). Conclusions: Our results agree with the recommendations available in national and international clinical practice guidelines, with both therapies proposed as a sequential, but not a substitute, treatment.(AU)

Catastrophic health expenses and impoverishment of households of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cost of certain diseases may lead to catastrophic expenses and impoverishment of households without full financial support by the state and other organizations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the socioeconomic impact of the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cost in the context of catastrophic expenses and impoverishment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a cohort-nested cross-sectional multicenter study on the cost of RA in Mexican households with partial, full, or private health care coverage. Catastrophic expenses referred to health expenses totaling >30% of the total household income. Impoverishment defined those households that could not afford the Mexican basic food basket (BFB). RESULTS: We included 262 patients with a mean monthly household income (US dollars) of $376 (0­18,890.63). In all, 50.8%, 35.5%, and 13.7% of the patients had partial, full, or private health care coverage, respectively. RA annual cost was $ 5534.8 per patient (65% direct cost, 35% indirect). RA cost caused catastrophic expenses in 46.9% of households, which in the logistic regression analysis were significantly associated with the type of health care coverage (OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.6­4.7) and disease duration (OR 1.024, 95%CI 1.002­1.046). Impoverishment occurred in 66.8% of households and was associated with catastrophic expenses (OR 3.6, 95%CI 1.04­14.1), high health assessment questionnaire scores (OR 4.84 95%CI 1.01­23.3), and low socioeconomic level (OR 4.66, 95%CI 1.37­15.87). CONCLUSION: The cost of RA in Mexican households, particularly those lacking full health coverage leads to catastrophic expenses and impoverishment. These findings could be the same in countries with fragmented health care systems.