Patient and Physician Decisional Factors Regarding Hypercalcemia of Malignancy Treatment: A Novel Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Integrating shared decision making between patients and physicians and incorporating their values and preferences in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is of critical importance to optimize CPG implementation and treatment adherence. This applies to many debilitating diseases, including hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM). OBJECTIVE: Evaluate patient and physician values, preferences, and attitudes to better inform CPGs to treat HCM in adults. METHODS: We followed a mixed-methods approach. We conducted a systematic review using 5 databases to identify studies reporting on patient and physician values, costs and resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity regarding HCM treatment. We also gathered data from different countries on the cost of multiple treatment modalities. We collected data on outcome prioritization from the CPG Working Group. Similarly, we collected data from patients with HCM regarding outcome prioritization and administered a questionnaire to evaluate their attitudes and perceptions toward treatment as well as treatment acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: In the systematic review, we included 2 cross-sectional surveys conducted on the same population of physicians who agreed that treating HCM alleviates symptoms and improves quality of life; however, harms and benefits should be thoroughly considered when deciding on the duration of treatment. We also included 2 studies on cost showing that intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate is more cost-effective than a combination of IV bisphosphonate and calcitonin and administration of IV zoledronic acid at home is more cost-effective than other IV bisphosphonates. The cost of zoledronic acid, denosumab, and cinacalcet varied widely among countries and types (brand vs generic). Both the CPG Working Group and patients with HCM agreed that the most important outcomes when deciding on treatment were survival and resolution of HCM, but there was some variability in the ratings for other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Using mixed methods, CPG developers can obtain meaningful information regarding evidence to decision criteria. In the case of HCM CPGs, this approach has provided the required contextual information and supported the development of evidence-based recommendations.

Vitamin D Supplementation and Fractures in Adults: A Systematic Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Controlled Trials.

CONTEXT: The growing number of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) on vitamin D (±â€…calcium) for fracture prevention has led to contradictory guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This umbrella review aims to assess the quality and explore the reasons for the discrepancy of SR/MAs of trials on vitamin D supplementation for fracture risk reduction in adults. METHODS: We searched 4 databases (2010-2020), Epistemonikos, and references of included SRs/MAs, and we contacted experts in the field. We used A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) for quality assessment. We compared results and investigated reasons for discordance using matrices and subgroup analyses (PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129540). We included 13 SR/MAs on vitamin D and calcium (Ca/D) and 19 SR/MAs on vitamin D alone, compared to placebo/control. RESULTS: Only 2 from 10 SRs/MAs on Ca/D were of moderate quality. Ca/D reduced the risk of hip fractures in 8 of 12 SRs/MAs (relative risk [RR] 0.61-0.84), and any fractures in 7 of 11 SR/MAs (RR 0.74-0.95). No fracture risk reduction was noted in SRs/MAs exclusively evaluating community-dwelling individuals or in those on vitamin D alone compared to placebo/control. Discordance in results between SRs/MAs stems from inclusion of different trials, related to search periods and eligibility criteria, and varying methodology (using intention to treat, per-protocol, or complete case analysis from individual trials). CONCLUSION: Ca/D reduces the risk of hip and any fractures, possibly driven by findings from institutionalized individuals. Individual participant data meta-analyses of patients on Ca/D with sufficient follow-up periods, and subgroup analyses, would unravel determinants for a beneficial response to supplementation.

Effect of antiresorptive therapy on aromatase inhibitor induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are routinely used to treat postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Although AIs improve breast cancer outcomes, they increase the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the effect of antiresorptive drugs on AI induced bone loss in postmenopausal women with non-metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We searched four databases until November 4th 2020. We included Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiresorptive drugs in postmenopausal women with breast cancer treated with AI. Two authors screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs: 7 on zoledronic acid, 6 on oral bisphosphonates and 1 on denosumab. The mean difference in bone mineral density (BMD) was 5% at the lumbar spine and 4% at the total hip, at 12 months, favoring zoledronic acid compared to control. The certainty of the evidence was low for lumbar spine and moderate for total hip BMD. Similarly, the mean difference was 3% at the lumbar spine and 2% at the total hip, favoring oral bisphosphonates with moderate certainty. The mean difference was 6% at the lumbar spine, and 4% at the total hip BMD favoring denosumab compared to placebo. In addition, zoledronic acid resulted in a mean difference in bone turnover marker levels of -35-41%, and the relarive risk for morphometric vertebral fractures was 0.7 [0.3-1.4], compared to control. Denosumab reduced fracture incidence by 50% compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests a protective effect of antiresorptive drugs on BMD and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with non-metastatic breast cancer on AI. However, data on fracture risk reduction remains unclear.

Values and other decisional factors regarding treatment of hypercalcaemia of malignancy: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) is the second most common cause of hypercalcaemia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several treatment options are available including pharmacological therapy with bisphosphonates, denosumab, glucocorticoids and calcimimetics, as well as conventional therapy with hydration and possibly calcitonin. While guidelines have previously considered treatment effects, no guideline has yet considered a range of contextual factors impacting recommendations for the management. The aim of this study was to summarise the available evidence on important decisional factors for the development of guidelines for the treatment of HCM. These include patient's values and preferences, cost, acceptability, feasibility and equity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021264371). This is a systematic review of observational studies, case series, trials, reviews and qualitative studies involving treatment of adult patients with HCM. We will develop and execute two independent search strategies using five databases: PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO) and Cochrane, and review their combined output. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full texts and will implement data abstraction from relevant studies independently and in duplicate. The outcomes of interest are the decisional factors that influence drug selection, with possible subgroup summaries by drug class or aetiology of HCM. We will present the data collected in a narrative and thematic approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable for our study, since we will only collect data from available literature. This systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when completed.

The link between COVID-19 and VItamin D (VIVID): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Disease severity and mortality rates due to COVID-19 infection are greater in the elderly and chronically ill patients, populations at high risk for vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D plays an important role in immune function and inflammation. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the impact of vitamin D status and supplementation on COVID-19 related mortality and health outcomes. METHODS: We searched four databases until December 18th 2020, and trial registries until January 20th 2021. Two reviewers screened the studies, collected data, assessed the risk of bias, and graded the evidence for each outcome across studies, independently and in duplicate. Pre-specified outcomes of interest were mortality, ICU admission, invasive and non-invasive ventilation, hospitalization, time of hospital stay, disease severity and SARS-CoV-2 positivity. We only included data from peer-reviewed articles in our primary analyses. RESULTS: We identified 31 peer-reviewed observational studies. In our primary analysis, there was a positive trend between serum 25(OH)D level <20 ng/ml and an increased risk of mortality, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or SARS-CoV-2 positivity. However, these associations were not statistically significant. Mean 25(OH)D levels was 5.9 ng/ml (95% CI [-9.5, -2.3]) significantly lower in COVID-19 positive, compared to negative patients. The certainty of the evidence was very low. We identified 32 clinical trial protocols, but only three have published results to-date. The trials administer vitamin D doses of 357 to 60,000 IU/day, from one week to 12 months. Eight megatrials investigate the efficacy of vitamin D in outpatient populations. A pilot trial revealed a significant decrease in ICU admission with calcifediol, compared to placebo (OR = 0.003), but the certainty of the evidence was unclear. Another small trial showed that supplementation with cholecalciferol, 60,000 IU/day, decreased fibrinogen levels, but did not have an effect on D-dimer, procalcitonin and CRP levels, compared to placebo. The third trial did not find any effect of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19 related health outcomes. CONCLUSION: While the available evidence to-date, from largely poor-quality observational studies, may be viewed as showing a trend for an association between low serum 25(OH)D levels and COVID-19 related health outcomes, this relationship was not found to be statistically significant. Calcifediol supplementation may have a protective effect on COVID-19 related ICU admissions. The current use of high doses of vitamin D in COVID-19 patients is not based on solid evidence. It awaits results from ongoing trials to determine the efficacy, desirable doses, and safety, of vitamin D supplementation to prevent and treat COVID-19 related health outcomes.

Delta-like 1 (DLK1) is a possible mediator of vitamin D effects on bone and energy metabolism.

Vitamin D effects on bone and mineral metabolism are well recognized, and its anti-inflammatory actions are gaining particular interest. Delta-like 1 (DLK1) is a protein, expressed by progenitor cells of different tissues, and increases the size of progenitor cell population during the inflammatory phase of tissue regeneration. DLK1 also plays a role in energy metabolism as it antagonizes insulin signaling in bone. In this one-year randomized clinical trial of overweight elderly individuals that received either 600 or 3750 IU daily cholecalciferol we assessed the effect of vitamin D supplementation on pre-specified secondary outcomes: DLK1, leptin, adiponectin, C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule (VCAM). We also examined correlations between DLK1 and bone (BMD, bone markers), fat (adipokines, body composition), insulin sensitivity and inflammatory markers. Multivariate analyses were conducted to further explore these associations. Overall, there was a significant increase in serum DLK1 and leptin and a decrease in VCAM, but no change in CRP, after 12 months of vitamin D supplementation. DLK1 was negatively correlated with BMD and positively correlated with bone markers, associations that persisted after adjusting for age, gender and BMI. DLK1 was also positively associated with indices of insulin resistance and negatively with indices of insulin sensitivity. Correlations between DLK1 and fat parameters, such as adipokines, and DXA derived fat mass were less consistent. There were no correlations between DLK1 and inflammatory markers. In conclusion, twelve months supplementation of vitamin D3 increased serum DLK1. DLK1 was negatively associated with indices of bone health and fuel metabolism, and with 1,25(OH)2D levels. Similar to the role of DLK1 in animal models, our findings support the hypothesis that DLK1 can be targeted to regulate bone and energy metabolism and develop drugs to improve BMD and insulin sensitivity. However, further studies are needed to explore the role of DLK1 and its relationship to vitamin D metabolites in vivo.

Vitamin D supplementation in obesity and during weight loss: A review of randomized controlled trials.

Vitamin D deficiency is common in obese individuals and during weight loss. The recommended vitamin D doses in this specific population are higher than for healthy adults. We reviewed vitamin D supplementation trials in obesity, and during medical or surgical weight loss, and report the effects on 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations and other relevant outcomes. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of oral vitamin D supplementation for at least 3 months in obese individuals without weight loss (OB), and those on medical weight loss (MWL) (2010-2018), and following bariatric surgery (Bar S) (without time restriction). Two reviewers screened the identified citations in duplicate and independently and performed full text screening. One reviewer completed data extraction. We identified 13 RCTs in OB, 6 in MWL and 7 in Bar S. Mean baseline 25(OH)D concentrations ranged between 7 and 27 ng/ml in OB, 15-29 ng/ml in MWL and 15-24 ng/ml in Bar S. In OB (Total N 2036 participants), vitamin D doses of 1600-4000 IU/d increased mean 25(OH)D concentrations to ≥30 ng/ml. Based on three trials during MWL (Total N 359 participants), vitamin D doses of 1200-4600 IU/d for 12 months increased 25(OH)D concentration to ≥30 ng/ml. In Bar S (Total N 615 participants), doses ≥2000 IU/d were needed to reach 30 ng/ml. The change in 25(OH)D concentration was inversely proportional to the administered dose, and to BMI and baseline level with doses of 600-3000 IU/day. With these doses, the change in 25(OH)D concentration [Δ25(OH)D] per 100 IU/d was 0.5-1.2 ng/ml. Three trials assessed bone mineral density as a primary outcome, but only one of them showed a protective effect of vitamin D against bone loss at all sites post-Bar S. There was no effect of vitamin D on weight loss. Data on extra-skeletal parameters, namely glycemic and vascular indices were mostly identified in OB, and findings were inconsistent. In conclusion, Vitamin D doses ≥1600-2000 IU/d may be needed to reach a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 ng/ml in obese individuals and following bariatric surgery. The optimal concentration in this population is unknown, and whether the above doses protect against weight loss induced bone loss and fractures still needs to be confirmed. There is no clear evidence for a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on cardio-metabolic parameters in obese individuals, and data on such parameters with weight loss are very scarce. Well-designed long term RCTs assessing the effect of vitamin D supplementation during weight loss on patient important outcomes are needed.

Characterizing the interaction between physicians, pharmacists and pharmaceutical representatives in a middle-income country: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Studies around the world have shown that interactions between pharmaceutical companies, pharmacists and physicians have a great influence on prescribing and drug dispensing practices. In middle-income countries, the nature and extent of these interactions have not been well researched. Our objectives were to qualitatively explore the nature of the interactions between pharmaceutical companies, physicians and pharmacists, their impact on drug prescription and dispensing practices in Lebanon. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used grounded theory approach as well as the known sponsor, purposive, and snowballing sampling strategies to identify interviewees from the three respective groups: physicians, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical representatives. We conducted semi-structured and analyzed transcripts thematically. This study encompassed 6 pharmaceutical representatives, 13 physicians and 13 pharmacists. The following themes emerged: purpose and driver for the interactions, nature of the interactions, incentives, impact on prescription practices, ethical considerations, and suggestions for managing the interactions. The main purposes for the interaction were educational, promotional, and monitoring prescription practices and dispensing, while the main drivers for these interactions were market potential and neighborhood socio-economic status. Physicians, pharmacists and pharmaceutical representatives who engage in these interactions benefit from a variety of incentives, some of which were characterized as unethical. It appears that pharmaceutical companies give prominence to selected physicians within their communities. Although members of the three interviewed groups refer to some of the interactions as being problematic, they described a culture of acceptance of gift giving. We developed a framework that depicts the prevailing politico-cultural environment, the interactions between the three professional groups, and their impact on drug prescription. Underreporting is the main limitation of this study. CONCLUSION: Interactions between physicians, pharmacists and pharmaceutical representatives are frequent. Although these interactions can be beneficial, they still have a substantial effect on drug prescription and dispensing practices. Hence, the need for new policies that regulate these interactions and penalize any misconduct.