Physicians declining patient enrollment in a critical care trial: a case study in thromboprophylaxis.

PURPOSE: To analyze the frequency, rationale and determinants of attending physicians requesting that their eligible patients not be approached for participation in a thromboprophylaxis trial. METHODS: Research personnel in 67 centers prospectively documented eligible non-randomized patients due to physicians declining to allow their patients to be approached. RESULTS: In 67 centers, 3,764 patients were enrolled, but 1,460 eligible patients had no consent encounter. For 218 (14.9 %) of these, attending physicians requested that their patients not be approached. The most common reasons included a high risk of bleeding (31.2 %) related to fear of heparin bioaccumulation in renal failure, the presence of an epidural catheter, peri-operative status or other factors; specific preferences for thromboprophylaxis (12.4 %); morbid obesity (9.6 %); uncertain prognosis (6.4 %); general discomfort with research (3.7 %) and unclear reasons (17.0 %). Physicians were more likely to decline when approached by less experienced research personnel; considering those with[10 years of experience as the reference category, the odds ratios (OR) for physician refusals to personnel without trial experience was 10.47 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.19-50.02] and those with less than 10 years experience was 1.72 (95 % CI 0.61-4.84). Physicians in open rather than closed units were more likely to decline (OR 4.26; 95 % CI 1.27-14.34). Refusals decreased each year of enrollment compared to the pilot phase. CONCLUSIONS: Tracking, analyzing, interpreting and reporting the rates and reasons for physicians declining to allow their patients to be approached for enrollment provides insights into clinicians' concerns and attitudes to trials. This information can encourage physician communication and education, and potentially enhance efficient recruitment.

Event adjudication and data monitoring in an intensive care unit observational study of thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this report is to describe the roles, responsibilities and recommendations of a 3-member Event Adjudication Committee (EAC) and a 5-member data monitoring committee (DMC) for a prospective multicenter observational study of critically ill patients with renal insufficiency examining the bioaccumulation and bleeding risk associated with dalteparin thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: The EAC reviewed bleeding events to adjudicate whether they were major or minor and whether they were related to dalteparin (uncertain, unlikely, or likely). The DMC reviewed all bleeds deemed by the EAC as uncertain or likely due to dalteparin then recommended either to continue or suspend enrolment pending review by the steering committee, or requested more information. RESULTS: Consensus on bleeding severity was achieved for all cases. At the second planned interim analysis, the EAC recommended to the DMC and steering committee that the EAC should stop adjudicating whether bleeding was related to dalteparin since attribution was challenging in this population with numerous bleeding risk factors; moreover, no bleeding rates were available from prior studies or historical or concurrent controls. CONCLUSIONS: Adjudication of whether an outcome can be attributed to an intervention in an open-label, uncontrolled observational study gives a potentially misleading impression of research oversight without methodological face validity. In this study, the EAC recommended modification of the adjudication process, and the DMC recommended continuing enrolment to achieve the target sample size.

WITHDRAWN: Risedronate for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal osteoporosis results in an increased susceptibility to low-trauma fractures due to reduced bone volume and microarchitectural deterioration. Risedronate, a third generation bisphosphonate, has been shown in multiple clinical trials to reduce fracture risk and improve bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. First and second generation bisphosphonates are known to have gastrointestinal side-effects and risedronate may be better tolerated. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the efficacy of risedronate on bone density, and fracture reduction in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry Medline, and Current Contents were searched from 1990 - 2001. The electronic search was supplemented by handsearching four osteoporosis journals and their conference proceedings, as well as contacting content experts and industry sources for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eight trials that randomised women to risedronate or an alternative (placebo or calcium and /or vitamin D) and measured bone mineral density for at least one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each trial three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and abstracted data. Data was extracted for outcomes of fracture, bone mineral density and adverse events. The more conservative random effects model was used to pool data. The quality of trials was assessed according to the Jadad five-point scale. MAIN RESULTS: Both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures were statistically and clinically reduced with risedronate. Eleven out of one hundred women who received risedronate had a vertebral fracture compared to 17 out of one hundred of those who received calcium and vitamin D (pooled relative risk for vertebral fractures of 0.64 (95% CI 0.52 - 0.77). Three percent of participants who received risedronate had a non-vertebral fracture compared to 4.6% of those who received calcium and vitamin D (pooled relative risk for nonvertebral fractures of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 - 0.87). The weighted mean difference for the percent change from baseline for bone mineral density with 5 mg daily for lumbar spine, femoral neck and trochanter was 4.54% (95%CI 4.12 - 4.97), p<0.01; 2.75% (95% CI 2.32 - 3.17), p<0.01; and 4.38% (95% CI 3.51 - 5.25), p<0.01 respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence for the efficacy of risedronate in the reduction of both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. In addition, there is evidence from randomized trials that risedronate is able to achieve this without increasing risk for overall withdrawals due to adverse effects.

WITHDRAWN: Calcium supplementation on bone loss in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Although calcium is one the simplest and least expensive strategies for preventing osteoporotic fractures calcium supplementation is nevertheless not without controversy (Kanis 1989; Nordin 1990). The Food and Drug Administration in the US has permitted a bone health claim for calcium-rich foods, and the NIH in its Consensus Development Process approved a statement that high calcium intake reduces the risk of osteoporosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium on bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane Controlled Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 2001, and examined citations of relevant articles and proceedings of international meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials that randomized postmenopausal women to calcium supplementation or usual calcium intake in the diet and reported bone mineral density of the total body, vertebral spine, hip, or forearm or recorded the number of fractures, and followed patients for at least one year were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality and extracted data for each trial. For each bone density site (lumbar spine, total body, combined hip and combined forearm), we calculated the weighted mean difference in bone density between treatment and control groups using the percentage change from baseline. We constructed regression models in which the independent variables were year and dose, and the dependent variable was the effect size. This regression was used to determine the years across which pooling was appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed. For each fracture analysis we calculated a risk ratio. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials, representing 1806 participants, were included. Calcium was more effective than placebo in reducing rates of bone loss after two or more years of treatment. The pooled difference in percentage change from baseline was 2.05% (95% CI 0.24 to 3.86) for total body bone density, 1.66% (95% CI 0.92 to 2.39) for the lumbar spine at 2 years, 1.60% (95% CI 0.78 to 2.41) for the hip, and 1.91% (95% CI 0.33 to 3.50) for the distal radius. The relative risk of fractures of the vertebrae was 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.09); the relative risk for non-vertebral fractures was 0.86 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.72). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation alone has a small positive effect on bone density. The data show a trend toward reduction in vertebral fractures, but it is unclear if calcium reduces the incidence of non vertebral fractures.

Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon.

OBJECTIVES: To describe practice patterns in the management of osteoporosis after fragility fracture. METHODS: Systematic review of articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases (1996 to February 2005). Diagnostic outcomes included clinical osteoporosis diagnoses, laboratory tests, and bone density scans. Treatment outcomes included initiation of calcium, vitamin D, hormone replacement therapy, bisphosphonates, calcitonin, raloxifene and falls assessments. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met our inclusion criteria and demonstrated that adults who experience fragility fracture are not receiving osteoporosis management. An osteoporosis diagnosis was reported in 1 to 45% of patients with fractures; laboratory tests were ordered for 1 to 49% and 1 to 32% of patients had bone density scans. Calcium/vitamin D and pharmacological therapy was reported in 2 to 62% and 1 to 65% of patients, respectively. Osteoporosis treatment was recommended more often in women than men, and more often in patients with vertebral fractures than in patients with nonvertebral fractures. Older patients were more likely to be diagnosed with osteoporosis, but treatment was more likely in younger patients. A history of prior fracture was reported in 7 to 67% of patients. Between 1 and 22% of patients had a subsequent fracture during follow-up periods of 6 months to 5 years. Falls assessments were not often reported; when they were, they were infrequently performed. A greater proportion of patients were diagnosed/treated during follow-up studies than in studies evaluating diagnosis/treatment on discharge from acute care. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individuals who sustain fragility fractures are not receiving adequate osteoporosis management. Future research should address barriers to appropriate management and the efficacy of implementation strategies designed to close the osteoporosis care gap. RELEVANCE: This article is of particular importance to health care professionals who provide care for patients with fragility fracture.

Calcium supplementation on bone loss in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Although calcium is one the simplest and least expensive strategies for preventing osteoporotic fractures calcium supplementation is nevertheless not without controversy (Kanis 1989; Nordin 1990). The Food and Drug Administration in the US has permitted a bone health claim for calcium-rich foods, and the NIH in its Consensus Development Process approved a statement that high calcium intake reduces the risk of osteoporosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium on bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane Controlled Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 2001, and examined citations of relevant articles and proceedings of international meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials that randomized postmenopausal women to calcium supplementation or usual calcium intake in the diet and reported bone mineral density of the total body, vertebral spine, hip, or forearm or recorded the number of fractures, and followed patients for at least one year were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality and extracted data for each trial. For each bone density site (lumbar spine, total body, combined hip and combined forearm), we calculated the weighted mean difference in bone density between treatment and control groups using the percentage change from baseline. We constructed regression models in which the independent variables were year and dose, and the dependent variable was the effect size. This regression was used to determine the years across which pooling was appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed. For each fracture analysis we calculated a risk ratio. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials, representing 1806 participants, were included. Calcium was more effective than placebo in reducing rates of bone loss after two or more years of treatment. The pooled difference in percentage change from baseline was 2.05% (95% CI 0.24 to 3.86) for total body bone density, 1.66% (95% CI 0.92 to 2.39) for the lumbar spine at 2 years, 1.60% (95% CI 0.78 to 2.41) for the hip, and 1.91% (95% CI 0.33 to 3.50) for the distal radius. The relative risk of fractures of the vertebrae was 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.09); the relative risk for non-vertebral fractures was 0.86 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.72). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation alone has a small positive effect on bone density. The data show a trend toward reduction in vertebral fractures, but it is unclear if calcium reduces the incidence of non vertebral fractures.

Risedronate for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal osteoporosis results in an increased susceptibility to low-trauma fractures due to reduced bone volume and microarchitectural deterioration. Risedronate, a third generation bisphosphonate, has been shown in multiple clinical trials to reduce fracture risk and improve bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. First and second generation bisphosphonates are known to have gastrointestinal side-effects and risedronate may be better tolerated. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the efficacy of risedronate on bone density, and fracture reduction in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry Medline, and Current Contents were searched from 1990 - 2001. The electronic search was supplemented by handsearching four osteoporosis journals and their conference proceedings, as well as contacting content experts and industry sources for unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eight trials that randomised women to risedronate or an alternative (placebo or calcium and /or vitamin D) and measured bone mineral density for at least one year. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each trial three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and abstracted data. Data was extracted for outcomes of fracture, bone mineral density and adverse events. The more conservative random effects model was used to pool data. The quality of trials was assessed according to the Jadad five-point scale. MAIN RESULTS: Both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures were statistically and clinically reduced with risedronate. Eleven out of one hundred women who received risedronate had a vertebral fracture compared to 17 out of one hundred of those who received an alternative treatment (pooled relative risk for vertebral fractures of 0.64 (95% CI 0.52 - 0.77). Three percent of participants who received risedronate had a non-vertebral fracture compared to 4.6% of those who received an alternative treatment (pooled relative risk for nonvertebral fractures of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 - 0.87). The weighted mean difference for the percent change from baseline for bone mineral density with 5 mg daily for lumbar spine, femoral neck and trochanter was 4.54% (95%CI 4.12 - 4.97), p<0.01; 2.75% (95% CI 2.32 - 3.17), p<0.01; and 4.38% (95% CI 3.51 - 5.25), p<0.01 respectively. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence for the efficacy of risedronate in the reduction of both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. In addition, there is evidence from randomized trials that risedronate is able to achieve this without increasing risk for overall withdrawals due to adverse effects.

Calcium supplementation on bone loss in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Although calcium is one the simplest and least expensive strategies for preventing osteoporotic fractures calcium supplementation is nevertheless not without controversy (Kanis 1989; Nordin 1990). The Food and Drug Administration in the US has permitted a bone health claim for calcium-rich foods, and the NIH in its Consensus Development Process approved a statement that high calcium intake reduces the risk of osteoporosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium on bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane Controlled Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 2001, and examined citations of relevant articles and proceedings of international meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials that randomized postmenopausal women to calcium supplementation or usual calcium intake in the diet and reported bone mineral density of the total body, vertebral spine, hip, or forearm or recorded the number of fractures, and followed patients for at least one year were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality and extracted data for each trial. For each bone density site (lumbar spine, total body, combined hip and combined forearm), we calculated the weighted mean difference in bone density between treatment and control groups using the percentage change from baseline. We constructed regression models in which the independent variables were year and dose, and the dependent variable was the effect size. This regression was used to determine the years across which pooling was appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed. For each fracture analysis we calculated a risk ratio. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials, representing 1806 participants, were included. Calcium was more effective than placebo in reducing rates of bone loss after two or more years of treatment. The pooled difference in percentage change from baseline was 2.05% (95% CI 0.24 to 3.86) for total body bone density, 1.66% (95% CI 0.92 to 2.39) for the lumbar spine at 2 years, 1.60% (95% CI 0.78 to 2.41) for the hip, and 1.91% (95% CI 0.33 to 3.50) for the distal radius. The relative risk of fractures of the vertebrae was 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.09); the relative risk for non-vertebral fractures was 0.86 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.72). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation alone has a small positive effect on bone density. The data show a trend toward reduction in vertebral fractures, but it is unclear if calcium reduces the incidence of non vertebral fractures.