A need for predictive and personalized approach in osteoporosis treatment: individual treatment plan
Autoři:
Pikner Richard 1,2,3; Švagr Martin 4; Novák Vladimír 1; Vachek Jan 5
Působiště autorů:
Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Bone Metabolism, Klatovska Hospital, Klatovy, Czech Republic
1; Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Haematology, Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University Prague, Pilsen, Czech Republic
2; Faculty of Health Care Studies, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic
3; Department of Orthopaedics, Klatovska Hospital, Klatovy, Czech Republic
4; Department of Internal Medicine, Klatovska Hospital, Klatovy, Czech Republic
5
Vyšlo v časopise:
Clinical Osteology 2022; 27(1): 13-16
Kategorie:
Přehledové články
Souhrn
Osteoporosis is a frequent, multifactorial disease and represents a significant and increasing healthcare burden in Europe. For osteoporosis treatment several drugs groups (SERM: bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide) have been approved with different biological effects and further are expected. The question if every medication is suitable for all patients, is opened. We may stratify patients by individual fracture risk assessment but often there many others individual factors affecting medication choice. Age, life expectancy, falls, kidney function are very important. Preparing individual treatment plans for each patient is the way how to handle with it. In younger osteoporotic women we have to expect 20-25 years of care and sequential therapy, long term therapy with “drug holiday” is to be considered. This new strategy should be accompanied by more flexible reimbursement rules.
Zdroje
1. Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M J et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden: A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 2013; 8(1): 136. Dostupné z DOI: <http://doi: 10.1007/s11657–013–0136–1>.
2. Svedbom A, Hernlund E, Ivergård M et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: a compendium of country-specific reports. Arch O steoporos 2 013; 8 (1): 137. A vailable from DOI: < http://doi: 10.1007/s11657–013–0137–0>.
3. Åkesson K, Marsh D, Mitchell PJ et al. Capture the Fracture: a Best Practice Framework and global campaign to break the fragility fracture cycle. Osteoporos Int 2013; 24(8): 2135–5212. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1007/s00198–013–2348-z>.
4. Golubnitschaja O, Kinkorova J, Costigliola V. Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine as the hardcore of ‘Horizon 2020’: EPMA position paper. EPMA Journal 2014; 5(1): 6. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1186/1878–5085–5-6>.
5. FRAX [Internet]. Available from WWW: <https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX>.
6. Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator. [Internet]. Available from WWW: <https://www.garvan.org.au/promotions/bone-fracturerisk/calculator/
7. QFracture-2016 [Internet]. Available from WWW: https://www.qfracture.org>.
8. Nguyen TV. Individualized fracture risk assessment: Stateof- the-art and room for improvement. Osteoporos Sarcopenia 2 018; 4 (1): 2 –10. A vailable from DOI: < http://doi 1 0.1016/j. afos.2018.03.001>.
9. Harvey NC, Odén A, Orwoll E et al. Falls Predict Fractures Independently of FRAX Probability: A Meta‐Analysis of the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study. J Bone Miner Res 2018; 33(3): 510–516. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1002/jbmr.3331>.
10. Hollis BW, Wagner CL. The Role of the Parent Compound Vitamin D with Respect to Metabolism and Function: Why Clinical Dose Intervals Can Affect Clinical Outcomes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2 013; 9 8(12): 4 619–4628. A vailable from DOI: < http://doi 10.1210/jc.2013–2653>.
11. Holick MF, Binkley NC, Bischoff-Ferrari HA et al. Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrin Metabol 2011; 9 6(7): 1911–1930. A vailable from DOI: < http://doi 1 0.1210/ jc.2011–0385>.
12. Koduah P, Paul F, Dörr JM. Vitamin D in the prevention, prediction and treatment of neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory diseases. EPMA J 2017; 8(4): 313–325. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1007/s13167–017–0120–8>.
13. Grey A, Bolland MJ, Horne A et al. Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover 10 Years After a Single 5 mg Dose or Two 5 -Yearly Lower Doses of Zoledronate in Osteopenic Older Women: An Open-Label Extension of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Miner R es 2 022; 3 7(1): 3 –11. A vailable from DOI: < http://doi 10.1002/jbmr.4453>.
14. Kim TY, Bauer DC, McNabb BL et al. Comparison of BMD Changes and Bone Formation Marker Levels 3 Years After Bisphosphonate Discontinuation: FLEX and HORIZON‐PFT Extension I Trials. J Bone Miner R es 2 019; 3 4(5): 8 10–816. A vailable from DOI: <http://doi 10.1002/jbmr.3654>.
15. Khosla S, Hofbauer LC. Osteoporosis treatment: recent developments and ongoing challenges. Lancet Diab Endocrinol 2017; 5(11): 898–907. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1016/S2213–8587(17)30188–2>.
16. Tsourdi E, Langdahl B, Cohen-Solal M et al. Discontinuation of Denosumab therapy for osteoporosis: A systematic review and position statement by ECTS. Bone 2017; 105: 11–17. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1016/j.bone.2017.08.003>.
17. Cummings SR, Ferrari S, Eastell R et al. Vertebral Fractures after Discontinuation of Denosumab: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized Placebo-Controlled FREEDOM Trial and Its Extension: VERTEBRAL FRACTURES AFTER DENOSUMAB DISCONTINUATION. J Bone Miner Res 2 018; 3 3(2): 190–198. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1002/jbmr.3337>.
18. Eastell R, Walsh JS. Anabolic treatment for osteoporosis: teriparatide. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2017; 14(2):173–178. Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.11138/ccmbm/2017.14.1.173>.
19. Haas AV, LeBoff MS. Osteoanabolic Agents for Osteoporosis. J Endocr Soc 2018; 2(8): 922–932. Available from DOI: <http://doi10.1210/js.2018–00118>.
20. Evenity (romosozumab). Souhrn charakteristických vlastností léku. EMA (SUKL). Available from WWW: <http://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/evenity-epar-product-information_cs.pdf>.
21. Golubnitschaja O, Baban B, Boniolo G et al. Medicine in the early twenty-first century: paradigm and anticipation – EPMA position p aper 2 016. E PMA J 2016; 7 (1): 2 3. A vailable from DOI: <http://doi 10.1186/s13167–016–0072–4>.
22. Golubnitschaja O, Watson ID, Topic E et al. Position paper of the EPMA and EFLM: a global vision of the consolidated promotion of an integrative medical approach to advance health care. EPMA J 2013; 4 (1): 1 2. A vailable from DOI: < http://doi 1 0.1186/1878– 5085–4-12>.
23. Grech G, Zhan X, Yoo BC et al. EPMA position paper in cancer: current o verview and future p erspectives. E PMA J 2015; 6 (1): 9 . Available from DOI: <http://doi 10.1186/s13167–015–0030–6>.
Štítky
Biochemie Dětská gynekologie Dětská radiologie Dětská revmatologie Endokrinologie Gynekologie a porodnictví Interní lékařství Ortopedie Praktické lékařství pro dospělé Radiodiagnostika Rehabilitační a fyzikální medicína Revmatologie Traumatologie OsteologieČlánek vyšel v časopise
Clinical Osteology
2022 Číslo 1
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Chondroblastóm femuru – benígny nádor s potenciálne vážnymi následkami: kazuistika
- Casus socialis: sociálny či medicínsky problém? Kazuistika
- Změny kostní denzity a riziko osteoporotických fraktur u pacientů s psoriatickou artritidou
- A need for predictive and personalized approach in osteoporosis treatment: individual treatment plan