Overuse and Underuse of Antiosteoporotic Treatments According to Highly Influential Osteoporosis Guidelines: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Spain.

Inappropriate prescribing of antiosteoporotic medications has been observed; however, the joint study of both overuse and underuse has barely been attempted. Spain, with its high utilization rates, constitutes a good example to assess differences in over and under use according to diverse highly-influential osteoporosis guidelines (HIOG) worldwide. We used data of a population-based cross-sectional study including 824 post-menopausal women ≥50 years old living in the city of Valencia, Spain and aimed to estimate the percentage of women eligible for treatment, and the proportion of overuse and underuse of antiosteoporotic treatment according to HIOG. The prevalence of antiosteoporotic treatment in postmenopausal women ≥ 50 in Valencia was 20.9% (95%CI:17.6-24.4). The type of antiosteoporotic drugs prescribed varied greatly depending on the medical specialty responsible of the initial prescription. When applying the HIOG, the percentage of women 50 and over who should be treated varied from less than 9% to over 44%. In real terms, from the approximately eight million women of 50 years old and over in Spain, the number eligible for treatment would range from 0.7 to 3.8 million, depending on the guideline used. A huge proportion of inappropriate treatments was found when applying these guidelines to the Spanish population, combining a high overuse (42-78% depending on the guideline used) and underuse (7-41%). In conclusion, we found that the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in women of 50 and over in this population combines an important overuse and, to a lesser extent, underuse, although the level of inappropriateness varied strikingly depending on the CPG used. It seems urgent to reduce treatment overuse without neglecting underuse, as is urgent an attempt to reach wider agreement worldwide regarding osteoporosis management, in order to facilitate appropriate treatment and development of policies to reduce effectively treatment inappropriateness.

Comparing variation across European countries: building geographical areas to provide sounder estimates.

BACKGROUND: In geographical studies, population distribution is a key issue. An unequal distribution across units of analysis might entail extra-variation and produce misleading conclusions on healthcare performance variations. This article aims at assessing the impact of building more homogeneous units of analysis in the estimation of systematic variation in three countries. METHODS: Hospital discharges for six conditions (congestive heart failure, short-term complications of diabetes, hip fracture, knee replacement, prostatectomy in prostate cancer and percutaneous coronary intervention) produced in Denmark, England and Portugal in 2008 and 2009 were allocated to both original geographical units and new ad hoc areas. New areas were built using Ward's minimum variance methods. The impact of the new areas on variability was assessed using Kernel distribution curves and different statistic of variation such as Extremal Quotient, Interquartile Interval ratio, Systematic Component of Variation and Empirical Bayes statistic. RESULTS: Ward's method reduced the number of areas, allowing a more homogeneous population distribution, yet 20% of the areas in Portugal exhibited less than 100 000 inhabitants vs. 7% in Denmark and 5% in England. Point estimates for Extremal Quotient and Interquartile Interval Ratio were lower in the three countries, particularly in less prevalent conditions. In turn, the Systematic Component of Variation and Empirical Bayes statistic were slightly lower in more prevalent conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Building new geographical areas produced a reduction of the variation in hospitalization rates in several prevalent conditions mitigating random noise, particularly in the smallest areas and allowing a sounder interpretation of the variation across countries.

High-dose-rate brachytherapy boost effect on local tumor control in young women with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the local control rate and complications of a single fraction of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR BT) boost in women aged 45 yeas and younger after breast-conserving therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1999 and 2007, 167 patients between the ages of 26 and 45 years old (72 were 40 years old or younger), with stages T1 to T2 invasive breast cancer with disease-free margin status of at least 5 mm after breast-conserving surgery received 46 to 50 Gy whole-breast irradiation plus a 7-Gy HDR-BT boost ("fast boost"). An axillary dissection was performed in 72.5% of the patients and sentinel lymph node biopsy in 27.5%. A supraclavicular area was irradiated in 19% of the patients. Chemotherapy was used in 86% of the patients and hormone treatment in 77%. Clinical nodes were present in 18% and pathological nodes in 29%. The pathological stage was pT0: 5%, pTis: 3%, pT1: 69% and pT2: 23%. Intraductal component was present in 40% and 28% were G3. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 92 months, 9 patients relapsed on the margin of the implant, and 1 patient in another quadrant, resulting in a 10-year local relapse rate of 4.3% and a breast relapse rate of 4.9%, with breast preservation in 93.4%; no case of mastectomy due to poor cosmesis arose. Actuarial 5- and 10-year disease-free, cause-specific, and overall survival rates were 87.9% and 85.8%, and 92.1% and 88.4%, and 92.1% and 87.3%, respectively. In a univariate analysis, triple-negative cases and negative hormone receptors did worse, but in a multivariate analysis, only the last factor was significant for local and breast control. Asymptomatic fibrosis G2 was recorded in 3 cases, and there were no other late complications. Cosmetic results were good to excellent in 97% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of 7 Gy using the fast-boost technique is well tolerated, with a low rate of late complications and improved local tumor control in women aged 45 and younger, compared to published data. This approach is recommended in breast-preserving treatment.

Impact on the population of different bone mineral density testing criteria and appropriateness of densitometries in the ESOSVAL cohort, Spain.

CONTEXT: There is little consensus regarding which individuals should be recommended for bone mineral density (BMD) testing, a situation that could eventually affect the appropriateness of routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the impact on the population of the application of the BMD testing criteria provided by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), and Osteoporosis Canada and to assess the appropriateness of the BMD tests currently performed. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the baseline data of the ESOSVAL cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 11 035 men and women aged 50 years old and over attending primary health care centers in the Valencia region, Spain (2009-2010). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: BMD testing by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was recorded. RESULTS: Of the 10 710 people included in the study, 1617 (15.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4-15.8) received a BMD test. When applying the NOGG criteria, BMD testing would be recommended in 17.4% (95% CI: 16.7-18.1) of individuals, whereas this percentage would rise to 74.6% (95% CI: 73.7-75.4) and 80.1% (95% CI: 79.4-80.9) when using the Osteoporosis Canada and the NOF criteria, respectively. Regarding the appropriateness of the BMD tests performed in the ESOSVAL cohort, 40.7% (95% CI: 38.3-43.1), 86.0% (95% CI: 84.3-87.7), and 82.2% (95% CI: 80.3-84.1) of individuals having a BMD test met the NOGG, NOF, and the Canadian guidelines criteria, respectively. Of the tests performed, 40.7% would be deemed as appropriate, whereas 10.7% would be considered inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The impact on the population of the different recommendations is enormous, varying from 17% to 80% of the population over 50 who would be tested. Although in men it seems that a clinical rationale exists between the presence of risk factors and the rates of BMD testing, this pattern does not seem to exist in women. One in 10 of the densitometric tests performed were inappropriate according to all the guidelines.