ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The real duration of osteoporosis treatment in clinical practice is still not well described. The primary objective is to estimate the proportion of patients who stayed on treatment during a 4-year follow-up, and the secondary objective is to estimate the proportion of patients who switched treatment and the reasons for switch or discontinuation. METHODS: This was a national retrospective chart review, based on routine clinical data. Data were collected electronically from medical records in 33 representative primary care physicians' sites. Inclusion criteria were women with postmenopausal osteoporosis that have received initial treatment prescription following diagnosis by DXA between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014, and at least a 12-month database history after the index date. Exclusion criteria were women receiving treatment for osteoporosis and follow-up at secondary care physicians' sites only. All statistical analyses were performed with the R statistical package. RESULTS: A total of 1206 female patients with newly diagnosed osteoporosis and treatment initiation were followed for 4 years. The majority (88.3%) had no history of previous fractures. Bone mineral density data were available in 70.1%. Endocrinology was the most common specialty among prescribing specialists (40.0%), followed by rheumatology (30.3%). Bisphosphonates (BPs) were the most common initial treatment (72.7%), followed by denosumab (20.1%). Ibandronate (70.2%) and alendronate (24.2%) constituted the majority of all prescribed BPs; 731 patients remained on treatment during the second year (60.6%), 524 during the third year (43.4%) and 403 (33.4%)-at study end (fourth year). In all groups, except that on denosumab, the most common reason for switching to another treatment was presumed lack of effect. The main reasons for treatment discontinuation were financial on the patient's part. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of osteoporosis treatment in real-world clinical practice is far from optimal: < 3-4 years irrespective of fracture risk. Factors other than medical considerations are at play, mainly limitations set by the Health Insurance Fund. The health authorities should be aware of this.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a genetic disorder causing accelerated atherosclerosis and premature cardiovascular disease (CVD). This retrospective observational study examined the clinical characteristics and management of FH subjects in Bulgaria over a 12-month period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve cardiology sites participated in this study from May 2015 to May 2016. Eligible subjects had at least two routine low-density lipo-protein cholesterol (LDL C) measurements and a prescription for lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) at the start of the observation period. Mean values for gender, age and cardiovascular (CV) event history at baseline and LDL-C over time were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 220 eligible subjects, 196 fulfilled the criteria for FH diagnosis: 27 definite, 94 probable and 75 possible. Mean age at enrolment was 54.4 years and 64.1% of subjects were male. Mean CV risk classification at baseline was 26.8% high-risk (HR) and 73.2% very high-risk (VHR). Mean LDL-C was 5.6 mmol/L at enrolment and 4.1 mmol/L at last observation visit (12 months). The ESC/EAS Guideline LDL-C targets (applicable at the time of the study) were achieved by 14.5% of HR and 5.0% of VHR subjects. Most subjects (n=219) received statins. One subject was statin intolerant (ezetimibe therapy). Intensive statin treatment (atorvastatin 40-80 mg/daily and rosuvastatin 20-40 mg/daily) was used in 38.6% of individuals during the observation period and 10% of subjects received combination therapy (statin plus ezetimibe or other LLT). CONCLUSIONS: Most subjects with FH do not reach the ESC/EAS defined LDL-C targets. Early identification and physician education may improve FH management.
