In the scenario given, a 75 twelvemonth old female patient with low bone mineral denseness ( BMD ) who is unable to digest a biphosphonate, has suffered more than 2 breaks. The false diagnosing is osteoporosis. Harmonizing to World Health Organization ( WHO ) , osteoporosis is defined by a T-score of -2.5 standard divergences ( SD ) or lower of a immature grownup intend bone mineral denseness obtained from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry ( DXA ) scanning. Despite this, harmonizing to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ( NICE ) guideline, assumed diagnosing of osteoporosis can be done in adult females aged 75 old ages or above without a T-score ( 1 ) .
Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal upset in which the bone is suffered from mass loss due to increase bone reabsorption by osteoclast comparative to cram formation by bone-forming cell. It is characterized by change of bone micro-architecture, low bone mineral denseness, decreased bone strength and increased breakability break hazard. Osteoporosis is an age-related clinical status with gradual bone mass loss starts at the mid-fortiess or 1950ss ( 2 ) . It affects both sexes but more common in post-menopausal adult females with the hazard additions with age from around 2 % at 50 old ages to 25 % at 80 old ages ( 1 ) .
Osteoporotic break is the major clinical result of osteoporosis. In UK, the hazard of enduring a break among the adult females and work forces 50 old ages and above are 50 % and 20 % severally ( 3 ) . Osteoporotic break is a break caused by a injury which would otherwise make non ensue in break in normal healthy bone. It is frequently associated with hip, carpus or spinal castanetss ( 2 ) . Osteoporosis leaves great impacts in the physical, psychosocial and fiscal facets ( 4 ) . It causes both mortality and morbidity in the patient. The survival rate of a patient after a break is varied harmonizing to the portion of organic structure involved with hip break to be the most serious. 10-20 % of adult females die within the first twelvemonth after a hip break. Spinal break is besides increases mortality rate that extends beyond the first twelvemonth of break. This could be attributed to the break or the subsequent fracture-related development of cardiovascular, malignant neoplastic disease and pneumonic disease ( 5, 6 ) .
Besides, osteoporotic break causes important disablement and cut down patient ‘s quality of life. Following a hip break, about tierce of the patient becomes wholly dependent. Although less likely to do disablement, spinal break affects patient ‘s day-to-day activities and causes backache, height loss and vertebral malformation. Even for a milder status like wrist break, patient ‘s activities are restricted to an drawn-out period as one in two of the patients has hapless functional result at 6 months. Apart from physical functionality, patient ‘s psychological wellbeing is besides affected as depression, low self-pride and anxiousness are reported ( 5 ) .
From the fiscal position, osteoporosis causes significant economic doomed and increases societal load. In 1998, about & amp ; lb ; 727 million was spent on the intervention of osteoporotic break among the female population in UK which covered both the infirmary wellness attention and societal attention cost ( 7 ) . The cost has been predicted to increase to more than & A ; lb ; 2 billion by 2020 due to the aging population ( 3 ) . Apart from this direct medical cost, there is besides a loss in the productiveness due to absence from work and premature decease.
Sum uping the fact that osteoporosis break can take to serious effects and the adult female in the scenario given is at a high hazard of farther break due to her high age and anterior breaks which associate with a 86 % higher hazard of any farther break, pharmacological intercession should be started quickly in this instance ( 8 ) .
The chief purpose of osteoporosis intervention is to forestall osteoporotic break. Presently, there are a figure of accredited curative agents available in UK for the intervention which can be classified harmonizing to their manner of action. They are anti-resorptive agents include biphosphonates, raloxifene, calcitonin and endocrine replacing therapy ( HRT ) which suppress bone reabsorption, consequence in bone turnover suppresion, bone anabolic agent like parathyroid endocrine peptides which stimulate bone formation, consequence in stimulated bone turnover and double action bone agent like Sr ranelate which uncoupled the bone remodeling, exerts both anti-resorption and bone formation consequence ( 2, 9 ) .
Biphosphonates are the current first line therapy for secondary bar of post-menopausal osteoporotic break ( 1 ) . However, as the patient in this instance is unable to digest biphosphonates, an alternate therapy should be sought. Harmonizing to BNF 59, Sr ranelate, teriparatide or raloxifene can be considered as an alternate therapy for osteoporosis in postmenopausal adult females if biphosphonates are intolerated ( 9 ) .
Strontium ranelate ( SnR ) , one of the intervention option available is a compound consists of two Sr atoms and a ranelic acid molecule. SnR is able to decouple bone remodeling, exercise both anti-resorption and anabolic action on the bone, and therefore bring forth a net bone formation. From In vitro and carnal theoretical account surveies, SnR has been found to suppress the proliferation and activity of osteoclasts but promote the proliferation and activity of bone-forming cells. This is farther shown in clinical tests where SnR-treated patients were found to hold a raised serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase bespeaking bone formation and a lessening of serum C telopeptide cross-links of type I collagen bespeaking a lessening in bone debasement ( 10 ) .
The clinical efficaciousness of SnR on osteoporosis and hence bar of vertebral, non-vertebral and hep break has been proved in several surveies. In Spinal Osteoporosis Therapeutic Intervention ( SOTI ) , 3 old ages of 2g SnR intervention was found to be able to diminish the new vertebral break hazard by 41 % and a 38 % lessening in the diagnostic vertebral break hazard compared to the placebo group ( 11 ) . This tendency continued when the intervention was extended to 4th twelvemonth ( 12 ) . On the other manus, the clinical efficaciousness of SnR on non-vertebral break has besides been shown in Treatment Of Peripheral Osteoporosis ( TROPOS ) survey with a 16 % lessening in entire non-vertebral break hazard and a 19 % lessening in break hazard affecting chief breakability break parts like hip, carpus, pelvic girdle and sacrum, ribs and breastbone, collarbone and humerus after 3 old ages of 2g SnR intervention compared to placebo. From the facet of hip break, a 15 % lessening in hazard was noted in the treated group, nevertheless this was non statistical important. A post-hoc analysis in this survey showed a 36 % lessening in the hip break hazard among the high hazard patients who are defined as above 74-year-old with a t-score of ? -3 when compared to the placebo group ( 13 ) . This tendency was found to keep throughout 5 old ages of therapy ( 14 ) .
Apart from the direct clinical result in cut downing break hazard, SnR has besides been systematically found to increase BMD in femoral cervix, entire hip and lumbar spinal column in several surveies although portion of this increase can be attributed to the enhanced x-ray soaking up ability of Sr compared to calcium ( 12, 14-16 ) . The benefit of a addition in femoral cervix and entire hip ‘s BMD is projected in a lessening in the non-vertebral break hazard ( 17 ) . Besides addition in BMD, SnR is besides able to better bone tissue quality which collaboratively enhance the bone biomechanical strength, and therefore reduces break hazard ( 10 ) .
The consistence of SnR efficaciousness profile has been determined from a pooled information of these two surveies. It was found that SnR is good to a broad scope of patient with a promising long-run efficaciousness. This is due to the fact that the efficaciousness of SnR on vertebral break bar was non varied harmonizing to baseline BMD, organic structure mass index ( BMI ) , prevailing breaks, household history of osteoporosis, smoking wont and age. Furthermore, it is besides effectual to aged adult females age 80-100 and postmenopausal adult females with osteopenia ( 18 ) . The efficaciousness of SnR was sustained in topics treated for up to 8 old ages ( 19 ) . Besides clinical benefit, SnR was found to supply extra good consequence in the facet of patient ‘s quality of life by bettering patient ‘s mobility, emotional province and cut downing hurting ( 12 ) .
In footings of safety, both SnR-treated and placebo group shared a common inauspicious event record with side effects include sickness, diarrhoea, concern, dermatitis and eczema were most often reported during the first three month of therapy ( 11, 13, 15 ) . Despite this, SnR-treated group was identified with a 0.3 % greater hazard of venous thromboembolism ( VTE ) compared to placebo group. Besides, it was besides associated with rare instances of hypersensitivity syndrome which requires expiration of intervention ( 20 ) .The safety profile of SnR was found to be consistent over the 8 old ages of intervention and at all age groups ( 15 ) .
The 2nd intervention option is raloxifene which is a non-steroidal selective eostrogen receptor modulator ( SERM ) exercising an oestrogen-like consequence in the bone and antagonise the consequence of oestrogen in the generative tissues ( 4 ) . As oestrogen playing a function in suppressing osteoclast activity, low degree of oestrogen in post-menopausal adult females leads to a monolithic bone lose due to miss of this suppression consequence. Hence, the purpose of SERM intervention is to use the good effects of oestrogen on bone piece at the average clip minimizes its effects on the chest and endometrium tissue to avoid side effects ( 1 ) .
Raloxifene is effectual in forestalling osteoporotic vertebral break. In Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation ( MORE ) test, a three-year raloxifene intervention with a day-to-day dosage of 60mg and 120mg successfully decreased the spinal break hazard among the osteoporotic post-menopausal adult females by 30 % and 50 % severally ( 21 ) . From Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista [ CORE ] survey, a 39 % lessening in new vertebral break hazard was besides noted in twelvemonth 4 entirely with the intervention of 60mg raloxifene ( 22 ) . The determination from Raloxifene Use for The Heart ( RUTH ) test which was 35 % decrease in vertebral break hazard following day-to-day intervention with 60mg raloxifene for a average old ages of 5.6 once more proved the efficaciousness of raloxifene in forestalling vertebral break ( 23 ) .
Besides the benefit in cut downing break hazard, raloxifene besides reduces the badness of future vertebral break ( 24 ) . This might attributable to its consequence on bone tissue alteration as it was found to increase BMD in the femoral cervix and spinal column ( 25 ) . Besides, it besides enhances bone biomechanical strength by stamp downing the dislocation of collagen type I in the bone and hence stamp downing bone reabsorption. Despite this, raloxifene did non cut down the non-vertebral break hazard ( 21 ) .
Besides the protective consequence against osteoporotic break, both MORE and RUTH surveies found that raloxifene has an extra benefit in cut downing the hazard of oestrogen-dependent chest malignant neoplastic disease ( 21, 23 ) .
In footings of safety, the chief concern sing the usage of raloxifene is VET. A treble addition in hazard was associated with the usage of raloxifene compared to placebo group ( 21 ) . This is parallel with the determination in RUTH survey where raloxifene caused an addition in the comparative hazards of VET by 44 % and fatal shot by 49 % ( 23 ) . Other side effects caused by raloxifene includes hot flowers, leg spasms, influenza-like symptoms, endometrial pit fluid, peripheral hydrops and declining diabetes ( 9, 23 ) . The safety profile of raloxifene remained the same throughout 4 old ages of intervention ( 22 ) .
The 3rd intervention option, teriparatide is a recombinant fragment of the first 34 aminic acids of human parathyroid endocrine ( hPTH ) . hPTH modulates both calcium balance and bone remodeling in mammals. While uninterrupted exposure to hPTH leads to cram loss, an intermittent exposure, for illustration by daily hypodermic injections with a low dosage is in fact consequences in bone formation due to the addition in osteoblast figure and activity ( 26 ) .
Following bone formation consequence, Teriparatide is expected to diminish the hazard of break. At the accredited dosage of 20?g day-to-day given by hypodermic injection, teriparatide has been found to efficaciously cut down both vertebral and non-vertebral break hazard. In a survey carried out by Neer et Al, the new vertebral break hazard was decreased by 65 % and new non-vertebral breakability break hazard was decreased by 53 % after a mean of 18 months of intervention compared to placebo group ( 27 ) .
Besides the direct clinical benefit in footings of break hazard, teriparatide was besides found to be able to increase the whole-body BMD, peculiarly femoral and lumbar BMD. In add-on, the bone quality which plays a function in finding the hazard of break was besides improved subsequent to teriparatide intervention. Teriparatide has been found to better the bone architecture, increasing trabeculate bone volume, cortical bone surfaces and thickness ( 28 ) .
Although the maximal continuance of the accredited 20?g teriparatide class is 18 months, its benefit on the protection of breakability break sustained after surcease of the intervention. This was shown in the survey which continue to supervise the topics in the Neer et Al survey for 18 months after the intervention ended. A 41 % decrease in the hazard of new vertebral break was noted. However, there was no important difference in the new non-vertebral break hazard between the 20?g teriparatide-treated group and the placebo group ( 29, 30 ) . Similarly to SnR, teriparatide is utile for a broad scope of patient as its anti-vertebral break efficaciousness was non modulated by age, figure of prevailing breaks and vertebral bone mineral denseness ( 27, 31 ) .
In add-on to the clinical benefits, teriparatide was found to cut down the hurting suffered by osteoporotic break patient during the 12months or 18 months of intervention which later result in the betterment of quality of life as evaluated by the quality of life ( QoL ) questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis ( QUALEFFO ) ( 32, 33 ) . However, the benefit was somewhat decrease following 6 months after surcease of the therapy ( 33 ) .
In footings of safety, the most normally reported side effects in the survey carried out by Neer et Al were concern, sickness, giddiness and leg spasm which are dose-dependent. Besides, mild hypercalcaemia was besides reported in the 20?g teriparatide-treated group. Although parathyroid endocrine is associated with osteogenic sarcoma in rats in one of the survey, this is non found in worlds as several surveies have proved that it does non increase the incidence of bone malignant neoplastic disease in the teriparatide-treated patients. Furthermore, teriparatide was found non-mutagenic and non-genotoxic in the criterion trials ( 27 ) . Hence, this is non a ground for excepting the usage of teriparatide in osteoporosis intervention. The long-run safety of teriparatide has been investigated with no serious inauspicious event was reported up to 30 months after discontinuance of the intervention ( 29, 30 ) . The safety of teriparatide is assuring at all age groups ( 34 ) .
Recommendation of Treatment
The ideal intervention for osteoporosis should be able to forestall osteoporotic break by increasing bone mass and bone strength, bettering bone microarchitecture and safe in long term. Hence, in the choice of the therapy, the drug efficaciousness and safety profile, patient feature and penchants and cost-effectiveness of the drug should be taken into consideration. As there is no tete-a-tete comparing between the efficaciousness of the drugs, the efficaciousness of each drug derived from single survey must be analyzed critically acknowledging the fluctuation in each surveies.
After reexamining all the intervention options stated above, SnR is recommended as the best intervention for the patient in the scenario given. The chief ground for this is due to its ability to cut down hip break hazard which was non found in other agents ( 13 ) . As hip break has high morbidity and mortality rate, this greatly increases the cost-effectiveness of SnR. Although the decrease in the hip break hazard was non important in the TROPOS survey, the consequence should non be neglected taking into consideration the big figure of topics ( n=5091 ) involved ( 13 ) . Besides, the important consequence obtained from the post-hoc analysis among the high hazard patient is besides representative as it is applicable to the patient in the scenario who is besides at high hazard of osteoporotic break ( 13 ) .
Besides hep break, SnR is besides found to be efficaciously cut down the hazard of vertebral and nonvertebral break ( 11, 13 ) . As there is no grounds demoing raloxifene is effectual in cut downing the hazard of non-vertebral break, it is comparatively weak as a pick of intervention for the high hazard patient in the scenario. Although it is good established that raloxifene is effectual in cut downing the hazard of chest malignant neoplastic disease, this advantage is more favorable for younger adult females ( 1, 35 ) .
The extra benefit of SnR is its alone action manner which stimulates bone formation and reduces bone reabsorption at the same time, hence increases the bone mass in a more physiological manner than either anti-resorptive or anabolic agent ( 10 ) . Anabolic action is of import for patient with established osteoporosis to reconstruct the bone strength. Although the bone formation consequence was found in the treated topics in both SOTI and TROPOS tests, there was survey suggests the anabolic action of SnR was limited and comparatively weak compared to teriparatide ( 36 ) . However, due to the cost and path of disposal of teriparatide, it is sooner reserved for patient with terrible osteoporosis or who is unresponsive to anti-resorptive agent ( 1, 18 ) .
As osteoporosis requires long-run intervention, a drug with long-run efficaciousness and safety profile is indispensable. SnR is able to run into this standards as its efficaciousness and safety profile have been studied in two 5 old ages pre-plannned randomized controlled tests which were extended to 8 old ages among certain topics ( 11, 13, 19 ) . As the longest studied drug among the three, SnR provides a more confident consequence in its long-run efficaciousness and safety profile. Besides, as the efficaciousness and safety profile of SnR has been tested on aged topics with a average age of 77 in TROPOS survey and the similar consequence was found in topics aged 80-100, the consequence can be confidently applied to the patient in this instance who is 75-year-old compared to the findings for other drugs which was done on younger capable population ( 13, 20 ) .
In term of safety, by and large SnR and teriperatide merely do mild side effects ( 11, 13, 15, 27 ) . However, raloxifene has been proven to do a threefold greater hazard of VTE ( 21, 23 ) . Harmonizing to BNF 59, it should be avoided in patient with drawn-out immobolisation ( 9 ) . Although the mobility of the patient in this instance is unknown, nevertheless, based on her high age and history of more than 2 breaks, she might hold a limited mobilisation. Hence, raloxifene would non be an appropriate pick for this patient. For SnR, a important addition in VTE was besides found in the pooled informations analysis of stage three clinical tests ( 20 ) . However, as the topics with VTE history was unbalanced between the treated and placebo group, when the topics with this history were excluded, there was no important difference between the two groups in the hazard of VTE ( 20 ) . Besides, there were surveies found the hazard of VTE was non significantly different between the SR-treated group and group having other anti-osteoporotic interventions and non-treated group ( 37, 38 ) . Since the hazard of SnR causes VTE is inconclusive, it is non contraindicated in patient with drawn-out immobilisation ( 9 ) . Hence, it can be used in this instance where the patient ‘s mobility province is unknown. However, it should be used carefully and peculiar attending should be given to possible marks and symptoms of VTE ( 9 ) .
All three drugs are given on a day-to-day footing with teriparatide is administered subcutaneously and raloxifene and SnR are taken orally. Hypodermic injection might be present as a less favorable path of disposal for patient who is unable to get the hang injection technique or unable to accept taking injection daily. On the other manus, SnR and teriparatide have been found to be able to cut down hurting in patients and better their quality of life ( 12, 32, 33 ) . Hence, they present a more favorable profile than raloxifene. As these two factors are able to impact patient ‘s conformity to long-run drug therapy and later affects the clinical result, they should be taken into consideration in taking therapy option.
From the facet of cost, raloxifene is the cheapest drug among the three with a annual costs of & A ; lb ; 222.39 to & A ; lb ; 258.93. The annual costs of SnR is & A ; lb ; 333.71 whereas teriparatide is the most expensive drug with a annual cost of & A ; lb ; 3544.15. Although non being the cheapest option, SnR consequences in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ( ICER ) of less than & A ; lb ; 30000 per quality-adjusted life-year ( QALY ) gained at 75-year-old patient with a higher t-score, hence lower break hazard compared to raloxifene and teriparatide ( 1 ) . This is parallel with the statement above that teriparatide should be reserved for patient with terrible osteoporosis and unable to digest biphosphonate or SnR ( 1, 18 ) . Besides, SnR intervention is besides considered to be cost-efficient compared to no-treatment ( 35 ) . Since the t-score in this patient is unknown and presuming she has non taken these three drugs before, SnR should be the first pick in this instance.
In concurrence with SnR, the patient should be given Ca and vitamin D addendums daily with the dosage based on the baseline degree and diet consumption. This is due to the fact that all the drug efficaciousness stated above was established in the presence of Ca and vitamin D addendums. Besides, there are groundss show that both Ca and vitamin D addendums cut down the hazard of breaks ( 39 ) .
In decision, 2g SnR, sooner taken at bedtime is given one time day-to-day for the patient in this scenario with vitamin D and Ca addendums taken at least 2 hours before or after taking SnR ( 40 ) . This option is besides parallel with NICE guideline which recommends SnR as one of the alternate therapy for the secondary bar of osteoporotic break in post-menopausal adult females who is unable to digest biphosphonates ( 1 ) .