Introduction
In Europe, USA, and Japan, about 75 million people suffer from osteoporosis [
1]. During their lifetime, up to 50% of women and 30% of men will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture [
2]. Particularly in the case of hip fractures, immediate hospitalization is required that is quite often followed by a long and problematic recovery; in addition, a substantial number of patients become permanently disabled after such a fracture. This protracted course of the disease means that not only the patients’ quality of life is considerably impaired but also that the costs for acute therapies and postoperative measures including rehabilitation are substantial. Hence, osteoporosis is one of the most serious chronic diseases that causes an enormous financial burden.
Because of their often serious consequences, prevention of fractures is the main goal of osteoporosis therapy. Prerequisite to achieve this goal is the identification of patients at risk for fractures by adequate diagnostic measures. Osteoporosis is characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD) [
3]. Based on this parameter, guidelines for therapeutic interventions recommend assessing BMD for the diagnosis of osteoporosis [
4,
5]. The risk of fracture, however, is caused multifactorially, including risk factors such as age, prior fragility fractures, a parental history of hip fracture, smoking, use of systemic corticosteroids, excess alcohol intake, and rheumatoid arthritis [
6,
7]. Therefore, BMD together with these factors should be considered when the fracture risk of an individual patient is evaluated [
6,
7]. Recently, the computer-based tool for fracture risk calculation (FRAX®,
http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/) has been developed. The algorithm of this tool takes this multifactorial approach into account. While rather simple to use, FRAX® generates very reliable data on the individual fracture risk. Based on such information, physicians can then decide on the appropriate measures to be taken to prevent fractures.
In clinical practice, however, the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of osteoporosis therapy are not always met. In fact, a substantial proportion of individuals at high risk, who have already had at least one fragility fracture, including hip fractures [
8,
9], are neither appropriately diagnosed nor treated for probable osteoporosis [
10‐
12]. Simplifying the diagnostic procedure by such easy-to-use tools as FRAX® might increase the diagnosis rate of osteoporotic patients and support the timely administration of the required treatments. This tool, however, is not yet available in every country.
Therefore, the discussions at the “2nd Summit on Osteoporosis—Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)” concentrated on the need for appropriate discrimination and evaluation of the individual osteoporosis risk factors to maximize the benefits of pharmacotherapy while limiting the risks and costs that accompany treatment. Here, the major aim was to identify and discuss diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic measures used in CEE. A comprehensive analysis covering these aspects in all CEE countries is not yet available, most probably because of considerable differences between the individual countries not only regarding culture, living conditions, life expectancy but also regarding availability and use of medical treatment for osteoporosis and, finally, reimbursement.
Representatives from Austria and Switzerland but mainly from CEE countries including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia participated in the “2nd summit on Osteoporosis—CEE”. This multinational panel of experts made the meeting a perfect platform to develop the above topics. Discussion was based on six international reference publications [
13‐
18]; the main debate was structured according to the following five subjects:
1.
Present status and future perspectives for implementation of FRAX® into local (CEE) diagnostic algorithms
2.
Principles of drug selection in osteoporosis treatment in CEE countries
3.
Nonpharmacological interventions in osteoporosis treatment and prophylaxis in CEE countries
4.
Treatment benefit evaluation
5.
Cost–effectiveness and evaluation of reimbursement policies in CEE countries
The information evaluated during the summit was used to identify issues regarding diagnosis and therapy of osteoporosis in CEE countries to facilitate the subsequent setup of appropriate support and development strategies. The most important and substantial comments of the delegates are summarized below.
Present status and future perspectives for implementation of FRAX® into local (CEE) diagnostic algorithms
The computer-based tool FRAX® has been developed by the WHO from studying population-based cohorts from Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia to evaluate the fracture risk of patients (
http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/). It is based on individual patient models that integrate the risks associated with clinical risk factors as well as BMD at the femoral neck. FRAX® represents a very sensitive tool to identify patients with a high fracture risk; its output is a 10-year probability of hip fracture and the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (clinical spine, forearm, hip, or shoulder fracture). Use of FRAX® for fracture risk calculation is recommended by current European guidelines [
15] as well as by guidelines of the National Osteoporosis Foundation and the World Health Organization (WHO) [
19] to improve diagnosis, facilitate the decision for appropriate therapeutic interventions, and, in the long run, save costs by fracture prevention.
Prerequisite for the implementation of FRAX® in a specific country is information on the local epidemiology of fractures and death. In several countries including UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, the USA, and others, sufficient reliable epidemiological data are available to calculate the fracture risk of an individual patient by FRAX®. In countries where such epidemiological data are missing, the guidelines for the use of FRAX® recommend to “use (the FRAX® model of) the country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates your country.” (
http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/). However, this approach is in a way problematic because the incidence of hip fractures and death differ considerably (10- to 15-fold) between countries [
20‐
22]. Hence, to obtain reliable information on fracture risk by FRAX®, local data on fracture and death rates should be assessed before implementation of FRAX® in a specific country.
Principles of drug selection in osteoporosis treatment in CEE countries
A range of drugs is available for the therapy of osteoporosis that significantly reduces the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures [
15,
19]. Most commonly used drugs are selective estrogen receptor modulators such as raloxifene; bisphosphonates such as alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate; parathyroid hormone (PTH)-derived drugs such as teriparatide; and so-called dual action bone agents (DABA) including strontium ranelate. In addition, hormone replacement therapies (females, estrogen; males, testosterone) can be used [
15,
19].
The decision for one or more of these therapeutic approaches is based primarily on the fracture risk of an individual patient [
4,
5] but also on biochemical markers for bone turnover [
6,
7]. In addition, individual patient’s characteristics should be considered: Will the patients comply with a therapy? Are they able to swallow their medication or do they need intravenous application? How is their individual tolerability to a certain drug? etc.
Nonpharmacological interventions in osteoporosis treatment and prophylaxis in CEE countries
Besides proper medication, a multitude of further measures have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of osteoporosis, osteoporosis-related fractures, and fall-related injuries. Physical activity, for example, has not only a positive impact on bone mineral density [
23‐
25] but also prevents falls especially in elderly patients by increasing their balance and physical confidence [
26]. Adequate intake of calcium supports the positive effect of physical activity [
27] and increases bone mineral density [
28]. Regular intake of vitamin D reduces the risk of falls and the fracture risk [
29,
30].
Cost–effectiveness and evaluation of reimbursement policies in CEE countries
As a chronic disease that in many cases is accompanied by limiting complications and consequences, osteoporosis is a very treatment- and, hence, cost-intensive condition. Considering also the high prevalence of this disease, the burden imposed by osteoporosis on health care systems is enormous. Especially in countries with limited resources and health care budgets, the decision taken on diagnostic and therapeutic measures to prevent or treat osteoporosis has to be based not only on therapeutic but also on economic considerations. Health-economy analyses that evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of a certain therapy can support the efficient allocation of such limited resources. Indeed, economic evaluations have been performed to compare distinct treatment strategies in osteoporosis [
35‐
37]. However, to realistically represent the cost/benefit of these therapies in a certain area or country, detailed local data on epidemiology, type of treatment, treatment expenses, success rates, etc. have to be incorporated into the evaluation.
Overall summary and outlook
The major aim of the “2nd summit on Osteoporosis—CEE” was to identify and discuss diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic measures used in CEE countries to prevent and treat osteoporosis [
39]. Based on such information, issues concerning the management of osteoporosis in these countries should then be identified to provide the basis for the development of suitable support and development strategies.
It was agreed that a proper diagnosis especially of the patient’s fracture risk is the absolute prerequisite for the decision on an adequate and successful therapy. To facilitate a simple but reliable diagnose of the fracture risk, all representatives of the CEE countries argued for the implementation of the computer-based tool FRAX® for fracture risk evaluation in CEE. For this, information on the local epidemiology of fracture and death rates is required. Such data, however, are currently not available for most countries in CEE. Therefore, the first step toward FRAX® implementation would be to develop a strategy on how such information can be collected most efficiently in CEE countries. Until sufficient local epidemiology data for the establishment of CEE-specific FRAX® algorithms are available, the Austrian FRAX® model was proposed as a surrogate model for CEE.
Drug selection should be based on physical parameters (absolute risk of fractures, biochemical markers of bone turnover, etc.) as well as on patient-specific factors (comorbidities, patient’s preference, tolerability, ability to comply, etc.). Such patient characteristics should also be considered when deciding on the way of administration (oral vs. intravenous) and the administration schedule (daily up to once a year). The most commonly used therapies are bisphosphonates, DABA, and PTH-derived formulations. In addition to such medication-based treatments, calcium and vitamin D supplementation were discussed to be vital for a successful therapy as well as measures such as comprehensively enquiring about the patient’s medical history, proper education, and, in general, the use of multidisciplinary therapeutic approaches. For evaluation of the benefit of a specific osteoporosis treatment, no direct tools are currently available; therefore, surrogate ones have to be employed.
Finally, the CEE delegates described the very heterogeneous economic situations in the different CEE countries and emphasized that country-specific health-economy analyses would be required to shed light on the cost–effectiveness of local osteoporosis therapies. For such studies, however, epidemiology data, data on the exact costs of therapies, etc. have first to be evaluated in each country. As soon as available, the combined use of CEE-specific FRAX® algorithms and local cost–effectiveness data would then allow an adequate and economical management of osteoporosis.
In conclusion, the lively discussion and exchange of information at the “2nd Summit on Osteoporosis—CEE” in November 2008 made clear that this meeting is a very helpful and authentic platform to identify issues and needs regarding the diagnosis and therapy of osteoporosis as well as the cost–effectiveness of osteoporosis management in CEE countries. Based on the information gained, the “3rd Summit on Osteoporosis—CEE” in November 2009 will then focus on the development of answers and strategies to resolve the identified issues.
Acknowledgment
The organization of the CEE Summit was supported by an unrestricted educational grant of AMGEN.