Comparison of the proportion of patients potentially treated with an anti-osteoporotic drug using the current criteria of the Belgian national social security and the new suggested FRAX criteria

in Rheumatology International (2012)

To assess the number of anti-osteoporosis treatments that would be reimbursed by the Belgian social security if either FRAX or the current criteria were used to determine access to reimbursement. This is ... [more ▼]

To assess the number of anti-osteoporosis treatments that would be reimbursed by the Belgian social security if either FRAX or the current criteria were used to determine access to reimbursement. This is a retrospective study based on data from 1,000 women randomly selected from an outpatient hospital specialized in bone metabolism in Belgium. Proportions of potentially refunded treatments between FRAX and current criteria were compared. Out of the 1,000 women files, 890 have sufficient information to assess FRAX . In Belgium, current criteria include a bone mineral density (BMD) T score below -2.5 at the lumbar spine, the femoral neck or the total hip and/or at least a prevalent vertebral fracture. Using these criteria, 167 women (18.8 %) would have access to reimbursement. Using the criteria based on the validated Belgian FRAX tool, only 116 women (13.0 %) would have access to reimbursement, meaning that access to reimbursement based on FRAX criteria would reduce by 30 % the anti-osteoporosis drug expenses covered by the national social security. Interestingly, only 65 women out of the 116 (56.0 %) selected with the FRAX criteria were also selected with the current criteria of the national social security. A substantial proportion of individuals that would potentially receive a reimbursement for their treatment using the FRAX criteria do not have access to any refund for their treatment with the current criteria. Since patients identified with the FRAX tool are those with the highest risk profile for future fractures, reappraisals of treatment reimbursement guidelines are expected in Belgium. [less ▲]

Translation validation of a new back pain screening questionnaire (the STarT Back Screening Tool) in French

in Archives of Public Health (2012), 70

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem and the identification of individuals at risk of persistent LBP poses substantial challenges to clinical management. The STarT Back ... [more ▼]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem and the identification of individuals at risk of persistent LBP poses substantial challenges to clinical management. The STarT Back questionnaire is a validated nine-item patient self-report questionnaire that classifies patients with LBP at low, medium or high-risk of poor prognosis for persistent non-specific LBP. The objective of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the English version of the STarT Back questionnaire into French. Methods: The translation was performed using best practice translation guidelines. The following phases were performed: contact with the STarT Back questionnaire developers, initial translations (English into French), synthesis, back translations, expert committee review, test of the pre-final version on 44 individuals with LBP, final version. Results: The linguistic translation required minor semantic alterations. The participants interviewed indicated that all items of the questionnaire were globally clear and comprehensible. However, 6 subjects (14%) wondered if two questions were related to back pain or general health. After discussion within the expert committee and with the developer of the STarT Back tool, it was decided to modify the questionnaire and to add a reference to back pain in these two questions. Conclusions: The French version of the STarT Back questionnaire has been shown to be comprehensible and adapted to the French speaking general population. Investigations are now required to test the psychometric properties (reliability, internal and external validity, responsiveness) of this translated version of the questionnaire. [less ▲]

Severe prevalent vertebral fractures predict subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures: a 3-year prospective study

in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2012, June), 71(Suppl.3), 588

Perception, knowledge and use by general practitioners of Belgium of the FRAX tool

in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2012, June), 71(Suppl.3), 716

Radiological and clinical profil of osteoarthritic patients undergoing of total joint replacement

in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2012, June), 71(Suppl.3), 693

Trends in hip fracture incidence and in the prescription of anti-osteoporosis medications during same time period in Belgium (2000-2007)

in Arthritis Care & Research (2012), 64(5), 744-750

Health claims assessment in the field of joint and cartilage: a consensus viewpoint of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science

in Current Medical Research & Opinion (2012), 28(4), 611-6

Abstract Introduction: In 2006, the European Parliament and Council issued a regulation (No. 1924/2006) for the nutrition and health claims made on foods, including food supplements. According to the ... [more ▼]

Abstract Introduction: In 2006, the European Parliament and Council issued a regulation (No. 1924/2006) for the nutrition and health claims made on foods, including food supplements. According to the regulation, the use of nutrition and health claims shall only be permitted if the substance in respect of which the claim is made has been shown to have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect. In the field of joint and cartilage health, there is no clear scientific-based definition of the nature of such a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect. The objective of this paper is to scientifically define the possible content of health claims related to joint and cartilage health and to provide scientific guidelines for the design of clinical studies which need to be adopted to substantiate such health claims. Methods: Literature review up to September 2011 followed by a consensus expert discussion organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES). Results: In line with the general principles of the PASSCLAIM and the Codex recommendations, the GREES identified four acceptable health claims related to joint and cartilage health based on the effects on discomfort, joint and cartilage structural integrity or risk factors for joint and cartilage diseases. The GREES considers that randomized controlled trials on a relevant outcome is the best design to assess health claims. Moreover, animal studies could also be of interest to substantiate some health claims, to assess the clinical relevance of endpoints used in human studies or to extrapolate data obtained in patients to the target (apparently) healthy population. Conclusion: According to the methodology and biomarkers used in the study and whether or not additional animal studies are provided to support the claim, various health claims can be acceptable in the field of joint and cartilage health. [less ▲]

Indirect comparison of bazedoxifene vs. oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of nonvertebral fractures in high-risk postmenopausal osteoporosis population

in Osteoporosis International (2012, March), 23(S2), 64-65

Efficacy of once-yearly zoledronic acid 5 mg in men with osteoporosis with different levels of serum total testosterone

in Osteoporosis International (2012, March), 23(S2), 79-80

Structure modifying effects of strontium ranelate in knee osteoarthritis

in Osteoporosis International (2012, March), 23(S2), 58-59