Search

Objective: We conducted a survey of UK endocrine clinicians between June 2022 and August 2022 to understand current practices regarding GH treatment discontinuation in adults with growth hormone deficiency. Design and methods: Using Survey Monkey®, a web-based multiple-choice questionnaire was disseminated to the UK Society for Endocrinology membership. It consisted of 15 questions on demographics, number of patients receiving GH and current practice on GH treatment discontinuation. Results: In total, 102 endocrine clinicians completed the survey. Of these, 65 respondents (33 endocrinologists and 32 specialist nurses) indicated active involvement in managing patients with growth hormone deficiency. In total, 27.7% of clinicians were routinely offering a trial of GH discontinuation to adults receiving long-term GH therapy. Only 6% had a clinical guideline to direct such practice. In total, 29.2% stated that GH discontinuation should be routinely offered as an option to patients on long-term treatment, whilst 60% were not clearly in favour or against this approach but stated that it should probably be considered, and 9.2% were against. During the GH withdrawal period, most clinicians monitor signs and symptoms (75.4%), measure IGF-1 (84.6%), and complete a quality-of-life assessment (89.2%). Conclusion: The practice of offering a trial of GH discontinuation in growth hormone deficiency adults on long-term GH therapy is highly variable, reflecting the lack of high-quality evidence. Around a quarter of clinicians offer GH withdrawal for a number of reasons, but only a few have a local clinical guidance. A further 60% of clinicians stated they would probably consider such an approach. Methodologically sound studies underpinning the development of safe and cost-effective guidance are needed. Significance statement In this UK survey of endocrine clinicians managing adults with growth hormone deficiency on long-term GH therapy, we explored for the first-time current practice and views on offering GH treatment discontinuation. In total, 27.7% of clinicians were routinely offering this option for a variety of reasons. Only 6% have local clinical guideline available to direct their practice on this. The majority of clinicians (60%), were not clearly in favour or against this approach but indicated it should probably be considered. In the absence of robust evidence on consequences of GH withdrawal, clinicians proposed monitoring of various clinical, biochemical and quality-of-life parameters during the period of discontinuation. Methodologically sound studies that will underpin the development of a safe, cost-effective guidance are needed.

Background Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A – we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. Stage 1B – we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. Stage 2 – we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Background Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Aim Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. Design and methods The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients’ and doctors’ views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Results Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Conclusions Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but ‘continuing with treatment’, particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community. Scientific summary Background Alendronate (ALN) is recommended as the first-line osteoporosis treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates (BP) are available, which vary in frequency of use and/or route of administration and have been shown to improve long-term adherence compared to ALN. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative regimen remains unclear. Furthermore, clinicians should optimise dosing regimens on the basis of the patient’s understanding, preference and characteristics. What is the most cost-effective BP in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of ALN compared to alternative BP. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of BP and estimate the value of further research into the relative benefits. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: we elicited patient and clinician experiences of different BP regimens to understand their preferences and those of other stakeholders compared to ALN. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies around clinician and patient views, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with multidisciplinary stakeholders. Stage 1B: we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effective health economic model (2016), incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. The model takes a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, with future costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) discounted at 3.5% per annum. Costs are reported in pound sterling based on 2021 prices. Stage 2: using an approach based on the James Lind methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions, we identified questions that needed to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of BP. Findings from stages 1A and 1B, together with multidisciplinary meetings, identified areas of uncertainty. These questions were then ranked in a multidisciplinary, nationally representative stakeholder event, conducted online over MS Teams. Results We identified, through a systematic review of previous studies on patient and clinician experiences of BP treatment, how patients and healthcare professionals make sense (coherence) of BP by balancing perceptions of need against concerns, how uncertainty prevails about BP-perceived effectiveness and a number of individual and service factors that have potential to increase self-efficacy in recommending and adhering to BP. The qualitative interview study examining experiences of alternate BP regimens found that intravenous (IV) BP zoledronate (ZOL) treatment was generally more acceptable to patients. Such IV regimens were perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking ALN were satisfied with their current treatment. The systematic review and network meta-analysis of previous studies of effectiveness found that IV ZOL was the most effective BP compared to ALN, risedronate and oral ibandronate for reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Adherence was higher in IV ZOL users. It was found that clinical decision-making could be facilitated by considering adherence patterns in BP users who were at increased risk of fracture. However, the higher hospital administration costs for IV ZOL meant that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for IV ZOL compared to ALN were greater than £30,000 per QALY across all risk categories. This was despite the fact that IV ZOL was predicted to result in fewer fractures than ALN, due to its higher treatment persistence and a longer offset period. The prioritisation exercise highlighted a need for further research to tackle the issues relating to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, including in younger adults, how to optimise long-term care and support patient and clinician decision-making and the clinical and cost-effectiveness of giving IV ZOL in alternate settings to hospital care. Conclusions We have identified the factors that influence how patients and clinicians make sense of BP, described the experience of BP taking in terms of burden and identified factors that both facilitate and hinder confidence in taking and prescribing and monitoring BP. IV ZOL treatment was generally more acceptable to patients. IV ZOL was found to be the most effective BP and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness of IV ZOL relative to ALN was limited by the high hospital administration costs. Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection and effectiveness and establish how to optimise long-term care. In addition, research is needed to explore the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IV ZOL delivered in alternate settings, such as in the community, compared to ALN treatment. Patient and public involvement We have worked closely with the Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS) and the Nottingham ROS (NotROS) Support Group, who together have influenced the design of this application, choice of study outcomes and were involved throughout the study. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Background Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments. Methods This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation. Results The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices. Conclusion Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

Abstract Background The PARADIGHM registry of adult and pediatric patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism evaluates the long-term safety and effectiveness of treatment with recombinant human parathyroid hormone, rhPTH(1-84), and describes the clinical disease course under conditions of routine clinical practice. In this first report, we detail the registry protocol and describe the baseline characteristics of two adult patient cohorts from an interim database analysis. One cohort after study entry were prescribed rhPTH(1-84), and the other cohort received conventional therapy of calcium and active vitamin D. Methods An observational study of patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism in North America and Europe, collecting data for ≥10 years per patient. Main outcome measures were baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, medications, and disease outcome variables of symptoms, biochemical parameters, and health assessments. Baseline is the enrollment assessment for all variables except biochemical measurements in patients treated with rhPTH(1-84); those measurements were the most recent value before the first rhPTH(1-84) dose. Exclusion criteria applied to the analysis of specified outcomes included pediatric patients, patients who initiated rhPTH(1-84) prior to enrollment, and those who received rhPTH(1-34). Clinically implausible biochemical outlier data were excluded. Results As of 30 June 2019, data of 737 patients were analyzed from 64 centers; 587 (80%) were women, mean ± SD age 49.1±16.45 years. At enrollment, symptoms reported for patients later prescribed rhPTH(1-84) (n=60) and those who received conventional therapy (n=571), respectively, included fatigue (51.7%, 40.1%), paresthesia (51.7%, 29.6%), muscle twitching (48.3%, 21.9%), and muscle cramping (41.7%, 33.8%). Mean serum total calcium, serum phosphate, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar between cohorts. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 36-item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire scores for those later prescribed rhPTH(1-84) were generally lower than those for patients in the conventional therapy cohort. Conclusions At enrollment, based on symptoms and HRQoL, a greater percentage of patients subsequently prescribed rhPTH(1-84) appeared to have an increased burden of disease than those who received conventional therapy despite having normal biochemistry measurements. PARADIGHM will provide valuable real-world insights on the clinical course of hypoparathyroidism in patients treated with rhPTH(1-84) or conventional therapy in routine clinical practice. Trial registration EUPAS16927, NCT01922440

ABSTRACT Bisphosphonates have been found to be effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, their comparative effectiveness in populations at risk has yet to be defined. In light of recent clinical trials, we aimed to compare four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and to identify which are the most effective for the prevention of fragility fractures. This is an update of a systematic review previously published as part of a NICE HTA report. We conducted a systematic review and network meta‐analysis, updating the estimates regarding the comparative effectiveness of the aforementioned bisphosphonates. Studies identified from published and unpublished sources between 2014 and 2021 were added to the studies identified in the previous review. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Outcomes were fractures, femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), mortality, and adverse events. We identified 25 additional trials, resulting in a total population of 47,007 participants. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment in preventing vertebral fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.28–0.49). Zoledronate (HR 0.71; 95% CrI, 0.61–0.81) and risedronate (HR 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.53–0.84) were found to be the most effective treatments in preventing nonvertebral fractures. All treatments were associated with increases in femoral neck BMD versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment mean difference (MD 4.02; 95% CrI, 3.2–4.84). There was a paucity of data regarding hip and wrist fractures. Depending on its cost‐effectiveness, zoledronate could be considered a first‐line option for people at increased risk of fragility fractures. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is classically associated with both an elevated or ‘inappropriately normal’ parathyroid hormone (PTH) level and raised serum calcium. However, in clinical practice, increasing numbers of patients present with raised PTH but normal serum calcium, renal function and vitamin D; this is known as normocalcaemic PHPT (nPHPT). Studies investigating the clinical presentation of this condition have shown that patients may present with hypertension, nephrolithiasis, impaired glucose tolerance, osteoporosis and fragility fractures. The prevalence of such complications in nPHPT is similar to that in classical hypercalcaemic PHPT (hPHPT). Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have developed guidelines for the management of PHPT generally, a consensus is yet to be reached on the optimal management of nPHPT specifically. A review of the literature on parathyroidectomy in the treatment of nPHPT revealed that nPHPT patients were more likely to present with multi-glandular disease and significantly less nPHPT patients had an intra-operative PTH fall of >50% compared with those with hPHPT. These findings demonstrate that patients with nPHPT are more likely to receive bilateral neck explorations and require remedial surgery compared with hPHPT patients. Following surgery, improvements in bone mineral density (BMD) and renal stones are generally observed in those with nPHPT. Where surgery is not possible, medical management with alendronate has been shown to be effective in nPHPT patients. Given the higher incidence of multi-gland disease and greater possibility of remedial surgery in nPHPT, careful consideration of risks and benefits should be made on an individualised basis and surgery should be performed by surgeons experienced in four gland exploration.

Objective To explore the acceptability of different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of osteoporosis among patients, clinicians and managers, payers and academics.Design A systematic review of primary qualitative studies. Seven databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of full-articles selected for inclusion were performed independently by two authors. A framework synthesis was applied to extracted data based on the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The TFA includes seven domains relating to sense-making, emotions, opportunity costs, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy. Confidence in synthesis findings was assessed.Setting Any developed country healthcare setting.Participants Patients, healthcare professionals, managers, payers and academics.Intervention Experiences and views of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates.Results Twenty-five studies were included, mostly describing perceptions of oral bisphosphonates. We identified, with high confidence, how patients and healthcare professionals make sense (coherence) of bisphosphonates by balancing perceptions of need against concerns, how uncertainty prevails about bisphosphonate perceived effectiveness and a number of individual and service factors that have potential to increase self-efficacy in recommending and adhering to bisphosphonates. We identified, with moderate confidence, that bisphosphonate taking induces concern, but has the potential to engender reassurance, and that both side effects and special instructions for taking oral bisphosphonates can result in treatment burden. Finally, we identified with low confidence that multimorbidity plays a role in people’s perception of bisphosphonate acceptability.Conclusion By using the lens of acceptability, our findings demonstrate with high confidence that a theoretically informed, whole-system approach is necessary to both understand and improve adherence. Clinicians and patients need supporting to understand the need for bisphosphonates, and clinicians need to clarify to patients what constitutes bisphosphonate treatment success. Further research is needed to explore perspectives of male patients and those with multimorbidity receiving bisphosphonates, and patients receiving intravenous treatment.PROSPERO registration number CRD42019143526.

Background: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture. Data sources: For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018. Review methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results: Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0–33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories. Limitations: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients. Conclusions: Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Co-existence of craniopharyngioma and acromegaly has been very rarely reported. A 65-year-old man presented with visual deterioration, fatigue and frontal headaches. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a suprasellar heterogeneous, mainly cystic, 1.9 × 2 × 1.9 cm mass compressing the optic chiasm and expanding to the third ventricle; the findings were consistent with a craniopharyngioma. Pituitary hormone profile showed hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, mildly elevated prolactin, increased insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and normal thyroid function and cortisol reserve. The patient had transsphenoidal surgery and pathology of the specimen was diagnostic of adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma. Post-operatively, he had diabetes insipidus, hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and adrenocorticotropic hormone and thyroid-stimulating hormone deficiency. Despite the hypopituitarism, his IGF-1 levels remained elevated and subsequent oral glucose tolerance test did not show complete growth hormone (GH) suppression. Further review of the pre-operative imaging revealed a 12 × 4 mm pituitary adenoma close to the right carotid artery and no signs of pituitary hyperplasia. At that time, he was also diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the left upper lung lobe finally managed with radical radiotherapy. Treatment with long-acting somatostatin analogue was initiated leading to biochemical control of the acromegaly. Latest imaging has shown no evidence of craniopharyngioma regrowth and stable adenoma. This is a unique case report of co-existence of craniopharyngioma, acromegaly and squamous lung cell carcinoma that highlights diagnostic and management challenges. Potential effects of the GH hypersecretion on the co-existent tumours of this patient are also briefly discussed.

ObjectiveTo investigate trends in the incidence of testing for vitamin D deficiency and the prevalence of patients with circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) indicative of deficiency (

Background: Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. Data sources: For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. Review methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results: Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. Limitations: We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. Conclusions: Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.