Similarities and differences between European guidelines for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

UNLABELLED

We conducted a review of 10 national guidelines from five EU countries to identify similarities or differences in recommendations for the management of patients with osteoporosis. We found general alignment of key recommendations; however, there are notable differences, largely attributed to country-specific approaches to risk assessment and reimbursement conditions.

INTRODUCTION

The classification of fracture risk is critical for informing treatment decisions for post-menopausal osteoporosis. The aim of this review was to summarise 10 national guidelines from five European countries, with a focus on identifying similarities or differences in recommendations for the management of patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

We summarised the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Disease-International Osteoporosis Foundation guidelines and reviewed guidelines from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

RESULTS

The approach to risk assessment differed across the guidelines. In France, and Spain, risk assessment was based on DXA scans and presence of prior fractures, whereas UK, German and Italian guidelines recommended use of a validated risk tool. These differences led to distinct definitions of very high and high-risk patients. Guidelines aligned in recommending antiresorptive and anabolic agents as pharmacologic options for the management of osteoporosis, with sequential treatment recommended. There was agreement that patients at high or very high risk of fracture or with severe osteoporosis should receive anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive drugs. Variations were identified in recommendations for follow up of patients on anti-osteoporosis therapies. Reimbursement conditions in each country were a key difference identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Criteria for risk assessment of fractures differ across European guidelines which may impact treatment and access to anabolic agents. Harmonisation across EU guidelines may help identify patients eligible for treatment and impact treatment uptake. However, country-specific reimbursement and prescribing processes may present a challenge to achieving a consistent approach across Europe.