Experience of the Administration of First Dose IV Zoledronate at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

IF 1.8 Q4 RHEUMATOLOGY
Akshat Sinha, Brandon Karamveer Sangha
{"title":"Experience of the Administration of First Dose IV Zoledronate at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.","authors":"Akshat Sinha, Brandon Karamveer Sangha","doi":"10.5152/eurjrheum.2025.24141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background: Osteoporosis affects nearly 3 million people in the UK, with bisphosphonates forming the mainstay of treatment. While the side effect profile of zoledronate is well-documented, adherence to prescribing guidance and specific population outcomes warrant further investigation. Our objectives were to assess whether zoledronate was prescribed correctly in accordance with guidance and evaluate the side-effect profile with attention to demographic variables. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 68 patients receiving their first dose of zoledronate at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham (QEHB), between January and December 2021. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Patient records were reviewed for adherence to guidance, including pre-infusion checks and indication for treatment. Side effects were documented through postinfusion questionnaires. This timeframe was selected to capture a full year of prescribing patterns and ensure consistency in available data. Results: Among 68 patients (13 males, 55 females; age range 28-92), 96% were prescribed zoledronate for appropriate indications. Vitamin D was checked in 93%, and 100% underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. However, only 16% had Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) scores calculated. One patient received the infusion despite an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 35 mL/min. Side effects were reported in 37%, primarily bone/joint pain. Statistical analysis did not find a significant correlation between age, sex, or ethnicity and side-effect frequency (P > 0.05). Age appeared to influence post-dose symptoms, with older patients experiencing fewer side effects. Ocular symptoms were reported in 2 cases, and details of these were analyzed. South Asian females reported a higher incidence of side effects, but this observation remains exploratory due to the small sample size. Conclusion: This audit has shown that zoledronate is being prescribed in accordance with guidance at QEHB. Treatment is offered after systematic checks of biochemical parameters. However, the low rate of FRAX score calculation (16%) raises concerns about the completeness of fracture risk assessment. A potential explanation is the reliance on DXA scanning or clinical judgment, and a lack of transfer of information from primary care. Side effects reported are covered in patient information leaflets. Given that side effects were assessed 16 weeks post-infusion, recall bias should be considered a limitation. Further research is needed to ascertain predictors for subsequent adverse effects following infusion. Zoledronate prescription was largely in line with guidance, though notable gaps in fracture risk assessment were observed. The side effect profile aligned with existing literature, and demographic variations in adverse events should be interpreted cautiously given the sample size constraints.</p>","PeriodicalId":12066,"journal":{"name":"European journal of rheumatology","volume":"12 3","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12402432/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/eurjrheum.2025.24141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Osteoporosis affects nearly 3 million people in the UK, with bisphosphonates forming the mainstay of treatment. While the side effect profile of zoledronate is well-documented, adherence to prescribing guidance and specific population outcomes warrant further investigation. Our objectives were to assess whether zoledronate was prescribed correctly in accordance with guidance and evaluate the side-effect profile with attention to demographic variables. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 68 patients receiving their first dose of zoledronate at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham (QEHB), between January and December 2021. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Patient records were reviewed for adherence to guidance, including pre-infusion checks and indication for treatment. Side effects were documented through postinfusion questionnaires. This timeframe was selected to capture a full year of prescribing patterns and ensure consistency in available data. Results: Among 68 patients (13 males, 55 females; age range 28-92), 96% were prescribed zoledronate for appropriate indications. Vitamin D was checked in 93%, and 100% underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. However, only 16% had Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) scores calculated. One patient received the infusion despite an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 35 mL/min. Side effects were reported in 37%, primarily bone/joint pain. Statistical analysis did not find a significant correlation between age, sex, or ethnicity and side-effect frequency (P > 0.05). Age appeared to influence post-dose symptoms, with older patients experiencing fewer side effects. Ocular symptoms were reported in 2 cases, and details of these were analyzed. South Asian females reported a higher incidence of side effects, but this observation remains exploratory due to the small sample size. Conclusion: This audit has shown that zoledronate is being prescribed in accordance with guidance at QEHB. Treatment is offered after systematic checks of biochemical parameters. However, the low rate of FRAX score calculation (16%) raises concerns about the completeness of fracture risk assessment. A potential explanation is the reliance on DXA scanning or clinical judgment, and a lack of transfer of information from primary care. Side effects reported are covered in patient information leaflets. Given that side effects were assessed 16 weeks post-infusion, recall bias should be considered a limitation. Further research is needed to ascertain predictors for subsequent adverse effects following infusion. Zoledronate prescription was largely in line with guidance, though notable gaps in fracture risk assessment were observed. The side effect profile aligned with existing literature, and demographic variations in adverse events should be interpreted cautiously given the sample size constraints.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

伊利沙伯医院第一次静脉注射唑来膦酸钠的经验。
背景:在英国,骨质疏松症影响了近300万人,双膦酸盐是主要的治疗方法。虽然唑来膦酸钠的副作用有充分的记录,但对处方指导和特定人群结果的依从性需要进一步调查。我们的目的是评估唑来膦酸钠是否按照指南正确处方,并在考虑人口统计学变量的情况下评估其副作用概况。方法:回顾性分析2021年1月至12月在伯明翰伊丽莎白女王医院(QEHB)接受首次剂量唑来膦酸盐治疗的68例患者。采用严格的纳入和排除标准。对患者记录进行了审查,以确保其遵守指导,包括输注前检查和治疗指征。通过注射后问卷记录副作用。选择这一时间范围是为了捕获一整年的处方模式,并确保可用数据的一致性。结果:68例患者(男13例,女55例,年龄28 ~ 92岁)中,96%的患者在合适的适应症下使用了唑来膦酸钠。93%的患者接受了维生素D检查,100%的患者接受了双能x线吸收仪(DXA)扫描。然而,只有16%的患者进行了骨折风险评估工具(FRAX)评分。1例患者接受输注,尽管估计肾小球滤过率< 35 mL/min。37%的患者报告了副作用,主要是骨/关节疼痛。统计学分析未发现年龄、性别、种族与副作用发生频率有显著相关性(P < 0.05)。年龄似乎会影响给药后的症状,年龄越大的患者出现的副作用越少。报告2例眼部症状,并对其细节进行分析。南亚女性报告的副作用发生率较高,但由于样本量小,这一观察结果仍具有探索性。结论:本次审核显示,唑来膦酸盐的处方符合QEHB的指导。系统检查生化参数后进行处理。然而,FRAX评分计算率较低(16%)引起了人们对骨折风险评估完整性的担忧。一种可能的解释是对DXA扫描或临床判断的依赖,以及缺乏来自初级保健的信息传递。报告的副作用包含在患者信息单张中。考虑到副作用是在注射后16周评估的,回忆偏倚应该被认为是一个局限性。需要进一步的研究来确定输注后后续不良反应的预测因素。唑来膦酸钠处方基本符合指南,但在骨折风险评估方面存在显著差距。鉴于样本量的限制,应谨慎地解释副作用概况与现有文献一致,以及不良事件的人口统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
56
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信