[21] A strategy was implemented to improve the understanding of factors determining a perceived high risk for osteoporotic fracture and real-life clinical practices associated with the use of anabolic drugs—specifically, parathyroid hormone 1–84 (PTH1-84), which is S3I-201 solubility dmso indicated Selleck JQ1 for high-risk osteoporosis—among a large number of physicians involved in osteoporosis therapy in Spain, the country with the highest use of anabolic therapy in Europe.[22] The project aimed to develop consensus statements that could help guide

clinicians in their decision-making processes. The first Forum[20] reached some conclusions on major osteoporosis risk factors and on the identification of patients at the highest risk for fractures, who could benefit from anabolic therapy. Based on these this website conclusions, two main initial questions were posed for the second Forum: What are the characteristics that result in a specific patient being considered an HRF patient in clinical practice, and how can this fact influence treatment selection? How is PTH1-84 used in HRF patients? What is the patient profile? When and for how long is PTH1-84 used to treat

HRF? A summary of the conclusions from the second Forum is described here. This article does not aim to be a systematic review; rather, it aims to provide an account of the discussions that took place at the Forum and conclusions that were reached by physicians

in Spain. Materials and Methods The first phase of the second Forum was coordinated by various local leaders and included 19 discussion platforms across Spain, involving more than 300 participants. from (The coordinators, institutions, and locations of these Forum meetings are listed in the Acknowledgments section.) All groups used the general report on methods and conclusions from the First Forum and three typical clinical case presentations (table I) to aid discussion on both key questions that were posed. Conclusions were reached by consensus at each meeting and were later shared at a general meeting that was held in Madrid in late May 2011. During this second phase, reports on the final results from the debates among the initial groups were presented by each meeting coordinator. Final conclusions were reached by consensus. Table I Clinical case presentations used at the Forum meetings Results Taking into account the large number of meetings and participants, including different specialists with different perspectives on osteoporosis, the conclusions and reflections are obviously diverse. They have been classified according to the following items for summary and reporting purposes. The High Risk for Fracture (HRF) Patient Profile The HRF patient profile is obviously difficult to define and characterize, as was previously found at a preliminary meeting in 2010.