Dataset Information

Real-life short-term effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic treatments: a longitudinal cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Randomized clinical trials have shown that anti-osteoporotic treatments can increase bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce the incidence of fragility fractures. However, data on the real-life effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic medications are still scarce.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study on women at high risk of fracture. We retrieved clinical and densitometric data from the DeFRA database, which derives from the DeFRA tool, a web-based fracture risk assessment tool. Multivariable Cox regression survival models were employed to analyze the effectiveness of different anti-osteoporotic drugs on fracture. In sensitivity analyses, we conducted 1:1 propensity score matching analyses.

Results

Data on 50,862 women were available. Among these, 3574 individuals had at least two consecutive visits. The crude fracture rate was 91.9/1000 person-year for non-treated patients. The crude fracture rate in bisphosphonate users was 72.1/1000 person-year, in denosumab users was 58.2/1000 person-year, and in teriparatide users was 19.3/1000 person-year. Overall, we found that bisphosphonate use was associated with a 30% lower risk of fracture compared to no treatment [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-0.98]. Treatment with denosumab and teriparatide were associated with 60% and 90% lower risk of fracture, respectively (aHR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.24-0.75 and aHR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.70). Bisphosphonate use was associated with a lower risk of fracture only after 1 year of treatment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found that all anti-osteoporotic medications considered in the study effectively reduced the risk of fracture in the real-life. The effect of bisphosphonate on fracture risk was apparent only after the first year of treatment. Our findings do not support the use of bisphosphonates in patients at imminent risk of fracture.

SUBMITTER: Adami G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9243369 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients has been demonstrated to improve patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL) effectively. The purpose of this study was to compare changes in general health and HRQoL of cancer patients who were referred to inpatient rehabilitation (IR) with those in two control groups who underwent outpatient management either with advice for inpatient rehabilitation (A+) or without (A-). Methods: In this naturalistic, longitudinal, controlled cohort study, changes in general health and HRQoL were assessed at either discharge of acute hospital or start of rehabilitation (baseline) and at the follow-up 3 weeks later or end of rehabilitation. Outcome variables included general health and HRQoL assessed by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT), and fatigue (FACT-F), depression and anxiety by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Changes on the scores were compared with bivariate and multivariate analyses using standardized mean differences (SMD). Results: IR patients (n=133) were on average older, reported lower HRQoL and health, and suffered more frequently from carcinoma than patients of the A+ (n=30) and the A- (n=82) groups. In the IR patients, pain, physical functioning, mental health, vitality, and fatigue improved significantly compared to the A+ controls. Compared to the A- group, the bivariate effects were lower but still statistically significant on many scales. Conclusions: IR showed moderate, statistically significant superior effects over outpatient management of cancer patients after acute treatment. Findings indicate that inpatient cancer rehabilitation can be recommended as an effective management after acute treatment. As today, referrals to inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients are still not based on structured standardized procedures, the implementation of such screening is needed to address patients' needs and to render the potential for rehabilitation more reliable.

Project description:It has remained unclear whether there are clinically meaningful differences between antipsychotic treatments with regard to preventing relapse of schizophrenia, owing to the impossibility of including large unselected patient populations in randomized clinical trials, as well as residual confounding from selection biases in observational studies.To study the comparative real-world effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments for patients with schizophrenia.Prospectively gathered nationwide databases were linked to study the risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure from July 1, 2006, to December 31, 2013, among all patients in Sweden with a schizophrenia diagnosis who were 16 to 64 years of age in 2006 (29?823 patients in the total prevalent cohort; 4603 in the incident cohort of newly diagnosed patients). Within-individual analyses were used for primary analyses, in which each individual was used as his or her own control to eliminate selection bias. Traditional Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression was used for secondary analyses.Risk of rehospitalization and treatment failure (defined as psychiatric rehospitalization, suicide attempt, discontinuation or switch to other medication, or death).There were 29?823 patients (12?822 women and 17?001 men; mean [SD] age, 44.9 [12.0] years). During follow-up, 13?042 of 29?823 patients (43.7%) were rehospitalized, and 20?225 of 28?189 patients (71.7%) experienced treatment failure. The risk of psychiatric rehospitalization was the lowest during monotherapy with once-monthly long-acting injectable paliperidone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.64), long-acting injectable zuclopenthixol (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57), clozapine (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.58), long-acting injectable perphenazine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65), and long-acting injectable olanzapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77) compared with no use of antipsychotic medication. Oral flupentixol (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74-1.14), quetiapine (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00), and oral perphenazine (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97) were associated with the highest risk of rehospitalization. Long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were associated with substantially lower risk of rehospitalization compared with equivalent oral formulations (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84 in the total cohort; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86 in the incident cohort). Clozapine (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63) and all long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications (HRs 0.65-0.80) were associated with the lowest rates of treatment failure compared with the most widely used medication, oral olanzapine. The results of several sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analyses.Clozapine and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications were the pharmacologic treatments with the highest rates of prevention of relapse in schizophrenia. The risk of rehospitalization is about 20% to 30% lower during long-acting injectable treatments compared with equivalent oral formulations.

Project description:AimTo investigate the real-world effectiveness of pharmacological treatments (buprenorphine, methadone) of opioid use disorder (OUD).DesignA nation-wide, register-based cohort study.SettingSweden.ParticipantsAll residents aged 16-64 years living in Sweden using OUD medication from July 2005 to December 2016 (n = 5757, 71.8% men) were identified from registers of prescriptions, inpatient and specialized outpatient care, causes of death, sickness absence and disability pensions.MeasurementsMain outcome: hospitalization due to OUD.Secondary outcomeshospitalization due to any cause; death due to all, natural and external causes. Mortality was analyzed with between-individual multivariate-adjusted Cox hazards regression model. Recurrent outcomes, such as hospitalizations, were analyzed with within-individual analyses to eliminate selection bias. OUD medication use versus non-use was modelled with PRE2DUP (from prescription drug purchases to drug use periods) method.FindingsBuprenorphine [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.97] and methadone (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.59-0.93) use were associated with significantly lower risk of OUD hospitalization, but not any-cause hospitalizations, compared with the time-periods when the same individual did not use OUD medication. The use of buprenorphine and methadone were both associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.34-0.59; HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.41-0.63, respectively), compared with non-use of both medications. Similar results were found for risk of mortality due to external causes (HR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.27-0.54; HR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.29-0.53, respectively), but not for mortality due to natural causes. The risk of OUD hospitalization and all-cause mortality was decreased in all duration categories of studied medications (< 30, 31-180, 181-365 and >365 days), except for methadone use less than 30 days.ConclusionsThe use of buprenorphine and methadone are both associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to opioid use disorder and death due to all and external causes, when compared with non-use.

Project description:BackgroundData regarding real-life effectiveness of any treatment may improve clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-life effectiveness of tyrosin-kinase inhibitors, bevacizumab and pemetrexed as first-line treatments in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsWe analyzed data of 2157 patients of the Czech TULUNG Registry of patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC who received modern-era treatments between 2011 and 2018. Patients treated with gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, bevacizumab (+ maintenance), pemetrexed (+ maintenance) as first-line therapy were included in the study. A systematic literature search separately identified clinical trials suitable for calculation of comparator pooled OS and PFS for each regimen. For each subgroup, basic characteristics and survival data (Kaplan-Meier estimates) are shown. We propose the "index of real-life effectiveness" (IRE), a ratio of real-life OS/PFS and comparator pooled OS/PFS. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified factors were associated with longer OS (ie, IRE>1.1).ResultsSurvival analysis showed median OS of 23 months for erlotinib, 29.3 months for afatinib, 19.6 months for gefitinib, 12.2 months for pemetrexed, 17.5 months for pemetrexed maintenance, 15.8 months for bevacizumab and 15.8 months for bevacizumab maintenance. Calculated IREs for OS for the regimens were: erlotinib 1.013, afatinib 1.184, gefitinib 0.736, pemetrexed 1.188, pemetrexed maintenance 1.294, bevacizumab 1.178, and bevacizumab maintenance 1.189. Multivariate regression analysis showed that these factors were associated with longer OS: lower PS for afatinib; lower PS, absence of adverse events and female sex for bevacizumab; and lower PS and female sex for pemetrexed.ConclusionsThis study clearly demonstrated that real-life effectiveness of certain treatment regimens may strongly differ in various populations/health care systems, and comparison between TULUNG data and pooled survival data from trials showed higher real-life effectiveness for most of the studied first-line regimens. Lower ECOG PS, younger age, female sex and adverse events were associated with longer survival in most regimens.Key pointsSIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: Comparison between TULUNG data and pooled survival data from trials showed higher real-life effectiveness for most of the studied first-line regimens; for most regimens, lower ECOG PS, younger age, female sex and adverse events were associated with longer survival.What this study addsReal-life effectiveness of certain treatment regimens may strongly differ in various populations/health care systems.