Dataset Information

Adherence to monthly and weekly oral bisphosphonates in women with osteoporosis.

ABSTRACT: This primary care database survey evaluated whether osteoporotic women treated with bisphosphonates were more adherent to monthly than to weekly treatment. Both compliance (medication possession ratio [MPR]) and persistence (time to discontinuation) were superior in the monthly ibandronate treatment group. Better control of fracture risk may thus be achieved using monthly treatment regimens.Treatment adherence in osteoporosis is poor. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether monthly bisphosphonate treatment provided superior adherence than weekly treatment.We analysed medical claims from a national prescription database (Thales). All women aged >45 years receiving a first prescription of monthly ibandronate or weekly bisphosphonates in 2007 were included. Treatment adherence was monitored from initial prescription until January 2008. Compliance was measured by the MPR and persistence by the time from treatment initiation to discontinuation. Multivariate analysis was used to identify variables independently associated with adherence.Twelve-month persistence rates were 47.5% for monthly ibandronate and 30.4% for weekly bisphosphonates. Compliance was significantly higher in the monthly cohort (MPR = 84.5%) than in the weekly cohort (MPR = 79.4%). After adjustment for potential confounding variables, women with monthly regimens were 37% less likely to be non-persistent (HR = 0.63 [0.56-0.72]) and presented a 5% higher mean MPR (84.5% versus 79.3%, p < 0.001) than women with weekly regimens. Other major factors associated with improved adherence were previous densitometry and calcium or vitamin D supplementation (p < 0.01).Adherence to bisphosphonates may be superior for monthly treatment than for weekly treatment and may thus provide improved fracture protection.

SUBMITTER: Cotte FE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2788149 | biostudies-other | 2010 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in real-world settings.MethodsA systematic review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database NHS EED) databases were searched for studies published in English language up to April 2018. Prospective and retrospective observational studies that used prescription claim databases or hospital medical records to examine patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonate treatment among adults with osteoporosis were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies.ResultsThe search yielded 540 published studies, of which 89 were deemed relevant and were included in this review. The mean age of patients included within the studies ranged between 53 to 80.8 years, and the follow-up varied from 3 months to 14 years. The mean persistence of oral bisphosphonates for 6 months, 1?year and 2 years ranged from 34.8% to 71.3%, 17.7% to 74.8% and 12.9% to 72.0%, respectively. The mean medication possession ratio ranged from 28.2% to 84.5%, 23% to 50%, 27.2% to 46% over 1?year, 2 years and 3 years, respectively. All studies included scored between 6 to 8 out of 9 on the NOS. The determinants of adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates included geographic residence, marital status, tobacco use, educational status, income, hospitalisation, medication type and dosing frequency.ConclusionsWhile a number of studies reported high levels of persistence and adherence, the findings of this review suggest that patient persistence and adherence with oral bisphosphonates medications was poor and reduced notably over time. Overall, adherence was suboptimal. To maximise adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates, it is important to consider possible determinants, including characteristics of the patients.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral observational studies have suggested a protective effect of oral bisphosphonates (BP) on the risk of breast cancer, but no such association has been seen in randomized control trials. The role of oral BP in breast cancer prevention remains unclear.AimTo investigate the association between different levels of BP exposure and breast cancer incidence in a cohort of osteoporotic post-menopausal women.Subjects and methodsThis historical prospective study was conducted using the computerized databases of Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS) in Israel. Included in the study were osteopenic and osteoporotic women aged 55-75 years who started BP therapy between 1998 and 2012. The subjects were enrolled in MHS for at least 3 years before therapy initiation, and had a minimum follow-up of 5 years in MHS. Women with a previous cancer, and women treated with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) were excluded. BP exposure was expressed in quintiles of proportion of days covered (PDC) with BP during follow-up period and cancer incidence was ascertained by the Israel National Tumor Registry. Person-years of follow-up began on January 1st, 1998 and ended at the date of cancer diagnosis, death, or December 31st, 2012, whichever occurred first.ResultsA total of 11,717 patients (mean age = 66.87 ± 4.38) were eligible for the analysis. During a total of 130,252 person-years of follow-up, (mean 7.2 years) 173 incident cases of breast cancer were diagnosed. Compared to women with a PDC with BP of 20% or lower, the adjusted hazard ratio for breast cancer were HR = 0.81 (95%CI: 0.48-1.39), HR = 0.82 (95%CI: 0.50-1.33), HR = 0.72 (95%CI:0.45-1.15) and HR = 1.14 (95%CI:0.76-1.70) among women with 20-40%, 40-60%, 60%-80%, and 80% or higher, PDC, respectively.ConclusionIn this study, we did not find a significant association between oral BP therapy for osteoporosis and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. The discrepancy between our results and the reports of such an association in observational studies might originate from an indication bias.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of bazedoxifene and oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis (i.e., the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX] score ≥ 20%), based on currently available evidence from randomized controlled trials.MethodsRandomized controlled trials evaluating the NVF relative risk reduction (RRR) with oral bisphosphonates or bazedoxifene were identified by a systematic literature review and combined by means of a network meta-analysis. A subgroup of patients with a FRAX score of 20% or more in the bazedoxifene phase III osteoporosis study was selected as the population of interest on the basis of the bazedoxifene label. In one analysis (analysis 1), the placebo response of the subgroup with a FRAX score of 20% or more was the benchmark to select comparable bisphosphonate trials. Additional analyses incorporated the aggregate data from the bisphosphonate trials with all the FRAX subgroups (analysis 2) or with the individual patient data from the bazedoxifene trial (analysis 3).ResultsNine identified bisphosphonate trials (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate; N = 23,440 patients) with a similar placebo response as observed for the subgroup of high risk patients in the bazedoxifene trial were included in analysis 1. The results of the network meta-analysis of this study set suggest that bazedoxifene is expected to have an RRR of 0.43 (95% credible interval [CrI] -0.19 to 0.72) versus alendronate, 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05-0.81) versus ibandronate, and 0.39 (95% CrI -0.29 to 0.70) versus risedronate. Analyses in which treatment effects with bisphosphonates were projected to a population with a FRAX score of 20% or more with meta-regression approaches (analysis 2 and analysis 3) provide similar findings.ConclusionBased on an indirect comparison of randomized trials, bazedoxifene is expected to have at least a comparable RRR of NVF as alendronate, ibandronate, and risedronate in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Project description:UnlabelledThe MOVEST study evaluated the efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate versus licensed monthly IV ibandronate in Japanese osteoporotic patients. Relative BMD gains after 12 months were 5.22 % oral and 5.34 % IV, showing non-inferiority of oral to IV ibandronate (primary endpoint). No new safety concerns were identified.IntroductionThe randomized, phase 3, double-blind MOVEST (Monthly Oral VErsus intravenouS ibandronaTe) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate versus the licensed monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate regimen in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.MethodsAmbulatory patients aged ≥ 55 years with primary osteoporosis were randomized to receive oral ibandronate 100 mg/month plus monthly IV placebo, or IV ibandronate 1 mg/month plus monthly oral placebo. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of oral versus IV ibandronate with respect to bone mineral density (BMD) gains at the lumbar spine after 12 months of treatment.ResultsFour hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled with 372 patients in the per-protocol set (183 and 189 in the oral and IV ibandronate groups, respectively). The relative change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD values for the oral and IV ibandronate groups, respectively, was 5.22 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.65, 5.80) and 5.34 % (95 % CI 4.78, 5.90). The least squares mean difference between the two groups was -0.23 % (95 % CI -0.97, 0.51), showing non-inferiority of oral ibandronate to IV ibandronate (non-inferiority limit = -1.60). Changes in BMD values at other sites, and bone turnover marker levels in the oral ibandronate group, were comparable with those of the IV group. The safety profile was similar to that previously demonstrated; no new safety concerns were identified.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated the non-inferiority of oral ibandronate 100 mg/month to IV ibandronate 1 mg/month (licensed dose in Japan) in increasing lumbar spine BMD in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis.

Dataset Information

Adherence to monthly and weekly oral bisphosphonates in women with osteoporosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets