Adherence to weekly oral bisphosphonate therapy: cost of wasted drugs and fractures

Medication holidays in osteoporosis: evidence-based recommendations from the Italian guidelines on 'Diagnosis, risk stratification, and continuity of care of fragility fractures' based on a systematic literature review

Background

Noncommunicable, chronic diseases need pharmacological interventions for long periods or even throughout life. The temporary or permanent cessation of medication for a specific period, known as a 'medication holiday,' should be planned by healthcare professionals.

Objectives

We evaluated the association between continuity (adherence or persistence) of treatment and several outcomes in patients with fragility fractures in the context of the development of the Italian Guidelines.

Design

Systematic review.

Data Sources and Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2020 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that analyzed medication holidays in patients with fragility fracture. Three authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of the included studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random effects models. Primary outcomes were refracture and quality of life; secondary outcomes were mortality and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

Six RCTs and nine observational studies met our inclusion criteria, ranging from very low to moderate quality. The adherence to antiosteoporotic drugs was associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fracture [relative risk (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.87; three studies] than nonadherence, whereas no difference was detected in the health-related quality of life. A reduction in refracture risk was observed when continuous treatment was compared to discontinuous therapy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.98; three studies). A lower mortality rate was detected for the adherence and persistence measures, while no significant differences were noted in gastrointestinal side effects in individuals undergoing continuous versus discontinuous treatment.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that clinicians should promote adherence and persistence to antiosteoporotic treatment in patients with fragility fractures unless serious adverse effects occur.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Time to benefit and the long-term persistence of new users of oral bisphosphonates

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to examine long-term persistence in new users of oral bisphosphonates in a population-wide cohort in Manitoba, Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal observational study was conducted using administrative health data characterizing long-term bisphosphonate persistence in those who started treatment between 1997 and 2018. Treatment discontinuation was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox regression was used to examine associations between discontinuation and osteoporosis diagnosis, previous fractures, and age. A sub-analysis of users with FRAX scores examined the relationship between 10-year fracture risk estimations and discontinuation.

RESULTS

Of 42,249 new bisphosphonate users, median age was 71 years, with 88.6% being female. Median duration of bisphosphonate use was 0.95 years (IQR 0.25, 3.9 years). Overall, 47.9% of incident users persisted up to 1 year, 25.0% persisted up to 3 years, and 14.1% up to 5 years. Presence of an indication for bisphosphonate use was associated with decreased discontinuation risk. Persistence generally increased with age. Having a BMD test performed was a predictor of lower discontinuation. The strongest predictor was having an osteoporosis diagnosis [HR for discontinuation = 0.68 (95% CI 0.66, 0.70)]. In users with FRAX scores (n = 14,114), moderate-risk [HR = 0.86 (95% CI 0.77, 0.96)] and high-risk users [HR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.69, 0.85)] were less likely to discontinue compared to lower-risk users.

CONCLUSIONS

A rapid decline in bisphosphonate persistence was shown. Almost half of users would not be expected to achieve clinically relevant benefits with a persistence of less than 1 year. Allowing informed choice in high-risk patients may be the best way to focus on those likely to benefit and persist with treatment.

Treatment with once-weekly alendronate oral jelly compared with once-weekly alendronate oral tablet for Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis: An open-label, prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clinical data regarding alendronate jelly are limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly alendronate oral jelly with once-weekly alendronate tablet formulations in the context of primary osteoporosis.

METHODS

In this 6-month, open-label, prospective, observational study, Japanese patients aged ≥60 years with primary osteoporosis were included from 14 primary care centres in Japan. The effects of once-weekly alendronate oral jelly and tablet formulations on bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, and quality of life related to gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Treatment was allocated by patient preference. This potentially confounding factor was adjusted for statistically.

RESULTS

In total, 170 patients were enrolled (jelly, n = 97; tablet, n = 73). Mean percent changes in radius, lumbar spine, femoral neck, and hip BMD were similar in both treatment groups at 6 months. Both formulations decreased tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) and procollagen 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) between baseline and 6 months (by about 50% and 60%, respectively); no significant differences in mean changes were noted in these markers between groups. At 6 months, no significant differences were noted in visual analogue scale or EuroQOL five-dimension questionnaire scores between groups. The jelly group had significantly lower scores than the tablet group in the Izumo scale domains of heartburn (-0.81, P = 0.0040), epigastralgia (-0.94, P = 0.0003), and epigastric fullness (-0.49, P = 0.044). During treatment, more patients discontinued for upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the tablet group (n = 4) than the jelly group (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly alendronate oral jelly 35 mg may be a suitable alternative therapeutic agent for primary osteoporosis in Japan.

Factors related with osteoporosis treatment in postmenopausal women

Although fractures had high mortality and morbidity, many studies proved that fracture risk might be decreased by pharmacological therapy, although a low treatment adherence rate is observed. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with osteoporosis treatment in postmenopausal women.A cross-sectional study was carried out from March to August 2013 at the primary care setting. Postmenopausal women were recruited. A standardized questionnaire was applied. Women who were using at least one of the following drugs at the moment of the survey were considered as current treatment: bisphosphonates, raloxifene, estrogen, calcitonin, teriparatide, or strontium ranelate. Women who had used any of the mentioned medications before the study were considered as past treatment.Of the 1025 women included in the study, 8% were on current treatment, 5.7% had past treatment, and 86.3% had not received treatment. Treated women (either current or past) had a higher rate of osteoarthritis, had more falls, had higher education level, presented a higher rate of private health insurance, and received more information about osteoporosis. They also had more dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans and were more frequently diagnosed with osteoporosis by these DXA scans. The factors independently associated with treatment in the regression analysis were the DXA scan itself, the diagnosis of osteoporosis by DXA, and information about osteoporosis.Current and past treatments of osteoporosis were associated with DXA and information. These results suggest that some measures to inform women about osteoporosis and or even the popularization of DXA scans could improve the treatment.

Adherence to osteoporosis medicines in Estonia-a comprehensive 15-year retrospective prescriptions database study

Some patients do not take medicines as they are supposed to. Our research showed that in Estonia, one fifth of patients did not start treatment with osteoporosis medicines and only 20% used the medicines for at least 3 years as they should. This induces unnecessary costs to the healthcare system.

PURPOSE

Medication non-adherence is the number one reason for not obtaining the expected clinical effect of medicines. With osteoporosis treatment, it has been shown that both implementation of treatment and persistence influence the risk of fractures significantly. Long-term adherence to medication in Estonia is to be determined with this study.

METHODS

A 15-year retrospective study was carried out in order to establish initiation, implementation, and persistence of Estonian patients. All new users of osteoporosis medicines were analyzed for all prescriptions they received during the study period. Sufficient adherence to treatment was defined as a patient being dispensed 80% or more prescribed doses for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

The study period was from 2001 to 2015. Patients (24,652) were included in the study. Of the patients, 93.7% (n = 23,091) were women and 6.3% (n = 1564) were men. Eighteen percent (4636) were dispensed only one prescription. Of the patients, 44.2% included in the study had medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥80% over follow-up period; 8922 (36.2%) who were prescribed from 2001 to 2015 persisted for 1 year with MPR ≥80% and 19.8% persisted for 3 years. Forty percent of expenditure on osteoporosis medication was made for treatment courses with insufficient adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

There is room for improvement in Estonia with medication adherence relating to all three aspects that determine adherence-initiation, implementation, and persistence. This means further efforts are to be made to educate patients and healthcare professionals on realizing the importance of good adherence.

Cost and health care resource use associated with noncompliance with oral bisphosphonate therapy: an analysis using Danish health registries

We estimated the rate of compliance with oral bisphosphonates among Danish women and examined its association with health care resource use and cost. Approximately 30 % of Danish females aged >55 who take bisphosphonates are noncompliant, and noncompliance is significantly associated with increased health care resource use and cost.

INTRODUCTION

Two objectives of this study were to estimate the rate of oral bisphosphonate compliance among Danish women and to examine the association of noncompliance with health care resource use and cost.

METHODS

Women ≥55 with an index prescription claim for an oral bisphosphonate were identified from Danish national health registries between 2003 and 2008. Compliance was measured as the medication possession ratio (MPR) during the first 12 months post-index. Cost and health care resource use were collected for the following 12 months.

RESULTS

Among the 38,234 women meeting the study inclusion criteria, 29.9 % were noncompliant (MPR <70 %). Younger age was associated with higher odds of compliance (OR [95 % CI] 1.22 [1.15-1.29] for ages 55-64 and 1.18 [1.12-1.24] for ages 65-74; reference age group ≥75 years). Rates of all-cause health care resource use were significantly higher in noncompliant subjects: 28.9 versus 23.0 % had inpatient admissions, 16.5 versus 13.0 % had emergency room visits, and 48.7 versus 43.3 % used outpatient services (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The total mean (SD) all-cause cost per patient (excluding office visits) was €626 (2344) and €4178 (7854), respectively. The mean (SD) osteoporosis-related cost per patient (excluding office visits) was €572 (2085) and €754 (2857) for compliant and non-compliant subjects, respectively. The compliant subjects accrued significantly lower all-cause and OP-related cost than noncompliant subjects, regardless of whether the total cost or medical cost only was considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 30 % of Danish females aged 55 or older who take bisphosphonates are noncompliant. Noncompliance is significantly associated with increased health care resource use and cost.

Non-adherence with bisphosphonates among patients with osteoporosis: impact on fracture risk and healthcare cost‏

Osteoporosis-related fractures at the spine and hip have a substantial impact on mortality, morbidity, and quality of life in older adults worldwide. Adherence to bisphosphonates is essential for effective treatment and fracture prevention. Nevertheless, numerous studies from various populations and study designs clearly indicated that adherence and persistence are poor with more than 50% of patients discontinuing therapy within one year. This is primarily explained by mild adverse effects, dosing regimens, and costs. Studies have also shown that good adherence is associated with reduced osteoporosis-related and non-related healthcare costs as soon as 2 years from therapy initiation. Nonetheless, we found only little improvement in adherence rates over the years. In light of the importance of medication adherence and the limited success of previous programs, other than reducing dosing frequency, new directions should be explored to engage patients and care givers in order to improve adherence and prevent fractures.

Persistence with denosumab and persistence with oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a retrospective, observational study, and a meta-analysis

The objectives of this study were to estimate persistence with denosumab and put these results in context by conducting a review of persistence with oral bisphosphonates. Persistence with denosumab was found to be higher than with oral bisphosphonates.

PURPOSE

This study had two objectives: to analyse persistence in Swedish women initiating denosumab for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) and to put these findings in context by conducting a literature review and meta-analysis of persistence data for oral bisphosphonates.

METHODS

The study used the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and included women aged at least 50 years initiating denosumab between May 2010 and July 2012. One injection of denosumab was defined as 6-month persistence. Women were considered persistent for another 6 months if they filled their next prescription within 6 months + 56 days and survival analysis applied to the data. A literature search was conducted in PubMed to identify retrospective studies of persistence with oral bisphosphonates and pooled persistence estimates were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The study identified 2,315 women who were incident denosumab users. Mean age was 74 years and 61% had been previously treated for PMO. At 12 and 24 months, persistence with denosumab was 83% (95% CI, 81-84%) and 62% (95% CI, 60-65%), respectively. The literature search identified 40 articles for inclusion in the meta-analysis. At 12 and 24 months, persistence with oral bisphosphonates ranged from 10% to 78% and from 16% to 46%, with pooled estimates of 45% and 30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These data from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and literature review suggest that persistence was higher with denosumab than with oral bisphosphonates.

Differences in In Vitro Disintegration Time among Canadian Brand and Generic Bisphosphonates

The objective of this study was to compare the disintegration times among Canadian-marketed brand (alendronate 70 mg, alendronate 70 mg plus vitamin D 5600 IU, and risedronate 35 mg) and generic (Novo-alendronate 70 mg and Apo-alendronate 70 mg) once-weekly dosed bisphosphonates. All disintegration tests were performed with a Vanderkamp Disintegration Tester. Disintegration was deemed to have occurred when no residue of the tablet, except fragments of insoluble coating or capsule shell, was visible. Eighteen to 20 samples were tested for each bisphosphonate group. The mean (±standard deviation) disintegration times were significantly (P < 0.05) faster for Apo-alendronate (26 ± 5.6 seconds) and Novo-alendronate (13 ± 1.1 seconds) as compared to brand alendronate (147 ± 50.5 seconds), brand alendronate plus vitamin D (378 ± 60.5 seconds), or brand risedronate (101 ± 20.6 seconds). The significantly faster disintegration of the generic tablets as compared to the brand bisphosphonates may have concerning safety and effectiveness implications for patients administering these therapies.

A critical review of brand and generic alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis

Objective

Compare in vitro and in vivo characteristics and clinical outcomes of brand and generic alendronate.

Research design and methods: Relevant search terms were input into Medline ("alendronate" AND "generic" up to August 5, 2013) and any abstracts deemed possibly relevant selected for full paper review and abstraction.

Results

Multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trials of substantial size and duration have established the anti-fracture efficacy and safety of brand amino-bisphosphonates. For regulatory approval, generic versions of brand drugs need to demonstrate bioequivalence in young, healthy volunteers and have similar dissolution times. While the potency and amount of active drug within generic formulations must be identical to the brand, differences are permitted in the excipients. Significant differences in tablet disintegration time among different versions of generic and brand alendronate have been reported. Rapidly disintegrating alendronate pills may increase oesophageal bioadhesion and adverse event risk. Oesophageal-bound alendronate or slow disintegrating alendronate tablets may be made inert and ineffective by subsequently ingested food or drink. Investigations have reported a lower persistence to therapy with generic brands of alendronate as compared to brand bisphosphonates and patients switched from brand to generic alendronate have increased adverse event rates and losses in bone mineral density.

Conclusion

Numerous differences exist between brand and generic alendronate including: disintegration time, bioadhesion to the oesophagus, patient persistence to therapy, adverse event incidence, and maintenance of bone mineral density. Generic forms of alendronate warrant closer clinical study before they are ascribed the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of brand alendronate.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-550) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Association between refill compliance to oral bisphosphonate treatment, incident fractures, and health care costs--an analysis using national health databases

SUMMARY

The study estimates the cost of poor and suboptimal refill compliance by estimating fracture costs and assessing the association between refill compliance with oral bisphosphonates and incident fractures using Danish health registers. Patients with poor and suboptimal refill compliance had more major osteoporotic fractures, and the direct costs related to hospital care, primary care, and pharmaceutical treatment for these excess fractures reached almost 14 M DKK (2.5 M USD) for the study population which compares to a national annual excess cost of around 17 M DKK (3.1 M USD) using 2011 prescription prevalence.

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to oral anti-osteoporosis treatment has been shown in several studies to be relatively low and the potential impact on fracture burden is high. The aim of the study was to assess the association between refill compliance and all-cause health care costs.

METHODS

A national dataset was extracted with all treatment-naive patients who began oral bisphosphonate (BP) treatment for osteoporosis in Denmark between 1997 and 2006 (N = 54,876, 87 % women). Patients who survived for at least 2 years (N = 47,176) were divided into groups based on Medication Possession Ratio (MPR). Logistic regressions were used to derive difference in the probability of incident fractures between the three MPR groups. Fracture costs (related to medication use, primary care practice, specialists, and hospitals) were derived by comparing cost 12 months before and after fracture.

RESULTS

For alendronate, the adjusted risk of major osteoporotic fractures was significantly reduced (OR 0.768; 0.686-0.859), including fractures of the hip (0.718; 0.609-0.846) and humerus (0.54; 0.431-0.677) with MPR ≥ 0.8. The risk reduction was lower with etidronate. Over 2 years, a total of 171 hip fractures and 53 other major osteoporotic fractures were attributed to suboptimal or poor refill compliance, with an excess cost of 13.7 M DKK (2.5 M USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor refill compliance is not unusual in patients on oral bisphosphonates, and we demonstrate that this is accompanied by excess major osteoporotic fractures and health care costs at the societal level.

Bisphosphonates adherence for treatment of osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a disease of bone metabolism in which bisphosphonates (BPS) are the most common medications used in its treatment, whose main objective is to reduce the risk of fractures. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on BPs adherence for treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

Systematic review of articles on BPs adherence for treatment of osteoporosis, indexed on MEDLINE (via PubMed) databases, from inception of databases until January 2013. Search terms were "Adherence, Medication" (MeSH term), "Bisphosphonates" (MeSH term), and "Osteoporosis" (MeSH term).

RESULTS

Of the 78 identified studies, 27 met the eligibility criteria. Identified studies covered a wide range of aspects regarding adherence and associated factors, adherence and fracture, adherence and BPs dosage. The studies are mostly observational, conducted with women over 45 years old, showing low rates of adherence to treatment. Several factors may influence adherence: socio-economic and cultural, participation of physicians when guidance is given to the patient, the use of bone turnover markers, and use of generic drugs. The monthly dosage is associated with greater adherence compared to weekly dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the methodological differences between the studies, the results converge to show that adherence to treatment of osteoporosis with BPs is still inadequate. Further experimental studies are needed to evaluate the adherence and suggest new treatment options.

Adherence with medications used to treat osteoporosis: behavioral insights

Non-persistence (never starting or stopping medication prematurely) and non-compliance (taking medication inappropriately) with fracture prevention medication among those at high risk of fracture remain significant barriers to optimal reduction of osteoporotic fractures. Current research suggest that for patients to persist and comply with prescriptions for fracture prevention medication, they need to believe that they are at significant risk of fracture, that the prescribed medication can safely reduce their risk of fracture without exposing them to long-term harm, that equally effective non-medicinal therapies are not available, and that they can successfully execute medication use in the context of their daily task demands. Further research is needed to understand; a) the mental models of osteoporosis, fractures, and medications used to treat osteoporosis that patients employ when making decisions as to whether or not to take fracture prevention medication; and b) how patients arbitrage information from various sources (health care providers, family, friends, and other sources) to formulate their beliefs about osteoporosis and medications used to treat it.

Treat-to-target for osteoporosis: is now the time?

OBJECTIVES

Current clinical practice guidelines identify patients at high risk for fracture who are likely to benefit from pharmacological therapy and suggest ways to monitor for effectiveness of therapy. However, there is no clear guidance on when fracture risk has been reduced to an acceptably low level. As a consequence, some patients at low risk for fracture may be treated for longer than necessary, whereas others at high risk for fracture may have treatment stopped when they might benefit from continuation of the same treatment or a change to a more potent therapeutic agent. The objective of this statement is to describe the potential clinical utility of developing a "treat-to-target" strategy for the management of patients with osteoporosis.

PARTICIPANTS

We recommend that a task force of clinicians, clinical investigators, and other stakeholders in the care of osteoporosis explore the options, review the evidence, and identify additional areas for investigation to establish osteoporosis treatment targets.

EVIDENCE

Data from large, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled registration trials for currently available osteoporosis therapies should be analyzed for commonalities of correlations between easily measured endpoints and fracture risk.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Osteoporosis experts, professional organizations, and patient care advocates should be involved in the process of developing consensus on easily measurable osteoporosis treatment targets that are supported by the best available evidence and likely to be accepted by clinicians and patients in the care of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

A treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis offers the potential of improving osteoporosis care by reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures and limiting adverse effects of therapy.

Risk of refracture associated with compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate therapy in Taiwan

SUMMARY

Bisphosphonates have been used for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis since the early 1990s and studies show that compliant patients experience a lower fracture rate. This cohort study showed that the compliance of Taiwanese patients was poor and the refracture risk was related to compliance with bisphosphonate therapy.

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclast activity, and reduce bone turnover by inhibiting bone resorption. According to Taiwanese reimbursement guidelines, patients with osteoporosis-related fractures are eligible for bisphosphonate treatment. This study aimed to elucidate the relationship of refracture risk with compliance/persistence with bisphosphonate therapy in Taiwan.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, administrative, database analysis measuring the adherence status and impact of poor adherence to bisphosphonate therapy in Taiwan. Study data derived from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) were used to assemble a cohort of all osteoporosis patients who initiated bisphosphonate treatment between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2005. Patients were followed until death, end of registration in NHIRD, or end of study period (December 31, 2006), whichever occurred first. Compliance was calculated as medication possession ratio (MPR; sum of days of supply of osteoporosis medications divided by follow-up duration).

RESULTS

The refracture rates for osteoporosis patients were 5.15 %, 7.36 %, and 8.49 % in the first, second, and third year, respectively, and were significantly lower for patients with >80 % compliance than with <80 % compliance (p < 0.05). Nearly 50 % patients were noncompliant (MPR < 80 %) at 3 months, and only around 30 % patients were adherent at 1 year. Refracture risk increased with MPR < 80 %, age, and co-morbidities like diabetes mellitus or dementia. Patients with concomitant statin medication had significantly lower refracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance of Taiwanese patients with osteoporosis medication is poor, and refracture risk is related to compliance with bisphosphonate therapy.

Upper gastrointestinal tract transit times of tablet and drinkable solution formulations of alendronate: a bioequivalence and a quantitative, randomized study using video deglutition

The bioequivalence and upper digestive tract transit time of a drinkable solution of 70 mg/100 mL alendronate was compared to reference tablets. A randomized, single- dose, two-way crossover study of the rate of urinary recovery of alendronate during 36 h (AE((0-36 h))) by HPLC, in 104 healthy young male volunteers, showed that AE((0-36 h)) and the maximum excretion rate (R (max)) were within the accepted range of bioequivalence 81.8-105.7 and 81.7-106.2, respectively. To characterize the oesophageal passage time of the two alendronate formulations, we performed a randomized, controlled study, in 24 healthy men and women (mean 52 years old), who took the formulations standing or lying down, by an X-ray video deglutition system. When taken in the standing position, both formulations had equal mean transit times from mouth to stomach and tablet disintegration but data dispersion was significantly smaller with the liquid form. When taken in lying position, drinkable alendronate had shorter and less variable median transit times compared to the tablets. These results show that the drinkable alendronate formulation is bioequivalent to the tablets and may be advantageous in patients in whom the transit or disintegration of the tablets is impaired.

Osteoporosis Patient Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in postmenopausal women intermittently treated with oral bisphosphonates: the BRAVO study

The Osteoporosis Patient Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (OPSAT-Q) is a psychometric measure of patient satisfaction with bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis. The study was a multicenter, nationwide, cross-sectional, patient-reported outcome study conducted to evaluate treatment satisfaction and quality of life using the OPSAT-Q in patients receiving oral bisphosphonate therapy. This study enrolled postmenopausal women from 43 hospitals and 112 clinics who had intermittently taken oral bisphosphonates for treatment of osteoporosis. 4,220 postmenopausal Korean women with a mean age of 65.3 years and a mean body mass index of 22.9 kg/m(2) participated in the study. All items within each subscale domain were more highly correlated with their hypothesized subscale domain relative to the other subscale domains, and all 16 items were significantly correlated with an overall composite satisfaction score (CSS). All scores showed acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha >0.70, range 0.88-0.91). Comparisons of OPSAT-Q scores were made between selective subgroups of participants: monthly versus weekly administration, years of taking bisphosphonates, smoking habitus, acid-related medication and comorbid conditions. Mean OPSAT-Q subscale domains and CSS were higher for users of monthly bisphosphonates, with shorter duration, non-smokers, and non-users of acid-related medication. Mean OPSAT-Q subscale domain scores of side-effects were high for absence of comorbid conditions. The OPSAT-Q demonstrated acceptable measurement properties, including validity and reliability of subscale domains and CSS, in oriental women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Postmenopausal women intermittently using oral bisphosphonate therapy reported increased satisfaction with monthly administration, with shorter duration, non-smokers, non-users of acid-related medication, and an absence of comorbid conditions.

A reappraisal of generic bisphosphonates in osteoporosis

The competitive price of generic bisphosphonates has had a marked effect on practice guidelines, but an increasing body of evidence suggests that they have more limited effectiveness than generally assumed.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to review the impact of generic bisphosphonates on effectiveness in the treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

This study is a literature review.

RESULTS

A substantial body of evidence indicates that many generic formulations of alendronate are more poorly tolerated than the proprietary preparations which results in significantly poorer adherence and thus effectiveness. Poorer effectiveness may result from faster disintegration times of many generics that increase the likelihood of adherence of particulate matter to the oesophageal mucosa. Unfortunately, market authorisation, based on the bioequivalence of generics with a proprietary formulation, does not take into account the potential concerns about safety. The poor adherence of many generic products has implications for guideline development, cost-effectiveness and impact of treatment on the burden of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of generic bisphosphonates requires formal testing to re-evaluate their role in the management of osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Canada

OBJECTIVE

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent approved in Canada for treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in women at high risk for fracture or who have failed or are intolerant to other osteoporosis therapies. This study estimated cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs usual care from the perspective of the Ontario public payer.

METHODS

A previously published PMO Markov cohort model was adapted for Canada to estimate cost-effectiveness of denosumab. The primary analysis included women with demographic characteristics similar to those from the pivotal phase III denosumab PMO trial (FREEDOM; age 72 years, femoral neck BMD T-score -2.16 SD, vertebral fracture prevalence 23.6%). Three additional scenario sub-groups were examined including women: (1) at high fracture risk, defined in FREEDOM as having at least two of three risk factors (age 70+; T-score ≤ -3.0 SD at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck; prevalent vertebral fracture); (2) age 75+; and (3) intolerant or contraindicated to oral bisphosphonates (BPs). Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon comparing denosumab to usual care ('no therapy', alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene [sub-group 3 only]). The analysis considered treatment-specific persistence and post-discontinuation residual efficacy, as well as treatment-specific adverse events. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The multi-therapy comparisons resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab vs alendronate of $60,266 (2010 CDN$) (primary analysis) and $27,287 per quality-adjusted life year gained for scenario sub-group 1. Denosumab dominated all therapies in the remaining scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

Key limitations include a lack of long-term, real-world, Canadian data on persistence with denosumab as well as an absence of head-to-head clinical data, leaving one to rely on meta-analyses based on trials comparing treatment to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab may be cost-effective compared to oral PMO treatments for women at high risk of fractures and those who are intolerant and/or contraindicated to oral BPs.

Bisphosphonates for post-menopausal osteoporosis: are they all the same?

The primary goal of treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis (PMO) is reduction in fracture risk. Therefore, clinicians must recommend therapies that are safe and have proven anti-fracture efficacy. Bisphosphonates have long been established as first-line therapy for osteoporosis and several of these drugs significantly reduce osteoporotic fracture risk. However, choosing among different bisphosphonates can represent a difficult clinical decision. This review outlines the pharmacology of various bisphosphonates, discusses how their pharmacological characteristics affect their efficacy, and summarizes clinical safety and efficacy data. Clinical trial data and the opinions of expert bodies suggest that alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate and zoledronic acid all provide fracture protection for patients with PMO. However, there are differences among these agents. For example, all four agents have demonstrated efficacy in preventing vertebral fractures, but only zoledronic acid and risedronate significantly reduce non-vertebral fracture risk in pivotal trials. Moreover, reduction in hip fracture risk has only been established for alendronate, risedronate and zoledronic acid. Current data suggest that ibandronate and zoledronic acid have the most persistent antifracture effect. Bisphosphonates have been associated with a number of side effects, the evidence for which is summarized in this review. The most pertinent of these when choosing a bisphosphonate for a particular patient are the well-documented associations between gastrointestinal adverse events and oral administration, and between acute phase reactions and intravenous administration. Ultimately, selection of a specific bisphosphonate for treatment of PMO should be based on efficacy, risk profile, cost-effectiveness and patient preference.

Overcoming problems with adherence to osteoporosis medication

Nonadherence to pharmacological treatment in osteoporosis is a well-recognized problem. As in other chronic diseases, adherence to osteoporosis treatment is poor, resulting in enormous burden on patients and healthcare resources. Most importantly, low adherence rates consistently result in increased rates of fractures. However, it seems that efforts to evaluate and improve rates of both compliance and persistence are increasing. The extension of dosing intervals may be an element, among others, allowing improvements in therapeutic adherence. Improved patient education, enhancing healthcare provider-patients interaction, taking into account patient's preferences and involving them in treatment decisions may improve adherence.

Estimating bisphosphonate use and fracture reduction among US women aged 45 years and older, 2001-2008

Oral bisphosphonates are first-line therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Although bisphosphonate treatment has been shown to reduce fractures in randomized, controlled trials, the number of women treated and fractures prevented over the years have not been determined. This study estimated the numbers of women treated and fractures reduced with oral bisphosphonates in the United States from 2001 through 2008. Two medical claims databases for 2001-2008 were combined to determine numbers of women aged 45 years and older filling prescriptions for bisphosphonates by time-dependent medication possession ratios (MPRs): <50%, 50% to 79%, and ≥ 80%. Fracture incidence was compared for each cohort by MPR category relative to the referent cohort with <50% MPR. Fracture rates were extrapolated to the US female population treated with oral bisphosphonates by MPR category over this 8-year period. From 2001 through 2008, 460,584 women in the databases initiated treatment with oral bisphosphonates, with an average follow-up time of 2.4 years. Overall fracture rates declined with improved MPR from 1.52% for the lowest MPR category to 1.18% for the highest MPR category for ages 45 to 64 years and from 5.12% to 3.75% for those aged 65 years or older. Extrapolating to the US population of female bisphosphonate users, we estimate over 27.9 million person-years of bisphosphonate treatment with MPR 50% or greater and 144,670 fractures prevented. Treatment with oral bisphosphonates has prevented a substantial number of fractures. Even more fractures would have been prevented if recognition, treatment, and compliance were improved.

The cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid 5 mg for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women with prior fractures: evidence from Finland, Norway and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid 5 mg as a first-line treatment for the secondary prevention of fragility fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in Finland, Norway and the Netherlands.

METHODS

A discrete-event, individual-patient computer-simulation model was used to compare the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid with that of basic treatment (calcium and vitamin D) and commonly prescribed bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women aged 50-80 years who have experienced one previous fracture and have a bone mineral density T-score of -2.5.

RESULTS

The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with zoledronic acid compared with basic treatment ranged from being cost saving in all age groups in Norway, to costing approximately €19,000 in Finland and €22,300 in the Netherlands. Compared with the other branded bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid was cost saving in many scenarios, including all age groups in Finland. In Norway, zoledronic acid dominated branded risedronate and ibandronate in all age groups and dominated or had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of up to NOK83,954 per QALY gained compared with branded alendronate. In the Netherlands, zoledronic acid dominated branded intravenous ibandronate in all age groups; compared with branded risedronate and oral ibandronate, zoledronic acid dominated or had ICERs of up to €4832 per QALY gained; compared with branded alendronate, it had ICERs of up to €48,383 per QALY gained. In all three countries, zoledronic acid may be cost effective compared with generic alendronate when patient compliance with drug therapy is taken into account. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust to changes in key values. The main model limitations were the lack of real-life compliance and persistence data, and lack of country-specific data for some parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Using local or commonly used thresholds, this analysis suggests that zoledronic acid would be a cost-effective first-line option compared with other branded bisphosphonates and, in some scenarios, compared with generic alendronate, for the secondary prevention of fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in Finland, Norway and the Netherlands.

Poor bisphosphonate adherence for treatment of osteoporosis increases fracture risk: systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review of adherence to bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis finds suboptimal levels of persistence and compliance. Poor bisphosphonate compliance increases fracture risk.

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of the study were to measure the persistence and compliance with bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporotic patients, and to estimate the influence of compliance on fracture risk.

METHODS

A systematic review of bisphosphonate adherence in clinical practise provided new evidence to perform a meta-analysis of the means of bisphosphonate persistence and compliance, with a subsequent meta-analysis of fracture risk comparing poorly versus highly compliant patients.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles, totalling 704,134 patients, met our inclusion criteria. Most of the patients were postmenopausal women treated with bisphosphonates. The 3.95% of the patients received hormone replacement therapy, but the rest received bisphosphonates. The meta-analysis of five articles totalling 236,540 patients, who were followed for 1 year, provided a pooled persistence mean of 184.09 days. The meta-analysis of five articles, totalling 234,737 patients, who were also followed for 1 year, provided a pooled medication possession ratio mean of 66.93%. The meta-analysis of six articles, totalling 171,063 patients, who were followed for varying periods of time between 1 and 2.5 years, provided a pooled 46% increased fracture risk in non-compliant patients versus compliant patients. The increased fracture risk was lower for non-vertebral (16%) and hip (28%) than for clinical vertebral fractures (43%).

CONCLUSIONS

Persistence and compliance are suboptimal for postmenopausal women undergoing bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis. The clinical consequence of this low compliance is an increased risk of fracture, which is lower for non-vertebral than for clinical vertebral fractures.

Methods to examine the impact of compliance to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on fracture risk: systematic review and recommendations

The objective of this study was to review the methods of prior studies that estimate the association between compliance to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on fracture risk, and make recommendations to guide future research. We completed a systematic search of MEDLINE to identify all English language nonexperimental studies that examined the impact of adherence to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on fracture risk. Studies that measured compliance were eligible and those that only examined persistence were excluded. We summarized the methodology of each study and make recommendations for future research. We identified 14 eligible articles: nine cohort and five nested case-control. Length of baseline (lookback) periods ranged between 3 months and 2 years, with nearly all studies (86%) restricting inclusion to treatment-naïve users. A threshold of 80% was most commonly used to define compliance (n = 10), with few studies providing a more thorough analysis through categorical (n = 3) or continuous (n = 1) measures. All nine cohort studies adjusted for age, sex, prior fracture, and at least one other comorbidity or drug; two cohort studies adjusted for a comorbidity score. Two of the five case-control studies clearly controlled for age, sex, drug exposure, event date and length of follow up. One study considered a theoretical sensitivity analysis to account for potential healthy adherer bias, yet all mentioned limitations related to possible residual confounding. We identify great variability in methods of prior studies that evaluate the impact of compliance to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy on fracture risk, and make recommendations to guide future research.