Search

Treatment persistence was higher among the patients who initially received an anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) with a long-dose-interval., Purpose: With long-dose-interval anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) available for osteoporosis management, it is important to evaluate persistence of any AOM as long as it is continuously used. The purpose of this study was to investigate the treatment pattern and persistence of AOMs, allowing for medication switch., Methods: This study was an observational retrospective cohort study using Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims data. We selected patients who first initiated an AOM between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016. AOM therapy included alendronate, raloxifene, teriparatide, denosumab, zoledronate, and ibandronate; the latter three were categorized as long-dose-interval medications. Persistence was defined as continual prescription of any AOM at a given time point with a grace period of 45 days within which to obtain prescription refill. The competing risk model was used to examine the factors affecting patients switching their initial AOM., Results: During the study period, 126,539 patients with mean age of 75 years met the inclusion criteria; 85% were female. For initial AOM, 43.3%, 25.6%, 14.6%, 9.3%, 5.3%, and 1.9% of the patients received alendronate, denosumab, raloxifene, zoledronate, ibandronate, and teriparatide, respectively. During a mean 36-month follow-up, 29.6% of the patients who received at least two AOM pharmacy claims throughout the study period have ever switched their initial medication. Long-dose-interval medications, mainly denosumab and zoledronate, were the preferred choice for medication switch. Treatment persistence was higher in patients who initiated with long-dose-interval AOMs., Conclusion: The real-world data reveal long-dose-interval therapy as an initial treatment or at the first switch stage may improve management of persistent AOM treatment., (© 2022. International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation.)

Unlabelled: Evidence of the incidence and risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in Asian osteoporosis populations receiving different osteoporosis medications is lacking. We found that there is no excess incidence of or risk for ONJ in osteoporosis patients >50 years old using alendronate as compared with patients using raloxifene or calcitonin under real-world conditions in Taiwan., Introduction: To provide information on ONJ in Asian populations, this study compares the incidence and risk of ONJ between patients receiving alendronate and those receiving non-bisphosphonate osteoporosis medications in Taiwan., Methods: Enrollees in the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) from 2003 to 2007, aged above 50 years, with vertebral/hip fracture, and new to osteoporosis therapy were recruited. Patients with Paget's disease or cancer during the baseline period were excluded. Patients were classified into either the alendronate or the calcitonin/raloxifene (control) group according to their exposure during follow-up. Previously proposed possible ONJ diagnosis codes were adopted as potential ONJ cases, but qualifying cases also had a repeated ONJ diagnosis within 8 weeks of the first diagnosis and received one or more broad-spectrum oral antibiotics. Cox modeling compared the risk of ONJ between the alendronate and the control groups, which were matched using propensity scores. Results were examined in series sensitivity analyses, including different cumulative dose groups., Results: We found 25 potential ONJ cases in the alendronate (N = 18,030) and 21 in the control groups (N = 25,615). Over the 6-year follow-up period, no increased risk of ONJ in the alendronate group in the original (hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-1.58) or propensity score-matched cohorts (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.44-1.69) was found. All comparison groups exhibited a similar incidence of ONJ, ranging from 6.9 to 8.2/10,000 person-years., Conclusion: Under real-world conditions, there is no excess risk for ONJ in osteoporosis patients >50 years old using alendronate as compared with patients using raloxifene or calcitonin.

Context: There was no clear evidence for the association between oral bisphosphonates or raloxifene and venous thromboembolism (VTE). There might also be ethnic differences in VTE risk., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence and risk of VTEs for different classes of osteoporosis drugs in the Taiwanese osteoporotic fracture population., Design: This was a retrospective cohort study from 2003 to 2007, with up to 6 years follow-up., Setting: Enrollees were participants in Taiwan National Health Insurance., Patients: PATIENTS older than 50 years who had vertebral or hip fractures and were new to osteoporosis therapy were recruited., Intervention: PATIENTS were classified into the alendronate, calcitonin, or raloxifene group according to exposure after follow-up., Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome of our study was all incident VTEs, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the relative VTE risk among alendronate, raloxifene, and calcitonin groups under an on-treatment scenario., Results: There were 25 443, 9642, and 31 900 patients in the alendronate, raloxifene, and calcitonin groups, and the mean age was 74.5 years (SD, 9.6). The incidence of VTE in the alendronate, raloxifene, and calcitonin groups was 11.2, 8.5, and 18.8 per 10 000 person-years. Results from Cox analyses showed that alendronate or raloxifene recipients did not have a higher risk for VTE than calcitonin recipients (adjusted hazard ratio for alendronate, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-1.51; adjusted hazard ratio for raloxifene, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.28)., Conclusion: This retrospective analysis found that the incidence of VTE in Taiwanese patients with osteoporosis was low, and the risk of VTE was similar across alendronate, raloxifene, and calcitonin recipients in patients with osteoporotic fractures who were new to osteoporosis therapy.

Context: The evidence for relative effectiveness of osteoporosis drugs in secondary prevention of nonvertebral fractures was unclear and could not be extrapolated to the Asian population., Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the relative effectiveness of different classes of osteoporosis drugs in secondary prevention of nonvertebral fractures in Taiwanese women., Design: This was a retrospective cohort study from 2003 to 2007, with up to 6 years of follow-up., Setting: The study included enrollees in Taiwan National Health Insurance., Patients: Patients older than 50 years, with vertebral/hip fracture and were new to osteoporosis therapy, were recruited., Intervention: Patients were classified into the alendronate, calcitonin, or raloxifene group, according to their exposure after follow-up., Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome of our study was the risk of incident nonvertebral fracture (hip, humerus, or radius fractures). A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for fracture risk factors was used to compare the relative fracture risk among three treatment groups under on-treatment scenarios. Propensity score-matched hazard ratios were examined, and interactions between fracture incidence and patients' compliance were investigated as well., Results: There were 19 840, 9534, and 25 483 patients in the alendronate, raloxifene, and calcitonin groups, respectively. The fracture rates were highest in calcitonin recipients (4.57 per 100 person-years), followed by raloxifene and alendronate. Results from Cox analyses showed raloxifene (hazard ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.29-1.67) and calcitonin (hazard ratio 1.51; 95% confidence interval 1.29-1.75) had higher nonvertebral fracture risks as compared with alendronate. The risk differences were more pronounced in compliant patients., Conclusion: We found alendronate users had the lowest secondary nonvertebral fracture risk, as compared with raloxifene and calcitonin users. Consistent results were found in a series of sensitivity analyses.

Background: Bisphosphonates are the class of medication used most widely to treat osteoporosis. Since an article reported that patients who used zoledronic acid, a bisphosphonate, had a higher proportion of atrial fibrillation (AF) in 2007, the issue of bisphosphonates and AF has become a growing concern. Due to the widespread use of bisphosphonates, it is necessary to explore the relationship between bisphosphonates and AF and other cardiovascular diseases., Objective: We aimed to investigate the risk of AF, stroke, or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) associated with the use of the bisphosphonates alendronate and raloxifene in patients with osteoporosis. We also focused our analysis on the impact of different dosing regimens of alendronate., Methods: The National Health Insurance Research Database was used to conduct an 8-year, population-based, retrospective cohort study. The study population comprised women who first took alendronate or raloxifene between 2002 and 2006 and who had a history of osteoporosis and vertebral or spinal fracture. Follow-up was conducted for every patient until the first diagnosis of AF, stroke, or AMI or until the end of the 1-year follow-up period. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the association between the risk of cardiovascular disease and the prescription of alendronate or raloxifene., Results: We identified 9609 women who had been prescribed either alendronate (n = 6949) or raloxifene (n = 2660). The patients treated with alendronate were at a lower risk of AF, stroke, or AMI compared with the raloxifene group (AF: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42-0.85]; stroke: HR = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.39-0.57]; AMI: HR = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.36-0.72]). However, when analyzing the groups by different alendronate dosing regimens, those patients who received alendronate 10 mg had a significantly higher risk of AF and stroke compared with patients who received raloxifene (AF: HR = 1.66 [95% CI, 1.12-2.46]; stroke: HR = 1.56 [95% CI, 1.23-1.98]). The alendronate 70-mg group demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, be it AF, stroke, or AMI (AF: HR = 0.28 [95% CI, 0.18-0.43]; stroke: HR = 0.23 [95% CI, 0.18-0.30]; AMI: HR = 0.28 [95% CI, 0.18-0.41]). When we assigned alendronate 10 mg as the reference group, the alendronate 70 mg group had a lower risk of 3 cardiovascular diseases (AF: HR = 0.17 [95% CI, 0.10-0.27]; stroke: HR = 0.16 [95% CI, 0.12-0.22]; AMI: HR = 0.21 [95% CI, 0.13-0.35])., Conclusions: Alendronate 10 mg was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease than alendronate 70 mg. Further studies are required to investigate this relationship., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)