The impact of compliance with osteoporosis therapy on fracture rates in actual practice (original) (raw)

Abstract

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated that drug therapy can reduce osteoporosis-related fracture risk in women over 50 years of age. Noncompliance could considerably limit the effectiveness observed in actual practice, however. The objective of this study was therefore to estimate fracture risk in relation to compliance with osteoporosis medication in actual practice. Methods: Demographic, prescription drug use, physician services, and hospitalization information for women with osteoporosis who were dispensed an osteoporosis medication between 1996 and 2001 was obtained from the Saskatchewan health data files. Compliance to treatment was defined as drug available to cover 80% of the time. Subsequent fractures were identified via hospitalizations or physician contacts with a relevant diagnostic or procedure code. The risk of fractures in relation to compliance was examined using a Cox proportional hazards model with time-dependent covariates. The impact of other patient characteristics, including age, having suffered a prior fracture, and prior use of osteoporosis medication and steroids, was also examined. Results: 11,249 women suffering from osteoporosis were identified with a mean age at the time of the index prescription of 68.4 years and average follow-up of 2 years. The overall fracture rate was 4.5% per year. Patients who complied experienced a 16% lower fracture rate. This association was maintained within subgroups and after controlling for other patient characteristics that independently predict the fracture rate. Conclusion: These results indicate that improving compliance in actual practice may significantly decrease osteoporosis-related fracture risk.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Specific procedure codes are available from the corresponding author on request.

References

  1. National Osteoporosis Foundation (2004) Disease statistics. National Osteoporosis Foundation, Washington, DC. http://www.nof.org/osteoporosis/stats.htm. Cited 14 May 2004
  2. Manolagas SC, Jilka RL (1995) Emerging insights into the pathophysiology of osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 332:305–11
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  3. World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report no. 843. World Health Organization, Geneva
  4. Eastell R (1998) Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 338:736–746
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  5. Anonymous (1997) Who are candidates for prevention and treatment for osteoporosis? (Review) Osteoporos Int 7:1–6
    Google Scholar
  6. Meunier PJ, Delmas PD, Eastell R et al (1999) Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: clinical guidelines. The International Committee for Osteoporosis Clinical Guidelines. Clin Ther 21:1025–1044
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  7. McClung B, McClung M (2001) Pharmacologic therapy for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Nurs Clin North Am 36(3):433–440
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Bloom BS (2001) Daily regimen and compliance with treatment: fewer daily doses and drugs with fewer side effects improve compliance. BMJ 22:647
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C (2001) A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 23:1296–1310
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Caro JJ, Salas M, Speckman JL et al (1999) Persistence with treatment for hypertension in actual practice. CMAJ 160(1):31–37
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Heaney RP. Bone mass, bone fragility, and the decision to treat. Editorial. JAMA 1998;280(24):2119–2120
    Google Scholar
  12. Tamblyn R, Reid T, Mayo N et al (2000) Using medical services claims to assess injuries in the elderly: sensitivity of diagnostic and procedure codes for injury ascertainment. J Clin Epidemiol 53:183–94
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  13. Tennis P, Bombardier C, Malcolm E et al (1993) Validity of rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses listed in the Saskatchewan Hospital Separations Database. J Clin Epidemiol 46:675–683
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  14. Rawson NS, Malcolm E (1995) Validity of the recording of ischaemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Saskatchewan health care datafiles. Stat Med 14:2627–2643
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Rawson NSB, Malcolm E, D’Arcy C (1997) Reliability of the recording of schizophrenia and depressive disorder in the Saskatchewan health care datafiles. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 32:191–199
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Motheral BR, Fairman KA (1997) The use of claims databases for outcomes research: rationale, challenges, and strategies. Clin Ther 19:346–366
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  17. Tamblyn RM, Lavoie G, Petrella L et al (1995) The use of prescription claims databases in pharmacoepidemiological research: the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the prescription claims database in Quebec. J Clin Epidemiol 48:999–1009
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  18. Levy AR, Mayo NE, Grimard G (1995) Rates of transcervical and peritrochanteric hip fractures in the Province of Quebec, Canada: 1981–92. Am J Epidemiol 142:428–436
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  19. Ray WA, Griffin MR, Fought RL et al (1992) Identification of fractures from computerized Medicare files. J Clin Epidemiol 45:703–714
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study is based in part on de-identified data provided by the Saskatchewan Department of Health. We thank Winanne Downey, BSP, and Mary Rose Stang, PhD, of Saskatchewan Health, for their help in defining the dataset and understanding the Saskatchewan health care system. The interpretation and conclusions contained herein do not necessarily represent those of the Government of Saskatchewan or the Saskatchewan Department of Health.

Conflict of interest:

No information supplied.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Caro Research Institute, 336 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 , USA
    J. Jaime Caro, Krista F. Huybrechts & Gabriel Raggio
  2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    J. Jaime Caro
  3. Caro Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Khajak J. Ishak
  4. Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland
    Christel Naujoks

Authors

  1. J. Jaime Caro
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Khajak J. Ishak
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Krista F. Huybrechts
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. Gabriel Raggio
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. Christel Naujoks
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toJ. Jaime Caro.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caro, J.J., Ishak, K.J., Huybrechts, K.F. et al. The impact of compliance with osteoporosis therapy on fracture rates in actual practice.Osteoporos Int 15, 1003–1008 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1652-z

Download citation

Keywords