Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preference and satisfaction with a 6-month subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

The Preference and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss. Patients preferred and were more satisfied with a treatment that was administered less frequently, suggesting the acceptability of the 6-month injection for treatment of bone loss.

Introduction

The PSQ compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and a weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss.

Methods

Postmenopausal women with low bone mass who enrolled in two separate randomized phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy studies received a 6-month subcutaneous denosumab injection (60 mg) plus a weekly oral placebo or a weekly alendronate tablet (70 mg) plus a 6-month subcutaneous placebo injection. After 12 months, patients completed the PSQ to rate their preference, satisfaction, and degree of bother with each regimen.

Results

Most enrolled patients (1,583 out of 1,693; 93.5%) answered ≥1 item of the PSQ. Significantly more patients preferred and were more satisfied with the 6-month injection versus the weekly tablet (P < 0.001). More patients reported no bother with the 6-month injection (90%) than the weekly tablet (62%).

Conclusion

Patients preferred, were more satisfied, and less bothered with a 6-month injection regimen for osteoporosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Osterberg L, Blaschke T (2005) Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 353:487–497

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wahl C, Gregoire JP, Teo K et al (2005) Concordance, compliance and adherence in healthcare: closing gaps and improving outcomes. Healthc Qual 8:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kothawala P, Badamgarav E, Ryu S et al (2007) Systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world adherence to drug therapy for osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc 82:1493–1501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reginster JY, Rabenda V, Neuprez A (2006) Adherence, patient preference and dosing frequency: understanding the relationship. Bone 38:S2–S6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Siris ES, Harris ST, Rosen CJ et al (2006) Adherence to bisphosphonate therapy and fracture rates in osteoporotic women: relationship to vertebral and nonvertebral fractures from 2 US claims databases. Mayo Clin Proc 81:1013–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gold DT, Martin BC, Frytak JR et al (2007) A claims database analysis of persistence with alendronate therapy and fracture risk in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 23:585–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van den Boogaard CH, Breekveldt-Postma NS, Borggreve SE et al (2006) Persistent bisphosphonate use and the risk of osteoporotic fractures in clinical practice: a database analysis study. Curr Med Res Opin 22:1757–1764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Caro JJ, Ishak KJ, Huybrechts KF et al (2004) The impact of compliance with osteoporosis therapy on fracture rates in actual practice. Osteoporos Int 15:1003–1008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ (2006) Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone 38:922–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCombs JS, Thiebaud P, McLaughlin-Miley C et al (2004) Compliance with drug therapies for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Maturitas 48:271–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Papaioannou A, Ioannidis G, Adachi JD et al (2003) Adherence to bisphosphonates and hormone replacement therapy in a tertiary care setting of patients in the CANDOO database. Osteoporos Int 14:808–813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stafford RS, Drieling RL, Hersh AL (2004) National trends in osteoporosis visits and osteoporosis treatment, 1988–2003. Arch Intern Med 164:1525–1530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Watson J, Wise L, Green J (2007) Prescribing of hormone therapy for menopause, tibolone, and bisphosphonates in women in the UK between 1991 and 2005. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63:843–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Black DM, Thompson DE, Bauer DC et al (2000) Fracture risk reduction with alendronate in women with osteoporosis: the Fracture Intervention Trial. FIT Research Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:4118–4124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE et al (1998) Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 280:2077–2082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kendler D, Kung AW, Fuleihan Gel H et al (2004) Patients with osteoporosis prefer once weekly to once daily dosing with alendronate. Maturitas 48:243–251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Simon JA, Lewiecki EM, Smith ME et al (2002) Patient preference for once-weekly alendronate 70 mg versus once-daily alendronate 10 mg: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study. Clin Ther 24:1871–1886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Burgess TL, Qian Y, Kaufman S et al (1999) The ligand for osteoprotegerin (OPGL) directly activates mature osteoclasts. J Cell Biol 145:527–538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kostenuik P, Nguyen H, McCabe J et al (2009) Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to RANKL, inhibits bone resorption and increases bone density in knock-in mice that express chimeric (murine/human) RANKL. J Bone Miner Res 24:182–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lacey DL, Timms E, Tan HL et al (1998) Osteoprotegerin ligand is a cytokine that regulates osteoclast differentiation and activation. Cell 93:165–176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bone HG, Bolognese MA, Yuen CK et al (2008) Effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:2149–2157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cummings SR, McClung MR, Christiansen C et al (2008) The effects of denosumab on fracture risk in women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 20:167

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lewiecki EM, Miller PD, McClung MR et al (2007) Two-year treatment with denosumab (AMG 162) in a randomized phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 22:1832–1841

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McClung MR, Lewiecki EM, Cohen SB et al (2006) Denosumab in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. N Engl J Med 354:821–831

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller PD, Bolognese MA, Lewiecki EM et al (2008) Effect of denosumab on bone density and turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass after long-term continued, discontinued, and restarting of therapy: a randomized blinded phase 2 clinical trial. Bone 43:222–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Emkey R, Koltun W, Beusterien K et al (2005) Patient preference for once-monthly ibandronate versus once-weekly alendronate in a randomized, open-label, cross-over trial: the Boniva Alendronate Trial in Osteoporosis (BALTO). Curr Med Res Opin 21:1895–1903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hadji P, Minne H, Pfeifer M et al (2008) Treatment preference for monthly oral ibandronate and weekly oral alendronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: A randomized, crossover study (BALTO II). Joint Bone Spine 75:303–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McClung M, Recker R, Miller P et al (2007) Intravenous zoledronic acid 5 mg in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low bone density previously treated with alendronate. Bone 41:122–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gold DT, Horne R, Hill C et al (2008) Development, reliability, and validity of a new preference satisfaction questionnaire. J Bone Miner Res 23:S210–S211

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kendler DL, Benhamou CL, Brown JP et al (2008) Effects of denosumab in postmenopausal women transitioning from alendronate therapy in comparison with continued alendronate. Osteoporos Int 9(Suppl 2):S385–S386

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brown JP, Prince RL, Deal C et al (2008) Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial. J Bone Miner Res . doi:10.1359/jbmr.080910

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cramer JA, Gold DT, Silverman SL et al (2007) A systematic review of persistence and compliance with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 18:1023–1031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Reginster JY, Burlet N (2006) Osteoporosis: a still increasing prevalence. Bone 38:S4–S9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Solomon DH, Avorn J, Katz JN et al (2005) Compliance with osteoporosis medications. Arch Intern Med 165:2414–2419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Saltman DC, Sayer GP, O'Dea NA (2006) Dosing frequencies in general practice—whose decision and why? Aust Fam Physician 35:915–919

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. Brankin E, Walker M, Lynch N et al (2006) The impact of dosing frequency on compliance and persistence with bisphosphonates among postmenopausal women in the UK: evidence from three databases. Curr Med Res Opin 22:1249–1256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cramer JA, Amonkar MM, Hebborn A et al (2005) Compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate dosing regimens among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 21:1453–1460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cramer JA, Lynch NO, Gaudin AF et al (2006) The effect of dosing frequency on compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate therapy in postmenopausal women: a comparison of studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Clin Ther 28:1686–1694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ettinger MP, Gallagher R, MacCosbe PE (2006) Medication persistence with weekly versus daily doses of orally administered bisphosphonates. Endocr Pract 12:522–528

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Payer J, Killinger Z, Sulkova I et al (2008) Preferences of patients receiving bisphosphonates—how to influence the therapeutic adherence. Biomed Pharmacother 62:122–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cooper A, Drake J, Brankin E (2006) Treatment persistence with once-monthly ibandronate and patient support vs. once-weekly alendronate: results from the PERSIST study. Int J Clin Pract 60:896–905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Saag K, Lindsay R, Kriegman A et al (2007) A single zoledronic acid infusion reduces bone resorption markers more rapidly than weekly oral alendronate in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. Bone 40:1238–1243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Horne R, Kovacs C, Katlama C et al (2009) Prescribing and using self-injectable antiretrovirals: how concordant are physician and patient perspectives? AIDS Res Ther 6:2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gruffydd-Jones K, Hood CA, Price DB (1997) A within-patient comparison of subcutaneous and oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine in general practice. Cephalalgia 17:31–36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for these studies was provided by Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA USA. Sacha Satram-Hoang, Ph.D. and Amy Foreman-Wykert, Ph.D. (Amgen, Inc.) provided editorial and writing assistance.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have the following disclosures:

David L. Kendler has served as an investigator for Merck, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Servier, Biosante, and Wyeth, and a speaker, consultant, or advisor for and/or received honoraria from Merck, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Servier, Nycomed, and Wyeth.

Louis Bessette has served as an investigator and advisory board member for Amgen.

Deborah Gold has served as a consultant for Amgen, Procter & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., Sanofi-Aventis, Roche Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Additionally, she has received travel grants, speaking or writing fees, or other honoraria, and has served as a member of an advisory board for Amgen, Procter & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., Sanofi-Aventis, Roche Diagnostics, and Eli Lilly.

Rob Horne has received unrestricted grants to the University of London from Procter & Gamble, Gilead Life Sciences, and Hayward Medical Communications/Shire Pharmaceuticals. Professor Horne also has conducted occasional paid consultancy, medical education lectures, and advisory committees for Abbott, Adelphi, Amgen, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKlein, Hayward Medical Communications, Merck Outcomes Research, Novartis, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, and Shire Pharmaceuticals. Some consultancies included travel and accommodations paid by pharmaceutical companies.

Cheryl D. Hill is a paid consultant for Amgen Inc.

Sepideh Farivar-Varon is a former employee of Amgen and current employee of Allergan Inc. Dr. Varon owns stock and/or stock options in both Amgen and Allergan Inc.

Jeff Borenstein, Rachel Wagman, Suresh Siddhanti, David Macarios, Huei Wang, and Hoi-Shen Man are employees and shareholders of Amgen.

Henry G. Bone has served as an investigator for Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nordic Biosciences, and Zelos; as a consultant for Amgen, Merck, Nordic Bioscience, Osteologix, Pfizer, and Zelos; and has received speaker honoraria from Merck and Novartis.

Author information

Author notes

  1. S. F. Varon

    Present address: Allergan, 2525 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Prohealth Clinical Research, University of British Columbia, 600–1285 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3X8, Canada

    D. L. Kendler

  2. Le Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Pavillon CHUL, 2705 Boul. Laurier, Quebec City, QC, Canada, G1V 4G2

    L. Bessette

  3. RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, 200 Park Offices Drive, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    C. D. Hill

  4. Center for Aging, Duke University Medical Center, P.O. Box 3003, Duke Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    D. T. Gold

  5. Centre for Behavioral Medicine, The School of Pharmacy, University of London, 29–39 Brunswick Square, London, WC1N 1AX, UK

    R. Horne

  6. Amgen Inc., One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320, USA

    S. F. Varon, J. Borenstein, H. Wang, S. Siddhanti & D. Macarios

  7. Amgen Inc., 240 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WD, UK

    H.-S. Man

  8. Amgen Inc., 1120 Veterans Boulevard, South San Francisco, CA, 94080, USA

    R. B. Wagman

  9. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    R. B. Wagman

  10. Michigan Bone and Mineral Clinic, P.C., 22201 Moross Road, Suite 260, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA

    H. G. Bone

Authors
  1. D. L. Kendler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Bessette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. D. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. T. Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Horne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. F. Varon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Borenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. H.-S. Man
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. R. B. Wagman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. S. Siddhanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. D. Macarios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. H. G. Bone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. L. Kendler.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Table 1

PSQ responses by language and country for the questions: “Which do you prefer?” and “With which frequency of administration have you been more satisfied?” (DOC 44 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kendler, D.L., Bessette, L., Hill, C.D. et al. Preference and satisfaction with a 6-month subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass. Osteoporos Int 21, 837–846 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-1023-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-1023-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation