Impact of compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate therapy on health care costs and utilization
- 196 Downloads
The impact of persistence and compliance with bisphosphonate therapy on health care costs and utilization was examined in women newly prescribed bisphosphonates. At 3 years, women who were persistent and compliant with bisphosphonate therapy had lower total costs compared with non-persistent and non-compliant women, after controlling for relevant risk factors.
The impact of persistence and compliance with bisphosphonate therapy on health care costs and utilization was examined in bisphosphonate-naïve women.
Two claims databases were used to identify women ≥45 years of age and who filled a new bisphosphonate prescription during 2000–2002. Persistence and compliance were evaluated over 3 years. Compliance was defined as a medication possession ratio (days of bisphosphonate supply/days of follow-up) ≥0.80; persistence was defined as no refill gaps ≥30 days. Multivariate models accounted for potential confounders.
This analysis included 32,944 women (mean age, 64 years) who filled a new prescription for daily or weekly alendronate (n = 26,581) or risedronate (n = 6,363). At 3 years, 37% of women were compliant and 21% of women were persistent. Unadjusted total mean health care costs were lower for the compliant vs. non-compliant and persistent vs. non-persistent cohorts. After adjusting for potential confounders, total health care costs were reduced by 8.9% for persistent patients (p < 0.001) and 3.5% for compliant patients (p = 0.014). Persistence decreased the likelihood of inpatient admission by 47%.
At 3 years, women who were persistent and compliant with bisphosphonate therapy had lower total costs compared with non-persistent and non-compliant women, after controlling for relevant risk factors.
KeywordsBisphosphonates Compliance Cost Osteoporosis Persistence
This study was supported Roche. J. Sunyecz has served on the speaker’s bureaus for Roche and GlaxoSmithKline and received research support from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline. L. Mucha is employed by Outcomes Research and Econometrics and has a contract with Roche for data analysis. O. Baser is a consultant for Thomson Healthcare has a contract with Roche for data analysis. C. E. Barr is employed by Roche. M. M. Amonkar is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Rebecca Jarvis, PhD in the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
- 3.Office of the Surgeon General (2004) Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
- 7.Papapoulos SE (2000) Bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis. Principles and efficacy. Ann Med Interne (Paris) 151:504–510Google Scholar
- 11.Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK et al (1999) Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. JAMA 282:1344–1352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Lombas C, Hakim C, Zanchetta JR (2001) Compliance with alendronate treatment in an osteoporosis clinic. J Bone Miner Res 16(Suppl 1):S529Google Scholar
- 32.Gibson TB, Mark TL, Axelsen K, et al. (2006) Impact of statin copayments on adherence and medical care utilization and expenditures. Am J Manag Care 12 Spec no.:SP11–19Google Scholar