Association between refill compliance to oral bisphosphonate treatment, incident fractures, and health care costs—an analysis using national health databases
- 693 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsBisphophonates Epidemiology Fractures Health economics Osteoporosis
This study was funded through a research grant from Amgen (Europe) GmbH. The funding source did not have any influence on the data analysis, interpretation, or conclusions but approved the final manuscript prior to submission. KRO is an employee of GSK Denmark and of the University of Southern Denmark and participated in this work as a GSK employee.
Conflicts of interest
CH has received speaker's fees from Eli Lilly. KRO is a GSK Denmark employee. BA has served as an investigator in clinical trials and on advisory boards and/or speakers panels for pharmaceutical companies that produce osteoporosis drugs. Clinical trials: Amgen, NPS Pharmaceuticals. Advisory boards: Amgen, Takeda-Nycomed, Merck. Speakers panels: Amgen, Nycomed, Eli Lilly, Merck.
- 5.Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, Knickerbocker RK, Nickelsen T, Genant HK et al (1999) Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators. JAMA 282:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Block AE, Solomon DH, Cadarette SM, Mogun H, Choudhry NK (2008) Patient and physician predictors of post-fracture osteoporosis management. J Gen Intern Med. 23(9):1447–51Google Scholar
- 15.McHorney CA, Schousboe JT, Cline RR, Weiss TW (2008) The impact of osteoporosis medication beliefs and side-effect experiences on non-adherence to oral bisphosphonates. Curr Med Res Opin. 23(12):3137–52Google Scholar
- 16.Hansen, Carrinna; Pedersen, Birthe D; Konradsen, Hanne; Abrahamsen B (2012) Anti-osteoporotic therapy in denmark—predictors and demographics of poor refill compliance and poor persistence. Osteoporosis Int. (in press)Google Scholar
- 17.Ross S, Samuels E, Gairy K, Iqbal S, Badamgarav E, Siris E (2011) A meta-analysis of osteoporotic fracture risk with medication. JVAL Elsevier Inc 14(4):571–581Google Scholar
- 21.Halpern R, Becker L, Iqbal SU, Kazis LE, Macarios D, Badamgarav E (2011) The association of adherence to osteoporosis therapies with fracture, all-cause medical costs, and all-cause hospitalizations: a retrospective claims analysis of female health plan enrollees with osteoporosis. J Manage Care Pharm: JMCP 17(1):25–39Google Scholar
- 25.Kilgore ML, Curtis JR, Delzell E, Becker DJ, Arora T, Saag KG, et al. (2012) A close examination of health care expenditures related to fractures. J Bone Mineral Res. 28(4):816–20Google Scholar
- 32.Green J, Czanner G, Reeves G, Watson J, Wise L, Beral V (2010) Oral bisphosphonates and risk of cancer of oesophagus, stomach, and colorectum: case–control analysis within a UK primary care cohort. BMJ (Clin Res Ed.). 341:c4444Google Scholar
- 34.Vestergaard P, Fischer L, Mele M (2011) Use of Bisphosphonates and Risk of Breast Cancer. Breast 88(4):255–62Google Scholar
- 36.Majumdar SR, Kim N, Colman I, Chahal AM, Raymond G, Jen H et al (2005) Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients. Arch Intern Med 165(8):905–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar