Sacha Satram-Hoang

Influence of patient perceptions and preferences for osteoporosis medication on adherence behavior in the Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction study

ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate patient perceptions of subcutaneous denosumab or oral alendronate in postmenopausal women with or at risk for osteoporosis and how these perceptions influence adherence. MethodsPostmenopausal women with low bone mass were randomized to denosumab 60 mg every 6 months for 1 year (treatment period 1 [TP1]) followed by alendronate 70 mg once weekly for 1 year (treatment period 2 [TP2]), or vice versa. Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire data were collected at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months; a necessity-concerns differential (NCD) was calculated for each time point. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the influences of baseline characteristics on nonadherence. ResultsParticipants included 250 women (alendronate/denosumab, n = 124; denosumab/alendronate, n = 126). During TP1, the NCD at month 6 was higher with denosumab than with alendronate (P = 0.0076). In TP2, the NCD was higher for women switched to denosumab than for women switched to alendronate at 6 months (P = 0.0126) and 12 months (P = 0.4605). Denosumab was preferred to alendronate regardless of treatment sequence (P < 0.0001). Covariate analysis revealed that higher TP2 baseline necessity scores were associated with lower odds of nonadherence (P = 0.0055), whereas higher concerns about medication scores were associated with higher odds of nonadherence (P = 0.0247). Higher NCD scores were also associated with lower odds of nonadherence (P = 0.0015). ConclusionsParticipants preferred denosumab to alendronate while on treatment and had more positive perceptions of denosumab than alendronate. These perceptions were associated with better adherence.

Development, Reliability, and Validity of a New Preference and Satisfaction Questionnaire

OBJECTIVES Existing questionnaires that assess preference and/or satisfaction with postmenopausal bone loss treatments were reviewed and determined to be inadequate for the assessment of an oral pill versus a subcutaneous injection. The Preference and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) was developed to assess preference, satisfaction, and bother with a weekly oral tablet versus a once every 6 months subcutaneous injection for treatment of postmenopausal bone loss. METHODS Questions were developed based on literature review and expert input. Content validity of the PSQ in this patient population was assessed among current or previous bisphosphonate users in group interviews, and item comprehension and readability were also evaluated. Reliability, validity, and structure of the questionnaire were assessed in two phase 3 randomized clinical trials. RESULTS Twenty-four women participated in cognitive interviews and found the PSQ understandable and acceptable. Subsequently, 1583 trial participants took the PSQ. Interitem correlations, ranging from 0.50 to 0.97 for preference items, 0.85 to 0.94 for pill-satisfaction items, and 0.84 to 0.92 for injection-satisfaction items, and a well-fitting confirmatory factor analysis (root mean square error of approximation 0.04, nonnormed fit index 0.99, and root mean square residual 0.08) supported the structure of the instrument. Cronbachs alpha reliability values for pill satisfaction, injection satisfaction, pill bother, and injection bother were 0.93, 0.89, 0.82, and 0.61, respectively. Discriminative validity was indicated with better satisfaction and bother scores being related to adherence and the absence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS The PSQ is a valid and reliable measure and may be a valuable tool to assess patient preference and satisfaction with a weekly oral tablet and 6-month subcutaneous injection for postmenopausal bone loss.

Impact of Medication Adherence on Health Care Utilization and Productivity: Self-Reported Data From a Cohort of Postmenopausal Women on Osteoporosis Therapy

BACKGROUND Many pharmacologic agents are approved for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, which is common among postmenopausal women. Evidence exists relating treatment persistence to fracture risk. Less is known about treatment persistence and the use of health care service and individual productivity. OBJECTIVE This study was undertaken to describe health care use and productivity loss relative to osteoporosis medication persistence using womens self-reported data from the Prospective Observational Scientific Study Investigating Bone Loss Experience (POSSIBLE US™), a large, longitudinal (October 2004-December 2009) osteoporosis cohort study of postmenopausal women. METHODS Analyses included women on pharmacologic osteoporosis therapy (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, calcitonin, raloxifene, or teriparatide) who provided health care use/productivity data collected using semiannual questionnaires over 1 year of follow-up. Participant characteristics, use, and productivity metrics were summarized. Logistic regression models and generalized linear models were used to examine use, time missed from usual activities, number of days spent in bed, and lost work time relative to treatment persistence, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS At entry, of the 2528 women studied (91% white, 3.1% Hispanic/Latino, 2.3% African American/black, 1.1% Asian, and 2.1% American Indian/Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or other; mean age, 64.6 [range, 37-97] years), 43.1% had osteoporosis and 23.4% had a previous fracture. After adjustment, subjects who switched therapies during follow-up were more likely to have had any kind of diagnostic testing (95.2% of switchers vs 91.2% of persistent subjects and 88.9% of discontinuers, P < 0.05). Discontinuers were less likely than persistent subjects to visit their primary care physicians (92.0% vs 94.4%, P = 0.0337). Variations in the number of days spent in bed, time missed from usual activities, and work loss (n = 852 employed subjects) by treatment persistence were not significant. CONCLUSIONS Use of diagnostic testing differed significantly by osteoporosis treatment status. Compared with women who persisted with treatment, primary care provider visits were less common among those who discontinued treatment. Treatment persistence was not associated with significant differences in productivity measures.

Prevalence of Fracture Risk Factors in Postmenopausal Women Enrolled in the POSSIBLE US Treatment Cohort

Subject- and physician-reported data from 4,429 postmenopausal women receiving osteoporosis treatment in the Prospective Observational Scientific Study Investigating Bone Loss Experience (POSSIBLE US) were used to assess the prevalence of risk factors (RFs) and on-study fracture. RFs assessed at study entry were age >70 years; fracture since age 50; minimum T-score (hip/spine) ≤−2.5 at diagnosis; body mass index <18.5 kg/m2; rheumatoid arthritis; parental history of hip fracture; current smoking; and recent oral glucocorticoid use. Data were collected with semiannual self-administered questionnaires. Results were stratified by physician-reported osteoporosis/osteopenia diagnosis. Low T-score and age >70 years were the most common RFs in the osteoporosis group, and age >70 years and prior fracture were the most common risk factors in the osteopenia group. Multiple RFs were more common than a single RF in osteoporotic women (54.2% versus 34.6%; P < 0.0001) but not osteopenic women (13.8% versus 33.6%; P < 0.0001). Women with multiple RFs had more on-study osteoporosis-related fractures than women with a single RF (osteoporosis group: 9.9% versus 6.2%; P = 0.0092; osteopenia group: 11.2% versus 4.7%; P < 0.0001). In postmenopausal women receiving osteoporosis treatment, multiple RFs increased fracture risk. RFs, in addition to bone mineral density, can help identify candidates for osteoporosis treatment.

Physician Differences in Managing Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

AbstractBackground: Osteoporosis is a disease that often goes undetected until a fracture occurs. Previous reports indicate that disease diagnosis and care of patients with osteoporosis may vary within the medical community. Objective: Using data from the POSSIBLE US™ registry (October 2004–December 2009), we evaluated patterns of care for a group of primary care (i.e. first-contact) physicians who frequently prescribe osteoporosis medications to determine whether variations existed in the characteristics of their postmenopausal patients; physician approaches to diagnosis; treatment choices and monitoring; and patient-reported medication use. Methods: POSSIBLE US™ was a large prospective registry of postmenopausal women receiving osteoporosis treatment. We analysed data from 42 family practice physicians (FPPs), 50 internal medicine specialists (IMs) [internists, physicians], 41 gynaecologists (GYNs) and the 4917 patients they enrolled in the POSSIBLE US™ registry between October 2004 and January 2007. Women who had been postmenopausal for at least 1 year and who were newly initiating osteoporosis therapy, switching or augmenting therapy or continuing on a stable therapy regimen were investigated. Therapies included bisphosphonates, full-length or peptide derivative of parathyroid hormone, calcitonin, oral or transdermal postmenopausal estrogen, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), calcium and/or vitamin D supplements (alone or in combination with other therapies), or any combination of these agents. Data on physician characteristics were collected on an initial qualification questionnaire. Physicians reported data for enrolled patients at study entry and were also asked to provide relevant data obtained at clinic visits throughout the follow-up period. Patient-reported data were collected using questionnaires mailed out semi-annually throughout the follow-up period. Patient-reported and physician-reported data were assessed using ANOVA models and chi-squared (χ2) or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests to evaluate differences across physician types. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the odds of patients having an osteoporosis diagnosis, being prescribed specific agents and receiving an additional dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan after the initial diagnostic scan. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine whether the risk of patient-reported treatment discontinuation during 12 months of follow-up differed by physician characteristics. Results: Although low-bone density diagnoses were not required, physicians reported DXA as the method of diagnosis in 84% of patients. The majority of patients were prescribed bisphosphonates (55%); the next most frequently prescribed treatment was calcium/vitamin D only (19%). Women treated by GYNs were younger; had fewer co-morbidities, higher T-scores and fewer prior fractures; were 30% less likely to carry a diagnosis of osteoporosis; and were more likely to be treated with SERMs or hormone replacement therapy (HRT) than women treated by IMs or FPPs. Patients cared for by physicians with >30 years of experience were 20% less likely to carry a diagnosis of osteoporosis, had greater odds of receiving either HRT or calcium/vitamin D only and had a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Overall, there was less laboratory testing to assess secondary causes of osteoporosis in this cohort than might have been expected, given the high incidence of secondary osteoporosis generally in women of similar age. Conclusions: This study documents potentially important variations in osteoporosis care, even among physicians who frequently prescribe osteoporosis medications.

Corrigendum to “Prevalence of Fracture Risk Factors in Postmenopausal Women Enrolled in the POSSIBLE US Treatment Cohort”

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2013/715025.].