These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Denosumab: A Unique Perspective on Adherence and Cost-effectiveness Compared With Oral Bisphosphonates in Osteoporosis Patients.
    Author: Morizio P, Burkhart JI, Ozawa S.
    Journal: Ann Pharmacother; 2018 Oct; 52(10):1031-1041. PubMed ID: 29616561.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness as well as adherence and patient preference for denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. DATA SOURCES: Two comprehensive PubMed literature searches (from data inception to December 2017) were performed. The first search included the terms osteoporosis, denosumab, bisphosphonate, and adherence or persistence or compliance or preference. The search terms osteoporosis, denosumab, cost, and effectiveness were used in the second literature search. Additional references were included from reviewing literature citations. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All English-language clinical trials on adherence (as compliance and persistence) or patient preference for denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates were evaluated. In addition, articles analyzing the cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four studies that assessed patient preference showed positive outcomes for preference and satisfaction for subcutaneous use of denosumab every 6 months versus oral alendronate weekly, oral ibandronate monthly, or oral risedronate monthly. Three studies evaluated persistence and compliance and/or adherence and showed improved persistence and compliance rates with denosumab compared with bisphosphonate therapy. Twelve articles and 3 abstracts assessed cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared with generic alendronate. The majority of articles showed that denosumab was cost-effective, and even cost-saving in patients older than 75 years of age and those who have a history of previous fractures, lower bone mineral density T-scores, and more risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates may improve patient preference and adherence as well as provide a cost-effective treatment strategy, especially among higher-risk and older adults with osteoporosis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]