Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Osteoporosis International 3/2016

Open Access 01.03.2016 | Original Article

Gastrointestinal symptoms and association with medication use patterns, adherence, treatment satisfaction, quality of life, and resource use in osteoporosis: baseline results of the MUSIC-OS study

verfasst von: A. Modi, S. Sen, J. D. Adachi, S. Adami, B. Cortet, A. L. Cooper, P. Geusens, D. Mellström, J. Weaver, J. P. van den Bergh, A. M. Nguyen, S. Sajjan, MUSIC-OS Study Group

Erschienen in: Osteoporosis International | Ausgabe 3/2016

Abstract

Summary

The Medication Use Patterns, Treatment Satisfaction, and Inadequate Control of Osteoporosis Study (MUSIC-OS) is a prospective, observational study of women with osteoporosis in Europe and Canada. At baseline, patients with gastrointestinal symptoms reported lower adherence to osteoporosis treatment, treatment satisfaction, and health-related quality of life, than those without gastrointestinal symptoms.

Introduction

The aim of the study was to examine gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and the association between GI symptoms and treatment adherence, treatment satisfaction, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among osteoporotic women in Europe and Canada.

Methods

Baseline results are reported here for a prospective study which enrolled postmenopausal, osteoporotic women who were initiating (new users) or continuing (experienced users) osteoporosis treatment at study entry (baseline). A patient survey was administered at baseline and included the occurrence of GI symptoms during 6-month pre-enrolment, treatment adherence (adherence evaluation of osteoporosis (ADEOS), score 0–22), treatment satisfaction (Osteoporosis Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medications (OPSAT-Q), score 0–100) and HRQoL (EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) utility, score 0–1; OPAQ-SV, score 0–100). The association between GI symptoms and ADEOS (experienced users), OPSAT-Q (experienced users), and HRQoL (new and experienced users) was assessed by general linear models adjusted for patient characteristics.

Results

A total of 2959 patients (2275 experienced and 684 new users) were included. Overall, 68.1 % of patients experienced GI symptoms in the past 6 months. Compared with patients without GI symptoms, patients with GI symptoms had lower mean baseline scores on most measures. The mean adjusted differences were ADEOS, −0.43; OPSAT-Q, −5.68; EQ-5D, −0.04 (new users) and −0.06 (experienced users), all P < 0.01. GI symptoms were also associated with lower OPAQ-SV domain scores: physical function, −4.17 (experienced users); emotional status, −4.28 (new users) and −5.68 (experienced users); back pain, −5.82 (new users) and −11.33 (experienced users), all P < 0.01.

Conclusions

Patients with GI symptoms have lower treatment adherence and treatment satisfaction and worse HRQoL than patients without GI symptoms.
Hinweise
The members of the MUSIC-OS Study Group are listed in the appendix.

Introduction

Osteoporosis-related fractures persist as a global health issue despite the availability of effective treatments to reduce fracture risk. In the European Union, osteoporosis affects an estimated 22 million women and 5.5 million men, resulting in 3.5 million new fragility fractures annually and 37 billion euros per year in direct health care costs [1]. In Canada, there were 57,413 acute care admissions, 832,594 hospitalized days, and $1.2 billion in acute care costs attributable to osteoporosis fractures during 2007–2008 [2]. Patients who sustain fragility fractures experience significantly worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [35] and face an increased risk of mortality [6, 7].
There are several treatment options with demonstrated efficacy in reducing fracture risk in osteoporotic patients, including bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates are the most commonly prescribed therapy. However, among patients who initiate treatment, adherence to and persistence with therapy is often poor in clinical practice. Among patients initiating bisphosphonate therapy, only approximately 40–60 % are adherent to therapy during the first year [810] and a similar proportion are non-persistent in their first year of treatment [1012]. The consequences of low adherence and persistence include greater fracture risk [10, 13] and the sequalae of higher health care utilization and costs [1416].
Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms among patients on oral bisphosphonates may also contribute to worse clinical outcomes. Although controlled trials have found no differences in the rate of GI symptoms among patients (with and without pre-existing GI disorders) treated with oral bisphosphonates compared with placebo [17, 18], analyses of real-world data have noted upper GI complaints often manifesting as dyspepsia, gastroesophageal reflux, and nausea [19] and less frequently as esophagitis [20] and gastric ulcers [21]. Patients with a history of GI disorders are more likely to develop symptoms on oral bisphosphonate treatment [2224], and both pre-treatment gastrointestinal complaints and complaints while on treatment have been associated with discontinuation of oral bisphosphonates and other osteoporosis therapies [22, 2527]. Additionally, evidence from the POSSIBLE-US observational study of osteopenic and osteoporotic women suggests that patients who experience GI symptoms on treatment have lower treatment satisfaction than patients without GI complaints [26] and lower treatment satisfaction was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation or switching [28]. GI complaints on treatment were also linked to lower HRQoL among patients newly initiating therapy [26]. However, the rate of GI symptoms and the relationship between GI symptoms and patient-reported outcomes has not been well explored in osteoporotic women in the EU and Canada.
This study focuses on postmenopausal women in the EU and Canada who were initiating or continuing oral pharmacological therapy for osteoporosis at the start of the study. The objectives were to identify treatment patterns, GI symptoms, and the association between GI symptoms and treatment adherence, treatment satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and health care resource utilization.

Methods

Study design and participants

The study design, recruitment, and patient baseline characteristics of the Medication Use Patterns, Treatment Satisfaction, and Inadequate Control of Osteoporosis Study (MUSIC-OS) have been previously reported [29]. In brief, MUSIC-OS investigators enrolled postmenopausal women aged 55 and older, with a physician diagnosis of osteoporosis, from 96 primary care and specialty clinics in Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the standards of good clinical practice, and either the local ethics boards of the participating institutions or a central institutional review board. All participants provided written informed consent prior to study enrolment. Potential enrollees were identified at each site at the time of a medical consultation. This analysis describes the results of data collected at the enrollment (baseline) visit for new users who were initiating oral pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis and experienced users who were continuing the same oral pharmacological treatment.
Qualifying oral pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis in MUSIC-OS included bisphosphonates (e.g., alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate), calcitonin, strontium ranelate, and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs [e.g., raloxifene, and bazedoxifene]). Calcium, vitamin D, and estrogen and other hormone replacement therapy were not considered pharmacologic treatments for osteoporosis in this study. New users were patients either initiating qualifying oral pharmacological therapy at enrollment or receiving qualifying oral pharmacological therapy for less than 3 months prior to enrollment with no previous history of any osteoporosis pharmacological therapy. Experienced users were receiving the same qualifying oral pharmacological therapy for at least 3 months continuously prior to enrollment and were continuing treatment at the time of enrollment. Each cohort was further categorized by the presence or absence of GI symptoms by asking patients at baseline if they had experienced any GI symptoms in the 6 months prior to enrollment.

Measures

Patients were interviewed, and their medical chart history was reviewed during the enrolment visit (i.e., baseline visit) to obtain information on qualifying oral pharmacological osteoporosis therapy (defined above), concomitant medications, and GI symptoms. Concomitant medications included other medications/supplements taken for osteoporosis (e.g., calcium and/or vitamin D, estrogen and hormone replacement therapy, parathyroid hormone), gastrointestinal conditions (e.g., antacids), and drugs linked to gastrointestinal conditions, e.g., acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). The presence and type of GI symptoms were assessed by asking the patient if she had experienced any of a defined list of upper (heartburn/acid reflux, upset stomach/indigestion, nausea/vomiting, pain behind breastbone, pain or difficulty swallowing, stomach pain above navel) or lower (diarrhea or constipation, stomach pain below navel, bloating) GI problems in the last 6 months. Health care utilization in the 3 months prior to enrolment was assessed by asking patients to report medical services utilized specific to osteoporosis-related concerns and those specific to gastrointestinal-related concerns. Service categories captured were visits to family physician/general practitioner and specialists.
Patients completed four instruments to assess treatment adherence, treatment satisfaction, and HRQoL. Adherence was assessed among experienced users with the 12-item adherence evaluation of osteoporosis (ADEOS) treatment questionnaire, which has been validated in women with osteoporosis [30]. Scores range from 0 to 22 with scores ≥20 predicative of a high probability of medication persistence. Treatment satisfaction was measured with the Osteoporosis Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medications (OPSAT-Q), which uses Likert scales to assess four domains (treatment convenience, confidence in daily functioning, overall satisfaction with treatment, and side effects) with the total score reported on a 0–100 scale (higher scores indicating greater satisfaction) [31]. The OPSAT-Q has been validated in women taking bisphosphonates [31]. HRQoL was evaluated with the EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) utility which assesses health state [32], and the disease-specific Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire-Short Version (OPAQ-SV) which assesses health status in three domains: physical function, emotional status, and back pain [33].

Statistical analyses

The recruitment goal was 3300 treated patients to achieve a sample size of 2640, assuming 20 % loss to follow-up. This sample size is estimated assuming a normal distribution to provide 95 % confidence intervals at a 0.05 significance level. We computed descriptive statistics for GI symptoms. The difference in the proportion of new and experienced users reporting GI symptoms was examined by chi-squared test. The association between the presence/absence of GI symptoms and ADEOS, OPSAT-Q, EQ-5D, and OPAQ-SV scores was assessed with general linear models. Odd ratios for GI- and OP-related health care utilization were computed by logistic regression models. Separate models were constructed for each cohort (experienced vs. new user) and each measure (ADEOS, OPSAT-Q, EQ-5D, OPAQ-SV) and each component (general practitioner or specialist visit) of GI- and OP-related health care utilization. Modeling was conducted in two phases: an initial full model followed by a final reduced model. The initial full models were adjusted for the following patient characteristics: age group in years (50–59 [reference]; 60–69, 70–79; ≥80), race (white [reference], non-white), BMI category (underweight <18.5; normal 18.50–24.99 [reference]; overweight 25.00–25.99; obese ≥30), duration of osteoporosis at study entry in years (<1 [reference]; 1–<5, 5–10; >10), duration of pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis at study entry in years (<1 [reference]; 1–<5, 5–10; >10; this variable was excluded from the model for new users), history of falls in the past 12 months (yes, no [reference]), history of osteoporotic fracture at any time in the past (yes, no [reference]), presence of any selected comorbid conditions (yes, no [reference]; conditions included hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, hypothyroidism, anorexia nervosa, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, lactose intolerance, lupus, asthma, stroke, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), combination treatment (receiving bisphosphonates and non-bisphosphonates, receiving bisphosphonates [reference]), treatment class (receiving non-bisphosphonates, receiving bisphosphonates [reference]), and concomitant medication use (yes, no [reference]). Because not all participants had values for each covariate (e.g., race information was missing in France), the final model was a reduced model selected by using the subset of covariates in the full model that was significant at P ≤ 0.15 by backward elimination. The ADEOS and OPSAT-Q scores were not modeled for new users because these patients were either initiating osteoporosis therapy at study entry or had <3 months exposure to therapy. Covariates with unstable confidence intervals were excluded from models.

Results

Enrollment

We enrolled 3335 patients from 96 sites. The number of patients (% of total study enrollment) and number of sites by country, respectively were UK, 873 patients (26.2 %), 22 sites; Canada, 760 patients (22.8 %), 15 sites; France, 661 patients (19.8 %), 27 sites; Italy, 593 patients (17.8 %), 22 sites; Netherlands, 225 patients (6.7 %), 7 sites; Sweden, 223 (6.7 %), 3 sites. Of the 3335 enrolled patients, 2980 were protocol eligible, treated patients. After excluding 21 patients with missing data for GI symptoms, there were 2275 patients in the experienced user cohort and 684 patients in the new user cohort.

Treatment patterns

Bisphosphonates were the most common treatment overall (79.9 %) and among each user cohort and GI symptom group (Table 1). Among new users, 44.8 % were not receiving pharmacological osteoporosis therapy at the baseline visit. Although inclusion in this analysis required that all patients be treated with qualifying osteoporosis medications, the percentage of new users on pharmacological therapy at enrollment is less than 100 because some new users were prescribed their treatment on the day of the enrollment visit. Overall, 10.2 % of patients were taking only non-pharmacological oral medications (calcium and/or vitamin D treatment, estrogen, and/or hormone replacement therapy), and the majority of these patients were new users. Among all patients, 71.8 % reported taking a calcium and/or vitamin D supplement (data not shown). Experienced users had been taking oral pharmacologic therapy for approximately 4 years.
Table 1
Osteoporosis treatment patterns at enrolment
 
New users
Experienced users
All users
Characteristic
GI Symptoms
(n=442)
No GI Symptoms
(n=242)
All
(n=684)
GI Symptoms
(n=1,573)
No GI Symptoms
(n=702)
All
(n=2,275)
GI Symptoms
(n=2015)
No GI Symptoms
(n=944)
All
(n=2,959)
Osteoporosis medication
 Bisphosphonates, n (%)
223 (50.5)
131 (54.1)
354 (51.8)
1372 (87.2)
606 (86.3)
1978 (86.9)
1595 (79.2)
737 (78.1)
2378 (79.9)
 Non-bisphosphonates, n (%)
23 (5.2)
7 (2.9)
30 (4.4)
209 (13.3)
108 (15.4)
317 (13.9)
232 (11.5)
115 (12.2)
347 (11.7)
 Bisphosphonates and non-bisphosphonates, n (%)
2 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
2 (0.3)
9 (0.6)
12 (1.7)
21 (0.9)
11 (0.5)
12 (1.3)
23 (0.8)
 Not receiving qualifying oral pharmacological osteoporosis medicationa, n (%)
198 (44.8)
104 (43.0)
302 (44.2)
1 (0.1)
0 (0.0)
1 (0.0)b
199 (9.9)
104 (11.0)
303 (10.2)
Duration of qualifying oral, pharmacological osteoporosis medication at enrolment, months
 Any therapy, mean (SD)
0.3 (0.61)
0.2 (0.57)
0.3 (0.60)
48.8 (39.11)
46.1 (36.92)
48.0 (38.46)
42.3 (39.98)
38.6 (37.79)
41.1 (39.33)
 Bisphosphonates, mean (SD)
0.3 (0.60)
0.2 (0.56)
0.2 (0.58)
48.0 (38.19)
43.8 (35.51)
46.7 (37.43)
41.3 (39.10)
36.1 (36.27)
39.7 (38.30)
 Non-bisphosphonates, mean (SD)
0.4 (0.72)
0.4 (0.79)
0.4 (0.72)
51.5 (43.71)
55.0 (44.91)
52.7 (44.09)
46.5 (44.22)
51.7 (45.44)
48.2 (44.63)
aSome new users had not started qualifying oral pharmacological osteoporosis medication (bisphosphonates [e.g., alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate)], calcitonin, strontium, and SERM [raloxifene], and bazedoxifene) at the enrolment visit because they received their prescription on the day of the enrolment visit. Calcium and/or vitamin D treatment and estrogen and/or hormone replacement therapy were not considered relevant osteoporosis treatment
bOne patient classified as an experienced user was reported as not having received qualifying oral pharmacological osteoporosis medication. This patient was removed from the analysis of the association between gastrointestinal symptoms and patient-reported outcomes
GI gastrointestinal

Frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms

There were 2015 (68.1 %) patients who reported GI symptoms in the 6 months prior to enrollment (Table 2). The proportion of experienced users reporting GI symptoms was higher than new users (69.1 vs. 64.6 %; P < 0.03). The most common upper GI symptoms reported by all patients were heartburn/acid reflux (35.0 %) followed by upset stomach/indigestion (28.4 %). Diarrhea or constipation (38.2 %) and bloating (37.3 %) were the most frequently reported lower GI symptoms.
Table 2
Patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms during 6 months prior to enrollment
 
New users
Experienced users
All users
 
GI symptoms (n = 442)
All (n = 684)
GI symptoms (n = 1573)
All symptoms (n = 2275)
GI symptoms (n = 2015)
All (n = 2959)
 
n (%)
%
n (%)
%
n (%)
%
Any GI problems in the past 6 months
442 (100)
64.6
1573 (100)
69.1
2015 (100)
68.1
Any upper GI
341 (77.1)
49.9
1232 (78.3)
54.2
1573 (78.1)
53.2
 Heartburn/acid reflux
210 (47.5)
30.7
826 (52.5)
36.3
1036 (51.4)
35.0
 Upset stomach/indigestion
179 (40.5)
26.2
661 (42.0)
29.1
840 (41.7)
28.4
 Nausea/vomiting
76 (17.2)
11.1
318 (20.2)
14.0
394 (19.6)
13.3
 Pain behind breastbone
111 (25.1)
16.2
339 (21.6)
14.9
450 (22.3)
15.2
 Pain or difficulty swallowing
45 (10.2)
6.6
233 (14.8)
10.2
278 (13.8)
9.4
 Stomach pain above navel
94 (21.3)
13.7
318 (20.2)
14.0
412 (20.4)
13.9
Any lower GI
344 (77.8)
50.3
1261 (80.2)
55.4
1605 (79.7)
54.2
 Diarrhea or constipation
226 (51.1)
33.0
904 (57.5)
39.7
1130 (56.1)
38.2
 Stomach pain below navel
87 (19.7)
12.7
349 (22.2)
15.3
436 (21.6)
14.7
 Bloating
238 (53.8)
34.8
867 (55.1)
38.1
1105 (4.8)
37.3
GI gastrointestinal

Adherence and treatment satisfaction

Among experienced users (n = 2228), 49.2 % had an ADEOS score ≥20, indicative of a high probability of medication persistence (data not shown). ADEOS scores ≥20 were less frequent among experienced users with GI symptoms compared with users without GI symptoms (45.5 vs. 57.6 %; data not shown). The association between GI symptoms and ADEOS and OPSAT-Q scores, adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, is shown in Table 3. The adjusted mean difference between the GI and no GI symptom groups was −0.43 (P < 0.001) with lower mean ADEOS scores in the GI symptom group. Treatment satisfaction measured by OPSAT-Q score was also significantly lower among experienced users with GI symptoms: The mean adjusted difference between the GI and no GI symptom groups was −5.68 (P < 0.0001).
Table 3
Multivariate analyses of the association between GI symptoms and treatment adherence (ADEOS) and treatment satisfaction (OPSAT-Q) scores for experienced users
 
n
GI symptomsa
No GI symptomsa
Differencea (95 % CI)
P value
ADEOS score (experienced users)b
2225
19.02
19.45
−0.43 (−0.672, −0.182)
0.0007
OPSAT-Q score (experienced users)c
2212
77.94
83.62
−5.68 (−7.017, −4.335)
<0.0001
aValues are adjusted means from the generalized linear model with backward elimination
bScored 0–22 with higher scores indicating greater adherence to treatment. Adjustment variables retained in the model were body mass index, duration of osteoporosis, and treatment class
cScored 0–100 with higher scores indicating greater treatment satisfaction. Adjustment variables retained in the model were age, body mass index, history of falls, treatment class, and concomitant medication use
GI gastrointestinal
The association between GI symptoms and measures of HRQoL, adjusted for patient characteristics, is shown in Table 4. Compared with patients without GI symptoms, patients with GI symptoms had significantly lower mean adjusted EQ-5D utility scores in both the new user (mean difference −0.04, P < 0.0099) and experienced user (mean difference −0.06, P < 0.0001) cohorts. For the disease-specific OPAQ-SV, GI symptoms in new users were associated with significantly lower adjusted mean scores in the domains of emotional status (mean difference −4.28, P < 0.01) and back pain (mean difference −5.82, P < 0.01). Experienced users with GI symptoms had lower scores in all three domains with adjusted mean differences of −4.17 for physical function, −5.68 for emotional status, and −11.33 for back pain (all P < 0.0001).
Table 4
Association between GI symptoms and measures of health-related quality of life for new and experienced users
 
n
GI symptomsa
No GI symptomsa
Differencea (95 % CI)
P value
EQ-5D utility scoreb
 New users
678
0.74
0.78
−0.04 (−0.064, −0.009)
0.0099
 Experienced users
2258
0.75
0.81
−0.06 (−0.071, −0.041)
<0.0001
OPAQ-SV physical function scorec
 New users
675
69.23
70.42
−1.18 (−4.105, 1.743)
0.4279
 Experienced users
2267
71.93
76.10
−4.17 (−5.812, −2.536)
<0.0001
OPAQ-SV emotional status scored
 New users
675
58.62
62.90
−4.28 (−7.292, −1.278)
0.0053
 Experienced users
1788
57.46
63.14
−5.68 (−7.560, −3.798)
<0.0001
OPAQ-SV back pain scoree
 New users
674
52.19
58.01
−5.82 (−10.200, −1.439)
0.0093
 Experienced users
2269
53.54
64.87
−11.33 (−13.717, −8.945)
<0.0001
aValues are adjusted means from the generalized linear model with backward elimination
bScored 0–1; 0 = worst imaginable health, 1 = best imaginable health. Adjustment variables retained in the model for new users were age, body mass index, duration of osteoporosis, history of fractures, history of falls, and concomitant medication use. Adjustment variables retained in the model for experienced users were age, body mass index, duration of osteoporosis, history of fractures, history of falls, comorbidities, treatment class, and concomitant medication use
cScored 0–100 with higher scores indicating better health status. Adjustment variables retained in the model for new users were age, body mass index, history of fractures, history of falls, treatment class, and concomitant medication use. Adjustment variables retained in the model for experienced users were age, body mass index, duration of osteoporosis, duration of osteoporosis treatment, history of fractures, history of falls, treatment class and concomitant medication use
dScored 0–100 with higher scores indicating better health status. Adjustment variables retained in the model for new users were age, body mass index, history of fractures, and treatment class. Adjustment variables retained in the model for experienced users were age, race, body mass index, duration of osteoporosis, duration of osteoporosis treatment, history of fractures, history of falls, treatment class, comorbidities, and concomitant medication use
eScored 0–100 with higher scores indicating better health status. Adjustment variables retained in the model for new users were body mass index, treatment class, and concomitant medication use. Adjustment variables retained in the model for experienced users were age, body mass index, duration of osteoporosis treatment, history of fractures, history of falls, treatment class, and concomitant medication use
GI gastrointestinal

Health care resource utilization

The likelihood of osteoporosis-related and GI-related health care utilization among patients with GI symptoms (reference: no GI symptoms), adjusted for patient characteristics, is shown in Fig. 1. Among new users with GI symptoms, there was a non-significant trend for higher odds of visiting general practitioners and specialists for osteoporosis-related services compared with new users without GI symptoms. However, experienced users with GI symptoms had a significantly higher risk of osteoporosis-related service utilization for general practitioner visits (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35, 95 % CI = 1.05–1.73, P < 0.03) but not specialist visits. The most pronounced difference between experienced users with and without GI symptoms was in GI-related service utilization. Experienced users with GI symptoms had approximately ninefold higher risk (95 % CI = 4.58–17.86, P < 0.0001) for GI-related general practitioner visits and 4.2 higher odds (95 % CI = 1.79–9.93, P = 0.001) of GI-related specialist visits compared with experienced users with no GI symptoms.

Discussion

The results of this baseline analysis of treated patients in MUSIC-OS reveal the high rate of GI symptoms in this cohort and the negative association of GI symptoms with patient-reported outcomes. The presence of GI symptoms was associated with small but consistently negative decrements in medication adherence, treatment satisfaction, and HRQoL.
At baseline, 68.1 % of patients reported GI symptoms in the last 6 months which is higher than observed in either POSSIBLE-EU [34] or POSSIBLE-US [26]. This is likely a result of methodological differences in capturing GI disorders. In the POSSIBLE-EU study, 22 % of patients had current or prior upper GI disorders and 9 % had current or prior lower GI disorders [34]. However, POSSIBLE-EU employed a narrower list of specific upper (GERD reflux, dyspepsia) and lower GI (irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease) disorders than MUSIC-OS, and site investigators (not patients) reported GI disorders which may have limited reporting to those GI disorders that resulted in medical consultation or treatment. In the POSSIBLE-US study, 21 % of patients reported a constellation of upper and lower GI symptom similar to those defined in the MUSIC-OS protocol [26]. However, our results are based on a 6-month recall period, and POSSIBLE-US symptoms were captured “at study entry.” The recall period is a likely contributor to the difference in rate of GI symptoms between the two studies. For example, 31 % of POSSIBLE-US participants had a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease, a subset of upper GI symptoms, which is higher than the rate (21 %) reported for all upper and lower GI symptoms at study entry. The proportion of patients using GI medications was similar among the two studies: 20.7 % of MUSIC-OS patients used GI medications in the last 12 months compared with approximately 25 % of POSSIBLE-US participants at study entry, suggesting a similar rate of GI conditions treated with medications although the difference in recall period (last 12 months vs. study entry) precludes a direct comparison. Irrespective of methodological differences, the results of POSSIBLE-US and MUSIC-OS suggest that GI complaints are quite common among women initiating or continuing osteoporosis therapy.
Among all experienced users (with and without GI symptoms), only 49.2 % had an ADEOS score ≥20, which is indicative of a high probability of medication persistence. Although ADEOS scores were not well correlated with adherence as measured by medication possession ratio (MPR) in the validation study [30], our results are within the range of adherence to osteoporosis therapy observed in administrative claims studies that calculated adherence as MPR. An MPR threshold of 0.80 is commonly used to distinguish between adherence and non-adherence; in the first year of therapy, typically 34–55 % of patients are adherent to pharmacological osteoporosis treatments [810]. GI symptoms were associated with a small but significant decrease in ADEOS scores. The association between GI symptoms and lower ADEOS scores is consistent with previous studies of osteoporosis medication persistence during follow-up. In POSSIBLE-US, women with GI symptoms at study entry were 38 % more likely to discontinue therapy within 6 months [26]. A higher risk of osteoporosis therapy discontinuation has been observed among patients taking GI medication [35, 36]. MUSIC-OS patients are being followed for 12 months, and future analysis will explore the relationship between recurrent GI symptoms, therapy discontinuation, and adherence as measured by ADEOS scores.
GI symptoms were also associated with consistently lower treatment satisfaction and HRQoL scores. In US studies, decrements in treatment satisfaction have been linked with increasing severity of side effects [28] and with the presence of GI side effects in particular [26]. Women treated with bisphosphonates were more likely to report GI side effects than women treated with other osteoporosis therapies [26], and upper GI symptoms during bisphosphonate therapy are a prominent risk factor for early treatment discontinuation [27]. The lower HRQoL scores we observed in patients with GI symptoms are also consistent with POSSIBLE-US results: Among new users, GI side effects at 6 months were associated with lower mean OPAQ-SV emotional status at 6 months [26] and lower OPAQ-SV physical function at study entry predicted non-persistence with initial therapy [37]. Our results coupled with previous studies suggest that the selection of pharmacologic treatment for osteoporotic women should account for pre-existing GI symptoms and the potential for posttreatment GI symptoms to minimize the risk of therapy discontinuation.
MUSIC-OS is an observational study, and there are inherent limitations. In order to ensure robust implementation of the protocol, we screened sites based on their experience and ability to conduct observational research which may have biased the sample to physicians who are more engaged in the clinical management of osteoporosis. Self-selection bias may have occurred for both physicians who chose to participate and patients who elected to enroll. GI symptoms in the 6 months prior to baseline were patient-reported and may be subject to recall bias. Further, the presence of GI symptoms did not require evidence of medical consultation or treatment; thus, the severity of symptoms cannot be ascertained. Although GI symptoms were associated with lower scores on patient-reported outcomes, we cannot infer causation. Further, although scores in patients with GI symptoms were consistently and significantly lower than patients without GI symptoms, the differences were small and may not be clinically significant. We adjusted scores for multiple patient demographic and clinical characteristics; however, there may have been other unmeasured factors that could have influenced results.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that GI symptoms may deter patients from complying with therapy and have an adverse effect on treatment satisfaction, quality of life, and use of health care resources. MUSIC-OS will follow treated patients for 1 year and provide a comprehensive assessment of contemporary treatment patterns and patient-reported outcomes in Europe and Canada. Future analyses will explore overall medication discontinuation/switching patterns, patient rationale for discontinuation, adherence, treatment satisfaction, HRQoL, fracture incidence, and health care utilization. The association between treatment-emergent GI symptoms and these outcomes will also be assessed. These results will provide additional insight to improve clinical management of osteoporotic women.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

This study was funded by Merck & Co, Inc. A. Modi, S. Sen, A.M. Nguyen, S. Sajjan, and J. P. Weaver are employees of Merck & Co. and own stock in the company. J. D. Adachi has received grant support and speaker honorarium from Actavis, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Inc., and Novartis and is a consultant for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Merck & Co., Inc. S. Adami has received consulting honorarium from Merck & Co., Inc. and serves as a board member for Merck & Co., Inc. Bernard Cortet has received consulting fees for work as an expert or speaker for Amgen, Ferring, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, Rottapharm, and Servier and funding for research programs and investigator fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, and Servier. A.L. Cooper has received research grants, advisory board, and/or speaker honorarium from Amgen, Consilient Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Proctor and Gamble, ProStrakan, Roche, Servier, and Shire. J.P. van den Bergh is a paid consultant at Amgen and Will Pharma and has received research grants and speaker honorarium from Amgen, Will Pharma, and Eli Lilly. P. Geusens and D. Mellström have declared no competing interests.
Medical writing support was provided by Optum (Eden Prairie, MN, USA) and was funded by Merck & Co., Inc.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

© Springer Medizin

Bis 11. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr 50 % sparen!

Anhänge

Appendix 1

Table 5
Investigator Name
Site Name
Department
City
State / Province
Country
Dr. Jonathan Adachi
  
Hamilton
Ontario
Canada
Dr. Aliya Khan
Oakville Bone Centre
 
Oakville
Ontario
Canada
Dr. Bradley Schweitzer
The Medical Arts Health Research Group
 
Powell River
BC
Canada
Dr. Kevin Saunders
Rivergrove Medical Clinic
 
Winnipeg
Manitoba
Canada
Dr. Miranda Du Preez
The Medical Arts Health Research Group
 
Kamloops
BC
Canada
Dr. Kenneth Bayly
  
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
Canada
Dr. Tersia Lichtenstein
The Medical Arts Health Research Group
 
Kelowna
BC
Canada
Dr. Richard Boroditsky
Victoria General Hospital
Mature Women's Centre
Winnipeg
Manitoba
Canada
Dr. John S. Corey
The Medical Arts Health Research Group
 
West Vancouver
BC
Canada
Dr. Jay Sinha
Steeple Hill Medical Centre
 
Pickering
Ontario
Canada
Dr. Jack Kooy
The Medical Arts Health Research Group
 
Penticton
BC
Canada
Dr. Arun Nayar
  
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
Canada
Dr. Suzanne Arndt
Regina Medical Centre
 
Regina
Saskatchewan
Canada
Dr. Iman Mohamed
The Bone Wellness Centre
 
Toronto
Ontario
Canada
Dr. Wojciech P. Olszynski
Osteoporosis Centre
 
Saskatoon
Saskatchewan
Canada
Isabelle Legroux
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille
Service de Rhumatologie
Lille
 
France
Sandrine Malochet Guinamand
Hôpital Gabriel Montpied
Service de Rhumatologie
Clermont-Ferrand
 
France
Marie Christine De Vernejoul
Hopital lariboisière
 
Paris
 
France
Christian Roux
Hôpital Cochin
 
Paris
 
France
Eric Thomas
Lapeyronie hospital
Rheumatology
Montpellier
 
France
Florence Lévy-Weil
Centre Hospitalier
 
Argenteuil
 
France
Corina Ursu
Amiens Hospital Association Predos
Service de Rhumatologie
Chu Nord
 
France
Bernard Cortet
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille
Service de Rhumatologie
Lille Cedex
 
France
Francois Barucq
  
Orthez
 
France
Olivier Bisch
  
Bischheim
 
France
Philippe Bouche
  
Bully-Les-Mines
 
France
Nicolas Breton
  
Beziers
 
France
François Lacoin
Cabinet Médical du Centre
 
Albens
 
France
Georgios Makridis
  
Obernai
 
France
Philippe Marmor
  
Strasbourg
 
France
Marcel Ruetsch
  
Dessenheim
 
France
Denis Taminau
  
Rosiers D'egletons
 
France
Michel Bismuth
  
Labarthe-Sure-Leze
 
France
Michel Bourgoin
  
Gemenos
 
France
Didier Sacareau
  
Labarthe-Sure-Leze
 
France
Christian Scellier
  
Vourey
 
France
Jean-Louis Wurtz
  
Mundolsheim
 
France
Dr. Stephane Le Mouel
  
HINX
 
France
Dr. Claude Bortolotti
  
Oignies
 
France
Dr. Bernard Lauer
  
Colombey-les-belles
 
France
Dr. Hervé Amar
  
MARSEILLE
 
France
Dr. Didier Cadinot
  
BROGLIE
 
France
Dan Mellström
University of Gothenburg
Public Health and Community Medicine
Goteborg
 
Sweden
Karl-Goran Thorngren
Skane University Hospital
Department of Orthopaedics
Lund
 
Sweden
Kristina Akesson
Skåne University Hospital
Clinical and Molecular Osteoporosis Unit
Malmo
 
Sweden
Giorgio Gandolini
  
Castellanza
Varese
Italy
Mario Barbagallo
Cattedra Di Geriatria Via Del Vespro
 
Palermo
 
Italy
Ranuccio Nuti
University of Siena
Internal Medicine
Siena
 
Italy
Marco Di Monaco
Centro Specializzato
Malattie Metaboliche dell'Osso
Torino
 
Italy
Gloria Bonaccorsi
University of Ferrara
Menopause and Osteoporosis Center
Ferrara
 
Italy
Sandro Giannini
  
Padova
 
Italy
Silvano Adami
Azienda Ospedaliera - Università di Verona
Riabilitazione Reumatologica
Verona
 
Italy
Antonio Del Puente
  
Napoli
 
Italy
Salvatore Minisola
  
Rome
 
Italy
Umberto Tarantino
  
Rome
 
Italy
Maria Luisa Brandi
 
Internal Medicine
Florence
 
Italy
Ombretta Di Munno
U.O. Reumatologia
 
Pisa
 
Italy
Giovanni Mario D'Avola
  
Catania
Sicily
Italy
Maurizio Caminiti
  
Reggio Calabria
 
Italy
Bruno Frediani
  
Siena
 
Italy
Claudio Marcocci
University of Pisa
Department of Endocrinology
Pisa
 
Italy
Franco Grimaldi
 
Endocrinology and Metabolism Unit
Udine
 
Italy
Paolo Falaschi
Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea
UOS di Geriatria
Rome
 
Italy
Mario Biondi
Centri osteoporosi e malattie del metabolismo osse
 
Forli
 
Italy
Giulia Letizia Mauro
  
Palermo
 
Italy
Francesco Paolo Cantatore
Clinica Reumatologica Università di Foggia
Ospedale Colonnello D'Avanzo
Foggia
 
Italy
Maurizio Muratore
Ospedale Galateo ASL Lecce
Reumatologia
Lecce
 
Italy
Dr. den Heijer
VU University Medical Center
Department of Internal Medicine/Endocrinology
Amsterdam
 
The Netherlands
Neveen A.T. Hamdy
Leiden University Medical Center
Department of Endocrinology & Metabolic Diseases
Leiden
 
The Netherlands
H.R. Franke
Medisch Spectrum Twente
VKC 17 Gynaecologie/research
Enschede
 
The Netherlands
JPW van den Bergh
VieCuri Medical Center
Dept. Internal Medicine
Venlo
 
The Netherlands
Ton Boermans
  
Losser
 
The Netherlands
Adriaan Kooy
Bethesda Diabetes Research Center
 
Hoogeveen
Drenthe
The Netherlands
Nicolaas K. Valk
  
Beverwijk
Noord Holland
The Netherlands
Patrick Eavis
Oldfield Surgery
 
Bath
 
UK
Robert Brownlie
Valleyfield Health Centre
 
High Valleyfield
Fife
UK
Jon Brunskill
The Pulteney Practice
 
Bath
Somerset
UK
Michael Gumbley
Westbury Group Practice
White Horse Health Centre
Westbury
Wiltshire
UK
Richard Gaunt
Rowden Surgery
 
Chippenham
Wiltshire
UK
Jennifer Litchfield
Pound Hill Medical Group
 
Crawley
West Sussex
UK
G D Martin
Greenwood and Sneinton Family Medical Centre
 
Sneinton
Nottingham
UK
Boo McConnell
St. James' Surgery
 
Bath
 
UK
Terry McCormack
Whitby Group Practice, Spring Vale Medical Centre
 
Whitby
North Yorkshire
UK
Narayanan Annamalai
Albany House Medical Centre
 
Wellingborough
Northants
UK
Devi Srinivasan
Leicester Terrace Health Care Centre
 
Northampton
Northamptonshire
UK
Alun Cooper
Bridge Medical Centre
 
Crawley
West Sussex
UK
Amrit Takhar
Wansford and Kings Cliffe practice
 
Cambridgeshire
Cambridgeshire
UK
Trevor Gooding
Atherstone Surgery
 
Warwickshire
 
UK
Paul Conn
  
Belfast
 
UK
Ian Parker
Beehive Surgery
 
Bath
Somerset
UK
Michael Redmond
Broughshane Medical Practice
 
Broughshane
 
UK
John Calvert
Waterloo Medical Centre
 
Blackpool
Lancashire
UK
Dr. Cookson
Bradford Road Medical Centre
 
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
UK
Paul Ainsworth
Sherbourne Medical Centre
 
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
UK
Amardeep Heer
Danetre Medical Practice
 
Daventry
Northamptonshire
UK
Nell Wyatt
The Health Centre
Station Approach
Wiltshire
 
UK
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Tarride JE, Hopkins RB, Leslie WD, Morin S, Adachi JD, Papaioannou A, Bessette L, Brown JP, Goeree R (2012) The burden of illness of osteoporosis in Canada. Osteoporos Int 23:2591–2600CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tarride JE, Hopkins RB, Leslie WD, Morin S, Adachi JD, Papaioannou A, Bessette L, Brown JP, Goeree R (2012) The burden of illness of osteoporosis in Canada. Osteoporos Int 23:2591–2600CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Guillemin F, Martinez L, Calvert M et al (2013) Fear of falling, fracture history, and comorbidities are associated with health-related quality of life among European and US women with osteoporosis in a large international study. Osteoporos Int 24:3001–3010CrossRefPubMed Guillemin F, Martinez L, Calvert M et al (2013) Fear of falling, fracture history, and comorbidities are associated with health-related quality of life among European and US women with osteoporosis in a large international study. Osteoporos Int 24:3001–3010CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Sanfelix-Genoves J, Hurtado I, Sanfelix-Gimeno G, Reig-Molla B, Peiro S (2011) Impact of osteoporosis and vertebral fractures on quality-of-life. a population-based study in Valencia, Spain (The FRAVO Study). Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sanfelix-Genoves J, Hurtado I, Sanfelix-Gimeno G, Reig-Molla B, Peiro S (2011) Impact of osteoporosis and vertebral fractures on quality-of-life. a population-based study in Valencia, Spain (The FRAVO Study). Health Qual Life Outcomes 9:20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Abimanyi-Ochom J, Watts JJ, Borgstrom F et al (2015) Changes in quality of life associated with fragility fractures: Australian arm of the International Cost and Utility Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (AusICUROS). Osteoporos Int 26:1781–1790CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Abimanyi-Ochom J, Watts JJ, Borgstrom F et al (2015) Changes in quality of life associated with fragility fractures: Australian arm of the International Cost and Utility Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (AusICUROS). Osteoporos Int 26:1781–1790CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Milch VE, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, JR Center (2009) Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. JAMA 301:513–521CrossRefPubMed Bliuc D, Nguyen ND, Milch VE, Nguyen TV, Eisman JA, JR Center (2009) Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women. JAMA 301:513–521CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Brozek W, Reichardt B, Kimberger O, Zwerina J, Dimai HP, Kritsch D, Klaushofer K, Zwettler E (2014) Mortality after hip fracture in Austria 2008–2011. Calcif Tissue Int Brozek W, Reichardt B, Kimberger O, Zwerina J, Dimai HP, Kritsch D, Klaushofer K, Zwettler E (2014) Mortality after hip fracture in Austria 2008–2011. Calcif Tissue Int
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Briesacher BA, Andrade SE, Yood RA, Kahler KH (2007) Consequences of poor compliance with bisphosphonates. Bone 41:882–887CrossRefPubMed Briesacher BA, Andrade SE, Yood RA, Kahler KH (2007) Consequences of poor compliance with bisphosphonates. Bone 41:882–887CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Wade SW, Curtis JR, Yu J, White J, Stolshek BS, Merinar C, Balasubramanian A, Kallich JD, Adams JL, Viswanathan HN (2012) Medication adherence and fracture risk among patients on bisphosphonate therapy in a large United States health plan. Bone 50:870–875CrossRefPubMed Wade SW, Curtis JR, Yu J, White J, Stolshek BS, Merinar C, Balasubramanian A, Kallich JD, Adams JL, Viswanathan HN (2012) Medication adherence and fracture risk among patients on bisphosphonate therapy in a large United States health plan. Bone 50:870–875CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Rabenda V, Mertens R, Fabri V, Vanoverloop J, Sumkay F, Vannecke C, Deswaef A, Verpooten GA, Reginster JY (2008) Adherence to bisphosphonates therapy and hip fracture risk in osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 19:811–818CrossRefPubMed Rabenda V, Mertens R, Fabri V, Vanoverloop J, Sumkay F, Vannecke C, Deswaef A, Verpooten GA, Reginster JY (2008) Adherence to bisphosphonates therapy and hip fracture risk in osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 19:811–818CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallagher AM, Rietbrock S, Olson M, van Staa TP (2008) Fracture outcomes related to persistence and compliance with oral bisphosphonates. J Bone Miner Res 23:1569–1575CrossRefPubMed Gallagher AM, Rietbrock S, Olson M, van Staa TP (2008) Fracture outcomes related to persistence and compliance with oral bisphosphonates. J Bone Miner Res 23:1569–1575CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Lo JC, Pressman AR, Omar MA, Ettinger B (2006) Persistence with weekly alendronate therapy among postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 17:922–928CrossRefPubMed Lo JC, Pressman AR, Omar MA, Ettinger B (2006) Persistence with weekly alendronate therapy among postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 17:922–928CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Siris ES, Harris ST, Rosen CJ, Barr CE, Arvesen JN, Abbott TA, Silverman S (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 81:1013–1022CrossRefPubMed Siris ES, Harris ST, Rosen CJ, Barr CE, Arvesen JN, Abbott TA, Silverman S (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 81:1013–1022CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Cramer JA, Amonkar MM, Hebborn A, Altman R (2005) Compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate dosing regimens among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 21:1453–1460CrossRefPubMed Cramer JA, Amonkar MM, Hebborn A, Altman R (2005) Compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate dosing regimens among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 21:1453–1460CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 Manag Care Pharm 17:25–39PubMed 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 Manag Care Pharm 17:25–39PubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ (2006) Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone 38:922–928CrossRefPubMed Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ (2006) Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone 38:922–928CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bauer DC, Black D, Ensrud K, Thompson D, Hochberg M, Nevitt M, Musliner T, Freedholm D (2000) Upper gastrointestinal tract safety profile of alendronate: the fracture intervention trial. Arch Intern Med 160:517–525CrossRefPubMed Bauer DC, Black D, Ensrud K, Thompson D, Hochberg M, Nevitt M, Musliner T, Freedholm D (2000) Upper gastrointestinal tract safety profile of alendronate: the fracture intervention trial. Arch Intern Med 160:517–525CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Taggart H, Bolognese MA, Lindsay R et al (2002) Upper gastrointestinal tract safety of risedronate: a pooled analysis of 9 clinical trials. Mayo Clin Proc 77:262–270CrossRefPubMed Taggart H, Bolognese MA, Lindsay R et al (2002) Upper gastrointestinal tract safety of risedronate: a pooled analysis of 9 clinical trials. Mayo Clin Proc 77:262–270CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Reginster JY, Rabenda V (2006) Patient preference in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis with bisphosphonates. Clin Interv Aging 1:415–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Reginster JY, Rabenda V (2006) Patient preference in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis with bisphosphonates. Clin Interv Aging 1:415–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat de Groen PC, Lubbe DF, Hirsch LJ, Daifotis A, Stephenson W, Freedholm D, Pryor-Tillotson S, Seleznick MJ, Pinkas H, Wang KK (1996) Esophagitis associated with the use of alendronate. N Engl J Med 335:1016–1021CrossRefPubMed de Groen PC, Lubbe DF, Hirsch LJ, Daifotis A, Stephenson W, Freedholm D, Pryor-Tillotson S, Seleznick MJ, Pinkas H, Wang KK (1996) Esophagitis associated with the use of alendronate. N Engl J Med 335:1016–1021CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Lanza FL, Hunt RH, Thomson AB, Provenza JM, Blank MA (2000) Endoscopic comparison of esophageal and gastroduodenal effects of risedronate and alendronate in postmenopausal women. Gastroenterology 119:631–638CrossRefPubMed Lanza FL, Hunt RH, Thomson AB, Provenza JM, Blank MA (2000) Endoscopic comparison of esophageal and gastroduodenal effects of risedronate and alendronate in postmenopausal women. Gastroenterology 119:631–638CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamilton B, McCoy K, Taggart H (2003) Tolerability and compliance with risedronate in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 14:259–262CrossRefPubMed Hamilton B, McCoy K, Taggart H (2003) Tolerability and compliance with risedronate in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 14:259–262CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Knopp-Sihota JA, Cummings GG, Homik J, Voaklander D (2013) The association between serious upper gastrointestinal bleeding and incident bisphosphonate use: a population-based nested cohort study. BMC Geriatr 13:36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Knopp-Sihota JA, Cummings GG, Homik J, Voaklander D (2013) The association between serious upper gastrointestinal bleeding and incident bisphosphonate use: a population-based nested cohort study. BMC Geriatr 13:36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Vestergaard P, Schwartz K, Pinholt EM, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2010) Gastric and esophagus events before and during treatment of osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 86:110–115CrossRefPubMed Vestergaard P, Schwartz K, Pinholt EM, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L (2010) Gastric and esophagus events before and during treatment of osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 86:110–115CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Ettinger J, Pressman A, Schein J, Chan J, Silver P, N C (1998) Alendronate use among 812 women: prevalence, complaints, noncompliance with patient instructions. J Managed Care Pharm 488–492 Ettinger J, Pressman A, Schein J, Chan J, Silver P, N C (1998) Alendronate use among 812 women: prevalence, complaints, noncompliance with patient instructions. J Managed Care Pharm 488–492
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Woo C, Gao G, Wade S, Hochberg MC (2010) Gastrointestinal side effects in postmenopausal women using osteoporosis therapy: 1-year findings in the POSSIBLE US study. Curr Med Res Opin 26:1003–1009CrossRefPubMed Woo C, Gao G, Wade S, Hochberg MC (2010) Gastrointestinal side effects in postmenopausal women using osteoporosis therapy: 1-year findings in the POSSIBLE US study. Curr Med Res Opin 26:1003–1009CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Yun H, Curtis JR, Guo L et al (2014) Patterns and predictors of osteoporosis medication discontinuation and switching among Medicare beneficiaries. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Yun H, Curtis JR, Guo L et al (2014) Patterns and predictors of osteoporosis medication discontinuation and switching among Medicare beneficiaries. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Barrett-Connor E, Wade SW, Do TP, Satram-Hoang S, Stewart R, Gao G, Macarios D (2012) Treatment satisfaction and persistence among postmenopausal women on osteoporosis medications: 12-month results from POSSIBLE US. Osteoporos Int 23:733–741CrossRefPubMed Barrett-Connor E, Wade SW, Do TP, Satram-Hoang S, Stewart R, Gao G, Macarios D (2012) Treatment satisfaction and persistence among postmenopausal women on osteoporosis medications: 12-month results from POSSIBLE US. Osteoporos Int 23:733–741CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Modi A, Sen S, Adachi JD, et al. (2015) Rationale and design of MUSIC OS-EU: an international observational study of the treatment of postmenopausal women for osteoporosis in Europe and Canada. Clin Exp Rheumatol 33:in press Modi A, Sen S, Adachi JD, et al. (2015) Rationale and design of MUSIC OS-EU: an international observational study of the treatment of postmenopausal women for osteoporosis in Europe and Canada. Clin Exp Rheumatol 33:in press
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Breuil V, Cortet B, Cotte FE, Arnould B, Dias-Barbosa C, Gaudin AF, Regnault A, Roborel de Climens A, Legrand E (2012) Validation of the adherence evaluation of osteoporosis treatment (ADEOS) questionnaire for osteoporotic post-menopausal women. Osteoporos Int 23:445–455CrossRefPubMed Breuil V, Cortet B, Cotte FE, Arnould B, Dias-Barbosa C, Gaudin AF, Regnault A, Roborel de Climens A, Legrand E (2012) Validation of the adherence evaluation of osteoporosis treatment (ADEOS) questionnaire for osteoporotic post-menopausal women. Osteoporos Int 23:445–455CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Flood EM, Beusterien KM, Green H, Shikiar R, Baran RW, Amonkar MM, Cella D (2006) Psychometric evaluation of the Osteoporosis Patient Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (OPSAT-Q), a novel measure to assess satisfaction with bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:42CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Flood EM, Beusterien KM, Green H, Shikiar R, Baran RW, Amonkar MM, Cella D (2006) Psychometric evaluation of the Osteoporosis Patient Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (OPSAT-Q), a novel measure to assess satisfaction with bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:42CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Cheung K, Oemat M, M O, R R (2009) User guide: basic information on how to use EQ-5D Cheung K, Oemat M, M O, R R (2009) User guide: basic information on how to use EQ-5D
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Silverman SL (2000) The osteoporosis assessment questionnaire (OPAQ): a reliable and valid disease-targeted measure of health related quality of life (HRQoL) in osteoporosis. Qual Life Res 9:767–774CrossRef Silverman SL (2000) The osteoporosis assessment questionnaire (OPAQ): a reliable and valid disease-targeted measure of health related quality of life (HRQoL) in osteoporosis. Qual Life Res 9:767–774CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Freemantle N, Cooper C, Roux C et al (2010) Baseline observations from the POSSIBLE EU(R) study: characteristics of postmenopausal women receiving bone loss medications. Arch Osteoporos 5:61–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Freemantle N, Cooper C, Roux C et al (2010) Baseline observations from the POSSIBLE EU(R) study: characteristics of postmenopausal women receiving bone loss medications. Arch Osteoporos 5:61–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Penning-van Beest FJ, Goettsch WG, Erkens JA, Herings RM (2006) Determinants of persistence with bisphosphonates: a study in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Clin Ther 28:236–242CrossRefPubMed Penning-van Beest FJ, Goettsch WG, Erkens JA, Herings RM (2006) Determinants of persistence with bisphosphonates: a study in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Clin Ther 28:236–242CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Rossini M, Bianchi G, Di Munno O, Giannini S, Minisola S, Sinigaglia L, Adami S, Treatment of Osteoporosis in clinical Practice Study G (2006) Determinants of adherence to osteoporosis treatment in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 17:914–921CrossRefPubMed Rossini M, Bianchi G, Di Munno O, Giannini S, Minisola S, Sinigaglia L, Adami S, Treatment of Osteoporosis in clinical Practice Study G (2006) Determinants of adherence to osteoporosis treatment in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 17:914–921CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Tosteson AN, Do TP, Wade SW, Anthony MS, Downs RW (2010) Persistence and switching patterns among women with varied osteoporosis medication histories: 12-month results from POSSIBLE US. Osteoporos Int 21:1769–1780CrossRefPubMed Tosteson AN, Do TP, Wade SW, Anthony MS, Downs RW (2010) Persistence and switching patterns among women with varied osteoporosis medication histories: 12-month results from POSSIBLE US. Osteoporos Int 21:1769–1780CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Gastrointestinal symptoms and association with medication use patterns, adherence, treatment satisfaction, quality of life, and resource use in osteoporosis: baseline results of the MUSIC-OS study
verfasst von
A. Modi
S. Sen
J. D. Adachi
S. Adami
B. Cortet
A. L. Cooper
P. Geusens
D. Mellström
J. Weaver
J. P. van den Bergh
A. M. Nguyen
S. Sajjan
MUSIC-OS Study Group
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2016
Verlag
Springer London
Erschienen in
Osteoporosis International / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3388-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Osteoporosis International 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.