Martin Karen E, Yu Jingbo, Campbell H Eloise, Abarca Jacob, White T Jeffrey
WellPoint, Inc., 1757 Phillips Rd., Lebanon, OH 45036, USA.
J Manag Care Pharm. 2011 Oct;17(8):596-609. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2011.17.8.596.
Despite widespread availability and use of oral bisphosphonates, fracture rates and associated medical costs are still high. Differences in fracture risk among these agents, if any, have not been quantified due to the lack of high-quality, head-to-head, randomized, controlled trials assessing this outcome. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have shown that alendronate and risedronate reduce rates of both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, whereas only reduction in vertebral fractures has been found for ibandronate.
To determine if there were any differences among 3 oral bisphosphonates in adherence, total cost of care, and effectiveness in reducing fracture rates in a large managed care population.
Administrative, longitudinal pharmacy and medical claims data were obtained from 14 geographically diverse health plans in the United States covering approximately 14 million members. Sampled members had at least 1 pharmacy claim for alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate during the intake period (January 1, 2005, through October 31, 2007). The date of the first pharmacy claim for osteoporosis medications within the intake period was the index date. Members were followed for either 12, 24, or 36 months, depending on length of continuous health plan eligibility. Medication possession ratio (MPR) was measured using a total days supply that was calculated by multiplying the total quantity dispensed by the suggested days supply per unit of dispensing based on manufacturer-recommended dosing. For members who switched bisphosphonate strengths or medications, the estimated days supply was summed for all osteoporosis medications during the follow-up, including overlapping days supply. Outcomes included (a) the first incident fracture and percentages of members with at least 1 fracture after 6 months post-index; (b) the number of days from index to the first incident fracture, measured as time to event in Cox proportional hazards regression analysis; and (c) total all-cause health care costs (health plan allowed amount including member cost share).
A total of 45,939 members were included (n = 24,909 alendronate, n = 13,834 risedronate, n = 7,196 ibandronate). In the 12-month analysis, MPRs were comparable (means = 0.57-0.58) for the 3 medications. After 24 months, MPRs had dropped for all medications, but those of both alendronate (mean = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.49-0.50) and risedronate (mean = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.49-0.51) were slightly higher than that of ibandronate (mean = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.46-0.48). At 36 months, again the MPRs had dropped for all 3 medications (means = 0.44-0.47) but were similar. There were no statistically significant differences among agents in the percentages of subjects with at least 1 fracture at 12, 24, or 36 months (36-month rates: alendronate 4.41%, risedronate 4.38%, ibandronate 6.28%, P = 0.102). The numbers of subjects with fracture(s) per month of follow-up were 0.0020 for alendronate, 0.0021 for risedronate, and 0.0022 for ibandronate (P = 0.087 overall). However, after adjusting for member characteristics, alendronate users had a 12% lower risk of experiencing any incident fracture than ibandronate users (hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78-0.99, P = 0.034) within the follow-up period. In the first 12 post-index months, ibandronate users had higher mean [SD] unadjusted total all-cause health care costs ($7,464 [$15,975]) compared with alendronate ($7,233 [$16,671]) and risedronate ($ 6,983 [$16,870], P less than 0.001 for both comparisons), differences of approximately $19 per month and $40 per month, respectively. The results of the unadjusted 24-month analysis were similar, but there were no significant cost differences at 36 months. Total cost differences for the 3 medication groups were nonsignificant at 12, 24, and 36 months after adjusting for member characteristics.
This retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database in a large managed care population showed similar rates of adherence and total adjusted all-cause health care costs for alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate. Absolute unadjusted rates of fracture were small and did not significantly differ among agents, but after controlling for differences in member characteristics, the risk of fracture was 12% lower for alendronate users than for ibandronate users.
尽管口服双膦酸盐药物广泛可得且被使用,但骨折发生率及相关医疗费用仍然很高。由于缺乏评估这一结果的高质量、直接比较、随机对照试验,这些药物之间骨折风险的差异(如果存在的话)尚未得到量化。随机、安慰剂对照试验表明,阿仑膦酸钠和利塞膦酸钠可降低椎体和非椎体骨折的发生率,而依班膦酸钠仅能降低椎体骨折的发生率。
确定三种口服双膦酸盐药物在依从性、总护理成本以及降低大型管理式医疗人群骨折发生率的有效性方面是否存在差异。
从美国14个地理位置不同的健康计划中获取行政、纵向药房和医疗理赔数据,这些计划覆盖约1400万成员。抽样成员在摄入期(2005年1月1日至2007年10月31日)内至少有1次阿仑膦酸钠、利塞膦酸钠或依班膦酸钠的药房理赔记录。摄入期内首次开具骨质疏松症药物药房理赔记录的日期为索引日期。根据连续参加健康计划资格的时长,对成员进行12、24或36个月的随访。用药持有率(MPR)通过总供应天数来衡量,总供应天数是通过将配发的总量乘以基于制造商推荐剂量的每单位配药建议供应天数计算得出。对于更换双膦酸盐药物剂量强度或药物的成员,随访期间所有骨质疏松症药物的估计供应天数进行累加,包括重叠的供应天数。结果包括:(a)首次发生骨折以及索引后6个月内至少发生1次骨折的成员百分比;(b)从索引到首次发生骨折的天数,在Cox比例风险回归分析中作为事件发生时间进行测量;(c)全因医疗保健总成本(健康计划允许金额,包括成员费用分摊)。
共纳入45939名成员(阿仑膦酸钠组n = 24909,利塞膦酸钠组n = 13834,依班膦酸钠组n = 7196)。在12个月的分析中,三种药物的MPR相当(均值 = 0.57 - 0.58)。24个月后,所有药物的MPR均下降,但阿仑膦酸钠(均值 = 0.50,95%置信区间 = 0.49 - 0.50)和利塞膦酸钠(均值 = 0.50,95%置信区间 = 0.49 - 0.51)的MPR略高于依班膦酸钠(均值 = 0.47,95%置信区间 = 0.46 - 0.48)。在36个月时,三种药物的MPR再次下降(均值 = 0.44 - 0.47),但相似。在12、24或36个月时,至少发生1次骨折的受试者百分比在各药物之间无统计学显著差异(36个月发生率:阿仑膦酸钠4.41%,利塞膦酸钠4.38%,依班膦酸钠6.28%,P = 0.102)。随访期间每月骨折受试者数量,阿仑膦酸钠为0.0020,利塞膦酸钠为0.0021,依班膦酸钠为0.0022(总体P = 0.087)。然而,在调整成员特征后,在随访期内,阿仑膦酸钠使用者发生任何骨折事件的风险比依班膦酸钠使用者低12%(风险比 = 0.88,95%置信区间 = 0.78 - 0.99,P = 0.034)。在索引后的前12个月,依班膦酸钠使用者未经调整的全因医疗保健总费用均值[标准差](7464美元[15975美元])高于阿仑膦酸钠使用者(7233美元[16671美元])和利塞膦酸钠使用者(6983美元[16870美元])(两种比较P均小于0.001),每月差异分别约为19美元和40美元。未经调整的24个月分析结果相似,但在36个月时无显著成本差异。在调整成员特征后,三个药物组在12、24和36个月时的总成本差异无统计学意义。
对大型管理式医疗人群行政理赔数据库的这项回顾性分析表明,阿仑膦酸钠、利塞膦酸钠和依班膦酸钠的依从率以及调整后的全因医疗保健总成本相似。未经调整的绝对骨折发生率较低,各药物之间无显著差异,但在控制成员特征差异后,阿仑膦酸钠使用者的骨折风险比依班膦酸钠使用者低12%。