Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-ro, Bundang-Gu, Sungnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea.
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Sep;23(9):2329-33. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1881-x. Epub 2011 Dec 17.
The present study evaluates the proportion of patients who had re-infusion of intravenous zoledronate after first administration and identifies the factors that contribute to discontinuation.
In terms of persistence, annual administration of zoledronate seems to overcome a shortcoming of oral bisphosphonate. However, little information is available concerning persistence with intravenous zoledronate for osteoporosis in a usual care setting. The aim of this study was to assess the persistence of intravenous zoledronate after first administration and to identify the factors that contribute to its discontinuation.
A questionnaire survey concerning the second administration of zoledronate was performed on 259 patients, who had been administered with first intravenous zoledronate injection between January 2009 and December 2009, when they visit for second injection. The questionnaire asked whether patients were administered a second zoledronate injection or not, and non-persistent patients were asked why they declined the second infusion.
One hundred and ninety-two patients revisited our outpatient clinic a year after first visit, and 94 patients (36.3%, 94/259) agreed to a second injection. Of the 136 patients that completed the questionnaire, 47 refused second administration and requested a change to oral bisphosphonate. Thirty-nine of the 47 patients (83%) stated that post-infusion syndrome was the reason why they refused the second administration.
Although the effects of annual intravenous zoledronate are guaranteed to last for a year, this study shows that only a third of patients agree to second administration. The factors associated with discontinuation were male gender, adverse effects (especially post-infusion syndrome) and under-explanation of intravenous drug. These findings should be of concern to clinicians and indicate that patients should be informed before the administration.
本研究评估了首次使用唑来膦酸静脉输注后再次输注的患者比例,并确定了导致停药的因素。
在持续性方面,唑来膦酸的年治疗似乎克服了口服双膦酸盐的一个缺点。然而,在常规护理环境中,关于骨质疏松症患者静脉用唑来膦酸的持续性的数据很少。本研究旨在评估首次使用唑来膦酸静脉输注后的持续性,并确定导致其停药的因素。
对 259 例于 2009 年 1 月至 2009 年 12 月期间首次接受唑来膦酸静脉注射的患者进行了第二次唑来膦酸给药的问卷调查,当他们就诊进行第二次注射时进行了问卷调查。问卷询问患者是否接受了第二次唑来膦酸注射,未接受的患者被询问拒绝第二次输注的原因。
192 例患者在首次就诊后 1 年再次到我们的门诊就诊,94 例(36.3%,94/259)同意接受第二次注射。在完成问卷的 136 例患者中,47 例拒绝第二次给药并要求改用口服双膦酸盐。这 47 例患者中的 39 例(83%)表示输注后综合征是他们拒绝第二次给药的原因。
虽然每年静脉注射唑来膦酸的疗效保证可持续一年,但本研究表明,只有三分之一的患者同意进行第二次给药。与停药相关的因素为男性、不良反应(尤其是输注后综合征)和对静脉药物的解释不足。这些发现应引起临床医生的关注,并表明在给药前应告知患者。