Anabolic and Antiresorptive Osteoporosis Treatment: Trends, Costs, and Sequence in a Commercially Insured Population, 2003–2021

IF 3.4 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM JBMR Plus Pub Date : 2023-07-24 DOI:10.1002/jbm4.10800
Harsh Wadhwa, Janet Y Wu, Jennifer S Lee, Corinna C Zygourakis
{"title":"Anabolic and Antiresorptive Osteoporosis Treatment: Trends, Costs, and Sequence in a Commercially Insured Population, 2003–2021","authors":"Harsh Wadhwa,&nbsp;Janet Y Wu,&nbsp;Jennifer S Lee,&nbsp;Corinna C Zygourakis","doi":"10.1002/jbm4.10800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>New anabolic medications (abaloparatide and romosozumab) were recently approved for osteoporosis, and data suggest that prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes. This study aimed to characterize prescription trends, demographics, geographical distributions, out-of-pocket costs, and treatment sequences for anabolic and antiresorptive osteoporosis medications. Using a commercial claims database (Clinformatics Data Mart), adult patients with osteoporosis from 2003 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and stratified based on osteoporosis medication class. Patient demographics and socioeconomic variables, provider types, and out-of-pocket costs were collected. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of receiving osteoporosis treatment. A total of 2,988,826 patients with osteoporosis were identified; 616,635 (20.6%) received treatment. Patients who were female, Hispanic or Asian, in the Western US, had higher net worth, or had greater comorbidity burden were more likely to receive osteoporosis medications. Among patients who received medication, 31,112 (5.0%) received anabolic medication; these were more likely to be younger, White patients with higher education level, net worth, and greater comorbidity burden. Providers who prescribed the most anabolic medications were rheumatologists (18.5%), endocrinologists (16.8%), and general internists (15.3%). Osteoporosis medication prescriptions increased fourfold from 2003 to 2020, whereas anabolic medication prescriptions did not increase at this rate. Median out-of-pocket costs were $17 higher for anabolic than antiresorptive medications, though costs for anabolic medications decreased significantly from 2003 to 2020 (compound annual growth rate: −0.6%). A total of 8388 (1.4%) patients tried two or more osteoporosis medications, and 0.6% followed the optimal treatment sequence. Prescription of anabolic osteoporosis medications has not kept pace with overall osteoporosis treatment, and there are socioeconomic disparities in anabolic medication prescription, potentially driven by higher median out-of-pocket costs. Although prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes, this treatment sequence occurred in only 0.6% of the study cohort. © 2023 The Authors. <i>JBMR Plus</i> published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.</p>","PeriodicalId":14611,"journal":{"name":"JBMR Plus","volume":"7 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jbm4.10800","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBMR Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbm4.10800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

New anabolic medications (abaloparatide and romosozumab) were recently approved for osteoporosis, and data suggest that prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes. This study aimed to characterize prescription trends, demographics, geographical distributions, out-of-pocket costs, and treatment sequences for anabolic and antiresorptive osteoporosis medications. Using a commercial claims database (Clinformatics Data Mart), adult patients with osteoporosis from 2003 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and stratified based on osteoporosis medication class. Patient demographics and socioeconomic variables, provider types, and out-of-pocket costs were collected. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of receiving osteoporosis treatment. A total of 2,988,826 patients with osteoporosis were identified; 616,635 (20.6%) received treatment. Patients who were female, Hispanic or Asian, in the Western US, had higher net worth, or had greater comorbidity burden were more likely to receive osteoporosis medications. Among patients who received medication, 31,112 (5.0%) received anabolic medication; these were more likely to be younger, White patients with higher education level, net worth, and greater comorbidity burden. Providers who prescribed the most anabolic medications were rheumatologists (18.5%), endocrinologists (16.8%), and general internists (15.3%). Osteoporosis medication prescriptions increased fourfold from 2003 to 2020, whereas anabolic medication prescriptions did not increase at this rate. Median out-of-pocket costs were $17 higher for anabolic than antiresorptive medications, though costs for anabolic medications decreased significantly from 2003 to 2020 (compound annual growth rate: −0.6%). A total of 8388 (1.4%) patients tried two or more osteoporosis medications, and 0.6% followed the optimal treatment sequence. Prescription of anabolic osteoporosis medications has not kept pace with overall osteoporosis treatment, and there are socioeconomic disparities in anabolic medication prescription, potentially driven by higher median out-of-pocket costs. Although prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes, this treatment sequence occurred in only 0.6% of the study cohort. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合成代谢和抗吸收性骨质疏松症治疗:商业保险人群的趋势、成本和顺序,2003-2021。
最近,新的合成代谢药物(阿巴洛帕肽和罗莫索珠单抗)被批准用于治疗骨质疏松症,数据表明,在一个疗程的合成代谢药后开抗再吸收药物可以提供更好的结果。本研究旨在描述合成代谢和抗再吸收性骨质疏松症药物的处方趋势、人口统计、地理分布、自付费用和治疗顺序。使用商业索赔数据库(Clinformatics Data Mart),对2003年至2021年的成年骨质疏松症患者进行回顾性审查,并根据骨质疏松症药物类别进行分层。收集患者人口统计和社会经济变量、提供者类型和自付费用。多变量回归分析用于确定接受骨质疏松症治疗的独立预测因素。共发现2988826名骨质疏松症患者;616635人(20.6%)接受了治疗。在美国西部,女性、西班牙裔或亚裔、净值较高或合并症负担较大的患者更有可能接受骨质疏松症药物治疗。在接受药物治疗的患者中,31112人(5.0%)接受了合成代谢药物治疗;这些患者更有可能是更年轻的白人患者,他们具有更高的教育水平、净值和更大的合并症负担。处方合成代谢药物最多的提供者是风湿病学家(18.5%)、内分泌学家(16.8%)和普通内科医生(15.3%)。从2003年到2020年,骨质疏松症药物处方增加了四倍,而合成代谢药物处方没有以这个速度增加。合成代谢药物的中位自付费用比抗再吸收药物高17美元,尽管从2003年到2020年合成代谢药物费用显著下降(复合年增长率:-0.6%)。共有8388名(1.4%)患者尝试了两种或两种以上的骨质疏松症药物,0.6%的患者遵循了最佳治疗顺序。合成代谢性骨质疏松症药物的处方没有跟上整体骨质疏松症治疗的步伐,合成代谢性药物处方存在社会经济差异,这可能是由较高的中位自付费用驱动的。尽管在一个疗程的合成代谢药物治疗后开抗再吸收药物会带来更好的结果,但这种治疗顺序仅发生在0.6%的研究队列中。©2023作者。由Wiley Periodicals LLC代表美国骨与矿物研究学会出版的JBMR Plus。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JBMR Plus
JBMR Plus Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
103
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Bone mineral density over ten years after primary parathyroidectomy in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Evaluating the relationship between glycemic control and bone fragility within the UK Biobank: observational and one-sample Mendelian randomization analyses. Correction to: Prevalence and risk factors for atypical femoral fracture among Lebanese patients with hip and shaft fractures. In nondiabetic C57BL/6J mice, canagliflozin affects the skeleton in a sex- and age-dependent manner. Genotype-phenotype correlations in 294 pediatric patients with osteogenesis imperfecta.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1