M Mamdani1, A Kopp, G Hawker. 1. Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study compared population hip fracture rates for women with a prior fragility fracture who were treated with first-generation versus second-generation bisphosphonate therapies. The observational study found that, relative to women treated with etidronate, a first-generation bisphosphonate, women treated with the second-generation therapies 'alendronate' or 'risedronate' were equally likely to be admitted to hospital for hip fracture. Our findings must be confirmed in large randomized head-to-head controlled trials. INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined hip fracture outcomes among users of first- versus second-generation bisphosphonates. We compared hip fracture rates among elderly women with a history of fracture dispensed first- and second-generation bisphosphonates, hypothesizing that hip fracture rates would be higher among users of first- versus second-generation bisphosphonates after adjusting for confounders. METHODS: Administrative data from Ontario, Canada from 01 April 1998 to 31 March 2002 was used to identify population-based bisphosphonate-naïve cohorts of subjects age 66 years and older initiated on first- (etidronate plus calcium; n = 19,127) or second-generation (alendronate or risedronate; n = 1,460) bisphosphonates. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used for analysis. RESULTS: During over 23,000 person-years of follow-up, we observed 293 hospital admissions for first hip fracture. The unadjusted event rates yielded approximately 12.5 hospital admissions for hip fracture per 1,000 person-years of follow-up in each study group. Relative to the etidronate plus calcium group, females in the alendronate or risedronate group were equally likely to be admitted for hip fracture (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 1.0; 95% CI 0.6-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest similar rates of hip fracture between the first- and second-generation bisphosphonates when used continuously among elderly females with a prior history of fracture.
UNLABELLED: This study compared population hip fracture rates for women with a prior fragility fracture who were treated with first-generation versus second-generation bisphosphonate therapies. The observational study found that, relative to women treated with etidronate, a first-generation bisphosphonate, women treated with the second-generation therapies 'alendronate' or 'risedronate' were equally likely to be admitted to hospital for hip fracture. Our findings must be confirmed in large randomized head-to-head controlled trials. INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined hip fracture outcomes among users of first- versus second-generation bisphosphonates. We compared hip fracture rates among elderly women with a history of fracture dispensed first- and second-generation bisphosphonates, hypothesizing that hip fracture rates would be higher among users of first- versus second-generation bisphosphonates after adjusting for confounders. METHODS: Administrative data from Ontario, Canada from 01 April 1998 to 31 March 2002 was used to identify population-based bisphosphonate-naïve cohorts of subjects age 66 years and older initiated on first- (etidronate plus calcium; n = 19,127) or second-generation (alendronate or risedronate; n = 1,460) bisphosphonates. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used for analysis. RESULTS: During over 23,000 person-years of follow-up, we observed 293 hospital admissions for first hip fracture. The unadjusted event rates yielded approximately 12.5 hospital admissions for hip fracture per 1,000 person-years of follow-up in each study group. Relative to the etidronate plus calcium group, females in the alendronate or risedronate group were equally likely to be admitted for hip fracture (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 1.0; 95% CI 0.6-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest similar rates of hip fracture between the first- and second-generation bisphosphonates when used continuously among elderly females with a prior history of fracture.
Authors: H A Pols; D Felsenberg; D A Hanley; J Stepán; M Muñoz-Torres; T J Wilkin; G Qin-sheng; A M Galich; K Vandormael; A J Yates; B Stych Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Fiona Wu; Barbara Mason; Anne Horne; Ruth Ames; Judith Clearwater; Michael Liu; Margaret C Evans; Gregory D Gamble; Ian R Reid Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-01-14
Authors: Ethel S Siris; Steven T Harris; Clifford J Rosen; Charles E Barr; James N Arvesen; Thomas A Abbott; Stuart Silverman Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: S T Harris; N B Watts; H K Genant; C D McKeever; T Hangartner; M Keller; C H Chesnut; J Brown; E F Eriksen; M S Hoseyni; D W Axelrod; P D Miller Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Amy H Warriner; Nivedita M Patkar; Jeffrey R Curtis; Elizabeth Delzell; Lisa Gary; Meredith Kilgore; Ken Saag Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Suzanne M Cadarette; Linda Lévesque; Muhammad Mamdani; Sylvie Perreault; David N Juurlink; J Michael Paterson; Greg Carney; Nadia Gunraj; Gillian A Hawker; Mina Tadrous; Lindsay Wong; Colin R Dormuth Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2013-09-13
Authors: Marci R Turner; Ximena Camacho; Hadas D Fischer; Peter C Austin; Geoff M Anderson; Paula A Rochon; Lorraine L Lipscombe Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-04-28