SUMMARY: Adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications are poor. We conducted a systematic literature review of interventions to improve adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications. Seven studies met eligibility requirements and were included in the review. Few interventions were efficacious, and no clear trends regarding successful intervention techniques were identified. However, periodic follow-up interaction between patients and health professionals appeared to be beneficial. INTRODUCTION: Adherence and persistence with pharmacologic therapy for osteoporosis are suboptimal. Our goal was to examine the design and efficacy of published interventions to improve adherence and persistence. METHODS: We searched medical literature databases for English-language papers published between January 1990 and July 2008. We selected papers that described interventions and provided results for control and intervention subjects. We assessed the design and methods of each study, including randomization, blinding, and reporting of drop-outs. We summarized the results and calculated effect sizes for each trial. RESULTS: Seven studies met eligibility requirements and were included in the review. Five of the seven studies provided adherence data. Of those five studies, three showed a statistically significant (p < or = 0.05) improvement in adherence by the intervention group, with effect sizes from 0.17 to 0.58. Five of the seven studies provided persistence data. Of those five, one reported statistically significant improvement in persistence by the intervention group, with an effect size of 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: Few interventions were efficacious, and no clear trends regarding successful intervention techniques were identified in this small sample of studies. However, periodic follow-up interaction between patients and health professionals appeared to be beneficial.
SUMMARY: Adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications are poor. We conducted a systematic literature review of interventions to improve adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications. Seven studies met eligibility requirements and were included in the review. Few interventions were efficacious, and no clear trends regarding successful intervention techniques were identified. However, periodic follow-up interaction between patients and health professionals appeared to be beneficial. INTRODUCTION: Adherence and persistence with pharmacologic therapy for osteoporosis are suboptimal. Our goal was to examine the design and efficacy of published interventions to improve adherence and persistence. METHODS: We searched medical literature databases for English-language papers published between January 1990 and July 2008. We selected papers that described interventions and provided results for control and intervention subjects. We assessed the design and methods of each study, including randomization, blinding, and reporting of drop-outs. We summarized the results and calculated effect sizes for each trial. RESULTS: Seven studies met eligibility requirements and were included in the review. Five of the seven studies provided adherence data. Of those five studies, three showed a statistically significant (p < or = 0.05) improvement in adherence by the intervention group, with effect sizes from 0.17 to 0.58. Five of the seven studies provided persistence data. Of those five, one reported statistically significant improvement in persistence by the intervention group, with an effect size of 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: Few interventions were efficacious, and no clear trends regarding successful intervention techniques were identified in this small sample of studies. However, periodic follow-up interaction between patients and health professionals appeared to be beneficial.
Authors: J Reginster; H W Minne; O H Sorensen; M Hooper; C Roux; M L Brandi; B Lund; D Ethgen; S Pack; I Roumagnac; R Eastell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2000 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: D M Black; S R Cummings; D B Karpf; J A Cauley; D E Thompson; M C Nevitt; D C Bauer; H K Genant; W L Haskell; R Marcus; S M Ott; J C Torner; S A Quandt; T F Reiss; K E Ensrud Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-12-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Maria-Teresa Cuddihy; Peter C Amadio; Sherine E Gabriel; V Shane Pankratz; Robert L Kurland; L Joseph Melton Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2004-03-09 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: S R Cummings; D M Black; D E Thompson; W B Applegate; E Barrett-Connor; T A Musliner; L Palermo; R Prineas; S M Rubin; J C Scott; T Vogt; R Wallace; A J Yates; A Z LaCroix Journal: JAMA Date: 1998 Dec 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Charles H Chesnut; Arne Skag; Claus Christiansen; Robert Recker; Jacob A Stakkestad; Arne Hoiseth; Dieter Felsenberg; Hermann Huss; Jennifer Gilbride; Ralph C Schimmer; Pierre D Delmas Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-03-29 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: F A McAlister; C Ye; L A Beaupre; B H Rowe; J A Johnson; D Bellerose; I Hassan; S R Majumdar Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: M Hiligsmann; M Salas; D A Hughes; E Manias; F H Gwadry-Sridhar; P Linck; W Cowell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Carl F Pieper; Courtney H Van Houtven; Janet M Grubber; Kenneth W Lyles; Joanne Lafleur; Robert A Adler Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 7.616