Z Liu1, J Weaver2, A de Papp2, Z Li3, J Martin4, K Allen4, S Hui4, E A Imel5. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Health Information and Translational Sciences Building, 410 W 10th Street, Suite 3000, Indianapolis, IN, 46202-5111, USA. ziliu@iupui.edu. 2. Merck & Co, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, NJ, 08889, USA. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Osteoporosis treatment rates within 2 years following an index event (fragility fracture, osteoporotic bone mineral density (BMD) T-score, or osteoporosis ICD-9 codes) were determined from 2005 to 2011. Most patients were not treated. Fracture patients had the lowest treatment rate. Low treatment rates also occurred in patients that were male, black, or had non-commercial insurance. INTRODUCTION: Clinical recognition of osteoporosis (osteoporotic BMD, assignment of an ICD-9 code, or the occurrence of fragility fractures) provides opportunities to treat patients at risk for future fracture. METHODS: A cohort of 36,965 patients was identified from 2005 to 2011 in the Indiana Health Information Exchange, with index events after age 50 of either non-traumatic fractures, an osteoporosis ICD-9 code, or a BMD T-score ≤ -2.5. Patients with osteoporosis treatment in the preceding year were excluded. Medication records during the ensuing 2 years were extracted to identify osteoporosis treatments, demographics, comorbidities, and co-medications. Predictors of treatment were evaluated in a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: The cohort was 78 % female, 11 % black, 91 % urban-dwelling, and 53 % commercially insured. The index events were as follows: osteoporosis diagnosis (47 % of patients), fragility fracture (44 %), and osteoporotic T-scores (9 %). Within 2 years after the index event, 23.3 % received osteoporosis medications (of which, 82.2 % were oral bisphosphonates). Treatment rates were higher after osteoporosis diagnosis codes (29.3 %) or osteoporotic T-score (53.9 %) than after fracture index events (10.5 %) (p < 0.001). Age had an inverted U-shaped effect for women with highest odds around 60-65 years. Women (OR 1.86) and non-black patients (OR 1.52) were more likely to be treated (p < 0.001). Patients with public (versus commercial) insurance (OR 0.86, p < 0.001) or chronic comorbidities (ORs about 0.7-0.9, p < 0.001) were less likely to be treated. CONCLUSION: Most osteoporosis treatment candidates remained untreated. Men, black patients, and patients with fracture or chronic comorbidities were less likely to receive treatment, representing disparity in the recognition and treatment of osteoporosis.
UNLABELLED: Osteoporosis treatment rates within 2 years following an index event (fragility fracture, osteoporotic bone mineral density (BMD) T-score, or osteoporosis ICD-9 codes) were determined from 2005 to 2011. Most patients were not treated. Fracturepatients had the lowest treatment rate. Low treatment rates also occurred in patients that were male, black, or had non-commercial insurance. INTRODUCTION: Clinical recognition of osteoporosis (osteoporotic BMD, assignment of an ICD-9 code, or the occurrence of fragility fractures) provides opportunities to treat patients at risk for future fracture. METHODS: A cohort of 36,965 patients was identified from 2005 to 2011 in the Indiana Health Information Exchange, with index events after age 50 of either non-traumatic fractures, an osteoporosis ICD-9 code, or a BMD T-score ≤ -2.5. Patients with osteoporosis treatment in the preceding year were excluded. Medication records during the ensuing 2 years were extracted to identify osteoporosis treatments, demographics, comorbidities, and co-medications. Predictors of treatment were evaluated in a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: The cohort was 78 % female, 11 % black, 91 % urban-dwelling, and 53 % commercially insured. The index events were as follows: osteoporosis diagnosis (47 % of patients), fragility fracture (44 %), and osteoporotic T-scores (9 %). Within 2 years after the index event, 23.3 % received osteoporosis medications (of which, 82.2 % were oral bisphosphonates). Treatment rates were higher after osteoporosis diagnosis codes (29.3 %) or osteoporotic T-score (53.9 %) than after fracture index events (10.5 %) (p < 0.001). Age had an inverted U-shaped effect for women with highest odds around 60-65 years. Women (OR 1.86) and non-black patients (OR 1.52) were more likely to be treated (p < 0.001). Patients with public (versus commercial) insurance (OR 0.86, p < 0.001) or chronic comorbidities (ORs about 0.7-0.9, p < 0.001) were less likely to be treated. CONCLUSION: Most osteoporosis treatment candidates remained untreated. Men, black patients, and patients with fracture or chronic comorbidities were less likely to receive treatment, representing disparity in the recognition and treatment of osteoporosis.
Authors: Susan L Greenspan; Allison Wyman; Frederick H Hooven; Silvano Adami; Stephen Gehlbach; Frederick A Anderson; Steven Boone; Andrea Z Lacroix; Robert Lindsay; J Coen Netelenbos; Johannes Pfeilschifter; Stuart Silverman; Ethel S Siris; Nelson B Watts Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: C Colón-Emeric; K W Lyles; D A Levine; P House; A Schenck; J Gorospe; M Fermazin; K Oliver; J Alison; N Weisman; A Xie; J R Curtis; K Saag Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Nicole C Wright; Kenneth G Saag; Jeffrey R Curtis; Wilson K Smith; Meredith L Kilgore; Michael A Morrisey; Huifeng Yun; Jie Zhang; Elizabeth S Delzell Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Jeffrey R Curtis; Amy S Mudano; Daniel H Solomon; Juan Xi; Mary Elkins Melton; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Catherine MacLean; Sydne Newberry; Margaret Maglione; Maureen McMahon; Veena Ranganath; Marika Suttorp; Walter Mojica; Martha Timmer; Alicia Alexander; Melissa McNamara; Sheetal B Desai; Annie Zhou; Susan Chen; Jason Carter; Carlo Tringale; Di Valentine; Breanne Johnsen; Jennifer Grossman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Fredric D Wolinsky; Yiyue Lou; Stephanie W Edmonds; Sylvie F Hall; Michael P Jones; Nicole C Wright; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram; Douglas W Roblin Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: F D Wolinsky; Y Lou; S W Edmonds; K G Saag; D W Roblin; N C Wright; M P Jones; P Cram Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: P Cram; F D Wolinsky; Y Lou; S W Edmonds; S F Hall; D W Roblin; N C Wright; M P Jones; K G Saag Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Luke Taylor; Chieko Kimata; Andrea M Siu; Samantha N Andrews; Prashant Purohit; Melissa Yamauchi; Andras Bratincsak; Russell Woo; Cass K Nakasone; Sian Yik Lim Journal: Osteoporos Sarcopenia Date: 2021-09-06
Authors: R Y van der Velde; C E Wyers; E Teesselink; P P M M Geusens; J P W van den Bergh; F de Vries; C Cooper; N C Harvey; T P van Staa Journal: Bone Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.398