A R Zullo1,2,3,4, Y Lee5, C Lary6, L A Daiello5,7, D P Kiel8, S D Berry8. 1. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. andrew_zullo@brown.edu. 2. Center of Innovation in Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA. andrew_zullo@brown.edu. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Lifespan-Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. andrew_zullo@brown.edu. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, USA. andrew_zullo@brown.edu. 5. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 South Main Street, Box G-S121-8, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. 6. Center for Outcomes Research, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA. 7. Alzheimer's Disease and Memory Disorders Center, Rhode Island Hospital, RI, Providence, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
The comparative effects of zoledronic acid, denosumab, and teriparatide for preventing hip fractures in frail older adults, especially those in nursing homes, were unknown. We found that denosumab and zoledronic acid may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in nursing home residents. INTRODUCTION: Several non-oral drugs exist for osteoporosis treatment, including zoledronic acid (ZA), denosumab, and teriparatide. Little data exist on the comparative effectiveness of these drugs for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. We examined their comparative effectiveness in one of the frailest segments of the US population-nursing home (NH) residents. METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective cohort study of NH residents aged ≥ 65 years using 2012 to 2016 national US Minimum Data Set clinical assessment data and linked Medicare claims. New parenteral ZA, denosumab, and teriparatide use was assessed via Medicare Parts B and D; hip fracture outcomes via Part A; and 125 covariates for confounding adjustment via several datasets. We used inverse probability weighted (IPW) competing risk regression models to compare hip fracture risk between groups with teriparatide as the reference. RESULTS: The study cohort (N = 2019) included 1046 denosumab, 578 teriparatide, and 395 ZA initiators. Mean age was 85 years, 90% were female, and 68% had at least moderate functional impairment. Seventy-two residents (3.6%) had a hip fracture and 1100 (54.5%) died over a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. Compared to teriparatide use, denosumab use was associated with a 46% lower risk of hip fracture (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00) and no difference was observed for ZA (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26-1.85). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab and ZA may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. Given their lower cost and easier administration, denosumab and ZA are likely preferable non-oral treatments for most frail, older adults.
The comparative effects of zoledronic acid, denosumab, and teriparatide for preventing hip fractures in frail older adults, especially those in nursing homes, were unknown. We found that denosumab and zoledronic acid may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in nursing home residents. INTRODUCTION: Several non-oral drugs exist for osteoporosis treatment, including zoledronic acid (ZA), denosumab, and teriparatide. Little data exist on the comparative effectiveness of these drugs for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. We examined their comparative effectiveness in one of the frailest segments of the US population-nursing home (NH) residents. METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective cohort study of NH residents aged ≥ 65 years using 2012 to 2016 national US Minimum Data Set clinical assessment data and linked Medicare claims. New parenteral ZA, denosumab, and teriparatide use was assessed via Medicare Parts B and D; hip fracture outcomes via Part A; and 125 covariates for confounding adjustment via several datasets. We used inverse probability weighted (IPW) competing risk regression models to compare hip fracture risk between groups with teriparatide as the reference. RESULTS: The study cohort (N = 2019) included 1046 denosumab, 578 teriparatide, and 395 ZA initiators. Mean age was 85 years, 90% were female, and 68% had at least moderate functional impairment. Seventy-two residents (3.6%) had a hip fracture and 1100 (54.5%) died over a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. Compared to teriparatide use, denosumab use was associated with a 46% lower risk of hip fracture (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00) and no difference was observed for ZA (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26-1.85). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab and ZA may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. Given their lower cost and easier administration, denosumab and ZA are likely preferable non-oral treatments for most frail, older adults.
Authors: Ian R Reid; Anne M Horne; Borislav Mihov; Angela Stewart; Elizabeth Garratt; Sumwai Wong; Katy R Wiessing; Mark J Bolland; Sonja Bastin; Gregory D Gamble Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Tingting Zhang; Yoojin Lee; Kevin W McConeghy; Lori A Daiello; Douglas P Kiel; Vincent Mor; Sarah D Berry Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sarah D Berry; Yoojin Lee; Andrew R Zullo; Doug P Kiel; David Dosa; Vincent Mor Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: S Boonen; J D Adachi; Z Man; S R Cummings; K Lippuner; O Törring; J C Gallagher; J Farrerons; A Wang; N Franchimont; J San Martin; A Grauer; M McClung Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Sarah D Berry; Lori A Daiello; Yoojin Lee; Andrew R Zullo; Nicole C Wright; Jeffrey R Curtis; Douglas P Kiel Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: J M Chandler; S I Zimmerman; C J Girman; A R Martin; W Hawkes; J R Hebel; P D Sloane; L Holder; J Magaziner Journal: JAMA Date: 2000 Aug 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R M Neer; C D Arnaud; J R Zanchetta; R Prince; G A Gaich; J Y Reginster; A B Hodsman; E F Eriksen; S Ish-Shalom; H K Genant; O Wang; B H Mitlak Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-05-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Geetanjoli Banerjee; Andrew R Zullo; Sarah D Berry; Yoojin Lee; Kevin McConeghy; Doug P Kiel; Vincent Mor Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Steven R Cummings; Javier San Martin; Michael R McClung; Ethel S Siris; Richard Eastell; Ian R Reid; Pierre Delmas; Holly B Zoog; Matt Austin; Andrea Wang; Stepan Kutilek; Silvano Adami; Jose Zanchetta; Cesar Libanati; Suresh Siddhanti; Claus Christiansen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Tingting Zhang; Geetanjoli Banerjee; Yoojin Lee; Kevin W McConeghy; Douglas P Kiel; Lori A Daiello; Vincent Mor; Sarah D Berry Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jonas Banefelt; Jen Timoshanko; Emma Söreskog; Gustaf Ortsäter; Alireza Moayyeri; Kristina E Åkesson; Anna Spångéus; Cesar Libanati Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 6.390