Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Outcome of osteoporosis evaluation, treatment, and follow-up in patients referred to a specialized outpatient clinic compared to patients in care of general practitioners

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Intensive screening for osteoporosis in patients with hip fracture

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Compliance and persistence with treatment with parathyroid hormone for osteoporosis. A Danish national register-based cohort study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Is allopurinol use associated with an excess risk of osteoporotic fracture? A National Prescription Registry study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Chronic rhinosinusitis in COPD: A prevalent but unrecognized comorbidity impacting health related quality of life

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Newborn body composition after maternal bariatric surgery

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

Summary: In Denmark, osteoporosis treatment is either handled by general practitioners or at more resource demanding specialist clinics. We evaluated the treatment adherence and persistence in the two settings, which were overall similar. The type of medical support did, however, differ and was provided to two very different patient populations. Purpose: The study aimed to investigate the effect of patient care by general practitioners (GPs) or specialists on treatment adherence among osteoporosis patients initiating treatment with oral bisphosphonates (OB). Methods: Dual-energy X-ray absorption (DXA)-scanning data from 2005 to 2013 were extracted. Treatment naïve patients with a T-score ≤ − 2.5 (spine or hip) were included. Information on medical treatment, comorbidities, and socio-economic status was extracted from Danish registries. Scanning results were evaluated by a specialist. Subsequent treatment initiation and follow-up was either handled by GPs or specialists: GP population (GPP) vs. specialist population (SP). Primary adherence was defined as treatment initiating within 12 months from diagnosis and secondary adherence as days with medicine possession rates (MPR) > 80%. Results: Of 11,201 DXA-scanned patients, 3685 met the inclusion criteria (GPP = 2177, SP = 1508). The GPP consisted of relatively more men, was older, had shorter education, lower income, and more comorbidities. There was no difference in baseline T-score or prior incidence of major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs). The GPP was primarily treated with OB and had better primary adherence (adjusted OR GPP/SP = 1.52 [1.31–1.75], p < 0.0001) than the SP that to a higher degree received another treatment. Secondary adherence was similar (adjusted OR GPP/SP: OR 12 months = 1.02 [0.83–1.26]; OR 24 months = 0.90 [0.73–1.10]; OR 4 years = 0.88 [0.71–1.07]; OR 5 years = 0.91 [0.74–1.13]. Conclusion: Patients in care of specialists were most likely to receive a treatment other than OB. Primary adherence was highest in the GPP, whereas short- and long-term persistence was similar for up to 5 years whether treated by a specialist or a GP.

Original languageEnglish
Article number97
JournalArchives of Osteoporosis
Volume15
Issue number1
ISSN1862-3522
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2020

ID: 60187881