Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-9dmbd Total loading time: 0.394 Render date: 2021-03-04T12:30:13.846Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Osteoporosis prescribing trends in primary care: a population-based retrospective cohort study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2012

Li Wang
Affiliation:
Primary Care Research Unit, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
C. Shawn Tracy
Affiliation:
Primary Care Research Unit, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Rahim Moineddin
Affiliation:
Primary Care Research Unit, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Ross E.G. Upshur
Affiliation:
Primary Care Research Unit, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent and costly disease associated with aging. Previous studies have indicated low intervention rates in primary care; however, there is little research investigating the prescribing patterns of osteoporosis medications by primary-care physicians.

Methods

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to examine trends in osteoporosis medication utilization in primary care between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009 in Ontario, Canada. All Ontario residents aged 65 years or older and eligible for public health coverage were included in the analysis (∼1.46 million residents in 2000, ∼1.75 million residents in 2009).

Results

Analysis of 10-year data indicates a trend toward higher utilization of osteoporosis medications among elderly primary-care patients. In 2000, 100 038 unique patients were prescribed an osteoporosis medication by a family physician; by 2009, this number increased to 301 679. Age-group analyses suggest an inverted U-shaped pattern, whereby utilization rates increase with advancing age and then decline for the oldest age groups. Utilization rates were the lowest for the 100+ age group.

Conclusions

This study indicates increased utilization of osteoporosis-related medications among elderly primary-care patients over a recent 10-year time period. It is unclear whether the observed increase in utilization is due to higher rates of osteoporosis. Further research is needed to determine the appropriateness of this higher utilization.

Type
Short Report
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent and costly disease associated with advancing age. Over 75 million people worldwide are affected, and in any given year there are more than nine million instances of osteoporotic fractures, making it the fourth most significant noninfectious disease after cardiovascular disorders, cancer, and diabetes (European Foundation For Osteoporosis (EFFO) and National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), 1997). Although perceived to be a disease primarily affecting older women, the disease burden is also significant in older men. Although women are more prone to osteoporotic fractures, the mortality rate associated with fractures is higher in men (Guggenbuhl, Reference Guggenbuhl2009).

Previous studies have demonstrated that available medications may slow the progress of osteoporosis and reduce the risk of fracture (Harris, Reference Harris2001; McClung et al., Reference McClung, Geusens, Miller, Zippel, Bensen, Roux, Adami, Diamond, Eastell, Meunier and Reginster2001; Hodsman et al., Reference Hodsman, Hanley and Josse2002; Black et al., Reference Black, Delmas, Eastell, Reid, Boonen, Cauley, Cosman, Lakatos, Leung, Man, Mautalen, Mesenbrink, Hu, Caminis, Tong, Rosario-Jansen, Krasnow, Hue, Sellmeyer, Eriksen and Cummings2007). Despite the accumulating evidence of efficacy, a recent review of osteoporosis management indicated that intervention rates remain low, which raises concerns about underinvestigation, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment (Manek, Reference Manek2010). Perhaps most concerning is that the consistently low intervention rates persist even among those patients who have suffered a previous fragility fracture.

Primary-care physicians are responsible for the majority of osteoporosis medication prescriptions; however, previous research has suggested that confusion exists among these providers, regarding how best to manage osteoporosis (Jaglal et al., Reference Jaglal, Carroll, Hawker, McIsaac, Jaakkimainen and Cadarette2003). Significant knowledge gaps are known to exist in the medical management of osteoporosis (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Sterkel, Utley, Shipley, Newman, Horton and Fitz-Clarence2001). A recent study in the Australian primary-care setting confirms this to be a continuing problem, with low rates of osteoporosis medication prescription in primary care, even in those patients with a previous fracture or other identified risk factors (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Hogan, Lyubomirsky and Sambrook2009). This pattern of evidence emphasizes the need for further exploration of barriers to osteoporosis management in the primary-care setting.

Indeed, given the increasing prevalence of osteoporosis in an aging population and the associated burden of disease, it is important to understand current trends in osteoporosis medication utilization. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no population-level studies of prescribing trends of osteoporosis medications in primary care. Thus, the objective of the present study was to investigate recent trends in the utilization of osteoporosis medications among primary-care patients aged 65 years and above in Ontario, Canada.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to examine annual trends in osteoporosis medication utilization in the Ontario primary-care setting. The study period was from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2009. All Ontario adults aged 65 years and above were included in the analysis. Ethics approval for this study was received from the Research Ethics Board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada.

Administrative data sources

Three administrative data sources were used in the analysis: (1) the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) prescription claims database, (2) the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences Physician Database (IPDB), and (3) the Ontario Registered Persons Database (RPDB). The ODB database includes data on all prescription medications dispensed to patients aged 65 years and above in Ontario, including the unique encrypted patient health-card number, the type of drug dispensed, the unique Drug Information Number (DIN), the date the prescription was filled, the quantity of the drug dispensed, and the physician ID of the prescriber. The IPDB contains information about all licensed physicians in Ontario, including physician specialty and physician ID. The RPDB contains demographic information about all Ontario health-card holders, including the identifying encrypted patient health-card number.

Validated algorithms were used to link the three administrative databases. To obtain patient demographic information (ie, age and sex), the ODB database was linked to the RPDB via encrypted patient health-card number. To isolate the family physicians among all prescribers, the ODB claims were linked to the IPDB via physician ID.

Data analysis

The ODB database was used to identify osteoporosis medication claims prescribed by family physicians between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009. Claims were identified as osteoporosis medications via the unique DIN in the ODB database. The specific osteoporosis medication categories analyzed in this study were bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators. Claims without valid health-card numbers were excluded from the analysis.

The percentage of Ontarians aged 65 years and above who had at least one osteoporosis prescription from a family physician was analyzed by age group and sex. Population denominators for overall rates were obtained from Statistics Canada census data; intercensal estimates based on 2001 and 2006 census data were used. Rates by age group were calculated using population estimates from the RPDB. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS for UNIX (v 9.1).

Results

Figure 1 presents annual rates of osteoporosis medication use among older Ontarians. Rates are higher for women than for men. For both sexes, utilization rates increased in each successive year across the 10-year study period. From 2007 onward, the annual rate of increase has slowed down and appears to have stabilized in recent years. This pattern holds true for both sexes, although the increase in utilization is steeper for women. In 2000, 11% of women aged 65 years and above used osteoporosis medication; by 2009, utilization had increased to 27%. For men, the utilization rate increased from 1% in 2000 to 5% in 2009.

Figure 1 Ten-year trends in the percentage of older adults aged 65+ who had at least one osteoporosis prescription from a family physician in Ontario, Canada

Table 1 indicates age-specific utilization rates of osteoporosis medication for men and women across the 10-year study period. From 2000 to 2009, observed rates increased with age for both sexes. For all age groups, utilization was higher among women than among men. Among women, in the year 2000, the utilization rate peaked at 11.3% (in the 75–79 age group) and then began declining for those aged 80 years and older. By 2009, the highest observed rate was 29% in the 80–84 age group. Among men, in the year 2000, utilization peaked at 1.8% in the 85–89 age group and then began declining for those aged 90 years and older. In 2009, the highest utilization rate was 7.7% (again, in the 85–89 age group). For both men and women, and across all years of the study period, utilization rates were lowest in the 100+ age group.

Table 1 Age- and sex-specific ten-year trends in the percentage of older adults aged 65+ who had at least one osteoporosis prescription from a family physician in Ontario, Canada

Discussion

Our study indicates significant increases in the utilization of osteoporosis medications among elderly primary-care patients over a recent 10-year time period in Ontario, Canada. From 2000 to 2007, the annual rate showed a marked annual increase, after which the rate of increase slowed and then appeared to have stabilized in recent years. Age-specific rates indicate an inverted U-shaped utilization pattern, whereby medication utilization rates increased with advancing age and then declined for the oldest age groups. For all age groups, utilization was higher among women than men. For both sexes, rates were lowest for the 100+ age group.

There is considerable evidence that osteoporosis medications are effective in the prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures and the treatment of osteoporosis (Harris et al., Reference Harris, Watts, Genant, McKeever, Hangartner, Keller, Chesnut, Brown, Eriksen, Hoseyni, Axelrod and Miller1999; Chesnut et al., Reference Chesnut, Skag, Christiansen, Recker, Stakkestad, Hoiseth, Felsenberg, Huss, Gilbride, Schimmer and Delmas2004; Cadarette et al., Reference Cadarette, Katz, Brookhart and Stürmer2008; Siris et al., Reference Siris, Selby, Saag, Borgström, Herings and Silverman2009; Siris et al., Reference Siris, Pasquale, Wang and Watts2011). During the present study period, the 2002 Canadian clinical practice guidelines were in effect. These guidelines recommended bisphosphonates as the first-line treatment for the management of osteoporosis (Brown and Josse, Reference Brown and Josse2002). Studies have indicated that prescriptions for bisphosphonates increased dramatically during this period, both in Canada and in other countries (Jaglal et al., Reference Jaglal, Carroll, Hawker, McIsaac, Jaakkimainen, Cadarette, Cameron and Davis2005; Huot et al., Reference Huot, Couris, Tainturier, Jaglal, Colin and Schott2008; Hollingworth et al., Reference Hollingworth, Gunanti, Nissen and Duncan2010), which is consistent with the utilization patterns presented here. At the same time, however, our data suggest that utilization rates in Ontario have stabilized in recent years. Similar patterns have been reported for other Canadian provinces (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2009). Given that the treatment of osteoporosis is still widely considered inadequate (Guggenbuhl, Reference Guggenbuhl2009; Leslie et al., Reference Leslie, Giangregorio, Yogendran, Azimaee, Morin, Metge, Caetano and Lix2011), ongoing investigation of medication utilization patterns is warranted.

Although it is well known that the risk for osteoporosis increases with age, our findings indicate a marked decrease in medication use among the oldest age groups. For both sexes, rates were lowest in the 100+ age group. A possible explanation here is that time-to-benefit considerations are factoring into decisions regarding therapy initiation, which results in lower medication use among the oldest old. A recent study of US Medicare beneficiaries suggests that utilization of osteoporosis medications declines as the likelihood of dying increases (Shaffer et al., Reference Shaffer, Simoni-Wastila, Toler, Stuart and Doshi2010). Another possible explanation is the healthy survivor effect, such that those surviving into the oldest age groups are generally healthier in relative terms.

Not surprisingly, we found that osteoporosis medication rates were significantly lower for male patients. Although osteoporosis is gaining attention as an important health problem in elderly men (Olszynski et al., Reference Olszynski, Davison, Adachi, Brown, Cummings, Hanley, Harris, Hodsman, Kendler, McClung, Miller and Yuen2004), it continues to be perceived as a disease primarily affecting older women. Current Canadian estimates are that at least one in three women and one in five men will suffer from an osteoporotic fracture during their lifetime (Osteoporosis Canada, 2012). According to our data, however, in 2009, less than 5% of men aged 65 years and above filled a prescription for an osteoporosis medication. Both underdiagnosis and undertreatment could play an important role in explaining this discrepancy. Our data indicate that the medication utilization curve for men peaks at a higher age as compared with women. This may be explained by the fact that osteoporosis is often not identified in men until it has reached an advanced stage (Sawka et al., Reference Sawka, Adachi, Papaioannou, Thabane, Ioannidis, Davison, Olszynski, Brown, Hanley, Murray, Josse, Sebaldt, Petrie, Tenenhouse and Goldsmith2004). Male patients are known to have poor knowledge about osteoporosis and do not perceive themselves to be susceptible to the disease (Burgener et al., Reference Burgener, Arnold, Katz, Polinski, Cabral, Avorn and Solomon2005; Solimeo, Reference Solimeo2011). Importantly, this is compounded by the fact that clinicians significantly underestimate osteoporosis risk in men (Papaioannou et al., Reference Papaioannou, Kennedy, Ioannidis, Gao, Sawka, Goltzman, Tenenhouse, Pickard, Olszynski, Davison, Kaiser, Josse, Kreiger, Josse, Goltzman, Kreiger, Hanley, Prior, Brown, Anastassiades and Adachi2008).

Notwithstanding concerns about undertreatment, the dramatic increase in rates of osteoporosis medication use among older adults observed here gives rise to competing concerns regarding patient safety. Recent research has shown that treatment with a bisphosphonate for more than five years was associated with an increased risk of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures (Lenart et al., Reference Lenart, Neviaser, Lyman, Chang, Edobor-Osula, Steele, van der Meulen, Lorich and Lane2009; Park-Wyllie et al., Reference Park-Wyllie, Mamdani, Juurlink, Hawker, Gunraj, Austin, Whelan, Weiler and Laupacis2011). As has been noted elsewhere, the balance of risks and benefits of bisphosphonate therapy remains unclear. Further research is needed to improve our current understanding of how many years osteoporosis medications should be taken in order to optimize the benefits while minimizing the risks (Seeman, Reference Seeman2009).

A major strength of the present study is the use of province-wide population-based data, which permits an analysis of utilization patterns across multiple specific age groups and across multiple years. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other similar peer-reviewed studies examining population-level patterns of osteoporosis prescribing in the primary-care setting. It is important to note that the data utilized in this study were originally collected for administrative purposes, and therefore the specific indication for medication prescriptions was not available. The medications under investigation in this study can be prescribed for other indications (eg, breast cancer). In the present study, a diagnosis of osteoporosis was not confirmed for the patients included in our dataset; in future, this may become more feasible with enhanced linkages to electronic medical records. Another limitation of our study is that we do not have data for those medications that are not covered in ODB (eg, ibandronate) or for over-the-counter products that are recommended for osteoporosis prevention (eg, vitamin D and calcium supplements). Finally, prescription claims data indicate only the number of prescriptions filled, not whether those medications were actually taken as prescribed.

In summary, our analysis of utilization rates of osteoporosis medications among elderly primary-care patients in Ontario, Canada indicates dramatic increases between 2000 and 2007 and then a slower rate of increase in more recent years. It is unclear whether the observed increase in prescribing is due to higher rates of osteoporosis. Further research is needed to determine the appropriateness of current prescribing patterns. The revised 2010 Canadian guidelines represent a paradigm shift in the prevention and treatment of osteoporotic fractures, moving the focus from treating low bone mineral density to better identifying fragility fractures (Papaioannou et al., Reference Papaioannou, Morin, Cheung, Atkinson, Brown and Feldman2010). Further research will be required to evaluate the impact of these new guidelines on the utilization of osteoporosis medications going forward.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOHLTC is intended or should be inferred. Ross Upshur is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Primary Care Research.

References

Black, D.M., Delmas, P.D., Eastell, R., Reid, I.R., Boonen, S., Cauley, J.A., Cosman, F., Lakatos, P., Leung, P.C., Man, Z., Mautalen, C., Mesenbrink, P., Hu, H., Caminis, J., Tong, K., Rosario-Jansen, T., Krasnow, J., Hue, T.F., Sellmeyer, D., Eriksen, E.F.Cummings, S.R. 2007: Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 356, 18091822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J.P.Josse, R.G. 2002: Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal 167 (Suppl 10), S1S34.Google Scholar
Burgener, M., Arnold, M., Katz, J.N., Polinski, J.M., Cabral, D., Avorn, J.Solomon, D.H. 2005: Older adults’ knowledge and beliefs about osteoporosis: results of semistructured interviews used for the development of educational materials. Journal of Rheumatology 32, 673677.Google ScholarPubMed
Cadarette, S.M., Katz, J.N., Brookhart, M.A.Stürmer, T. 2008: Relative effectiveness of osteoporosis drugs for preventing nonvertebral fracture. Annals of Internal Medicine 148, 637646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2009: Bisphosphonates in osteoporosis: an analysis focusing on drug claims by seniors. Retrieved 21 February 2012 from http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/npduis_aib_bisphosphonates2009_e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chen, J.S., Hogan, C., Lyubomirsky, G.Sambrook, P.N. 2009: Management of osteoporosis in primary care in Australia. Osteoporosis International 20, 491496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesnut, C.H., Skag, A., Christiansen, C., Recker, R., Stakkestad, J.A., Hoiseth, A., Felsenberg, D., Huss, H., Gilbride, J., Schimmer, R.C.Delmas, P.D. 2004: Effects of oral ibandronate administered daily or intermittently on fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 19, 12411249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Foundation For Osteoporosis (EFFO) and National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF). 1997: Who are candidates for prevention and treatment for osteoporosis? Osteoporosis International 7, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guggenbuhl, P. 2009: Osteoporosis in males and females: is there really a difference? Joint, Bone, Spine 76, 595601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, S.T. 2001: Bisphosphonates for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: clinical studies of etidronate and alendronate. Osteoporosis International 12 (Suppl 3), 311316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, S.T., Watts, N.B., Genant, H.K., McKeever, C.D., Hangartner, T., Keller, M., Chesnut, C.H., Brown, J., Eriksen, E.F., Hoseyni, M.S., Axelrod, D.W.Miller, P.D. 1999: Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 282, 13441352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodsman, A., Hanley, D.Josse, R. 2002: Do bisphosphonates reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures? An evaluation of the evidence to date. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166, 14261430.Google ScholarPubMed
Hollingworth, S.A., Gunanti, I., Nissen, L.M.Duncan, E.L. 2010: Secondary prevention of osteoporosis in Australia: analysis of government-dispensed prescription data. Drugs & Aging 27, 255264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huot, L., Couris, C.M., Tainturier, V., Jaglal, S., Colin, C.Schott, A.M. 2008: Trends in HRT and anti-osteoporosis medication prescribing in a European population after the WHI study. Osteoporosis International 19, 10471054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaglal, S.B., Carroll, J., Hawker, G., McIsaac, W.J., Jaakkimainen, L., Cadarette, S.M.et al. 2003: How are family physicians managing osteoporosis? Qualitative study of their experiences and educational needs. Canadian Family Physician 49, 462468.Google ScholarPubMed
Jaglal, S.B., Carroll, J., Hawker, G., McIsaac, W.J., Jaakkimainen, L., Cadarette, S.M., Cameron, C.Davis, D. 2005: Population trends in BMD testing, treatment, and hip and wrist fracture rates: are the hip fracture projections wrong? Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 20, 898905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenart, B.A., Neviaser, A.S., Lyman, S., Chang, C.C., Edobor-Osula, F., Steele, B., van der Meulen, M.C., Lorich, D.G., Lane, J.M. 2009: Association of low-energy femoral fractures with prolonged bisphosphonate use: a case control study. Osteoporosis International 20, 13531362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, W.D., Giangregorio, L.M., Yogendran, M., Azimaee, M., Morin, S., Metge, C., Caetano, P., Lix, L.M. 2011: A population-based analysis of the post-fracture care gap 1996–2008: the situation is not improving. Osteoporosis International April 8 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
Manek, N. 2010: Missed opportunities for osteoporosis management in older patients: a literature review. Primary Health Care Research & Development 11, 155165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClung, M.R., Geusens, P., Miller, P.D., Zippel, H., Bensen, W.G., Roux, C., Adami, S., Diamond, T., Eastell, R., Meunier, P.J.Reginster, J.Y. 2001: Effect of risedronate on hip fracture risk in elderly women. New England Journal of Medicine 344, 333340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olszynski, W.P., Davison, K.P., Adachi, J.D., Brown, J.P., Cummings, S.R., Hanley, D.A., Harris, S.P., Hodsman, A.B., Kendler, D., McClung, M.R., Miller, P.D.Yuen, C.K. 2004: Osteoporosis in men: epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Clinical Therapeutics 26, 1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osteoporosis Canada. 2012: Osteoporosis at a glance. Retrieved 21 February 2012 from http://www.osteoporosis.ca/index.php/ci_id/5526/la_id/1.htmGoogle Scholar
Papaioannou, A., Kennedy, C.C., Ioannidis, G., Gao, Y., Sawka, A.M., Goltzman, D., Tenenhouse, A., Pickard, L., Olszynski, W.P., Davison, K.S., Kaiser, S., Josse, R.G., Kreiger, S., Josse, R.G., Goltzman, D., Kreiger, N., Hanley, D.A., Prior, J.C., Brown, J.P., Anastassiades, T.Adachi, J.D. 2008: The osteoporosis care gap in men with fragility fractures: the Canadian multicentre osteoporosis study. Osteoporosis International 19, 581587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papaioannou, A., Morin, S., Cheung, A.M., Atkinson, S., Brown, J.P., Feldman, S.et al. 2010: Canadian 2010 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal 82, 18641873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park-Wyllie, L.Y., Mamdani, M.M., Juurlink, D.N., Hawker, G.A., Gunraj, N., Austin, P.C., Whelan, D.B., Weiler, P.J.Laupacis, A. 2011: Bisphosphonate use and the risk of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures in older women. Journal of the American Medical Association 305, 783789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawka, A.M., Adachi, J.D., Papaioannou, A., Thabane, L., Ioannidis, G., Davison, K.S., Olszynski, W.P., Brown, J.P., Hanley, D.A., Murray, T.M., Josse, R.G., Sebaldt, R.J., Petrie, A., Tenenhouse, A.Goldsmith, C.H. 2004: Are there differences between men and women prescribed bisphosphonate therapy in Canadian subspecialty osteoporosis practices? Journal of Rheumatology 31, 19931995.Google ScholarPubMed
Seeman, E. 2009: To stop or not to stop, that is the question. Osteoporosis International 20, 187195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaffer, T., Simoni-Wastila, L., Toler, W., Stuart, B.Doshi, J.A. 2010: Changing patterns in medication use with increasing probability of death for older Medicare beneficiaries. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 58, 15491555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siris, E.S., Pasquale, M.K., Wang, Y.Watts, N.B. 2011: Estimating bisphosphonate use and fracture reduction among U.S. women age 45 and older, 2001–2008. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 26, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siris, E.S., Selby, P.L., Saag, K.G., Borgström, F., Herings, R.M.C.Silverman, S.L. 2009: Impact of osteoporosis treatment adherence on fracture rates in North America and Europe. American Journal of Medicine 122(Suppl 2), S3S13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solimeo, S.L. 2011: Living with a ‘women's disease: risk appraisal and management among men with osteoporosis. Journal of Men's Health 8, 185191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, J.C., Sterkel, B., Utley, M., Shipley, M., Newman, S., Horton, M.Fitz-Clarence, H. 2001: Opinions and experiences in general practice on osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis and management. Osteoporosis International 12, 844848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 29
Total number of PDF views: 138 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Osteoporosis prescribing trends in primary care: a population-based retrospective cohort study
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Osteoporosis prescribing trends in primary care: a population-based retrospective cohort study
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Osteoporosis prescribing trends in primary care: a population-based retrospective cohort study
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *