ArticleJBMR plus2023
Anabolic and Antiresorptive Osteoporosis Treatment: Trends, Costs, and Sequence in a Commercially Insured Population, 2003-2021.
Article in JBMR plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of odanacatib, abaloparatide, denosumab, teriparatide, and bisphosphonates for male osteoporosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Timeliness of antiresorptive consolidation after anabolic therapy for primary fracture prevention: A US cohort study.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Enhancing osteoporosis treatment: emerging roles of engineered exosomes in bone regeneration and repair.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Trends in Osteoporosis Drug Therapy Receipt Among Commercial and Medicare Advantage Enrollees in the United States, 2011-2022.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Awareness and Attitude Towards MRONJ Among Physicians Prescribing Antiresorptive Drugs: A Cross-Sectional Study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Impact of Frailty and Other Factors as Estimated by HU to Predict Response to Anabolic Bone Medications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Author response to letter to the editor, (OSIN-D-25-00227) "From bisphosphonates to advanced therapies: a critical review of osteoporosis treatment strategies".Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Article
- Low Rate of Teriparatide Supplementation for the Treatment of Osteoporotic Pelvic Fractures in Elderly Females.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Trends in Management of Osteoporosis Following Primary Vertebral Compression Fracture.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New anabolic medications (abaloparatide and romosozumab) were recently approved for osteoporosis, and data suggest that prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes. This study aimed to characterize prescription trends, demographics, geographical distributions, out-of-pocket costs, and treatment sequences for anabolic and antiresorptive osteoporosis medications. Using a commercial claims database (Clinformatics Data Mart), adult patients with osteoporosis from 2003 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and stratified based on osteoporosis medication class. Patient demographics and socioeconomic variables, provider types, and out-of-pocket costs were collected. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of receiving osteoporosis treatment. A total of 2,988,826 patients with osteoporosis were identified; 616,635 (20.6%) received treatment. Patients who were female, Hispanic or Asian, in the Western US, had higher net worth, or had greater comorbidity burden were more likely to receive osteoporosis medications. Among patients who received medication, 31,112 (5.0%) received anabolic medication; these were more likely to be younger, White patients with higher education level, net worth, and greater comorbidity burden. Providers who prescribed the most anabolic medications were rheumatologists (18.5%), endocrinologists (16.8%), and general internists (15.3%). Osteoporosis medication prescriptions increased fourfold from 2003 to 2020, whereas anabolic medication prescriptions did not increase at this rate. Median out-of-pocket costs were $17 higher for anabolic than antiresorptive medications, though costs for anabolic medications decreased significantly from 2003 to 2020 (compound annual growth rate: -0.6%). A total of 8388 (1.4%) patients tried two or more osteoporosis medications, and 0.6% followed the optimal treatment sequence. Prescription of anabolic osteoporosis medications has not kept pace with overall osteoporosis treatment, and there are socioeconomic disparities in anabolic medication prescription, potentially driven by higher median out-of-pocket costs. Although prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes, this treatment sequence occurred in only 0.6% of the study cohort. © 2023 The Authors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.