ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Prescribing Trends of Osteoporosis Medications, Adherence and Persistence with Denosumab versus Alendronate: A Real-World Retrospective Study in China.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Osteoporosis, a common metabolic bone disease with high fracture risk and heavy global burden, requires long-term medication adherence and persistence for fracture prevention, yet both remain suboptimal. Prescribing trends, adherence, and persistence data for denosumab and alendronate remain limited, especially in Chinese populations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used hospital data. Patients aged ≥50 who newly initiated denosumab or alendronate in 2023-2025 were screened; 2025 initiators were excluded for insufficient 1-year follow-up. New users had no prior prescription of either drug since 2009. The proportion of days covered (PDC) was assessed, with good adherence defined as ≥80%. Persistence was time from initiation to discontinuation, with >60-day gap after coverage end defining discontinuation for both drugs. Propensity score matching (PSM) balanced baseline characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis compared adherence and persistence. Results: A shift in prescribing from oral to injectable formulations, with alendronate decreasing by 44% and denosumab increasing by 94% in 2023-2025. Denosumab demonstrated greater persistence and adherence than alendronate. The 1-year persistence rate was 46.28% (95% CI: 41.88%-50.80%) for denosumab vs 2.89% (95% CI: 1.60%-4.79%) for alendronate, with a 90.80% lower risk [HR: 0.092 (95% CI: 0.077-0.110), p < 0.001]. PDC was 0.530 (IQR: 0.493-0.975), adherence rate 46.90% (227/484) for denosumab vs 0.077 (IQR: 0.077-0.153), 2.48% (12/484) for alendronate; adherence was 41.29-fold higher with denosumab (95% CI: 22.41-76.07, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed hypertension and fracture history with better adherence and persistence; inpatient status was associated with poorer persistence and adherence; and female sex with poorer persistence (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: A shift from oral to injectable formulations was observed. Denosumab was associated with higher persistence and adherence than alendronate. Hypertension and fracture history were associated with better persistence and adherence, whereas inpatient status was associated with poorer persistence and adherence. Female sex was associated with poorer persistence without affecting adherence.
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.