OBJECTIVES

: In addition to clinical outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials, real-world patient experience with osteoporosis (OP) is critical for evaluating disease management. Herein we describe the experience of patients who have initiated treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) injection.

METHODS

: Results are from a US, multicenter, combined retrospective chart review and patient questionnaire. Post-menopausal women with physician-confirmed diagnosis of OP at high-risk for fracture were included. Patients were on ABL for ≥1 month prior to enrollment. Patient-reported data were collected once by questionnaire. Validated instruments used included the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire Measure (TSQM-9), 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8), Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire (OPAQ), EQ5D, and visual analog scale (VAS). High scores across these measures indicate high satisfaction, high adherence, functioning and HRQoL respectively.

RESULTS

: 193 patients from 8 secondary care sites across US participated in the study; mean age was 67.4(±8.62). On average, patients had been diagnosed with OP for a median of 3 years and had received ABL for 6 months prior to enrollment. The majority of patients were satisfied with ABL’s ability to allow for daily activities, fit with their daily schedule and convenient to store. TSQM mean domain scores were high [84(±15), 75(±19), and 74(±18) for convenience, global satisfaction and effectiveness respectively]. The MMAS mean adherence score was 7(±1) with only 17% of patients reporting low adherence (score <6). According to OPAQ, patients were generally in good health, although a considerable proportion reported back pain and sub-optimal emotional health. The EQ-5D VAS showed that, on average, patients perceive their health to be good with a mean score of 76 and a median of 80.

CONCLUSIONS

: This evaluation of patient experience with ABL in a real-world setting supports earlier findings of generally positive patient perspective with this treatment. Additional evaluation of patient perspective by risk subgroups is warranted.