AB1024 SECONDARY PREVENTION OF VERTEBRAL FRACTURES SUSTAINED EFFICACY OVER TIME

Autor: J. E. Oller Rodríguez, E. Grau García, S. Leal Rodriguez, P. Muñoz Martinez, L. Mas Sanchez, C. Riesco Barcena, A. V. Huaylla Quispe, C. Pávez Perales, M. De la Rubia Navarro, I. Martínez Cordellat, C. Nájera Herranz, R. Negueroles Albuixech, F. Ortiz-Sanjuán, E. Vicens Bernabeu, I. Cánovas Olmos, J. J. Fragío Gil, L. Gonzalez Puig, J. Ivorra Cortés, J. A. Román Ivorra
Rok vydání: 2022
Předmět:
Zdroj: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 81:1635.2-1635
ISSN: 1468-2060
0003-4967
Popis: BackgroundVertebral fractures entail a notorious social and health problem, and their presence is the greatest risk factor for the appearance of a new vertebral fracture. Despite the availability of different drugs for secondary prevention, there are few comparative studies in real clinical practice.ObjectivesOur aim is to evaluate the appearance of new vertebral fractures depending on the strategy chosen as secondary prevention.MethodsWe performed a retrospective descriptive study with patients who had suffered their first vertebral fracture between 2010 and 2018, in whom we checked the subsequent appearance of new vertebral fractures.We selected only those patients who had completed a minimum of 18 months of secondary prevention with antiresorptive drugs, or a sequential scheme (anabolic treatment followed by at least 1 year with an antiresorptive drug). Those patients who had presented new fractures in the first 6 months of treatment were excluded. Finally, we adjusted efficacy by treatment time.ResultsA total of 452 patients were included, out of an initial baseline pool of 1184 patients. We found female predominance (83% of the total). The mean age of the first vertebral fracture was 69.2 years, with a mean latency to fracture of 51.4 months. A new vertebral fracture happened in 4.7% of these patients.The different secondary prevention strategies were classified according to the different therapeutic options, as we can see in Table 1.Table 1.TreatmentPatients (%)New fractures (%)Denosumab205 (45.35%)10 (4.87%)Oral bisphosphonate (alendronate, risedronate or ibandronate)75 (16.59%)5 (6.66%)Zoledronate38 (8.41%)3 (7.89%)Teriparatide followed by Denosumab94 (20.8%)0 (0%)Teriparatide followed by Oral bisphosphonate36 (7.96%)3 (8.33%)Teriparatide followed by Zoledronate4 (0.89%)0 (0%)No statistically significant differences between different treatments were observed, but we found a lower probability of a new fracture in patients treated with sequential treatment with teriparatide followed by denosumab.Finally, the Kapplan-Meier survival analysis showed a lower probability per year of new fractures in patients treated with teriparatide followed by denosumab, being this probability greater in patients treated with teriparatide followed by oral bisphosphonate.ConclusionA lower probability of refracture was observed in patients who received sequential treatment with teriparatide followed by denosumab.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: