Evaluation of satisfaction and preference in patients with osteoporosis receiving Denosumab

Betül Sargın 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Division of Rheumatology, Medical Faculty, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey
* Corresponding Author
J CLIN MED KAZ, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp. 44-47. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/9654
Download Full Text (PDF)


Objective: Satisfaction and  preference  properties  differs  in  osteoporosis  treatment agents. In our study  we  aimed  to  evaluate  these  properties  in  patients  receiving  denosumab   treatment.
Materials  and  Methods: Thirty female  patients who  had  denosumab  injections  were  included in our study. Demographic and general characteristics were recorded.
General  patient  satisfaction, patient  satisfaction  of  the  drug  and  it's   effect  on   quality  of life was  evaluated on a Likert  scale. Patients'  preference  was  evaluated  with  asking  the   reasons  of  switches  to  denosumab.
Results: The  mean  age  of  patients  was  59.30±12.86  years. Of   the  patients  30 (% 100.0) wanted to  continue  the  same therapy, 25 (%83.3) patients  stated  that  managing  this   treatment  is  extremely  easy. 25 (% 83.3) patients  stated  that  it  was  extremely  well-suited with  lifestyle.25 (% 83.3) patients  were  extremely  convenient  to take  medication.25 (%  83.3) patients have  extremely willed  to  continue  to  use  the  medication. Of  30 patients, 30(% 100) have been switched to denosumab due  to  physician  recommendation. Physician   recommended have been done to these patients due to ineffectivity of   previous  osteoporosis   treatments  or  due  to  side  effects  of   previous  osteoporosis  treatments. 22 (%73.33)  of   these patients have been  switched to denosumab due to ineffectivity of previous  osteoporosis treatments. About  8 (%26.66) patients have  been  switched  to denosumab due to side    effects  of  previous  osteoporosis treatments.
Conclusion: Denosumab treatment in osteoporosis is a convenient and well-tolerated   therapeutic modality.


Sargın B. Evaluation of satisfaction and preference in patients with osteoporosis receiving Denosumab. J CLIN MED KAZ. 2021;18(1):44-7. https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/9654


  • Chen SJ, Lin CS, Lin CL, Kao CH. Osteoporosis is associated with high risk for coronary heart disease: a population-based cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94:e1146. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001146
  • Kaushal N, Vohora D, K.Jalali R, Jha S. Prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia in an apparently healthy Indian population-a cross-sectional retrospective study. Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia. 2018; 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2018.04.002
  • Pouresmaeili F, Kamalidehghan B, Kamarehei M, Goh YM. A comprehensive overview on osteoporosis and its risk factors. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018; 14:2029-49. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S138000
  • Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 1994; 9:1137-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650090802
  • Briot K, Roux C, Thomas T, Blain H, Buchon D, Chapurlat R, et al. 2018 update of French recommendations on the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Joint Bone Spine. 2018; 85:519-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2018.02.009
  • Coronado-Zarco R, Olascoaga-Gómez de León A, García-Lara A, Quinzaños-Fresnedo J, Nava-Bringas TI, Macías-Hernández SI. Nonpharmacological interventions for osteoporosis treatment: Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2019; 5:69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afos.2019.09.005
  • Kanis JA,Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY, and on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF).European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30:3-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5
  • Polyzos SA, Makras P, Tournis S, Anastasilakis AD. Off-label uses of denosumab in metabolic bone diseases. Bone. 2019; 129:115048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2019.115048
  • Lewiecki EM. New and emerging concepts in the use of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2018; 10:209-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1759720X18805759
  • Sözen T, Özışık L, Başaran NÇ. An overview and management of osteoporosis. Eur J Rheumatol. 2017; 4:46-56. https://doi.org/10.5152/eurjrheum.2016.048
  • Morizio P, Burkhart JI, Ozawa S. Denosumab: A Unique Perspective on Adherence and Cost-effectiveness Compared With Oral Bisphosphonates in Osteoporosis Patients. Ann Pharmacother. 2018; 52:1031-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028018768808
  • Sheedy KC, Camara MI, Camacho PM. Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis. Endocr Pract. 2015; 21:275-9. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP14106.OR
  • Kendler DL, McClung MR, Freemantle N, Lillestol M, Moffett AH, Borenstein J, etal. Adherence, preference, and satisfaction of postmenopausal women taking denosumab or alendronate. Osteoporos Int. 2011; 22:1725-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1378-z
  • Kendler DL, Chines A, Brandi ML, Papapoulos S, Lewiecki EM, Reginster JY, et al. The risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures is decreased in subjects experiencing fracture while on denosumab: results from the FREEDOM and FREEDOM Extension studies. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30:71-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4687-2
  • Dempster DW,Brown JP, Fahrleitner-Pammer A,Kendler D,Rizzo S,Valter I, et al. Effects of Long-Term Denosumab on Bone Histomorphometry and Mineralization in Women With Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018; 103:2498-509. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-02669