Determinants, consequences and potential solutions to poor adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatment: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF).

Many patients at increased risk of fractures do not take their medication appropriately, resulting in a substantial decrease in the benefits of drug therapy. Improving medication adherence is urgently needed but remains laborious, given the numerous and multidimensional reasons for non-adherence, suggesting the need for measurement-guided, multifactorial and individualized solutions. INTRODUCTION: Poor adherence to medications is a major challenge in the treatment of osteoporosis. This paper aimed to provide an overview of the consequences, determinants and potential solutions to poor adherence and persistence to osteoporosis medication. METHODS: A working group was organized by the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal diseases (ESCEO) to review consequences, determinants and potential solutions to adherence and to make recommendations for practice and further research. A systematic literature review and a face-to-face experts meeting were undertaken. RESULTS: Medication non-adherence is associated with increased risk of fractures, leading to a substantial decrease in the clinical and economic benefits of drug therapy. Reasons for non-adherence are numerous and multidimensional for each patient, depending on the interplay of multiple factors, suggesting the need for multifactorial and individualized solutions. Few interventions have been shown to improve adherence or persistence to osteoporosis treatment. Promising actions include patient education with counselling, adherence monitoring with feedback and dose simplification including flexible dosing regimen. Recommendations for practice and further research were also provided. To adequately manage adherence, it is important to (1) understand the problem (initiation, implementation and/or persistence), (2) to measure adherence and (3) to identify the reason of non-adherence and fix it. CONCLUSION: These recommendations are intended for clinicians to manage adherence of their patients and to researchers and policy makers to design, facilitate and appropriately use adherence interventions.

Comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of candesartan and losartan in the management of hypertension and heart failure: a systematic review, meta- and cost-utility analysis.

The UK National Health Service (NHS) currently spends in excess of £250 million per annum on angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure; with candesartan currently dominating the market. With the recent introduction of generic losartan, we set out to directly compare the branded market leader to its now cheaper alternative. The primary objectives were to compare the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and cardiovascular outcomes of candesartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension and chronic heart failure, respectively. The secondary objective was to model their comparative incremental cost-effectiveness in a UK NHS setting. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Hypertension and Heart Group's specialist register, Medline (1950-February 2010), and Embase (1980-February 2010) were included in the search strategy. Selection criteria were randomised studies of candesartan versus losartan in adults (> 18 years). The main outcome measures were as follows: Hypertension: mean change from baseline in trough (24 h postdose) systolic and diastolic BP. Heart failure: composite of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for management of heart failure. Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Eight (three of which met inclusion criteria) and zero trials compared candesartan directly with losartan in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, respectively. A between-treatment difference of -1.96 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.40 to -1.51] for trough diastolic BP and -3.00 mmHg (95% CI -3.79 to -2.22) for trough systolic BP in favour of candesartan was observed. Based on this differential, a 10-year Markov model estimates the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to exceed £40,000 for using candesartan in place of generic losartan. Candesartan reduces BP to a slightly greater extent when compared with losartan, however, such difference is unlikely to be cost-effective based on current acquisition costs, perceived NHS affordability thresholds and use of combination regimens. We could find no robust evidence supporting the superiority of candesartan over losartan in the treatment of heart failure. We therefore recommend using generic losartan as the ARB of choice which could save the UK NHS approximately £200 million per annum in drug costs.