With a $50 annual difference, check details every 20,000 users of alendronate or https://www.selleckchem.com/products/Roscovitine.html risedronate instead of etidronate costs the public system $1 million. The difference in costs between agents may be justifiable if one agent is more effective at reducing fracture risk. However, little comparative effectiveness data are available to support the superiority of any of the oral bisphosphonates in reducing fracture risk. To our knowledge, only a single study has directly compared the effects of etidronate to alendronate or risedronate in reducing fracture risk

[10]. Authors found little difference in hip fracture rates within 2 years between female fracture patients receiving etidronate compared to alendronate or risedronate (HR = 1.0, 95%; CI = 0.6–1.6) Vadimezan solubility dmso [10]. More data are needed to clarify the comparative effectiveness of oral bisphosphonates in reducing fracture risk. Many provinces in Canada continue to restrict access to alendronate and

risedronate through public drug plans. In the absence of clear evidence of superiority compared with etidronate—despite differences between agents based on placebo-controlled trials—it may be difficult for policy makers to justify the additional costs to the public healthcare system by covering second-generation bisphosphonates without restriction. Our study is subject to some limitations. First, we were limited to publicly funded drug claims in Ontario, restricting us from assessing drugs dispensed yet processed through private insurance or out-of-pocket. Thus, we are limited in ability to assess the use of medications that are not listed on the Ontario formulary such as calcitonin, teriparatide, and zoledronic acid, as well as alendronate and risedronate dispensing outside the public plan. Second, we are limited to pharmacy claims data and do not have a record of medications prescribed yet not dispensed in community pharmacies. Despite these limitations, our study Niclosamide has significant strength. We were

able to generate temporal trends in drug dispensing patterns and identify significant differences in osteoporosis pharmacotherapy between provinces in Canada related to drug coverage policies. BC recently broadened coverage for alendronate (November 2009) and risedronate (January 2011) to remove the need for a prior trial of etidronate. However, access to these second-generation bisphosphonates through BC PharmaCare still requires clinical or radiographically confirmed fracture or long-term glucocorticoid use. Our results identify that physicians prefer to prescribe following evidence-based guidelines that rank treatment as first-line (e.g., alendronate, risedroante) or second-line (e.g., etidronate) based on placebo-controlled efficacy in reducing fracture risk, with a shift toward alendronate and risedronate when available. Better evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of oral bisphosphonates is needed to inform drug policy decision making in Canada.