Primary outcome measures
fractures
SECONDARY, LUDWIG
In all, 82% (n=265) of patients had information on the MAI both at baseline and at the 12 month follow-up, and 87% (282) had information on prescribing omissions as assessed using the AOU for both time points (supplementary table A). Thirty seven per cent (119) of patients had an improvement in the MAI between baseline and the 12 month follow-up, and 12% (38) had an improvement in the number of prescribing omissions (supplementary table B). The development of the MAI score and the number of prescribing omissions are shown by time point in supplementary figures B-D and supplementary table D.The analyses compared the intervention and control groups. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the odds ratio for an improvement in the MAI score (decrease by ≥1 point) between baseline and the 12 month follow-up was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.87) and the odds ratio for an improvement in the AOU (≥1 prescribing omission less) was 0.90 (0.41 to 1.96) (Comparison of outcomes between intervention and control groupsAOU=Assessment of Underutilisation; CI=confidence interval; IRR=incident rate ratio; MAI=Medication Appropriateness Index; MD=mean difference; OR=odds ratio; VAS=visual analogue scale.This table is based on multiple imputed data. Additional descriptive information on secondary outcomes by study time point can be found in supplementary table M.Adjusted for respective baseline score.Owing to low number of fractures, only binary variable (yes/no) was considered.Calculated based on German value set for EQ-5D-5L by Ludwig et al.Measured by VAS of European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-VAS); values range from 0 to 100 with higher values indicating higher quality of life.In the strict per protocol analysis, the adjusted odds ratio for an improvement in the MAI score between baseline and the 12 month follow-up was 1.03 (0.59 to 1.77) and the odds ratio for an improvement in the AOU was 1.25 (0.44 to 3.56) (supplementary tables H and I). The relaxed per protocol analysis produced similar results.