Amino-Bisphosphonates and Cardiovascular Risk: A New Hypothesis Involving the Effects on Gamma-Delta T Cells

Cardiovascular Safety and Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates: From Intervention Trials to Real-Life Data

Both osteoporosis with related fragility fractures and cardiovascular diseases are rapidly outspreading worldwide. Since they are often coexistent in elderly patients and may be related to possible common pathogenetic mechanisms, the possible reciprocal effects of drugs employed to treat these diseases have to be considered in clinical practice. Bisphosphonates, the agents most largely employed to decrease bone fragility, have been shown to be overall safe with respect to cardiovascular diseases and even capable of reducing cardiovascular morbidity in some settings, as mainly shown by real life studies. No randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints are available. While contradictory results have emerged about a possible BSP-mediated reduction of overall mortality, it is undeniable that these drugs can be employed safely in patients with high fracture risk, since no increased mortality has ever been demonstrated. Although partial reassurance has emerged from meta-analysis assessing the risk of cardiac arrhythmias during bisphosphonates treatment, caution is warranted in administering this class of drugs to patients at risk for atrial fibrillation, possibly preferring other antiresorptives or anabolics, according to osteoporosis guidelines. This paper focuses on the complex relationship between bisphosphonates use and cardiovascular disease and possible co-management issues.

Assessment of Cardiovascular Safety of Anti-Osteoporosis Drugs

The incidence of osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease increases with age, and there are potentially shared mechanistic associations between the two conditions. It is therefore highly relevant to understand the cardiovascular implications of osteoporosis medications. These are presented in this narrative review. Calcium supplementation could theoretically cause atheroma formation via calcium deposition, and in one study was found to be associated with myocardial infarction, but this has not been replicated. Vitamin D supplementation has been extensively investigated for cardiac benefit, but no consistent effect has been found. Despite findings in the early 21st century that menopausal hormone therapy was associated with coronary artery disease and venous thromboembolism (VTE), this therapy is now thought to be potentially safe (from a cardiac perspective) if started within the first 10 years of the menopause. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are associated with increased risk of VTE and may be related to fatal strokes (a subset of total strokes). Bisphosphonates could theoretically provide protection against atheroma. However, data from randomised trials and observational studies have neither robustly supported this nor consistently demonstrated the potential association with atrial fibrillation. Denosumab does not appear to be associated with cardiovascular disease and, although parathyroid hormone analogues are associated with palpitations and dizziness, no association with a defined cardiovascular pathology has been demonstrated. Finally, romosozumab has been shown to have a possible cardiovascular signal, and therefore post-market surveillance of this therapy will be vital.

Benefits of Bisphosphonate Therapy: Beyond the Skeleton

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent evidence from clinical trials and observational studies raises the possibility that bisphosphonate use might confer a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer, resulting in a mortality benefit. This review summarizes clinical and preclinical studies examining the non-skeletal effects of bisphosphonates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from clinical trials are conflicting regarding whether or not bisphosphonates have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, or cancer incidence. No clinical trials have assessed these outcomes as primary endpoints, and most trials were shorter than 4 years. Observational data suggest that bisphosphonate users may have lower mortality, delayed progression of vascular calcification and atherosclerotic burden, and reduced incidence of breast and colorectal cancer compared to non-users. Preclinical studies confirm that bisphosphonates can be taken up by macrophages and monocytes, and nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have the ability to disrupt the mevalonate pathway within these cells. In this manner, bisphosphonates exert anti-atherogenic and anti-cancer effects. Bisphosphonates also appear to exert protective effects on vascular smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells and may have direct cytotoxic effects on cancer cells. The balance of evidence does not support bisphosphonate treatment for the primary purpose of improving non-skeletal outcomes, although appropriately designed controlled trials that further explore this possibility are both justified and required. Patients with skeletal indications for bisphosphonate therapy can be reassured that these agents are not associated with increased mortality, cardiovascular disease, or cancer incidence.

Zoledronate

Zoledronate is the most potent and most long-acting bisphosphonate in clinical use, and is administered as an intravenous infusion. Its major uses are in osteoporosis, Paget's disease, and in myeloma and cancers to reduce adverse skeletal related events (SREs). In benign disease, it is a first- or second-line treatment for osteoporosis, achieving anti-fracture efficacy comparable to that of the RANKL blocker, denosumab, over 3 years, and it reduces fracture risk in osteopenic older women. It is the preferred treatment for Paget's disease, achieving higher rates of remissions which are much more prolonged than with any other agent. Some trials have suggested that it reduces mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer, but these findings are not consistent across all studies. It is nephrotoxic, so should not be given to those with significant renal impairment, and, like other potent anti-resorptive agents, can cause hypocalcemia in patients with severe vitamin D deficiency, which should be corrected before administration. Its most common adverse effect is the acute phase response, seen in 30-40% of patients after their first dose, and much less commonly subsequently. Clinical trials in osteoporosis have not demonstrated increases in osteonecrosis of the jaw or in atypical femoral fractures. Observational databases are currently inadequate to determine whether these problems are increased in zoledronate users. Now available as a generic, zoledronate is a cost-effective agent for fracture prevention and for management of Paget's disease, but wider provision of infusion facilities is important to increase patient access. There is a need to further explore its potential for reducing cancer, cardiovascular disease and mortality, since these effects could be substantially more important than its skeletal actions.

Effects of Zoledronate on Cancer, Cardiac Events, and Mortality in Osteopenic Older Women

We recently showed that zoledronate prevented fractures in older women with osteopenia (hip T-scores between -1.0 and -2.5). In addition to fewer fractures, this study also suggested that women randomized to zoledronate had fewer vascular events, a lower incidence of cancer, and a trend to lower mortality. The present analysis provides a more detailed presentation of the adverse event data from that study, a 6-year, double-blind trial of 2000 women aged >65 years recruited using electoral rolls. They were randomly assigned to receive four infusions of either zoledronate 5 mg or normal saline at 18-month intervals. Supplements of vitamin D, but not calcium, were provided. There were 1017 serious adverse events in 443 participants in the placebo group, and 820 events in 400 participants in those randomized to zoledronate (relative risk = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00). These events included fractures resulting in hospital admission. Myocardial infarction occurred in 39 women (43 events) in the placebo group and in 24 women (25 events) in the zoledronate group (hazard ratio 0.60 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.00]; rate ratio 0.58 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94]). For a prespecified composite cardiovascular endpoint (sudden death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery revascularization, or stroke) 69 women had 98 events in the placebo group, and 53 women had 71 events in the zoledronate group (hazard ratio 0.76 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.08]; rate ratio 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.98]). Total cancers were significantly reduced with zoledronate (hazard ratio 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89]; rate ratio 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.89]), and this was significant for both breast cancers and for non-breast cancers. Eleven women had recurrent or second breast cancers during the study, all in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for death was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.40 to 1.06; p = 0.08), and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.87) in those without incident fragility fracture. These apparent beneficial effects justify further appropriately powered trials of zoledronate with these nonskeletal conditions as primary endpoints. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.