Comparison of the effects of three oral bisphosphonate therapies on the peripheral skeleton in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the TRIO study

The effects of denosumab on osteoclast precursors in postmenopausal women: a possible explanation for the overshoot phenomenon after discontinuation

Upon denosumab discontinuation, an observed overshoot phenomenon in bone turnover may occur, potentially leading to a reduction in bone mineral density and the occurrence of vertebral fractures. Several theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, one of which is that osteoclast precursors might be accumulating during treatment. Our aim was to study the effects of denosumab on osteoclast precursors in postmenopausal women. This cross-sectional observational study included 30 postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis, divided into 2 groups: 15 treated with denosumab (mean duration 4 years, range 6 months-9 years) and 15 treatment-naïve controls. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated from whole blood and were stained for CD14, MCSFR, CD11b, and TNFRII. Osteoclast precursors (CD14+/MCSFR+, CD14+/CD11b + OR CD14+/TNFRII+) were identified with fluorescent activated cell sorting. The proportion of osteoclasts was determined by calculating their percentage of the total cell population in each whole blood sample. To confirm the expected suppression of bone turnover in the subjects treated with denosumab, we measured serum PINP, CTX, and TRACP5b. Denosumab-treated patients exhibited a significantly higher count of CD14+/CD11b + osteoclast precursors compared with controls (median 4% vs 0.75%, p=.011). There was no correlation with the duration of treatment. Bone turnover markers were significantly lower in the group treated with denosumab than controls. Our findings indicate an increase in osteoclast precursors, which could explain the overshoot phenomenon observed after discontinuing denosumab.

Vitamin D and calcium supplementation in women undergoing pharmacological management for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a level I of evidence systematic review

The present systematic review investigates whether different doses of vitamin D and calcium supplementation in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis undergoing antiresorptive therapy have an association with BMD (spine, hip, femur neck), serum markers of osteoporosis (bone-ALP, NTX, CTX), the rate of pathological vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, adverse events, and mortality. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus databases were accessed in September 2024. All randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two or more treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis supplemented with vitamin D and/or calcium were accessed. Only studies that indicated daily vitamin D and/or calcium supplementation doses were accessed. Data from 37 RCTs (43,397 patients) were retrieved. Patients received a mean of 833.6 ± 224.0 mg and 92.8 ± 228.7 UI of calcium and vitamin D supplementation, respectively. The mean length of the follow-up was 25.8 ± 13.3 months. The mean age of the patients was 66.4 ± 5.6 years, and the mean BMI was 25.2 ± 1.6 kg/m2. There was evidence of a statistically significant negative association between daily vitamin D supplementation and gastrointestinal adverse events (r = - 0.5; P = 0.02) and mortality (r = - 0.7; P = 0.03). No additional statistically significant associations were evidenced. In postmenopausal women who undergo antiresorptive treatment for osteoporosis, vitamin D was associated with a lower frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events and mortality. Calcium supplementation did not evidence an association with any of the endpoints of interest.Level of evidence Level I, systematic review of RCTs.

Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

RATIONALE

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts (bone cells that break down bone tissue). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (which includes CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two trial registers, drug approval agency websites, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews to identify the studies included in this review. The latest search date was 01 February 2023. We imposed no restrictions on language, date, form of publication, or reported outcomes.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included only randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of alendronate on postmenopausal women. Targeted participants must have received at least one year of alendronate. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population met one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (-2.5 or lower), and 75 years old or older. If a study population met none of those criteria, we classified it as a primary prevention study.

OUTCOMES

Our major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 tool.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Based on the previous review experience, in which the clinical and methodological characteristics in the primary and secondary prevention studies were homogeneous, we used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis and estimated effects using the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. Our base case analyses included all eligible placebo-controlled studies with usable data. We selected the data available for the longest treatment period. We consider a relative change exceeding 15% as clinically important.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We included 119 studies, of which 102 studies provided data for quantitative synthesis. Of these, we classified 34 studies (15,188 participants) as primary prevention and 68 studies (29,577 participants) as secondary prevention. We had concerns about risks of bias in most studies. Selection bias was the most frequently overlooked domain, with only 20 studies (19%) describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Eight studies (8%) were at low risk of bias in all seven domains.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

The base case analyses included 16 primary prevention studies (one to five years in length; 10,057 women) and 20 secondary prevention studies (one to three years in length; 7375 women) which compared alendronate 10 mg/day (or 70 mg/week) to placebo, no treatment, or both. Indirectness, imprecision, and risk of bias emerged as the main factors contributing to the downgrading of the certainty of the evidence. For primary prevention, alendronate may lead to a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (16/1190 in the alendronate group versus 24/926 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.84; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 1.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence) and non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; ARR 1.6% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.3% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, clinically important differences were not observed for the following outcomes: hip fractures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; ARR 0.2% fewer, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 0.2% more; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.49; ARR 0.3% more, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 1.1% more; low-certainty evidence); withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; ARR 0.2% more, 95% CI 0.9% fewer to 1.5% more; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; ARR 0.5% more, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 2.8% more; low-certainty evidence). For secondary prevention, alendronate probably results in a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (24/1114 in the alendronate group versus 51/1055 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; ARR 2.7% fewer, 95% CI 3.5% fewer to 1.3% fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). It may lead to a clinically important reduction in non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; ARR 2.8% fewer, 95% CI 5.1% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); hip fractures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.96; ARR 1.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.5% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90; ARR 1.8% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96; ARR 3.5% fewer, 95% CI 5.8% fewer to 0.6% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, the effects of alendronate for withdrawals due to adverse events are uncertain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; ARR 0.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.7% fewer to 1.3% more; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, the updated evidence for the safety risks of alendronate suggests that, irrespective of participants' risk of fracture, alendronate may lead to little or no difference for gastrointestinal adverse events. Zero incidents of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture were observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For primary prevention, compared to placebo, alendronate 10 mg/day may reduce clinical vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, but it might make little or no difference to hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. For secondary prevention, alendronate probably reduces clinical vertebral fractures, and may reduce non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, and serious adverse events, compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of alendronate on withdrawals due to adverse events.

FUNDING

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

REGISTRATION

This review is an update of the previous review (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001155).

Diagnosis and Management of Atypical Femoral Fractures and Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in Patients with Osteoporosis

Anti-osteoporosis treatments reduce fracture risk but maybe associated with rare adverse events with long-term use such as atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). AFFs are rare but more likely with prolonged bisphosphonate use, whereas MRONJ incidence is higher in cancer patients on high-dose antiresorptive therapy. Following diagnosis, effective treatment options are available to manage both of these rare complications. An individualized treatment approach is advised with close monitoring.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study

Background

Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.

Objectives

1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.

Methods

The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.

Results

Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.

Conclusions

Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.

Future work

Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.

Limitations

Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Effect of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis on Treatment of Osteoporosis: Comparison of Three Oral Bisphosphonate Therapies

(1) Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causes uncomfortable neuropathic symptoms, which can negatively affect osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of LSS on bone mineral density (BMD) in patients treated with one of three oral bisphosphonates (ibandronate, alendronate and risedronate) for initially diagnosed osteoporosis. (2) Methods: We included 346 patients treated with oral bisphosphonates for three years. We compared annual BMD T-scores and BMD increases between the two groups according to symptomatic LSS. The therapeutic efficacies of the three oral bisphosphonates in each group were also evaluated. (3) Results: Annual and total increases in BMD were significantly greater in group I (osteoporosis) compared to group II (osteoporosis + LSS). The total increase in BMD for three years was significantly greater in the ibandronate and alendronate subgroups than that in the risedronate subgroup (0.49 vs. 0.45 vs. 0.25, p < 0.001). Ibandronate showed a significantly greater increase in BMD than that of risedronate in group II (0.36 vs. 0.13, p = 0.018). (4) Conclusions: Symptomatic LSS may interfere with the increase in BMD. Ibandronate and alendronate were more effective in treating osteoporosis than risedronate. In particular, ibandronate was more effective than risedronate in patients with both osteoporosis and LSS.

The clinical utility of TRACP-5b to monitor anti-resorptive treatments of osteoporosis

TRACP-5b can be used to monitor the response of treatments in osteoporosis. We investigated the effect of feeding on levels of TRACP-5b and how these markers perform in a clinical setting. After feeding, there was no effect on levels TRACP-5b. It has similar diagnostic accuracy to CTX and PINP.

INTRODUCTION

Bone turnover markers (BTMs) can be used to monitor response to osteoporosis treatment. However, some are affected by food intake and are not suitable to measure in a clinical setting. An assay is available which is capable of detecting the active isoform 5b of tartrate resistance acid phosphatase (TRACP-5b) and it may have minimal biological variation. Our aims were to investigate the effect of feeding on levels of TRACP-5b and compare this to CTX and PINP and then to compare the diagnostic accuracy of TRACP-5b to CTX and PINP in patients with osteoporosis given commonly used treatments.

METHODS

Eighteen patients were recruited to investigate the effect of feeding on BTMs. Ninety-seven patients (74 females and 23 males) receiving 5 mg annual intra-venous zoledronate (mean age 70) and 97 patients receiving no treatment were recruited as group-matched controls. Sixteen patients receiving 60 mg subcutaneous denosumab every 6 months, (mean age 76) and 16 matched controls were recruited. Seventy-six patients were receiving oral bisphosphonates: 70 mg alendronate weekly, 35 mg risedronate and 150 mg monthly ibandronate (4%). Thirty of these patients had BMD measured at the total hip and lumbar spine. An estimate of compliance was not determined. Eighty patients receiving no treatment were recruited as group-matched controls. TRACP-5b (ELISA, Nittobo) and CTX and PINP were measured in serum in the non-fasting state between 0800 and 1700.

RESULTS

After feeding, there was no effect on levels TRACP-5b and significant reductions in CTX and PINP, 29% and 10%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the zoledronate and denosumab groups, there were no differences in the areas under the curves (AUCs) between TRACP-5b, PINP and CTX. In the oral bisphosphonates group, the AUCs between TRACP-5b and PINP and TRACP-5b and CTX were significantly different, p < 0.01 and p = 0.001, respectively. TRACP-5b was negatively correlated with BMD.

CONCLUSION

TRACP-5b is not affected by food intake, unlike CTX and PINP. All three BTMs correlate with change in BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip. TRACP-5b has similar diagnostic accuracy to CTX and PINP with commonly used treatments for osteoporosis with the exception of oral bisphosphonate therapy.

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates for the Prevention of Fragility Fractures: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses

Bisphosphonates have been found to be effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, their comparative effectiveness in populations at risk has yet to be defined. In light of recent clinical trials, we aimed to compare four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and to identify which are the most effective for the prevention of fragility fractures. This is an update of a systematic review previously published as part of a NICE HTA report. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis, updating the estimates regarding the comparative effectiveness of the aforementioned bisphosphonates. Studies identified from published and unpublished sources between 2014 and 2021 were added to the studies identified in the previous review. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Outcomes were fractures, femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), mortality, and adverse events. We identified 25 additional trials, resulting in a total population of 47,007 participants. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment in preventing vertebral fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.28-0.49). Zoledronate (HR 0.71; 95% CrI, 0.61-0.81) and risedronate (HR 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.84) were found to be the most effective treatments in preventing nonvertebral fractures. All treatments were associated with increases in femoral neck BMD versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment mean difference (MD 4.02; 95% CrI, 3.2-4.84). There was a paucity of data regarding hip and wrist fractures. Depending on its cost-effectiveness, zoledronate could be considered a first-line option for people at increased risk of fragility fractures. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Guideline No. 422g: Menopause and Osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Provide strategies for improving the care of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women based on the most recent published evidence.

TARGET POPULATION

Perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Target population will benefit from the most recent published scientific evidence provided via the information from their health care provider. No harms or costs are involved with this information since women will have the opportunity to choose among the different therapeutic options for the management of the symptoms and morbidities associated with menopause, including the option to choose no treatment.

EVIDENCE

Databases consulted were PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for the years 2002-2020, and MeSH search terms were specific for each topic developed through the 7 chapters.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: physicians, including gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, internists, emergency medicine specialists; nurses, including registered nurses and nurse practitioners; pharmacists; medical trainees, including medical students, residents, fellows; and other providers of health care for the target population.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Early changes in bone turnover and bone mineral density after discontinuation of long-term oral bisphosphonates: a post hoc analysis

This post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind study of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis found that there were early increases in bone turnover markers and decreases in bone mineral density after discontinuation of long-term alendronate. These findings might help guide treatment decisions, including monitoring after alendronate withdrawal.

INTRODUCTION

The short-term effects of discontinuing long-term bisphosphonates are poorly characterized. This post hoc analysis investigated 1-12-month changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) after alendronate (ALN) discontinuation.

METHODS

Data were from a randomized, double-blind trial of MK-5442 (calcium-sensing receptor antagonist) following oral bisphosphonates, with placebo and continued ALN controls ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996801). Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis had received oral bisphosphonate (≥ 3-4 preceding years; ALN for the 12 months pre-screening), continuing on ALN 70 mg/week (n = 87) or placebo (n = 88).

RESULTS

At 12 months, least-squares mean percent changes from baseline BMD (placebo vs. ALN) were lumbar spine (LS): - 0.36 vs. 1.29, total hip: - 1.44 vs. 0.46, and femoral neck (FN): - 1.26 vs. - 0.08 (all P < 0.05). BTM levels increased by 1-3 months, to 12 months, with placebo vs. ALN (P < 0.001). FN BMD decline was greater in the placebo subgroup with higher urinary N-terminal cross-linked telopeptides of type I collagen/creatinine [uNTx/Cr] (P < 0.01), and higher serum N-terminal pro-peptide of type 1 collagen [P1NP] levels (P < 0.05), at baseline. There was a trend toward greater FN BMD loss with higher BTM levels at 3 and/or 6 months. Younger age and higher LS BMD at baseline were associated with greater LS BMD loss at 12 months (P = 0.04 and < 0.01, respectively); higher baseline FN BMD predicted greater FN BMD loss (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Early changes in BTM levels and BMD were observed after discontinuation of long-term ALN. Further characterization of factors associated with patients' risk of bone loss upon bisphosphonate discontinuation is warranted.

Effect of drugs on bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk with associated disability, morbidity and mortality. This Bayesian network meta-analysis compared the effects of current anti-osteoporosis drugs on bone mineral density.

Methods

The present systematic review and network meta-analysis follows the PRISMA extension statement to report systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions. The literature search was performed in June 2021. All randomised clinical trials that have investigated the effects of two or more drug treatments on BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. The network comparisons were performed through the STATA Software/MP routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method with standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for analysis.

Results

Data from 64 RCTs involving 82,732 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 29.7 ± 19.6 months. Denosumab resulted in a higher spine BMD (SMD −0.220; SE 3.379), followed by pamidronate (SMD −5.662; SE 2.635) and zoledronate (SMD −10.701; SE 2.871). Denosumab resulted in a higher hip BMD (SMD −0.256; SE 3.184), followed by alendronate (SMD −17.032; SE 3.191) and ibandronate (SMD −17.250; SE 2.264). Denosumab resulted in a higher femur BMD (SMD 0.097; SE 2.091), followed by alendronate (SMD −16.030; SE 1.702) and ibandronate (SMD −17.000; SE 1.679).

Conclusion

Denosumab results in higher spine BMD in selected women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab had the highest influence on hip and femur BMD.

Level of evidence

Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs

The predictive value of bone turnover markers during discontinuation of alendronate: the PROSA study

In patients discontinuing ALN after a median of 7.0 years (range 5.0-20.0 years), BMD decreased, and bone turnover markers increased within the premenopausal reference range over 2 years. Increased p-CTX after 3 months was associated with greater bone loss at the hip confirming that maintenance of BMD is dependent on continued suppression of bone turnover.

INTRODUCTION

It is unknown how to monitor patients discontinuing alendronate (ALN) after more than 5 years. We investigated if BTM measured before or during treatment discontinuation with ALN predict bone loss after 1 or 2 years.

METHODS

PROSA was a cohort study conducted at Aarhus University Hospital including postmenopausal women and men above 50 years treated with ALN ≥ 5 years who had osteopenia at the hip and BMD T-score at the lumbar spine > - 4. ALN was discontinued and BTMs were measured at baseline, months (M) 1, 3, 6, and 12, and DXA was performed at baseline, M6, and M12. We extended the study and measured BTMs and performed DXA at M24. The primary endpoint was if changes in p-CTX at M3 or M6 predict changes in THBMD after 1 year ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT03051620).

RESULTS

We enrolled 136 participants discontinuing ALN after a median of 7.0 years (range 5.0-20.0 years) in PROSA and 124 participants in PROSA Extension. There was a significant decrease in LSBMD - 0.74% ± 0.27, THBMD - 2.65% ± 0.39, FNBMD - 2.35% ± 0.33, and trabecular bone score - 0.97% ± 0.35 and an increase in p-CTX by 61.1% ± 4.7 (p < 0.05 for all) after 24 months. Increase in p-CTX at M3 was associated with bone loss at the hip sites at M12 and M24.

CONCLUSION

In patients discontinuing ALN, BMD decreased significantly and BTMs increased within the reference range over 2 years. An increase in p-CTX after 3 months was associated with greater bone loss at the hip confirming that maintenance of BMD during treatment discontinuation is dependent on continued suppression of bone turnover.

Potential of biomarkers during pharmacological therapy setting for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review

Background

Biochemical markers of bone turnover (BTMs), such as the bone alkaline phosphatase (bALP), procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP), serum cross-linked C-telopeptides of type I collagen (bCTx), and urinary cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx), are used to manage therapy monitoring in osteoporotic patients. This systematic review analyzed the potential of these BMTs in predicting the clinical outcomes in terms of BMD, t-score, rate of fractures, and adverse events during the therapy setting in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Methods

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting data on biomarkers for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. Only articles reporting quantitative data on the level of biomarkers at baseline and on the outcomes of interest at the last follow-up were eligible.

Results

A total of 36,706 patients were retrieved. Greater values of bALP were associated with a greater rate of vertebral (P = 0.001) and non-vertebral fractures (P = 0.0001). Greater values of NTx at baseline were associated with a greater rate of adverse events at the last follow-up (P = 0.02). Greater values of CTx at baseline were associated with a greater rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation (P = 0.04), gastrointestinal adverse events (P = 0.0001), musculoskeletal adverse events (P = 0.04), and mortality (P = 0.04). Greater values of PINP at baseline were associated with greater rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (P = 0.02) at the last follow-up.

Conclusion

The present analysis supports the adoption of BMTs during pharmacological therapy setting of patients suffering from osteoporosis.

Level of evidence

I, systematic review of RCTs

Biomarkers as therapy monitoring for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review

Background

Biochemical markers of bone turnover (BTMs), such as bone alkaline phosphatase (bALP), procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP), serum cross-linked C-telopeptides of type I collagen (bCTx), and urinary cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx), are commonly used for therapy monitoring purposes for osteoporotic patients. The present study evaluated the potential role of BTMs as therapy monitoring.

Methods

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two or more pharmacological treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. Only studies that reported the value of bALP, PINP, bCTx, and NTx at last follow-up were included. A multivariate analysis was performed to assess associations between these biomarkers and clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. A multiple linear model regression analysis through the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used.

Results

A total of 16 RCTs (14,446 patients) were included. The median age was 67 years, and the median BMI 25.4 kg/m². The median vertebral BMD was 0.82, hip BMD 0.79, and femur BMD 0.64 g/cm². The ANOVA test found optimal within-group variance concerning mean age, body mass index, and BMD. Greater bALP was associated with lower femoral BMD (P = 0.01). Greater NTx was associated with a greater number of non-vertebral fractures (P = 0.02). Greater NTx was associated with greater rate of therapy discontinuation (P = 0.04). No other statistically significant associations were detected.

Conclusion

Our analysis supports the adoption of BTMs in therapy monitoring of osteoporotic patients.

Level of evidence

Level I, systematic review of RCTs.

Pharmacological Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: a Level I Evidence Based - Expert Opinion

Objectives: Postmenopausal osteoporosis carries a high risk of fractures, which decrease quality of life and are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. The best pharmacological treatment options to manage and prevent osteoporotic fractures remain still unclear. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of the most commonly employed drugs in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Methods: Only RCTs comparing different drugs for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis were included. Data from 76 RCTs (205,011 patients) were collected. The mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 14.9 months. Results: Denosumab reported the lowest rate of non-vertebral fractures (LOR -1.57), Romosozumab the lowest rate of vertebral fractures (LOR 1.99), and Ibandronate the lowest rate of hip fractures (LOR0.18). Serious adverse events resulted in the lowest in the Raloxifene group (LOR 3.11), while those leading to study discontinuation were lowest in the Romosozumab cohort (LOR 2.65). Conclusions: Denosumab resulted in most effective, particularly in reducing the occurrence of non-vertebral fractures. Romosozumab and Ibandronate resulted best to prevent, respectively, vertebral fractures and hip fractures. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation were less frequent in the Romosozumab and Denosumab groups, while Raloxifene and Alendronate showed a lower incidence of serious adverse events overall. Level of evidence: I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.

History of risedronate

Herein we review the discovery, development, commercial history and legacy of risedronate or NE-58095, a potent N-containing bisphosphonate developed by scientists at the Cincinnati Miami Valley Laboratories and the Norwich Eaton Laboratories of Procter and Gamble. It is characterized by a hydroxyl substituent (R₁) and a pyridyl-methylene substituent (R₂) at the carbon bridging two phosphonate moieties. It was shown to have greater potency than alendronate in cell-based systems while binding affinity to bone matrix was lower than alendronate, accounting for the relatively rapid offset of bone turnover inhibition when therapy is discontinued. Risedronate was shown to significantly reduce serum alkaline phosphatase and clinical features in patients with Paget's disease and was approved for this indication, at a dose of 30 mg daily for 2 months, in 1998. Formal dose response testing for treatment of osteoporosis was not performed. In large Phase 3 studies, 5 mg risedronate daily increased bone mineral density more than did the 2.5 mg dose. As a result, the 2.5 mg dose was dropped from most of the Phase 3 studies after 12 months. The 5 mg daily dose was approved for treating and preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in 2000. The drug was subsequently approved for treating men with osteoporosis. Following the leads of other companies, weekly and monthly preparations were developed and approved, based on non-inferiority BMD studies vs the 5 mg daily oral dose as was a unique dosing regimen of 75 mg given on 2 consecutive days each month. Finally, to overcome the effect of food on limiting the already poor gastrointestinal absorption of the drug, a once-weekly oral preparation containing the chelating agent EDTA and with an enteric coating delaying dissolution until the tablet was in the small intestine was approved in 2010 to be administered after breakfast. The Alliance for Better Bone Health, a collaboration between Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals and sanofi-aventis U.S. was formed to market risedronate as Actonel® and, subsequently, Actonel-EC® or Atelvia®. These drugs are still marketed by sanofi-aventis in some countries. The sale of the pharmaceutical division of Procter & Gamble to Warner Chilcott (US) was based, in large part, on the perceived value and marketability of the risedronate drugs. When marketing targets of Warner-Chilcott were not met, the rights of risedronate were sold to Allergan USA, Inc. which never actively promoted the drug. Generic forms of risedronate were introduced into the United States in 2015 but are rarely used, although several generic forms are actively marketed in other countries.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.

LIMITATIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Anti-fracture Efficacy of Monthly Risedronate Compared with That of Weekly Risedronate in Postmenopausal Korean Women with Osteoporosis: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

Intermittent dosing regimens for oral risedronate (once-monthly and once-weekly) were developed for patient convenience. While several studies have reported the anti-fracture efficacy of weekly dosing, few have assessed monthly dosing. The lower efficacy of monthly dosing has been previously suggested. The aim of this study was to compare the anti-fracture efficacy of monthly and weekly dosing.

Methods

We obtained information from the Korea National Health Insurance Service database from 2012 to 2017 of Korean women of ≥50 years of age who used weekly or monthly risedronate. We compared the time of occurrence of the first osteoporotic fracture after the first prescription of risedronate. Using a Cox proportional model, we assessed incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fractures at any site, and the hip, vertebral, and non-vertebral sites between both regimens. Propensity score weighting was used to balance the treatment groups.

Results

The study populations were distributed according to dosing frequency (monthly, 27,329; weekly, 47,652). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of new fractures in any site (IRR, 1.008; 95% CI,0.963–1.055; P=0.737), hip (IRR, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.769–1.298; P=0.996), vertebral (IRR, 0.962; 95% CI, 0.890–1.040; P=0.330), or non-vertebral (1.022; 95% CI, 0.968–1.078; P=0.439) sites between monthly and weekly risedronate.

Conclusion

The anti-fracture efficacy at any site and the examined individual sites was similar for the monthly and weekly risedronate regimens. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are required for confirmation.

The Belgian Bone Club 2020 guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

PURPOSE

To provide updated evidence-based guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in Belgium.

METHODS

The Belgian Bone Club (BBC) gathered a guideline developer group. Nine "Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome" (PICO) questions covering screening, diagnosis, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, and monitoring were formulated. A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was performed to find network meta-analyses, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, guidelines, and recommendations from scientific societies published in the last 10 years. Manual searches were also performed. Summaries of evidence were provided, and recommendations were further validated by the BBC board members and other national scientific societies' experts.

RESULTS

Of the 3840 references in the search, 333 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 129 met the inclusion criteria. Osteoporosis screening using clinical risk factors should be considered. Patients with a recent (<2 years) major osteoporotic fracture were considered at very high and imminent risk of future fracture. The combination of bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and 10-year fracture risk was used to categorize patients as low or high risk. Patient education, the combination of weight-bearing and resistance training, and optimal calcium intake and vitamin D status were recommended. Antiresorptive and anabolic osteoporosis treatment should be considered for patients at high and very high fracture risk, respectively. Follow-up should focus on compliance, and patient-tailored monitoring should be considered.

CONCLUSION

BBC guidelines and 25 guideline recommendations bridge the gap between research and clinical practice for the screening, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis.

The effect of bisphosphosphonates on bone turnover and bone balance in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: The T-score bone marker approach in the TRIO study

Postmenopausal osteoporosis is characterised by increased bone turnover and an imbalance between bone resorption and formation. Bisphosphonate treatment reduces bone turnover but their effect on bone balance is yet to be fully investigated. Using the T-score approach our aims were to: i) investigate the effects of oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on bone balance and turnover in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and ii) determine the relationship of the change in bone balance and turnover with the change in BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip. Women were recruited, mean age 67 years, and randomised to receive: ibandronate (n = 55, 150 mg/month), alendronate (n = 54, 70 mg/week) or risedronate (n = 56, 35 mg/week). They also received calcium and vitamin D daily. A fasting serum sample was collected at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 48 and 96. The control group were 226 healthy premenopausal women receiving no treatments. PINP and CTX were measured using the iSYSIDS analyser and BMD (in g/cm2) of the lumbar spine and total hip were measured by DXA (Hologic Inc). PINP and CTX values were log10-transformed and normalised. T-scores were calculated using the mean and standard deviation from the premenopausal group. Bone turnover and bone balance were calculated from the T-scores. Mean levels (95% CI) of balance and turnover are shown in the table. The change in turnover at weeks 4, 12 and 48 was inversely correlated with the change in lumbar spine and total hip BMD at weeks 48 and 96, (p < .01 to p < .001). The change in balance at week 4 positively correlated with the change in total hip BMD at weeks 48, (p < .01). Bisphosphonates resulted in an initial positive balance and a reduction in turnover. Some of these changes were associated with increases in BMD. Bone turnover is a better predictor of BMD than bone balance.

Radiographic and functional outcomes of bisphosphonate use in lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

PURPOSE

To date, there are conflicting reports with no consensus on the influence of bisphosphonates on lumbar fusion. The goal of this study was to compare the radiographic and functional outcomes of patients that had lumbar fusion with and without bisphosphonates.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple medical reference databases was conducted for studies comparing bisphosphonate use to controls following spinal fusion. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Radiographic outcome measures included fusion rates and risk of screw loosening, cage subsidence and vertebral fracture. Functional outcomes measures included Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale score for back and leg pain.

RESULTS

Bisphosphonate use was statistically suggestive of a higher fusion rate compared to controls (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.87-5.56, p = 0.09). There was no difference in screw loosening rates between the bisphosphonate group and controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14-1.48, p = 0.19). However, bisphosphonate use was associated with decreased odds of cage subsidence and vertebral fractures compared to controls (cage subsidence: OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.75, p = 0.01; vertebral fracture: OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.48, p = 0.0007).

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonate use does not appear to impair successful lumbar fusion compared to controls. Additionally, bisphosphonate use was associated with decreased odds of cage subsidence and vertebral fractures compared to controls that had lumbar fusion. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate on the low responders to oral bisphosphonate: the MOVEMENT study

The MOVEMENT study was designed to assess the effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate on bone mineral density (BMD) in daily clinical practice in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis whose lumbar spine BMD did not increase despite oral bisphosphonate therapy. This study was a multicenter, prospective, interventional study (52 sites; August 2015 to March 2018). Patients aged ≥ 50 years with primary osteoporosis, evaluated as low responders to oral bisphosphonate treatment for 1-3 years, continued on their existing oral bisphosphonate or switched to monthly intravenous ibandronate (1 mg) for 12 months. The primary endpoint was change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline to 12 months in the intravenous ibandronate group (IV IBN). A total of 240 and 141 patients were enrolled in the IV IBN and oral bisphosphonate groups (OBP), respectively. At 12 months, a significant increase in mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was observed in the IV IBN (2.70%). This change was also significant at 6 months (1.92%). Similarly, the change in total hip BMD showed a significant increase at 12 months (0.78%). In the IV IBN, the responder rate, percentage of patient whose change from baseline of lumbar spine BMD has greater than 0%, for lumbar spine BMD was high at both 6 (72.3%, 141/195 patients) and 12 (78.0%, 145/186 patients) months. No new safety concerns were observed in either treatment group. Treatment with intravenous ibandronate significantly increased lumbar spine BMD without any new safety concerns in Japanese patients with osteoporosis who showed low response to existing oral bisphosphonates.

Distinct biomarkers for different bones in osteoporosis with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is known to cause secondary osteoporosis and fragility fractures. This study aimed to identify biomarkers predictive of bone mineral density (BMD) change at three anatomical sites in patients with RA.

Methods

We conducted a prospective longitudinal study in patients with RA. In 2012, we recruited 379 patients from an RA cohort, 329 of whom underwent evaluation of blood and urine biomarkers together with measurement of BMD in the lumbar spine, proximal femur, and distal forearm. The BMD in these three regions was reassessed in 2014. We performed multivariate linear regression analysis to identify those factors associated with BMD change.

Results

The averages of age, body mass index, and disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) at baseline were 63.2 (minimum to maximum, 32–85), 21.3 (12.3–30.0), and 3.2 (0.1–5.9), respectively. Univariate analysis showed that the annual BMD change was significantly associated with the use of steroid, bisphosphonate (BP) or vitamin D (VitD), and serum homocysteine in the lumber spine; DAS28, the use of BP or VitD, CRP, and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) in the proximal femur; and the dosage of MTX, the use of BP or VitD, and serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) in the distal forearm, respectively.

Conclusions

Predictive biomarkers for BMD change in RA patients differ at each anatomical site. Practitioners should treat each anatomical site with different markers and prescribe osteoporosis drugs to prevent fractures for RA patients.

Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to formulate clinical practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from clinical trials and insights from clinical experience with pharmacologic therapies for osteoporosis were critically evaluated in formulating this guideline for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Patient preferences, data on adherence and persistence, and risks and benefits from the patient and provider perspectives were also considered in writing committee deliberations. A consensus by the Writing Committee members was achieved for four management principles: (i) The risk of future fractures in postmenopausal women should be determined using country-specific assessment tools to guide decision-making. (ii) Patient preferences should be incorporated into treatment planning. (iii) Nutritional and lifestyle interventions and fall prevention should accompany all pharmacologic regimens to reduce fracture risk. (iv) Multiple pharmacologic therapies are capable of reducing fracture rates in postmenopausal women at risk with acceptable risk-benefit and safety profiles.

Clinical utility of bone turnover markers in monitoring the withdrawal of treatment with oral bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporosis

Bone markers may be useful to monitor response to treatment withdrawal in osteoporosis. We used two criteria for investigating the change in BTMs after withdrawal of bisphosphonate treatment. A larger increase in BTMs was associated with greater bone loss. Bone markers may be useful in monitoring of patients taking a pause from treatment.

INTRODUCTION

Measurement of bone turnover markers (BTMs) may be useful to monitor offset of treatment with bisphosphonates (BP) in osteoporosis. We assessed the effect of withdrawal of BP treatment by comparing the changes in BTMs and total hip (TH) bone density (BMD).

METHODS

We studied postmenopausal osteoporotic women who had completed a randomised study of three oral BPs. After 2 years of treatment, participants with BMD T-score > - 2.5 and in whom it was considered clinically appropriate to discontinue treatment, were invited to participate in a further 2-year observational study. Biochemical response was assessed using BTMs (CTX and PINP) with offset being defined by two criteria: (1) an increase greater than the least significant change (LSC) and (2) an increase above the reference mean value.

RESULTS

Fifty women completed the study. At 48 weeks after stopping BPs, CTX was greater than the LSC for 66% of women and PINP 72%; CTX was above the reference mean for 64% of women and PINP 42%. The decrease in THBMD was greater for women with the largest increase in BTM compared to those with continued suppression (mean difference for CTX was - 2.98%, 95%CI - 4.75 to - 1.22, P < 0.001, PINP - 2.25%, 95% CI - 4.46 to - 0.032, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

The measurement of BTM after withdrawal of BPs is potentially useful to evaluate patients that are taking a pause from treatment. An increase in BTMs more than the LSC and/or reference mean reflects loss of treatment effect and identifies patients that are likely to have a decrease in BMD. Such changes could provide an indication for reintroduction of treatment.

Effects of eldecalcitol and ibandronate on secondary osteoporosis and muscle wasting in rats with adjuvant-induced arthritis

Objectives

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by chronic inflammation of the synovium, progressive erosion of the articular cartilage, and joint destruction. RA also causes secondary osteoporosis and muscle wasting. We investigated the effects of ibandronate (IBN), a bisphosphonate; eldecalcitol (ELD), an active vitamin D3 derivative; and combination treatment with both agents on secondary osteoporosis and muscle wasting using adjuvant-induced arthritis rats.

Methods

Arthritis was induced in 8-week-old male Lewis rats. Rats were randomized into 4 treatment groups and an untreated normal control group: IBN (subcutaneously, once every 2 weeks, 10 μg/kg), ELD (orally, once daily, 30 ng/kg/day), IBN + ELD, vehicle, and control. Paw thickness measurements were performed for evaluation of arthritis. The femur was scanned using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Cross-sectional areas of left tibialis and anterior muscle fibers and the expression of MuRF1, atrogin-1, MyoD, and myogenin in the gastrocnemius muscle were measured to evaluate muscle wasting.

Results

IBN and/or ELD increased bone mineral density (BMD) in the femur. In addition, there was an additive effect of combination treatment compared with single treatments for BMD. However, IBN and/or ELD did not inhibit muscle wasting in adjuvant-induced arthritis rats.

Conclusions

Combination treatment with IBN and ELD may be effective for secondary osteoporosis associated with RA. Other treatments are necessary for muscle wasting associated with RA. Studies in humans are needed to confirm these findings.

Monthly Intramuscular Neridronate for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: Results of a 6-Year Prospective Italian Study

PURPOSE

Oral bisphosphonates (BPs) are the most commonly used medications for osteoporosis (OP), but their poor gastrointestinal (GI) absorption and tolerance hamper compliance. Intramuscular (IM) neridronate (NE), an amino-BP, is an easy-to-administer, effective, and safe alternative to oral BPs. We assessed the 6-year effects of monthly IM NE on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover biomarkers (BMs) in postmenopausal OP.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective study enrolled postmenopausal osteoporotic outpatients with gastric intolerance to BPs (based on Tuscany Region's law GRT n. 836 20/10/2008). They received 25 mg IM NE once a month (with vitamin D and calcium if necessary) for 6 years. BMD was evaluated at lumbar spine (L1-L4), femoral neck (FN), and total femur (TF) at baseline (BL) and every 12 months afterwards. At BL, month 3, and every 12 months after BL, total and ionized calcium, vitamin D, parathyroid hormone 1-84, bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP), osteocalcin, and N- and C-terminal telopeptides were assayed.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 women (mean age: 62.3 ± 7.5 years) received monthly IM NE for 6 years, with vitamin D and calcium supplementation in 81.3% of cases. Compared to BL, BMD increased significantly already after 1 year at all sites (4.5 ± 0.9% for L1-L4, 4.5 ± 0.8% for TF, and 2.1 ± 0.6% for FN, P ≤ 0.05), and the changes were maintained over time, whereas FN further improved up to year 3 and remained stable afterwards (P ≤ 0.05). All BMs, except for total calcium and BALP, progressively decreased over time (P ≤ 0.05). No fractures and significant adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

The monthly administration of IM NE represents a manageable and effective option, in terms of BMD and bone BM improvement, for the long-term treatment of postmenopausal OP women with gastric intolerance to BPs. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03699150.

Improvement of bone microarchitecture in methylprednisolone induced rat model of osteoporosis by using thiolated chitosan-based risedronate mucoadhesive film

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated the potential of thiolated chitosan-based mucoadhesive film, loaded with risedronate sodium in the treatment of osteoporosis.

SIGNIFICANCE

Risedronate sodium is a bisphosphonate derivative having very low bioavailability when administered through the oral route. Moreover, the adverse effects associated with the drug when administered through GIT necessitate an alternative and feasible route which can improve its bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy.

METHODS

Thiolation of chitosan was interpreted by different analytical techniques. The mucoadhesive films were prepared by the solvent evaporation method and evaluated for drug content analysis, swelling degree, mucoadhesive parameters, and permeation characterization. For the screening of preclinical efficacy and pharmacodynamic parameters, a methylprednisolone induced osteoporotic rat model was used. The trabecular microarchitecture and biochemical markers were evaluated for determination of bone resorption.

RESULTS

The different analytical characterization of synthesized thiolated chitosan revealed that chitosan was successfully incorporated with thiol groups. The formulation containing 2:1 ratio of thiolated chitosan and HPMC-4KM was found to have the maximum swelling degree, mucoadhesive strength with a good force of adhesion and better in vitro permeability compared to the marketed formulation. With respect to trabecular microarchitecture, the drug-loaded film formulation showed superior and promising results. Furthermore, the film formulation also improved the serum level of biomarkers better than the marketed formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results significantly suggest that risedronate loaded novel mucoadhesive film formulation could be a logical approach in the therapeutic intervention of osteoporosis.

Effects of discontinuing oral bisphosphonate treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis on bone turnover markers and bone density

The antiresorptive potency varies between different bisphosphonates. We investigated the effect of stopping oral bisphosphonate treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis (ibandronate, alendronate, risedronate) on BTMs and BMD. After stopping treatment, all three groups showed an increase in BTMs and a decrease in hip BMD; however, none returned to pre-treatment baseline values.

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates (BPs) continue to suppress bone turnover markers (BTMs) after treatment has stopped, leading to the suggestion that a pause in treatment could be considered for low-risk patients. Indirect comparisons suggest that after cessation of treatment, the effects on bone may differ between drugs. We investigated the effects of stopping oral BP treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis on BTMs and bone mineral density (BMD).

METHODS

We studied postmenopausal osteoporotic women who had previously taken part in a 2-year randomised study of three oral BPs (ibandronate, alendronate, or risedronate). At the end of the study, women with hip BMD T-score > - 2.5 and considered clinically appropriate to discontinue treatment were invited to participate in a further 2-year observational study. Biochemical response was assessed using BTMs, and BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

RESULTS

All BTMs increased after treatment withdrawal but remained below the pre-treatment baseline with less suppression of BTMs for the risedronate group compared to alendronate and ibandronate up to 48 weeks. There was no difference between the BP groups 96 weeks after stopping treatment. The change in BMD during the 96 weeks after stopping treatment was - 1.6% (95% CI - 1.9 to - 1.2, P < 0.001) for the total hip and - 0.6% (95% CI - 1.1 to - 0.2, P = 0.17) at the lumbar spine with no difference between the three BP groups (P = 0.85 and P = 0.48, respectively).

CONCLUSION

For all treatment groups, there was an increase in BTMs and a decrease in hip BMD after stopping BPs for 2 years; however, none returned to pre-treatment baseline values.

Randomized clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of brand versus generic alendronate (Bonmax®) for osteoporosis treatment

Introduction

Although the same efficacy and tolerability are anticipated due to both drugs containing the same active ingredients, comparative studies between brand and generic alendronate are limited. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety between brand alendronate and a recently introduced generic alendronate drug.

Methods

A total of 140 postmenopausal women or men aged older than 50 years who met the indications for osteoporosis treatment were randomized to receive either generic (Bonmax^®) or brand alendronate (Fosamax^®) 70 mg/week over a 12-month period during the May 2014 to June 2015 study period. Endpoints included bone mineral density (BMD) changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck; percentage of patients with predefined levels of change in total hip and lumbar spine BMD at 12 months; and, changes in biochemical bone markers at 3, 6, and 12 months. Tolerability was evaluated by patient self-reporting of adverse experiences.

Results

At 12 months post-treatment, BMD significantly increased at all sites in both groups. There were no differences in BMD percentage changes or the number of patients with stable or increased BMD after 1 year between groups. No significant differences in the amount of biochemical bone marker reduction or incidence of adverse events were observed between groups.

Conclusions

Generic and brand alendronate produced similar gains in BMD and reduction in bone turnover markers. Both medicadoitions were also equally well-tolerated. Based on these findings, generic alendronate (Bonmax^®) is a viable alternative to the original brand of alendronate.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02371252

The efficacy and safety of vertebral fracture prevention therapies in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment: Which therapies work best? a network meta-analysis

Objectives

Osteoporosis has become an increasing concern for older people as it may potentially lead to osteoporotic fractures. This study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ten therapies for post-menopausal women using network meta-analysis.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in several databases, including PubMed and Embase. A random-effects model was employed and results were assessed by the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Furthermore, with respect to each outcome, each intervention was ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value.

Results

With respect to preventing new vertebral fractures (NVF), all ten drugs outperformed placebo, and etidronate proved to be the most effective treatment (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.39). In addition, zoledronic acid and parathyroid hormone ranked higher compared with the other drugs. With respect to preventing clinical vertebral fractures (CVF), zoledronic acid proved to be the most effective drug (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.92), with denosumab as a desirable second option (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96), when both were compared with placebo. As for adverse events (AE) and severe adverse events (SAE), no significant difference was observed. According to SUCRA, etidronate ranked first in preventing CVF; parathyroid hormone and zoledronic acid ranked highly in preventing NVF and CVF. Raloxifene was safe with a high rank in preventing AEs and SAEs though performed unsatisfactorily in efficacy.

Conclusions

This study suggests that, taking efficacy and safety into account, parathyroid hormone and zoledronic acid had the highest probability of satisfactory performance in preventing osteoporotic fractures.

Cite this article: G. Wang, L. Sui, P. Gai, G. Li, X. Qi, X. Jiang. The efficacy and safety of vertebral fracture prevention therapies in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment: Which therapies work best? a network meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:452–463. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2016-0292.R1.

Recent advances in the management of osteoporosis

There has been substantial progress in the management of patients with osteoporosis and the prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Currently available strong anti-resorptive agents are bisphosphonates and an anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) antibody, denosumab. Although bisphosphonates and denosumab both inhibit bone resorption and prevent vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, their mechanisms of action are different. Whereas bisphosphonates’ effects on bone mineral density and fracture peak around 3 to 5 years and become plateaued, those of denosumab are maintained for up to 10 years. There are differences in the modes of action of these two drugs. Bisphosphonates accumulate on the mineralized bone surface and are released by the acid environment under osteoclastic bone resorption, whereas denosumab is not accumulated on bone but directly binds RANKL and inhibits its binding to the receptor RANK. Thus, the reduction in denosumab concentration 4 to 6 months after injection may enable RANK to bind to RANKL, where it is highly expressed, such as in damaged bone regions. As anabolic agents, only teriparatide has been available for a long time, but abaloparatide, a synthetic analog of PTHrP(1–34), is currently under development. Because of the difference in the preferential binding conformations of PTH1 receptor between teriparatide and abaloparatide, the latter shows anabolic effects with fewer bone resorptive effects. Romosozumab, an anti-sclerostin antibody, inhibits the action of sclerostin, a canonical Wnt signal inhibitor secreted from osteocytes, and enhances canonical Wnt signaling. Romosozumab robustly increases vertebral and proximal femoral bone mineral density within 12 months and inhibits vertebral and clinical fractures in patients with osteoporosis by enhancing bone formation and inhibiting bone resorption. In this review, we summarize the recent advances in therapeutic agents for the treatment of osteoporosis and discuss future prospects with their use.

Alfacalcidol Increases the Therapeutic Efficacy of Ibandronate on Bone Mineral Density in Japanese Women with Primary Osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates (BPs) increase bone mineral density (BMD) through the inhibition of osteoclast activity. Among BPs, ibandronate (IBN) is a strong inhibitor of bone resorption. However, the effects of a vitamin D analogue, alfacalcidol (ALF), on IBN treatment for osteoporosis is unknown. Fifty-three treatment-naïve post-menopausal women with primary osteoporosis were recruited and divided into IBN-treatment group (IBN group) and IBN with ALF group (IBN/ALF group). IBN (1.0 mg) was intravenously injected once a month, with or without oral ALF (1.0 μg/day). Ultimately, 19 subjects in IBN group and 26 in IBN/ALF group were analyzed. Bone turnover markers were examined at 4, 6, 12, and 18 months, and BMD was measured at 6, 12, and 18 months. Compared with pre-treatment, bone turnover markers significantly decreased in both groups after 4 months. The levels of serum N-terminal propeptide of type-1 procollagen and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b, and urinary N-terminal telopeptide of type-I collagen were significantly lower in IBN/ALF group than those in IBN group at 12 months. Lumbar 1-4 (L)-BMD significantly increased from 6 months in IBN/ALF group and at 18 months in IBN group. L-BMD was significantly higher in IBN/ALF group (6.6% increase) than in IBN group (3.4%) at 18 months. Total hip (H)-BMD significantly increased from 6 months in IBN/ALF group and tended to improve in IBN group. H-BMD was significantly higher in IBN/ALF group (4.8%) than in IBN group (3.2%) at 18 months. In conclusion, treatment with ALF in combination with IBN improves BMD in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis.

International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Calcified Tissue Society Working Group. Recommendations for the screening of adherence to oral bisphosphonates

Adherence to oral bisphosphonates is low. A screening strategy is proposed based on the response of biochemical markers of bone turnover after 3 months of therapy. If no change is observed, the clinician should reassess the adherence to the treatment and also other potential issues with the drug.

INTRODUCTION

Low adherence to oral bisphosphonates is a common problem that jeopardizes the efficacy of treatment of osteoporosis. No clear screening strategy for the assessment of compliance is widely accepted in these patients.

METHODS

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and the European Calcified Tissue Society have convened a working group to propose a screening strategy to detect a lack of adherence to these drugs. The question to answer was whether the bone turnover markers (BTMs) PINP and CTX can be used to identify low adherence in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis initiating oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. The findings of the TRIO study specifically address this question and were used as the basis for testing the hypothesis.

RESULTS

Based on the findings of the TRIO study, specifically addressing this question, the working group recommends measuring PINP and CTX at baseline and 3 months after starting therapy to check for a decrease above the least significant change (decrease of more than 38% for PINP and 56% for CTX). Detection rate for the measurement of PINP is 84%, for CTX 87% and, if variation in at least one is considered when measuring both, the level of detection is 94.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

If a significant decrease is observed, the treatment can continue, but if no decrease occurs, the clinician should reassess to identify problems with the treatment, mainly low adherence.

Measurement and Clinical Utility of βCTX in Serum and Plasma

Biochemical markers of bone turnover (BTM) are released during bone remodeling and can be measured in blood or urine as noninvasive surrogate markers for the bone remodeling rate. The C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide of type I collagen (βCTX) is released during bone resorption and is specific to bone tissue. Assays have been developed to measure βCTX in blood and in urine; most current use of βCTX measurement for research and in clinical practice is performed on a blood sample. Method-specific differences for serum and plasma βCTX have led to initiatives to standardize or harmonize βCTX commercial assays. βCTX demonstrates significant biological variation due to circadian rhythm and effect of food which can be minimized by standardized sample collection in the fasting state in the morning. While βCTX predicts fracture risk independent of bone mineral density, lack of data has precluded its inclusion in fracture risk calculators. The changes seen in βCTX with antiresorptive therapies have been well characterized and this has led to its widespread use for monitoring therapy in osteoporosis. However, more fracture-based data on appropriate treatment goals for monitoring need to be developed. Evidence is lacking for the use of βCTX in managing "drug holidays" of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis or risk stratifying those at increased risk of developing osteonecrosis of the jaw. βCTX is useful as an adjunct to imaging techniques for the diagnosis of Paget's disease of bone and for monitoring therapy and detecting recurrence. βCTX also shows promise in the management of metastatic bone disease.

The effect of bisphosphonate treatment on osteoclast precursor cells in postmenopausal osteoporosis: The TRIO study

Bisphosphonates are used to treat bone disease characterised by increased bone resorption by inhibiting the activity of mature osteoclasts, resulting in decreased bone turnover. Bisphosphonates may also reduce the population of osteoclast precursor cells. Our aims were to investigate the effect of bisphosphonates on i) osteoclast precursor cells and ii) circulating cytokine and cytokine receptor in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis compared with healthy premenopausal women. Participants were 62 postmenopausal women (mean age 66) from a 48-week parallel group trial of bisphosphonates. They received ibandronate 150mg/month (n=22), alendronate 70mg/week (n=19) or risedronate 35mg/week (n=21). Fasting blood was collected at baseline, weeks 1 and 48. At baseline, blood was also collected from 25 healthy premenopausal women (mean age 37) to constitute a control group. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were extracted and stained for CD14, M-CSFR, CD11b and TNFRII receptors. Flow cytometry was used to identify cells expressing CD14⁺ and M-CSFR⁺ or CD11b⁺ or TNFRII⁺. RANKL and OPG were measured to evaluate potential mediation of the bisphosphonate effect. After 48weeks of treatment, there was a decrease in the percentage of cells expressing M-CSFR and CD11b receptors by 53% and 49% respectively (p<0.01). Cells expressing M-CSFR and CD11b were decreased with ibandronate and risedronate after 48weeks to the lower part of the premenopausal reference interval. These effects were not significantly different between each of the treatment groups. There was no significant effect on RANKL and OPG throughout the study period. Bisphosphonates inhibit bone resorption in the short-term by direct action on mature osteoclasts. There is also a later effect mediated in part by a reduction in the population of circulating osteoclast precursors.

Response of bone turnover markers to raloxifene treatment in postmenopausal women with osteopenia

We used two methods of identifying women who reached the target for raloxifene treatment with bone turnover markers. Both approaches identified women that responded to treatment but did not fully agree and may be complementary.

INTRODUCTION

The change in bone turnover markers (BTMs) in response to osteoporosis therapy can be assessed by a decrease beyond the least significant change (LSC) or below the mean of the reference interval (RI). We compared the performance of these two approaches in women treated with raloxifene.

METHODS

Fifty postmenopausal osteopenic women (age 51-72 years) were randomised to raloxifene or no treatment for 2 years. Blood samples were collected for the measurement of BTM. The LSC for each marker was calculated from the untreated women and the RI obtained from healthy premenopausal women (age 35-40 years). Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at the spine and hip.

RESULTS

There was a decrease in BTM in response to raloxifene treatment, percentage change at 12 weeks: C terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) -39 % (95 % CI -48 to -28) and N terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP) -32 % (95 % CI -40 to -23) P < 0.001. The proportion of women classified as responding to treatment using LSC at 12 weeks was as follows: CTX 38 % and PINP 52 % and at 48 weeks CTX 60 % and PINP 65 %. For the RI approach, the proportion of women classified as responding to treatment at 12 weeks was CTX and PINP 38 % and at 48 weeks CTX 40 % and PINP 45 %. There was a significant difference in the change in spine BMD in the raloxifene-treated group compared to the no-treatment group at week 48: difference 0.031 g/cm(2) (95 % CI 0.016 to 0.046, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The two approaches identified women that reached the target for treatment using BTM. Both LSC and RI criteria appear useful in identifying treatment response, but the two approaches do not fully overlap and may be complementary.

Predictors of Ibandronate Efficacy for the Management of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Regression Analysis

Background

Aim of the present study was to identify the predictors of ibandronate efficacy in subjects with osteoporosis or decreased bone mineral density (BMD).

Method

Several electronic databases were searched by using specific keywords for the acquisition of research articles reporting the efficacy of ibandronate in subjects with osteoporosis or decreased BMD. Metaregression analyses were carried out by using changes in the BMD of lumbar spine and total hip following ibandronate treatment as dependent (outcome) variables against several independent (explanatory) variables.

Results

Data were extracted from 34 studies (11,090 ibandronate treated subjects) which fulfilled eligibility criteria. A history of previous fracture/s was reported by 46% of these subjects. In overall population, longer treatment duration from 1 to 5 years, increasing age, history of previous fractures, lower baseline T score, and higher baseline levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) predicted higher ibandronate efficacy in improving BMD of the lumbar spine as well as of the total hip. Lower baseline levels of vitamin D and higher baseline levels of bone specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) predicted higher efficacy of ibandronate for lumbar spine only. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or decreased BMD, in addition to above-mentioned predictors, better efficacy of ibandronate was also associated with increasing time since menopause for both lumbar spine and total hip and lower body weight for lumbar spine only.

Conclusion

Longer treatment duration from 1 to 5 years, increasing age, lower baseline T scores, and higher serum CTX levels are identified as the predictors of better efficacy of ibandronate in the study subjects with osteoporosis or decreased BMD.

Response of bone turnover markers to three oral bisphosphonate therapies in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the TRIO study

We used bone turnover markers to identify women who responded to bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis. Response was more likely with alendronate and ibandronate than risedronate. There was a greater decrease in bone markers if baseline bone turnover markers were higher and if the patient took more than 80 % of her medication.

INTRODUCTION

Biochemical response to bisphosphonate therapy can be assessed using either a decrease in bone turnover marker beyond the least significant change (LSC) or a reduction to within a reference interval (RI). We compared the performance of these target responses and determined whether response was related to the type of bisphosphonate, compliance and baseline bone turnover markers.

METHODS

Biochemical responses to three oral bisphosphonates were assessed in an open, controlled trial comprising 172 postmenopausal osteoporotic women (age 53-84 years), randomised to alendronate, ibandronate or risedronate, plus calcium and vitamin D supplementation for 2 years. The LSC for each marker was derived within the study population, whereas RIs were obtained from a control group of healthy premenopausal women (age 35-40 years).

RESULTS

Over 70 % of women achieved a target response for serum CTX and PINP, irrespective of the approach used. The percentage decrease at 12 weeks was greater for women with baseline PINP above the RI -63 % (difference 13 %, 95 % CI 0 to 27.1, P = 0.049) and good compliance -67 % (difference 15.9 %, 95 % CI 6.3 to 25.5, P = 0.001). Responders had a greater increase in spine bone density compared to nonresponders; for example 6.2 vs. 2.3 % (difference 3.9 %, 95 % CI 1.6 to 6.3, P = 0.0011) for PINP LSC. The magnitude of change in bone markers was greater with ibandronate and alendronate than risedronate.

CONCLUSIONS

Both approaches to response identified similar proportions of women as responders. Nonresponders had smaller increases in BMD, and we suggest that biochemical assessment of response is a useful tool for the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Dose-Effectiveness Relationships Determining the Efficacy of Ibandronate for Management of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on the efficacy of ibandronate by evaluating the effect sizes of different dosing regimens.Major electronic databases were searched from 1985 to February 2015. A random effects meta-analysis was performed in STATA.Data from 34 studies (13,639 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Ibandronate treatment significantly improved lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) as shown by the percent change from baseline (4.80%, P < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [4.14, 5.45]). The respective effect sizes for oral intake and intravenous (IV) infusion were 4.57% and 5.22% (P < 0.0001, CIs [3.71, 5.42] and [4.37, 6.07]), respectively. All doses led to a significant increase in BMD except 2 oral dose regimens (1 mg/d: 4.65%, P = 0.285, 95% CI [-3.87, 13.18] and 0.5 mg/d: 3.60%, P = 0.38, 95% CI [-4.43, 11.64]. Ibandronate treatment (overall as well as dose wise) also significantly improved the total hip BMD-2.30% overall, 2.13% oral, and 2.63% IV (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [1.96, 2.64], [1.70, 2.55], and [2.07, 3.20]), respectively. Ibandronate administration significantly decreased serum markers of bone resorption to -46.53% for C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen, -24.03% for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and -50.17% for procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [-53.16, -39.91], [-31.28, -16.77], and [-64.13, -36.20]), respectively. Parathyroid hormone levels remained unaffected by ibandronate treatment (3.03%, P = 0.439, 95% CI [-5.06, 11.66]).There was no significant difference in the efficacy of ibandronate between oral or IV administration. Predominant dose regimens for IV administration were 1 to 3 mg/3 mo and 150 mg/mo oral and 2.5 mg/d for oral ibandronate treatment.

Mandibular inferior cortical bone thickness on panoramic radiographs in patients using bisphosphonates

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to detect dimensional changes in the mandibular cortical bone associated with bisphosphonate (BP) use and to correlate measurements of the cortical bone with the cumulative dose of BPs.

STUDY DESIGN

Mandibular inferior cortical bone thickness (MICBT) was measured under the mental foramen on panoramic radiographs of patients with and without bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) taking BPs and controls.

RESULTS

Patients with BRONJ had the highest mean MICBT (6.81 ± 1.35 mm), compared with patients without BRONJ taking BPs (5.44 ± 1.09 mm) and controls (4.79 ± 0.85 mm) (P < .01). Mean MICBT of patients with BRONJ was significantly higher than that of patients without BRONJ taking BPs. There was a correlation between MICBT and cumulative dose of zolendronate.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of MICBT on panoramic radiographs is a potentially useful tool for the detection of dimensional changes associated with BP therapy.