The efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly alendronate 70 mg on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal Chinese women with osteoporosis

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).

Can Bisphosphonate Therapy Reduce Overall Mortality in Patients With Osteoporosis? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

For patients with osteoporosis, bisphosphonate therapy can reduce the risk of fractures, but its effect on reducing mortality remains unclear. Previous studies on this topic have produced conflicting results and generally have been too small to definitively answer the question of whether bisphosphonate therapy reduces mortality. Therefore, a meta-analysis may help us arrive at a more conclusive answer.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a large meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we asked: (1) Does bisphosphonate use reduce mortality? (2) Is there a subgroup effect based on whether different bisphosphonate drugs were used (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), different geographic regions where the study took place (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), whether the study was limited to postmenopausal female patients, or whether the trials lasted 3 years or longer?

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with each database searched up to November 20, 2023 (which also was the date of our last search), following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with participants diagnosed with osteoporosis and receiving bisphosphonate treatment. We excluded papers posted to preprint servers, other unpublished work, conference abstracts, and papers that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov but were not yet published. We collected 2263 records. After excluding records due to study type, study content not meeting the inclusion criteria, and duplicates, our meta-analysis included 47 placebo-controlled RCTs involving 59,437 participants. Data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analyses were performed. The evaluation of randomized trials for potential bias was conducted using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This assessment encompassed factors such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, subject blinding, outcome assessor blinding, incomplete outcome data, and reporting bias. Some studies did not provide explicit details regarding random sequence generation, leading to a high risk of selection bias. A few studies, due to their open-label nature, were unable to achieve double-blind conditions for both the subjects and the researchers, resulting in intermediate performance bias. Nevertheless, the overall study quality was high. Due to the low heterogeneity among the studies, as evidenced by the low statistical heterogeneity (that is, a low I 2 statistic), we opted for a fixed-effects model, indicating that the effect size is consistent across the studies. In such cases, the fixed-effects model can provide more precise estimates. According to the results of the funnel plot, we did not find evidence of publication bias.

RESULTS

The use of bisphosphonates did not reduce the overall risk of mortality in patients with osteoporosis (risk ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.03]). Subgroup analyses involving different bisphosphonate drugs (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), regions (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), diverse populations (postmenopausal female patients and other patients), and trials lasting 3 years or longer revealed no associations with reduced overall mortality.

CONCLUSION

Based on our comprehensive meta-analysis, there is high-quality evidence suggesting that bisphosphonate therapy for patients with osteoporosis does not reduce the overall risk of mortality despite its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fractures. The primary consideration for prescribing bisphosphonates to individuals with osteoporosis should continue to be centered on reducing fracture risk, aligning with clinical guidelines. Long-term studies are needed to investigate potential effects on mortality during extended treatment periods.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Efficacy of combination therapy of vitamin D and bisphosphonates in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

There is currently no consensus on whether the combination therapy of Vitamin D (VitD) and bisphosphonates offers superior efficacy compared to monotherapy in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The aim of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis of recent relevant research to synthesize the available evidence and further investigate whether the combined use of VitD and bisphosphonates is superior to monotherapy in treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Methods and results

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of monotherapy with VitD or bisphosphonates versus their combination therapy in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, up to 1 February 2024. The articles were independently screened and relevant data were extracted by two investigators. The changes in mean values and percentage changes for bone resorption markers, bone formation markers, bone mineral density, and bone mineral metabolism markers were expressed using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was quantitatively described using the I2 test. Subsequently, sensitivity analyses were performed for data with significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of monotherapy used, and potential publication bias was assessed. The analysis revealed that the combination of VitD and bisphosphonates demonstrated a more pronounced effect in increasing alkaline phosphatase (ALP), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-VD), and serum calcium (sCa) levels, as well as in decreasing levels of serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (sBALP), serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (sCTX), and urinary N-telopeptide of type I collagen (UriNTX) compared to the monotherapy group. However, the combination of VitD and bisphosphonates did not show a significant advantage over monotherapy in terms of improving osteocalcin levels. The differences in the mean changes in osteocalcin, UriNTX, and sCa, as well as the percentage changes in parathyroid hormone (PTH) were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The meta-analysis suggests that compared to monotherapy, the combination therapy of VitD and bisphosphonates exhibits a more favorable effect on bone mineral density and bone calcium metabolism-related markers in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/PROSPERO.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I2 = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I2 = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I2 = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I2 = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in osteoporosis randomized-controlled trials and implications for nocebo-associated discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice

Dropout from placebo arms in randomized-controlled trials is a surrogate for nocebo responses, resulting from patients' negative expectations to treatment. Among 16,460 placebo-treated patients in oral anti-osteoporotic drug trials, nocebo dropouts were 8% on average, being higher in older patients. This implies that nocebo may contribute to the osteoporosis treatment gap in clinical practice.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is a common disease requiring long-term treatment. Despite the availability of effective anti-osteoporotic drugs, adherence to treatment is low. Nocebo, a behavior mostly related to the negative expectations to a certain treatment, decreases adherence and negatively affects treatment outcomes and health-related care costs in chronic diseases. Since in double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials any unfavorable outcome leading to discontinuation in placebo arms is considered as nocebo, we aimed to investigate the size of nocebo response in patients participating in osteoporosis trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms (nocebo dropouts) in all double-blind trials investigating anti-osteoporotic drugs published between January 1993 and March 2022. Only data on bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) were analyzed (Prospero registration number CRD42020212843).

RESULTS

Data from 44 trials were extracted. In 16,460 placebo-treated patients, the pooled nocebo-dropout was 8% both for bisphosphonates (average: 0.08; range 0.01-0.27; 95%CI 0.06-0.10) and SERMs (average: 0.08; range 0.03-0.15; 95%CI 0.05-0.13). Nocebo-dropouts were higher in bisphosphonate trials enrolling individuals ≥ 65 years (11%) (n = 18) compared to trials enrolling younger individuals (6%) (n = 18) (average: 0.11; 95%CI 0.08-0.13 vs. average: 0.06; 95%CI 0.05-0.08, respectively, p = 0.001). Participants' sex, dosing-intervals, publication year, or severity of osteoporosis had no impact on the nocebo-dropouts.

CONCLUSION

Almost 1 in 10 osteoporosis patients receiving placebo in trials of bisphosphonates and SERMs experiences AEs leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment-discontinuation in clinical practice. Efforts to identify and minimize nocebo, especially in older patients, are warranted.

Efficacy of generic teriparatide and alendronate in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a prospective study

The efficacy of generic teriparatide in improving BMD at lumbar spine in patients with osteoporosis was similar to that of alendronate. It provided a new choice for osteoporosis treatment in Chinese population.

INTRODUCTION

To determine whether the efficacy of generic teriparatide is noninferior to alendronate for Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in a 48-week, open-label design to receive 20 µg sc daily teriparatide or 70 mg oral weekly alendronate. Primary outcome was percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine from baseline to 48 weeks and was assessed for non-inferiority. The same outcome was further assessed for superiority as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-one and 196 participants were randomly assigned to the teriparatide or alendronate group, of whom 379 and 194 receiving at least one dose of teriparatide and alendronate treatment were eligible for the efficacy analysis. Teriparatide was non-inferior to alendronate for BMD change at lumbar spine (treatment difference: 0.7%, 95% CI: - 0.3 to 1.7%), which excluded the predefined non-inferiority margin of - 1.5%. However, teriparatide was not statistically superior to alendronate in improving BMD at lumbar spine (P = 0.169). At 48 weeks, changes in BMD at total hip were - 1.0% and 2.2% in teriparatide and alendronate group, respectively (P < 0.001). The incidence of new fracture showed no statistical difference between groups (P = 0.128). Serum P1NP and β-CTX levels significantly increased in the teriparatide group and markedly decreased in alendronate group (all P < 0.001 vs baseline). The adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were more common in the teriparatide group than in the alendronate group, which were mainly teriparatide-related hypercalcemia, elevated alkaline phosphatase or parathyroid hormone, dizziness, and arthralgia.

CONCLUSIONS

Teriparatide was not inferior to alendronate in increasing BMD at lumbar spine in Chinese postmenopausal women, and they achieved these effects through different mechanisms.

Oral Treatment With Bisphosphonates of Osteoporosis Does Not Increase the Risk of Severe Gastrointestinal Side Effects: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are first-line therapy for osteoporosis. Adherence is usually low in chronic, asymptomatic diseases, but gastrointestinal (GI) side-effects can also contribute to low adherence in BP therapy and may necessitate a review by a gastroenterologist with or without gastroscopy.

AIMS

Our meta-analysis aims to determine the risk of severe GI adverse events due to oral BP therapy in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three databases up to September 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) detailing GI adverse events in adults with osteoporosis on BP compared to placebo. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for non-severe and severe adverse events indicating endoscopic procedure with the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using chi2 and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs with 39,047 patients with 9,999 non-severe and 1,503 severe GI adverse events were included. The incidence of non-severe and severe adverse events ranged between 0.3-54.9 and 0-10.3%, respectively. There was no difference between BP and control groups in terms of the risk of non-severe or severe side effects: RR=1.05 (CI: 0.98-1.12), I2 = 48.1%, and RR=1.01 (CI: 0.92-1.12), I2 = 0.0%, respectively. Subgroup analysis of the most commonly used BP, once-weekly alendronate 70 mg, revealed an association between bisphosphonates and the risk of non-severe GI adverse events, RR=1.16 (CI: 1.00-1.36), I2 = 40.7%, while the risk of severe GI side effects was not increased in this subgroup, RR=1.20 (CI: 0.83-1.74), I2 = 0.0%.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that bisphosphonates do not increase the risk of severe GI adverse events. However, the marked variability of the screening for side effects in the included studies, and the fact that in most of the studies GI diseases were exclusion criteria limits the strenght of evidence of our results. The conclusions drawn from the meta-analysis are therefore restricted to selected populations, and the results must be interpreted with caution.

Genomic Medicine: Lessons Learned From Monogenic and Complex Bone Disorders

Current genetic studies of monogenic and complex bone diseases have broadened our understanding of disease pathophysiology, highlighting the need for medical interventions and treatments tailored to the characteristics of patients. As genomic research progresses, novel insights into the molecular mechanisms are starting to provide support to clinical decision-making; now offering ample opportunities for disease screening, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Drug targets holding mechanisms with genetic support are more likely to be successful. Therefore, implementing genetic information to the drug development process and a molecular redefinition of skeletal disease can help overcoming current shortcomings in pharmaceutical research, including failed attempts and appalling costs. This review summarizes the achievements of genetic studies in the bone field and their application to clinical care, illustrating the imminent advent of the genomic medicine era.

Association Between Drug Treatments for Patients With Osteoporosis and Overall Mortality Rates: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Previous studies have reported that drug treatments, particularly treatment with bisphosphonates, is associated with reduced overall mortality rates in addition to decreased fracture risk. If so, drug treatments should be recommended for this reason alone, regardless of a patient's risk of fracture.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether randomized clinical trials demonstrate that treatment with bisphosphonates, particularly zoledronate, is associated with reduced mortality rates.

DATA SOURCES

Science Direct, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of drug treatments for osteoporosis published after 2009 and published or in press before April 19, 2019. Conference abstracts from annual osteoporosis society meetings were also included in the search.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were clinical trials that (1) were randomized and placebo-controlled; (2) studied drug treatments with proven antifracture efficacy; (3) used agents at the approved dose for treatment of osteoporosis; and (4) had a duration of 1 year or more. Abstracts from the literature searches were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and mortality rate data were abstracted from the article by 1 researcher and validated by a second. A total of 2045 records were screened; 38 (1.8%) were included in the meta-analyses.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist was followed for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and between-study variability was assessed using the I2 index. The risk of bias for each study was assessed, and funnel plots and Egger and Begg statistics were used to evaluate publication bias.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Associations of all drug treatments, particularly bisphosphonate and zoledronate treatments, with overall mortality.

RESULTS

Of 38 clinical trials that included 101 642 unique participants, 38 were included in the meta-analyses of all drug treatments (45 594 participants randomized to placebo; 56 048 to treatment); 21 clinical trials, of bisphosphonate treatments (20 244 participants randomized to placebo; 22 623 to treatment); and 6 clinical trials, of zoledronate treatments (6944 participants randomized to placebo; 6926 to treatment). No significant association was found between all drug treatments for osteoporosis and overall mortality rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05; I2 = 0%). Clinical trials of bisphosphonate treatment (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86-1.04) showed no significant association with overall mortality. Also, clinical trials of zoledronate treatment (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.68-1.13) showed no association with overall mortality rate; however, evidence existed for heterogeneity of the results (I2 = 48.2%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this meta-analysis suggest that bisphosphonate treatment may not be associated with reduced overall mortality rates in addition to decreased fracture risk and should only be recommended to reduce fracture risk. Additional trials are needed to clarify whether treatment with zoledronate reduces mortality rates.

Change in Bone Density and Reduction in Fracture Risk: A Meta-Regression of Published Trials

Meta-analyses conducted >15 years ago reported that improvements in bone mineral density (BMD) were associated with reduction in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in osteoporosis trials. Numerous studies have been conducted since then, incorporating new therapies with different mechanisms of action and enrolling many more subjects. To extend these prior analyses, we conducted a meta-regression of 38 placebo-controlled trials of 19 therapeutic agents to determine the association between improvements in BMD and reductions in fracture risk. We used a linear model to examine the relationship between mean percent difference in BMD change between treatment and placebo groups and the logarithm of the relative risk. We found that greater improvements in BMD were strongly associated with greater reductions in vertebral and hip fractures but not nonvertebral fractures. For vertebral fracture, the r² values for total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD change were 0.56, 0.54, and 0.63, respectively (p ≤ 0.0002). For a 2% or 6% improvement in total hip BMD, we might expect a 28% or 66% reduction, respectively, in vertebral fracture risk. For hip fracture, the r² values for total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD change were 0.48 (p = 0.01), 0.42 (p = 0.02), and 0.22 (ns), respectively. For a 2% or 6% improvement in total hip BMD, we might expect a 16% or 40% reduction in hip fracture risk. In conclusion, our results extend prior observations that larger improvements in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-based BMD are associated with greater reductions in fracture risk, particularly for vertebral and hip fractures. Although these results cannot be directly applied to predict the treatment benefit in an individual patient, they provide compelling evidence that improvements in BMD with osteoporosis therapies may be useful surrogate endpoints for fracture in trials of new therapeutic agents. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Treatment of Osteoporosis, with a Focus on 2 Monoclonal Antibodies

Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disease characterized by bone loss and subsequent increased risk of fragility fractures. Recent advances in our mechanistic understanding of molecular communications among osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and osteocytes give insight into the important roles of the canonical Wnt/β-catenin pathway and the RANK/RANKL/OPG pathway in the process of bone remodeling. Due to the translation of the canonical Wnt/β-catenin pathway and the RANK/RANKL/OPG pathway in the regulation of osteoblasts and osteoclasts, new targets have been studied in recent years, such as sclerostin and receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL). In this review, we first introduce the signaling pathways involved in interactions among osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and osteocytes. Next, we describe clinical trials of denosumab and romosozumab, which are monoclonal antibodies that target RANKL and sclerostin, respectively. We analyze the efficacy of these drugs and provide a profile for the management of osteoporosis.

A network meta-analysis on the short-term efficacy and adverse events of different anti-osteoporosis drugs for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term efficacy and adverse events of different drugs for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), providing a more effective treatment for PMO. We initially searched through various databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from inception till October 2016. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs for the treatment of PMO were included for direct and indirect comparison. A combination of direct and indirect evidence of different inhibitors of anti-diabetic drugs for treatment of PMO were considered for calculating the weighted mean difference (WMD) value or odd ratio (OR) value and to draw surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. Twenty-seven RCTs were ultimately incorporated into this network meta-analysis comprising of 48 200 patients suffering from PMO. The network meta-analysis revealed that compared with placebo, alendronate had better efficacy on improving bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip. Risedronate and raloxifene had relatively lower incidence of new vertebral fractures. The SUCRA analysis showed that alendronate had better efficacy on improving BMD, risedronate could significantly decrease the incidence of fresh fracture and bazedoxifene was relatively safe. The available evidence suggested that alendronate and risedronate might be the superior choices for the treatment of PMO, while bazedoxifene was a comparatively safer option for patients.

Upper gastrointestinal safety and tolerability of oral alendronate: A meta-analysis

Osteoporosis (OP), which is a common bone disease associated with reduced bone mineral density and disordered bone microstructure, may result in an increased risk of bone fracture. The present study aimed to investigate the frequency of alendronate (Aln)-associated upper gastrointestinal tract adverse events (GIAEs) in postmenopausal women with OP. The following databases were searched in order to identify relevant studies: Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), Embase, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to December 2014). Studies were selected for inclusion if they were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, which had investigated the safety of Aln versus a placebo for the treatment of postmenopausal women with OP. The primary outcomes of the included studies were total adverse events (AEs) and upper GIAEs, whereas individual upper GIAEs were considered as secondary outcomes. The general characteristics and outcomes of each study were abstracted by two independent researchers, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used for data syntheses and the meta-analysis. A total of nine studies, including 15,192 randomized patients, met the inclusion criteria and contributed to some or all of the meta-analysis outcomes. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate risk ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined using either the fixed or random effects model, depending on the level of heterogeneity. The relative risk (95% CI) of AEs associated with Aln treatment, as compared with the placebo group, was 1.01 (0.97-1.06), and the relative risk (95% CI) of discontinued Aln treatment due to AEs was 1.04 (0.91-1.19). In addition, the relative risk (95% CI) of upper GIAEs was 1.02 (0.99-1.06), and the relative risk (95% CI) of discontinued Aln treatment due to upper GIAEs was 1.23 (0.97-56). In addition, these results remained robust to sensitivity analyses. The results of the present study suggested that Aln has a good GI tract tolerability, and that daily treatment with 10 mg Aln sodium does not increase the risk of GIAEs in postmenopausal women with OP.

Alendronate sodium/vitamin D3 combination tablet versus calcitriol for osteoporosis in Chinese postmenopausal women: a 6-month, randomized, open-label, active-comparator-controlled study with a 6-month extension

This study compares efficacy of ALN/D5600 versus that of calcitriol in osteoporotic Chinese postmenopausal women. ALN/D5600 produced greater bone mineral density (BMD) increases, greater bone turnover marker decreases, and less vitamin D insufficiency. This study provided detailed clinical information regarding ALN/D5600 treatment versus calcitriol 0.25 μg/day. The study did not evaluate fracture risk.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to investigate efficacy of alendronate 70 mg/vitamin D3 5600 IU combination tablets (ALN/D5600) versus calcitriol in osteoporotic Chinese postmenopausal women.

METHODS

This study is a 6-month, randomized, open-label, active-comparator study with 6-month extension (clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01350934) in postmenopausal women aged >55 years with osteoporosis (low bone mineral density (BMD) with/without prior fragility fracture). Patients were randomized to ALN/D5600 once weekly or calcitriol 0.25 μg daily. The primary efficacy end point of the base study was percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD (month 6). Hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria were safety events of special interest.

RESULTS

A total of 219 patients (ALN/D5600 n = 111, calcitriol n = 108) were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar, 30.3 % baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) ≤15 ng/mL. At months 6 and 12, changes in lumbar spine BMD from baseline were 3.5 versus 1.6 % and 5.2 versus 2.3 % for ALN/D5600 versus calcitriol (between-group differences p < 0.001), respectively. Between-group differences for ALN/D5600 versus calcitriol were significant (p < 0.001) at months 6 and 12 for change from baseline in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (-59.1 versus -16.8 %, -68.1 versus -17.0 %) and serum C-telopeptides (-79.2 versus -27.2 %, -76.2 versus -24.2 %). Drug-related adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations due to drug-related AEs occurred in 15 (14.0 %) versus 8 (7.4 %) patients and 3 (2.8 %) versus 0 patients in the ALN/D5600 and calcitriol group, respectively. Hypercalciuria 12-month incidence (24-h urine Ca >300 mg) was 8.4 (ALN/D5600) versus 13.9 % (calcitriol) (p > 0.05). One patient (calcitriol) had hypercalcemia.

CONCLUSIONS

ALN/D5600 produced greater increases in lumbar spine BMD and greater decreases in bone turnover markers versus calcitriol in osteoporotic Chinese women. It is not known whether the greater increase in BMD results in fewer fractures. ALN/D5600 was generally well tolerated in Chinese patients.

The effects of weekly alendronate therapy in Taiwanese males with osteoporosis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of weekly alendronate administration on male osteoporosis in Taiwan. This 6-month, randomized, open-label controlled trial enrolled 46 men with osteoporosis who were randomized to either 70 mg alendronate once weekly (n = 23) or control (n = 23). Bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine and hip and biochemical bone turnover markers were measured; adverse events and tolerability were assessed. Subjects treated with alendronate showed a significant increase in BMD of 5.5% (vs. 2% in control group) at the lumbar spine and 2.7% (vs. 0.7%) at the femoral neck (P < 0.05) at 6 months, respectively. There were also significant decreases in serum level of bone formation marker (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) and urinary excretion of bone resorption marker (deoxypyridinoline) at 3 and 6 months. Thus, alendronate showed anti-osteoporotic effects by increasing BMD and decreasing the concentrations of bone markers. The adverse events were mild and showed no significant difference between the two groups on safety assessments.

Osteoporosis management: a perspective based on bisphosphonate data from randomised clinical trials and observational databases

AIMS

The efficacy of treatments for osteoporosis can be evaluated using a variety of study designs. This article aims to comprehensively review the evidence for bisphosphonate anti-fracture efficacy in postmenopausal women, discussing the strengths and limitations associated with each study method.

METHODS

Literature analysis included English-language publications reporting results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), post hoc analyses, meta analyses and observational studies evaluating the efficacy of alendronate (ALN), ibandronate (IBN), risedronate (RIS) and zoledronate (ZOL), with an initial sample size > or = 100 patients, and follow-up data for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

Primary and secondary analyses of RCT data suggest differences among bisphosphonates with regard to site-specific anti-fracture efficacy and onset of fracture risk reduction. While some observational studies indicate differences in clinical outcomes among these agents, others report similar effectiveness. ALN and RIS data demonstrate sustained fracture protection for up to 10 and 7 years of treatment respectively. The efficacy of IBN and ZOL has been evaluated for up to 3 and 5 years respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of the benefits of bisphosphonate treatment can be maximised by evaluating complementary data from RCTs and observational database studies. Fracture risk reduction with bisphosphonates is shown in RCTs and in real-world clinical settings.