Effect of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections on vertebral or non-vertebral fracture risk in Japanese patients with high-risk osteoporosis in the MOVER study

Ibandronate in the Prevention of Vertebral and Nonvertebral Osteoporotic Fractures: A Systematic Review of Experimental and Observational Studies

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's guidance and reporting in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement 2020. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE since their inception until February 7, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, experimental, and observational studies evaluating adult patients treated with ibandronate and assessed to osteoporotic fractures prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed according to study design. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Eight references from 4 RCTs, 7 meta-analyses, and 6 observational studies were included. In RCTs, oral ibandronate was superior to placebo in the prevention of VF. However, the doses were lower than those approved. The meta-analyses confirmed these results and showed that adequate doses of oral ibandronate reduce the risk of NVF compared with insufficient doses. In observational studies, oral ibandronate (in approved doses) reduced the risk of VF compared with no treatment or risedronate or alendronate and the risk of NVF versus risedronate or alendronate; the risk of hip fractures was similar between ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence that ibandronate reduces the risk of VF in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available evidence further suggests that ibandronate may reduce the risk of NVF versus insufficient doses of ibandronate, as well as risedronate or alendronate.

Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.

PURPOSE

To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies (n ≥1000) for harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).

LIMITATION

Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).

Effects of monthly intravenous ibandronate on bone mineral density and microstructure in patients with primary osteoporosis after teriparatide treatment: The MONUMENT study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of sequential therapy with monthly intravenous ibandronate on bone mineral density (BMD) and microstructure in patients with primary osteoporosis who received teriparatide treatment.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients with primary osteoporosis who had undergone teriparatide treatment for more than 12 months (mean 18.6 months) received sequential therapy with 1 mg/month intravenous ibandronate for 12 months. The patients were evaluated using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), quantitative ultrasound, bone turnover markers, and high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) at baseline and 6 and 12 months after beginning administration.

RESULTS

At 12 months after beginning sequential therapy, the bone resorption marker, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b, decreased by 39.5%, with 82.3% of the patients exhibiting levels within the normal limit. DXA revealed that the BMD of the lumbar spine increased by 3.2%, with 79.0% of the patients exhibiting a response, and 40.3% experiencing an increase in BMD over 5%. HR-pQCT revealed that the cortical thickness of the distal tibia was increased by 2.6%. The cortical area increased by 2.5%, and the buckling ratio (an index of cortical instability) decreased by 2.5%. Most parameters of the trabecular bone showed no significant changes. These changes in the cortical bone were observed in both the distal radius and tibia and appeared beginning 6 months after treatment initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy with monthly intravenous ibandronate increased the BMD and improved the cortical bone microstructure of osteoporotic patients who had undergone teriparatide treatment.

Bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone analogs for improving bone quality in spinal fusion: State of evidence

Spinal fusion is among the most commonly performed surgical procedures for elderly patients with spinal disorders - including degenerative disc disease with spondylolisthesis, deformities, and trauma. With the large increase in the aging population and the prevalence of osteoporosis, the number of elderly osteoporotic patients needing spinal fusion has risen dramatically. Due to reduced bone quality, postoperative complications such as implant failures, fractures, post-junctional kyphosis, and pseudarthrosis are more commonly seen after spinal fusion in osteoporotic patients. Therefore, pharmacologic treatment strategies to improve bone quality are commonly pursued in osteoporotic cases before conducting spinal fusions. The two most commonly used pharmacotherapeutics are bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (PTH) analogs. Evidence indicates that using bisphosphonates and PTH analogs, alone or in combination, in osteoporotic patients undergoing spinal fusion, decreases complication rates and improves clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to develop guidelines for the administration of bisphosphonates and PTH analogs in osteoporotic spinal fusion patients in terms of treatment duration, potential benefits of sequential use, and the selection of either therapeutic agents based on patient characteristics.

Micro-CT imaging analysis for the effects of ibandronate and eldecalcitol on secondary osteoporosis and arthritis in adjuvant-induced arthritis rats

We investigated the effects of ibandronate, a bisphosphonate; eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D3 analogue; and combination treatment with both agents on secondary osteoporosis and arthritis using rats with adjuvant-induced arthritis. Arthritis was induced in 8-week-old male Lewis rats. Rats were randomized into four treatment groups and an untreated normal control group: ibandronate, eldecalcitol, ibandronate + eldecalcitol, vehicle, and control. Paw thickness was measured to evaluate arthritis. Joint destruction was evaluated histomorphometrically by the ankle joint stained with Fast Green and safranin O. The femur and lumbar spine were scanned using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and the distal femur was scanned using micro-computed tomography for bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular microstructural evaluations. Ibandronate and/or eldecalcitol increased BMD in both the lumbar vertebrae and femur and improved several microstructural parameters (bone volume/total volume, structure model index, trabecular number, and trabecular separation of the distal femur). In addition, there was an additive effect of combination treatment compared with single treatments for most trabecular parameters, including BMD and bone volume. However, ibandronate and/or eldecalcitol did not inhibit arthritis and joint destruction. Combination treatment with ibandronate and eldecalcitol may be effective for secondary osteoporosis associated with arthritis.

Effect of medications on prevention of secondary osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, non-vertebral fracture, and discontinuation due to adverse events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Bone loss with aging and menopause increases the risk of fragile vertebral fracture, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). The fracture causes severe pain, impedes respiratory function, lower the quality of life, and increases the risk of new fractures and deaths. Various medications have been prescribed to prevent a secondary fracture, but few study summarized their effects. Therefore, we investigated their effects on preventing subsequent OVCF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched for published randomized controlled trials from June 2015 to June 2019. The trials that recruited participants with at least one OVCF were included. We assessed the risk of bias of every study, estimated relative risk ratio of secondary OVCF, non-vertebral fracture, gastrointestinal complaints and discontinuation due to adverse events. Finally, we evaluated the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Forty-one articles were included. Moderate to high quality evidence proved the effectiveness of zoledronate (Relative Risk, RR: 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69, p = 0.003), alendronate (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.68; p < 0.0001), risedronate (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.51-0.73; p < 0.0001), etidronate (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87, p < 0.01), ibandronate (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.71; p < 0.0001), parathyroid hormone (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.41; p < 0.0001), denosumab (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; p < 0.0001) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (Raloxifene, RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.44-0.76; p < 0.0001; Bazedoxifene, RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.82; p = 0.0002) in preventing secondary fractures. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate (Romosozumab vs. alendronate, RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.84; p = 0.001) and high quality evidence proved that teriparatide had better effect than risedronate (risedronate vs. teriparatide, RR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, parathyroid hormone, denosumab and selective estrogen receptor modulators had significant secondary prevention effects on OVCF. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate. High quality evidence proved PTH had better effect than risedronate, but with higher risk of adverse events.

Effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections in a real-world setting: Subgroup analysis of a postmarketing observational study

OBJECTIVES

The favorable safety and consistent effectiveness of monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate injections was demonstrated in a prospective, postmarketing, observational study in Japanese patients with osteoporosis. Here, we present subgroup analyses from the study.

METHODS

Lumbar spine (L2-4) bone mineral density (BMD) gains were assessed in the following subgroups: aged <75 or ≥75 years, absence or presence of vertebral fractures, previous bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, and concomitant versus naïve osteoporosis drug treatment. The cumulative incidence of fractures and relative change in bone turnover markers were also examined.

RESULTS

Of 1062 enrolled patients, 1025 received monthly IV ibandronate 1 mg and were assessed for 12 months. BMD gains with ibandronate were comparable, irrespective of older age or prevalent fractures. Overall, 515 patients (50.2%) had previously received osteoporosis treatment; of these, 166 (16.1%) received other BPs. Mean BMD changes were 3.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89%-6.50%) in patients previously treated with other BPs, and 4.26% (95% CI, 2.88%-5.64%) in patients who had not received prior osteoporosis treatment. Among the 510 patients (49.7%) concomitantly prescribed active vitamin D drugs, mean BMD changes were 5.74% (95% CI, 2.53%-8.95%) with eldecalcitol versus 3.54% (95% CI, 1.98%-5.10%) with ibandronate alone. The lowest fracture incidence was observed with the combination of ibandronate and eldecalcitol, but differences between the subgroups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Monthly IV ibandronate demonstrated comparable BMD gains in the patient subgroups analyzed. Concomitant use of ibandronate with eldecalcitol showed a trend of higher BMD gains and lower fracture incidence than ibandronate alone.

Efficacy, safety, and compliance of ibandronate treatment for 3 years in postmenopausal Japanese women with primary osteoporosis

Objectives

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy, safety, and adherence of ibandronate (IBN) treatment with or without vitamin D supplementation for 3 years in Japanese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Methods

This prospective investigation included 27 patients treated with IBN alone (monotherapy group) and 29 patients receiving IBN and alfacalcidol (ALF) (combination group). Bone metabolism and bone mineral density (BMD) were measured before and at 18, 24, 30, and 36 months of therapy. Treatment discontinuation and fracture occurrence were assessed as well.

Results

Lumbar 1–4 BMD (L-BMD) was significantly increased in the monotherapy and combination groups by 3.9% and 7.2%, respectively, at 36 months, with significant gains in total hip BMD (H-BMD) of 3.7% and 4.9%, respectively. There were significant differences in L-BMD improvement between the groups at 18, 24, and 30 months (P < 0.05) and at 36 months (P < 0.01). Compared with pretreatment levels, the percentage changes of L-BMD and H-BMD were significant at all time points in the combination group and at all points apart from L-BMD at 36 months in the monotherapy group. In the monotherapy group, 14 patients dropped out during 3 years and 2 vertebral fractures occurred during the first year. In the combination group, 16 cases dropped out during 3 years and 1 nonvertebral fracture was noted during the first year.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that combination therapy of IBN and vitamin D is superior to monotherapy with regard to L-BMD improvements for 3 years, with both groups showing comparable safety and adherence to treatment.

A prospective comparative study of intravenous alendronate and ibandronate for the treatment of osteoporosis

RATIONALE

Few comparative studies have evaluated the differences between intravenous alendronate (ALN) and ibandronate (IBN) in patients with osteoporosis. This study was to compare the effects of these 2 drugs on bone mineral density (BMD), bone metabolic markers, and adverse events in patients with osteoporosis.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Seventy-eight subjects were assigned to the ALN group and 66 to the IBN group.

DIAGNOSES

The diagnosis of osteoporosis was based on BMD values of the femoral neck or lumbar spine less than -2.5 SD below the reference values.

INTERVENTIONS

This study was designed as a 52-weeks, prospective, non-randomized study involving a parallel-group comparison between intravenous ALN and intravenous IBN in elderly women with osteoporosis.

OUTCOMES

The non-switched-IBN subgroup showed significant decrease in serum collagen type I cross-linked telopeptide (NTX) at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline, and the decrease in NTX were significantly greater in the non-switched-IBN subgroup than in the non-swithed-ALN subgroup. BMD in the lumbar spine in the non-switched-IBN subgroup showed a significant increase at 12 months and the increase in BMD were significantly larger than in the non-switched-ALN subgroup.

LESSONS

Intravenou IBN might result in a significantly greater increase of BMD and decrease in NTX, but it had a higher incidence of adverse drug reactions than ALN.

Monthly oral ibandronate 100 mg is as effective as monthly intravenous ibandronate 1 mg in patients with various pathologies in the MOVEST study

The non-inferiority of oral ibandronate 100 mg to intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate 1 mg in increasing lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months of treatment was demonstrated in the randomized, phase III MOVEST study. We conducted subgroup analyses in the per-protocol set of the study (n = 183 oral ibandronate; n = 189 i.v. ibandronate). In patients with LS BMD T score ≥ -3.0 or < -3.0 at screening, LS BMD gains from baseline were 4.42 and 5.79%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 4.60 and 5.83%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. LS BMD gains in patients with or without prevalent vertebral fractures were 5.21 and 5.23%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 5.01 and 5.49%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. In patients aged <75 or ≥75 years, LS BMD gains were 5.46 and 4.51%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 5.25 and 5.77%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. LS BMD gains in patients with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥20 or <20 ng/mL were 5.35 and 4.76%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 5.05 and 6.57%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. Similar results were obtained in patients with or without prior bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, and in those receiving osteoporosis drug treatment other than BPs. In conclusion, oral ibandronate 100 mg demonstrated comparable BMD gains with monthly i.v. ibandronate, and thus shows high utility in the lifestyle and disease conditions associated with osteoporosis in Japanese patients.

Safety and effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections in a prospective, postmarketing, and observational study in Japanese patients with osteoporosis

OBJECTIVES

This postmarketing, observational study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Eligible patients received monthly IV ibandronate 1 mg for 12 months. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were evaluated. Changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTMs) were assessed using matched t-test analysis. Cumulative fracture rates were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methodology.

RESULTS

In total, 1062 patients were enrolled, of whom 1025 (n = 887 women, n = 138 men) were treated. Mean patient age was 77 years. Seventy-five ADRs were reported in 54 patients (5.26%). Four patients (0.39%) experienced serious ADRs, including one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Acute-phase reactions occurred in 21 patients (2.04%), and half of them arose after the first ibandronate injection. No new safety concerns were identified. Significant increases in BMD at 12 months relative to baseline were observed at the lumbar spine (4.84%, n = 187; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.47%-6.21%), femoral neck (2.73%, n = 166; 95% CI, 1.46%-4.01%), and total hip (1.93%, n = 133; 95% CI, 0.80%-3.07%). Significant reductions were observed in all BTMs at 12 months (n = 174 in tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b, n = 101 in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide at baseline). The cumulative incidence of nontraumatic, new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures was 3.16% (95% CI, 2.12%-4.70%). Analyses in women only showed similar results to the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm the favorable safety and consistent effectiveness of ibandronate, and indicate that monthly IV ibandronate would be beneficial in daily practice for the treatment of Japanese patients with osteoporosis.