Four-year study of intermittent cyclic etidronate treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: three years of blinded therapy followed by one year of open therapy

Etidronate 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. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to 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. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high).

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled 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 aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

Refracture following vertebral fragility fracture when bone fragility is not recognized: summarizing findings from comparator arms of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Since vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) might increase the risk of subsequent fractures, we evaluated the incidence rate and the refracture risk of subsequent vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures (nVFFs) in untreated patients with a previous VFF.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the occurrence of subsequent fractures in untreated patients with prior VFFs. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the selected studies. Primary outcomes were subsequent VFFs, while secondary outcomes were further nVFFs. The outcome of refracture within ≥ 2 years after the index fracture was measured as (i) rate, expressed per 100 person-years (PYs), and (ii) risk, expressed in percentage.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, ranging from medium to high quality. Among untreated patients with prior VFFs, the rate of subsequent VFFs and nVFFs was 12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9-16] and 6 (95% CI 5-8%) per 100 PYs, respectively. The higher the number of previous VFFs, the higher the incidence. Moreover, the risk of VFFs and nVFFs increased within 2 (16.6% and 8%) and 4 years (35.1% and 17.4%) based on the index VFF.

CONCLUSION

The highest risk of subsequent VFFs or nVFFs was already detected within 2 years following the initial VFF. Thus, prompt interventions should be designed to improve the detection and treatment of VFFs, aiming to reduce the risk of future FFs and properly implement secondary preventive measures.

Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles on the treatment of osteoporosis

PURPOSE

To perform a bibliometric analysis of the top 100 (T100) most-cited articles on the treatment of osteoporosis published between 1980 and 2021 to reveal major developments and trends in the field and to contribute to the methodologies and hypotheses of future studies.

METHODS

On 15.12.2021, a search was conducted on the Web of Science database using the keyword "osteoporosis treatment" to screen articles published between 1980 and 2021. The title of the article, year of publication, total number and names of the authors, total number of citations and citation index, name and Q index of the journals, H-index, impact factor, country of authors, types of articles, and sources of funding were recorded.

RESULTS

The most-cited article was "Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, And Therapy." The article with the highest citation index was "Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis.. The majority of the articles were randomized controlled clinical trials. The journal with the highest number of articles included in the T100 was The New England Journal of Medicine, with 19 articles. The USA had the highest number of articles. There was a strong correlation between the number of citations and citation index of articles (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, which examined the T100 most-cited articles on the treatment of osteoporosis, found that the articles primarily focused on the prevention, diagnosis, and follow-up of osteoporosis; search for antiresorptive and anabolic pharmacological agents; investigation of the efficacy and reliability of these agents on specific subpopulations; and surgical treatment options.

Relationship between Change in Bone Mineral Density of Lumbar Spine and Risk of New Vertebral and Nonvertebral Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

Studies have shown that the change in lumbar spine bone mineral density with different osteoporosis drugs had a beneficial effect on the frequency of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal females, but their results were conflicting. This meta‐analysis was performed to evaluate this relationship. A systematic literature search up to May 2020 was performed and 20 studies with 73,390 postmenopausal females were included; of them, a total of 41,980 were treated with osteoporosis drugs and 31,410 with placebo. They reported relationships between the change in lumbar spine bone mineral density and the frequency of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal females. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated comparing the osteoporosis drugs to placebo effect on the frequency of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal females using the dichotomous method with a random or fixed‐effect model. Treatment with osteoporosis drugs had significantly lower frequency of new vertebral fractures (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45–0.63, P < 0.001) and nonvertebral fractures (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78–0.87, P < 0.001) compared to placebo in postmenopausal females. Treatment with osteoporosis drugs had a significantly lower frequency of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures compared to placebo in postmenopausal females. This relationship forces us to recommend osteoporosis drugs in postmenopausal females to avoid any possible new fractures. A cost‐effective study is recommended.

Effect of bisphosphonate on hip fracture in patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia according to age: a meta-analysis and systematic review

This meta-analysis and systematic review investigated the efficacy of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fracture (IHF) in patients of different ages with osteoporosis or osteopenia. We searched Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and PubMed from inception to January 10, 2021, for trials reporting the effects of bisphosphonates on the IHF. We included only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. We pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis with risk ratios (RRs) and reported 95% CIs. We also used the Cochran Q and I² statistics to assess the heterogeneity in the results of individual studies. The primary endpoints were the total numbers of people in the bisphosphonates and placebo groups and the numbers of IHFs during the follow-up periods. Bisphosphonates reduced the IHF with an overall effect (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.77; zoledronic acid: RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.78; risedronate: RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.94, and alendronate: RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.95). The result of the heterogeneity assessment was I²=0, p=0.97. In all age groups (all ages, ≥55 years old, ≥65 years old), bisphosphonates reduced the IHF. In the ≥55 years old and ≥65 years old age groups, the RR and 95% CI were 0.63 and 0.43 to 0.93, and 0.60 and 0.44 to 0.81, respectively. Bisphosphonate reduced the IHF in the general population and all age groups (≥55 years old and ≥65 years old). Zoledronic acid, risedronate and alendronate reduced the IHF in osteoporosis or osteopenia populations. The association between bisphosphonate and the IHF does not appear to be influenced by age.

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

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.

The Effect of Bisphosphonates on Fracture Healing Time and Changes in Bone Mass Density: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a common complication of acute fracture, which can lead to fracture delayed union or other complications and resulting in poor fracture healing. Bisphosphate is a common anti-osteoporosis drug, but its application in fracture patients is still controversial because of its inhibitory effect on bone resorption.

METHOD

Studies were acquired from literature databases in accordance with established inclusion criteria. Standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (Cls) were calculated to evaluate the effectiveness of the bisphosphonates treatment in fracture patients. Data analysis was conducted with the Review Manager 5.4.1 software.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies involving 5022 patients obtained from selected databases were examined. As expected, bisphosphate had no significant effect on fracture healing time, but it could significantly increase BMD and prevent osteoporosis. Meanwhile, bisphosphate can inhibit both bone resorption and bone formation markers, resulting in low bone turnover state.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that bisphosphonate have no significant effect on fracture healing time but they do increase the changes in BMD and reduce bone synthesis and resorption markers. Early application of bisphosphonates after injury in the appropriate patient population should be considered.

History of alendronate

Alendronate was synthesized in 1970s in a search for inhibitors of calcification. Istituto Gentili investigators identified it as a potent inhibitor of bone resorption and obtained a patent covering its use in the treatment of osteoporosis and other disorders of excessive bone resorption in the 1980s. Merck licensed alendronate in 1988 and its pharmaceutical chemists reformulated it as a sodium salt with good solubility in a tablet that reduced its potential for esophageal irritation. Clinical trials proved that it reduced bone turnover, increased BMD and reduced the risk of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Merck sponsored a large clinical trials that won FDA approval for treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and showed that it reduced the risk of spine and hip fractures. Its approval in the US in 1995 spurred sales of bone densitometers and BMD testing to screen for low bone mineral density and identify osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement was supported by medical society guidelines and reimbursement by Medicare and other insurers in the USA. A 70 mg weekly instead of 10 mg daily dose of alendronate produced the same effect on BMD and biochemical markers of bone remodelling with greater convenience and reduced potential for upper GI adverse events. Consequently, by 2006, about 30 million prescriptions for alendronate were written annually in the U.S. for about 15% of postmenopausal women in the U.S. Thereafter, publicity about rare but concerning atypical femoral fractures (AFF) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) along with the expiry of Merck's patent (in 2008) and cessation of their promotion of alendronate, and a decline in use of densitometry led to a steady slide in its use even among patients for whom the benefits of alendronate far outweigh its potential risks. Nevertheless, in 25 years since its regulatory approval, alendronate has undoubtedly prevented millions of fractures world-wide.

History of etidronate

Etidronate is a non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate. Because it binds with calcium and inhibits crystal formation and dissolution, it was considered by Procter & Gamble as an additive to toothpaste (to prevent build-up of tartar) and detergent (to bind calcium and increase sudsing in "hard" water). The first clinical use (1968) was for fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. The first approved clinical use (1977) was for treatment of Paget's disease of bone. Other approved indications are hypercalcemia of malignancy and heterotopic ossification, with a host of off-label uses (including fibrous dysplasia, periodontal disease, multiple myeloma, neuropathic arthropathy, pulmonary microlithiasis, diabetic retinopathy, bone metastases, melorheostosis, urinary stone disease, periodontal disease, etc.). Unique among bisphosphonates, etidronate (oral therapy) results in hyperphosphatemia, increased tubular reabsorption of phosphorus and increased levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D. The dose that reduces bone resorption is close to the dose that impairs mineralization; prolonged high-dose use can result in osteomalacia and bone fractures. Intermittent cyclic etidronate for osteoporosis resulted in favorable changes in bone density and histomorphometry (no mineralization defect) as well as a decrease in vertebral fracture rates in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Later studies showed similar effects in men with osteoporosis and patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Although its use for osteoporosis has given way to newer bisphosphonates and other agents, because of its unique properties, it remains the bisphosphonate of choice for treatment of heterotopic ossification.

Influence of Prevalent Vertebral Fracture on the Correlation between Change in Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density and Risk of New Vertebral Fracture: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The correlation between change in bone mineral density (BMD) and the incidence of new vertebral fracture has been drawing attention in regard to evaluation of fracture risk and drug efficacy. We investigated the impact of the prevalence of vertebral fracture on this correlation via a meta-regression analysis with a view to improving evaluation of the correlation.

METHODS

A total of 19 postmenopausal osteoporosis clinical studies involving 62,432 patients in 46 placebo or treatment groups were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We performed a multivariate meta-regression analysis to examine the correlation between the percentage change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline at 3 years and the proportion of subjects experiencing new vertebral fractures, with or without the proportion of subjects with prevalent vertebral fracture as a covariate. We also analyzed the interaction between the subgroups divided by the proportion of subjects with prevalent vertebral fracture and the percentage change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline at 3 years.

RESULTS

A multivariate meta-regression analysis showed a significant correlation between the change in lumbar spine BMD and the proportion of subjects experiencing new vertebral fracture, and a lower Akaike information criterion was obtained when the proportion of subjects with prevalent vertebral fracture was added as an explanatory variable. Significant interaction between the proportion of subjects with prevalent vertebral fracture and the change in lumbar spine BMD was shown.

CONCLUSIONS

The change in lumbar spine BMD, not BMD T-score at one timepoint, had a significant correlation with the incidence of vertebral fracture. The prediction of the fracture risk by change in lumbar spine BMD was improved by adjusting the proportion of subjects with prevalent vertebral fracture in the study population. The difference of prevalence of vertebral fracture among populations should be considered when the association between change in lumbar spine BMD and incidence of vertebral fracture is examined.

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.

The Prevention and Therapy of Osteoporosis: A Review on Emerging Trends from Hormonal Therapy to Synthetic Drugs to Plant-Based Bioactives

Osteoporosis is one of the major health problems worldwide. It is characterized by increased bone fragility and loss of bone matter due to the action of osteoclast cells, which are associated with modified hormone levels and factors such as aging. Bisphosphonates are the primary treatment for osteoporosis. Apart from bisphosphonates, hormone therapy, calcitonin treatment, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and strontium ranelate (SR) are some of the other treatments available for osteoporosis. However, these treatments have some side effects, such as oily skin, fluid retention, nausea, long-term toxicity, and even prostate cancer in males, and thus natural therapies that incur fewer side effects are sought. Phytochemicals, antioxidants, and other plant-based bioactives are important in the human diet. They are abundant in fruits and help against various chronic diseases, including bone disorders. Other providers of these important compounds are the medicinal plant parts. In this article, we highlight the various species of plants and herbs that are useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. The prospect of using these plant-based bioactives in amelioration of osteoporosis as an alternative to hormonal and synthetic drug-based therapy is also discussed.

Effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs to prevent secondary fragility fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with osteoporotic fractures have an increased risk for secondary fractures. However, a rigorous study that assesses the effectiveness of individual osteoporotic drugs in preventing subsequent fractures is lacking. The purpose of this review was to analyze the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs in preventing secondary fractures. We searched for randomized controlled trials that showed the incidence of secondary fractures while using anti-osteoporotic drugs (bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone (PTH), or calcitonin) in MEDLINE, Embase.com , and Cochrane Central Register databases. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent secondary fractures. Twenty-six studies met our eligibility criteria. There was a significant reduction in RR (0.38-0.77) after the use of anti-osteoporotic drugs for secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH significantly reduced the risk of a secondary non-vertebral fracture (RR 0.59 and 0.64). PTH needed the fewest number of patients to be treated to prevent a secondary vertebral fracture (NNT: 56). Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic agents included in our systematic review in preventing secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH were most effective in preventing non-vertebral fractures. We suggest that clinicians should prescribe these drugs to prevent secondary vertebral/non-vertebral fractures.

Comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates in short-term fracture prevention for primary osteoporosis: a systematic review with network meta-analyses

Our network meta-analyses compared the efficacy of different bisphosphonates preventing fractures for primary osteoporosis. By including 36 studies, we found that zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture.

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted in order to analyze the available evidence on the efficacy of bisphosphonates for preventing fractures.

METHODS

We considered randomized trials comparing any bisphosphonate with other bisphosphonate or placebo. We searched Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed and manually searched reference list of relevant articles. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. The primary outcome is vertebral fracture. Secondary outcomes include nonvertebral fracture, hip fracture, wrist fracture, and any fracture.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included. Significant difference was found between bisphosphonates for vertebral fracture and nonvertebral fracture (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.04, respectively). Compared with placebo, alendronate, clodronate, ibandronate, minodronate, pamidronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid significantly prevented vertebral fracture. Zoledronic acid significantly reduced the risk of vertebral fracture, compared with alendronate, clodronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and tiludronate (0.65 (0.46, 0.91), 0.53 (0.33, 0.86), 0.45 (0.27, 0.74), 0.52 (0.36, 0.75), 0.59 (0.42, 0.83), and 0.31 (0.21, 0.48), respectively). Compared with etidronate, clodronate and zoledronic acid significantly prevented nonvertebral fracture. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid significantly prevented any fracture. The possibility rankings showed that zoledronic ranked first in preventing vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and any fracture, and pamidronate ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture and wrist fracture. In the sensitivity analyses, zoledronic acid ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture, and alendronate ranked first in preventing hip fracture and wrist fracture.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture. Uncertainty still remains and future studies are needed to accurately evaluate the comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates.

Vertebral fractures affect functional status in postmenopausal rheumatoid arthritis patients

Functional disability is a major concern in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This retrospective study investigated the risk factors for vertebral fractures (VFs) in postmenopausal RA patients and determined the impact of VFs on functional status. Data from a cohort of 200 postmenopausal RA patients in a single hospital registry were analyzed. Demographic and clinical data, imaging data from spine radiographs, and bone mineral density (BMD) data were collected from the patients at baseline and at the final visit (a mean of 2.9 years after the first visit). Risk factors for incident VFs and their impact on the modified health assessment questionnaire (mHAQ) were analyzed. Twenty-eight patients (14%) developed new VFs (NVFs). Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, BMI, and disease duration revealed that daily dose of prednisolone, femoral neck BMD, use of active vitamin D3, and use of a bisphosphonate at baseline were factors associated with NVF, with odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.27 (1.05-1.54), 0.94 (0.91-0.97), 0.34 (0.13-0.89), and 0.31 (0.12-0.82), respectively. Patients with NVF exhibited worse mHAQ scores and a greater increase in mHAQ scores from baseline compared with those without NVF. In conclusion, incident VFs were associated with reduced functional status in postmenopausal patients with RA. It is important to prevent VFs to maintain the functional status of RA patients.

Proportion of osteoporotic post-menopausal women at increased risk for upper GI adverse events associated with bisphosphonate therapy

Background- The bisphosphonate alendronate has been associated with higher rates of adverse oesophageal effects when used in the community setting compared to what was observed in the clinical trials. Patients with a history of gastroesophageal problems or who are concurrently using an NSAID therapy may be at increased risk for the gastroesophageal problems associated with alendronate use. This study assesses the proportion of post-menopausal women in the community with osteoporosis that are at increased risk for gastroesophageal adverse effects associated with alendronate.Methods- The administrative database for the Quebec government drug benefit program was used to identify a cohort of 5400 post menopausal women aged 65 years or older who were using the bisphosphonate etidronate for the treatment of osteoporosis. Patients were evaluated for the presence of either risk factor, chronic GI drug therapy use (a marker for prior gastroesophageal problems) or chronic NSAID use.Findings- 31% of women taking etidronate were also chronically using GI drug therapies and 50% were using NSAIDs; 18% of the women were using all three drugs.Interpretation- Many osteoporosis patients in the community setting who are candidates for bisphosphonate therapy might be considered at increased risk for alendronate's gastroesophageal adverse effects. This may account for differences in pre-marketing and postmarketing event rates. Copyright (c) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Bayesian analysis of bisphosphonate effects and cost-effectiveness in post-menopausal osteoporosis

Objective - Effects of oral bisphosphonates on the rate of vertebral fractures in post-menopausal osteoporotic women have been found in clinical trials. We wanted to compare the effects of two bisphosphonates, alendronate and etidronate, and calculate the price difference that would give the same cost-effectiveness for the two drugs. We also intended to give, by means of Bayesian statistics, probability distributions and point and interval estimates for key parameters.Methods - We used published, double-blind, randomized placebo controlled studies describing the results of occurrence of vertebral fractures at 3-year follow-up in post-menopausal women taking bisphosphonates. Four studies were identified, including altogether 3510 women. The women had either suffered a fracture at entry or had a bone density at least 2.5 SD below the mean value for young women. Two of the studies dealt with alendronate and two with etidronate.Results - According to three of the studies, the number of women out of 100 avoiding vertebral fractures during a 3-year observation period varied from two to seven. The fourth study did not contain the necessary data. The four studies showed that, for the incidence rate, the multiplicative treatment effects were respectively 0.45, 0.74, 0.40 and 0.36, where values less than 1 indicate positive treatment effects. Using data from all four studies, a comparison of the two drugs gave a point estimate of 0.247 with 95% credibility interval (CI): -0.051 to 0.496 for a difference in effect in favour of alendronate measured in terms of risk ratio of fracture and 0.302 (CI: 0.099 to 0.539) measured as incidence rate ratio. Based on two studies, showing about the same prevalence of fractures in the control groups, the difference in the risk difference between the two drugs was 0.028 (CI: -0.039 to 0.079).Conclusions - Bisphosphonates effectively reduce risk of new vertebral fractures, but alendronate is somewhat more effective than etidronate. To obtain equal cost-effectiveness alendronate should be priced 40 - 70% higher than etidronate. Copyright (c) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effects of antiresorptive treatment on nonvertebral fracture outcomes

Various definitions of nonvertebral fracture have been used in osteoporosis trials, precluding comparisons of efficacy. Using only subgroups of nonvertebral fractures for trial outcomes may underestimate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of treatments. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the effect of antiresorptive treatment on various nonvertebral fracture outcomes, (2) whether risk reduction from antiresorptive treatment is greater for nonvertebral fractures that have stronger associations with low BMD, and (3) sample size estimates for clinical trials of osteoporosis treatments. Study-level data were combined from five randomized fracture-prevention trials of antiresorptive agents that reduce the risk of nonvertebral fracture in postmenopausal women: alendronate, clodronate, denosumab, lasofoxifene, and zoledronic acid. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. The five trials included 30,118 women; 2997 women had at least one nonvertebral fracture. There was no significant heterogeneity between treatments for any outcome (all p > 0.10). Antiresorptive treatment had similar effects on all fractures (summary hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.81), high-trauma fractures (HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.96), low-trauma fractures (HR = 0.77, (95% CI 0.71-0.83), nonvertebral six (ie, hip, pelvis, leg, wrist, humerus, and clavicle) fractures (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.80), other than nonvertebral six fractures (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87), and all fractures other than finger, face, and toe (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.81). Risk reduction was not greater for fractures with stronger associations with low BMD (p = 0.77). A trial of all nonvertebral fractures would require fewer participants (n = 2641 per arm) than one of a subgroup of six fractures (n = 3289), for example. In summary, antiresorptive treatments reduced all nonvertebral fractures regardless of degree of trauma or special groupings, supporting the use of all nonvertebral fractures as a standard endpoint of osteoporosis trials and the basis for estimating the benefits and cost-effectiveness of treatments.

[2011 Up-date of the consensus statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on osteoporosis]

OBJECTIVE

Due to increasing improvement in the diagnosis, evaluation and management of osteoporosis and the development of new tools and drugs, the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) has promoted the development of recommendations based on the best evidence available. These recommendations should be a reference to rheumatologists and other health professionals involved in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Recommendations were developed following a nominal group methodology and based on a systematic review. The level of evidence and degree of recommendation were classified according to the model proposed by the Center for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford. The level of agreement was established through Delphi technique. Evidence from previous consensus and available clinical guidelines was used.

RESULTS

We have produced recommendations on diagnosis, evaluation and management of osteoporosis. These recommendations include the glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, premenopausal and male osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the SER recommendations related to the biologic therapy risk management.

RETRACTED: Beneficial effect of etidronate therapy in chronically hospitalized, disabled patients with stroke

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to data fabrication, systematic authorship misconduct, text duplication, concerns about data integrity, and scientific misconduct. In addition, several publications reporting non-randomized research by members of this group of investigators have been retracted.

Bisphosphonates and osteoporotic fractures: a cross-design synthesis of results among compliant/persistent postmenopausal women in clinical practice versus randomized controlled trials

In a cross-design synthesis, total fractures were similarly reduced by bisphosphonates among postmenopausal women in randomized trials (23.8%) and highly compliant/persistent patients in observational studies of large databases from routine practice (20.3%). Bisphosphonates also reduced nonvertebral, vertebral and hip fractures in randomized trials and observational studies. In the real-word setting, compliant/persistent patients can gain a benefit from bisphosphonates comparable to that of randomized trial participants.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to determine whether clinical fracture risk reduction by bisphosphonate treatment in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis differs between randomized controlled trials and routine practice.

METHODS

Randomized trials comparing bisphosphonate with placebo and observational studies comparing highly compliant/persistent with less compliant/persistent patients were sought by electronic searches and ancillary methods. Clinical fracture data were extracted from the study reports and quantitatively combined by random effects metaanalysis.

RESULTS

The odds ratio (OR) for all clinical fractures in randomized trials of 0.762, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.680-0.855, was closely similar to that in the observational studies (OR, 0.797; CI, 0.748-0.850). Pooled clinical fracture reduction across both study designs was 22%. Nonvertebral, vertebral, and hip fractures were also significantly reduced by bisphosphonate treatment in both randomized trials and observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliant/persistent patients in the "real-world" setting benefit from bisphosphonate treatment to a similar extent as patients in randomized trials.

[Austrian guidance for the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women--update 2009]

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by diminished bone mass and deterioration of bone microarchitecture, leading to increased fragility and subsequent increased fracture risk. Therapeutic measures therefore aim at reducing individual fracture risk. In Austria, the following drugs, all of which have been proven to reduce fracture risk, are currently registered for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, raloxifene, teriparatide (1-34 PTH), 1-84 PTH, strontium ranelate and salmon calcitonin. Fluorides are still available, but their role in daily practice has become negligible. Currently, there is no evidence that a combination of two or more of these drugs could improve anti-fracture potency. However, treatment with PTH should be followed by the treatment with an anticatabolic drug such as bisphosphonates. Calcium and vitamin D constitute an important adjunct to any osteoporosis treatment.

Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL) that blocks its binding to RANK, inhibiting the development and activity of osteoclasts, decreasing bone resorption, and increasing bone density. Given its unique actions, denosumab may be useful in the treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

We enrolled 7868 women between the ages of 60 and 90 years who had a bone mineral density T score of less than -2.5 but not less than -4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 60 mg of denosumab or placebo subcutaneously every 6 months for 36 months. The primary end point was new vertebral fracture. Secondary end points included nonvertebral and hip fractures.

RESULTS

As compared with placebo, denosumab reduced the risk of new radiographic vertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 2.3% in the denosumab group, versus 7.2% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.41; P<0.001)--a relative decrease of 68%. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 0.7% in the denosumab group, versus 1.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.97; P=0.04)--a relative decrease of 40%. Denosumab also reduced the risk of nonvertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 6.5% in the denosumab group, versus 8.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01)--a relative decrease of 20%. There was no increase in the risk of cancer, infection, cardiovascular disease, delayed fracture healing, or hypocalcemia, and there were no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw and no adverse reactions to the injection of denosumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab given subcutaneously twice yearly for 36 months was associated with a reduction in the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in women with osteoporosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00089791.)

Etidronate 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. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Women receiving at least one year of etidronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection and data abstraction was done in duplicate. Meta-analysis of fracture outcomes was performed with data presented as relative risks and a relative change greater than 15% was considered clinically important. Study quality was assessed through the reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies representing a total of 1248 patients were included in the review.A significant 41% relative risk reduction (RRR) in vertebral fractures across eight studies (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.96) was found. The six secondary prevention trials demonstrated a significant RRR of 47% in vertebral fractures (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) and a 5% absolute risk reduction (ARR); compared with the pooled result for the two primary prevention trials (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44), which was not significant. There were no statistically significant risk reductions for non-vertebral (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.42), hip (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.88) or wrist fractures (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.32 to 2.36). For adverse events, no statistically significant differences were found in the included studies. However, observational data has led to concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etidronate, at 400 mg per day, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important benefit in the secondary prevention of vertebral fractures. No statistically significant reductions in vertebral fractures were observed when it was used for primary prevention. In addition, no statistically significant reductions in non-vertebral, hip, or wrist fractures were found, regardless of whether etidronate was used for primary or secondary prevention. The level of evidence for all outcomes is Silver (www.cochranemsk.org.).

WITHDRAWN: Etidronate for treating and preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a clinical syndrome of reduced bone mass and increased fracture susceptibility. There are now a number of options, including etidronate which can decrease the risk of fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the efficacy of etidronate on bone density, fractures and toxicity in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE from 1966 to December 1998, examined citations of relevant articles, and the proceedings of international osteoporosis meetings. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, primary authors, and pharmaceutical industry sources for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included thirteen trials (with 1010 participants) that randomized women to etidronate or an alternative (placebo or calcium and/or vitamin D) and measured bone density for at least one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each trial, three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The data suggested a reduction in vertebral fractures with a pooled relative risk of 0.60% (95% CI 0.41 to 0.88). There was no effect on non-vertebral fractures (pooled relative risk 1.00, (95% CI 0.68 to 1.42)). Etidronate, relative to control, increased bone density after three years of treatment in the lumbar spine by 4.27% (95% CI 2.66 to 5.88), in the femoral neck by 2.19% (95% CI 0.43, 3.95) and in the total body by 0.97% (95% CI 0.39, 1.55). Effects were larger at 4 years, though the number of patients followed was much smaller.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etidronate increases bone density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck. The pooled estimates of fracture reduction with etidronate are consistent with a reduction in vertebral fractures, but no effect on non-vertebral fractures.

Changes in bone remodelling and antifracture efficacy of intermittent bisphosphonate therapy: implications from clinical studies with ibandronate

Bisphosphonates reduce the rate of bone resorption and bone remodelling. Given daily, they decrease the risk of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis. When bisphosphonates were given at extended drug-free intervals this antifracture efficacy was generally not seen. This may be due to the different pattern of bone remodelling changes. Data from randomised clinical studies of ibandronate, given orally or intravenously, at different doses and for variable time intervals to women with osteoporosis were examined to explore the relationship between intermittent bisphosphonate therapy, changes in bone resorption and fracture risk. The magnitude of the reduction of the rate of bone resorption at the end of the drug-free interval rather than its fluctuation pattern after bisphosphonate administration determines antifracture efficacy, provided that these fluctuations occur within the premenopausal range. Prolongation of the drug-free interval beyond 2 weeks should be compensated by a dose higher than the cumulative daily dose.

Osteoporosis

Effective therapies are available for the patient who has arthritic osteoporosis. The approach is critical to ensure an optimal quality of life in these individuals who suffer with a disease that is clearly treatable.

Osteoporosis: strategies for prevention and management

Osteoporosis is a serious public health issue, affecting up to 1 in 2 women and 1 in 5 men over the age of 50 years. The common osteoporotic fractures occur at the spine, wrist and hip. For the patient affected by osteoporosis, these fractures are associated with significant morbidity and, in the case of hip and spine fractures, an excess mortality. The treatment of osteoporotic fractures is also associated with a significant healthcare cost for society. Currently, measurement of bone mineral density using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry is the gold standard for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. In the future, however, assessment of fracture risk will be based on algorithms incorporating clinical risk factors and bone density measurements, where appropriate. The goal of treatment is to reduce the risk of future fracture. Patients at high risk for fracture should be assessed and screened to exclude secondary causes for osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate) are the first-line therapy for the majority of patients and these treatments can be given either orally or intravenously. Alternative treatment options include strontium ranelate and raloxifene. Anabolic therapy with parathyroid hormone can be considered for patients with severe disease. These patients will often require referral for specialist assessment and monitoring. All patients at risk of developing osteoporosis should be given lifestyle advice regarding dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D and regular weight-bearing exercise.

The cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature

Osteoporotic fragility fractures constitute a significant public health concern. The lifetime risk of any osteoporotic fracture is very high (40-50% in women and 13-22% in men). Fractures are associated with significant mortality and morbidity and represent a substantial economic burden to society. Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate and ibandronate) are indicated for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis but are costly compared with other treatments, such as vitamin D and calcium. Our search identified 23 studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapy for the treatment and prevention of fragility fractures; these studies were from five geographical areas and employed a variety of comparators and assumptions. We identified 11 studies investigating bisphosphonates in women with low bone mineral density (BMD) [T-score >2.5 standard deviations {SDs} below normal {mean} peak values for young adults] and previous fractures, five studies investigating bisphosphonates in women with low BMD and no previous fracture, one study of bisphosphonates in women with osteopenia, five studies involving screening and two studies of bisphosphonates in special populations (women initiating corticosteroid treatment and men). In women with low BMD and previous fractures, bisphosphonate therapy was most cost effective in populations aged > or =70 years and was unlikely to be cost effective in populations aged < or =50 years. There was uncertainty concerning the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in such populations aged 60-69 years. In women with low BMD without previous fractures, treatment with alendronate or risedronate appeared to be cost effective across countries (UK, US, Denmark), but there was some uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of etidronate in patients in the highest age groups. Identifying risk factors for fractures through means such as spine radiographs to detect vertebral deformities improves the cost effectiveness of treatment. In women with osteopenia, alendronate therapy may be cost effective in women with a T-score of -2.4SD in the US. Screening for low BMD and treatment with alendronate or etidronate appears to be cost effective in postmenopausal women in general and in women with rheumatoid arthritis initiating corticosteroid therapy. Alendronate therapy without screening was also shown to be potentially cost effective in certain at-risk male populations, as well as in women initiating corticosteroid therapy after the age of 40 years. Decision makers in the US, UK and Sweden should consider funding the use of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in women aged >70 years, particularly if they have other risk factors for fracture. Further studies are required to make more definitive conclusions in other countries and patient populations. Screening strategies for low BMD followed by bisphosphonate treatment should also be considered in the general female population aged >65 years in the UK and US and in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating corticosteroid therapy.

RETRACTED: Etidronate for fracture prevention in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Corresponding Author, Yoshihiro Sato, and the co-authors have been informed. Dr. Sato wishes to retract this article on the grounds that it contains fabricated clinical trial data, which he was responsible for producing. In addition, Dr. Sato claims he listed all of the named co-authors without their consent. The co-authors were therefore unaware of the presence of fabricated data in this publication and their participation in the publication. This retraction was initiated by Dr. Sato, and the Editor-in-Chief of Bone was informed by the author directly.

Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a serious public health issue. The past 10 years have seen great advances in our understanding of its epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment, and further advances are rapidly being made. Clinical assessment will probably evolve from decisions mainly being made on the basis of bone densitometry, to use of algorithms of absolute fracture risk. Biochemical markers of bone turnover are also likely to become more widely used. Bisphosphonates will probably remain the mainstay of therapy, but improved understanding of the optimum amount of remodelling suppression and duration of therapy will be important. At the same time, other diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, including biological agents, are likely to become more widespread.

Bone quality: a perspective from the Food and Drug Administration

Osteoporosis, a disease of compromised bone strength, is a leading cause of fracture, morbidity, and mortality. The past 10 years have resulted in the development of new pharmacologic therapies for the treatment of this disease. Most of these agents have been approved for the treatment of osteoporosis based on placebo-controlled fracture trials. However, recent ethical concerns regarding placebo-controlled trials threaten to derail the development of new, possibly better, treatment options. Novel noninvasive imaging technologies may offer greater insight into the pathophysiology and biomechanics of osteoporosis and fracture. Because of these advances, many hope to find a new biomarker that will predict fracture risk better than the current bone density measurements and that ultimately will replace fracture as the primary endpoint for osteoporosis drug registration trials. This paper discusses the perspective of a Food and Drug Administration reviewer regarding the role of surrogate markers as they relate to the quest for new, safe and efficacious treatments for osteoporosis.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis. What have we learned since the introduction of bisphosphonates?

Over the past 12 years bisphosphonates have become a mainstay of treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. As a class, bisphosphonates significantly suppress bone turnover and increase BMD at the lumbar spine and other site through their direct inhibitory effects on osteoclasts. Alendronate and risedronate reduce the incidence of clinical vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Etidronate and both oral and intravenous ibandronate reduce the incidence of clinical vertebral fractures, but data from primary analyses for reduction in non-vertebral fractures are currently less robust. Intravenous administration of zoledronate is under late-stage investigation for use in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Combinations of alendronate with estrogen or raloxifene provide a greater reduction in bone turnover markers and greater increases in BMD, but fracture risk reduction has not been determined. Overall, bisphosphonates are well tolerated. The most common side effects of oral bisphosphonates are upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Newer safety concerns about the use of bisphosphonates include osteonecrosis of the jaw and oversuppression of bone turnover. The optimal duration of bisphosphonate treatment has not been clearly established.

Effect of etidronate in preventing periprosthetic bone loss following cemented hip arthroplasty: A randomized, double blind, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic bone loss occurs after insertion of a total hip prosthesis and is often a result of stress shielding or altered loading of the proximal femur. Preventing the bone loss, which may threaten the prosthesis survival, with an antiresorptive drug would be highly advantageous.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our study investigated the effect of cyclic etidronate therapy on periprosthetic, contralateral hip, and spine bone mineral density (BMD) in a one-year, prospective, randomized, double-blind study in 31 patients after cemented hip arthroplasty. Etidronate was taken orally in a regimen repeated every 14 weeks, and periprosthetic BMD was measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the total periprosthetic area and in the seven Gruen zones at 1 week (baseline), 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

In the etidronate group there were significant temporal BMD decreases measured in Gruen zones 2, 3, 6, and 7 and in the entire proximal femur; the greatest decrease was 12.9% and was measured in zone 7 at six months. Also in the etidronate group, there was a significant 2.8% temporal BMD increase in the spine at 12 months. In the placebo group there were significant temporal BMD decreases measured in Gruen zones 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 and in the entire proximal femur; the greatest decrease was 25.5% and was measured in zone 7 at 12 months. There were no significant differences between the mean BMD measurements of the etidronate and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that cyclic etidronate therapy has no significant effect in suppressing periprosthetic bone loss after cemented hip arthroplasty.

Anti-hip fracture efficacy of biophosphonates: a Bayesian analysis of clinical trials

In postmenopausal women, the efficacy of bisphosphonates on hip fracture risk is not clear. This Bayesian meta-analysis quantitatively reviewed data from 12 randomized clinical trials with 18,667 patients and found that bisphosphonate treatment was associated with a reduced risk for hip fracture by 42%.

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of antiresorptive bisphosphonates therapy on reducing hip fracture is not clear, because evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is inconclusive. This study was undertaken to quantitatively assess the effect of bisphosphonates on hip fracture using literature review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bayesian methods of meta-analysis were applied to synthesize data from 12 RCTs available between 1990 and 2004. The trials involved 18,667 postmenopausal women with low BMD or osteoporosis who have been followed or treated for between 1 and 4 years. The medications used were etidronate (two trials) alendronate (six trials), risedronate (three trials), and clodronate (one trial). The primary endpoint was the incidence of hip fracture.

RESULTS

When data from all 12 studies were pooled, treatment with bisphosphonates was associated with a reduced risk for hip fracture by 42% (relative risk [RR], 0.58; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.42-0.80). The absolute rate reduction was 52 hip fractures per 10,000 women (95% CrI, 4-110) for a period of 3-year treatment. The probability that bisphosphonates are better than placebo (in reducing hip fracture risk by at least 30%) was 0.90.

CONCLUSIONS

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD, bisphosphonate treatment is associated with reduced risk of hip fracture.

Etidronate does not suppress periprosthetic bone loss following cemented hip arthroplasty

Periprosthetic bone loss after arthroplasty may threaten prosthesis survival. The current study investigated the effect of etidronate therapy on periprosthetic, contralateral hip, and spine bone mineral density (BMD) in a one-year, prospective, randomized, double-blind study on 46 patients after cemented hip arthroplasty. BMD was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). There were no significant differences between mean BMD measurements of the etidronate and placebo groups, with the exception of the mean percent change in the spine at six months and 12 months and in Gruen zone 3 at six months; in all three cases, the etidronate group had significantly greater mean values. These findings suggest that cyclic etidronate therapy has no significant effect in suppressing periprosthetic bone loss following cemented hip arthroplasty.

Osteoporosis

Bone is a complex organ which contains an organic matrix which serves as scaffolding, includes mineral as calcium distributed in a pattern providing structure and serves as an ion reservoir for the body. Throughout life it dynamically changes in response to changes in activity, body mass, and weight bearing. It is important to define patients at risk for bone loss, since accrued bone loss leading to osteoporosis in the older population of both men and women is unacceptable. There are many different therapies including biphosphonates which can decrease loss of bone and decrease fracture risk in patients who already have had sustained a fracture. Newer therapies such as parathyroid hormone may improve the fracture risk even more than biphosphonates over a shorter period of time.

Efficacy of different dosing schedules of etidronate for stress shielding after cementless total hip arthroplasty

Forty-four women who had undergone cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) were selected for determination of the optimum dosage of etidronate in the treatment of stress shielding after surgery. Patients were 55-86 years of age. The patients were randomized into three groups. The control group (n = 17) was not treated with osteoactive drugs. The low-dose group (n = 12) and the high-dose group (n = 15) received 200 mg or 400 mg etidronate daily for 2 weeks, followed by 12 weeks of calcium supplementation of 500 mg/day. These patients received four cycles of therapy over 1 year postoperatively. Periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at 3 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. At 12 months, bone loss in the low-dose and high-dose groups was significantly lower compared with the control group in Gruen zones 1 and 7. There were additional significant differences with regard to bone loss between the control group and the high-dose group in zones 2, 4, and 6. Our data suggest that high dosages are more effective in reducing postoperative bone loss after cementless THA.