Randomized trial comparing efficacies of zoledronate and alendronate for improving bone mineral density and inhibiting bone remodelling in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis

A retrospective comparative fractal and radiomorphometric analysis of the effect of bisphosphonate use pattern and duration on the mandible

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two different bisphosphonate types on bone using dental panoramic radiographs (DPRs) and to compare these findings with a healthy cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

Panoramic dental radiographs of bisphosphonate users (30) and healthy individuals (30) were retrospectively evaluated for the study. Regarding FA, standardized 50 × 50 pixel regions of interest (ROI) were identified for each patient. Moreover, the assessment encompassed Mandibular Cortical Width (MCW), Panoramic Mandibular Index (PMI), and Mandibular Cortical Index (MCI). A significance level of p < 0.05 was deemed to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The case group showed significantly higher MCW and PMI measurements than the control group (p < 0.001). Right and left MCI measurements differed depending on the type of drug used (p = 0.008 and p = 0.019, respectively). No discernible correlation was found between the time elapsed since the last dose and any measurement values (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that bisphosphonate type and duration of drug use have a significant effect on changes in cortical bone structure. The persistence of these effects, unaffected by the time since the previous dose, suggests that bisphosphonates have a long-lasting effect on bone.

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).

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.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Future work

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

Limitations

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

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

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

Effects of genistein aglycone in glucocorticoid induced osteoporosis: A randomized clinical trial in comparison with alendronate

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) complicates the clinical management of patients subjected to long-term glucocorticoid use. This study explored the effects of genistein on bone loss in a randomized double-blind alendronate-controlled trial in postmenopausal women with GIO. 200 postmenopausal women (taking at least 5 mg of prednisone equivalents) since 3 months, or more, and expected to continue for at least other 12 months, were randomized to receive genistein (54 mg/day daily) or alendronate (70 mg once a week) for 24 months. Both groups received also Calcium and Vitamin D3 supplementation. Median bone mineral density (BMD) at the antero-posterior lumbar spine significantly increased from 0.75 g/cm2 at baseline to 0.77 g/cm2 at 1 year and 0.79 g/cm2 at 2 years in alendronate-treated patients and from 0.77 g/cm2 at baseline to 0.79 g/cm2 at 12 months and to 0.80 g/cm2 at 24 months in genistein recipients. No difference was observed between the two treatments. Median BMD at the femoral neck increased from 0.67 g/cm2 at baseline to 0.68 g/cm2 at 1 year and 0.69 g/cm2 at 2 years in alendronate-treated patients and from 0.68 g/cm2 at baseline to 0.70 g/cm2 at 12 months and to 0.71 g/cm2 at 24 months in genistein recipients. No difference was observed between alendronate and genistein groups in BMD. Regarding bone markers genistein and alendronate statistically decreased c-terminal telopeptide, while osteocalcin, bone-ALP, and sclerostin showed greater changes in genistein treated patients. This randomized clinical trial suggests that genistein aglycone represents an additional therapeutic option for patients with GIO.

Intravenous zoledronate for postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis: a systematic review and metanalysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the evidence-based health program at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo.

METHODS

An electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases was performed until February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing zoledronate with placebo or other bisphosphonates were included. Standard methodological procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and the certainty of evidence for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Two authors assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on fractures, adverse events, bone turnover markers (BTM), and bone mineral density (BMD).

RESULTS

Twelve trials from 6,652 records were included: nine compared zoledronate with placebo, two trials compared zoledronate with alendronate, and one trial compared zoledronate with ibandronate. Zoledronate reduced the incidence of fractures in osteoporotic [three years: morphometric vertebral fractures (relative risk, RR = 0.30 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.24-0.38))] and osteopenic women [six years: morphometric vertebral fractures (RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.25-0.61))], increased incidence of post-dose symptoms [RR = 2.56 (95%CI: 1.80-3.65)], but not serious adverse events [RR = 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91-1.04)]. Zoledronate reduced BTM and increased BMD in osteoporotic and osteopenic women.

CONCLUSION

This review supports the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia for six years and osteoporosis for three years.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022309708, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708.

Efficacy and Safety of Annual Infusion of Zoledronic Acid and Weekly Oral Alendronate in the Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reveal the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with alendronate in patients with primary osteoporosis. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from the establishment of each database to April 2022 for comparative studies on the topic, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, and 2 authors individually extracted information and data concerning study design, baseline characteristics, bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, and adverse events (AEs). We identified 8 eligible trials, including 1863 participants. Pooled estimates demonstrated that, compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid showed no significant difference in increasing the BMD of the lumbar spine after 1 year (SMD = -0.03, 95%CI -0.15 to 0.09, I²  = 0.41%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.16, 95%CI -0.12 to 0.43, I²  = 63%), and the BMD of the total hip after 1 year (SMD = -0.08, 95%CI -0.31 to 0.14, I²  = 64%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.05, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.32, I²  = 61%). No significant difference in improving bone turnover markers, including serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-1 collagen, urine N-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-1 collagen, and serum procollagen type-1 N-terminal propeptide, were found, whereas significantly higher total AE rates (RR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.60 to 3.21, I²  = 75%) were recorded within 3 days of infusion, but some lower AE rates, particularly of gastrointestinal AEs (RR = 0.6, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83, I²  = 37%), were noted after 3 days of infusion. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid has achieved comparable therapeutic results in the treatment of primary osteoporosis in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover marker levels. Zoledronic acid showed a better safety profile than alendronate with long-term use, especially with regards to gastrointestinal-related AEs.

Evidence for the cardiovascular effects of osteoporosis treatments in randomized trials of post-menopausal women: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Osteoporosis medications have been reported to have beneficial and harmful cardiovascular effects. Much of this evidence stems from single reports and as such, a comprehensive examination of the evidence is needed. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of cardiovascular adverse event (CAE) data from randomized trials of osteoporosis medications in postmenopausal women. Trials were identified from recent NMAs of osteoporosis treatment for fracture reduction with an updated literature search (December 2020). Included studies were randomized, included over 100 participants, and reported skeletal primary outcomes. We investigated three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE3), four- (MACE4) and five-point MACE (MACE5), as well as myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Data were synthesized in a random-effects network meta-analysis using Bayesian modelling. Probabilistic ranking of treatment safety was performed. Relative to placebo, point estimates for the odds ratios (OR) with 95 % credible intervals (CrI) were also generated. We identified 75 trials (n = 136,940 women), of which 27 (68,699 women, nine arms) reported CAEs. In women randomized to placebo, the overall event rate for the MACE3 outcome was 2.58 % compared with 1.99 % in those randomized to all other active comparators. Probabilistic ranking found abaloparatide, oral bisphosphonates, teriparatide, and menopausal hormone therapy were less likely to have increased risk of CAEs than placebo, while romosozumab ranked more likely to have increased risk of CAEs than placebo for all outcomes. Compared with placebo, abaloparatide (one trial, n = 1642) was associated with a reduced odds for MACE3 (OR = 0·31; 95%CrI: 0·06 to 0·99), MACE4 (0·28; 0·06 to 0·88) and MACE5 (0·25; 0·06 to 0·79). When all PTH analogues were grouped together, magnitude and direction of effects were consistent but no longer statistically significant. We did not find pooled direct and indirect evidence that osteoporosis treatments significantly increased the risk of adverse cardiovascular events relative to placebo. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178702).

Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in elderly patients after hip fracture

BACKGROUND

Two injectable anti-osteoporosis medications, denosumab and zoledronic acid, have been widely used to treat patients with severe osteoporosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and adherence of denosumab compared to zoledronic acid in geriatric patients after a hip fracture.

METHODS

A total of 282 patients treated with osteoporotic hip fracture between March 2014 and Aug 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were asked to select the anti-osteoporosis medication after surgery. Treatment persistence was monitored by follow-up visit to the outpatient clinic at postoperative 2 years.

RESULTS

Of 282 individuals with baseline data, 162 patients took subcutaneous denosumab and 120 patients took intravenous zoledronic acid. At postoperative 2 years, the change in bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline was greater in the denosumab group compared with the zoledronic acid group (p < 0.001). The rate of persistence to denosumab was significantly higher than that for 12-months zoledronic acid (p = 0.01). Serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed the effectiveness and patients' persistence for two commonly used anti-osteoporosis agents after hip fracture. In this frail, elderly population, half-yearly denosumab was superior to yearly zoledronic acid in BMD and demonstrated significant higher persistence rate, indicating a potential therapeutic advantage that warrants further validation.

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

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

The Pathophysiology of Osteoporosis after Spinal Cord Injury

Spinal cord injury (SCI) affects approximately 300,000 people in the United States. Most individuals who sustain severe SCI also develop subsequent osteoporosis. However, beyond immobilization-related lack of long bone loading, multiple mechanisms of SCI-related bone density loss are incompletely understood. Recent findings suggest neuronal impairment and disability may lead to an upregulation of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), which promotes bone resorption. Disruption of Wnt signaling and dysregulation of RANKL may also contribute to the pathogenesis of SCI-related osteoporosis. Estrogenic effects may protect bones from resorption by decreasing the upregulation of RANKL. This review will discuss the current proposed physiological and cellular mechanisms explaining osteoporosis associated with SCI. In addition, we will discuss emerging pharmacological and physiological treatment strategies, including the promising effects of estrogen on cellular protection.

Comparative effectiveness of denosumab, teriparatide, and zoledronic acid among frail older adults: a retrospective cohort study

The comparative effects of zoledronic acid, denosumab, and teriparatide for preventing hip fractures in frail older adults, especially those in nursing homes, were unknown. We found that denosumab and zoledronic acid may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in nursing home residents.

INTRODUCTION

Several non-oral drugs exist for osteoporosis treatment, including zoledronic acid (ZA), denosumab, and teriparatide. Little data exist on the comparative effectiveness of these drugs for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. We examined their comparative effectiveness in one of the frailest segments of the US population-nursing home (NH) residents.

METHODS

We conducted a national retrospective cohort study of NH residents aged ≥ 65 years using 2012 to 2016 national US Minimum Data Set clinical assessment data and linked Medicare claims. New parenteral ZA, denosumab, and teriparatide use was assessed via Medicare Parts B and D; hip fracture outcomes via Part A; and 125 covariates for confounding adjustment via several datasets. We used inverse probability weighted (IPW) competing risk regression models to compare hip fracture risk between groups with teriparatide as the reference.

RESULTS

The study cohort (N = 2019) included 1046 denosumab, 578 teriparatide, and 395 ZA initiators. Mean age was 85 years, 90% were female, and 68% had at least moderate functional impairment. Seventy-two residents (3.6%) had a hip fracture and 1100 (54.5%) died over a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. Compared to teriparatide use, denosumab use was associated with a 46% lower risk of hip fracture (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00) and no difference was observed for ZA (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26-1.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab and ZA may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. Given their lower cost and easier administration, denosumab and ZA are likely preferable non-oral treatments for most frail, older adults.

Safety and Efficacy of Zoledronic Acid Treatment with and without Acetaminophen and Eldecalcitol for Osteoporosis

Objectives We aimed to investigate the safety of zoledronic acid (ZOL) combined with acetaminophen (APAP) regarding both the adverse events and the efficacy of ZOL combined with an eldecalcitol (ELD) in a randomized clinical trial conducted in patients with primary osteoporosis. Methods A total of 109 patients were administered ZOL 5 mg and then were randomly assigned to the following groups (3:2:1): those treated with ZOL, those treated with ZOL combined with APAP and ELD, and those treated with ZOL combined with ELD. For the analyses, the groups were classified into four treatment groups: patients treated with APAP (APAP group) and without APAP (non-APAP group), and those treated with ELD (ELD group) and without ELD (non-ELD group). The incidence rates of symptomatic adverse events were compared between the APAP and non-APAP groups, and the efficacy was compared between the ELD and non-ELD groups. Results In the APAP and non-APAP groups, the incidence rates of symptomatic adverse events were 20.6% and 44.6% (p=0.009), respectively. Age and APAP use were found to be significant factors associated with adverse events. The percent changes in the bone mineral density values from baseline (ΔBMD) in the ELD and non-ELD groups at 12 months were 8.2% and 6.2% for the lumbar spine, 4.2% and 4.0% for the total hip, and 3.9% and 2.2% for the femoral neck, respectively. The ΔBMD of all sites did not differ significantly between the ELD and non-ELD groups. Conclusion In ZOL treatment, the co-administration of APAP should thus be considered as a therapeutic option to reduce the occurrence of symptomatic adverse events stemming from ZOL treatment in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis, particularly in younger patients.

Treatment of high fracture risk patients in routine clinical practice

A retrospective cohort study determined the high incidence of recurrent fractures in osteoporotic patients with high fracture risk during the observation. The strategy of starting treatment with more potent regimens (zoledronic acid, denosumab and/or teriparatide) seems to have the best secondary fracture prevention efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes the various medical therapy regimens prescribed to osteoporotic patients with high fracture risk and the result of treatment.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective cohort study in selected Osteoporosis Centers. Patients were considered to have high fracture risk in case of a history of a low-energy hip fracture or two or more vertebral or other site fractures. A total of 812 subjects (768 women and 44 men) aged 36-95 years were included. The observation period was 2285.1 patient-years. Demographic data, clinical findings, and BMD data obtained by DXA, as well as a history of fractures that had occurred during the follow-up, were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, at baseline, there were 637 non-vertebral fractures including 104 hip fractures. A total of 590 patients had vertebral fractures; of these, 69% suffered multiple fractures. Being on treatment, 119 (14.7%) patients developed new vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. The incidence of new non-vertebral fractures and hip fractures was 39.4 and 13.1 per 1000 patient-years. The total number of vertebral fractures increased by 24.8% from 1353 to 1689. The best results of the treatment were achieved in patients who were started on zoledronic acid, denosumab, or teriparatide and had an adequate duration of treatment. Although these patients had significantly lower BMD values at the time of diagnosis compared with other patients, they showed a lower incidence of new vertebral and hip fractures, during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Therapy of patients at high risk of fractures started with more potent treatment regimens (zoledronic acid, denosumab and/or teriparatide) of adequate duration was more effective in terms of prevention of new vertebral and hip fractures as compared with other treatment options. However, treatment appears to be challenging given the number of recurrent fractures in patients on treatment and the frequency of drug withdrawal or replacement.

Effects of follow-on therapy after denosumab discontinuation in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis

OBJECTIVES

To clarify the effects of follow-on therapy after denosumab (DMAb) discontinuation.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multicenter study, postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who were previously treated by oral bisphosphonates (BP) (n = 26) or teriparatide (TPTD) (n = 27) were switched to DMAb (administered 2.6 times), and then discontinued. Patients (73.1 years, T-scores of the lumbar spine [LS] - 2.7 and femoral neck [FN] - 2.2) were switched to either (1) raloxifene (RAL) (n = 13) or BP [(2) weekly or monthly BP (wmBP) (n = 29) or (3) zoledronate (ZOL) (n = 11)], based on each physician's decision (mean interval after final DMAb administration was 7.2 months). Bone mineral density (BMD) at final DMAb administration were set as baseline.

RESULTS

Changes in LS BMD at 1.5 years after final DMAb administration were -2.7% in the RAL, 0.7% in the wmBP, and 1.9% in the ZOL (p = .31 between groups), and in FN BMD were -3.8%, -0.8%, and 1.8%, respectively (p = .02 between the RAL and ZOL; p = .048 between the RAL and BP). Clinical vertebral fracture incidence during 1.5 years after final DMAb administration was 23.1% in the RAL, 3.4% in the wmBP, and 0.0% in the ZOL (p = .048 between the RAL and ZOL; p = .015 between the RAL and BP). No significant differences were observed in these parameters between the wmBP and ZOL.

CONCLUSION

These results may contribute to the selection of adequate follow-on therapy after DMAb discontinuation, although further investigations are required.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

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

GIP's involvement in the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes

During the past four decades derangements in glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) biology has been viewed upon as contributing factors to various parts of the pathophysiology type 2 diabetes. This overview outlines and discusses the impaired insulin responses to GIP as well as the effect of GIP on glucagon secretion and the potential involvement of GIP in the obesity and bone disease associated with type 2 diabetes. As outlined in this review, it is unlikely that the impaired insulinotropic effect of GIP occurs as a primary event in the development of type 2 diabetes, but rather develops once the diabetic state is present and beta cells are unable to maintain normoglycemia. In various models, GIP has effects on glucagon secretion, bone and lipid homeostasis, but whether these effects contribute substantially to the pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes is at present controversial. The review also discusses the substantial uncertainty surrounding the translation of preclinical data relating to the GIP system and outline future research directions.

The Effect of Zoledronic Acid on Serum Biomarkers among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain and Modic Changes in Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging

The aim of the current study was to compare changes in serum biomarkers, including inflammatory mediators, signaling molecules, growth factors and markers of bone turnover after a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg zoledronic acid (ZA, a long-acting bisphosphonate; n = 20) or placebo (n = 20) among patients with Modic changes (MC) and chronic low back pain in a randomized controlled design. The MCs were classified into M1, predominating M1, predominating M2, and M2. We measured the serum concentrations of 39 biomarkers at baseline, and one month and one year after treatment. After Benjamini–Hochberg (B–H) correction, we observed significant differences in three biomarkers over one year: Interferon-γ-inducible protein (IP-10) had risen in the ZA group (p = 0.005), whereas alkaline phosphatase (AFOS) and intact procollagen I N-terminal propeptide (iPINP) had significantly decreased in the ZA group, but had not changed in the placebo group (p < 0.001 for both). Change in iPINP correlated with change in the volume of all MC and M1 lesions. ZA downregulated bone turnover markers as expected and, surprisingly, increased the chemokine IP-10 relative to placebo treatment. This adds to our knowledge of the effects of ZA on MC and the biomarkers that signal this process.

Higher concentration of serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen is positively related with inflammatory factors in postmenopausal women with H-type hypertension and osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the changes of inflammatory factors and bone metabolism markers in postmenopausal women with H-type hypertension and to assess the relationship between them.

METHODS

Postmenopausal women who were diagnosed with osteoporosis were selected as observation objects. Participants were divided into three groups: only osteoporosis group (osteoporosis group), hypertension combined with osteoporosis group (hypertension group), and H-type hypertension combined with osteoporosis group (H-type hypertension group). The changes in bone mineral density and bone metabolic markers (osteocalcin [OC], procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP), and C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen [CTX]) and inflammatory factors (interleukin-6 [IL-6] and tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α]) were compared among three groups.

RESULTS

In the hypertension group and the H-type hypertension group, the bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (0.647 ± 0.038 vs 0.638 ± 0.034 vs 0.668 ± 0.047, P < 0.05) and the femoral neck (0.567 ± 0.047 vs 0.552 ± 0.053 vs 0.618 ± 0.059, P < 0.05) was significantly lower than that in the osteoporosis group. The concentrations of CTX (266.61 ± 64.65 vs 293.09 ± 72.34 vs 235.48 ± 62.85, P < 0.05), IL-6 (44.36 ± 6.45 vs 48.05 ± 8.04 vs 39.06 ± 7.95, P < 0.05) and TNF-α (30.53 ± 6.28 vs 34.52 ± 7.15 vs 28.66 ± 6.19, P < 0.01) in the hypertension group and in the H-type hypertension group were significantly higher than those in the osteoporosis group. The concentrations of OC (30.59 ± 6.43 vs 27.10 ± 6.51, P < 0.05) and PINP (36.36 ± 6.16 vs 33.16 ± 6.77, P < 0.05) in the H-type hypertension group were increased dramatically. The concentration of CTX was positively correlated with the concentration of IL-6 (r = 0.587, P < 0.01) and TNF-α (r = 0.474, P < 0.01) and negatively related with the concentration of OC (r = -0.591, P < 0.01) and PINP (r = -0.646, P < 0.01) and the bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (r = -0.470, P < 0.01) and the femoral neck (r = -0.509, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Higher concentration of serum CTX is found in postmenopausal women with H-type hypertension, which is positively correlated with inflammatory factors. Besides, H-type hypertension could further enhance the activity of osteoclasts and increase the expressions of inflammatory factors, resulting in the aggravation of osteoporosis.

Epidermal Growth Factor Reverses the Inhibitory Effects of the Bisphosphonate, Zoledronic Acid, on Human Oral Keratinocytes and Human Vascular Endothelial Cells In Vitro via the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)/Akt/Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase (PI3K) Signaling Pathway

Background

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is due to the direct effects of drug toxicity and the effects on angiogenesis. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of treatment with the bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, on human oral keratinocytes (HOKs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) in vitro, and whether epidermal growth factor (EGF) could alter these effects.

Material/Methods

HOKs and HUVECs were incubated with zoledronic acid or EGF. Cell viability was assessed by the cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8), cell apoptosis was studied using Annexin-V conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC). Angiogenesis was studied by observing HUVEC tube formation and cell migrations using a transwell assay. A scratch wound assay investigated cell migration of HOKs. Western blot measured expression levels of phosphorylated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), Akt, phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR), and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS).

Results

Zoledronic acid treatment (5 μmol/L) significantly inhibited cell viability and cell migration of HOKs and HUVECs and angiogenesis of HUVECS (P<0.05); EGF partially reversed these effects (P<0.05). Zoledronic acid treatment of HOKs and HUVECs had no significant effects on apoptosis (P>0.05), but significantly reduced expression levels of p-EGFR, p-Akt, p-PI3K, p-mTOR), and p-eNOS (P<0.05); EGF partially reversed these effects and increased the expression levels (P<0.05).

Conclusions

EGF partially reversed the effects of the bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, on HOKs and HUVECs in vitro via the EGFR/Akt/PI3K signaling pathway. Further studies are required to determine the effects of EGF on MRONJ including bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Fracture Preventing Effects of Maxmarvil® Tablets (Alendronate 5 mg + Calcitriol 0.5 µg) in Patients with Osteoporosis

Background

The purpose of this prospective, open-label, observational study was to assess the fracture preventing effect of Maxmarvil® tablets (alendronate 5 mg + calcitriol 0.5 µg) in patients with osteoporosis and to evaluate the change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the minimum 1-year follow-up.

Methods

In this multicenter observational study, 691 patients with osteoporosis (aged 50 years or older) were treated with alendronate 5 mg + calcitriol 0.5 µg/day during their normal course of care. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Baseline characteristics (including age, gender, concomitant disease, and baseline fractures) were evaluated.

Results

From among the 848 participants, 149 individuals were lost to follow-up at the time of the study and 8 people had died. The 691 participants (54 men and 637 women) finished the follow-up study and completed the questionnaire. The mean age of the participants was 71.5 years (range, 50–92 years; mean age, 72.3 years for men and 71.4 years for women). Osteoporotic fracture occurred in 19 patients (2.7%). BMD of the lumbar spine and hip was improved by 5% and 1.5% at the latest follow-up. At the latest follow-up, 24 patients (3.5%) complained of drug-related complications such as dyspepsia, constipation, and nausea.

Conclusions

This prospective observational study demonstrated that alendronate 5 mg + calcitriol 0.5 µg/day had a preventive effect on osteoporotic fracture and it increased the BMD of the lumbar spine by 5% at the latest follow-up.