Efficacy and tolerability of once-monthly oral ibandronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2 year results from the MOBILE study

Guidelines for fracture risk assessment and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men above the age of 50 in Qatar

We present comprehensive guidelines for osteoporosis management in Qatar. Formulated by the Qatar Osteoporosis Association, the guidelines recommend the age-dependent Qatar fracture risk assessment tool for screening, emphasizing risk-based treatment strategies and discouraging routine dual-energy X-ray scans. They offer a vital resource for physicians managing osteoporosis and fragility fractures nationwide.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis and related fragility fractures are a growing public health issue with an impact on individuals and the healthcare system. We aimed to present guidelines providing unified guidance to all healthcare professionals in Qatar regarding the management of osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Qatar Osteoporosis Association formulated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men above the age of 50. A panel of six local rheumatologists who are experts in the field of osteoporosis met together and conducted an extensive review of published articles and local and international guidelines to formulate guidance for the screening and management of postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years in Qatar.

RESULTS

The guidelines emphasize the use of the age-dependent hybrid model of the Qatar fracture risk assessment tool for screening osteoporosis and risk categorization. The guidelines include screening, risk stratification, investigations, treatment, and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis. The use of a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan without any risk factors is discouraged. Treatment options are recommended based on risk stratification.

CONCLUSION

Guidance is provided to all physicians across the country who are involved in the care of patients with osteoporosis and fragility fractures.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Future work

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

Limitations

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

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

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

Effect of Hyperprolactinemia on Bone Metabolism: Focusing on Osteopenia/Osteoporosis

Prolactin is a hormone secreted from lactotroph cells in the anterior pituitary gland to induce lactation after birth. Hyperprolactinemia unrelated to lactation is a common cause of amenorrhea in women of a childbearing age, and a consequent decrease in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) by a high prolactin level can result in decreased bone mineral density. Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disorder characterized by decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and quality, which results in decreased bone strength. In patients with hyperprolactinemia, changes in BMD can be induced indirectly by the inhibition of the GnRH-gonadal axis due to increased prolactin levels or by the direct action of prolactin on osteoblasts and, possibly, osteoclast cells. This review highlights the recent work on bone remodeling and discusses our knowledge of how prolactin modulates these interactions, with a brief literature review on the relationship between prolactin and bone metabolism and suggestions for new possibilities.

Follow-up Bone Mineral Density Testing: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) which is most strongly associated with fracture risk. BMD is therefore the basis for the World Health Organization's densitometric definition of osteoporosis. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) promotes best densitometry practices and its official positions reflect critical review of current evidence by domain experts. This document reports new official positions regarding follow-up DXA examinations based on a systematic review of literature published through December 2022. Adoption of official positions requires consensus agreement from an expert panel following a modified RAND protocol. Unless explicitly altered by the new position statements, prior ISCD official positions remain in force. This update reflects increased consideration of the clinical context prompting repeat examination. Follow-up DXA should be performed with pre-defined objectives when the results would have an impact on patient management. Testing intervals should be individualized according to the patient's age, sex, fracture risk and treatment history. Incident fractures and therapeutic approach are key considerations. Appropriately ordered and interpreted follow-up DXA examinations support diagnostic and therapeutic decision making, thereby contributing to excellent clinical care. Future research should address the complementary roles of clinical findings, imaging and laboratory testing to guide management.

Summary of the Thai Osteoporosis Foundation (TOPF) Clinical Practice Guideline on the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis 2021

Objectives

The Thai Osteoporosis Foundation (TOPF) is an academic organization that consists of a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals managing osteoporosis. The first clinical practice guideline for diagnosing and managing osteoporosis in Thailand was published by the TOPF in 2010, then updated in 2016 and 2021. This paper presents important updates of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Thailand.

Methods

A panel of experts in the field of osteoporosis was recruited by the TOPF to review and update the TOPF position statement from 2016. Evidence was searched using the MEDLINE database through PubMed. Primary writers submitted their first drafts, which were reviewed, discussed, and integrated into the final document. Recommendations are based on reviews of the clinical evidence and experts' opinions. The recommendations are classified using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation classification system.

Results

The updated guideline comprises 90 recommendations divided into 12 main topics. This paper summarizes the recommendations focused on 4 main topics: the diagnosis and evaluation of osteoporosis, fracture risk assessment and indications for bone mineral density measurement, fracture risk categorization, management according to fracture risk, and pharmacological management of osteoporosis.

Conclusions

This updated clinical practice guideline is a practical tool to assist healthcare professionals in diagnosing, evaluating, and managing osteoporosis in Thailand.

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacological, Nutritional, and Rehabilitative Interventions to Improve the Complex Management of Osteoporosis in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Narrative Review

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent condition affecting a growing number of patients affected by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with crucial implications for risk of fragility fractures, hospitalization, and mortality. Several risk factors have been identified to have a role in osteoporosis development in COPD patients, including corticosteroid therapy, systemic inflammation, smoke, physical activity levels, malnutrition, and sarcopenia. In this scenario, a personalized multitarget intervention focusing on the pathological mechanisms underpinning osteoporosis is mandatory to improve bone health in these frail patients. Specifically, physical exercise, nutritional approach, dietary supplements, and smoke cessation are the cornerstone of the lifestyle approach to osteoporosis in COPD patients, improving not only bone health but also physical performance and balance. On the other hand, pharmacological treatment should be considered for both the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in patients at higher risk of fragility fractures. Despite these considerations, several barriers still affect the integration of a personalized approach to managing osteoporosis in COPD patients. However, digital innovation solutions and telemedicine might have a role in optimizing sustainable networking between hospital assistance and community settings to improve bone health and reduce sanitary costs of the long-term management of COPD patients with osteoporosis.

The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in the USA and the world. It is a subclinical condition until complicated by fracture(s). These fractures place an enormous medical and personal burden on individuals who suffer from them and take a significant economic toll. Any new fracture in an adult aged 50 years or older signifies imminent elevated risk for subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following the initial fracture. What a patient perceives as an unfortunate accident may be seen as a sentinel event indicative of bone fragility and increased future fracture risk even when the result of considerable trauma. Clinical or subclinical vertebral fractures, the most common type of osteoporotic fractures, are associated with a 5-fold increased risk for additional vertebral fractures and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for fractures at other sites. Untreated osteoporosis can lead to a vicious cycle of recurrent fracture(s), often resulting in disability and premature death. In appropriate patients, treatment with effective antifracture medication prevents fractures and improves outcomes. Primary care providers and medical specialists are critical gatekeepers who can identify fractures and initiate proven osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis detection, diagnosis, and treatment should be routine practice in all adult healthcare settings. The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) - formerly the National Osteoporosis Foundation - first published the Clinician's Guide in 1999 to provide accurate information on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Since that time, significant improvements have been made in diagnostic technologies and treatments for osteoporosis. Despite these advances, a disturbing gap persists in patient care. At-risk patients are often not screened to establish fracture probability and not educated about fracture prevention. Most concerning, the majority of highest risk women and men who have a fracture(s) are not diagnosed and do not receive effective, FDA-approved therapies. Even those prescribed appropriate therapy are unlikely to take the medication as prescribed. The Clinician's Guide offers concise recommendations regarding prevention, risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and older. It includes indications for bone densitometry as well as fracture risk thresholds for pharmacologic intervention. Current medications build bone and/or decrease bone breakdown and dramatically reduce incident fractures. All antifracture therapeutics treat but do not cure the disease. Skeletal deterioration resumes sooner or later when a medication is discontinued-sooner for nonbisphosphonates and later for bisphosphonates. Even if normal BMD is achieved, osteoporosis and elevated risk for fracture are still present. The diagnosis of osteoporosis persists even if subsequent DXA T-scores are above - 2.5. Ongoing monitoring and strategic interventions will be necessary if fractures are to be avoided. In addition to pharmacotherapy, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, avoidance of smoking and excessive alcohol intake, weight-bearing and resistance-training exercise, and fall prevention are included in the fracture prevention armamentarium. Where possible, recommendations in this guide are based on evidence from RCTs; however, relevant published data and guidance from expert clinical experience provides the basis for recommendations in those areas where RCT evidence is currently deficient or not applicable to the many osteoporosis patients not considered for RCT participation due to age and morbidity.

Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures: currently available pharmacological options and future directions

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. The average lifetime risk of a 50-year-old woman to suffer a fracture of the spine, hip, proximal humerus, or distal forearm has been estimated at close to 50%. In general, pharmacological treatment is recommended in patients who suffered a fragility fracture because their risk of suffering a subsequent fracture is increased dramatically. Therefore, many guidelines recommend pharmacological treatment in patients without a prevalent fracture if their fracture probability is comparable to or higher than that of a person of the same age with a prevalent fracture. The present review aims to highlight currently available pharmacological treatment options and their antifracture efficacy including safety aspects. Drug classes discussed comprise bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone peptides and derivatives, humanized monoclonal antibodies, and estrogens and gestagens and their combinations. Furthermore, a brief glimpse is provided into a potentially promising treatment option that involves mesenchymal stem cells.

Evaluation of intravenous zoledronic acid-induced acute-phase response in the emergency department

Background/Aim: A temporary influenza-like condition, called acute-phase reaction (APR), is commonly observed with intravenous (IV) administration of nitrogen-containing amino bisphosphonates, such as zoledronic acid (ZOL). This single-center study aimed to evaluate the incidence of APR symptoms after intravenous (IV) ZOL administration in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis who were admitted to emergency department (ED). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 107 osteoporotic patients who were diagnosed with post-menopausal osteoporosis (bone mineral density T-score equal to or below −2.5 with/without prevalent fractures) and who had an ED admission in the first 72 h after intravenous injection of ZOL were included in the study. The patient’s pre-treatment blood sample measurements, presenting symptoms (such as fever, fatigue, hyperpyrexia, headache), family history, previous medical treatment, and adverse effects caused by osteoporosis drugs, in addition to information on co-morbidities and comedications were obtained from clinical records. Results: One-hundred seven osteoporotic patients (19.56%) patients experienced APR and were admitted to the ED after IV-ZOL administration. The mean age was 64.58 (11.15) years (n = 107). The three most commonly reported symptoms were diffuse musculoskeletal symptoms, influenza-like illness, and gastrointestinal symptoms (34.5%, 21.5%, and 18.5%, respectively). Seventy percent of the patients who presented to the ED with APR symptoms were prescribed drugs only, and 30% of the patients received treatment specific for their symptoms in the ED. Most of the diffuse musculoskeletal symptoms consisted of myalgia (22.4%). A positive correlation between the onset time of APR symptoms and the number of IV bisphosphonate (BP) doses was found (r = 0.597; P = 0.032). Conclusion: Our study indicates that as the number of IV-ZOL administrations increase yearly in patients with osteoporosis, symptom onset time occurs later. A linear relationship was found between the number of drug applications and the duration of symptoms. Also, the incidence of APR following IV-ZOL administration was 19% in the osteoporotic patient population who presented to the ED or to other clinics according to the symptoms.

Cardiovascular Safety and Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates: From Intervention Trials to Real-Life Data

Both osteoporosis with related fragility fractures and cardiovascular diseases are rapidly outspreading worldwide. Since they are often coexistent in elderly patients and may be related to possible common pathogenetic mechanisms, the possible reciprocal effects of drugs employed to treat these diseases have to be considered in clinical practice. Bisphosphonates, the agents most largely employed to decrease bone fragility, have been shown to be overall safe with respect to cardiovascular diseases and even capable of reducing cardiovascular morbidity in some settings, as mainly shown by real life studies. No randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints are available. While contradictory results have emerged about a possible BSP-mediated reduction of overall mortality, it is undeniable that these drugs can be employed safely in patients with high fracture risk, since no increased mortality has ever been demonstrated. Although partial reassurance has emerged from meta-analysis assessing the risk of cardiac arrhythmias during bisphosphonates treatment, caution is warranted in administering this class of drugs to patients at risk for atrial fibrillation, possibly preferring other antiresorptives or anabolics, according to osteoporosis guidelines. This paper focuses on the complex relationship between bisphosphonates use and cardiovascular disease and possible co-management issues.

UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management.

INTRODUCTION

The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older.

METHODS

Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence.

RESULTS

Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement.

CONCLUSION

The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

The Effects of Osteoporotic and Non-osteoporotic Medications on Fracture Risk and Bone Mineral Density

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent bone disease affecting more than 37.5 million individuals in the European Union (EU) and the  United States of America (USA). It is characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD), impaired bone quality, and loss of structural and biomechanical properties, resulting in reduced bone strength. An increase in morbidity and mortality is seen in patients with osteoporosis, caused by the approximately 3.5 million new osteoporotic fractures occurring every year in the EU. Currently, different medications are available for the treatment of osteoporosis, including anti-resorptive and osteoanabolic medications. Bisphosphonates, which belong to the anti-resorptive medications, are the standard treatment for osteoporosis based on their positive effects on bone, long-term experience, and low costs. However, not only medications used for the treatment of osteoporosis can affect bone: several other medications are suggested to have an effect on bone as well, especially on fracture risk and BMD. Knowledge about the positive and negative effects of different medications on both fracture risk and BMD is important, as it can contribute to an improvement in osteoporosis prevention and treatment in general, and, even more importantly, to the individual's health. In this review, we therefore discuss the effects of both osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic medications on fracture risk and BMD. In addition, we discuss the underlying mechanisms of action.

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.

Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates and lipopolysaccharide mutually augment inflammation via adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-mediated and interleukin 1β (IL-1β)-mediated production of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs)

Among the bisphosphonates (BPs), nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs) have much stronger anti-bone-resorptive actions than non-N-BPs. However, N-BPs have various side effects such as acute influenza-like reactions after their initial administration and osteonecrosis of the jawbones after repeated administration. The mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. To overcome these problems, it is important to profile the inflammatory nature of N-BPs. Here, we analyzed the inflammatory reactions induced in mouse ear pinnae by the N-BPs alendronate (Ale) and zoledronate (Zol). We found the following: (i) Ale and Zol each induced two phases of inflammation (early weak and late strong ear swelling); (ii) both phases were augmented by lipopolysaccharides (LPSs; cell-surface constituent of gram-negative bacteria, including oral bacteria), but prevented by inhibitors of the phosphate transporters of solute carrier 20/34 (SLC20/SLC34); (iii) macrophages and neutrophils were involved in both phases of Ale+LPS-induced ear-swelling; (iv) Ale increased or tended to increase various cytokines, and LPS augmented these effects, especially that on interleukin 1β (IL-1β); (v) adenosine triphosphate (ATP) was involved in both phases, and Ale alone or Ale+LPS increased ATP in ear pinnae; (vi) the augmented late-phase swelling induced by Ale+LPS depended on both IL-1 and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs; neutrophil-derived net-like complexes); (vii) neutrophils, together with macrophages and dendritic cells, also functioned as IL-1β-producing cells, and upon stimulation with IL-1β, neutrophils produced NETs; (viii) stimulation of the purinergic 2X7 (P2X7) receptors by ATP induced IL-1β in ear pinnae; (ix) NET formation by Ale+LPS was confirmed in gingiva, too. These results suggest that (i) N-BPs induce both early-phase and late-phase inflammation via ATP-production and P2X7 receptor stimulation; (ii) N-BPs and LPS induce mutually augmenting responses both early and late phases via ATP-mediated IL-1β production by neutrophils, macrophages, and/or dendritic cells; and (iii) NET production by IL-1β-stimulated neutrophils may mediate the late phase, leading to prolonged inflammation. These results are discussed in relation to the side effects seen in patients treated with N-BPs. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Efficacy of annual zoledronic acid in initial percutaneous kyphoplasty patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a 3-year follow-up study

This study investigated the efficacy of annual zoledronic acid (ZOL) administration against previously treated recompression vertebral fractures (RVF) and new vertebral fractures (NVF) in initial percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) over a 3-year follow-up period.

INTRODUCTION

Although PKP achieves a satisfactory outcome, previously treated RVF and NVF can limit its effectiveness. The annual infusion of ZOL over 3 years can improve fracture protection, particularly in the vertebrae. We hypothesized that ZOL can reduce the incidence of RVFs and/or NVFs, and improve the clinical outcomes of PKP.

METHODS

This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind prospective trial of 154 PKP patients (mean age: 70 years) with OVCFs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single infusion of ZOL (5 mg) or placebo (78 ZOL vs. 76 placebo) at 1 week, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. Patients were followed-up for 36 months.

RESULTS

ZOL treatment lowered the risk of RVF by ~ 65% over the 36-month period when compared to placebo controls (6.41% in ZOL vs. 18.42% in placebo groups; relative risk, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.92). ZOL also reduced the risk of NVF by ~ 73% (3.85% in ZOL vs. 14.47% in placebo groups; relative risk, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.92). ZOL also significantly reduced the vertebral height lost rate (HLR) at 12, 24, and 36 months. ZOL also improved the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and bone mineral density (BMD).

CONCLUSION

Annual ZOL administration significantly lowers the risk of RVFs and NVFs, improving the clinical outcome of initial PKP in patients with OVCFs over a 3-year follow-up period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000029307.

Bisphosphonate nephropathy: A case series and review of the literature

From rat studies, human case reports and cohort studies, bisphosphonates seem to impair renal function. However, when critically reviewing the literature, zoledronate and pamidronate are more frequently involved in renal deterioration than other bisphosphonates. When bisphosphonate nephropathy occurs, zoledronate more frequently induces tubular toxicity whereas pamidronate typically induces focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Thus, although bisphosphonates are highly effective in preventing complications for patients with osseous metastases and are highly effective in preventing fractures for patients with osteoporosis, renal function should be monitored closely after initiation of these drugs.

The treatment gap: The missed opportunities for osteoporosis therapy

Despite substantial advances in delineation of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk assessment and treatment of osteoporosis over the last three decades, a substantial proportion of men and women at high risk of fracture remain untreated - the so-called "treatment gap". This review summarises the important patient-, physician- and policyrelated causes of this treatment gap, before discussing in greater detail: (a) the evidence base for the efficacy of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis; (b) recent evidence relating to the adverse effects of this widely used therapeutic class, most notably atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw; (c) available strategies to improve both secondary and primary prevention pathways for the management of this disorder.

Biomarkers for prediction of skeletal disease progression in mucopolysaccharidosis type I

BACKGROUND

Orthopedic disease progresses in mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I), even with approved therapies and remains a major factor in persistent suffering and disability. Novel therapies and accurate predictors of response are needed. The primary objective of this study was to identify surrogate biomarkers of future change in orthopedic disease.

METHODS

As part of a 9-year observational study of MPS I, range-of-motion (ROM), height, pelvic radiographs were measured annually. Biomarkers in year 1 were compared to healthy controls. Linear regression tested for associations of change in biomarkers over the first year with change in long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

MPS I participants (N = 19) were age 5 to 16 years and on average 6.9 ± 2.9 years post treatment initiation. Healthy controls (N = 51) were age 9 to 17 years. Plasma IL-1β, TNF-α, osteocalcin, pyridinolines, and deoxypyridinolines were higher in MPS than controls. Within MPS, progression of hip dysplasia was present in 46% to 77%. A 1 pg/mL increase in IL-6 was associated with -22°/year change in ROM (-28 to -15; P < .001), a 20 nmol/mmol creatinine/year increase in urine PYD was associated with a -0.024 Z-score/year change in height Z-score (-0.043 to -0.005; P = .016), and a 20 nmol/mmol creatinine/year increase in urine PYD was associated with a -2.0%/year change in hip dysplasia measured by Reimers migration index (-3.8 to -0.1; P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Inflammatory cytokines are high in MPS I. IL-6 and PYD were associated with progression in joint contracture, short stature, and hip dysplasia over time. Once validated, these biomarkers may prove useful for predicting response to treatment of skeletal disease in MPS I.

Oral Ibandronate Therapy in Three Patients with Osteogenesis Imperfecta

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with orally administered ibandronate is an effective way to increase bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce fracture rate in post-menopausal women and in men with osteoporosis. There are only very few reports concerning ibandronate therapy in children and adolescents, and in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), as bisphosphonates are not registered for therapeutic use in pediatrics.

CASE REPORT

We present three patients with OI, where once-monthly oral ibandronate increased spinal BMD after two and four years, respectively, of therapy without any occurrence of new fractures and no adverse reactions. Somatic growth was not affected by the ibandronate treatment.

CONCLUSION

Once-monthly oral ibandronate increased BMD and most probably improved bone quality in young patients with OI.

Cardiovascular Safety of Denosumab Across Multiple Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

The cardiovascular safety of denosumab has not yet been evaluated in a systematic review. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to quantify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of denosumab (against comparators) reporting cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs) and examine the balance of CAEs between treatment arms. MEDLINE, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to October 26, 2019, for RCTs of denosumab versus comparators for any indication. Included trials were randomized, enrolled ≥100 participants, and reported bone-related outcomes. Primary outcome for analysis was all CAEs, a composite endpoint representing summation of all CAEs as reported by included trials. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Data were pooled using a fixed effects model to determine relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Of 554 records screened, 49 were included, while 36 reported CAEs. Twenty-seven included trials (12 eligible for meta-analysis) were conducted in 13,202 postmenopausal women. Compared with bisphosphonates, there was a 46% (95% CI 1.05 to 2.02) increase in CAEs (85/2136 events in denosumab-treated versus 58/2131 events in bisphosphonate-treated; seven trials). There was a similar imbalance in a five-point (stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) MACE endpoint (28/2053 versus 12/2050; RR = 2.33 [1.19 to 4.56]). Compared with placebo-treated women, there was no imbalance in total CAEs (439/4725 events in denosumab versus 399/4467 in placebo; RR = 0.79 [0.41 to 1.52]; seven trials). No imbalance in total AEs (versus bisphosphonates: 0.98 [0.92 to 1.04]; versus placebo: 0.99 [0.98 to 1.01]) occurred. Other indications showed no statistically significant results. The excess CAEs in postmenopausal women treated with denosumab compared with bisphosphonates, but not placebo, indirectly supports claims that bisphosphonates may suppress CAEs. Future trials should use standardized CAE reporting to better describe cardiovascular effects of bone active medications. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135414.) © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression technique for the treatment of obsolete vertebral compression fractures with severe spinal kyphosis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression technique for the treatment of obsolete vertebral compression fractures with severe spinal kyphosis.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with senile obsolete vertebral compression fractures and severe spinal kyphosis were admitted to our hospital. During the treatment processing, an "eggshell" osteotomy, anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression, and pedicle screw internal fixation were performed in all patients. The Cobb angle, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) pre-operatively, post-operatively, and at the last follow-up were analyzed. Furthermore, the intra-operative blood loss and the operative time were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The average osseous fusion time was 3.6 months (range from 3 to 5 months). The average operative time was 236 ± 20.1 min (range from 198 to 261 min). The average intra-operative blood loss was 1350.5 ± 70.2 ml (range from 809 to 2216 ml). The Cobb angle of localized kyphosis was 63.4 ± 12.4∘ pre-operatively, while 10.0 ± 2.1∘ post-operatively, and 12 ± 3.4∘ at the last follow-up evaluation, respectively. The average VAS score was decreased significantly from 8.7 ± 3.2 pre-operatively to 1.9 ± 0.4 post-operatively. The average ODI score was decreased from 78.3 ± 2.4% pre-operatively to 19.3 ± 5.3% post-operatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior column opening structural bone grafting with posterior column compression technique is effective, can effectively restore the sagittal balance of the spine, ease pain, and improve the quality of life of the patients with obsolete vertebral compression fractures and spinal kyphosis.

Bone Health and Osteoporosis Prevention and Treatment

Postmenopausal osteoporosis is a common condition and is associated with increased risk of fracture, including hip and vertebral fractures that in turn can have devastating consequences on morbidity and mortality. In this article, we review the pathogenesis and diagnostic approach to postmenopausal osteoporosis. We review available nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies and we discuss their clinical efficacy and complications, with a detailed discussion of atypical femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with bone-forming and antiresorptive treatments: Combined and sequential approaches

Efficient therapies are available for the treatment of osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates and denosumab are the most commonly used antiresorptive therapies. Despite differences in the increase in bone mineral density seen with these drugs, the reductions in fracture risk are similar; 50-70%, 20%, and 40% for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, respectively. The bone-forming treatments; teriparatide and abaloparatide increase bone mineral density more than the antiresorptives and the reductions in fracture risk are 85% and 40-50% for vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, respectively, compared to placebo. The VERO study demonstrated a >50% reduction in vertebral and clinical fractures in women treated with teriparatide compared to risedronate. The dual-action treatment; romosozumab leads to more pronounced increases in BMD than other treatment modalities and reduces the risk of vertebral and clinical fractures by 73% and 36% compared to placebo after 12 months and the sequential treatment regime; romosozumab for 12 months followed by alendronate reduced the risk of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures by 48%, 20% and 38%, respectively compared to alendronate after 2-3 years. The evidence for combination therapy targeting both resorption and formation is limited as only short-term studies with BMD as the endpoint have been performed. All bone-forming and dual-action treatments increase BMD and reduce the fracture risk, however, the effect wears off with time and treatment is therefore only temporary and should be followed by antiresorptive treatment with a bisphosphonate or denosumab. The sequence of treatment matters as the BMD response to teriparatide is reduced in patients previously treated with bisphosphonates; however, based on the findings of the VERO trial, the anti-fracture efficacy of bone-forming treatment in comparison with risedronate seems to be preserved after bisphosphonate therapy. The DATA study suggested that transitioning from denosumab to teriparatide is problematic due to the increase in bone resorption occurring after stopping denosumab. Studies have shown further improvements in BMD when transitioning from oral bisphosphonates to zoledronic acid or denosumab. Management of osteoporosis will in many patients include a long-term treatment plan. This will often include sequential therapy which in severe cases preferably should start with bone-forming followed by antiresorptive treatment. The severity of osteoporosis, reaching a treatment goal, and responding to treatment failure are important factors determining the treatment sequence in the individual patient.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS-2020 UPDATE

Objective: The development of these guidelines is sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. Results: The Executive Summary of this 2020 updated guideline contains 52 recommendations: 21 Grade A (40%), 24 Grade B (46%), 7 Grade C (14%), and no Grade D (0%). These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world care of patients. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for the Executive Summary recommendations. This update contains 368 citations: 123 (33.5%) evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 132 (36%) EL 2 (intermediate), 20 (5.5%) EL 3 (weak), and 93 (25%) EL 4 (lowest). New or updated topics in this CPG include: clarification of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, stratification of the patient according to high-risk and very-high-risk features, a new dual-action therapy option, and transitions from therapeutic options. Conclusion: This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis. Abbreviations: 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxyvitamin D; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ACE = American College of Endocrinology; AFF = atypical femoral fracture; ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; BEL = best evidence level; BMD = bone mineral density; BTM = bone turnover marker; CI = confidence interval; CPG = clinical practice guideline; CTX = C-terminal telopeptide type-I collagen; DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; EL = evidence level; FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FRAX® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool; GI = gastrointestinal; HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic acid ONce yearly Pivotal Fracture Trial (zoledronic acid and zoledronate are equivalent terms); ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry; IU = international units; IV = intravenous; LSC = least significant change; NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation; ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw; PINP = serum amino-terminal propeptide of type-I collagen; PTH = parathyroid hormone; R = recommendation; ROI = region of interest; RR = relative risk; SD = standard deviation; TBS = trabecular bone score; VFA = vertebral fracture assessment; WHO = World Health Organization.

Overview of treatment approaches to osteoporosis

Efficient therapies are available for the treatment of osteoporosis. Anti-resorptive therapies, including bisphosphonates and denosumab, increase bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce the risk of fractures by 20-70%. Bone-forming or dual-action treatments stimulate bone formation and increase BMD more than the anti-resorptive therapies. Two studies have demonstrated that these treatments are superior to anti-resorptives in preventing fractures in patients with severe osteoporosis. Bone-forming or dual-action treatments should be followed by anti-resorptive treatment to maintain the fracture risk reduction. The BMD gains seen with bone-forming and dual-action treatments are greater in treatment-naïve patients compared to patients pretreated with anti-resorptive treatments. However, the antifracture efficacy seems to be preserved. Treatment failure will often lead to switch of treatment from orally to parentally administrated anti-resorptives treatment or from anti-resorptive to bone-forming or dual-action treatment. Osteoporosis is a chronic condition and therefore needs a long-term management plan with a personalized approach to treatment. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on The molecular pharmacology of bone and cancer-related bone diseases. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v178.9/issuetoc.

Repeating Measurement of Bone Mineral Density when Monitoring with Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry: 2019 ISCD Official Position

Bone mineral density (BMD) can be measured at multiple skeletal sites using various technologies to aid clinical decision-making in bone and mineral disorders. BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has a critical role in predicting risk of fracture, diagnosis of osteoporosis, and monitoring patients. In clinical practice, DXA remains the most available and best validated tool for monitoring patients. A quality baseline DXA scan is essential for comparison with all subsequent scans. Monitoring patients with serial measurements requires technical expertise and knowledge of the least significant change in order to determine when follow-up scans should be repeated. Prior ISCD Official Positions have clarified how and when repeat DXA is useful as well as the interpretation of results. The 2019 ISCD Official Positions considered new evidence and clarifies if and when BMD should be repeated. There is good evidence showing that repeat BMD measurement can identify people who experience bone loss, which is an independent predictor of fracture risk. There is good evidence showing that the reduction in spine and hip fractures with osteoporosis medication is proportional to the change in BMD with treatment. There is evidence that measuring BMD is useful following discontinuation of osteoporosis treatment. There is less documentation addressing the effectiveness of monitoring BMD to improve medication adherence, whether monitoring of BMD reduces the risk of fracture, or effectively discriminates patients who should and should not recommence treatment following an interruption of medication. Further research is needed in all of these areas.

Augmentation of Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Production of IL-1α and IL-1β in Mice Given Intravenous Zoledronate (a Nitrogen-Containing Bisphosphonate) and Its Prevention by Clodronate (a Non-nitrogen-containing Bisphosphonate)

Bisphosphonates (BPs) bind strongly to bone and exhibit long-acting anti-bone-resorptive effects. Among BPs, nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs) have far stronger anti-bone-resorptive effects than non-N-BPs. However, N-BPs induce acute inflammatory reactions (fever, arthralgia and myalgia, etc.) after their first injection. The mechanisms underlying these side effects remain unclear. Zoledronate (one of the most potent N-BPs) is given intravenously to patients, and the side-effect incidence is reportedly the highest among N-BPs. Our murine experiments have clarified that (a) intraperitoneally injected N-BPs induce various inflammatory reactions, including a production of interleukin-1 (IL-1) (a typical inflammatory cytokine), and these inflammatory reactions are weak in IL-1-deficient mice, (b) subcutaneously injected N-BPs induce inflammation/necrosis at the injection site, (c) lipopolysaccharide (LPS; a cell-wall component of Gram-negative bacteria) and N-BPs mutually augment their inflammatory/necrotic effects, (d) the non-N-BP clodronate can reduce N-BPs' inflammatory/necrotic effects. However, there are few animal studies on the side effects of intravenously injected N-BPs. Here, we found in mice that (i) intravenous zoledronate exhibited weaker inflammatory effects than intraperitoneal zoledronate, (ii) in mice given intravenous zoledronate, LPS-induced production of IL-1α and IL-1β was augmented in various tissues, including bone, resulting in them increasing in serum, and (iii) clodronate (given together with zoledronate) prevented such augmentation and enhanced, slightly but significantly, zoledronate's anti-bone-resorptive effect. These results suggest that infection may be a factor promoting the acute inflammatory side effects of N-BPs via augmented production of IL-1 in various tissues (including bone), and that clodronate may be useful to reduce or prevent such side effects.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS - 2016

ABBREVIATIONS

AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AFF = atypical femur fracture ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research BEL = best evidence level BMD = bone mineral density BTM = bone turnover marker CBC = complete blood count CI = confidence interval DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry EL = evidence level FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration FLEX = Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-term Extension FRAX_® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool GFR = glomerular filtration rate GI = gastrointestinal HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly IOF = International Osteoporosis Foundation ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry IU = international units IV = intravenous LSC = least significant change NBHA = National Bone Health Alliance NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxy vitamin D ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw PINP = serum carboxy-terminal propeptide of type I collagen PTH = parathyroid hormone R = recommendation RANK = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B RANKL = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand RCT = randomized controlled trial RR = relative risk S-CTX = serum C-terminal telopeptide SQ = subcutaneous VFA = vertebral fracture assessment WHO = World Health Organization.

European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were updated.

RESULTS

The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis: Assessment and management

Osteoporosis increases the risk of fractures, which are associated with increased mortality and lower quality of life. Patients with prevalent fracture are at high risk to of sustaining another one. Optimal protein and calcium intakes, and vitamin D supplies, together with regular weight bearing physical exercise are the corner stones of fracture prevention. Evidence for anti-fracture efficacy of pharmacological interventions relies on results from randomised controlled trials in postmenopausal women with fractures as the primary outcome. Treatments with bone resorption inhibitors, like bisphosphonates or denosumab, and bone formation stimulator like teriparatide, reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk. A reduction in vertebral fracture risk can already be detected within a year after starting therapy.

THERAPY OF ENDOCRINE DISEASE: Denosumab vs bisphosphonates for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

The most widely used medications for the treatment of osteoporosis are currently bisphosphonates (BPs) and denosumab (Dmab). Both are antiresorptives, thus targeting the osteoclast and inhibiting bone resorption. Dmab achieves greater suppression of bone turnover and greater increases of bone mineral density (BMD) at all skeletal sites, both in naïve and pretreated patients. No superiority on fracture risk reduction has been documented so far. In long-term administration, BPs reach a plateau in BMD response after 2-3 years, especially at the hip, while BMD increases progressively for as long as Dmab is administered. Both BPs and Dmab are generally considered safe, although they have been correlated to rare adverse events, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures. Dmab should be preferred in patients with impaired renal function. BPs are embedded in the bone, from which they are slowly released during bone remodeling, therefore continuing to act for years after their discontinuation. In contrast, Dmab discontinuation fully and rapidly reverses its effects on bone markers and BMD and increases the risk for fractures; therefore, Dmab discontinuation should be discouraged, especially in previously treatment-naïve patients, regardless of the conventional fracture risk. In case of discontinuation, other treatment, mainly BPs, should immediately follow, although the optimal sequential treatment strategy is yet to be defined. Combination of teriparatide with Dmab or zoledronic acid, but not alendronate, provides increased BMD gains at all sites. In conclusion, both BPs and Dmab are safe and efficient therapeutic options although their particularities should be carefully considered in an individual basis.

A Review of Osteoporosis in the Older Adult: An Update

Osteoporosis in the elderly population is common. It results in more than 1.5 million fractures per year in the United States. The goal of managing osteoporosis is to prevent fractures. In men, osteoporosis is underrecognized and undertreated. More men than women die every year as a consequence of hip fractures. Bisphosphonates are the first-line treatment of men and women. In the past several years, advances in bone biology have resulted in major therapeutic advances. A review of diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis is described.

The challenges of diagnosing osteoporosis and the limitations of currently available tools

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was the first imaging tool widely utilized by clinicians to assess fracture risk, especially in postmenopausal women. The development of DXA nearly coincided with the availability of effective osteoporosis medications. Although osteoporosis in adults is diagnosed based on a T-score equal to or below − 2.5 SD, most individuals who sustain fragility fractures are above this arbitrary cutoff. This incongruity poses a challenge to clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from osteoporosis treatments. DXA scanners generate 2 dimensional images of complex 3 dimensional structures, and report bone density as the quotient of the bone mineral content divided by the bone area. An obvious pitfall of this method is that a larger bone will convey superior strength, but may in fact have the same bone density as a smaller bone. Other imaging modalities are available such as peripheral quantitative CT, but are largely research tools. Current osteoporosis medications increase bone density and reduce fracture risk but the mechanisms of these actions vary. Anti-resorptive medications (bisphosphonates and denosumab) primarily increase endocortical bone by bolstering mineralization of endosteal resorption pits and thereby increase cortical thickness and reduce cortical porosity. Anabolic medications (teriparatide and abaloparatide) increase the periosteal and endosteal perimeters without large changes in cortical thickness resulting in a larger more structurally sound bone. Because of the differences in the mechanisms of the various drugs, there are likely benefits of selecting a treatment based on a patient’s unique bone structure and pattern of bone loss. This review retreats to basic principles in order to advance clinical management of fragility fractures by examining how skeletal biomechanics, size, shape, and ultra-structural properties are the ultimate predictors of bone strength. Accurate measurement of these skeletal parameters through the development of better imaging scanners is critical to advancing fracture risk assessment and informing clinicians on the best treatment strategy. With this information, a “treat to target” approach could be employed to tailor current and future therapies to each patient’s unique skeletal characteristics.

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

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

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax^® and Fosamax^® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel^® and Actonel Once a Week^®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva^®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta^®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A 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 benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX.

LIMITATIONS

We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A Review of Osteoporosis in the Older Adult

Osteoporosis in the elderly population is common. It results in more than 1.5 million fractures per year in the United States. The goal of managing osteoporosis is to prevent fractures. In men, osteoporosis is underrecognized and undertreated. More men than women die every year as a consequence of hip fractures. A review of diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis is described in this article. Bisphosphonates are the first-line treatment for men and women. In the past several years, advances in bone biology have resulted in major therapeutic advances.

Utility of DXA for monitoring, technical aspects of DXA BMD measurement and precision testing

Monitoring a patient's bone mineral density (BMD) is one of the main reasons for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) referral. It is widely recommended by clinical guidelines, and the accepted standard in practice for managing patients with osteoporosis and other disorders. Clinicians and DXA providers must be familiar with the scientific rationale and procedures involved in measurement science to obtain accurate and reproducible results. Their importance is critical to maximise the value of scan acquisition and interpretation. Scanning individual patients, with different needs and disorders, requires excellence in training, experience, and is more complex than just simply 'measuring BMD'. Over the past 3 decades many studies have validated the importance of monitoring BMD for fracture risk assessment, and for patients on osteoporosis treatment. New DXA features enhance the value of DXA monitoring today. Quality BMD measurement remains an essential component of patient care in osteoporosis and other disorders, playing a critical role in informed decision making for clinicians assessing and managing their patients. In this article we describe some of the technical aspects of measurement and discuss the utility of DXA for monitoring patients in clinical practice.

Use of CTX-I and PINP as bone turnover markers: National Bone Health Alliance recommendations to standardize sample handling and patient preparation to reduce pre-analytical variability

The National Bone Health Alliance (NBHA) recommends standardized sample handling and patient preparation for C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-I) and N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP) measurements to reduce pre-analytical variability. Controllable and uncontrollable patient-related factors are reviewed to facilitate interpretation and minimize pre-analytical variability.

INTRODUCTION

The IOF and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) Bone Marker Standards Working Group have identified PINP and CTX-I in blood to be the reference markers of bone turnover for the fracture risk prediction and monitoring of osteoporosis treatment. Although used in clinical research for many years, bone turnover markers (BTM) have not been widely adopted in clinical practice primarily due to their poor within-subject and between-lab reproducibility. The NBHA Bone Turnover Marker Project team aim to reduce pre-analytical variability of CTX-I and PINP measurements through standardized sample handling and patient preparation.

METHODS

Recommendations for sample handling and patient preparations were made based on review of available publications and pragmatic considerations to reduce pre-analytical variability. Controllable and un-controllable patient-related factors were reviewed to facilitate interpretation and sample collection.

RESULTS

Samples for CTX-I must be collected consistently in the morning hours in the fasted state. EDTA plasma is preferred for CTX-I for its greater sample stability. Sample collection conditions for PINP are less critical as PINP has minimal circadian variability and is not affected by food intake. Sample stability limits should be observed. The uncontrollable aspects (age, sex, pregnancy, immobility, recent fracture, co-morbidities, anti-osteoporotic drugs, other medications) should be considered in BTM interpretation.

CONCLUSION

Adopting standardized sample handling and patient preparation procedures will significantly reduce controllable pre-analytical variability. The successful adoption of such recommendations necessitates the close collaboration of various stakeholders at the global stage, including the laboratories, the medical community, the reagent manufacturers and the regulatory agencies.

Pan Arab Osteoporosis Society Guidelines for Osteoporosis Management

Osteoporosis is the most common bone disease in humans. With its related fragility fracture, it represents a major public health problem in our region, with a significant medical and socio-economic burden. The high prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency, the increase in life expectancy, the low socioeconomic level and the significant restriction to access to health care in some countries represent the major causes for the increasing prevalence of osteoporosis and incidence of fragility fractures in the Arabic countries. Bone mineral density (BMD) assessment is the gold standard to diagnose osteoporosis. However, a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis may be made in the presence of a fragility fracture, without BMD measurement. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the preferred method for screening bone mineral density. For screening site of measurement, DXA of hip and spine is suggested. BMD assessment is recommended in all women 65 years of age and older and men 70 and older regardless of risk factors. Younger subjects with clinical risk factors and persons with clinical evidence of osteoporosis or diseases leading to osteoporosis should also be screened. These guidelines are aimed to provide to health care professionals in the region of an updated process for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. It includes risk factors for osteoporosis and the indications for screening, diagnosis of osteoporosis, treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal and premenopausal women, and men; in addition to prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

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

We examined the efficacy of intravenous (IV) ibandronate 1 mg/month in patient subgroups in the phase III MOVER study. Here we present results of analyses on the incidence of fractures in patients with prevalent vertebral fractures (1 or ≥2, and ≥3) at screening and femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) T scores ≥-2.5 or <-2.5, and <-3.0 at baseline. The per-protocol set comprised 1134 patients (ibandronate 0.5 mg/month n = 376; ibandronate 1 mg/month n = 382; risedronate oral 2.5 mg/day n = 376). The incidence of vertebral fractures in patients with 1 or ≥2 prevalent vertebral fractures was 11.2 and 20.4 %, respectively, with ibandronate 1 mg/month, and 12.6 and 22.1 %, respectively, with risedronate. In patients with FN BMD T scores ≥-2.5 or <-2.5, the vertebral fracture incidence was 13.7 and 16.4 %, respectively, with ibandronate 1 mg/month, and 17.3 and 19.1 %, respectively, with risedronate. The incidence of non-vertebral fractures in patients with ≥2 prevalent vertebral fractures or FN BMD T score <-2.5 was 7.6 and 7.6 %, respectively, with ibandronate 1 mg/month, and 9.5 and 9.4 %, respectively, with risedronate. Fracture incidence was consistently lower, but not significant, with ibandronate 1 mg/month than with risedronate in patients with ≥2 prevalent vertebral fractures and FN BMD T score <-2.5. The efficacy of the fracture reduction of monthly IV ibandronate appears consistent and seemingly independent of the number of prevalent vertebral fractures or baseline BMD values.

Thai Osteoporosis Foundation (TOPF) position statements on management of osteoporosis

The adjusted incidence rate of hip fracture in Thailand has increased more than 31% from 1997 to 2006. Mortality and morbidity after hip fracture are also high. One year mortality after a hip fracture has increased from 18% in 1999 to 21% in 2007. The Thai Osteoporosis Foundation (TOPF) developed the first Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) in 2002 and keeps updating the CPG since then. This latest version of the CPG is our attempt to provide comprehensive positional statement on the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in Thailand. The study group who revised this position statement contains experts from the TOPF, Four Royal Colleges of Thailand, includes the Orthopaedic Surgeons, Gynecologists and Obstetricians, Physiatrists, Radiologists and 2 Associations of Endocrinologists and Rheumatologists which have involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

Higher response with bone mineral density increase with monthly injectable ibandronate 1 mg compared with oral risedronate in the MOVER study

We examined response to bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the MOVER study following treatment with intravenous (IV) ibandronate 1 mg/month, and investigated the characteristics of a non-responder group. At 1 year, responder rates for patients with BMD increases >0 % were similar with IV ibandronate 0.5 or 1 mg/month and oral risedronate 2.5 mg/day. However, after 3 years, responder rates with BMD increases ≥3 % were highest with ibandronate 1 mg at all bone sites (>80 % at the lumbar spine [L2-L4] and >50 % at all femur sites, which was significantly higher than with risedronate). Non-responders were defined by BMD increases ≤3 % at L2-L4 or ≤0 % at total hip, and ≤50 % reduction in creatinine-corrected urinary collagen type 1 cross-linked C-telopeptide (uCTX) from baseline to 1 year. There were a small number of non-responders in the ibandronate 1 mg group: 3.3 % (10/299) with ≤0 % total hip BMD increase and ≤50 % uCTX reduction from baseline. These non-responders had lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels than responders, but no differences in kidney function, L2-L4 BMD or bone turnover marker baseline values. Throughout the study, non-responders failed to show any increases in BMD. Our analysis demonstrates significantly higher responder rates with IV ibandronate 1 mg/month than with risedronate at 3 years. A small number of non-responders in the ibandronate group had lower 25(OH)D baseline levels than responders, suggesting that 25(OH)D levels could be a useful indicator of BMD response to therapy.

Alendronate- and risedronate-induced acute polyarthritis

Bisphosphonates are the mainstay treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Although bisphosphonates are safety drugs, they have numerous side-effects such as arthralgia, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, gastrointestinal disturbances, and flu-like illness with symptoms of fatigue, fever, chills, malaise, and myalgia. We present a case of acute polyarthritis after administration of alendronate and risedronate in a 52-year-old woman. To the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first case of acute polyarthritis induced by per os administration of both alendronate and risedronate during weekly usage. This is a report of a 52-year-old woman admitted to our hospital every week in a month, within 48 h, after receiving three times alendronate and one time risedronate with diffuse arthralgias, miyalgias, and swelling with effusions in both wrists, both ankles, interphalangeal joints in both hands and feet, and in both knees. When we discontinued alendronate and risedronate, oral raloxifene (60 mg/day) with oral calcium (1 g/day), and vitamin D3 (800 IU/day) was initiated. The symptoms regressed in 1 week. During the 1 year follow-up period, no myalgia, arthritis, or synovitis was detected. The side-effects of bisphosphonates are rarely reported in the literature. We believe that the prevalance of these side-effects would increase by closer follow-up of patients receiving these medications. To our knowledge, this patient is the first reported case of acute polyarthritis induced by per os administration of both alendronate and risedronate during weekly usage.

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

Background

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Treatment with the combination of ibandronate plus eldecalcitol has a synergistic effect on inhibition of bone resorption without suppressing bone formation in ovariectomized rats

Bisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis and contribute to the reduction of bone fractures. Ibandronate (IBN) is a highly potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, which is administered orally or intravenously at extended dosing intervals. Vitamin D or active vitamin D3 derivatives are also used in the treatment of osteoporosis, and are often used in combination with other drugs. In this study, we investigated the effect of treatment with the combination of once-monthly s.c. dosing of IBN plus once-daily oral eldecalcitol (ELD), an active vitamin D3 derivative, using aged ovariectomized (OVX) rats. Treatment was started the day after OVX, and analyses were performed 4, 8, and 12 weeks thereafter by determination of bone markers, bone mineral density, biomechanical properties, and histomorphometry. The combination treatment showed a synergistic effect in increasing both lumbar and femoral BMD, and resulted in a significant increase in bone ultimate load. The combination of IBN plus ELD acted synergistically to reduce bone resorption, whereas bone formation did not decrease any more than with monotherapy with either IBN or ELD. Bone formation independent of bone resorption (a process known as 'minimodeling') was not changed in vehicle treated OVX rats despite the increase in bone turnover. ELD upregulated minimodeling, which was however not diminished in the combination treatment. In conclusion, treatment with the combination of IBN plus ELD was beneficial in the treatment of osteoporosis in aged OVX rats. It exhibited a synergistic inhibitory effect on bone resorption and keeps bone formation at the level of sham controls. This uncoupling of bone resorption/bone formation was affected, to some extent, by minimodeling-based bone formation which is independent of bone resorption. This combination regimen which showed synergistic effect on BMD and bone ultimate load without inhibition of bone formation may be beneficial in long-term osteoporosis treatment to prevent bone fractures.