Comparison of effect of treatment with etidronate and alendronate on lumbar bone mineral density in elderly women with osteoporosis

Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

RATIONALE

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts (bone cells that break down bone tissue). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (which includes CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two trial registers, drug approval agency websites, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews to identify the studies included in this review. The latest search date was 01 February 2023. We imposed no restrictions on language, date, form of publication, or reported outcomes.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included only randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of alendronate on postmenopausal women. Targeted participants must have received at least one year of alendronate. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population met one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (-2.5 or lower), and 75 years old or older. If a study population met none of those criteria, we classified it as a primary prevention study.

OUTCOMES

Our major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 tool.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Based on the previous review experience, in which the clinical and methodological characteristics in the primary and secondary prevention studies were homogeneous, we used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis and estimated effects using the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. Our base case analyses included all eligible placebo-controlled studies with usable data. We selected the data available for the longest treatment period. We consider a relative change exceeding 15% as clinically important.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We included 119 studies, of which 102 studies provided data for quantitative synthesis. Of these, we classified 34 studies (15,188 participants) as primary prevention and 68 studies (29,577 participants) as secondary prevention. We had concerns about risks of bias in most studies. Selection bias was the most frequently overlooked domain, with only 20 studies (19%) describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Eight studies (8%) were at low risk of bias in all seven domains.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

The base case analyses included 16 primary prevention studies (one to five years in length; 10,057 women) and 20 secondary prevention studies (one to three years in length; 7375 women) which compared alendronate 10 mg/day (or 70 mg/week) to placebo, no treatment, or both. Indirectness, imprecision, and risk of bias emerged as the main factors contributing to the downgrading of the certainty of the evidence. For primary prevention, alendronate may lead to a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (16/1190 in the alendronate group versus 24/926 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.84; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 1.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence) and non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; ARR 1.6% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.3% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, clinically important differences were not observed for the following outcomes: hip fractures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; ARR 0.2% fewer, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 0.2% more; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.49; ARR 0.3% more, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 1.1% more; low-certainty evidence); withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; ARR 0.2% more, 95% CI 0.9% fewer to 1.5% more; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; ARR 0.5% more, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 2.8% more; low-certainty evidence). For secondary prevention, alendronate probably results in a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (24/1114 in the alendronate group versus 51/1055 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; ARR 2.7% fewer, 95% CI 3.5% fewer to 1.3% fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). It may lead to a clinically important reduction in non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; ARR 2.8% fewer, 95% CI 5.1% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); hip fractures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.96; ARR 1.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.5% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90; ARR 1.8% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96; ARR 3.5% fewer, 95% CI 5.8% fewer to 0.6% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, the effects of alendronate for withdrawals due to adverse events are uncertain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; ARR 0.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.7% fewer to 1.3% more; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, the updated evidence for the safety risks of alendronate suggests that, irrespective of participants' risk of fracture, alendronate may lead to little or no difference for gastrointestinal adverse events. Zero incidents of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture were observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For primary prevention, compared to placebo, alendronate 10 mg/day may reduce clinical vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, but it might make little or no difference to hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. For secondary prevention, alendronate probably reduces clinical vertebral fractures, and may reduce non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, and serious adverse events, compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of alendronate on withdrawals due to adverse events.

FUNDING

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

REGISTRATION

This review is an update of the previous review (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001155).

Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high).

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness of Oral Bisphosphonates in Reducing Fracture Risk Among Oral Glucocorticoid Users: Three Matched Cohort Analyses

The benefit of oral bisphosphonates in reducing fracture risk in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is controversial. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of oral bisphosphonates in reducing fracture risk in a cohort of new chronic oral glucocorticoid users. We created three matched cohorts using health care administrative data from Ontario, Canada. We included residents aged 66 years and older initiating chronic oral glucocorticoids (≥450 mg prednisone equivalent and ≥2 glucocorticoid prescriptions within a 6-month window) between January 1998 and September 2014. Exposed patients were those who initiated an oral bisphosphonate (alendronate, etidronate, or risedronate) within the first 6 months of starting chronic oral glucocorticoid therapy. Exposed cohorts (3945 alendronate, 5825 risedronate, and 8464 etidronate) were each matched 1:1 to unexposed patients on glucocorticoid exposure, fracture risk factors, and propensity score. We examined incident hip (primary outcome), vertebral, forearm, and humerus fractures using Cox proportional hazard models. Alendronate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.80) and risedronate (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.90) were associated with reduced hip fracture risk. Alendronate (HR =  0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.68), etidronate (HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.73) and risedronate (HR = 0.47 95% CI 0.36-0.60) were associated with reduced vertebral fracture risk. No risk reduction in forearm or humerus fractures was apparent for any bisphosphonate. Among older chronic glucocorticoid initiators, all oral bisphosphonates reduced vertebral fracture risk, yet only alendronate and risedronate reduced hip fracture risk. Results were similar between men and women. We provided compelling evidence that early initiation of oral bisphosphonates during chronic oral glucocorticoid therapy is beneficial to prevent osteoporotic fractures. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Live imaging of osteoclast inhibition by bisphosphonates in a medaka osteoporosis model

Osteoclasts are bone-resorbing cells derived from the monocyte/macrophage lineage. Excess osteoclast activity leads to reduced bone mineral density, a hallmark of diseases such as osteoporosis. Processes that regulate osteoclast activity are therefore targeted in current osteoporosis therapies. To identify and characterize drugs for treatment of bone diseases, suitable in vivo models are needed to complement cell-culture assays. We have previously reported transgenic medaka lines expressing the osteoclast-inducing factor receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (Rankl) under control of a heat shock-inducible promoter. Forced Rankl expression resulted in ectopic osteoclast formation, as visualized by live imaging in fluorescent reporter lines. This led to increased bone resorption and a dramatic reduction of mineralized matrix similar to the situation in humans with osteoporosis. In an attempt to establish the medaka as an in vivo model for osteoporosis drug screening, we treated Rankl-expressing larvae with etidronate and alendronate, two bisphosphonates commonly used in human osteoporosis therapy. Using live imaging, we observed an efficient, dose-dependent inhibition of osteoclast activity, which resulted in the maintenance of bone integrity despite an excess of osteoclast formation. Strikingly, we also found that bone recovery was efficiently promoted after inhibition of osteoclast activity and that osteoblast distribution was altered, suggesting effects on osteoblast-osteoclast coupling. Our data show that transgenic medaka lines are suitable in vivo models for the characterization of antiresorptive or bone-anabolic compounds by live imaging and for screening of novel osteoporosis drugs.

Too Fit To Fracture: exercise recommendations for individuals with osteoporosis or osteoporotic vertebral fracture

SUMMARY

A consensus process was conducted to develop exercise recommendations for individuals with osteoporosis or vertebral fractures. A multicomponent exercise program that includes balance and resistance training is recommended.

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to develop consensus on exercise recommendations for older adults: (1) with osteoporosis and (2) with osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s).

METHODS

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and develop recommendations. Outcomes important for decision making were nominated by an expert panel and patient advocates. They included falls, fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), and adverse events for individuals with osteoporosis/vertebral fractures, and pain, quality of life, and function for those with vertebral fracture. Meta-analyses evaluating the effects of exercise on the outcomes were reviewed. Observational studies or clinical trials were reviewed when meta-analyses were not available. Quality ratings were generated, and informed the recommendations.

RESULTS

The outcome for which evidence is strongest is falls. Point estimates of the effects of exercise on falls, fractures, and BMD vary according to exercise type. There is not enough evidence to quantify the risks of exercise in those with osteoporosis or vertebral fracture. Few trials of exercise exist in those with vertebral fracture. The exercise recommendations for exercise in individuals with osteoporosis or osteoporotic vertebral fracture are conditional. The panel strongly recommends a multicomponent exercise program including resistance and balance training for individuals with osteoporosis or osteoporotic vertebral fracture. The panel recommends that older adults with osteoporosis or vertebral fracture do not engage in aerobic training to the exclusion of resistance or balance training.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus of our international panel is that exercise is recommended for older adults with osteoporosis or vertebral fracture, but our recommendations are conditional.

Alendronate is more effective than elcatonin in improving pain and quality of life in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

A randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the short-term effects of alendronate (ALN) and ECT on pain and quality of life (QOL) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Back pain and QOL [Short-Form Health Survey (SF-8)] significantly improved at 1, 3, and 6 months in both groups, with greater improvements in the ALN group than in the ECT group. These results suggested that ALN reduced back pain and improved QOL more markedly than ECT in postmenopausal osteoporotic women with back pain.

INTRODUCTION

Intramuscular ECT is known to reduce pain via the central nervous system. A multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the short-term effects of ALN and ECT on pain and QOL in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

One hundred and 94 postmenopausal osteoporotic women with back pain (mean age 79.8 years, range 60-96 years) were randomly divided into two groups: the ALN group (35 mg weekly) and the ECT group (intramuscular 20 units a week). The duration of the study was 6 months. The trial was completed in 97 (100%) women of the ALN group and 96 (99.0%) women of the ECT group. Urinary levels of cross-linked N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (NTX), serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), face scale score (FSS, back pain), and SF-8 (QOL) were monitored.

RESULTS

Urinary NTX levels significantly decreased at 3 months in the ALN group, but not in the ECT group. Serum ALP levels significantly decreased at 6 months in the both groups, with a greater reduction in the ALN group. The FSS and SF-8 significantly improved at 1, 3, and 6 months in both groups, with greater improvements in the ALN group than in the ECT group.

CONCLUSIONS

ALN suppressed bone turnover, reduced back pain, and improved QOL more markedly than ECT in postmenopausal osteoporotic women with back pain.

Blocking TNF-α with infliximab alleviates ovariectomy induced mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia in rats

Studies have proved an increased expression of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) in estrogen deficiency animals, and TNF-α also plays a role in inflammation and neuropathic pain. This study aimed to explore the relationship between TNF-α and ovariectomy induced hyperalgesia. 36 female Sparague-Dawley were included, estrogen depletion models were established by ovariectomy. Then infliximab (a TNF-α blocker) was administrated to the ovariectomized rats for 8 weeks. Pain behavioral tests were performed once a week. The bone mineral density (BMD), serum estradiol and TNF-α level were determined at the 8th week after ovariectomy. The expression of TNF-α in lumbar 5 dorsal root ganglions (L5 DRGs) was examined by immunofluorescence method. Significant hyperalgesia to mechanical and thermal stimuli in groups Ovx-1 and Ovx-2 was observed 1 week after the operation. After treated with infliximab, the pain threshold of Ovx-2 was partially restored, although still lower than the Sham group. The serum TNF-α level of Ovx-1 was significantly higher than Sham and Ovx-2. TNF-α immunofluorescence indicated a significant increase in the expression of TNF-α at L5 DRGs in group Ovx-1 when compared with groups Sham and Ovx-2. The BMD of group Ovx-2 was significantly higher than group Ovx-1 and lower than group Sham. In conclusion, TNF-α plays an important role in estrogen deficiency induced mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia, and DRG may be one site on which TNF-α acts to cause hyperalgesia. Blocking the effect of TNF-α could partially alleviate the estrogen deficiency induced hyperalgesia in rats. Thus, TNF-α may contribute to chronic pain in postmenopausal women.

Risedronate decreases bone resorption and improves low back pain in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients without vertebral fractures

Elderly postmenopausal women who have osteoporosis sometimes experience low back pain, however, the relationship between low back pain and osteoporosis in the absence of vertebral fractures remains unclear. We examined the relationship between bone mineral density (BMD), bone resorption and low back pain in elderly female patients who did not have osteoporotic vertebral fractures. The average BMD was 0.675 g/cm(2) when assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Patients were excluded from the study if they had vertebral fractures revealed by radiography, CT scans or MRI. Bisphosphonate (risedronate) was administered for 4 months. The visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, BMD and N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx; a marker for bone resorption) were examined before and after treatment. DEXA did not increase significantly, but serum and urinary NTx were decreased (-51.4% and -62.0%, respectively) after 4 months of risedronate treatment (p<0.01). The assessment was repeated using the VAS score, RDQ and SF-36, which revealed an improvement after risedronate treatment (p<0.01). A decrease in serum and urinary NTx was associated with improvement of low back pain, suggesting that despite the absence of vertebral fractures, bone resorption due to osteoporosis may cause low back pain.

Effects of short-term combined treatment with alendronate and elcatonin on bone mineral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

The antiresorptive drug elcatonin (ECT) is known to relieve pain in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. A prospective open-labeled trial was conducted to compare the effects of short-term combined treatment with alendronate (ALN) and ECT on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover with those of single treatment with ALN in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Two hundred and five postmenopausal osteoporotic women (mean age: 70 years) were recruited in our outpatient clinic. Forty-six women with back pain were treated with ALN and ECT (intramuscular, 20 units a week), and 159 women without obvious back pain were treated with ALN alone. The lumbar BMD, urinary levels of cross-linked N-terminal telopeptides of type I collagen (NTX), and serum levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were measured during the six-month treatment period. The baseline characteristics, except for age, body weight and number of patients with prevalent vertebral fractures, were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean increase rate in the lumbar BMD at six months was similar in the ALN (+4.41%) and ALN+ECT (+5.15%) groups, following similar reduction rates in urinary NTX levels (-40.2% and -43.0%, respectively, at three months) and serum ALP levels (-19.0% and -19.7%, respectively, at six months). These results were consistent even after adjustments for age, body weight, and number of patients with prevalent vertebral fractures. The present study in postmenopausal osteoporotic women confirmed that the effects of short-term combined treatment with ALN and ECT on lumbar BMD and bone turnover in patients with back pain appeared to be comparable to those of single treatment with ALN in patients without obvious back pain.

Valid treatment options for osteoporosis and osteopenia in HIV-infected persons

OBJECTIVE

To review clinical data on bone ossification agents that may be considered for use in the treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia in HIV-infected patients.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE (1950-January 2008), EMBASE, PubMed, and abstracts from major HIV conferences (February 2001-October 2007). These searches were limited to human data published in English and used the key words bisphosphonates, calcitonin, raloxifene, teriparatide, HAART, osteopenia, osteoporosis, and HIV/AIDS. Additional articles were retrieved from citations of selected references.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant information on the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of available treatment with hormonal and nonhormonal agents was selected. Greater emphasis was placed on randomized clinical trials than on retrospective studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Osteoporosis in HIV-infected persons is at least as prevalent as in postmenopausal women, yet this population is not listed in primary care guidelines as one that should be considered for screening. In addition to bisphosphonates, calcitonin, raloxifene, and teriparatide are used to treat bone disorders. Three clinical trials to date have evaluated the use of a bisphosphonate in HIV-infected persons. The trials showed a marked increase in bone mineral density in patients taking alendronate versus those in the control groups (with/without calcium, exercise, and/or vitamin D in 1 or both arms). Dosing restrictions complicate the use of these agents; diet, exercise, and calcium supplementation remain the foremost recommended strategies to prevent bone loss. The use of estrogen, testosterone, calcitonin, and teriparatide is less studied in HIV-positive patients, but may be considered in select cases. There are some investigational drugs and agents not available in the US; however, there are not enough data to support their use.

CONCLUSIONS

Alendronate appears to be a promising treatment option for HIV-infected patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia. Further research is required to determine the safety and efficacy of other available drugs. Until additional information is provided, and with available knowledge on the metabolism profiles of antiretroviral and bone ossification agents, alendronate appears to be the preferred agent to use in this population.

Utilization of DXA Bone Mineral Densitometry in Ontario: An Evidence-Based Analysis

ISSUE

Systematic reviews and analyses of administrative data were performed to determine the appropriate use of bone mineral density (BMD) assessments using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and the associated trends in wrist and hip fractures in Ontario.

BACKGROUND

DUAL ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY BONE MINERAL DENSITY ASSESSMENT: Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry bone densitometers measure bone density based on differential absorption of 2 x-ray beams by bone and soft tissues. It is the gold standard for detecting and diagnosing osteoporosis, a systemic disease characterized by low bone density and altered bone structure, resulting in low bone strength and increased risk of fractures. The test is fast (approximately 10 minutes) and accurate (exceeds 90% at the hip), with low radiation (1/3 to 1/5 of that from a chest x-ray). DXA densitometers are licensed as Class 3 medical devices in Canada. The World Health Organization has established criteria for osteoporosis and osteopenia based on DXA BMD measurements: osteoporosis is defined as a BMD that is >2.5 standard deviations below the mean BMD for normal young adults (i.e. T-score <-2.5), while osteopenia is defined as BMD that is more than 1 standard deviation but less than 2.5 standard deviation below the mean for normal young adults (i.e. T-score< -1 & ≥-2.5). DXA densitometry is presently an insured health service in Ontario.

CLINICAL NEED

  BURDEN OF DISEASE: The Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) found that 16% of Canadian women and 6.6% of Canadian men have osteoporosis based on the WHO criteria, with prevalence increasing with age. Osteopenia was found in 49.6% of Canadian women and 39% of Canadian men. In Ontario, it is estimated that nearly 530,000 Ontarians have some degrees of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis-related fragility fractures occur most often in the wrist, femur and pelvis. These fractures, particularly those in the hip, are associated with increased mortality, and decreased functional capacity and quality of life. A Canadian study showed that at 1 year after a hip fracture, the mortality rate was 20%. Another 20% required institutional care, 40% were unable to walk independently, and there was lower health-related quality of life due to attributes such as pain, decreased mobility and decreased ability to self-care. The cost of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures in Canada was estimated to be $1.3 billion in 1993.

GUIDELINES FOR BONE MINERAL DENSITY TESTING

With 2 exceptions, almost all guidelines address only women. None of the guidelines recommend blanket population-based BMD testing. Instead, all guidelines recommend BMD testing in people at risk of osteoporosis, predominantly women aged 65 years or older. For women under 65 years of age, BMD testing is recommended only if one major or two minor risk factors for osteoporosis exist. Osteoporosis Canada did not restrict its recommendations to women, and thus their guidelines apply to both sexes. Major risk factors are age greater than or equal to 65 years, a history of previous fractures, family history (especially parental history) of fracture, and medication or disease conditions that affect bone metabolism (such as long-term glucocorticoid therapy). Minor risk factors include low body mass index, low calcium intake, alcohol consumption, and smoking.

CURRENT FUNDING FOR BONE MINERAL DENSITY TESTING

The Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP) Schedule presently reimburses DXA BMD at the hip and spine. Measurements at both sites are required if feasible. Patients at low risk of accelerated bone loss are limited to one BMD test within any 24-month period, but there are no restrictions on people at high risk. The total fee including the professional and technical components for a test involving 2 or more sites is $106.00 (Cdn).

METHOD OF REVIEW

This review consisted of 2 parts. The first part was an analysis of Ontario administrative data relating to DXA BMD, wrist and hip fractures, and use of antiresorptive drugs in people aged 65 years and older. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences extracted data from the OHIP claims database, the Canadian Institute for Health Information hospital discharge abstract database, the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, and the Ontario Drug Benefit database using OHIP and ICD-10 codes. The data was analyzed to examine the trends in DXA BMD use from 1992 to 2005, and to identify areas requiring improvement. The second part included systematic reviews and analyses of evidence relating to issues identified in the analyses of utilization data. Altogether, 8 reviews and qualitative syntheses were performed, consisting of 28 published systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, 34 randomized controlled trials, and 63 observational studies.

FINDINGS OF UTILIZATION ANALYSIS

Analysis of administrative data showed a 10-fold increase in the number of BMD tests in Ontario between 1993 and 2005.OHIP claims for BMD tests are presently increasing at a rate of 6 to 7% per year. Approximately 500,000 tests were performed in 2005/06 with an age-adjusted rate of 8,600 tests per 100,000 population.Women accounted for 90 % of all BMD tests performed in the province.In 2005/06, there was a 2-fold variation in the rate of DXA BMD tests across local integrated health networks, but a 10-fold variation between the county with the highest rate (Toronto) and that with the lowest rate (Kenora). The analysis also showed that:With the increased use of BMD, there was a concomitant increase in the use of antiresorptive drugs (as shown in people 65 years and older) and a decrease in the rate of hip fractures in people age 50 years and older.Repeat BMD made up approximately 41% of all tests. Most of the people (>90%) who had annual BMD tests in a 2-year or 3-year period were coded as being at high risk for osteoporosis.18% (20,865) of the people who had a repeat BMD within a 24-month period and 34% (98,058) of the people who had one BMD test in a 3-year period were under 65 years, had no fracture in the year, and coded as low-risk.Only 19% of people age greater than 65 years underwent BMD testing and 41% received osteoporosis treatment during the year following a fracture.Men accounted for 24% of all hip fractures and 21 % of all wrist fractures, but only 10% of BMD tests. The rates of BMD tests and treatment in men after a fracture were only half of those in women.In both men and women, the rate of hip and wrist fractures mainly increased after age 65 with the sharpest increase occurring after age 80 years.

FINDINGS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

SERIAL BONE MINERAL DENSITY TESTING FOR PEOPLE NOT RECEIVING OSTEOPOROSIS TREATMENT: A systematic review showed that the mean rate of bone loss in people not receiving osteoporosis treatment (including postmenopausal women) is generally less than 1% per year. Higher rates of bone loss were reported for people with disease conditions or on medications that affect bone metabolism. In order to be considered a genuine biological change, the change in BMD between serial measurements must exceed the least significant change (variability) of the testing, ranging from 2.77% to 8% for precisions ranging from 1% to 3% respectively. Progression in BMD was analyzed, using different rates of baseline BMD values, rates of bone loss, precision, and BMD value for initiating treatment. The analyses showed that serial BMD measurements every 24 months (as per OHIP policy for low-risk individuals) is not necessary for people with no major risk factors for osteoporosis, provided that the baseline BMD is normal (T-score ≥ -1), and the rate of bone loss is less than or equal to 1% per year. The analyses showed that for someone with a normal baseline BMD and a rate of bone loss of less than 1% per year, the change in BMD is not likely to exceed least significant change (even for a 1% precision) in less than 3 years after the baseline test, and is not likely to drop to a BMD level that requires initiation of treatment in less than 16 years after the baseline test.

SERIAL BONE MINERAL DENSITY TESTING IN PEOPLE RECEIVING OSTEOPOROSIS THERAPY

Seven published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 recent RCTs on BMD monitoring during osteoporosis therapy showed that although higher increases in BMD were generally associated with reduced risk of fracture, the change in BMD only explained a small percentage of the fracture risk reduction.Studies showed that some people with small or no increase in BMD during treatment experienced significant fracture risk reduction, indicating that other factors such as improved bone microarchitecture might have contributed to fracture risk reduction.There is conflicting evidence relating to the role of BMD testing in improving patient compliance with osteoporosis therapy.Even though BMD may not be a perfect surrogate for reduction in fracture risk when monitoring responses to osteoporosis therapy, experts advised that it is still the only reliable test available for this purpose.A systematic review conducted by the Medical Advisory Secretariat showed that the magnitude of increases in BMD during osteoporosis drug therapy varied among medications. Although most of the studies yielded mean percentage increases in BMD from baseline that did not exceed the least significant change for a 2% precision after 1 year of treatment, there were some exceptions.

BONE MINERAL DENSITY TESTING AND TREATMENT AFTER A FRAGILITY FRACTURE

A review of 3 published pooled analyses of observational studies and 12 prospective population-based observational studies showed that the presence of any prevalent fracture increases the relative risk for future fractures by approximately 2-fold or more. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)