Alendronate Use and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Danish Nested Case-Control Study

Clinical Efficacy of Bisphosphonates in Treating Osteoporosis in Diabetes Patients: A Meta-Analysis

The aim of the study was to explore the clinical efficacy of bisphosphonates in patients with osteoporosis in diabetes patients by meta-analysis. Six databases were systematically searched from inception to January 30,2023. Studies evaluating the treatment of diabetic osteoporosis with bisphosphonates were included. Key outcome measures, such as bone mineral density (BMD), bone metabolism markers, pain improvement, and safety assessments, were extracted and analyzed. STATA MP V17.0 was used to calculate the combined effect size. After searching Chinese and English databases, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria of this study. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the BMD of patients with osteoporosis in diabetes increased significantly after bisphosphonate treatment, and the lumbar BMD increased by 0.08 g/cm² (95% CI: 0.05-0.11). Femoral neck BMD increased by 0.06 g/cm² (95% CI: 0.01-0.11); Ward's triangle BMD increased 0.07 g/cm² (95% CI: 0.04-0.09); and trochanter BMD increased by 0.06 g/cm² (95% CI: 0.04-0.08). In addition, bone alkaline phosphatase increased 1.95 μg/l (95% CI: 1.18-2.72), while serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b decreased 1.28 U/l (95% CI: -1.81-0.75). Moreover, improvements in pain were statistically significant. The effects of bisphosphonates on osteocalcin (MD: -0.07; 95% CI: -1.12-1.25), serum calcium (MD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.03-0.04), serum phosphorus (MD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.03-0.10) and medication safety (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.29-2.37) were not statistically significant. Bisphosphonates have a significant positive effect on bone mineral density and bone metabolism in patients with osteoporosis in diabetes and have good safety.

Association of bisphosphonates with diabetes risk and glycemic control: a meta-analysis

Previous evidence suggests that bisphosphonates may improve glycemic control. The present meta-analysis, comprising seven studies with 1,233,844 participants, demonstrated that bisphosphonate use was significantly associated with a lower risk of diabetes. However, in the randomized controlled trial subgroup, a non-significant association was found. Further studies are needed to determine causality.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of bisphosphonates on glycemic control and the risk of incident diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 15, 2022. Experimental or observational studies that compared fasting blood glucose (FBG) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and the diabetes risk with and without bisphosphonates were included. Studies without relevant outcomes, only providing crude estimates, or the absence of a control group were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data, and appraised studies. The pooled relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated using random effects models.

RESULTS

Seven studies (n = 1,233,844) on diabetes risk were included, including two post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five observational studies. Compared with controls, bisphosphonates (BPs) were associated with a significant decrease in the risk of diabetes (RR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.90; P = 0.002). However, in the subgroup of post hoc analyses of RCTs, the association was non-significant (RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.18; P = 0.576). Moreover, three studies (n = 4906) on FBG and one (n = 60) on HbA1c were included. We observed non-significant association between BPs and changes in FBG (WMD =  - 0.61 mg/dL; 95% CI, - 2.72 to 1.49; P = 0.567) and HbA1c (WMD =  - 0.11%; 95% CI, - 0.23 to 0.01; P = 0.083).

CONCLUSION

Patients taking BPs may have a lower risk of incident diabetes than those without BPs. However, due to the high between-study heterogeneity and inconsistent findings between post hoc analyses of RCTs and observational studies, further rigorous RCTs are required to determine whether the findings are causal.

Diabetes and osteoporosis - Treating two entities: A challenge or cause for concern?

People with T1D and T2D have an increased risk of fractures than the general population, posing several significant pathophysiologic, diagnostic, and therapeutic challenges. The pathophysiology is still not fully elucidated, but it is considered a combination of increased skeletal fragility and falls. Diagnostics issues exist, as regular and even newer scan methods underestimate the true incidence of osteoporosis and thus the fracture risk. Therefore, co-managing diabetes and osteoporosis by using top-line strategies is essential to preserve bone health and minimize the risk of falls. The therapeutic focus should start with lifestyle implementation and physical exercise interventions to reduce diabetic complications, strengthen bones, and improve postural control strategies. In addition, osteoporosis should be treated according to current guidelines by including bisphosphonates and antidiabetic drugs that support bone health. Finally, potentially modifiable risk factors for falls should be managed.

Effects of Bisphosphonate on Osteocyte Proliferation and Bone Formation in Patients with Diabetic Osteoporosis

Background

Bisphosphonate is currently considered one of the drugs for the first-line treatment of osteoporosis because of its ability to inhibit bone resorption, but the molecular mechanism of its effect on osteocyte proliferation and bone formation of diabetic osteoporosis is still unclear.

Objective

To confirm the potential effect on of bisphosphonate on osteocyte proliferation and bone formation in patients having diabetic osteoporosis (DO).

Methods

Sixty DO patients admitted to our hospital from February 2019 to April 2021 were randomly selected and divided into the bisphosphonate group and the control group. The total incidence, incidence of hip fracture, efficacy, bone mineral density, osteocalcin, pain score, osteocyte proliferation, bone formation index, serum calcium, and phosphorus contents were compared between two groups.

Results

The curative effect of bisphosphonic acid group was better than that of control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Compared with the control group, the bone mineral density and osteocalcin in the bisphosphonic acid group were significantly improved after treatment, and the pain score in the bisphosphonic acid group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). After intervention treatment, the OD and PINP values in the bisphosphonate group were significantly different from those in the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the contents of serum calcium and phosphorus in the bisphosphonic acid group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of hip fracture, spinal fracture, and other fractures in the bisphosphonic acid group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The treatment of DO with bisphosphonate is capability of effectively improving bone cell proliferation and bone formation, further alleviating clinical symptoms and promoting the improvement of the disease.

Efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy on postmenopausal osteoporotic women with and without diabetes: a prospective trial

BACKGROUND

The co-occurrence of diabetes and osteoporosis is common in postmenopausal women. For the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, current guidelines recommend initial treatment with bisphosphonates, but it is unclear whether bisphosphonates provide a similar degree of therapeutic efficacy in patients with diabetes. This study sought to compare the efficacy of monthly oral ibandronate for retaining bone mineral density (BMD) in diabetic and non-diabetic postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Postmenopausal osteoporotic women with or without diabetes were enrolled in this study from three hospitals in an open-label approach from 2018 to 2020. Each group of patients received oral ibandronate 150 mg once monthly for 1 year. BMD, trabecular bone score (TBS), serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTx) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) were evaluated prospectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in glucose metabolism during drug use were also monitored.

RESULTS

Among the 120 study participants, 104 (86.7%) completed the study. Following 1 year of treatment, BMD increased by 3.41% vs. 3.71% in the lumbar spine, 1.30% vs. 1.18% in the femur neck, and 1.51% vs. 1.58% in the total hip in the non-diabetes and diabetes groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in BMD changes between the groups, and the differences in CTx or P1NP changes between groups were not significant. We did not observe any significant differences in baseline TBS values or the degree of change between before and after 1 year of ibandronate treatment in either group in this study. A total of 11 adverse events (9.2%) that recovered without sequelae occurred among the 120 included patients, and there was no significant difference in the frequency of adverse events between the groups (p = 0.862). The changes in fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels between before and after treatment were not significant in the diabetic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonate therapy showed similar increases in BMD and decreases in CTx and P1NP of postmenopausal women with and without diabetes. Monthly oral ibandronate can be a safe and effective therapeutic option in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT number: NCT05266261, Date of registration: 04 March 2022.

The Efficacy of Alendronate Versus Denosumab on Major Osteoporotic Fracture Risk in Elderly Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Danish Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of fractures; however, the underlying mechanism is largely unknown. We aimed to investigate whether the risk of major osteoporotic fractures in diabetes patients differs between subjects initiated with alendronate and denosumab, respectively.

METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective nationwide cohort study through access to all discharge diagnoses (ICD-10 system) from the National Danish Patient Registry along with all redeemed drug prescriptions (ATC classification system) from the Health Service Prescription Registry. We identified all subjects with a diabetes diagnosis between 2000 and 2018 and collected data on the first new prescription of anti-osteoporotic treatment between 2011 and 2018. Exposure was defined as either alendronate or denosumab treatment initiated after diabetes diagnosis. Outcome information was collected by identification of all major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) diagnoses, i.e., hip, spine, forearm, and humerus, from exposure until 2018 or censoring by emigration or death. The risk of fracture was calculated as hazard ratios (HR) using multiply adjusted Cox proportional models with death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

We included 8,745 subjects initiated with either alendronate (n = 8,255) or denosumab (n = 490). The cohort consisted of subjects with a mean age of 73.62 (SD ± 9.27) years, primarily females (69%) and suffering mainly from type 2 diabetes (98.22%) with a median diabetes duration at baseline of 5.45 years (IQR 2.41-9.19). Those in the denosumab group were older (mean 75.60 [SD ± 9.72] versus 73.51 [SD ± 9.23] years), had a higher proportion of women (81% versus 68%, RR 1.18 [95% CI 1.13-1.24], and were more comorbid (mean CCI 2.68 [95% CI 2.47-2.88] versus 1.98 [95% CI 1.93-2.02]) compared to alendronate initiators. In addition, denosumab users had a higher prevalence of previous fractures (64% versus 46%, RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.28-1.48]). The adjusted HR for any MOF after treatment initiation with denosumab was 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.02) compared to initiation with alendronate.

CONCLUSION

The risk of incident MOF among subjects with diabetes was similar between those initially treated with alendronate and denosumab. These findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equally effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures in subjects with diabetes.