Tolerability of once-weekly alendronate in patients with osteoporosis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.

Objective

To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.

Results

Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.

The comparison of alendronate and raloxifene after denosumab (CARD) study: A comparative efficacy trial

Denosumab discontinuation results in accelerated bone remodeling, decreased bone mineral density (BMD), and an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates are at least partially effective at inhibiting these consequences but there have been no randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of alternative antiresorptives.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of alendronate and the SERM, raloxifene, in preventing the post-denosumab high-turnover bone loss.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in which 51 postmenopausal women at increased risk of fracture were randomized with equal probability to receive 12-months of denosumab 60-mg 6-monthly followed by 12-months of either alendronate 70-mg weekly or raloxifene 60-mg daily. Serum bone remodeling markers were measured at 0,6,12,15,18, and 24 and areal BMD of the distal radius, spine, and hip were measured at 0,12,18 and 24 months.

RESULTS

After denosumab discontinuation, serum markers of bone remodeling remained suppressed when followed by alendronate, but gradually increased to baseline when followed by raloxifene. In the denosumab-to-alendronate group, denosumab-induced BMD gains were maintained at all sites whereas in the denosumab-to-raloxifene group, BMD decreased at the spine by 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to -0.8, P = 0.003) and at the total hip by 1.2% (-2.1 to -0.4%, P = 0.008), but remained stable at the femoral neck and distal radius and above the original baseline at all sites. The decreases in spine and total hip BMD in the denosumab-to-raloxifene group (but not the femoral neck or distal radius) were significant when compared to the denosumab-to-alendronate group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that after one year of denosumab, one year of alendronate is better able to maintain the inhibition of bone remodeling and BMD gains than raloxifene.

Oral Therapeutics Post Menopausal Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis affects a significant number of postmenopausal women in the United States. Screening is performed using clinical assessments and bone mineral density scans via dual x-ray absorptiometry. Oral therapy is indicated to prevent pathologic fractures in those deemed at increased risk following screening. Bisphosphonates including alendronate, ibandronate, and risedronate are currently first-line oral therapeutics in fracture prevention following the diagnosis of osteoporosis. Hormonal therapies include estrogen-containing therapies, selective estrogen receptor modulators, and other compounds that mimic the effects of estrogen such as tibolone. Lifestyle modifications such as supplementation and physical activity may also contribute to the prevention of osteoporosis and are used as adjuncts to therapy following diagnosis. These therapeutics are limited primarily by their adverse effects. Treatment regimens should be tailored based on significant risk factors demonstrated by patients, adverse effects, and clinical response to treatment. The most severe risk factors relevant to pharmacological selection involve hormone replacement therapies, where concern for venous thrombosis, coronary artery disease, breast, and uterine cancer exist. Bisphosphonates are most commonly associated with gastrointestinal discomfort which may be mitigated with proper administration. Although adverse effects exist, these medications have proven to be efficacious in the prevention of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in post-menopausal women. Fracture risk should be weighed against the risk of adverse events associated with each of the regimens, with clinical judgment dictating the treatment approach centered around patient goals and experiences.

Strategies for transdermal drug delivery against bone disorders: A preclinical and clinical update

The transdermal drug delivery system is an exceptionally safe and well-tolerable therapeutic approach that has immense potential for delivering active components against bone-related pathologies. However, its use is limited in the current clinical practices due to the low skin permeability of most active drugs in the formulation. Thus, innovations in the methodologies of skin permeation enhancement techniques are suggested to overcome this limitation. Although various transdermal drug delivery systems are studied to date, there are insufficient studies comparing the therapeutic efficacy of transdermal delivery systems to oral delivery systems. Thus, creating a decision-making dilemma between oral or transdermal therapies. Therefore, a timely review is inevitable to develop a platform for future researchers to develop next-generation transdermal drug delivery strategies against skeletal diseases that must be convenient and cost-effective for the patients with improved therapeutic efficacy. Here, we will outline the most recent strategies that can overcome the choice limitation of the drug and enhance the transdermal adsorption of various types of drugs to treat bone disorders. For the first time, in this review paper, we will highlight the preclinical and clinical studies on the different transdermal delivery methods. Thus, providing insight into the current therapeutic approaches and suggesting new directions for the advancements in transdermal drug delivery systems against bone disorders.

A Prospective Open-Label Observational Study of a Buffered Soluble 70 mg Alendronate Effervescent Tablet on Upper Gastrointestinal Safety and Medication Errors: The GastroPASS Study

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are a main reason for discontinuing bisphosphonate treatment, an important therapeutic option for osteoporosis patients. Consequently, the development of novel formulations with improved tolerability is warranted. In this multicenter prospective, observational, postauthorization safety study conducted in Italy and Spain, postmenopausal women (PMW) with osteoporosis (naïve to bisphosphonates) were treated weekly with a buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent (ALN-EFF) tablet (Binosto®) and followed for 12 ± 3 months. Information was collected on adverse events (AEs), medication errors, persistence, and compliance using the Morisky-Green questionnaire. Patients (N = 1028) aged 67 ± 9 years (mean ± SD) received ALN-EFF weekly. The cumulative incidence of upper GI AEs (oesophageal toxicity, gastritis, gastric ulcers, and duodenitis) related to ALN-EFF (primary endpoint) was 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-11.6%), the vast majority being of mild intensity. The most frequently occurring upper GI AEs related to ALN-EFF were dyspepsia (2.7%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (2.4%), and nausea (2.2%). None of the relevant upper GI AEs listed in the primary endpoint and no serious AEs were reported. At least one medication error occurred in 29.9% (95% CI 27.1-32.8%) of patients. However, the majority of medication errors were associated with administration instructions applicable to any oral bisphosphonate and only seven medication errors were associated with the ALN-EFF formulation. ALN-EFF was discontinued in 209 of 1028 (20.3%) patients. The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were AEs related to ALN-EFF (46.9%) and patients' decision (42.6%). Compliance with ALN-EFF was high, reflected by a mean Morisky-Green score of 92.8 ± 18.6. PMW with osteoporosis treated with ALN-EFF in a real-world setting experienced few upper GI AEs. In addition, they had a low discontinuation and high compliance compared with other formulations, suggesting that ALN-EFF may increase patient satisfaction and therefore long-term adherence and efficacy. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Oral Treatment With Bisphosphonates of Osteoporosis Does Not Increase the Risk of Severe Gastrointestinal Side Effects: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are first-line therapy for osteoporosis. Adherence is usually low in chronic, asymptomatic diseases, but gastrointestinal (GI) side-effects can also contribute to low adherence in BP therapy and may necessitate a review by a gastroenterologist with or without gastroscopy.

AIMS

Our meta-analysis aims to determine the risk of severe GI adverse events due to oral BP therapy in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three databases up to September 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) detailing GI adverse events in adults with osteoporosis on BP compared to placebo. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for non-severe and severe adverse events indicating endoscopic procedure with the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using chi2 and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs with 39,047 patients with 9,999 non-severe and 1,503 severe GI adverse events were included. The incidence of non-severe and severe adverse events ranged between 0.3-54.9 and 0-10.3%, respectively. There was no difference between BP and control groups in terms of the risk of non-severe or severe side effects: RR=1.05 (CI: 0.98-1.12), I2 = 48.1%, and RR=1.01 (CI: 0.92-1.12), I2 = 0.0%, respectively. Subgroup analysis of the most commonly used BP, once-weekly alendronate 70 mg, revealed an association between bisphosphonates and the risk of non-severe GI adverse events, RR=1.16 (CI: 1.00-1.36), I2 = 40.7%, while the risk of severe GI side effects was not increased in this subgroup, RR=1.20 (CI: 0.83-1.74), I2 = 0.0%.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that bisphosphonates do not increase the risk of severe GI adverse events. However, the marked variability of the screening for side effects in the included studies, and the fact that in most of the studies GI diseases were exclusion criteria limits the strenght of evidence of our results. The conclusions drawn from the meta-analysis are therefore restricted to selected populations, and the results must be interpreted with caution.

Effects of bisphosphonates on osteoporosis: Focus on zoledronate

Osteoporosis is a bone disease that mainly affects older people and postmenopausal women. Lack of proper treatment for this disease gives rise to many problems in patients and occasionally leads to death. Many drugs have been utilized to treat osteoporosis but the most effective one is the bisphosphonates (BPs) family. This family has several positive effects on bone tissue, including promoting bone healing, enhancing bone mineral density, reducing bone resorption, preventing pathologic fractures, suppressing bone turnover, and modulating bone remodeling. On the other hand, there have also been inconclusive reports that BPs might have a desirable or even adverse impact on osteoporotic patients. Therefore, we set out to examine the positive and negative effects of this family, with a focus on the most potent one that is zoledronate (Zol), in clinical usage. Zoledronate is an amino-BPs and nitrogen-containing drug which is the most powerful BPs on osteoporosis treatment or prevention. Many studies showed its effectiveness in the treatment of osteoporosis and bone healing. As Zol enjoys a considerable potential in treating and preventing osteoporosis, it can be used as one of the effective treatments in this field.

Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Development and Bone Homeostasis

Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are multi-functional growth factors belonging to the Transforming Growth Factor-Beta (TGF-β) superfamily. These proteins are essential to many developmental processes, including cardiogenesis, neurogenesis, and osteogenesis. Specifically, within the BMP family, Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (BMP-2) was the first BMP to be characterized and has been well-studied. BMP-2 has important roles during embryonic development, as well as bone remodeling and homeostasis in adulthood. Some of its specific functions include digit formation and activating osteogenic genes, such as Runt-Related Transcription Factor 2 (RUNX2). Because of its diverse functions and osteogenic potential, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved usage of recombinant human BMP-2 (rhBMP-2) during spinal fusion surgery, tibial shaft repair, and maxillary sinus reconstructive surgery. However, shortly after initial injections of rhBMP-2, several adverse complications were reported, and alternative therapeutics have been developed to limit these side-effects. As the clinical application of BMP-2 is largely implicated in bone, we focus primarily on its role in bone. However, we also describe briefly the role of BMP-2 in development. We then focus on the structure of BMP-2, its activation and regulation signaling pathways, BMP-2 clinical applications, and limitations of using BMP-2 as a therapeutic. Further, this review explores other potential treatments that may be useful in treating bone disorders.

Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety between the use of denosumab vs bisphosphonates in renal transplant patients

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 85 renal transplant patients aged 19-88 years, treated with denosumab or bisphosphonate therapy. Bone densitometry measures were compared between treatment groups at baseline; at years 1, 2, and 3; and at final follow-up (average of 3.4 years). Both bisphosphonate and denosumab treatments increased lumbar spine bone density; however, the effect of denosumab was greater compared with that of bisphosphonate treatment. Denosumab treatment increased femoral neck BMD, whereas bisphosphonate treatment had a mean decrease in femoral neck BMD at final follow-up. Thus, our study provides evidence for the efficacy of denosumab treatment in renal transplant patients. Caution around hypocalcemia is warranted. We recommend more prospective studies to analyze the effects of long-term antiresorptive therapy in patients with a renal transplant.

INTRODUCTION

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety between the use of denosumab and bisphosphonates on bone density and incidence of adverse events in renal transplant patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 85 renal transplant patients aged 19-88 years, treated with denosumab or bisphosphonate therapy. Bone densitometry measures were compared between treatment groups at baseline; years 1, 2, and 3; and at final follow-up (average of 3.4 years).

RESULTS

Absolute change in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD over the treatment period was 0.029 ± 0.075 g/cm² and - 0.003 ± 0.064 g/cm², respectively, in the bisphosphonate group. Absolute change in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD at final follow-up was 0.072 ± 0.094 g/cm² and 0.025 ± 0.063 g/cm², respectively, in the denosumab group. Denosumab resulted in significantly greater increases in lumbar spine BMD (0.045 g/cm² greater in the denosumab group). Similarly, the absolute change in BMD at the femoral neck was 0.022 g/cm² greater in the denosumab group as compared with the bisphosphonate group. The denosumab group had one event of severe hypocalcemia following first injection and one report of hospitalized pneumonia. No serious adverse events were reported in the bisphosphonate group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatments increased lumbar spine BMD; however, the effect of denosumab was greater compared with that of bisphosphonate treatment. Our study provides evidence for the efficacy of denosumab treatment in renal transplant patients. Caution around hypocalcemia is warranted. We recommend more prospective studies to analyze the effects of long-term antiresorptive therapy in patients with a renal transplant.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Osteoporosis Consistent with the Revised Economic Evaluation Guidelines for Canada

Introduction. Given the lack of independent analyses comparing numerous pharmacotherapies for osteoporosis, the study objective was to identify the optimal osteoporosis treatment based on a woman's age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates adopting practices recommended in the recently revised Canadian guidelines. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the health care system perspective compared alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, zoledronate, denosumab, and no pharmacotherapy using a Markov model incorporating data on fracture risk and their associated costs, mortality, and disutility and treatment effect. Stratified analysis was conducted based on age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates. Expected lifetime outcomes were obtained through probabilistic analysis with scenario analyses addressing methodological and structural uncertainty. Results. For women able to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, risedronate and etidronate were dominated. Compared to no therapy, alendronate was either dominant or was associated with a low incremental cost per QALY (quality-adjusted life years) gained (ICER)-less than CAN$3,751 based on age and fracture history. In comparison with alendronate, both zoledronate and denosumab were either dominated or associated with a high ICER-greater than CAN$660,000 per QALY. For women unable to tolerate bisphosphonates, dependent on age and fracture history, the ICER for zoledronate versus no therapy ranged from CAN$17,770 to CAN$94,365 per QALY. For all strata, denosumab was dominated by zoledronate or had an ICER greater than CAN$3.0 million. Scenario analyses found consistent findings. Conclusions. Based on a threshold of CAN$50,000 per QALY, alendronate is optimal for osteoporotic women who can tolerate oral bisphosphonates regardless of age or fracture history. For women unable to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, zoledronate is optimal for women with previous fracture or aged 80 to 84 or over 90 with no previous fracture.

Screening to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Osteoporotic fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence on screening and treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries (November 1, 2009, through October 1, 2016) and surveillance of the literature (through March 23, 2018); bibliographies from articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults 40 years and older; screening cohorts without prevalent low-trauma fractures or treatment cohorts with increased fracture risk; studies assessing screening, bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments, pharmacologic treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual, independent review of titles/abstracts and full-text articles; study quality rating; random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incident fractures and related morbidity and mortality, diagnostic and predictive accuracy, harms of screening or treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-eight fair- or good-quality articles were included. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 12 483) comparing screening with no screening reported fewer hip fractures (2.6% vs 3.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]) but no other statistically significant benefits or harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests to identify osteoporosis varied (area under the curve [AUC], 0.32-0.89). The pooled accuracy of clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis ranged from AUC of 0.65 to 0.76 in women and from 0.76 to 0.80 in men; the accuracy for predicting fractures was similar. For women, bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, and denosumab were associated with a lower risk of vertebral fractures (9 trials [n = 23 690]; relative risks [RRs] from 0.32-0.64). Bisphosphonates (8 RCTs [n = 16 438]; pooled RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]) and denosumab (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) were associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97]), but bisphosphonates did not have a statistically significant association (3 RCTs [n = 8988]; pooled RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.44-1.11]). Evidence was limited for men: zoledronic acid reduced the risk of radiographic vertebral fractures (1 RCT [n = 1199]; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.70]); no studies demonstrated reductions in clinical or hip fractures. Bisphosphonates were not consistently associated with reported harms other than deep vein thrombosis (raloxifene vs placebo; 3 RCTs [n = 5839]; RR, 2.14 [95% CI, 0.99-4.66]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In women, screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures may reduce hip fractures, and treatment reduced the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures; there was not consistent evidence of treatment harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis or predicting fractures varied from very poor to good.

Considerations regarding adherence of anti-osteoporosis therapy

Osteoporosis remains a challenging disease to treat due to a number of barriers including patient adherence to therapies. One of the most recent advances has been the development of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, which is helpful in conveying fracture risk to patients and providing treatment guidance to clinicians. The decision to use an anti-osteoporosis therapy must be tailored to the patient's specific clinical scenario. The bisphosphonates are first-line agents in the treatment of osteoporosis and are efficacious in substantially reducing fracture risk between 25% and 70% on average depending on fracture site. Compliance with oral bisphosphonate pills can be poor, resulting in a significant deterrent to the proper management of osteoporosis. Non-pill forms of bisphosphonate and nonbisphosphonate therapy are available for the treatment of osteoporosis and may increase compliance. Among these is Binosto, a new formulation of weekly effervescent alendronate, as well as intravenous bisphosphonates, teriparatide, and subcutaneously administered denosumab, which are all costly medications and are unlikely to become the mainstay of treatment over the oral bisphosphonate pills. Having a detailed conversation between the patient and physician is essential to the development of a tailored treatment plan that will decrease fracture risk.

Comparative gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis

We completed a network meta-analysis of published papers to compare bisphosphonate gastrointestinal safety. We found that zoledronic acid had the highest chance of causing gastrointestinal adverse events. Etidronate had the highest chance of discontinuation due to an adverse event. No difference was found for serious adverse events.

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates are first-line treatment for osteoporosis. Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AE) are the primary reason for non-adherence. Little is known about the comparative GI safety of bisphosphonates.

PURPOSE

Leverage published clinical trial data to examine the comparative GI safety of bisphosphonates.

METHODS

We completed a systematic review of all English-language clinical trials that assessed bisphosphonate safety and/or efficacy in primary osteoporosis through to 2012. Randomized, blinded, and controlled studies were eligible. The primary outcome was any GI-related AE. Subanalyses were completed for upper GI symptoms, serious GI, nausea, esophageal-related events, and discontinuation due to AE. A Bayesian-based network meta-analysis was completed to allow for indirect comparisons. Results were reported as the probability that a specific drug had the highest number of events.

RESULTS

We identified 50 studies: 32 alendronate, 12 risedronate, 5 etidronate, and 7 zoledronic acid. Zoledronic acid had the highest probability of having the highest number of any GI AE (91%) and nausea (70%). Etidronate (70%) and zoledronic acid (28%) had the highest probability of having the greatest attrition due to AE. Etidronate had the highest probability (56%) of having the greatest number of upper GI symptoms among oral bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid had the highest probability of causing the greatest number of GI AE, possibly related to nausea. These results question the assumption that annual zoledronic acid will translate into better adherence. Little difference was found between alendronate and risedronate for serious AE. More research into real-world implications of the comparative safety of bisphosphonates is needed.

The non-interventional BonViva Intravenous Versus Alendronate (VIVA) study: real-world adherence and persistence to medication, efficacy, and safety, in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis

Adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis is suboptimal. In this study, patients were treated with either oral or intravenous bisphosphonates. The increased adherence and persistence observed in patients receiving intravenous medication compared with those receiving oral medication may improve health outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

Poor adherence and persistence to oral medication are often observed in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). The purpose of the non-interventional BonViva Intravenous Versus Alendronate (VIVA) study was to determine whether, in a real-world setting, (1) increased adherence and persistence to medication would be observed in women with PMO receiving intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate versus oral alendronate, (2) a correlation exists between adherence and persistence to medication and drug efficacy, and (3) any unexpected adverse events/serious adverse events (AEs/SAEs) may occur.

METHODS

The study was conducted in 632 centers in Germany. A total of 6,064 females with PMO were enrolled and recruited into one of two treatment arms: quarterly i.v. administration of 3 mg ibandronate or weekly oral medication of 70 mg alendronate, for 12 months. At the end of the study, adherence and persistence to medication, new osteoporotic fractures, mobility, use of analgesics, and AEs/SAEs were determined.

RESULTS

Greater adherence and persistence to medication were observed in the ibandronate treatment arm compared with the alendronate treatment arm. Although there was no significant difference in the number of patients with new vertebral, hip, or forearm fractures between treatment arms, a significantly greater increase in mobility and decrease in the use of analgesics were reported in the ibandronate treatment arm. No unexpected AEs/SAEs occurred in either arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence and persistence to medication were greater in women with PMO receiving i.v. ibandronate compared with those receiving oral alendronate. This may have led to an increase in mobility and a decrease in pain in these patients.

Bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis: benefits, risks, and drug holiday

The amino-bisphosphonates are first-line therapy for the treatment of most patients with osteoporosis, with proven efficacy to reduce fracture risk at the spine, hip, and other nonvertebral skeletal sites. Further, bisphosphonates have been associated with a significant decrease in morbidity and increase in survival. Following the use of bisphosphonates in millions of patients in clinical practice, some unexpected possible adverse effects have been reported, including osteonecrosis of the jaw, atypical femur fractures, atrial fibrillation, and esophageal cancer. Because bisphosphonates are incorporated into the skeleton and continue to exert an antiresorptive effect for a period of time after dosing is discontinued, the concept of a drug holiday has emerged, whereby the risk of adverse effects might be decreased while the patient still benefits from antifracture efficacy. Patients receiving bisphosphonates who are not at high risk for fracture are potential candidates for a drug holiday, while for those with bone mineral density in the osteoporosis range or previous history of fragility fracture, the benefits of continuing therapy probably far outweigh the risk of harm.

Extraskeletal benefits and risks of calcium, vitamin D and anti-osteoporosis medications

Drugs used for the prevention and the treatment of osteoporosis exert various favourable and unfavourable extra-skeletal effects whose importance is increasingly recognized notably for treatment selection.

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic armamentarium for the prevention and the treatment of osteoporosis is increasingly large, and possible extra-skeletal effects of available drugs could influence the choice of a particular compound.

METHODS

The present document is the result of a national consensus, based on a systematic and critical review of the literature.

RESULTS

Observational research has suggested an inverse relationship between calcium intake and cardiovascular diseases, notably through an effect on blood pressure, but recent data suggest a possible deleterious effect of calcium supplements on cardiovascular risk. Many diverse studies have implicated vitamin D in the pathogenesis of clinically important non-skeletal functions or diseases, especially muscle function, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases and common cancers. The possible effects of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates are well-known. They have been associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer or atrial fibrillation, but large-scale studies have not found any association with bisphosphonate use. Selective oestrogen receptor modulators have demonstrated favourable or unfavourable extra-skeletal effects that vary between compounds. Strontium ranelate has a limited number of non-skeletal effects. A reported increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism is not found in observational studies, and very rare cases of cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. Denosumab has been introduced recently, and its extra-skeletal effects still have to be assessed.

CONCLUSION

Several non-skeletal effects of bone drugs are well demonstrated and influence treatment choices.

Safety of long-term bisphosphonate therapy for the management of osteoporosis

Drugs in the bisphosphonate class are the most commonly prescribed therapeutic agents for the treatment of osteoporosis. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy in reducing fracture risk, with favourable safety profiles, in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. However, long-term use in clinical practice has been associated with reports of undesirable events not previously recognized. These have included gastrointestinal intolerance, osteonecrosis of the jaw, atypical femur fractures, oesophageal cancer, atrial fibrillation and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Physicians must be alert to newly recognized safety concerns, understand the level of evidence supporting them and be able to effectively communicate the balance of expected benefit and potential risk to patients. Usually, post-marketing adverse events are first presented as case reports or observational studies with variable levels of supporting evidence for plausibility, pathophysiology and causality. Widespread coverage in the news media, which can be alarming to patients and their physicians, may not present a balanced view of the proven benefits, the uncertain risks of therapy and the relative magnitude of these events. There may be confusion about the risks associated with bisphosphonate use for the treatment of osteoporosis versus treatment of other conditions, such as cancer, which typically involves a very different patient population and different doses or frequency of drug administration. Often reports of possible adverse events do not provide information on the number of patients exposed to the drug in proportion to the reported adverse event, or do not describe the incidence of the adverse event in a comparator population not exposed to the drug. Gastrointestinal intolerance with oral bisphosphonates, and hypocalcaemia, acute phase reactions and renal toxicity with intravenous bisphosphonates are characterized by biological plausibility and demonstration of causality. Safety concerns with uncertain biological plausibility and unproven causality include osteonecrosis of the jaw, atypical femur fractures, oesophageal cancer and ocular inflammation. Suspected concerns that are unlikely to be causally related include atrial fibrillation and hepatotoxicity. When making the decision to use a bisphosphonate for the treatment of osteoporosis, the balance between benefit and potential risks according to clinical circumstances of each patient should be considered.

Serum level of pepsinogen significantly associated with gastric distress induced by amino-bisphosphonates

To elucidate whether serum levels of pepsinogens are associated with the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events induced by amino-bisphosphonates (amino-BP), the serum levels of pepsinogen were measured in amino-BP users. Our results indicate that measurement of pepsinogen I is useful in predicting gastric distress induced by amino-BP in osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

To elucidate whether serum levels of pepsinogens are associated with the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events induced by amino-BP, the serum levels of pepsinogen I and II were measured in amino-BP users.

METHODS

When the patients complained of gastric distress symptoms during the first 6 months after amino-BP use resulting in discontinuation of the drug, endoscopical examinations were performed to assess whether gastric lesions were present. A total of 223 amino-BP users were enrolled in the study, of which 47 patients refused to take the drug due to gastric distress symptoms. The remaining 176 patients did not complain of any gastric distress.

RESULTS

Among 47 patients, eight patients showed obvious gastric lesions such as gastric or duodenal ulcers and acute gastric mucosal lesions in the endoscopical examination. The remaining 39 patients did not show any gastric lesions. The possible confounding factors, such as a Helicobactor pylori infection or concurrent use of ulcerogenic agents, did cause not affect gastric distress in amino-BP users. The serum pepsinogen I level was significantly associated with severity of the gastric lesion 46.8 ± 27.7, 60.8 ± 32.4, and 103.4 ± 49.2 ng/ml for patients without any gastric distress, with gastric distress accompanied no gastric lesions, and with gastric distress accompanied gastric lesions, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ROC analysis revealed that the cutoff value of pepsinogen I for expectation of gastric regions was 76.8 ng/ml. The results clearly indicate that measurement of pepsinogen I may be useful in predicting gastric distress induced by amino-BP in osteoporosis.

Long-term treatment with bisphosphonates and their safety in postmenopausal osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates are the leading drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronate have shown to reduce the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, whereas RCTs with ibandronate show antifracture efficacy at vertebral sites. Bisphosphonates are generally well tolerated and safe. Nevertheless, adverse events have been noted, and it is important to consider the strength of the evidence for causal relationships. Effects on the gastrointestinal tract and kidney function are well recognized, as are transient acute-phase reactions. Atrial fibrillation was first identified as a potential adverse event in a zoledronate trial, but subsequent trials and analyses failed to substantiate an association with bisphosphonates. Case reports have suggested a relationship between oral bisphosphonates and esophageal cancer, but this has not been demonstrated in epidemiologic studies. A possible association between bisphosphonate use and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) has also been suggested. However, the risk of ONJ in patients with osteoporosis appears to be very low, with no evidence from prospective RCTs of a causal association. There are reports of occasional occurrence of subtrochanteric or diaphyseal fractures in osteoporotic patients, but an association with bisphosphonate therapy is not substantiated by epidemiologic studies or prospective RCTs.

Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence and characteristics of randomised controlled trials that report using the modified intention to treat approach, and how the approach is described.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, HighWire Press, Science-Direct, Ingenta, Medscape, BioMed Central, Springer, and Wiley, from inception to December 2006.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of trials in which use of modified intention to treat was reported, and how the approach was described (classified according to the type and number of deviations from the intention to treat approach).

RESULTS

475 randomised controlled trials reported use of a modified intention to treat analysis. Of these, 76 (16%) were published in five highly cited general medical journals. The incidence of all trials that reported use of modified intention to treat published in journals indexed in Medline increased from 0.006% in 1982-6 to 0.5% in 2002-6 (P<0.001 for linear trend). When the description of the modified intention to treat was examined in each trial, 192 (40%) reported one type of deviation from the intention to treat approach, 261 (55%) reported two or more types, and 22 (5%) did not describe any type. In 266 (56%) of the trials the deviation was related to the treatment received, in 196 (41%) to a post baseline assessment, in 118 (25%) to a baseline assessment, in 108 (23%) to a target condition, and in 23 (5%) to follow-up. Post-randomisation exclusions occurred in 380 (80%) trials. The results reported by 270 of the 352 (77%) superiority trials favoured the drug under investigation. All of the 123 trials using equivalence or non-inferiority methods to investigate interventions reported results that favoured their assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomised controlled trials that report using a modified intention to treat are increasingly being published in the medical literature. The descriptions of such an approach were ambiguous, and may cover any type of descriptions for exclusion, such as missing data and deviation from protocol. Explicit statements about post-randomisation exclusions should replace the ambiguous terminology of modified intention to treat.

Adverse effects of bisphosphonates: implications for osteoporosis management

Bisphosphonates are widely prescribed and highly effective at limiting the bone loss that occurs in many disorders characterized by increased osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, including senile osteoporosis in both men and women, glucocorticoid-associated osteoporosis, and malignancies metastatic to bone. Although they are generally well tolerated, potential adverse effects may limit bisphosphonate use in some patients. Optimal use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis requires adequate calcium and vitamin D intake before and during therapy. The World Health Organization fracture risk assessment algorithm is currently available to determine absolute fracture risk in patients with low bone mass and is a useful tool for clinicians in identifying patients most likely to benefit from pharmacological intervention to limit fracture risk. This fracture risk estimate may facilitate shared decision making, especially when patients are wary of the rare but serious adverse effects that have recently been described for this class of drugs.

A comparison of the effect of alendronate and risedronate on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: 24-month results from FACTS-International

OBJECTIVES

To compare alendronate 70 mg once weekly (OW) with risedronate 35 mg OW with respect to change in bone mineral density (BMD), biochemical markers and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tolerability over 24 months.

METHODS

This was a 12-month extension to the Fosamax Actonel Comparison Trial international study (FACTS). Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis randomly assigned to either alendronate 70 mg OW or risedronate 35 mg OW for the 12-month base study continued taking the same double-blind study medication. Efficacy measurements were BMD at the hip trochanter, lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck and levels of four bone turnover markers at 24 months. The primary hypothesis was that alendronate would produce a greater mean per cent increase from baseline in hip trochanter BMD at 24 months.

RESULTS

Trochanter BMD increased significantly from baseline to month 24 in both groups, with a significantly larger increase with alendronate: adjusted mean treatment difference of 1.50% (95% confidence interval: 0.74%, 2.26%; p < 0.001). Similar results were seen at all BMD sites. Significant geometric mean per cent decreases (p < 0.001) from baseline were seen for all four bone turnover markers in both groups, with significantly larger decreases (p < 0.001) with alendronate: adjusted mean treatment differences ranged from 8.9% to 25.3%. No significant differences were seen in incidence of UGI or other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Alendronate 70 mg OW yielded significantly greater BMD gains and larger decreases in bone turnover marker levels than risedronate 35 mg OW over 24 months, with no difference in UGI tolerability.

Alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis in men

BACKGROUND

Men have higher rates of osteoporosis and suffer fragility fractures more often than previously believed. Fracture-related morbidity and mortality in men is substantially higher than in women.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate alendronate for treating osteoporosis in men.

METHODS

Search limited to 'men' and 'English'; keywords were 'osteoporosis' or 'bone density' or 'fracture' and 'alendronate'.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Alendronate is an amino-bisphosphonate with proved efficacy for increasing bone mineral density in men with idiopathic or secondary osteoporosis and has demonstrated an ability to prevent vertebral fractures in men with low bone mass. There are trends for alendronate to decrease the risk of non-vertebral fracture, but larger trials are needed to conclusively establish this benefit. Alendronate is a well-tolerated and comparatively safe drug with an attractive once-a-week dosing regimen.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We undertook study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analysis of fracture outcomes using relative risks and a > 15% relative change was considered clinically important. We assessed study quality through reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials representing 12,068 women were included in the review. Relative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 10 mg dose were as follows. For vertebral fractures, a significant 45% RRR was found (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67). This was significant for both primary prevention, with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80) and 2% ARR, and secondary prevention with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69) and 6% ARR. For non-vertebral fractures, a significant 16% RRR was found (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94). This was significant for secondary prevention, with 23% RRR (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92) and 2% ARR, but not for primary prevention (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). There was a significant 40% RRR in hip fractures (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92), but only secondary prevention was significant with 53% RRR (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85) and 1% ARR. The only significance found for wrist was in secondary prevention, with a 50% RRR (RR 0.50 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) and 2% ARR. For adverse events, we found no statistically significant differences in any included study. However, observational data raise concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At 10 mg per day, both clinically important and statistically significant reductions in vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures were observed for secondary prevention ('gold' level evidence, www.cochranemsk.org). We found no statistically significant results for primary prevention, with the exception of vertebral fractures, for which the reduction was clinically important ('gold' level evidence).

The cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the management of osteoporosis

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK has recently issued health economic appraisals for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fracture that are more restrictive than previous guidelines for the management of osteoporosis despite a marked reduction of the cost of intervention. The aim of the present study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of the bisphosphonate, alendronate for the prevention and treatment of fractures associated with osteoporosis. A second aim was to investigate reasons for any disparities in cost-effectiveness between our findings and the NICE appraisals. We compared the effects of alendronate 70 mg weekly by mouth for 5 years with no treatment in postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors for fracture and computed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using a lifetime simulation model based on Markov cohort methodology. A sensitivity analysis examined other common interventions. Using a threshold of pound sterling 30,000 and pound sterling 20,000 per quality of life-year (QALY) gained to determine cost-effectiveness, alendronate was cost-effective for the primary prevention of fracture in women with osteoporosis irrespective of age as was treatment of women with a prior fragility fracture irrespective of BMD. Cost-effective scenarios were also found in women with strong risk factors for fracture with a bone mineral density value above the threshold for osteoporosis. The results were robust over reasonable assumptions in sensitivity analysis. We conclude that alendronate is a cost-effective agent for the prevention and treatment of fractures associated with osteoporosis. These findings, suitable for informing practice guidance, contrast with recent appraisals from NICE.

Long-term experience with alendronate in the treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is characterised by increased bone turnover, low bone mass and impaired bone microarchitecture, leading to increased fracture risk. Effective anticatabolic therapies decrease fracture risk by reducing the rate of bone turnover, thereby maintaining bone microarchitecture and increasing bone mineral density. At present, potent oral bisphosphonates, such as alendronate (FOSAMAX; Merck & Co.), are preferred for the treatment of osteoporosis. Long-term clinical trial data demonstrate that alendronate is effective and generally well tolerated. Results from head-to-head studies and meta-analyses suggest that alendronate is more effective than certain other anticatabolic agents in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis.

Drug insight: the use of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in men

Osteoporosis has long been recognized as a disease affecting postmenopausal women but it has become increasingly clear that men are affected by low bone density and suffer the consequences of osteoporotic fractures. Men attending clinical urological practices might be at raised risk of bone loss due to hypogonadism, either identified during work-up of erectile dysfunction or induced by androgen deprivation therapy for treatment of prostate cancer. The availability of bisphosphonate drugs with proven efficacy in fracture reduction has revolutionized osteoporosis therapy in the past decade. The use of these agents has been traditionally based on data obtained predominantly from postmenopausal women and cases of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, but data are becoming increasingly available to justify their use in men. Despite the availability and favorable safety profile of bisphosphonates, many patients are not receiving therapy. This article serves to review the data regarding bisphosphonate use in men, discussing particularly the pharmacology and mechanisms of action of these agents, and findings from clinical studies supporting their use for fracture prevention.

Osteoporosis in men

Osteoporosis has long been considered to be a disease of the aging female skeleton. As awareness of the pervasiveness of this disorder increases, it is clear that men are also at risk for this disorder. Recent epidemiological studies have confirmed that osteoporosis in men is an increasing health problem. This development not only has its roots in increased longevity but also in increased awareness of this problem in men. The purpose of this article is to review what is known about the factors in men that lead to acquisition, maintenance, and loss of bone, as well as new insights about the causes, pathogenesis, and treatment of osteoporosis in men.

Hepatotoxicity induced by alendronate therapy

Here we describe a 47-year-old postmenopausal woman who had been taking alendronate 70 mg/week for osteoporosis. After two months of alendronate therapy, she developed hepatotoxicity, and no other etiological factors for this besides the alendronate were apparent. After the alendronate therapy was discontinued, the patient's hepatic enzyme levels slowly returned to normal. Hepatotoxicity due to alendronate therapy is a rare but possible adverse effect.

Tolerability of different dosing regimens of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis and malignant bone disease

Bisphosphonates are the primary pharmacological agents used for the management of osteoporosis and hypercalcaemia of malignant bone disease. The efficacy of these agents in these two conditions has been demonstrated in many well designed trials published over the past 2 decades. The variety of bisphosphonates currently available to us provides a wide range of tolerability and dosing profiles thus necessitating a thorough comparison of the most recent oral and intravenous bisphosphonates to differentiate the clinical context in which they should be used. Despite the fact that bisphosphonates are generally well accepted, their tolerability is dependent on complications which encompass gastrointestinal (GI) and renal toxicity. Other adverse events include osteonecrosis of the jaw, arthralgias, flu-like symptoms and uveitis. Studies have shown that various dosing regimens are able to modulate these rates of toxicity. To maximise tolerability, the direction of future therapy will likely fall into a pattern of decreasing the frequency of administration of bisphosphonates, whether it is oral or intravenous formulations, thus improving patient adherence. To review the literature on different dosing regimens of various bisphosphonates and their associated tolerability, we searched MEDLINE for articles from 1975 to 2006. Oral bisphosphonates, in particular alendronate and risedronate, have been systematically evaluated with regards to GI toxicity. Overall tolerability with these oral formulations has found GI toxicity to be the primary adverse event of interest. Both alendronate and risedronate have been found to have similar rates of GI toxicity when compared with placebo. Mounting evidence has developed validating the use of intravenous ibandronate and zoledronic acid for the purpose of treating hypercalcaemia secondary to malignancy. Unique to all other bisphosphonates, ibandronate also has an oral form which has a similar GI-toxicity profile to placebo. In addition, no significant differences in renal toxicity have been observed between those receiving intravenous ibandronate compared with placebo. Because of its potency and mode of administration, zoledronic acid has been widely accepted for the treatment of hypercalcaemia secondary to malignancy. However, a decrease in renal function, albeit rare, remains a significant complication of zoledronic acid; therefore, regular renal monitoring is recommended.

Adherence and Persistence Associated with the Pharmacologic Treatment of Osteoporosis in a Managed Care Setting

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of chronic therapies can be compromised by poor adherence and persistence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Investigators identified a continuously benefit-eligible cohort of women from a large, geographically diverse, national managed care plan who were newly diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis with alendronate, risedronate, or raloxifene. Drug utilization parameters were evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period for the study population. Adherence was assessed using a medication possession ratio calculated as total days of therapy for medication dispensed/365 days of study follow-up. Persistence was defined as continuous therapy on the same drug for each month over the entire study period. Adherence and persistence were also evaluated for all three study agents in women > or = 65 years of age.

RESULTS

In the study cohort (N = 10,566), 12-month adherence/ persistence rates were alendronate 61%/21%, risedronate 58%/19%, and raloxifene 54%/16%. Rates in women > or = 65 years were similar to those in the entire study cohort. Weekly bisphosphonate users had slightly higher 12-month adherence (63% versus 54%, P < 0.05) and persistence (22% versus 19%, P = NS) rates than did daily users, independent of agent.

CONCLUSION

Chronic oral-dosed osteoporosis therapies are associated with poor adherence and persistence, regardless of age or dosing regimen. Drug therapies and patient management approaches associated with improved adherence and persistence could improve the likelihood of achieving the therapeutic benefits observed in rigorously controlled clinical trials.

Long-term outcome of weekly bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates currently are the preferred therapy for treating osteoporosis. Treatment with potent bisphosphonates such as alendronate or risedronate decreases biochemical markers of bone turnover and increases bone mineral density. These changes are associated with significant reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk. Clinical trial data with up to 10 years of followup shows these agents are effective and well tolerated for long-term periods. Daily administration is effective and generally well tolerated. However, once weekly doses are more convenient, which may enhance long-term compliance and lead to more successful outcomes. The pharmacokinetics and mechanism of action predict the short-term and long-term skeletal effects and safety profile of once-weekly doses of bisphosphonates are similar to daily doses. These predictions are supported by authors of trials of up to 2 years who report once-weekly doses are therapeutically equivalent to daily doses in terms of BMD and biochemical markers of bone remodeling. Once-weekly bisphosphonate doses have safety and tolerability profiles as good as daily doses and are comparable with the placebo.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, Level V (expert opinion). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence.

Drug injury in the upper gastrointestinal tract: effects of alendronate

Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by an increase in bone resorption and a decline in bone density, which leads to increased susceptibility to bone fractures. Long-term therapy is needed to increase bone mineral density and maintain bone strength. Safe and well-tolerated medical therapies are required for long-term maintenance. Alendronate, an oral bisphosphonate, has been used for treatment of osteoporosis since the mid 1990s; however, recent studies have suggested alendronate can have significant gastrointestinal side effects. Most data suggest that the risk of these effects is low and not significantly higher than with placebo but there are limited reports that suggest otherwise, in both clinical trials and animal studies. Alendronate continues to remain an important mainstay of osteoporosis therapy.

Treatment preference and tolerability with alendronate once weekly over a 3-month period: an Israeli multi-center study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Osteoporosis is a chronic condition requiring long-term treatment, for which compliance is not easy to achieve. 70 mg of alendronate once weekly (alendronate OW) provides equivalent efficacy to treatment with 10 mg of alendronate once a day (alendronate OD); however, there are relatively few data regarding patient and physician preferences for once-weekly vs daily dosing. The aim of this study was to measure compliance, convenience, tolerance and relative preference of alendronate OW treatment among post-menopausal women with osteoporosis and physician satisfaction, compared with previous treatment with alendronate OD.

METHODS

This open-label, prospective multi-center trial was conducted at 14 hospitals and 150 primary-care community clinics in Israel. Post-menopausal osteoporotic women (n = 3710), who had been treated for at least 1 month with alendronate OD during the preceding year, were treated with alendronate OW for 12 weeks. Convenience, satisfaction, tolerance and relative preference of alendronate OW during the trial, compared with past experience with alendronate OD, were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 96% of the patients preferred the alendronate OW regimen to the 10-mg daily dosage. Nearly all (98%) the patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment, including 77% of patients who had previously discontinued daily treatment due to intolerance, were willing to continue the alendronate OW regimen. Patient-reported compliance with dosing instructions was over 98%. Alendronate OW was well tolerated; only 2.8% of patients discontinued, due to adverse events. Physicians were highly satisfied with the once-weekly dosing regimen, and recommended continued treatment with alendronate OW for 99% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of post-menopausal women with osteoporosis, including those who were previously intolerant to alendronate OD, preferred alendronate OW to the once-daily dosing regimen. It is important to consider patient preference when selecting the appropriate treatment for osteoporosis.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis and alendronate

Osteoporosis is a systemic metabolic disorder associated with a decreased bone mass and resistance. Bisphosphonates suppress bone resorption and bone turnover by a mechanism that depends on their structure. They are characterized by low gastrointestinal absorption. In postmenopausal women, alendronate (ALN) reduces bone resorption markers and increases bone mineral density (BMD) in the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total body. Individuals receiving ALN have been studied for up to 10 years with an apparent linear increase in BMD over that time period estimated at 13.7% at the lumbar spine. Treatment with ALN reduced the risk of both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, including hip fractures, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Direct comparisons of the results obtained with different antiresortive agents is difficult, because the designs of the respective studies, populations and other factors. However, the meta-analysis of available publications seems to indicate that ALN reduces the relative risk of vertebral fractures in a greater proportion than any other agent. Furthermore, ALN prevents the reduction in BMD after hormone replacement therapy discontinuation.

Upper gastrointestinal tolerability of once weekly alendronate 70 mg with concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use

BACKGROUND

Both oral bisphosphonates and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have the potential to irritate the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, and are frequently used by the same patient population.

AIM

To determine the rate of upper gastrointestinal adverse events with once weekly alendronate 70 mg and concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was performed on 222 patients who received both medications concomitantly during a 3-month placebo-controlled study. A total of 450 (224 alendronate; 226 placebo) postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis were randomized. Concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users were defined as patients who received > or =7 continuous days of any dose of a dual cyclo-oxygenase-1 and cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibiting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor, or aspirin. A survival analysis was performed, and significance assessed. Logistic regression was used to assess consistency of treatment effect on rate of upper gastrointestinal adverse events across non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug subgroups.

RESULTS

Similar percentages of alendronate (52.7%) and placebo (46.0%) patients used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs regularly. Among concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users, 11 alendronate and 11 placebo patients experienced upper gastrointestinal adverse events (9.3% and 10.8%, respectively, P = 0.744). Logistic regression revealed no significant interaction (P = 0.722) between alendronate and concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use.

CONCLUSION

Based on this subgroup analysis, once weekly alendronate 70 mg used concomitantly with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, did not increase upper gastrointestinal adverse events relative to placebo over 3-months.

Therapeutic effects of alendronate 35 mg once weekly and 5 mg once daily in Japanese patients with osteoporosis: a double-blind, randomized study

The efficacy and safety of treatment with oral alendronate (ALN) 35 mg once weekly for 52 weeks were compared with those of ALN 5 mg once daily in a double-blind, randomized, multicenter study of Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis. The primary efficacy end point was the percent change from baseline in the lumbar spine (L1-L4) bone mineral density (BMD) after 52 weeks of treatment. In this study, 328 patients were randomized to ALN 5 mg once daily (160 patients) or ALN 35 mg once weekly (168 patients). The adjusted mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine (L1-L4) BMD after 52 weeks of treatment was 5.8% and 6.4% in the once-daily group and the once-weekly group, respectively (both P < 0.001). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in spine BMD change between the two treatment groups was -0.31% to 1.48%, indicating that the two regimens were therapeutically equivalent, since the confidence interval fell entirely within the predefined equivalence criterion (+/-1.5%). The time course of the spine BMD increase was also similar for both regimens. Regarding total hip BMD, mean changes from baseline at 52 weeks were 2.8% and 3.0% in the once-daily group and the once-weekly group, respectively. In addition, the bone markers (urinary deoxypyridinoline, urinary type-I collagen N-telopeptides, and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) were reduced to a similar level by either treatment throughout the treatment period. The tolerability and safety profiles were also similar between the treatment groups. Taken together, we conclude that the efficacy and safety of the ALN 35-mg once-weekly regimen are therapeutically equivalent to those of the ALN 5-mg once-daily regimen.

Bone loss and the evolving role of bisphosphonate therapy in prostate cancer

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can result in significant loss of bone mineral density (BMD) but to date, there are no prospective studies that document the true severity of bone loss and resulting fracture rates. In the general population, however, the incidence of low BMD is increasing in elderly men. Men suffer more morbidity and mortality from fractures associated with low BMD than women. Problems of underdiagnosis and undertreatment in men can be addressed with enhanced awareness of the risk factors for bone loss in men and the available treatment options. Guidelines for diagnosis of low BMD in women can probably be applied to men. Treatment options have not been studied as extensively in men. For men treated with ADT for prostate cancer, however, use of intravenous zoledronic acid at the initiation of ADT has been shown to prevent and even reverse bone loss. Although the routine use of bisphosphonates to prevent bone loss is not yet recommended, zoledronic acid is a logical choice of therapy in men who have low BMD at baseline or who develop bone loss during the course of therapy. In addition to its effects on BMD, zoledronic acid has also been shown to decrease skeletal morbidity in men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Whether zoledronic acid or other bisphosphonates might actually prevent or delay the development of bone metastases remains to be studied in randomized clinical trials.

Understanding treatments for bone loss and bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a practical review and guide for the clinician

Prostate cancer patients are at risk for developing bone loss and bone metastases. Clinicians prescribing ADT should appreciate the potential effects of ADT on BMD as well as the morbidity and mortality that can result from osteoporotic fractures. Measures to address the evaluation of patients and when to treat patients with significant bone loss have been discussed. Bisphosphonates effectively prevent loss of BMD in prostate cancer patients. Treatment of prostate cancer patients with established bone metastases with zoledronic acid should be considered strongly based on the results of the Saad study and other studies of patients with bone metastases with other malignancies. Zoledronic acid is approved by the US FDA for use in men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer and in the European Union for any patient with bone metastases, including prostate cancer patients,because of the beneficial impact of zoledronic acid on skeletal-related events. There is no validated method to determine which patients might benefit most from bisphosphonate therapy in this setting. Many questions about the use of bisphosphonate therapy in men with prostate cancer must be addressed, both in terms of the use in bone loss and bone metastases. These questions include: What is the optimal timing of therapy? Which bisphosphonate is best? What is the best dose and dose schedule? Do bisphosphonates effectively decrease skeletal fracture rates in patients with osteoporosis? How long should patients receive therapy? Are bisphosphonate "holidays" warranted? What are the long-term skeletal and renal toxicities? Is there a role for sequencing bisphosphonate therapy either before or after chemotherapy? Is bisphosphonate therapy synergistic with certain chemotherapy or other bone-targeted therapies? Which patients are the most likely to benefit from bisphosphonate therapy? What are clinically significant endpoints of bisphosphonate trials in patients with metastatic disease? Does inhibiting bone turnover also inhibit formation of bone metastases? Preliminary work in these areas has been completed, but more questions than answers are available. Given the rising costs of health care, it is imperative that these questions be addressed to best use the health care dollar while offering high-risk patients the best available therapy. At present, no data suggest that bisphosphonates should be used routinely to prevent BMD loss in men with normal BMD or to prevent the development of bone metastases in men with biochemical relapse. Continuing trials may give us guidance in the future.

Upper gastrointestinal and overall tolerability of alendronate once weekly in patients with osteoporosis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the upper gastrointestinal (GI) and overall tolerability profiles of alendronate 70 mg once weekly with placebo.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 12-week international, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 449 postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis at 44 sites in 19 countries in Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. Subjects were randomized to alendronate 70 mg once weekly or matching placebo in a 1:1 ratio.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The safety and tolerability of weekly alendronate and placebo were captured as clinical and laboratory adverse events. The primary endpoint was upper GI tolerability based on the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of subjects who discontinued therapy due to a drug-related upper GI adverse event. Change from baseline in bone turnover as measured by the urinary N-telopeptide-collagen crosslinks corrected for creatinine (NTx/Cr) was assessed at 12 weeks as an indicator of efficacy.

RESULTS

The percentages of subjects reporting an upper GI tract adverse event in the alendronate 70 mg once weekly group (9.8%) and the placebo group (9.4%) were similar. The risk difference between the two treatment groups (alendronate minus placebo) was 0.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), -5.1%, 5.9%]. Percentages of subjects who discontinued due to a drug-related upper GI adverse event were also similar (alendronate 2.7%; placebo 2.2%; risk difference 0.4%, 95% CI, -2.4, 3.3). The overall tolerability profile of alendronate 70 mg once weekly, as measured by the percentage 8.0% (95% CI, 1.4%, 15.0%) increase in the of subjects reporting any adverse event, was similar to that of placebo (risk difference 2.1%, 95% CI -6.9, 11.0). There was a significant 43.3% (95% CI, -47.9%, -38.3%) decrease from baseline in urinary NTx/Cr in the alendronate group compared with an placebo group at Week 12.

CONCLUSION

Alendronate 70 mg administered once weekly to women and men with osteoporosis has an upper GI and overall tolerability profile similar to that of placebo.

The Impact of Fragility Fracture on Health-Related Quality of Life

Both general and specific health status instruments can be utilised in evaluating health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) deficits resulting from osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporotic hip, vertebral and wrist fractures significantly decrease HR-QOL in most HR-QOL domains investigated. The presence of multiple vertebral fractures leads to larger decrements in HR-QOL. More research needs to be completed with these HR-QOL tools to better assess the true burden of osteoporotic fractures, particularly in the case of hip fractures, as the burden is surely being underestimated without recognition of HR-QOL. Only when the burden of fragility fractures is understood, inclusive of HR-QOL, will the value of proven antifracture prevention and treatment therapies be appreciated. Information collected by HR-QOL instruments may provide new insight as to how to improve quality of life for patients with fractures and how to properly allocate healthcare spending.

Management of Bone Loss in Men With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Bone loss is increasingly recognized as a common occurrence in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer. Skeletal metabolism and osteoporosis in men, assessment of bone mineral density (BMD), effects of ADT on BMD, management strategies and potential therapies for osteopenia or osteoporosis in men with prostate cancer are reviewed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant literature is reviewed concerning bone loss and osteoporosis in men with and without prostate cancer, techniques of assessing BMD, data on bone loss and fracture risk and management strategies.

RESULTS

The incidence of osteoporotic fractures usually increases a decade later in men than in women. ADT causes significant loss of BMD, which may hasten the development of osteoporosis. Men who are treated with hormonal therapy for an increasing prostate specific antigen and who may live for many years should have baseline BMD assessments. Osteopenia or osteoporosis should be treated to minimize the risk of osteoporotic fracture. Treatment with zoledronic acid seems appropriate since it has been shown to increase BMD in men treated with ADT and to reduce the rate of skeletal related events in men with early hormone refractory prostate cancer with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring BMD is warranted in men contemplating or receiving ADT but prophylactic therapy to prevent bone loss currently is not recommended. Men with evidence of significant bone loss who are receiving ADT should be treated. Zoledronic acid is a logical choice based on available data.

Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a disease that may have a tremendous impact on the lives of many postmenopausal women. It is encouraging that effective treatments for this disease abound and the challenge is to ensure that those most in need of diagnosis or therapy obtain adequate care. Further research is expected to clarify the role of combination therapy or sequential use of different agents for the maximum benefit in fracture protection. There is an array of efficacious options to consider when diagnosing and treating osteoporosis so that patients and their caregivers can remain optimistic about the management of this chronic disease and prevention of future fractures.

Bisphosphonates: new indications and methods of administration

In the course of 2002, several new studies were published confirming the efficacy of bisphosphonate drugs in fracture prevention in patients with osteoporosis. Further evidence was provided of their long duration of action, making intermittent administration possible. The potent bisphosphonate zoledronate can be given at intervals of as long as 1 year and produces changes in bone density and in markers of bone turnover comparable with those seen with conventional daily oral dosing with alendronate or risedronate. If such regimens are proven to prevent fractures, their convenience is likely to result in their widespread adoption and potentially an increase in compliance with these medications. Further evidence has been presented documenting the value of bisphosphonates in preventing the skeletal complications of malignancy, and possibly in reducing mortality in patients with breast cancer. The role of bisphosphonates in osteogenesis imperfecta was further confirmed, and novel roles in ankylosing spondylitis, myelofibrosis, and hypertrophic pulmonary osteoarthropathy were suggested.