Duration of antiresorptive effects of low-dose zoledronate in osteopenic postmenopausal women: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Future work

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

Limitations

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

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

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

Optimization of the dosage regimen of zoledronic acid with a kinetic-pharmacodynamic model and exposure-response analysis

Purpose: In order to support the dose optimization of zoledronic acid, the kinetic-pharmacodynamic model and exposure-response analysis were used to describe the changes in bone mineral density in different doses of zoledronic acid and establish the relationship between dose and acute phase reaction. Methods: Data were extracted from literature in accessible public databases. The kinetic-pharmacodynamic model was developed based on the above data using the NONMEM package to estimate parameters describing the relationship between the dose of zoledronic acid and bone mineral density. Exposure-response analysis was developed to establish the relationship between dose and acute phase reaction. Model evaluation was performed using goodness-of-fit, coefficient of variation (CV%). And sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the necessity of related parameters. Then the established model was used to simulate the changes of bone mineral density under different administration regimens, and the literature data was verified. Results: The kinetic-pharmacodynamic model successfully described zoledronic acid dose and change of bone mineral density in osteoporosis patients, with coefficient of variation of most less than 71.5%. The exposure-response analysis showed the incidence of acute phase reaction is dose-dependent. The bone mineral density was simulated based on the developed kinetic-pharmacodynamic model. And the simulated change of bone mineral density and the incidence of acute phase reaction could be helpful to propose a dosage regimen. Conclusion: Overall, the kinetic-pharmacodynamic model described changes of bone mineral density in different doses of zoledronic acid in vivo. And, the model and the exposure-response analysis also showed to provide the assessment of dose-response relationship for zoledronic acid.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I2 = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I2 = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I2 = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I2 = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

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

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

High affinity zoledronate-based metal complex nanocrystals to potentially treat osteolytic metastases

Formation of several materials, denoted as bisphosphonate-based coordination complexes (BPCCs), resulted from the reaction between clinically employed bisphosphonate, zoledronate (ZOLE) and bioactive metals (M²⁺ = Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺ and Zn²⁺). Six ZOLE-based BPCCs were synthesized using different variables (M²⁺ : ZOLE molar ratio, temperature, pH, and anion) and their structures were elucidated by single crystal X-ray diffraction (ZOLE-Ca forms I and II, ZOLE-Mg forms I and II, and ZOLE-Zn forms I and II). The dissolution of the ZOLE-based BPCCs was compared to that of ZOLE (Reclast®). Most of the ZOLE-based BPCCs (60-85%, in 18-24 h) present a lower dissolution and equilibrium solubility than ZOLE (∼100%, 30 min) in phosphate buffered saline (PBS), while a significantly higher dissolution is observed in acidic media (88% in 1 h). This suggests the ability to release the ZOLE content in a pH-dependent manner. Moreover, a phase inversion temperature (PIT)-nano-emulsion synthesis was performed, which demonstrated the ability to significantly decrease the crystal size of ZOLE-Ca form II from a micron-range (∼200 μm) to a nano-range (∼150 d nm), resulting in nano-Ca@ZOLE. Furthermore, low aggregation of nano-Ca@ZOLE in 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) : PBS after 0, 24 and 48 h was demonstrated. Additionally, nano-Ca@ZOLE showed an ∼2.5x more binding to hydroxyapatite (HA, 36%) than ZOLE (15%) in 1 d. The cytotoxicity of nano-Ca@ZOLE against MDA-MB-231 (cancer cell model) and hFOB 1.19 (normal osteoblast-like cell model) cell lines was investigated. The results demonstrated significant cell growth inhibition for nano-Ca@ZOLE against MDA-MB-231, specifically at a low concentration of 3.8 μM (%RCL = 55 ± 1%, 72 h). Under the same conditions, the nanocrystals did not present cytotoxicity against hFOB 1.19 (%RCL = 100 ± 2%). These results evidence that nano-ZOLE-based BPCCs possess viable properties in terms of structure, dissolution, stability, binding, and cytotoxicity, which render them suitable for osteolytic metastasis therapy.

Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover 10 Years After a Single 5 mg Dose or Two 5-Yearly Lower Doses of Zoledronate in Osteopenic Older Women: An Open-Label Extension of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Intravenous zoledronate reduces fracture risk (5 mg at 18-month intervals) and prevents bone loss (doses of 1 to 5 mg for 3 to >5 years), but the duration of action of a single 5 mg dose and the effects of lower doses beyond 5 years are unknown. We report the second open-label extension (years 5 to 10) of a 2-year randomized, multidose, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial. A total of 116 older women who completed 5 years of participation either continued observation without further treatment (zoledronate 5 mg and placebo at baseline) or received repeat doses of 1 or 2.5 mg zoledronate (zoledronate 1 mg and zoledronate 2.5 mg at baseline, respectively). Outcomes were spine, hip, and total body bone mineral density (BMD) and serum markers of bone turnover. After a single 5 mg dose of zoledronate, mean BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip was maintained at or above baseline levels for 9 and 10 years, respectively. The mean level of the bone resorption marker β-C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (β-CTX) was at least 25% lower than that in the placebo group for 9 years. In women administered 5-yearly doses of 2.5 mg zoledronate, mean BMD at the total hip and lumbar spine was maintained at or above baseline levels for 9 and 10 years, respectively. Redosing with 1 or 2.5 mg zoledronate at 5 years reduced bone turnover markers for 3 to 4 years. BMD increased for 3 to 4 years after redosing with 1 mg zoledronate. In the group given 5-yearly 2.5 mg zoledronate, β-CTX was at least 20% lower than that in the placebo group for 10 years. Both a single baseline 5 mg dose of zoledronate and 5-yearly doses of 1 and 2.5 mg zoledronate prevented bone loss at hip and spine for 8 to 10 years in older postmenopausal women. Clinical trials to evaluate the effects on fracture risk of these very infrequent and lower doses of zoledronate are justified. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Intravenous Zoledronate 4 mg for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis: A prospective open-labeled study

Background

Zoledronate 5 mg intravenous (IV) annually is approved for treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis. Zoledronate 4 mg which is approved for the treatment of cancer related hypercalcemia can be an alternative for Asian women who have smaller stature.

Objectives

To examine the efficacy and safety of Zoledronate 4 mg IV annually for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis.

Method

A prospective open-labeled study was performed on 33 post-menopausal osteoporosis patients. All patients received a dose of IV Zoledronate 4 mg. Bone mineral density (DXA) was examined at baseline and 12 months after treatment. Beta-C-terminal telopeptide (β-CTX) and procollagen type-1-amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP) were obtained at baseline, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Adverse events were recorded.

Results

The mean age (SD) was 69 (11.1) years old. The lumbar spine BMD increased significantly from the mean (SD) lumbar spine BMD at baseline of 0.833 (0.132) g/cm² to 0.862 (0.132) after treatment (p = 0.001). There was no significant differences in total hip and femoral neck BMDs between baseline and 12 months after treatment. The β-CTX and P1NP decreased significantly from the mean (SD) of 0.44 (0.24) and 55.57 (38.6) ng/ml at baseline to 0.21 (0.11) and 27.26 (10.95) ng/ml after treatment (p < 0.001), respectively. Infusion reaction was observed in five patients. There were two fractures observed.

Conclusion

Zoledronate 4 mg improved lumbar BMD and decreased β-CTX and P1NP significantly after 12 months of treatment. Zoledronate 4 mg could be an alternative to Zoledronate 5 mg for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis.

•

This study examined the effect of Zoledronate 4 mg for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

•

The lumbar spine BMD increased between baseline and 12 months after treatment.

•

Bone markers decreased significantly between baseline and 12 months after treatment.

•

Zoledronate 4 mg is an alternative to 5 mg for postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment.

Advances in bone turnover markers

Bone fragility fractures remain an important worldwide health and economic problem due to increased morbidity and mortality. The current methods for predicting fractures are largely based on the measurement of bone mineral density and the utilization of mathematical risk calculators based on clinical risk factors for bone fragility. Despite these approaches, many bone fractures remain undiagnosed. Therefore, current research is focused on the identification of new factors such as bone turnover markers (BTM) for risk calculation. BTM are a group of proteins and peptides released during bone remodeling that can be found in serum or urine. They derive from bone resorptive and formative processes mediated by osteoclasts and osteoblasts, respectively. Potential use of BTM in monitoring these phenomenon and therefore bone fracture risk is limited by physiologic and pathophysiologic factors that influence BTM. These limitations in predicting fractures explain why their inclusion in clinical guidelines remains limited despite the large number of studies examining BTM.

Effectiveness of bisphosphonates on bone mineral density in osteopenic postmenopausal women: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Various bisphosphonate agents have been proven to be effective in preventing bone loss and fracture in osteopenic postmenopausal women. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of various BPs on preventing the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) for postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were screened up to identify randomized controlled trails comparing effectiveness of BPs or placebo on the BMD of postmenopausal women with osteopenia. Network meta-analysis and standard pair-wise meta-analyses were performed. The main outcomes include the percentage changes of 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month BMD at lumbar, total hip and femoral neck, and frequencies of new fractures and severe adverse events.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were eligible, involving 11,540 participants. No significant difference was presented among the available interventions for the 6-month BMD at 3 different sites, but the magnitudes of differences among the treatment regimens became gradually increased along with the extending of follow-up periods. Daily aledronate of more than 5 mg provided the maximal percentage increase on BMD of femoral neck and lumbar spine, while zoledronate provided maximal change on BMD of total hip, at different follow-up periods. This network meta-analysis also demonstrated similar frequencies of new clinical fractures and severe adverse events among different interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

A ranking spectrum depicting the effectiveness on BMD percentage change following interventions with different bisphosphonate regimens was provided. Generally, regimens with zoledronate and aledronate were found to be the most effective interventions in the 3 sites at different end points.

Pharmacologic intervention for prevention of fractures in osteopenic and osteoporotic postmenopausal women: Systemic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Emerging evidence has indicated a role for pharmacologic agents in the primary prevention of osteoporotic fracture, but have not yet been systematically reviewed for meta-analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without prevalent fragility fracture.

Method

The Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to September 30, 2019. Only randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating postmenopausal women with −1.0 > bone mineral density (BMD) T-score > −2.5 (low bone mass) and those with BMD T-score ≤ −2.5 (osteoporosis) but without baseline fractures, who were receiving anti-osteoporotic agents, providing quantitative outcomes data and evaluating risk of vertebral and/or non-vertebral fragility fracture at follow-up. The PRISMA guidelines were followed, applying a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was the effect of anti-osteoporotic regimens in reducing the incidence of vertebral fractures. Secondary endpoints were percentage changes in baseline BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip at 1 and 2 years follow up.

Results

Full-text review of 144 articles yielded, 20 for meta-analysis. Bisphosphonates reduced the risk of vertebral fracture (pooled OR = 0.50, 95%CIs = 0.36–0.71) and significantly increased lumbar spine BMD after 1 year, by 4.42% vs placebo (95%CIs = 3.70%–5.14%). At the hip, this value was 2.94% (95%CIs = 2.13%–3.75%). Overall results of limited studies for non-bisphosphonate drugs showed increased BMD and raloxifene significantly decreases the risk of subsequent clinical vertebral fractures.

Conclusion

The bisphosphonates are efficacious and most evident for the primary prevention of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, reducing their incidence and improving BMD in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis.

•

Bisphosphonates reduced the risk of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

•

Bisphosphonates increased BMD in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

•

Limited studies for non-bisphosphonate drugs showed increased BMD in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

•

Raloxifene decreased the risk of clinical vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

Zoledronate for the Prevention of Bone Loss in Women Discontinuing Denosumab Treatment. A Prospective 2-Year Clinical Trial

Cessation of denosumab treatment is associated with increases in bone turnover above baseline values and rapid bone loss. We investigated the efficacy of zoledronate to prevent this bone loss in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who were treated with denosumab (mean duration 2.2 years) and discontinued treatment after achieving osteopenia. Women were randomized to receive a single 5-mg infusion of zoledronate (ZOL) (n = 27) or two additional 60-mg injections of denosumab (Dmab) (n = 30). Both groups were followed for a total period of 24 months. At 24 months lumbar spine-bone mineral density (LS-BMD) was not different from baseline in the ZOL group, but decreased in the Dmab group by (mean ± SD) 4.82% ± 0.7% (p < 0.001) from the 12-month value; the difference in BMD changes between the two groups, the primary endpoint of the study, was statistically significant (p = 0.025). Results of femoral neck (FN)-BMD changes were similar. ZOL infusion was followed by small but significant increases in serum procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) during the first year and stabilization thereafter. In the Dmab group, bone turnover marker values did not change during the first 12 months but increased significantly at 15 months and in the majority of women these remained elevated at 24 months. Neither baseline nor 12-month bone turnover marker values were associated with BMD changes in either group of women. In the Dmab group, three patients sustained vertebral fractures (two patients multiple clinical, one patient morphometric) whereas one patient in the ZOL group sustained clinical vertebral fractures 12 months after the infusion. In conclusion, a single intravenous infusion of ZOL given 6 months after the last Dmab injection prevents bone loss for at least 2 years independently of the rate of bone turnover. Follow-up is recommended, because in a few patients ZOL treatment might not have the expected effect at 2 years. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Histological evaluation of the healing process of autografted mandibular bone defects in rats under treatment with zoledronate

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the healing process of autografted mandibular bone defects in rats treated with zoledronate (ZOL).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 180 Wistar rats were divided into four groups: group L received intravenous infusion of two doses of 0.06 mg/kg ZOL, nine weeks apart; group H received 0.06 mg/kg ZOL, while groups C and NC received normal saline at three-week intervals for nine weeks. Three weeks following the last infusion, a unilateral mandibular bone defect (5 mm) was created. Except in the NC group, all defects were repaired with autologous iliac bone graft. Fifteen animals from each group were sacrificed on postoperative Day 20, Day 40, and Day 60. Graft healing was scored using a histological grading system (ranging from 1 to 6).

RESULTS

Histological evaluations performed on postoperative Day 60 showed that the mandibular defects were mainly repaired with fibrous tissue in the NC and H groups (93.00% ± 7.51% and 82.67% ± 13.08%, respectively) and with bone in the C and L groups (75.33% ± 14.20% and 92.67% ± 8.84%, respectively). The percentage of fibrous tissue and bone as well as the healing score of the NC and H groups were significantly different (P = 0.001) from those of the C and L groups. However, these were not different between neither the NC and H groups nor the C and L groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the present study the hypothesis can be established that there also might be a dose-dependent effect of ZOL on the healing of bone grafts in humans. This hypothesis has to be verified or rejected in clinical trials.

Role of Bisphosphonates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis to Prevent Future Fractures: A Literature Review

Postmenopausal women who have osteoporosis are at increased risk of future fractures. Bisphosphonates are drugs that are used to treat osteoporosis by acting on the osteoclasts to inhibit bone resorption. Several studies have shown that bisphosphonates can maintain or even increase bone mineral density in osteoporosis patients. This review study analyzed the literature on clinical experiments with bisphosphonate therapy in postmenopausal women to determine if these drugs are efficacious in preventing future fractures. Four out of five studies found that women treated with bisphosphonates were at a decreased risk of future fractures, and six of six studies found that bisphosphonate therapy increases bone mineral density relative to placebo control. Although further work is warranted to understand the level of bone mineral density increase that is associated with fracture prevention, this study implies that bisphosphonate therapy can be used to help prevent future fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. The study is significant in that it helps to underscore the efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy in postmenopausal women, and it may be generalizable to other populations with osteoporosis who are at increased risk of fractures.

Effects of Intravenous Zoledronate on Bone Turnover and Bone Density Persist for at Least 11 Years in HIV-Infected Men

Previously we reported the results of a 4-year extension of a 2-year randomized placebo-controlled trial showing that the antiresorptive effects of two annual 4-mg doses of zoledronate in HIV-infected men persisted for at least 5 years after the second dose. We set out to determine whether the effects on BMD and bone turnover persist beyond 10 years. We invited all participants in the original trial known to be alive and living in New Zealand to attend an additional visit approximately 12 years after trial entry and 11 years after their second dose of study medication. The outcome measures were BMD at the lumbar spine, proximal femur, and total body, and markers of bone turnover. Twenty-five of the 43 men originally enrolled in the trial attended the final visit, representing 25 of 31 (81%) participants alive and residing in New Zealand at the time. The average duration of follow-up was 12.4 years. At the final visit, BMD remained higher in the zoledronate group than the placebo group (lumbar spine 3.7%, 95% CI, 0.1 to 7.3; total hip 3.7%, 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.2; femoral neck 5.0%, 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.9; total body 2.4%, 95% CI, 0.7 to 4.0), and the between-group differences in BMD remained stable between 6 and 12 years. Serum CTx remained lower in the zoledronate group than the placebo group between 6 and 12 years and, at the final visit, was 45% lower (95% CI, 25 to 64) than the placebo group. P1NP was 26% (95% CI, 4 to 48) lower in the zoledronate group than the placebo group at the final visit. In summary, two annual 4-mg doses of zoledronate have effects on bone turnover and BMD in men that persist for at least 11 years after the second dose. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Advances and Unmet Needs in the Therapeutics of Bone Fragility

The prevalence of fragility fractures increases as longevity increases the proportion of the elderly in the community. Until recently, the majority of studies have targeted women with osteoporosis defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T score of < -2.5 SD, despite evidence that the population burden of fractures arises from women with osteopenia. Antiresorptive agents reduce vertebral and hip fracture risk by ~50 percent during 3 years but efficacy against non-vertebral fractures, 80% of all fractures in the community, is reported in few studies, and of those, the risk reduction is only 20-30%. Recent advances in the use of antiresorptives and anabolic agents has addressed some of these unmet needs. Zoledronic acid is now reported to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures rates in women with osteopenia. Studies using teriparatide demonstrate better vertebral and clinical (symptomatic vertebral and non-vertebral) antifracture efficacy than risedronate. Abaloparatide, a peptide sharing amino acid sequences with teriparatide, reduces vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody suppressing sclerostin, reduces vertebral and non-vertebral fractures within a year of starting treatment, and does so more greatly than alendronate. Some recent studies signal undesirable effects of therapy but provide essential cautionary insights into long term management. Cessation of denosumab is associated with a rapid increase in bone remodeling and the uncommon but clinically important observation of increased multiple vertebral fractures suggesting the need to start alternative anti-resorptive therapy around the time of stopping denosumab. Antiresorptives like bisphosphonates and denosumab suppress remodeling but not completely. Antifracture efficacy may be limited, in part, as a consequence of continued unsuppressed remodeling, particularly in cortical bone. Bisphosphonates may not distribute in deeper cortical bone, so unbalanced intracortical remodeling continues to cause microstructural deterioration. In addition, suppressed remodeling may compromise the material composition by increasing matrix mineral density and glycosylation of collagen. As antiresorptive agents do not restore microstructural deterioration existing at the time of starting treatment, under some circumstances, anabolic therapy may be more appropriate first line treatment. Combining antiresorptive and anabolic therapy is an alternative but whether anti-fracture efficacy is greater than that achieved by either treatment alone is not known.

Efficacy and Safety of Zoledronic Acid for Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

We conducted a meta-analysis based on eligible studies to assess the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for eligible studies that assessed the efficacy of zoledronic acid in the prevention of fractures among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The primary outcomes were new vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and hip fracture. Secondary outcomes were bone mineral density (BMD) and safety outcomes. A fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to pool the estimates according to the heterogeneity among the included studies. Eight randomized controlled trials, involving 13,335 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that treatment with zoledronic acid significantly reduced the incidences of nonvertebral fractures, vertebral fractures, and hip fractures, as compared with placebo. Zoledronic acid was also associated with significant improvement in BMD at lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter. However, the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the zoledronic acid group than that in the control group, and serious adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis indicated that zoledronic acid could significantly reduce the fracture risk and increase BMD in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Furthermore, it would not result in serious adverse events. Zoledronic acid could be used as an effective and well-tolerated treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Duration of antiresorptive activity of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia: a randomized, controlled multidose trial

BACKGROUND

Intravenous zoledronate 5 mg annually reduces fracture risk, and 5 mg every 2 years prevents bone loss, but the optimal dosing regimens for these indications are uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-year open-label extension of a 2-year randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Late postmenopausal women with osteopenia were assigned to receive a single baseline dose of 1 mg, 2.5 mg or 5 mg of zoledronate or placebo. The primary outcome was change in spine bone mineral density (BMD). Secondary outcomes were changes in hip BMD and serum markers of bone turnover.

RESULTS

The study involved 160 women. Zoledronate increased BMD and reduced markers of bone turnover in a dose-dependent manner. After 2 years, the 1-mg, 2.5-mg and 5-mg zoledronate doses increased spine BMD over placebo by 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 7.0%), 5.7% (95% CI 3.7% to 7.7%) and 5.7% (95% CI 3.7% to 7.6%), respectively; after 5 years, the respective increases were 2.0% (95% CI -1.1% to 5.0%), 2.2% (95% CI -1.0% to 5.4%) and 5.1% (95% CI 2.2% to 8.1%). After 2 years, the 1-mg, 2.5-mg and 5-mg zoledronate doses increased total hip BMD over placebo by 2.6% (95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), 4.1% (95% CI 2.9% to 5.4%) and 4.7% (95% CI 3.4% to 5.9%), respectively; after 5 years, the respective increases were 1.8% (95% CI -0.1% to 3.8%), 2.8% (95% CI 0.8% to 4.8%) and 5.4% (95% CI 3.5% to 7.3%). BMD remained above baseline values for 2-3 years in the 1-mg group, 3-4 years in the 2.5-mg group and at least 5 years in the 5-mg group.

INTERPRETATION

The antiresorptive activity of single zoledronate doses of 1-5 mg persist for at least 3 years in postmenopausal women with osteopenia. Clinical trials would be justified to evaluate the effects on fracture risk of less frequent or lower doses of zoledronate than are currently recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.anzctr.org.au, no. ACTRN12607000576426.

Intravenous zoledronate for osteoporosis: less might be more

Annual administration of 5 mg intravenous zoledronate is moderately effective in reducing fracture risk in older adults, decreasing the relative risk of clinical fracture by 33%. However, almost 10 years after its approval for use in clinical practice there remain very substantial uncertainties about the optimal treatment regimen, that is, the lowest dose and/or longest dosing interval that is efficacious. Several pieces of clinical research suggest that the current recommendation for annual administration of 5 mg zoledronate might represent overtreatment. Clinical trials to clarify the optimal use of zoledronate for reduction of fracture risk should be undertaken.

New insights into treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

For the prevention of fractures, antiresorptive drugs (bisphosphonates and denosumab) that decrease high bone resorption and, secondarily, also bone formation, are the mainstream of therapy. Osteoanabolic drugs, such as teriparatide, increase bone formation more than bone resorption, and are used in severe osteoporosis, including patients treated with antiresorptive drugs who still lose bone and have recurrent fractures. New potential drugs for fracture prevention that uncouple bone resorption from bone formation include odanacatib, a specific inhibitor of cathepsin-K, the enzyme that degrades bone collagen type I, that inhibits bone resorption and only temporarily bone formation, and monoclonal antibodies against sclerostin (romosozumab, blosozumab), that stimulate bone formation and decrease bone resorption.