The effect of a modified etidronate cyclical regimen on postmenopausal osteoporosis: a four-year study

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of Antiresorptive Treatment in Osteoporotic Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

To investigate concerns surrounding the benefits of antiresorptive drugs in older adults, a systematic review was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in the prevention of osteoporotic hip fractures in older adults.

DESIGN

a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

older adults ≥65 years with osteoporosis, with or without a previous fragility fracture. Studies with cancer-related and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis, participants <65 years and no reported hip fracture were not included.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched. The primary outcome was hip fracture, and subgroup analysis (≥75 years, with different drug types and secondary prevention) and sensitivity analysis was carried out using a GRADE evaluation. Secondary outcomes were any type of fractures, vertebral fracture, bone markers and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessment with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 12 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) qualified for this meta-analysis, with 36,196 participants. Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on the prevention of hip fracture (RR=0.70; 95%CI 0.60 to 0.81), but with a moderate GRADE quality of evidence and a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 186. For other outcomes, there is a statistically significant effect, but with a low to moderate quality of evidence. Antiresorptives showed no reduction in the risk of hip fracture in people ≥75 years. The results for different drug types, secondary prevention and sensitivity analysis are similar to the main analyses and have the same concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on preventing hip fracture but with a moderate quality (unclear/high risk of bias) and high NNT (186). This small benefit disappears in those ≥75 years, but increases in secondary prevention. More RCTs in very old osteoporotic adults are needed.

Effect of drugs on bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk with associated disability, morbidity and mortality. This Bayesian network meta-analysis compared the effects of current anti-osteoporosis drugs on bone mineral density.

Methods

The present systematic review and network meta-analysis follows the PRISMA extension statement to report systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions. The literature search was performed in June 2021. All randomised clinical trials that have investigated the effects of two or more drug treatments on BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. The network comparisons were performed through the STATA Software/MP routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method with standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for analysis.

Results

Data from 64 RCTs involving 82,732 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 29.7 ± 19.6 months. Denosumab resulted in a higher spine BMD (SMD −0.220; SE 3.379), followed by pamidronate (SMD −5.662; SE 2.635) and zoledronate (SMD −10.701; SE 2.871). Denosumab resulted in a higher hip BMD (SMD −0.256; SE 3.184), followed by alendronate (SMD −17.032; SE 3.191) and ibandronate (SMD −17.250; SE 2.264). Denosumab resulted in a higher femur BMD (SMD 0.097; SE 2.091), followed by alendronate (SMD −16.030; SE 1.702) and ibandronate (SMD −17.000; SE 1.679).

Conclusion

Denosumab results in higher spine BMD in selected women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab had the highest influence on hip and femur BMD.

Level of evidence

Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs

Pharmacological Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: a Level I Evidence Based - Expert Opinion

Objectives: Postmenopausal osteoporosis carries a high risk of fractures, which decrease quality of life and are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. The best pharmacological treatment options to manage and prevent osteoporotic fractures remain still unclear. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of the most commonly employed drugs in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Methods: Only RCTs comparing different drugs for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis were included. Data from 76 RCTs (205,011 patients) were collected. The mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 14.9 months. Results: Denosumab reported the lowest rate of non-vertebral fractures (LOR -1.57), Romosozumab the lowest rate of vertebral fractures (LOR 1.99), and Ibandronate the lowest rate of hip fractures (LOR0.18). Serious adverse events resulted in the lowest in the Raloxifene group (LOR 3.11), while those leading to study discontinuation were lowest in the Romosozumab cohort (LOR 2.65). Conclusions: Denosumab resulted in most effective, particularly in reducing the occurrence of non-vertebral fractures. Romosozumab and Ibandronate resulted best to prevent, respectively, vertebral fractures and hip fractures. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation were less frequent in the Romosozumab and Denosumab groups, while Raloxifene and Alendronate showed a lower incidence of serious adverse events overall. Level of evidence: I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Effect of medications on prevention of secondary osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, non-vertebral fracture, and discontinuation due to adverse events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Bone loss with aging and menopause increases the risk of fragile vertebral fracture, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). The fracture causes severe pain, impedes respiratory function, lower the quality of life, and increases the risk of new fractures and deaths. Various medications have been prescribed to prevent a secondary fracture, but few study summarized their effects. Therefore, we investigated their effects on preventing subsequent OVCF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched for published randomized controlled trials from June 2015 to June 2019. The trials that recruited participants with at least one OVCF were included. We assessed the risk of bias of every study, estimated relative risk ratio of secondary OVCF, non-vertebral fracture, gastrointestinal complaints and discontinuation due to adverse events. Finally, we evaluated the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Forty-one articles were included. Moderate to high quality evidence proved the effectiveness of zoledronate (Relative Risk, RR: 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69, p = 0.003), alendronate (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.68; p < 0.0001), risedronate (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.51-0.73; p < 0.0001), etidronate (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87, p < 0.01), ibandronate (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.71; p < 0.0001), parathyroid hormone (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.41; p < 0.0001), denosumab (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; p < 0.0001) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (Raloxifene, RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.44-0.76; p < 0.0001; Bazedoxifene, RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.82; p = 0.0002) in preventing secondary fractures. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate (Romosozumab vs. alendronate, RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.84; p = 0.001) and high quality evidence proved that teriparatide had better effect than risedronate (risedronate vs. teriparatide, RR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, parathyroid hormone, denosumab and selective estrogen receptor modulators had significant secondary prevention effects on OVCF. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate. High quality evidence proved PTH had better effect than risedronate, but with higher risk of adverse events.

Effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs to prevent secondary fragility fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with osteoporotic fractures have an increased risk for secondary fractures. However, a rigorous study that assesses the effectiveness of individual osteoporotic drugs in preventing subsequent fractures is lacking. The purpose of this review was to analyze the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs in preventing secondary fractures. We searched for randomized controlled trials that showed the incidence of secondary fractures while using anti-osteoporotic drugs (bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone (PTH), or calcitonin) in MEDLINE, Embase.com , and Cochrane Central Register databases. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent secondary fractures. Twenty-six studies met our eligibility criteria. There was a significant reduction in RR (0.38-0.77) after the use of anti-osteoporotic drugs for secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH significantly reduced the risk of a secondary non-vertebral fracture (RR 0.59 and 0.64). PTH needed the fewest number of patients to be treated to prevent a secondary vertebral fracture (NNT: 56). Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic agents included in our systematic review in preventing secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH were most effective in preventing non-vertebral fractures. We suggest that clinicians should prescribe these drugs to prevent secondary vertebral/non-vertebral fractures.

The efficacy and safety of vertebral fracture prevention therapies in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment: Which therapies work best? a network meta-analysis

Objectives

Osteoporosis has become an increasing concern for older people as it may potentially lead to osteoporotic fractures. This study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ten therapies for post-menopausal women using network meta-analysis.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in several databases, including PubMed and Embase. A random-effects model was employed and results were assessed by the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Furthermore, with respect to each outcome, each intervention was ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value.

Results

With respect to preventing new vertebral fractures (NVF), all ten drugs outperformed placebo, and etidronate proved to be the most effective treatment (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.39). In addition, zoledronic acid and parathyroid hormone ranked higher compared with the other drugs. With respect to preventing clinical vertebral fractures (CVF), zoledronic acid proved to be the most effective drug (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.92), with denosumab as a desirable second option (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96), when both were compared with placebo. As for adverse events (AE) and severe adverse events (SAE), no significant difference was observed. According to SUCRA, etidronate ranked first in preventing CVF; parathyroid hormone and zoledronic acid ranked highly in preventing NVF and CVF. Raloxifene was safe with a high rank in preventing AEs and SAEs though performed unsatisfactorily in efficacy.

Conclusions

This study suggests that, taking efficacy and safety into account, parathyroid hormone and zoledronic acid had the highest probability of satisfactory performance in preventing osteoporotic fractures.

Cite this article: G. Wang, L. Sui, P. Gai, G. Li, X. Qi, X. Jiang. The efficacy and safety of vertebral fracture prevention therapies in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment: Which therapies work best? a network meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:452–463. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2016-0292.R1.

The relative efficacy of nine osteoporosis medications for reducing the rate of fractures in post-menopausal women

BACKGROUND

In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect comparisons of randomized placebo-controlled trials may provide a viable option to assess relative efficacy. The purpose was to estimate the relative efficacy of reduction of fractures in post-menopausal women, and to assess robustness of the results.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of multiple databases identified randomized placebo-controlled trials with nine drugs for post-menopausal women. Odds ratio and 95% credibility intervals for the rates of hip, non-vertebral, vertebral, and wrist fractures for each drug and between drugs were derived using a Bayesian approach. A drug was ranked as the most efficacious if it had the highest posterior odds ratio, or had the highest effect size.

RESULTS

30 studies including 59,209 patients reported fracture rates for nine drugs: alendronate (6 studies), denosumab (1 study), etidronate (8 studies), ibandronate (4 studies), raloxifene (1 study), risedronate (7 studies), strontium (2 study), teriparatide (1 study), and zoledronic acid (1 study). The drugs with the highest probability of reducing non-vertebral fractures was etidronate and teriparatide while the drugs with the highest probability of reducing vertebral, hip or wrist fractures were teriparatide, zoledronic acid and denosumab. The drugs with the largest effect size for vertebral fractures were zoledronic acid, teriparatide and denosumab, while the drugs with the highest effect size for non-vertebral, hip or wrist fractures were alendronate or risedronate. Estimates were consistent between Bayesian and classical approaches.

CONCLUSION

Teriparatide, zoledronic acid and denosumab have the highest probabilities of being most efficacious for non-vertebral and vertebral fractures, and having the greatest effect sizes. The estimates from indirect comparisons were robust to differences in methodology.

RETRACTED: Beneficial effect of etidronate therapy in chronically hospitalized, disabled patients with stroke

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to data fabrication, systematic authorship misconduct, text duplication, concerns about data integrity, and scientific misconduct. In addition, several publications reporting non-randomized research by members of this group of investigators have been retracted.

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

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of etidronate 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 etidronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection and data abstraction was done in duplicate. Meta-analysis of fracture outcomes was performed with data presented as relative risks and a relative change greater than 15% was considered clinically important. Study quality was assessed through the reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies representing a total of 1248 patients were included in the review.A significant 41% relative risk reduction (RRR) in vertebral fractures across eight studies (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.96) was found. The six secondary prevention trials demonstrated a significant RRR of 47% in vertebral fractures (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) and a 5% absolute risk reduction (ARR); compared with the pooled result for the two primary prevention trials (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44), which was not significant. There were no statistically significant risk reductions for non-vertebral (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.42), hip (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.88) or wrist fractures (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.32 to 2.36). For adverse events, no statistically significant differences were found in the included studies. However, observational data has led to concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etidronate, at 400 mg per day, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important benefit in the secondary prevention of vertebral fractures. No statistically significant reductions in vertebral fractures were observed when it was used for primary prevention. In addition, no statistically significant reductions in non-vertebral, hip, or wrist fractures were found, regardless of whether etidronate was used for primary or secondary prevention. The level of evidence for all outcomes is Silver (www.cochranemsk.org.).

WITHDRAWN: Etidronate for treating and preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a clinical syndrome of reduced bone mass and increased fracture susceptibility. There are now a number of options, including etidronate which can decrease the risk of fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the efficacy of etidronate on bone density, fractures and toxicity in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE from 1966 to December 1998, examined citations of relevant articles, and the proceedings of international osteoporosis meetings. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, primary authors, and pharmaceutical industry sources for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included thirteen trials (with 1010 participants) that randomized women to etidronate or an alternative (placebo or calcium and/or vitamin D) and measured bone density for at least one year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each trial, three independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The data suggested a reduction in vertebral fractures with a pooled relative risk of 0.60% (95% CI 0.41 to 0.88). There was no effect on non-vertebral fractures (pooled relative risk 1.00, (95% CI 0.68 to 1.42)). Etidronate, relative to control, increased bone density after three years of treatment in the lumbar spine by 4.27% (95% CI 2.66 to 5.88), in the femoral neck by 2.19% (95% CI 0.43, 3.95) and in the total body by 0.97% (95% CI 0.39, 1.55). Effects were larger at 4 years, though the number of patients followed was much smaller.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etidronate increases bone density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck. The pooled estimates of fracture reduction with etidronate are consistent with a reduction in vertebral fractures, but no effect on non-vertebral fractures.

RETRACTED: Comparative efficacy of hormone replacement therapy, etidronate, calcitonin, alfacalcidol, and vitamin K in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: The Yamaguchi Osteoporosis Prevention Study

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor in Chief because of the stated concerns listed below. This article was accepted for publication by a previous editor and editorial board, at a time when submissions and documentation were in paper form, prior to the transition of The American Journal of Medicine to a digital submission and review process. These records are no longer extant and consequently we are unable to review the comments of the reviewers and editors involved at that time. We have attempted to contact the authors regarding these concerns and received no response. We are therefore retracting this article since the evidence presented below strongly argues for scientific misconduct. The integrity of these publications is severely compromised by wide-ranging and serious concerns about governance, ethics, authorship, implausible study conduct, implausible workload, discrepant participant numbers and treatment groups, impossible data, implausible data, implausible outcome data, and discrepant methodology.

Medical treatment of vertebral osteoporosis

Although osteoporosis is a systemic disease, vertebral fractures due to spinal bone loss are a frequent, sometimes early and often neglected complication of the disease, generally associated with considerable disability and pain. As osteoporotic vertebral fractures are an important predictor of future fracture risk, including at the hip, medical management is targeted at reducing fracture risk. A literature search for randomized, double-blind, prospective, controlled clinical studies addressing medical treatment possibilities of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal Caucasian women was performed on the leading medical databases. For each publication, the number of patients with at least one new vertebral fracture and the number of randomized patients by treatment arm was retrieved. The relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT, i.e. the number of patients to be treated to avoid one radiological vertebral fracture over the duration of the study), together with the respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated for each study. Treatment of steroid-induced osteoporosis and treatment of osteoporosis in men were reviewed separately, based on the low number of publications available. Forty-five publications matched with the search criteria, allowing for analysis of 15 different substances tested regarding their anti-fracture efficacy at the vertebral level. Bisphosphonates, mainly alendronate and risedronate, were reported to have consistently reduced the risk of a vertebral fracture over up to 50 months of treatment in four (alendronate) and two (risedronate) publications. Raloxifene reduced vertebral fracture risk in one study over 36 months, which was confirmed by 48 months' follow-up data. Parathormone (PTH) showed a drastic reduction in vertebral fracture risk in early studies, while calcitonin may also be a treatment option to reduce fracture risk. For other substances published data are conflicting (calcitriol, fluoride) or insufficient to conclude about efficacy (calcium, clodronate, etidronate, hormone replacement therapy, pamidronate, strontium, tiludronate, vitamin D). The low NNTs for the leading substances (ranges: 15-64 for alendronate, 8-26 for risedronate, 23 for calcitonin and 28-31 for raloxifene) confirm that effective and efficient drug interventions for treatment and prevention of osteoporotic vertebral fractures are available. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated similar efficacy in treatment and prevention of steroid-induced and male osteoporosis as in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The selection of the appropriate drug for treatment of vertebral osteoporosis from among a bisphosphonate (alendronate or risedronate), PTH, calcitonin or raloxifene will mainly depend on the efficacy, tolerability and safety profile, together with the patient's willingness to comply with a long-term treatment. Although reduction of vertebral fracture risk is an important criterion for decision making, drugs with proven additional fracture risk reduction at all clinically relevant sites (especially at the hip) should be the preferred options.

Effect of vitamin D on bone mineral density of elderly patients with osteoporosis responding poorly to bisphosphonates

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are indicated in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. However, bone mineral density (BMD) continues to decline in up to 15% of bisphosphonate users. While randomized trials have evaluated the efficacy of concurrent bisphosphonates and vitamin D, the incremental benefit of vitamin D remains uncertain.

METHODS

Using data from the Canadian Database of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia (CANDOO), we performed a 2-year observational cohort study. At baseline, all patients were prescribed a bisphosphonate and counseled on vitamin D supplementation. After one year, patients were divided into two groups based on their response to bisphosphonate treatment. Non-responders were prescribed vitamin D 1000 IU daily. Responders continued to receive counseling on vitamin D.

RESULTS

Of 449 patients identified, 159 were non-responders to bisphosphonates. 94% of patients were women. The mean age of the entire cohort was 74.6 years (standard deviation = 5.6 years). In the cohort of non-responders, BMD at the lumbar spine increased 2.19% (p < 0.001) the year after vitamin D was prescribed compared to a decrease of 0.55% (p = 0.36) the year before. In the cohort of responders, lumbar spine BMD improved 1.45% (p = 0.014) the first year and 1.11% (p = 0.60) the second year. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant the first year (p < 0.001) but not the second (p = 0.60). Similar results were observed at the femoral neck but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients with osteoporosis not responding to bisphosphonates, vitamin D 1000 IU daily may improve BMD at the lumbar spine.

Effect of menatetrenone on bone mineral density and incidence of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a comparison with the effect of etidronate

The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of etidronate and menatetrenone on bone mineral density (BMD) and the incidence of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Seventy-two osteoporotic women, more than 5 years after menopause, 53-78 years of age, were randomly divided into three administration groups: E group; intermittent cyclical etidronate (200 mg/day, 14 days per 3 months; n = 25); M group; menatetrenone (45 mg/day, daily; n = 23); and C group (control); calcium lactate (2 g/day, daily; n = 24). Forearm BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at 0, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the treatment started. There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, years since menopause, and initial BMD among the three groups. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements showed a significant decrease in BMD in the C group (P < 0.0001). Two-way ANOVA with repeated measurements showed a significant increase in BMD in the M group compared with that in the C group (P < 0.0001), and a significant increase in BMD in the E group compared with that in the C and M groups (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.01, respectively). The indices of new vertebral fractures/1000 patient-years in the E and M groups were significantly higher than that in the C group (chi(2) = 47.7; P < 0.0001 and chi(2) = 42.4; P < 0.0001, respectively), and did not differ significantly between the E and M groups. The present preliminary study provides evidence to suggest that, despite the lower increase in BMD produced by menatetrenone, this agent, as well as etidronate, may have the potential to reduce osteoporotic vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Recurrence of vertebral fracture with cyclical etidronate therapy in osteoporosis: histomorphometry and X-Ray microanalysis evaluation

In an open prospective study, we evaluated differences between patients with (wRVF group) and without recurrence of vertebral fracture (woRVF group) during cyclical etidronate therapy for osteoporosis. Thirty-two patients (age 64 +/- 1.8 years) characterized by at least one osteoporotic VF were treated during 1 year. At baseline, body mass index was significantly lower (23.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 26.9 +/- 1.0 kg/m2, p< 0.05), the number of previous VFs was higher (4.0 +/- 0. 4 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.4, NS), and patients were older in the wRVF group as compared with the woRVF group (67.8 +/- 3 vs. 62.6+/- 2.2 year, NS). Trabecular bone volume (11.6 +/- 1.2 vs. 15 +/- 0.9%, p< 0.05) and trabecular number (1.06 +/- 0.08 vs. 1.27 +/- 0.05, p < 0.05) were significantly lower in the wRVF group. None of the baseline resorptive variables differed, whereas the bone formation rate (BFR) was 2-fold lower in the wRVF group (p< 0. 05). After 1 year of treatment, osteoclast number, active eroded surfaces, and resorption depth dramatically decreased in both groups (p< 0. 01). To a lesser extent, the mineral apposition rate and serum alkaline phosphatase level were significantly reduced (p< 0.05). No impaired mineralization was observed. Using X-ray microanalysis, we found no abnormality in bone mineral but a significant increase of the calcium/phosphorus ratio during treatment in the wRVF group. Our results demonstrate that recurrence of VFs within the first year of cyclical etidronate therapy was related neither to a lack of histologic response to the treatment nor induction of an abnormality of mineralization. VFs were more likely in the presence of a decreased BFR and lower trabecular connectivity, providing support for treating osteoporotic patients with etidronate early in the course of the disease.