Therapeutic equivalence of alendronate 70 mg onceweekly and alendronate 10 mg daily in the treatment of osteoporosis

Long-term and sequential treatment for osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder that causes impairment of bone structure and strength, leading to a progressively increased risk of fragility fractures. The global prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the ageing population. Owing to the chronic character of osteoporosis, years or even decades of preventive measures or therapy are required. The long-term use of bone-specific pharmacological treatment options, including antiresorptive and/or osteoanabolic approaches, has raised concerns around adverse effects or potential rebound phenomena after treatment discontinuation. Imaging options, risk scores and the assessment of bone turnover during initiation and monitoring of such therapies could help to inform individualized treatment strategies. Combination therapies are currently used less often than 'sequential' treatments. However, all patients with osteoporosis, including those with secondary and rare causes of osteoporosis, as well as specific patient populations (for example, young adults, men and pregnant women) require new approaches for long-term therapy and disease monitoring. New pathophysiological aspects of bone metabolism might therefore help to inform and revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Mechanistic PK-PD model of alendronate treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis predicts bone site-specific response

Alendronate is the most widely used drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). It inhibits bone resorption, affecting osteoclasts. Pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of alendronate have been widely studied, but few mathematical models exist to simulate its effect. In this work, we have developed a PK model for alendronate, valid for short- and long-term treatments, and a mechanistic PK-PD model for the treatment of PMO to predict bone density gain (BDG) at the hip and lumbar spine. According to our results, at least three compartments are required in the PK model to predict the effect of alendronate in both the short and long terms. Clinical data of a 2-year treatment of alendronate, reproduced by our PK-PD model, demonstrate that bone response is site specific (hip: 7% BDG, lumbar spine: 4% BDG). We identified that this BDG is mainly due to an increase in tissue mineralization and a decrease in porosity. The difference in BDG between sites is linked to the different loading and dependence of the released alendronate on the bone-specific surface and porosity. Osteoclast population diminishes quickly within the first month of alendronate treatment. Osteoblast population lags behind but also falls due to coupling of resorption and formation. Two dosing regimens were studied (70 mg weekly and 10 mg daily), and both showed very similar BDG evolution, indicating that alendronate accumulates quickly in bone and saturates. The proposed PK-PD model could provide a valuable tool to analyze the effect of alendronate and to design patient-specific treatments, including drug combinations.

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.

Bisphosphonates to reduce bone fractures in stage 3B+ chronic kidney disease: a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are contraindicated in patients with stage 4+ chronic kidney disease. However, they are widely used to prevent fragility fractures in stage 3 chronic kidney disease, despite a lack of good-quality data on their effects.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of each work package were as follows. Work package 1: to study the relationship between bisphosphonate use and chronic kidney disease progression. Work package 2: to study the association between using bisphosphonates and fracture risk. Work package 3: to determine the risks of hypocalcaemia, hypophosphataemia, acute kidney injury and upper gastrointestinal events associated with using bisphosphonates. Work package 4: to investigate the association between using bisphosphonates and changes in bone mineral density over time.

DESIGN

This was a new-user cohort study design with propensity score matching.

SETTING AND DATA SOURCES

Data were obtained from UK NHS primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database) and linked hospital inpatient records (Hospital Episode Statistics) for work packages 1-3 and from the Danish Odense University Hospital Databases for work package 4.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients registered in the data sources who had at least one measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 45 ml/minute/1.73 m2 were eligible. A second estimated glomerular filtration rate value of < 45 ml/minute/1.73 m2 within 1 year after the first was requested for work packages 1 and 3. Patients with no Hospital Episode Statistics linkage were excluded from work packages 1-3. Patients with < 1 year of run-in data before index estimated glomerular filtration rate and previous users of anti-osteoporosis medications were excluded from work packages 1-4.

INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURE

Bisphosphonate use, identified from primary care prescriptions (for work packages 1-3) or pharmacy dispensations (for work package 4), was the main exposure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Work package 1: chronic kidney disease progression, defined as stage worsening or starting renal replacement. Work package 2: hip fracture. Work package 3: acute kidney injury, hypocalcaemia and hypophosphataemia identified from Hospital Episode Statistics, and gastrointestinal events identified from Clinical Practice Research Datalink or Hospital Episode Statistics. Work package 4: annualised femoral neck bone mineral density percentage change.

RESULTS

Bisphosphonate use was associated with an excess risk of chronic kidney disease progression (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.24) in work package 1, but did not increase the probability of other safety outcomes in work package 3. The results from work package 2 suggested that bisphosphonate use increased fracture risk (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.39) for hip fractures, but sensitivity analyses suggested that this was related to unresolved confounding. Conversely, work package 4 suggested that bisphosphonates improved bone mineral density, with an average 2.65% (95% confidence interval 1.32% to 3.99%) greater gain in femoral neck bone mineral density per year in bisphosphonate users than in matched non-users.

LIMITATIONS

Confounding by indication was a concern for the clinical effectiveness (i.e. work package 2) data. Bias analyses suggested that these findings were due to inappropriate adjustment for pre-treatment risk. work packages 3 and 4 were based on small numbers of events and participants, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonates were associated with a 12% excess risk of chronic kidney disease progression in participants with stage 3B+ chronic kidney disease. No other safety concerns were identified. Bisphosphonate therapy increased bone mineral density, but the research team failed to demonstrate antifracture effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised controlled trial data are needed to demonstrate antifracture efficacy in patients with stage 3B+ chronic kidney disease. More safety analyses are needed to characterise the renal toxicity of bisphosphonates in stage 3A chronic kidney disease, possibly using observational data.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as EUPAS10029.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The project was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford.

Alendronate use and bone mineral density gains in women with moderate-severe (stages 3B-5) chronic kidney disease: an open cohort multivariable and propensity score analysis from Funen, Denmark

Bisphosphonates are contraindicated in moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease patients. However, they are used to prevent fragility fractures in patients with impaired kidney function, despite a lack of evidence on their effects on bone density in these patients. We demonstrated that Alendronate had a positive effect on bone in these patients.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the association between alendronate use and bone mineral density (BMD) change in subjects with moderate-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

We created a cohort of CKD stage 3B-5 patients by linking all DXA-based measurements in the Funen area, Denmark, to biochemistry, national health registries and filled prescriptions. Exposure was dispensation of alendronate and the outcome was annualized percentage change in BMD at the femoral neck, total hip and lumbar spine. Individuals were followed from first BMD to the latest of subsequent DXA measurements. Alendronate non-users were identified using incidence density sampling and matched groups were created using propensity scores. Linear regression was used to estimate average differences in the annualized BMD.

RESULTS

Use of alendronate was rare in this group of patients: propensity score matching (PSM) resulted in 71 alendronate users and 142 non-users with stage 3B-5 CKD (as in the 1 year before DXA). Whilst alendronate users gained an average 1.07% femoral neck BMD per year, non-users lost an average of 1.59% per annum. The PSM mean differences in annualized BMD were + 2.65% (1.32%, 3.99%), + 3.01% (1.74%, 4.28%) and + 2.12% (0.98%, 3.25%) at the femoral neck, total hip and spine BMD, respectively, all in favour of alendronate users.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world cohort of women with stage 3B-5 CKD, use of alendronate appears associated with a significant improvement of 2-3% per year in the femoral neck, total hip and spine BMD. More data are needed on the anti-fracture effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonate therapy in moderate-severe CKD.

Quality by design approach to optimize the formulation variables influencing the characteristics of biodegradable intramuscular in-situ gel loaded with alendronate sodium for osteoporosis

There are many challenges facing the use of alendronate sodium for the treatment of osteoporosis such as low bioavailability of 0.6% and oesophageal ulceration with bleeding. Due to the aforementioned limitation, the main objective of this research is to utilize a statistical experimental design in the formulation and optimization of alendronate in the form of controlled release biodegradable intramuscular in-situ gel. A Box–Behnken experimental design employing Statgraphics® software was used to develop an optimized in-situ gel formulation and to estimate the effects of Poly-DL-lactide-coglycolide as a primary polymer, the copolymer polycaprolactone, and lipid surfactant capryol 90. Every system was evaluated for gellation character, and in vitro release. As a novel technique for evaluation of the in-situ gel, in-vivo biodegradability rate was estimated in rats. Pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed in rabbits. The results indicated a significant effect of the copolymer and lipid surfactant on initial burst, and a significant effect of the primary and copolymer on drug percentage released. The optimum formulation showed a 5% initial burst, an in-vivo biodegradability rate estimated at 8% every seven days in rats, and the pharmacokinetic evaluation revealed that alendronate sodium mean residence time extended to 102 days in rabbits. In conclusion, the optimum biodegradable intramuscular in-situ gel formulations is a promising approach for providing higher bioavailability, extended release for more than three months, with elimination of esophageal side effects.

Alendronate Sodium as Enteric Coated Solid Lipid Nanoparticles; Preparation, Optimization, and In Vivo Evaluation to Enhance Its Oral Bioavailability

Treatment of osteoporosis with alendronate sodium has several challenges. The first challenge is the low bioavailability. The second main challenge is side effects, which include oesophageal ulceration. The aim of this research was to reformulate alendronate sodium as enteric coated solid lipid nanoparticles in order to enhance its bioavailability, and preventing the free alendronate sodium from coming into direct contact with the gastrointestinal mucosa, and thereby reducing the possibility of side effects. Enteric coated solid lipid nanoparticles were prepared according to the Box-Behnken design employing Design expert^® software, and characterized for size, morphology, and entrapment efficiency. The optimized formula was coated with an Eudragit S100 and evaluated for drug release in acidic and basic media, stability studies and pharmacokinetic evaluations on rabbits. The results indicated that, using Derringer's desirability functional tool for optimization, the highest entrapment efficiency value of 74.3% and the smallest size value of 98 nm were predicted under optimum conditions with a desirability value of 0.917. The optimized nanoparticles released alendronate sodium only at an alkaline pH. The pharmacokinetic evaluation revealed that alendronate sodium bioavailability was enhanced by more than 7.4-fold in rabbits. In conclusion, enteric coated solid lipid nanoparticles is a promising formula for the delivery of alendronate sodium, eliminating its oesophageal side effects and enhancing its bioavailability.

The treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis : a review of current and emerging therapeutic options

Several chemical entities have shown their ability to reduce axial and/or appendicular fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Since patients who have experienced a previous fracture are at high risk for subsequent vertebral or hip fracture, it is of prime importance to treat such patients with medications that have unequivocally demonstrated their ability to reduce fracture rates in patients with prevalent fractures. Results obtained with calcium and vitamin D, in this particular population, are not fully satisfactory and these medications are probably better used in conjunction with other therapeutic regimens. Bisphosphonates have shown their ability to reduce vertebral (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate) and non-vertebral (alendronate, risedronate) fractures in patients with established osteoporosis. Raloxifene has also shown similar properties, notwithstanding its effect on non-vertebral fractures, which has only been derived from a post hoc analysis limited to patients with prevalent severe vertebral fractures at baseline. This compound also has interesting non-skeletal benefits, including effects on the breast and heart. Teriparatide, a bone-forming agent, promptly reduces the rate of vertebral and all non-vertebral fractures, without significant adverse effects. Strontium ranelate, the first agent shown to concomitantly decrease bone resorption and stimulate bone formation, has also shown its ability to reduce rates of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in patients with established osteoporosis. It significantly reduces hip fractures in elderly individuals at high risk for such events. Its safety profile is also excellent.

Efficacy and safety of odanacatib treatment for patients with osteoporosis: a meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib (ODN) for the treatment of osteoporosis, using data in studies reported in the literature. We performed a literature search to compare the outcomes of applications of once-weekly ODN 50 mg and control. The outcomes of osteoporosis evaluated include primary outcome as bone mineral density (BMD) at different skeletal sites, and secondary outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), such as incidence of skin AEs, fracture, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Four trials were included. Mean difference (95% CI) of lumbar spine BMD was 3.41 (1.57-5.24) at 12 months and 4.89 (2.72-7.05) at 24 months; mean difference (95% CI) of femoral neck BMD was 1.90 (0.73-3.08) at 12 months and 3.85 (2.55-5.15) at 24 months; mean difference (95% CI) of total hip BMD was 2.65 (1.20-4.09) at 12 months and 3.70 (1.76-5.64) at 24 months; risk ratio (95% CI) of AEs was 0.98 (0.91-1.07); risk ratio (95% CI) of SAEs was 1.11 (0.72-1.72); risk ratio (95% CI) of skin AEs was 0.92 (0.63-1.35); and risk ratio (95% CI) of fracture was 0.34 (0.16-0.70). In this study, application of 50 mg ODN produced significantly greater BMD increases and lower fracture incidence than that of the control. In addition, ODN was generally well tolerated.

Effect of the cathepsin K inhibitor odanacatib administered once weekly on bone mineral density in Japanese patients with osteoporosis--a double-blind, randomized, dose-finding study

The efficacy and safety of oral placebo or odanacatib 10, 25, or 50 mg once weekly for 52 weeks were evaluated in a double-blind, randomized, multi-center study in Japanese female and male patients with osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

Odanacatib is a selective and reversible cathepsin K inhibitor that decreases bone resorption and increases bone mineral density (BMD).

METHODS

The primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline to week 52 in lumbar spine BMD. Secondary endpoints included percent change in total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter BMD and in bone biomarkers after treatment for 52 weeks.

RESULTS

In this study, 286 patients [94% female, mean age (SD) 68.2 (7.1) years] were included in the analysis. The least-squares mean percent changes from baseline to week 52 in the groups receiving placebo, 10, 25 and 50 mg of odanacatib for lumbar spine (L1~L4) BMD were 0.5, 4.1, 5.7, and 5.9% and for total hip BMD were -0.4, 1.3, 1.8, and 2.7%, respectively. The changes in femoral neck and trochanter BMD were similar to those at the total hip. Bone turnover markers were reduced in a dose-dependent manner. However, the effects of odanacatib on bone formation markers were less compared with the effects on bone resorption markers. Tolerability and safety profiles were similar among all treatment groups with no dose-related trends in any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly odanacatib treatment for 52 weeks increased BMD at the lumbar spine and at all hip sites in a dose-dependent manner and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

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

Annual intravenous administration of 5 mg zoledronate decreases fracture risk, but the optimal dosing regimen for zoledronate has not been determined. We set out to evaluate the antiresorptive effects of a single administration of lower doses of zoledronate. A total of 180 postmenopausal women with osteopenia enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial over 2 years at an academic research center. Participants were randomized to a single baseline administration of intravenous zoledronate in doses of 1 mg, 2.5 mg, or 5 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change in bone mineral density(BMD) at the lumbar spine. Secondary endpoints were change in BMD at the proximal femur and total body, and changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover. After 2 years, the change in spine BMD was greater in each of the zoledronate groups than in the placebo group; values are mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) difference versus placebo: zoledronate 1 mg 4.4% [2.7% to 6.1%]; 2.5 mg 5.5% [3.9% to 7.2%]; 5 mg 5.3% [3.8% to 6.7%], p < 0.001 for each dose). Change in BMD at the total hip was greater in each of the zoledronate groups than the placebo group (mean [95% CI] difference versus placebo: zoledronate 1 mg 2.6% [1.5% to 3.7%]; 2.5 mg 4.4% [3.5% to 5.3%]; 5 mg 4.7% [3.7% to 5.7%], p < 0.001 for each dose). Each of the bone turnover markers, β-C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (β-CTX) and procollagen type-I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), was lower in each of the 2.5-mg and 5-mg zoledronate groups than the placebo group throughout the trial (p < 0.001 versus placebo for each marker for each dose at each time point). For each endpoint, changes were similar in the 2.5-mg and 5-mg zoledronate groups, whereas those in the 1-mg group were smaller than those in the other zoledronate groups. These data demonstrate that single administrations of zoledronate 1 mg or 2.5 mg produce antiresorptive effects that persist for at least 2 years. Trials assessing the antifracture efficacy of intermittent low doses of zoledronate, in particular the 2.5-mg dose, are justified.

Randomized trial comparing monthly ibandronate and weekly alendronate for osteoporosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

Osteoporosis resulting in bone fractures is a complication in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). Once-weekly alendronate improves bone mass and is well tolerated in these patients, but there is a concern because of poor compliance. Therefore, the efficacy, adherence, and safety of monthly ibandronate (150 mg) with weekly alendronate (70 mg) were compared in a randomized, 2-year study in 42 postmenopausal women with PBC and osteoporosis. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine and proximal femur (by DXA), liver function, and bone markers were measured at entry and every 6 months over 2 years. Adherence to therapy was assessed by the Morisky-Green score. At enrollment, the two groups were similar with respect to age, BMD, severity of cholestasis, previous fractures, and bone markers. Thirty-three patients, 14 in the ibandronate group and 19 in the alendronate group, completed the trial. At 2 years both treatments resulted in a significant increase in BMD at the lumbar spine (from 0.875 ± 0.025 to 0.913 ± 0.026 g/cm(2), P < 0.001 with alendronate, and from 0.898 ± 0.024 to 0.949 ± 0.027 g/cm(2), P < 0.001 with ibandronate). The mean percentage change was 4.5% and 5.7%, respectively (P = not significant). BMD increased at the total hip by 2.0% and 1.2%, respectively. Changes in bone markers were similar in both groups and one patient with alendronate developed a new vertebral fracture. Adherence to therapy was higher with ibandronate (P = 0.009). Neither treatment impaired liver function or cholestasis.

CONCLUSION

Both regimens, weekly alendronate and monthly ibandronate, improve bone mass and are comparable in safety for osteoporosis therapy in patients with PBC, although adherence is higher with the monthly regimen. Further larger studies are needed to assess fracture prevention.

Upper gastrointestinal tract transit times of tablet and drinkable solution formulations of alendronate: a bioequivalence and a quantitative, randomized study using video deglutition

The bioequivalence and upper digestive tract transit time of a drinkable solution of 70 mg/100 mL alendronate was compared to reference tablets. A randomized, single- dose, two-way crossover study of the rate of urinary recovery of alendronate during 36 h (AE((0-36 h))) by HPLC, in 104 healthy young male volunteers, showed that AE((0-36 h)) and the maximum excretion rate (R (max)) were within the accepted range of bioequivalence 81.8-105.7 and 81.7-106.2, respectively. To characterize the oesophageal passage time of the two alendronate formulations, we performed a randomized, controlled study, in 24 healthy men and women (mean 52 years old), who took the formulations standing or lying down, by an X-ray video deglutition system. When taken in the standing position, both formulations had equal mean transit times from mouth to stomach and tablet disintegration but data dispersion was significantly smaller with the liquid form. When taken in lying position, drinkable alendronate had shorter and less variable median transit times compared to the tablets. These results show that the drinkable alendronate formulation is bioequivalent to the tablets and may be advantageous in patients in whom the transit or disintegration of the tablets is impaired.

Treatment of osteopenia

The majority of osteoporotic fractures happen in individuals with BMD t-scores in the osteopenic range (-2,5< t-score <-1). However, widespread use of anti-osteoporotic medication in this group based on t-score alone is not advisable because: 1) the number needed to treat is much higher (NNT>100) than in patients with fractured and t-score below -2,5 (NNT 10-20); 2)while specific osteoporosis treatments have demonstrated significant reductions of the fracture risk in patients with t-score <-2, 5, the efficacy in patients in the osteopenic range is less well established. Therefore, an osteopenic t-score does not in itself constitute a treatment imperative. Generally, osteopenia has to be associated with either low energy fracture(s) or very high risk for future fracture as assessed with risk calculators like FRAX to warrant specific osteoporosis therapy. Vertebral fractures are now conveniently assessed using lateral x-rays from DXA machines. In the vast majority of cases antiresorptive treatments (mainly hormone replacement therapy and SERMS in younger and bisphosphonates or Denosumab in older women) are the treatments of choice in this group of patients,-only rarely is anabolic therapy indicated.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of denosumab administered subcutaneously to postmenopausal Japanese women

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that has high affinity for RANK ligand (RANKL). RANKL is the essential mediator of osteoclast formation, function and survival. The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of denosumab in healthy postmenopausal Japanese women were assessed. This was a randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation study in which 40 subjects received denosumab at doses of 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 1.0 or 3.0mg/kg, or placebo administered subcutaneously. Blood and urine samples for determination of serum denosumab, CTX-I, NTX-I/Cr, bone specific alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP) and intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) were collected. The PK and PD time profiles were compared to those obtained in separate studies conducted in the US. No serious adverse events occurred and all subjects completed this study. Denosumab demonstrated nonlinear PK and dose- and concentration-dependent dispositions. The maximum mean decrease from baseline ranged from 65% to 95% for CTX-I concentrations and from 50% to 85% for NTX-I/Cr. Additionally, the changes were dose-dependent. The suppression of bone turnover markers was rapid (within 2 days after dosing) and duration of suppression was dose-dependent. No marked differences in the PK and PD profiles between Japanese and non-Japanese subjects were noted. The observed results indicate that denosumab may have therapeutic potential for conditions resulting from increased bone turnover, such as osteoporosis in Japanese.

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.

The effects of weekly alendronate therapy in Taiwanese males with osteoporosis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of weekly alendronate administration on male osteoporosis in Taiwan. This 6-month, randomized, open-label controlled trial enrolled 46 men with osteoporosis who were randomized to either 70 mg alendronate once weekly (n = 23) or control (n = 23). Bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine and hip and biochemical bone turnover markers were measured; adverse events and tolerability were assessed. Subjects treated with alendronate showed a significant increase in BMD of 5.5% (vs. 2% in control group) at the lumbar spine and 2.7% (vs. 0.7%) at the femoral neck (P < 0.05) at 6 months, respectively. There were also significant decreases in serum level of bone formation marker (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) and urinary excretion of bone resorption marker (deoxypyridinoline) at 3 and 6 months. Thus, alendronate showed anti-osteoporotic effects by increasing BMD and decreasing the concentrations of bone markers. The adverse events were mild and showed no significant difference between the two groups on safety assessments.

Bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis: insights for clinicians

Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disease characterized by a reduction in bone strength and increased risk of fractures. Osteoporotic fractures are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and high healthcare costs. Treatments for osteoporosis have been shown to increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk. The drugs most commonly used to treat osteoporosis are bisphosphonates: stable analogs of naturally occurring inorganic pyrophosphate. The bisphosphonates share a common chemical structure with side chain variations that convey differences in their pharmacological properties, such as affinity for bone mineral and inhibitory effect on osteoclastic bone resorption. The clinical profiles of bisphosphonates, such as time of onset and offset of effect, may differ according to these pharmacological properties. Bisphosphonates can be administered orally or intravenously with a wide range of doses and dosing intervals. Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials have shown that bisphosphonates reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and have a generally excellent safety record. Clinical challenges in using bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis include appropriate selection of patients for initiating therapy, choosing which bisphosphonate to use, monitoring therapy to assure that medication is taken correctly and the desired effect is achieved, determining when drug discontinuation should be considered, and managing side effects, possible side effects, and fear of side effects. Strategies for treating patients with bisphosphonates should consider each of these issues.

Emerging drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis

Postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) is a common skeletal disease with serious consequences due to fractures, including increased risk of disability and death. The risk of fractures can be reduced with medications that are currently available; however, these drugs are frequently not prescribed due to failure to recognize that a patient is at high risk for fracture; fear of adverse drug effects; or, sometimes, high cost. When these drugs are prescribed, long-term adherence to therapy is poor. Efforts to improve the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological therapies have included lengthening the interval between doses, simplifying drug administration, and manipulating the molecular structure of drugs in existing therapeutic classes. Recent improvement in understanding the pathophysiology of PMO at the molecular level has fostered the development of new therapeutic agents with novel mechanisms of action. This is a review of the data on the efficacy and safety of emerging drugs for the treatment of PMO, including agents with novel mechanisms of action (denosumab, odanacatib, antibody to sclerostin), new estrogen agonists/antagonists (lasofoxifene, bazedoxifene, arzoxifene), new delivery systems for existing drugs (salmon calcitonin, teriparatide), and drug combinations given concurrently, sequentially, or cyclically. These new therapeutic agents, new delivery systems, and new methods of combining drugs may ultimately reduce the great personal and economic burden of osteoporotic fractures.

Safety of bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis

In this review 4 experts consider the major safety concerns relating to bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis. Specific topics covered are skeletal safety (particularly with respect to atypical fractures and delayed healing), gastrointestinal intolerance, hypocalcemia, acute-phase (i.e., postdose) reactions, chronic musculoskeletal pain, renal safety, and cardiovascular safety (specifically, atrial fibrillation).

Randomized, active-controlled study of once-weekly alendronate 280 mg high dose oral buffered solution for treatment of Paget's disease

Daily oral tablet bisphosphonate therapy for Paget's disease of bone may cause serious upper gastrointestinal adverse events. A once-weekly alendronate 280 mg oral buffered solution was compared with an alendronate 40 mg/day tablet. While both were similarly effective, the tablet appeared to be better tolerated in this study.

INTRODUCTION

Although daily doses of oral bisphosphonates are a generally safe and effective treatment for Paget's disease of bone (PDB), some patients may experience upper gastrointestinal adverse events (UGI AEs) or find the dosing requirements inconvenient and become noncompliant. A once-weekly (OW) oral dose of bisphosphonate in buffered solution (OBS) may be as effective, better tolerated, and more convenient.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients were randomized to either alendronate (ALN) 280 mg OW OBS (n = 42) or an ALN 40 mg/day tablet (n = 21) during a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. The primary endpoint was the mean percent decrease in total serum alkaline phosphatase (total ALP) from baseline at 6 months.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in total ALP between groups during the 6-month period. There was a higher incidence of clinical AEs in the ALN 280 mg OW OBS (79%) vs. the ALN 40 mg/day tablet group (67%), including drug related AEs (48% and 10%, respectively), which led to study discontinuation (19.0% and 10%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although ALN 280 mg OW OBS was similarly effective as ALN 40 mg/day in reducing total ALP in patients with PDB, the ALN 40 mg/day tablet appears to be better tolerated than ALN 280 mg OW OBS.

Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration with a resulting increase in bone fragility and hence susceptibility to fracture. Calcium and vitamin D are the most commonly used therapies for osteoporosis, although their efficacy in osteoporotic fracture prevention remains uncertain. Biphosphonates are the most frequently prescribed medication for treatment of osteoporosis and are often considered as first-line therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis. Currently, hormone replacement therapy is only approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for short-term treatment of severe postmenopausal symptoms with the lowest dose used for the shortest time. In view of its lack of effect on the prevention of nonvertebral fractures, the use of raloxifene should be limited to women with spinal osteoporosis. Most experts agree that it is preferable to treat osteoporosis with a more potent agent than calcitonin and manage the pain separately. Currently, the FDA recommends the use of parathyroid hormone for treatment of osteoporosis for a maximum of 2 years because of the concern of development of osteosarcoma.

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).

Bisphosphonates

Osteoporosis is the result of bone loss due to an imbalance in bone turnover such that bone resorption exceeds bone formation. Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclast activity that reduce bone turnover and re-establish the balance between bone resorption and formation. In clinical studies, several bisphosphonates prevent bone loss, preserve bone structure, improve bone strength and, in patients with osteoporosis, substantially reduce fracture risk. They are effective in multiple clinical settings including postmenopausal osteoporosis, low bone mass in men and drug-induced bone loss. Intermittent oral dosing and intravenous administration are more convenient than the original daily dosing regimen. These drugs are generally well tolerated and have an excellent safety profile in that serious side effects are uncommon. Potent bisphosphonates are generally the preferred treatment option for most patients with or at risk for osteoporosis.

The fracture and osteoporosis clinic: 1-year results and 3-month compliance

INTRODUCTION

A Fracture and Osteoporosis (F&O) clinic started in two major general hospitals in the South of the Netherlands on April 1st 2004. Its objectives were to perform easy and complete assessment of female and male patients aged 50 years and over, initially treated for a low-energy trauma fracture, and to evaluate its effectiveness for early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

All eligible patients were selected from the digital X-ray system of the Emergency Department. DXA-scans and, if indicated, spinal radiographs were made. If osteoporosis was diagnosed, the F&O nurse explained the treatment strategy. Treatment advice was sent to the general practitioner (GP), who prescribed medication and provided further support. After 3 months, all osteoporosis patients received a compliance and side effects follow-up questionnaire.

RESULTS

Up to June 1st 2005, 1058 patients followed the diagnostic procedure; 584 patients did not. Three times more women (804) than men (254) suffered a fracture. Osteoporosis occurred 10% more often in women. Overall, 37.1% had osteoporosis, based on DXA-scan only, and 39.6% when spinal radiographs were added. Spinal radiographs of the thoracic and or lumbar spine were made in 166 patients, radiographs of the thorax in 114 patients. Overall, fractures of the wrist were most common, with fractures of the hand occurring most frequently in men (20.0%). All fracture sites, except foot and clavicula, were associated with a higher frequency of osteoporosis than in the Dutch population. The response rate to the 3-month compliance questionnaire was 73% increasing to 96% after telephone contact. 86% visited their GP; 11% did not because they already received anti-osteoporotic medication prior to the fracture. Bisphosphonates were prescribed to 84% and discontinued by 7%. 13% reported side effects of bisphosphonates. Only half of the patients received the recommended calcium supplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The F&O clinic with its digital X-ray system facilitated easy, complete identification of fracture patients and early treatment of osteoporosis, which was frequently diagnosed. Self-reported compliance was high.

Alendronate prevents bone loss in patients with acute spinal cord injury: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

CONTEXT

Patients who sustain an acute spinal cord injury (SCI) experience rapid dramatic reductions in bone mineral density (BMD), especially marked in sublesional areas and sometimes leading to hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria, as well as increased fracture risk.

OBJECTIVE

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the hypothesis that oral alendronate administration would preserve BMD when administered soon after acute SCI.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

Thirty-one patients with acute SCI were randomly allocated to receive oral alendronate 70 mg/wk or placebo, within 10 d of acute SCI, for 12 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

At entry and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, total body bone density, lumbar and hip BMD, ultrasound of the calcaneus, 24-h urinary calcium, and serum C-telopeptide (betaCTX) were measured.

RESULTS

At study entry, patients in the two groups were well matched for age, gender, severity of neurological deficit, BMD, urinary calcium, and betaCTX. BMD indices declined steadily in the placebo group, and this effect was attenuated significantly by alendronate. After 12 months, there was a 5.3% difference (P<0.001) in total body BMD and a 17.6% difference (P<0.001) in the total hip BMD between the two groups. Alendronate compared with placebo induced significant (P<0.001) reductions in urinary calcium excretion and serum betaCTX. No treatment-related side effects were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that alendronate therapy, 70 mg/wk, initiated soon after acute SCI, prevents bone loss and is not associated with side effects.

Alendronate sodium in the management of osteoporosis

Alendronate is one of the best and most extensively studied bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis. This review considers in detail the major pivotal study, the fracture intervention trial (FIT), upon which the use of alendronate is based and which was a landmark study in terms of design, size and clinical impact. The role of alendronate has subsequently been underscored by a range of studies extending the clinical indications for its use and consolidating the effect on reducing both vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk. Although the emphasis of these studies has predominantly been on the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis, data is also available in primary prevention, men, and glucocorticoids-induced osteoporosis. Direct comparison between the different drugs used to treat osteoporosis with fracture end points are needed for patients and doctors to make informed choices, but the size of such studies are prohibitive. Clinical trials using surrogate markers such as bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover have been performed which provide some helpful information but the limitations of this approach need to be recognized.

Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a serious public health issue. The past 10 years have seen great advances in our understanding of its epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment, and further advances are rapidly being made. Clinical assessment will probably evolve from decisions mainly being made on the basis of bone densitometry, to use of algorithms of absolute fracture risk. Biochemical markers of bone turnover are also likely to become more widely used. Bisphosphonates will probably remain the mainstay of therapy, but improved understanding of the optimum amount of remodelling suppression and duration of therapy will be important. At the same time, other diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, including biological agents, are likely to become more widespread.

Oral ibandronate in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis: Review of upper gastrointestinal safety

Oral daily bisphosphonates carry a potential for gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, which has been partly addressed by introducing once-weekly regimens. Nevertheless, the need to follow inconvenient dosing instructions every week could still hinder long-term compliance and therapeutic outcome. In addition, survey data indicates that many patients would prefer a once-monthly rather than once-weekly bisphosphonate dosing regimen. Ibandronate is a potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate specifically developed for less frequent administration. In a pivotal study in postmenopausal osteoporosis, oral ibandronate, administered daily or with a between-dose interval of >2 months, demonstrated robust antifracture efficacy and an overall incidence of upper GI adverse events similar to placebo, even in patients at increased risk of such events. This and other clinical studies conducted in postmenopausal women demonstrate that oral ibandronate has an excellent upper GI safety profile.

Fracture prevention in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of treatment options

Several treatment options are available to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women with or at risk for osteoporosis. A MEDLINE search was conducted to evaluate anti-fracture and adverse event data of osteoporosis therapies from trials in postmenopausal women. Among the anti-resorptive therapies, the bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate have demonstrated consistent efficacy in reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk. Once-weekly alendronate and risedronate produced similar improvements in bone mineral density compared with their once-daily counterparts with similar tolerability. Daily injections of teriparatide resulted in statistically significant reductions in the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, and trials of ibandronate, raloxifene, and calcitonin nasal spray showed reductions in vertebral fracture risk. Hormone therapy has demonstrated clinical fracture risk reduction; however, safety outcomes from the Women's Health Initiative study have raised concerns regarding long-term use of these preparations. These data can guide clinical decision-making regarding the selection of an osteoporosis therapy.

TARGET AUDIENCE

Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completion of this article, the reader should be able to summarize adverse events data of osteoporosis therapies from trials in postmenopausal women, explain that only a few therapies have shown a consistent efficacy in reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, and state that data from the Women's Health Initiative study have raised concerns regarding long-term use of estrogen-progestin therapy.

Efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly administration of 17.5 mg risedronate in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis: a comparison with 2.5-mg once-daily dosage regimen

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled trial, the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dosing with 17.5 mg risedronate was compared with once-daily dosing with 2.5 mg risedronate in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis. A total of 496 patients were randomized to receive either once-weekly (n = 249) or once-daily (n = 247) treatment. All patients were supplemented with 200 mg/day calcium. Following 48 weeks of treatment, the mean (+/-SD) percent changes, from baseline, in the bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD) in the once-weekly and once-daily treatment groups were 5.36 +/- 4.27% and 5.87 +/- 4.47%, respectively. The difference between the groups was -0.5% (95% confidence interval: -1.35% to 0.35%), demonstrating that the effect on BMD of once-weekly treatment was not inferior to that of once-daily treatment. The time-course reductions in biochemical markers of bone resorption (urinary N- and C-telopeptide of type I collagen) and bone formation (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) were similar for the two dosing regimens. There were no differences in the incidence of new vertebral fractures or the worsening of existing fractures between the once-weekly (2.2%) and once-daily (2.7%) dosing regimens. No significant differences were observed between the two dosing regimens in the incidence or the type of adverse events. However, 10.1% of the patients in the once-daily group withdrew due to adverse events as compared to 5.2% in the once-weekly group. Moreover, drug-related adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal disorders and abnormal changes in laboratory parameters, tended to be less in the once-weekly dosing regimen than in the once-daily dosing regimen. In conclusion, once-weekly oral dosing with 17.5 mg risedronate was well tolerated in Japanese osteoporotic patients, and showed equivalent efficacy to once-daily oral dosing with 2.5 mg risedronate. This once-weekly regimen is expected to provide a more convenient therapeutic option as an alternative to daily dosing and to enhance patient compliance in long-term therapy for osteoporosis.

The Problem of Low Levels of Vitamin D and Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are common in the elderly population and represent a large public health burden. Non-pharmacological recommendations for the management of osteoporosis include modification of lifestyle behaviours, increased weight-bearing exercise and consumption - through dietary or supplement sources - of adequate amounts of calcium and vitamin D. Although current guidelines include recommendations on calcium and vitamin D intake, patients frequently do not take sufficient amounts, even when supplements are provided free of charge. Vitamin D is essential for mineral metabolism, and low levels are associated with impaired skeletal metabolism and neuromuscular function. Nutritional sources of vitamin D are limited, and supplementation is usually necessary. A high prevalence of low vitamin D levels has been reported in a number of populations worldwide, including women being treated for osteoporosis and those with fragility fractures. At present, bisphosphonates are the most commonly prescribed pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis, and alendronic acid is the most frequently prescribed bisphosphonate. A nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, alendronic acid has demonstrated anti-fracture efficacy at vertebral and non-vertebral skeletal sites, including the hip, in addition to long-term safety and efficacy. Weekly administration of alendronic acid takes advantage of the pharmacokinetics of the drug and osteoclast biology to optimise treatment, and may improve patient adherence. Combining alendronic acid 70mg and colecalciferol (vitamin D(3)) 2800 IU in a single, once-weekly tablet has the advantage of combining the proven efficacy of an established bisphosphonate, alendronic acid, with the amount of vitamin D currently recommended for osteoporosis management.

Recommendations for an update of the current (2001) regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and in men

Recent advances in the understanding of the epidemiology of osteoporosis suggest that certain parts of the current European guidelines for the registration of drugs in osteoporosis might be no longer substantiated. The object of this review is to provide the European regulatory authorities with an evidence-based working document providing suggestions for the revision of the "Note for guidance for the approval of drugs to be used in postmenopausal osteoporosis" (CPMP/EWP/552/95). Following an extensive review of the literature (1990-2004), the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) organized a workshop including European regulators, academic scientists and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. The outcomes of this meeting reflect the personal views of those who attended and should not, in any case, be seen as an official position paper of any regulatory agency. The group identified a certain number of points that deserve discussion. They mainly relate to the nature of the indication being granted to new chemical entities (treatment of osteoporosis in women at high risk of fracture instead of prevention and treatment of osteoporosis), the requirements of showing an anti-fracture efficacy on all or on major nonvertebral fractures (instead of the hip), the duration of pivotal trials (2 years instead of 3) and the possibility of considering bridging studies for new routes of administration, new doses or new regimens of previously approved drugs. The group also recommends that an indication could be granted for the treatment of osteoporosis in males on the basis of a placebo-controlled study, with bone mineral density changes after 1 year as the primary endpoint, for medications approved in the treatment of osteoporosis in women at high risk of fractures.

Randomized controlled trial of alendronate in airways disease and low bone mineral density

BACKGROUND

Patients with airways disease have been demonstrated to be at risk of osteoporosis, and this is likely to be multifactorial. Our aim was to identify patients with low bone mineral density (BMD) using a screening program, and then evaluate the benefit of daily alendronate.

METHOD

Subjects with hip or lumbar spine baseline T-scores < - 2.5, or Z-score < - 1.0 commenced on alendronate/calcium (10 mg/600 mg day) or placebo/calcium, in a double blind randomized controlled trial. BMD by dual emission X-ray absorptiometry (lumbar vertebrae 2-4, neck of femur, total femur) was repeated after 12 months, with adverse events recorded.

RESULTS

145 subjects (74 male, 71 female, mean age 67, median FEV1 1.0 litres = 43% of predicted) were enrolled; 66 alendronate/calcium, 79 placebo/calcium with 24 and 26 withdrawals, respectively. Per protocol but not intention to treat analysis of covariance demonstrated statistically significant improvements in T and Z scores for lumbar spine bone mineral density (P = 0.035, P = 0.040), with no improvement demonstrated at the hip.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in bone mineral density has been demonstrated at the lumbar spine, but not hip, by per protocol analysis, with daily alendronate, at 12 months.

Bone density and markers of bone turnover in predicting fracture risk and how changes in these measures predict fracture risk reduction

Surrogate markers in clinical medicine provide a useful means to assess therapeutic response to pharmacologic therapy in a wide range of chronic disease states. In the area of osteoporosis, the surrogate markers of change in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) provide the clinician with a means of assessing the biologic response to osteoporosis-specific pharmacologic agents. Increases in BMD and/or reductions in BTM can independently be correlated to reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk. In managing osteoporosis patients, the BTM change at an earlier point of time after initiation of therapy and a change in BTM can provide earlier feed-back to the patient and clinician regarding issues such as compliance and a bone biologic response. An increase in BMD at 12 or 24 months after initiation of therapy is also evidence of an improvement in bone strength though with antiresorptive agents no change in BMD may also be associated with risk reduction within clinical trial sets. In this regard, changes in BMD and BTM are complimentary in their application to patient management.

Prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a systemic disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of the skeleton leading to enhanced bone fragility and an increased risk of fracture. Prior to fracture, diagnosis is established by documenting low bone mass. In the first section of this article we review the clinical use of bone mass measurements and biochemical markers of bone remodeling in selecting patients most in need of preventive therapy at menopause. Women with high bone turnover lose bone at menopause more rapidly than those with normal bone turnover and are more likely to derive benefit from the several preventive therapies available. The second section addresses the available technologies used to diagnose osteoporosis and/or establish fragility fracture risk using noninvasive bone mass measurement and biochemical markers of bone remodeling separately or in combination. In the third section we review the several treatment options available for patients with osteoporosis, including alendronate (alendronic acid), risendronate (risedronic acid), calcitonin, teriparatide, and raloxifene, and the approaches to monitoring the therapeutic response. The final section deals with fall protection--an often forgotten aspect of management of the patient at risk for sustaining and osteoporotic fragility fracture.

Prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a systemic disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of the skeleton leading to enhanced bone fragility and an increased risk of fracture. Prior to fracture, diagnosis is established by documenting low bone mass. In the first section of this article we review the clinical use of bone mass measurements and biochemical markers of bone remodeling in selecting patients most in need of preventive therapy at menopause. Women with high bone turnover lose bone at menopause more rapidly than those with normal bone turnover and are more likely to derive benefit from the several preventive therapies available. The second section addresses the available technologies used to diagnose osteoporosis and/or establish fragility fracture risk using noninvasive bone mass measurement and biochemical markers of bone remodeling separately or in combination. In the third section we review the several treatment options available for patients with osteoporosis, including alendronate (alendronic acid), risendronate (risedronic acid), calcitonin, teriparatide, and raloxifene, and the approaches to monitoring the therapeutic response. The final section deals with fall protection--an often forgotten aspect of management of the patient at risk for sustaining and osteoporotic fragility fracture.

Tratamiento de la pérdida de masa ósea en la mujer postmenopáusica

In this revision, the results of different controlled clinical trials and metaanalyses on the efficacy in the increase of bone mineral density (BMD) and reduction of risk of fracture on postmenopausal osteoporosis treatments are summarized. Most of the drugs studied produce significant BMD increases but with significant differences regarding fracture risk reduction, especially regarding extravertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators would constitute the first line of treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with previous fractures. Head to head studies would be necessary to know its true efficacy since some results are based on post hoc analysis. Possible side effects, risks, treatment comfort and price in addition to the demonstrated efficacy in fracture prevention must be considered in the selection of treatment.

How useful are measures of BMD and bone turnover?

Measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) and biochemical markers of bone turnover are useful in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis, as well as in research relating to the pathogenesis and treatment of the disease. Recent challenges to the utility of these measures have resulted in some confusion among both researchers and clinicians. BMD accounts for the great majority of bone strength and is the current gold standard for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, as well as for prediction of fracture risk. Although bone turnover increases sharply after menopause, biochemical markers of bone turnover have limited usefulness in fracture risk prediction. Persistently elevated bone turnover throughout the menopause is associated with structural decrements, cannot be measured routinely and non-invasively. In research applications, both BMD and markers of bone turnover are used to identify candidate agents in preclinical and clinical studies. In addition, head-to-head comparisons of treatments utilize these measures, because fracture endpoint trials would need to be extraordinarily large and complex. Analyses that have suggested that change in BMD or bone turnover 'explains' little of change in fracture risk with treatment appear to be flawed. Although neither can perfectly predict fracture, they are our current best alternatives.

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.

Oral antiresorptive therapy

Oral antiresorptive agents play a pivotal role in the management of osteoporosis. This paper discusses the effects and potential future role of newer agents such as ibandronate. Alternative dosing schedules and routes of administration have become available and may improve fracture protection, compliance, and tolerability for the long term treatment of a chronic condition such as osteoporosis. Increasingly these agents are being used to reduce bone loss in other diseases associated with high risk for osteoporosis such as organ transplantation and cystic fibrosis. Such studies may act as prototypes for the extended use of this class of drugs in other chronic inflammatory disease states. The innovative, yet disappointing results from combining an antiresorptive agent (alendronate) with the anabolic effects of teriparatide is also discussed. The major problem that remains is the lack of direct comparison between the agents in terms of fracture endpoints.

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.

Comparison of the effects of alendronate and risedronate on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal osteoporosis

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of once-weekly alendronate sodium and daily risedronate sodium treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal osteoporotic subjects. For this purpose, 50 patients were included in this study and randomly classified into two groups. Group I (n=25) received risedronate (5 mg/day) and group II (n=25) received alendronate Na (70 mg/week). The study duration was limited to 12 months. The efficacy of the treatment was evaluated by BMD measurements at spine and hip at 6th and 12th months of the treatment, as well as by the measurement of bone turnover markers such as serum osteocalcin (OC), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BASP), urine deoxypyridinoline (DPD) and calcium/creatine ratio in 24-h urine at 1st, 3rd, 6th and 12th months. The evaluation of the changes in BMD in all regions revealed a significant increase in BMD in both groups compared to baseline values except for spine (L2-L4) in alendronate group at 6th and 12th month and femoral neck in risedronate group at 6th month. However, the difference in percentage increase in BMD measurements was not statistically significant between the two groups at 6th and 12th months. In both groups, serum OC, BSAP and urine DPD were found to be significantly attenuated at 1st month of the treatment period, and continued to be lowered throughout the 3rd, 6th and 12th months (P<0.05). However, there was no statistically-significant difference between both groups of patients (P>0.05). In conclusion, our results suggest that both treatment protocols provide treatment options of similar efficiency for postmenopausal osteoporosis, and have almost-similar effects in enhancing the BMD and in slowing the bone turnover. Risedronate seems to have a more potent effect in the spinal region than that of alendronate, although this potency was not statistically significant.