Risedronate dosing before breakfast compared with dosing later in the day in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis

Risedronate 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. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.

Optimal Dosing Regimen of Osteoporosis Drugs in Relation to Food Intake as the Key for the Enhancement of the Treatment Effectiveness-A Concise Literature Review

Bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) represent the two most important groups of medications taken orally and employed in osteoporosis treatment. Effectiveness of the therapy may be affected by poor patient adherence, in particular, due to the inconvenient dosing regimen of oral bisphosphonates. With this review we aimed to assess the effects that food, beverages, and dietary supplements consumed during treatment, along with the dosing regimens, may have on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral drugs employed in treating osteoporosis; we also aimed to shape the recommendations valuable for professional patients’ counseling and education, to provide appropriate dosing regimens in order to improve adherence to the therapy. Food, beverages such as coffee, juices, and mineral water, as well as dietary supplements containing multivalent cations, e.g., calcium, magnesium, aluminium, iron, showed to have a deleterious effect on the bioavailability of all the investigated oral bisphosphonates, specifically alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, minodronate, and etidronate. For risedronate, a delayed-release (DR) tablet was designed to solve the malabsorption problem in the presence of food, hence DR risedronate can be ingested following breakfast. For other oral bisphosphonates, the proper interval between drug and food, beverages, and dietary supplements intake should be maintained to minimize the risk of interactions. The effect of food on pharmacokinetic parameters of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) was found to be clinically irrelevant.

Phase II/III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of monthly delayed-release versus daily immediate-release risedronate tablets in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis

Absorption of oral immediate-release (IR) risedronate tablets is reduced by food intake, thus a delayed-release (DR) tablet has been developed to overcome the necessity of taking IR tablets under fasting conditions. This randomized, double-blind, phase II/III study compared efficacy and safety of risedronate IR once-daily (QD) and DR once-monthly (QM) tablets in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis. Patients received 2.5 mg IR on awakening QD, or 25 or 37.5 mg DR on awakening, following breakfast, or 30 min after breakfast, QM for 12 months. Primary endpoint was non-inferiority in mean percent change from baseline to end of study (month 12, last observation carried forward [M12, LOCF]) in mean lumbar spine (L₂-L₄) bone mineral density (BMD) between risedronate IR on awakening and DR following breakfast. Mean percent changes in (L₂-L₄) BMD at M12, LOCF were 5.07% (IR at awakening, n = 190), 3.36% (25 mg DR following breakfast, n = 194), and 4.11% (37.5 mg DR following breakfast, n = 181). Mean percent change in (L₂-L₄) BMD was numerically lower in the DR following breakfast groups versus the respective on awakening and 30 min after breakfast DR groups. Overall incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between groups. In the DR groups, 1.5-4.0% of patients reported TEAEs potentially associated with acute-phase reactions versus 0% in the IR group. In this study, non-inferiority could not be declared for 37.5 or 25 mg DR following breakfast QM (p = 0.1346 or p = 0.6711, respectively) versus 2.5 mg IR on awakening QD.

Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with delayed-release risedronate 35 mg weekly for 2 years

Bone mineral density response to once weekly delayed-release formulation of risedronate, given before or following breakfast, was non-inferior to that seen with traditional immediate-release risedronate given daily before breakfast. Delayed-release risedronate is a convenient dosing regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy that might avoid poor compliance.

INTRODUCTION

This 2-year, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of a delayed-release (DR) 35-mg weekly oral formulation of risedronate that allows subjects to take their weekly risedronate dose before or immediately after breakfast. Results from the first year of the study were published previously (McClung et al. Osteoporos Int 23(1):267-276, 2012); we now report the final results after 2 years.

METHODS

Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive risedronate 5 mg immediate-release (IR) daily (n = 307) at least 30 min before breakfast, or risedronate 35 mg DR weekly, either immediately following breakfast (FB, n = 307) or at least 30 min before breakfast (BB, n = 308). Bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers (BTMs), fractures, adverse events, and bone histomorphometry were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 248 subjects (80.8 %) in the IR daily group, 234 subjects (76.2 %) in the DR FB weekly group, and 240 subjects (77.9 %) in the DR BB weekly group completed the 2-year study. After 2 years of treatment, BMD increases at the lumbar spine and total hip with the weekly DR doses similar to or greater than that with the IR daily dose. Decreases in BTMs were similar or significantly lower in the DR groups. Bone histomorphometry results did not differ among the DR weekly and the IR daily formulations. The three regimens were similarly well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Risedronate 35 mg DR weekly is as effective and as well tolerated as risedronate 5 mg IR daily, and will allow subjects to take their weekly risedronate dose immediately after breakfast.

Effects of alendronate and risedronate on bone material properties in actively forming trabecular bone surfaces

We used Raman and Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (FTIRM) analysis to examine the intrinsic bone material properties at actively bone-forming trabecular surfaces in iliac crest biopsies from women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) who were treated with either alendronate (ALN) or risedronate (RIS). At eight study sites, women were identified who had postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), were at least 5 years postmenopause, and had been on long-term therapy (either 3-5 years or >5 years) with daily or weekly ALN or RIS. Following standard tetracycline labeling, biopsies were collected from 102 women (33 treated with ALN for 3-5 years [ALN-3], 35 with ALN for >5 years [ALN-5], 26 with RIS for 3-5 years [RIS-3], and 8 with RIS for >5 years [RIS-5]) and were analyzed at anatomical areas of similar tissue age in bone-forming areas (within the fluorescent double labels). The following outcomes were monitored and reported: mineral to matrix ratio (corresponding to ash weight), relative proteoglycan content (regulating mineralization commencement), mineral maturity (indicative of the mineral crystallite chemistry and stoichiometry, and having a direct bearing on crystallite shape and size), and the ratio of two of the major enzymatic collagen cross-links (pyridinoline/divalent). In RIS-5 there was a significant decrease in the relative proteoglycan content (-5.83% compared to ALN-5), while in both RIS-3 and RIS-5 there was significantly lower mineral maturity/crystallinity (-6.78% and -13.68% versus ALN-3 and ALN-5, respectively), and pyridinoline/divalent collagen cross-link ratio (-23.09% and -41.85% versus ALN-3 and ALN-5, respectively). The results of the present study indicate that ALN and RIS exert differential effects on the intrinsic bone material properties at actively bone-forming trabecular surfaces.

Clinical utility of risedronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis: patient considerations with delayed-release formulation

Bisphosphonates are the most widely prescribed treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis, secondary osteoporosis, and male osteoporosis. Notwithstanding their high effectiveness and favorable safety profile, the adherence to bisphosphonate treatment remains low. Different treatment strategies aim to improve the clinical effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapy. This review paper assesses the clinical utility of oral intermittent risedronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The new delayed-release risedronate formulation is a safer and easy to use alternative to other risedronate therapy. Oral risedronate, a potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, has been extensively studied using daily regimens. A new intermittent (weekly) dosing regimen confirmed its clinical effectiveness in relation to vertebral and nonvertebral fracture prevention. The absence of significant differences in the incidence of adverse effects confirmed the favorable tolerability of the weekly dosage. In efforts to improve patient adherence to treatment, an innovative, delayed-release formulation of risedronate, which ensures adequate bioavailability of the active compound when taken with food, was introduced. The once-weekly delayed-release formulation of risedronate proved to be noninferior to the daily dosage of risedronate in terms of bone mineral density and markers of bone turnover. In addition, the incidence of new morphometric vertebral fractures was comparable in both treatment regimens. The new delayed-release formulation of risedronate showed a favorable safety profile. Delayed-release risedronate is a promising, new, effective, and convenient alternative to current bisphosphonate treatments. It appears to allow better patient adherence to antiresorptive treatment.

Efficacy and safety of a novel delayed-release risedronate 35 mg once-a-week tablet

Dosing regimens of oral bisphosphonates are inconvenient and contribute to poor compliance. The bone mineral density response to a once weekly delayed-release formulation of risedronate given before or following breakfast was non-inferior to traditional immediate-release risedronate given daily before breakfast. Delayed-release risedronate is a convenient regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy.

INTRODUCTION

We report the results of a randomized, controlled, clinical study assessing the efficacy and safety of a delayed-release (DR) 35 mg weekly oral formulation of risedronate that allows patients to take their weekly risedronate dose before or immediately after breakfast.

METHODS

Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive risedronate 5 mg immediate-release (IR) daily (n = 307) at least 30 min before breakfast, or risedronate 35 mg DR weekly, either at least 30 min before breakfast (BB, n = 308) or immediately following breakfast (FB, n = 307). Bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers (BTMs), fractures, and adverse events were evaluated. The primary efficacy variable was percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Endpoint.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-seven subjects (83.7%) in the IR daily group, 252 subjects (82.1%) in the DR FB weekly group, and 258 subjects (83.8%) in the DR BB weekly group completed 1 year. Both DR weekly groups were determined to be non-inferior to the IR daily regimen. Mean percent changes in hip BMD were similar across groups. The magnitude of BTM response was similar across groups; some statistical differences were seen that were small and deemed by investigators to have no major clinical importance. The incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal and serious adverse events were similar across treatment groups. All three regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Risedronate 35 mg DR weekly is similar in efficacy and safety to risedronate 5 mg IR daily, and will allow patients to take their weekly risedronate dose immediately after breakfast.

Partial adherence: a new perspective on health economic assessment in osteoporosis

Partial adherence in osteoporosis increases the risk for fragility fracture and has considerable impact on cost-effectiveness. This review highlights a number of avenues for further research, such as improved definition of thresholds of compliance and persistence, as well as gap length, offset times, and fraction of benefit.

INTRODUCTION

A number of economic models have been developed to evaluate osteoporosis therapies and support decisions regarding efficient allocation of health care resources. Adherence to treatment is seldom incorporated in these models, which may reduce their validity for decision-making since adherence is poor in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

An ad hoc working group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis met to review key issues concerning the incorporation of partial adherence in health economic models.

RESULTS

Observational data have shown that poor adherence is associated with an increase in the risk for fragility fracture. Health economic modelling indicates that full adherence is associated with more quality-adjusted life years gained than partial adherence, as well as higher treatment costs and lower fracture-related costs. Although adherence appears as an important driver of cost-effectiveness, the effect is dependent on a range of other variables, such as offset time, fraction of benefit, fracture risk, fracture efficacy, fracture-related costs, and drug cost, some of which are poorly defined. Current models used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in osteoporosis may oversimplify the contributions of compliance and persistence.

CONCLUSION

Partial adherence has a significant impact on cost-effectiveness. Further research is required to optimise thresholds of compliance and persistence, the impact of gap length, offset times, and fraction of benefit.

Adherence, preference, and satisfaction of postmenopausal women taking denosumab or alendronate

In this study, 250 women with osteoporosis were randomized to 12 months with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly, then crossed over to the other treatment. The primary endpoint, treatment adherence at 12 months, was 76.6% for alendronate and 87.3% for denosumab.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to evaluate treatment adherence with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-year, crossover study, 250 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density received denosumab or alendronate for 12 months, then the other treatment for 12 months. The alendronate bottle had a medication event monitoring system cap to monitor administration dates. Definitions were as follows: compliance, receiving both denosumab doses 6 (± 1) months apart or 80-100% of alendronate doses; persistence, receiving both denosumab doses and completing the month 12 visit within the visit window or ≥ 2 alendronate doses in the final month; adherence, achieving both compliance and persistence. This report includes data from the first 12 months.

RESULTS

The primary study endpoint, adherence in the first 12 months, was 76.6% (95/124) for alendronate and 87.3% (110/126) for denosumab. Risk ratios for denosumab compared with alendronate at 12 months were 0.58 (p = 0.043) for non-adherence, 0.48 (p = 0.014) for non-compliance, and 0.54 (p = 0.049) for non-persistence. Subject ratings for treatment necessity, preference, and satisfaction were significantly greater for denosumab and ratings for treatment bother were significantly greater for alendronate. Adverse events were reported by 64.1% of alendronate-treated subjects and 72.0% of denosumab-treated subjects (p = 0.403). The most common adverse events were arthralgia, back pain, pain in extremity, cough, and headache (each in <10% of subjects in each group).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly greater treatment adherence was observed for subcutaneous administration of denosumab every 6 months than for oral alendronate once weekly.