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

Geriatric trauma: there is more to it than just the implant!

Geriatric trauma continues to rise, corresponding with the continuing growth of the older population. These fractures continue to expand, demonstrated by the incidence of hip fractures having grown to 1.5 million adults worldwide per year. This patient population and their associated fracture patterns present unique challenges to the surgeon, as well as having a profound economic impact on the health care system. Pharmacologic treatment has focused on prevention, with aging adults having impaired fracture healing in addition to diminished bone mineral density. Intraoperatively, novel ideas to assess fracture reduction to facilitate decreased fracture collapse have recently been explored. Postoperatively, pharmacologic avenues have focused on future fracture prevention, while shared care models between geriatrics and orthopaedics have shown promise regarding decreasing mortality and length of stay. As geriatric trauma continues to grow, it is imperative that we look to optimize all phases of care, from preoperative to postoperative.

Fracture risk in women with osteoporosis initiated on gastro-resistant risedronate versus immediate release risedronate or alendronate: a claims data analysis in the USA

The study results indicate that women with osteoporosis initiated on gastro-resistant risedronate have a lower risk of fracture than those initiated on immediate release risedronate or alendronate. A large proportion of women discontinued all oral bisphosphonate therapies within 1 year of treatment start.

PURPOSE

Using a US claims database (2009-2019), we compared risk of fractures between women with osteoporosis initiated on gastro-resistant (GR) risedronate and those initiated on (a) immediate release (IR) risedronate or (b) immediate release alendronate.

METHODS

Women aged ≥ 60 years with osteoporosis who had ≥ 2 oral bisphosphonate prescription fills were followed for ≥ 1 year after the first observed bisphosphonates dispensing (index date). Fracture risk was compared between the GR risedronate and IR risedronate/alendronate cohorts using adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs), both overall and in subgroups with high fracture risk due to older age or comorbidity/medications. Site-specific fractures were identified based on diagnosis codes recorded on medical claims using a claims-based algorithm. Persistence on bisphosphonate therapy was evaluated for all groups.

RESULTS

aIRRs generally indicated lower fracture risk for GR risedronate than IR risedronate and alendronate. When comparing GR risedronate to IR risedronate, statistically significant aIRRs (p < 0.05) were observed for pelvic fractures in the full cohorts (aIRRs = 0.37), for any fracture and pelvic fractures among women aged ≥ 65 years (aIRRs = 0.63 and 0.41), for any fracture and pelvic fractures among women aged ≥ 70 years (aIRRs = 0.69 and 0.24), and for pelvic fracture among high-risk women due to comorbidity/medications (aIRR = 0.34). When comparing GR risedronate to alendronate, statistically significant aIRRs were observed for pelvic fractures in the full cohorts (aIRR = 0.54), for any fracture and wrist/arm fractures among women aged ≥ 65 years (aIRRs = 0.73 and 0.63), and for any fracture, pelvic, and wrist/arm fractures among women aged ≥ 70 years (aIRRs = 0.72, 0.36, and 0.58). In all cohorts, ~ 40% completely discontinued oral bisphosphonates within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuation rates of oral bisphosphonate therapy were high. However, women initiated on GR risedronate had a significantly lower risk of fracture for several skeletal sites than women initiated on IR risedronate/alendronate, particularly those aged ≥ 70 years.

Novel formulations of oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis

Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of evidence; however, patient adherence to oral bisphosphonates remains poor in part due to complex dosing instructions and adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This problem has led to the development of novel oral bisphosphonate formulations. Buffered, effervescent alendronate is dissolved in water and so seeks to reduce upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, and gastro-resistant risedronate aims to reduce the complexity of dosing procedure (e.g. fasting prior to consumption) whilst still maintaining the efficacy of fracture risk reduction. Clinical trials and real-world data have been employed to demonstrate some benefits in terms of reduced upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, adherence, persistence and health economic outcomes. This report describes the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores where oral bisphosphonates sit in current clinical practice guidelines, review their risk-benefit profile and the consequences of poor adherence before exploring novel oral bisphosphonate formulations and their potential clinical and health economic impact. Further research is required but there are signs that these novel, oral bisphosphonate formulations may lead to improved tolerance of oral bisphosphonates and thus, improved adherence and fracture outcomes.

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.

Bisphosphonates: The role of chemistry in understanding their biological actions and structure-activity relationships, and new directions for their therapeutic use

The bisphosphonates ((HO)2P(O)CR1R2P(O)(OH)2, BPs) were first shown to inhibit bone resorption in the 1960s, but it was not until 30 years later that a detailed molecular understanding of the relationship between their varied chemical structures and biological activity was elucidated. In the 1990s and 2000s, several potent bisphosphonates containing nitrogen in their R2 side chains (N-BPs) were approved for clinical use including alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate. These are now mostly generic drugs and remain the leading therapies for several major bone-related diseases, including osteoporosis and skeletal-related events associated with bone metastases. The early development of chemistry in this area was largely empirical and only a few common structural features related to strong binding to calcium phosphate were clear. Attempts to further develop structure-activity relationships to explain more dramatic pharmacological differences in vivo at first appeared inconclusive, and evidence for mechanisms underlying cellular effects on osteoclasts and macrophages only emerged after many years of research. The breakthrough came when the intracellular actions on the osteoclast were first shown for the simpler bisphosphonates, via the in vivo formation of P-C-P derivatives of ATP. The synthesis and biological evaluation of a large number of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates in the 1980s and 1990s led to the key discovery that the antiresorptive effects of these more complex analogs on osteoclasts result mostly from their potency as inhibitors of the enzyme farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FDPS/FPPS). This key branch-point enzyme in the mevalonate pathway of cholesterol biosynthesis is important for the generation of isoprenoid lipids that are utilized for the post-translational modification of small GTP-binding proteins essential for osteoclast function. Since then, it has become even more clear that the overall pharmacological effects of individual bisphosphonates on bone depend upon two key properties: the affinity for bone mineral and inhibitory effects on biochemical targets within bone cells, in particular FDPS. Detailed enzyme-ligand crystal structure analysis began in the early 2000s and advances in our understanding of the structure-activity relationships, based on interactions with this target within the mevalonate pathway and related enzymes in osteoclasts and other cells have continued to be the focus of research efforts to this day. In addition, while many members of the bisphosphonate drug class share common properties, now it is more clear that chemical modifications to create variations in these properties may allow customization of BPs for different uses. Thus, as the appreciation for new potential opportunities with this drug class grows, new chemistry to allow ready access to an ever-widening variety of bisphosphonates continues to be developed. Potential new uses of the calcium phosphate binding mechanism of bisphosphonates for the targeting of other drugs to the skeleton, and effects discovered on other cellular targets, even at non-skeletal sites, continue to intrigue scientists in this research field.

Sequential Therapy With Recombinant Human IGF-1 Followed by Risedronate Increases Spine Bone Mineral Density in Women With Anorexia Nervosa: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Anorexia nervosa is complicated by low bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fracture risk associated with low bone formation and high bone resorption. The lumbar spine is most severely affected. Low bone formation is associated with relative insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) deficiency. Our objective was to determine whether bone anabolic therapy with recombinant human (rh) IGF-1 used off-label followed by antiresorptive therapy with risedronate would increase BMD more than risedronate or placebo in women with anorexia nervosa. We conducted a 12-month, randomized, placebo-controlled study of 90 ambulatory women with anorexia nervosa and low areal BMD (aBMD). Participants were randomized to three groups: 6 months of rhIGF-1 followed by 6 months of risedronate ("rhIGF-1/Risedronate") (n = 33), 12 months of risedronate ("Risedronate") (n = 33), or double placebo ("Placebo") (n = 16). Outcome measures were lumbar spine (1° endpoint: postero-anterior [PA] spine), hip, and radius aBMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and vertebral, tibial, and radial volumetric BMD (vBMD) and estimated strength by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pCT) (for extremity measurements) and multi-detector computed tomography (for vertebral measurements). At baseline, mean age, body mass index (BMI), aBMD, and vBMD were similar among groups. At 12 months, mean PA lumbar spine aBMD was higher in the rhIGF-1/Risedronate (p = 0.03) group and trended toward being higher in the Risedronate group than Placebo. Mean lateral lumbar spine aBMD was higher, in the rhIGF-1/Risedronate than the Risedronate or Placebo groups (p < 0.05). Vertebral vBMD was higher, and estimated strength trended toward being higher, in the rhIGF-1/Risedronate than Placebo group (p < 0.05). Neither hip or radial aBMD or vBMD, nor radial or tibial estimated strength, differed among groups. rhIGF-1 was well tolerated. Therefore, sequential therapy with rhIGF-1 followed by risedronate increased lateral lumbar spine aBMD more than risedronate or placebo. Strategies that are anabolic and antiresorptive to bone may be effective at increasing BMD in women with anorexia nervosa. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: the 2021 position statement of The North American Menopause Society

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence regarding osteoporosis screening, prevention, diagnosis, and management in the past decade and update the position statement published by The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) in 2010 regarding the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women as new therapies and paradigms have become available.

DESIGN

NAMS enlisted a panel of clinician experts in the field of metabolic bone diseases and/or women's health to review and update the 2010 NAMS position statement and recommendations on the basis of new evidence and clinical judgement. The panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.

RESULTS

Osteoporosis, especially prevalent in older postmenopausal women, increases the risk of fractures that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Postmenopausal bone loss, related to estrogen deficiency, is the primary contributor to osteoporosis. Other important risk factors for postmenopausal osteoporosis include advanced age, genetics, smoking, thinness, and many diseases and drugs that impair bone health. An evaluation of these risk factors to identify candidates for osteoporosis screening and recommending nonpharmacologic measures such as good nutrition (especially adequate intake of protein, calcium, and vitamin D), regular physical activity, and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption are appropriate for all postmenopausal women. For women at high risk for osteoporosis, especially perimenopausal women with low bone density and other risk factors, estrogen or other therapies are available to prevent bone loss. For women with osteoporosis and/or other risk factors for fracture, including advanced age and previous fractures, the primary goal of therapy is to prevent new fractures. This is accomplished by combining nonpharmacologic measures, drugs to increase bone density and to improve bone strength, and strategies to reduce fall risk. If pharmacologic therapy is indicated, government-approved options include estrogen agonists/antagonists, bisphosphonates, RANK ligand inhibitors, parathyroid hormone-receptor agonists, and inhibitors of sclerostin.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis is a common disorder in postmenopausal women. Management of skeletal health in postmenopausal women involves assessing risk factors for fracture, reducing modifiable risk factors through dietary and lifestyle changes, and the use of pharmacologic therapy for patients at significant risk of osteoporosis or fracture. For women with osteoporosis, lifelong management is necessary. Treatment decisions occur continuously over the lifespan of a postmenopausal woman. Decisions must be individualized and should include the patient in the process of shared decision-making.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Italy

The use of buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent tablet, a convenient dosing regimen for bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis aged 60 years and over in Italy.

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of buffered soluble alendronate (ALN) 70 mg effervescent tablet compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Italy.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adjusted to the Italian healthcare setting to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2019) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of buffered soluble ALN compared with generic ALN, denosumab, zoledronic acid and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data derived from the NICE network meta-analysis were used for bisphosphonate treatments. Two treatment duration scenarios were assessed: 1 year using persistence data derived from an Italian prospective observational study including 144 and 216 postmenopausal osteoporotic women on buffered soluble ALN and oral ALN, respectively, and 3 years. Analyses were conducted for women 60-80 years of age with a bone mineral density T-score ≤ - 3.0 or with existing vertebral fractures.

RESULTS

In all simulated populations, buffered soluble ALN was dominant (more QALYs, lower costs) compared to denosumab. The cost per QALY gained of buffered soluble ALN compared to generic ALN and no treatment always falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In the 1-year treatment scenario, zoledronic acid was associated with more QALY than buffered soluble ALN but the cost per QALY gained of zoledronic acid compared with buffered soluble ALN was always higher than €70,000, while buffered soluble ALN was dominant in the 3-year treatment scenario.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that buffered soluble ALN represents a cost-effective strategy compared with relevant alternative treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis women in Italy aged 60 years and over.

Minodronate in the treatment of osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to review relevant randomized controlled trials or case-control studies to determine the clinical efficacy of minodronate in the treatment of osteoporosis.

METHOD

The relevant studies were identified on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases using appropriate keywords. Pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through October 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we assessed odds ratios, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) to evaluate and synthesize outcomes.

RESULT

Thirteen studies comprising 3740 patients were included in this study. Compared with other drugs, minodronate significantly decreased N-telopeptide of type I collagen/creatinine (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -13.669, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -23.108 to -4.229), bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) (WMD: -1.26, 95% CI: -2.04 to -0.47) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (WMD: -154.11, 95% CI: -277.85 to -30.37). Minodronate combined with other drugs would significantly decrease BAP (WMD: -3.10, 95% CI: -5.20 to -1.00) than minodronate. Minodronate-naïve would significantly decrease BAP (WMD: -3.00, 95% CI: -5.47 to 0.53) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (WMD: -128.20, 95% CI: -198.11 to -58.29) than minodronate-switch. The incidence of vertebral fracture was significantly decreased in the minodronate group than the other drugs (relative risk: 0.520, 95% CI: 0.363-0.744).

CONCLUSION

Minodronate has better clinical efficacy in the treatment of osteoporosis than other drugs (alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, or eldecalcitol).

On the pharmacological evaluation of bisphosphonates in humans

One of the key parameters for a successful treatment with any drug is the use of an optimal dose regimen. Bisphosphonates (BPs) have been in clinical use for over five decades and during this period clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations have been instrumental for the identification of optimal dose regimens in patients. Ideal clinical PK and PD studies help drug developers explain variability in responses and enable the identification of a dose regimen with an optimal effect. PK and PD studies of the unique and rather complex pharmacological properties of BPs also help determine to a significant extent ideal dosing for these drugs. Clinical PK and PD evaluations of BPs preferably use study designs and assays that enable the assessment of both short- (days) and long-term (years) presence and effect of these drugs in patients. BPs are mainly used for metabolic bone diseases because they inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and the best way to quantify their effects in humans is therefore by measuring biochemical markers of bone resorption in serum and urine. In these very same samples BP concentrations can also be measured. Short-term serum and urine data after both intravenous (IV) and oral administration enable the assessment of oral bioavailability as well as the amount of BP delivered to the skeleton. Longer-term data provide information on the anti-resorptive effect as well as the elimination of the BP from the skeleton. Using PK-PD models to mathematically link the anti-resorptive action of the BPs to the amount of BP at the skeleton provides a mechanism-based explanation of the pattern of bone resorption during treatment. These models have been used successfully during the clinical development of BPs. Newer versions of such models, which include systems pharmacology and disease progression models, are more comprehensive and include additional PD parameters such as BMD and fracture risk. Clinical PK and PD studies of BPs have been useful for the identification of optimal dose regimens for metabolic bone diseases. These analyses will also continue to be important for newer research directions, such as BP use in the delivery of other drugs to the bone to better treat bone metastases and bone infections, as well as the potential benefit of BPs at non-skeletal targets for the prevention and treatments of soft tissue cancers, various fibroses, and other cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, and reduction in mortality and extension of lifespan.

History of risedronate

Herein we review the discovery, development, commercial history and legacy of risedronate or NE-58095, a potent N-containing bisphosphonate developed by scientists at the Cincinnati Miami Valley Laboratories and the Norwich Eaton Laboratories of Procter and Gamble. It is characterized by a hydroxyl substituent (R₁) and a pyridyl-methylene substituent (R₂) at the carbon bridging two phosphonate moieties. It was shown to have greater potency than alendronate in cell-based systems while binding affinity to bone matrix was lower than alendronate, accounting for the relatively rapid offset of bone turnover inhibition when therapy is discontinued. Risedronate was shown to significantly reduce serum alkaline phosphatase and clinical features in patients with Paget's disease and was approved for this indication, at a dose of 30 mg daily for 2 months, in 1998. Formal dose response testing for treatment of osteoporosis was not performed. In large Phase 3 studies, 5 mg risedronate daily increased bone mineral density more than did the 2.5 mg dose. As a result, the 2.5 mg dose was dropped from most of the Phase 3 studies after 12 months. The 5 mg daily dose was approved for treating and preventing postmenopausal osteoporosis and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in 2000. The drug was subsequently approved for treating men with osteoporosis. Following the leads of other companies, weekly and monthly preparations were developed and approved, based on non-inferiority BMD studies vs the 5 mg daily oral dose as was a unique dosing regimen of 75 mg given on 2 consecutive days each month. Finally, to overcome the effect of food on limiting the already poor gastrointestinal absorption of the drug, a once-weekly oral preparation containing the chelating agent EDTA and with an enteric coating delaying dissolution until the tablet was in the small intestine was approved in 2010 to be administered after breakfast. The Alliance for Better Bone Health, a collaboration between Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals and sanofi-aventis U.S. was formed to market risedronate as Actonel® and, subsequently, Actonel-EC® or Atelvia®. These drugs are still marketed by sanofi-aventis in some countries. The sale of the pharmaceutical division of Procter & Gamble to Warner Chilcott (US) was based, in large part, on the perceived value and marketability of the risedronate drugs. When marketing targets of Warner-Chilcott were not met, the rights of risedronate were sold to Allergan USA, Inc. which never actively promoted the drug. Generic forms of risedronate were introduced into the United States in 2015 but are rarely used, although several generic forms are actively marketed in other countries.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of gastro-resistant risedronate tablets for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France

The use of gastro-resistant risedronate, a convenient dosing regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy, seems a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

INTRODUCTION

Gastro-resistant (GR) risedronate tablets are associated with improved persistence compared to common oral bisphosphonates but are slightly more expensive. This study assessed its cost-effectiveness compared to weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was used to estimate the lifetime costs (expressed in €2017) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of GR risedronate compared with weekly alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment. Pooled efficacy data for bisphosphonates derived from a previous meta-analysis were used for all treatment options, and persistence data (up to 3 years) were obtained from a large Australian longitudinal study. Evaluation was done for high-risk women 60-80 years of age, with a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤ - 2.5 and/or prevalent vertebral fractures.

RESULTS

In all of the simulated populations, GR risedronate was cost-effective compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment at a threshold of €60,000 per QALY gained. In women with a BMD T-score ≤ - 2.5 and prevalent vertebral fractures, the cost per QALY gained of GR risedronate compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment falls below €20,000 per QALY gained. In women aged 75 years and older, GR risedronate was even shown to be dominant (more QALYs, less costs) compared to alendronate, generic risedronate, and no treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first economic results about GR risedronate, suggesting that it represents a cost-effective strategy compared with weekly alendronate and generic risedronate for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in France.

Pharmacology of bisphosphonates

The biological effects of the bisphosphonates (BPs) as inhibitors of calcification and bone resorption were first described in the late 1960s. In the 50 years that have elapsed since then, the BPs have become the leading drugs for the treatment of skeletal disorders characterized by increased bone resorption, including Paget's disease of bone, bone metastases, multiple myeloma, osteoporosis and several childhood inherited disorders. The discovery and development of the BPs as a major class of drugs for the treatment of bone diseases is a paradigm for the successful journey from "bench to bedside and back again". Several of the leading BPs achieved "blockbuster" status as branded drugs. However, these BPs have now come to the end of their patent life, making them highly affordable. The opportunity for new clinical applications for BPs also exists in other areas of medicine such as ageing, cardiovascular disease and radiation protection. Their use as inexpensive generic medicines is therefore likely to continue for many years to come. Fifty years of research into the pharmacology of bisphosphonates have led to a fairly good understanding about how these drugs work and how they can be used safely in patients with metabolic bone diseases. However, while we seemingly know much about these drugs, a number of key aspects related to BP distribution and action remain incompletely understood. This review summarizes the existing knowledge of the (pre)clinical and translational pharmacology of BPs, and highlights areas in which understanding is lacking.

Osteoporosis: A Review of Treatment Options

Approximately 10 million men and women in the U.S. have osteoporosis,1 a metabolic bone disease characterized by low bone density and deterioration of bone architecture that increase the risk of fractures.2 Osteoporosis-related fractures can increase pain, disability, nursing home placement, total health care costs, and mortality.3 The diagnosis of osteoporosis is primarily determined by measuring bone mineral density (BMD) using noninvasive dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis medications include bisphosphonates, receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand inhibitors, estrogen agonists/antagonists, parathyroid hormone analogues, and calcitonin.3-6 Emerging therapies utilizing novel mechanisms include a cathepsin K inhibitor and a monoclonal antibody against sclerostin.7,8 While professional organizations have compiled recommendations for the management of osteoporosis in various populations, a consensus has yet to develop as to which is the gold standard; therefore, economic evaluations have been increasingly important to help guide decision-makers. A review of cost-effectiveness literature on the efficacy of oral bisphosphonates has shown alendronate and risedronate to be most cost-effective in women with low BMD without previous fractures.9 Guidelines are inconsistent as to the place in therapy of denosumab (Prolia, Amgen). In economic analyses evaluating treatment of postmenopausal women, denosumab outperformed risedronate and ibandronate; its efficacy was comparable to generic alendronate, but it cost more.10 With regard to older men with osteoporosis, denosumab was also found to be cost-effective when compared with bisphosphonates and teriparatide (Forteo, Lilly).11.

Urban-rural differences in the uptake of new oral bisphosphonate formulations

We identified significantly slower uptake, and consistently lower proportions of new oral bisphosphonate formulations dispensed in rural regions compared to urban regions of Ontario. Further research examining regional differences in outcomes may provide insight as to whether urban-rural differences in prescribing translate into health disparities between regions.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine urban-rural differences in the uptake of new oral bisphosphonate formulations available on the Ontario drug formulary: alendronate + vitamin D3 (January 2007), monthly risedronate (June 2009), and risedronate delayed-release (February 2012).

METHODS

We plotted the monthly proportion of new formulation claims of all claims with the same drug molecule, from their formulary listing date until March 2014. Results were stratified by major urban, nonmajor urban, and rural regions as defined by the Rurality Index of Ontario. We compared the rate of uptake over the first year of formulary availability using linear regression, and compared proportions dispensed between regions using chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

We identified a regional gradient in uptake for alendronate + vitamin D3 and monthly risedronate; major urban regions had the fastest uptake, followed by nonmajor urban regions, and rural regions had the slowest uptake. Rural regions also had the slowest uptake of risedronate delayed-release; however, uptake in major urban and nonmajor urban regions were similar. Rural regions dispensed the lowest proportions for all new formulations 1 year after formulary availability: alendronate + vitamin D3 (32% major urban, 23% nonmajor urban, 12% rural), monthly risedronate (26% major urban, 21% nonmajor urban, 16% rural), and risedronate delayed-release (21% major urban, 22 % nonmajor urban, 13% rural). This pattern persisted throughout our study.

CONCLUSION

We identified significantly slower uptake and lower proportions of new formulations dispensed in rural regions compared to urban regions. Further research examining regional differences in outcomes may demonstrate whether urban-rural differences in prescribing translate into health disparities between regions.

Efficacy of zoledronic acid in treatment of osteoporosis in men and women-a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly and an important public health issue. Bisphosphonates are the primary treatment options for osteoporosis. The oral administration of bisphosphonates may result in poor patient compliance and thence reduced treatment efficacy. Intravenously administered bisphosphonates may therefore show better treatment efficacy. We have carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of zoledronic acid treatment for osteoporosis in both men and women with either vertebral or non-vertebral fracture.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials with zoledronic acid treatment for osteoporosis were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov. The risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (RR, 95% CI) was calculated to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid treatment on incidence of fracture. Data on changes in bone mineral density (BMD) following zoledronic acid (ZOL) treatment was also extracted. STATA software was used for all the statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Significant reduction in the incidence of both vertebral and nonvertebral fracture was observed following ZOL treatment, as seen from the values for RR with 95% CI (RR 0.24 and 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40 for vertebral fractures; RR 0.76 and 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86 for nonvertebral fractures). BMD was also seen to be increased after ZOL treatment.

CONCLUSION

Ourmeta-analysis showed that zoledronic acid was effective in reducing the incidence of vertebral fractures as well as nonvertebral fractures, including hip fractures. Significant increase in bone mineral density (BMD) was also observed in patients administered ZOL as compared to placebo.

Building healthy bones throughout life: an evidence-informed strategy to prevent osteoporosis in Australia

Osteoporosis imposes a tremendous burden on Australia: 1.2 million Australians have osteoporosis and 6.3 million have osteopenia. In the 2007–08 financial year, 82 000 Australians suffered fragility fractures, of which > 17 000 were hip fractures. In the 2000–01 financial year, direct costs were estimated at $1.9 billion per year and an additional $5.6 billion on indirect costs. Osteoporosis was designated a National Health Priority Area in 2002; however, implementation of national plans has not yet matched the rhetoric in terms of urgency. Building healthy bones throughout life, the Osteoporosis Australia strategy to prevent osteoporosis throughout the life cycle, presents an evidence-informed set of recommendations for consumers, health care professionals and policymakers. The strategy was adopted by consensus at the Osteoporosis Australia Summit in Sydney, 20 October 2011. Primary objectives throughout the life cycle are: to maximise peak bone mass during childhood and adolescence to prevent premature bone loss and improve or maintain muscle mass, strength and functional capacity in healthy adults to prevent and treat osteoporosis in order to minimise the risk of suffering fragility fractures, and reduce falls risk, in older people. The recommendations focus on three affordable and important interventions — to ensure people have adequate calcium intake, vitamin D levels and appropriate physical activity throughout their lives. Recommendations relevant to all stages of life include: daily dietary calcium intakes should be consistent with Australian and New Zealand guidelines serum levels of vitamin D in the general population should be above 50nmol/L in winter or early spring for optimal bone health regular weight-bearing physical activity, muscle strengthening exercises and challenging balance/mobility activities should be conducted in a safe environment.

Bone safety with risedronate: histomorphometric studies at different dose levels and exposure

This report describes bone safety and histomorphometric data across different dose levels and dosing frequencies of risedronate. Normal bone structure and histomorphometric data were observed, with ongoing bone remodeling and mineralization regardless of dose. These data are reassuring and do not suggest compromised bone remodeling during treatment with established risedronate regimens.

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and bone safety of risedronate 5 mg daily were established in pivotal phase III randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Histomorphometric analysis of paired biopsies demonstrated bone safety as reflected by presence of fluorescent tetracycline double-labels in all evaluable biopsies. This report describes bone safety and histomorphometric data across studies of various dose regimens of risedronate.

METHODS

Bridging studies, with bone mineral density as the primary endpoint, demonstrated non-inferiority of risedronate 35 mg and 50 mg once a week, risedronate 150 mg once a month, and a risedronate 75-mg dose on two consecutive days a month versus risedronate 5 mg daily. The low oral bioavailability and known dosing limitations due to food interactions of bisphosphonates have led to development of an oral delayed-release dose form of risedronate 35 mg to be taken weekly, before or after breakfast. Bone biopsies were collected at 24 months in studies involving these risedronate dosing regimens; bone safety and histomorphometric data were evaluated.

RESULTS

Qualitative bone histology showed normal mineralization of newly formed bone without evidence of pathological findings, such as osteomalacia, bone marrow dyscrasia, or bone marrow fibrosis. Importantly, ongoing bone remodeling, based on fluorochrome labeling, was observed in all patients regardless of dose and exposure. Key histomorphometric variables were comparable to those observed with the risedronate 5 mg daily dose and were within the range seen in healthy pre- and post-menopausal women.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results are reassuring with respect to bone safety and histomorphometric data, and do not suggest oversuppression of bone remodeling during treatment with these established risedronate regimens.

Eliminating the need for fasting with oral administration of bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates are the major treatment of choice for osteoporosis, given that they are attached preferentially by bone and significantly reduce the risk of fractures. Oral bisphosphonates are poorly absorbed (usually less than 1% for nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates) and when taken with food or beverages create complexes that cannot be absorbed. For this reason, they must be taken on an empty stomach, and a period of up to 2 hours must elapse before the consumption of any food or drink other than plain water. This routine is not only inconvenient but can lead to discontinuation of treatment, and when mistakenly taken with food, may result in misdiagnosis of resistance to or failure of treatment. The development of an enteric-coated delayed-release formulation of risedronate with the addition of the calcium chelator, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), a widely used food stabilizer, eliminates the need for fasting without affecting the bioavailability of risedronate or its efficacy.

Osteoporosis update from the 2012 Santa Fe Bone Symposium

The core of the 2012 Santa Fe Bone Symposium consisted of plenary presentations on new developments in the fields of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, with a focus on current and future implications for patient care. These were complemented by oral abstracts, interactive discussions of challenging cases, a debate on benefits and risks of long-term bisphosphonate therapy, and a panel discussion of controversial issues in the management of osteoporosis. Other topics included a review of the most important scientific publications in the past year, new and emerging therapy for osteoporosis, the benefits and limitations of clinical practice guidelines in the care of individual patients, the effects of metallic elements on skeletal health, clinical applications of bone turnover markers, an engineering perspective of skeletal health and disease, and an update on the role of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry in education, certification, accreditation, and advocacy for high-quality bone density testing. The symposium was highlighted by an inaugural presentation of "2 Million 2 Many," a national campaign of the National Bone Health Alliance to increase awareness of osteoporosis.

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.

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.