Long-term fracture rates seen with continued ibandronate treatment: pooled analysis of DIVA and MOBILE long-term extension studies

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.

Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures: currently available pharmacological options and future directions

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. The average lifetime risk of a 50-year-old woman to suffer a fracture of the spine, hip, proximal humerus, or distal forearm has been estimated at close to 50%. In general, pharmacological treatment is recommended in patients who suffered a fragility fracture because their risk of suffering a subsequent fracture is increased dramatically. Therefore, many guidelines recommend pharmacological treatment in patients without a prevalent fracture if their fracture probability is comparable to or higher than that of a person of the same age with a prevalent fracture. The present review aims to highlight currently available pharmacological treatment options and their antifracture efficacy including safety aspects. Drug classes discussed comprise bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone peptides and derivatives, humanized monoclonal antibodies, and estrogens and gestagens and their combinations. Furthermore, a brief glimpse is provided into a potentially promising treatment option that involves mesenchymal stem cells.

Cardiovascular Safety and Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates: From Intervention Trials to Real-Life Data

Both osteoporosis with related fragility fractures and cardiovascular diseases are rapidly outspreading worldwide. Since they are often coexistent in elderly patients and may be related to possible common pathogenetic mechanisms, the possible reciprocal effects of drugs employed to treat these diseases have to be considered in clinical practice. Bisphosphonates, the agents most largely employed to decrease bone fragility, have been shown to be overall safe with respect to cardiovascular diseases and even capable of reducing cardiovascular morbidity in some settings, as mainly shown by real life studies. No randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints are available. While contradictory results have emerged about a possible BSP-mediated reduction of overall mortality, it is undeniable that these drugs can be employed safely in patients with high fracture risk, since no increased mortality has ever been demonstrated. Although partial reassurance has emerged from meta-analysis assessing the risk of cardiac arrhythmias during bisphosphonates treatment, caution is warranted in administering this class of drugs to patients at risk for atrial fibrillation, possibly preferring other antiresorptives or anabolics, according to osteoporosis guidelines. This paper focuses on the complex relationship between bisphosphonates use and cardiovascular disease and possible co-management issues.

The treatment gap: The missed opportunities for osteoporosis therapy

Despite substantial advances in delineation of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk assessment and treatment of osteoporosis over the last three decades, a substantial proportion of men and women at high risk of fracture remain untreated - the so-called "treatment gap". This review summarises the important patient-, physician- and policyrelated causes of this treatment gap, before discussing in greater detail: (a) the evidence base for the efficacy of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis; (b) recent evidence relating to the adverse effects of this widely used therapeutic class, most notably atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw; (c) available strategies to improve both secondary and primary prevention pathways for the management of this disorder.

Effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections in a real-world setting: Subgroup analysis of a postmarketing observational study

OBJECTIVES

The favorable safety and consistent effectiveness of monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate injections was demonstrated in a prospective, postmarketing, observational study in Japanese patients with osteoporosis. Here, we present subgroup analyses from the study.

METHODS

Lumbar spine (L2-4) bone mineral density (BMD) gains were assessed in the following subgroups: aged <75 or ≥75 years, absence or presence of vertebral fractures, previous bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, and concomitant versus naïve osteoporosis drug treatment. The cumulative incidence of fractures and relative change in bone turnover markers were also examined.

RESULTS

Of 1062 enrolled patients, 1025 received monthly IV ibandronate 1 mg and were assessed for 12 months. BMD gains with ibandronate were comparable, irrespective of older age or prevalent fractures. Overall, 515 patients (50.2%) had previously received osteoporosis treatment; of these, 166 (16.1%) received other BPs. Mean BMD changes were 3.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89%-6.50%) in patients previously treated with other BPs, and 4.26% (95% CI, 2.88%-5.64%) in patients who had not received prior osteoporosis treatment. Among the 510 patients (49.7%) concomitantly prescribed active vitamin D drugs, mean BMD changes were 5.74% (95% CI, 2.53%-8.95%) with eldecalcitol versus 3.54% (95% CI, 1.98%-5.10%) with ibandronate alone. The lowest fracture incidence was observed with the combination of ibandronate and eldecalcitol, but differences between the subgroups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Monthly IV ibandronate demonstrated comparable BMD gains in the patient subgroups analyzed. Concomitant use of ibandronate with eldecalcitol showed a trend of higher BMD gains and lower fracture incidence than ibandronate alone.

European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were updated.

RESULTS

The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis: Assessment and management

Osteoporosis increases the risk of fractures, which are associated with increased mortality and lower quality of life. Patients with prevalent fracture are at high risk to of sustaining another one. Optimal protein and calcium intakes, and vitamin D supplies, together with regular weight bearing physical exercise are the corner stones of fracture prevention. Evidence for anti-fracture efficacy of pharmacological interventions relies on results from randomised controlled trials in postmenopausal women with fractures as the primary outcome. Treatments with bone resorption inhibitors, like bisphosphonates or denosumab, and bone formation stimulator like teriparatide, reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk. A reduction in vertebral fracture risk can already be detected within a year after starting therapy.

Monthly oral ibandronate 100 mg is as effective as monthly intravenous ibandronate 1 mg in patients with various pathologies in the MOVEST study

The non-inferiority of oral ibandronate 100 mg to intravenous (i.v.) ibandronate 1 mg in increasing lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months of treatment was demonstrated in the randomized, phase III MOVEST study. We conducted subgroup analyses in the per-protocol set of the study (n = 183 oral ibandronate; n = 189 i.v. ibandronate). In patients with LS BMD T score ≥ -3.0 or < -3.0 at screening, LS BMD gains from baseline were 4.42 and 5.79%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 4.60 and 5.83%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. LS BMD gains in patients with or without prevalent vertebral fractures were 5.21 and 5.23%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 5.01 and 5.49%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. In patients aged <75 or ≥75 years, LS BMD gains were 5.46 and 4.51%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 5.25 and 5.77%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. LS BMD gains in patients with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥20 or <20 ng/mL were 5.35 and 4.76%, respectively, with oral ibandronate, and 5.05 and 6.57%, respectively, with i.v. ibandronate. Similar results were obtained in patients with or without prior bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, and in those receiving osteoporosis drug treatment other than BPs. In conclusion, oral ibandronate 100 mg demonstrated comparable BMD gains with monthly i.v. ibandronate, and thus shows high utility in the lifestyle and disease conditions associated with osteoporosis in Japanese patients.

Safety and effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections in a prospective, postmarketing, and observational study in Japanese patients with osteoporosis

OBJECTIVES

This postmarketing, observational study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Eligible patients received monthly IV ibandronate 1 mg for 12 months. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were evaluated. Changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTMs) were assessed using matched t-test analysis. Cumulative fracture rates were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methodology.

RESULTS

In total, 1062 patients were enrolled, of whom 1025 (n = 887 women, n = 138 men) were treated. Mean patient age was 77 years. Seventy-five ADRs were reported in 54 patients (5.26%). Four patients (0.39%) experienced serious ADRs, including one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Acute-phase reactions occurred in 21 patients (2.04%), and half of them arose after the first ibandronate injection. No new safety concerns were identified. Significant increases in BMD at 12 months relative to baseline were observed at the lumbar spine (4.84%, n = 187; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.47%-6.21%), femoral neck (2.73%, n = 166; 95% CI, 1.46%-4.01%), and total hip (1.93%, n = 133; 95% CI, 0.80%-3.07%). Significant reductions were observed in all BTMs at 12 months (n = 174 in tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b, n = 101 in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide at baseline). The cumulative incidence of nontraumatic, new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures was 3.16% (95% CI, 2.12%-4.70%). Analyses in women only showed similar results to the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm the favorable safety and consistent effectiveness of ibandronate, and indicate that monthly IV ibandronate would be beneficial in daily practice for the treatment of Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

Favorable therapeutic response of osteoporosis patients to treatment with intravenous zoledronate compared with oral alendronate

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy of orally-administered alendronate compared with intravenously-administered zoledronate.

Methods:

This prospective study was carried out at Barts Health HNS Trust between April 2010 and March 2012. This study compares changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in 234 patients treated with 2 bisphosphonates: alendronate taken orally, and zoledronate administered intravenously. One hundred and eighteen patients received alendronate at 70 mg/week, while 116 patients received zoledronate once annually. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD of the left hip and anterior-posterior spine (lumbar L1-L4) skeletal sites at baseline, and at one-, and 2-years post-treatment.

Results:

This study provides evidence that lumbar spine BMD increased by 3.6% in patients receiving alendronate, and 5.7% in patients receiving zoledronate after 2 years compared with baseline values (p=0.0001 for both). Total hip BMD decreased in patients treated with alendronate by 0.4% but increased in patients receiving zoledronate by 0.8% (p=0.0001).

Conclusion:

This study provides evidence that zoledronate is more effective than alendronate in treating patients with osteoporosis and with no gastrointestinal (GI) serious side effects. Furthermore, zoledronate appears to have the added advantage of a better safety profile in patients suffering from GI intolerance of oral bisphosphonates.

Higher response with bone mineral density increase with monthly injectable ibandronate 1 mg compared with oral risedronate in the MOVER study

We examined response to bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the MOVER study following treatment with intravenous (IV) ibandronate 1 mg/month, and investigated the characteristics of a non-responder group. At 1 year, responder rates for patients with BMD increases >0 % were similar with IV ibandronate 0.5 or 1 mg/month and oral risedronate 2.5 mg/day. However, after 3 years, responder rates with BMD increases ≥3 % were highest with ibandronate 1 mg at all bone sites (>80 % at the lumbar spine [L2-L4] and >50 % at all femur sites, which was significantly higher than with risedronate). Non-responders were defined by BMD increases ≤3 % at L2-L4 or ≤0 % at total hip, and ≤50 % reduction in creatinine-corrected urinary collagen type 1 cross-linked C-telopeptide (uCTX) from baseline to 1 year. There were a small number of non-responders in the ibandronate 1 mg group: 3.3 % (10/299) with ≤0 % total hip BMD increase and ≤50 % uCTX reduction from baseline. These non-responders had lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels than responders, but no differences in kidney function, L2-L4 BMD or bone turnover marker baseline values. Throughout the study, non-responders failed to show any increases in BMD. Our analysis demonstrates significantly higher responder rates with IV ibandronate 1 mg/month than with risedronate at 3 years. A small number of non-responders in the ibandronate group had lower 25(OH)D baseline levels than responders, suggesting that 25(OH)D levels could be a useful indicator of BMD response to therapy.

Predictors of Ibandronate Efficacy for the Management of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Regression Analysis

Background

Aim of the present study was to identify the predictors of ibandronate efficacy in subjects with osteoporosis or decreased bone mineral density (BMD).

Method

Several electronic databases were searched by using specific keywords for the acquisition of research articles reporting the efficacy of ibandronate in subjects with osteoporosis or decreased BMD. Metaregression analyses were carried out by using changes in the BMD of lumbar spine and total hip following ibandronate treatment as dependent (outcome) variables against several independent (explanatory) variables.

Results

Data were extracted from 34 studies (11,090 ibandronate treated subjects) which fulfilled eligibility criteria. A history of previous fracture/s was reported by 46% of these subjects. In overall population, longer treatment duration from 1 to 5 years, increasing age, history of previous fractures, lower baseline T score, and higher baseline levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) predicted higher ibandronate efficacy in improving BMD of the lumbar spine as well as of the total hip. Lower baseline levels of vitamin D and higher baseline levels of bone specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) predicted higher efficacy of ibandronate for lumbar spine only. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or decreased BMD, in addition to above-mentioned predictors, better efficacy of ibandronate was also associated with increasing time since menopause for both lumbar spine and total hip and lower body weight for lumbar spine only.

Conclusion

Longer treatment duration from 1 to 5 years, increasing age, lower baseline T scores, and higher serum CTX levels are identified as the predictors of better efficacy of ibandronate in the study subjects with osteoporosis or decreased BMD.

Managing Osteoporosis in Patients on Long-Term Bisphosphonate Treatment: Report of a Task Force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are the most commonly used medications for osteoporosis. This ASBMR report provides guidance on BP therapy duration with a risk-benefit perspective. Two trials provided evidence for long-term BP use. In the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (FLEX), postmenopausal women receiving alendronate for 10 years had fewer clinical vertebral fractures than those switched to placebo after 5 years. In the HORIZON extension, women who received 6 annual infusions of zoledronic acid had fewer morphometric vertebral fractures compared with those switched to placebo after 3 years. Low hip T-score, between -2 and -2.5 in FLEX and below -2.5 in HORIZON extension, predicted a beneficial response to continued therapy. Hence, the Task Force suggests that after 5 years of oral BP or 3 years of intravenous BP, reassessment of risk should be considered. In women at high risk, for example, older women, those with a low hip T-score or high fracture risk score, those with previous major osteoporotic fracture, or who fracture on therapy, continuation of treatment for up to 10 years (oral) or 6 years (intravenous), with periodic evaluation, should be considered. The risk of atypical femoral fracture, but not osteonecrosis of the jaw, clearly increases with BP therapy duration, but such rare events are outweighed by vertebral fracture risk reduction in high-risk patients. For women not at high fracture risk after 3 to 5 years of BP treatment, a drug holiday of 2 to 3 years can be considered. The suggested approach for long-term BP use is based on limited evidence, only for vertebral fracture reduction, in mostly white postmenopausal women, and does not replace the need for clinical judgment. It may be applicable to men and patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, with some adaptations. It is unlikely that future trials will provide data for formulating definitive recommendations. © 2015 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Clinical efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate 100 mg versus monthly intravenous ibandronate 1 mg in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis

The MOVEST study evaluated the efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate versus licensed monthly IV ibandronate in Japanese osteoporotic patients. Relative BMD gains after 12 months were 5.22 % oral and 5.34 % IV, showing non-inferiority of oral to IV ibandronate (primary endpoint). No new safety concerns were identified.

INTRODUCTION

The randomized, phase 3, double-blind MOVEST (Monthly Oral VErsus intravenouS ibandronaTe) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate versus the licensed monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate regimen in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Ambulatory patients aged ≥ 55 years with primary osteoporosis were randomized to receive oral ibandronate 100 mg/month plus monthly IV placebo, or IV ibandronate 1 mg/month plus monthly oral placebo. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of oral versus IV ibandronate with respect to bone mineral density (BMD) gains at the lumbar spine after 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled with 372 patients in the per-protocol set (183 and 189 in the oral and IV ibandronate groups, respectively). The relative change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD values for the oral and IV ibandronate groups, respectively, was 5.22 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.65, 5.80) and 5.34 % (95 % CI 4.78, 5.90). The least squares mean difference between the two groups was -0.23 % (95 % CI -0.97, 0.51), showing non-inferiority of oral ibandronate to IV ibandronate (non-inferiority limit = -1.60). Changes in BMD values at other sites, and bone turnover marker levels in the oral ibandronate group, were comparable with those of the IV group. The safety profile was similar to that previously demonstrated; no new safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of oral ibandronate 100 mg/month to IV ibandronate 1 mg/month (licensed dose in Japan) in increasing lumbar spine BMD in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis.

Dose-Effectiveness Relationships Determining the Efficacy of Ibandronate for Management of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on the efficacy of ibandronate by evaluating the effect sizes of different dosing regimens.Major electronic databases were searched from 1985 to February 2015. A random effects meta-analysis was performed in STATA.Data from 34 studies (13,639 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Ibandronate treatment significantly improved lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) as shown by the percent change from baseline (4.80%, P < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [4.14, 5.45]). The respective effect sizes for oral intake and intravenous (IV) infusion were 4.57% and 5.22% (P < 0.0001, CIs [3.71, 5.42] and [4.37, 6.07]), respectively. All doses led to a significant increase in BMD except 2 oral dose regimens (1 mg/d: 4.65%, P = 0.285, 95% CI [-3.87, 13.18] and 0.5 mg/d: 3.60%, P = 0.38, 95% CI [-4.43, 11.64]. Ibandronate treatment (overall as well as dose wise) also significantly improved the total hip BMD-2.30% overall, 2.13% oral, and 2.63% IV (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [1.96, 2.64], [1.70, 2.55], and [2.07, 3.20]), respectively. Ibandronate administration significantly decreased serum markers of bone resorption to -46.53% for C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen, -24.03% for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and -50.17% for procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [-53.16, -39.91], [-31.28, -16.77], and [-64.13, -36.20]), respectively. Parathyroid hormone levels remained unaffected by ibandronate treatment (3.03%, P = 0.439, 95% CI [-5.06, 11.66]).There was no significant difference in the efficacy of ibandronate between oral or IV administration. Predominant dose regimens for IV administration were 1 to 3 mg/3 mo and 150 mg/mo oral and 2.5 mg/d for oral ibandronate treatment.

Efficacy and safety of currently marketed anti-osteoporosis medications

During the past 2 decades, many interventions were proven effective in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The objective of an anti-osteoporosis treatment is to reduce fracture rates, ideally at all skeletal sites (i.e. spine, hip, and other non-spine). The armamentarium against osteoporosis includes anti-resorptive agents (i.e. bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators and denosumab), bone-forming agents (i.e. peptides from the parathyroid hormone family) and one agent with a dual mechanism of action (i.e. strontium ranelate). All these medications combine antifracture efficacy with a reasonable benefit/risk profile. However, the choice of a particular chemical entity, in one individual patient is based on the knowledge and expertise of the physician. Prioritization of drugs should be based on the individual profile of the patient, the severity of osteoporosis and the specific contraindications, warnings and precautions of use of the various available medications.

Increased bone mineral density with monthly intravenous ibandronate contributes to fracture risk reduction in patients with primary osteoporosis: three-year analysis of the MOVER study

The relationship between gains in bone mineral density (BMD) in the hip and the incidence of vertebral fractures in the MOVER study was examined. Japanese patients from the ibandronate and risedronate treatment groups whose hip BMD had increased during the 3-year treatment period were classified into those with or without vertebral fractures. In both the ibandronate group and the risedronate group, hip BMD gains in the patients who had developed no vertebral fractures during the treatment period were greater than in the patients who developed vertebral fractures. We categorized the gains in hip BMD at 6 months into 3 groups (≤0, >0 to ≤3, and >3%), and used logistic regression analysis to estimate odds ratios and the probabilities of incidence of vertebral fractures at 12, 24, and 36 months. The current study demonstrated that greater gains in hip BMD during the first 6 months of treatment were associated with a reduction in the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures during the duration of treatment, and suggested that measurement of hip BMD gain at that time could lead to a prediction of the risk of the future vertebral fracture incidence.