Comparison of the efficacy between once-monthly oral ibandronate and risedronate among Korean women with osteoporosis: a nationwide population-based study

The effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world evidence has been published evaluating the anti-nonvertebral fracture effect of ibandronate.

AIM

This meta-analysis of observational studies assessed the effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis.

METHOD

Pubmed/Embase databases were searched for observational studies. Risks of nonvertebral fractures and hip fractures were the outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed pooling rate ratios (RRs), using random-effects models. Data were reanalysed in sensitivity analyses considering Knapp-Hartung method and Bayesian random-effects.

RESULTS

Six cohort studies were included. Overall, once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate reduced the risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Similar results were obtained when the comparison was restricted to once-monthly 150 mg risedronate, but no differences were found when the comparator was other oral bisphosphonates (weekly alendronate/risedronate). Ibandronate didn't significantly change the risk of hip fractures (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89-1.76). The risk of hip fracture was comparable between once monthly, 150 mg oral ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. Intravenous ibandronate was not effective in reducing hip fractures comparing to intravenous zoledronate. The low number of studies diminished the robustness of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate may be as effective as other oral bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures. However, uncertainty associated to the small number of included studies, which are characterized by heterogeneous demographics and methodologies, precluded definitive conclusions.

Effect of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis on Treatment of Osteoporosis: Comparison of Three Oral Bisphosphonate Therapies

(1) Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causes uncomfortable neuropathic symptoms, which can negatively affect osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of LSS on bone mineral density (BMD) in patients treated with one of three oral bisphosphonates (ibandronate, alendronate and risedronate) for initially diagnosed osteoporosis. (2) Methods: We included 346 patients treated with oral bisphosphonates for three years. We compared annual BMD T-scores and BMD increases between the two groups according to symptomatic LSS. The therapeutic efficacies of the three oral bisphosphonates in each group were also evaluated. (3) Results: Annual and total increases in BMD were significantly greater in group I (osteoporosis) compared to group II (osteoporosis + LSS). The total increase in BMD for three years was significantly greater in the ibandronate and alendronate subgroups than that in the risedronate subgroup (0.49 vs. 0.45 vs. 0.25, p < 0.001). Ibandronate showed a significantly greater increase in BMD than that of risedronate in group II (0.36 vs. 0.13, p = 0.018). (4) Conclusions: Symptomatic LSS may interfere with the increase in BMD. Ibandronate and alendronate were more effective in treating osteoporosis than risedronate. In particular, ibandronate was more effective than risedronate in patients with both osteoporosis and LSS.

Ibandronate in the Prevention of Vertebral and Nonvertebral Osteoporotic Fractures: A Systematic Review of Experimental and Observational Studies

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's guidance and reporting in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement 2020. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE since their inception until February 7, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, experimental, and observational studies evaluating adult patients treated with ibandronate and assessed to osteoporotic fractures prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed according to study design. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Eight references from 4 RCTs, 7 meta-analyses, and 6 observational studies were included. In RCTs, oral ibandronate was superior to placebo in the prevention of VF. However, the doses were lower than those approved. The meta-analyses confirmed these results and showed that adequate doses of oral ibandronate reduce the risk of NVF compared with insufficient doses. In observational studies, oral ibandronate (in approved doses) reduced the risk of VF compared with no treatment or risedronate or alendronate and the risk of NVF versus risedronate or alendronate; the risk of hip fractures was similar between ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence that ibandronate reduces the risk of VF in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available evidence further suggests that ibandronate may reduce the risk of NVF versus insufficient doses of ibandronate, as well as risedronate or alendronate.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Ibandronate versus Intravenous Zoledronic Acid on Bone Metabolism and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Japanese Women with Osteoporosis

There are no published clinical reports comparing ibandronate (IBN) treatment and zoledronic acid (ZOL) treatment in Japanese postmenopausal osteoporotic patients. This investigation therefore compared the efficacy and safety of the drugs on improving bone metabolism and bone mineral density (BMD) in Japanese postmenopausal women with primary osteoporosis. Eighty-two treatment-naïve primary osteoporotic female patients were randomly divided into IBN-treated or ZOL-treated groups. Bone turnover markers and BMD were examined immediately prior to treatment (baseline) and at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months of therapy. Compared with baseline levels, the values of type 1 procollagen N-terminal propeptide, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP), urinary type-I collagen amino-terminal telopeptide (NTX), and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b were all significantly decreased at every time point in both groups apart from BAP at 30 months in the ZOL group, urinary NTX at 12 months in the ZOL group and at 24 and 30 months in both groups. Lumbar BMD values were significantly increased at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months in the IBN group and at 6 and 12 months in the ZOL group compared with pre-treatment levels. Hip BMD values were also significantly increased at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months in the IBN group and at 6, 12, and 18 months in the ZOL group compared with baseline values. The percentage changes of hip BMD at 18 and 24 months in the ZOL group were significantly higher than those in the IBN group (both p < 0.05). No remarkable adverse events were noted in either group. In conclusion, both IBN and ZOL significantly and safely improved bone turnover markers and BMD during 30 months of treatment in Japanese osteoporosis patients. The ZOL group tended to exhibit greater gains in BMD as compared with the IBN group, which merits further investigation.

Anti-fracture Efficacy of Monthly Risedronate Compared with That of Weekly Risedronate in Postmenopausal Korean Women with Osteoporosis: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

Intermittent dosing regimens for oral risedronate (once-monthly and once-weekly) were developed for patient convenience. While several studies have reported the anti-fracture efficacy of weekly dosing, few have assessed monthly dosing. The lower efficacy of monthly dosing has been previously suggested. The aim of this study was to compare the anti-fracture efficacy of monthly and weekly dosing.

Methods

We obtained information from the Korea National Health Insurance Service database from 2012 to 2017 of Korean women of ≥50 years of age who used weekly or monthly risedronate. We compared the time of occurrence of the first osteoporotic fracture after the first prescription of risedronate. Using a Cox proportional model, we assessed incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fractures at any site, and the hip, vertebral, and non-vertebral sites between both regimens. Propensity score weighting was used to balance the treatment groups.

Results

The study populations were distributed according to dosing frequency (monthly, 27,329; weekly, 47,652). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of new fractures in any site (IRR, 1.008; 95% CI,0.963–1.055; P=0.737), hip (IRR, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.769–1.298; P=0.996), vertebral (IRR, 0.962; 95% CI, 0.890–1.040; P=0.330), or non-vertebral (1.022; 95% CI, 0.968–1.078; P=0.439) sites between monthly and weekly risedronate.

Conclusion

The anti-fracture efficacy at any site and the examined individual sites was similar for the monthly and weekly risedronate regimens. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are required for confirmation.