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

Biochemical, clinical and genetic characteristics in adults with persistent hypophosphatasaemia; Data from an endocrinological outpatient clinic in Denmark

Background

Hypophosphatasia (HPP) is an inborn disease caused by pathogenic variants in ALPL. Low levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) are a biochemical hallmark of the disease. Scarce knowledge about the prevalence of HPP in Scandinavia exists, and the variable clinical presentations make diagnostics challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of ALPL variants as well as the clinical and biochemical features among adults with endocrinological diagnoses and persistent hypophosphatasaemia.

Methods

A biochemical database containing ALP measurements of 26,121 individuals was reviewed to identify adults above 18 years of age with persistently low levels of ALP beneath range (≤ 35 ± 2.7 U/L). ALPL genetic testing, biochemical evaluations and assessment of clinical features by a systematic questionnaire among included patients, were performed.

Results

Among 24 participants, thirteen subjects (54.2%) revealed a disease-causing variant in ALPL and reported mild clinical features of HPP, of which musculoskeletal pain was the most frequently reported (n = 9). The variant c. 571G > A; p.(Glu191Lys) was identified in six subjects, and an unreported missense variant (c.1019A > C; p.(His340Pro)) as well as a deletion of exon 2 were detected by genetic screening. Biochemical analyses showed no significant differences in ALP (p = 0.059), the bone specific alkaline phosphatase (BALP) (p = 0.056) and pyridoxal-5′-phosphate (PLP) (p = 0.085) between patients with an ALPL variant and negative genetic screening. Patients with a variant in ALPL had significantly higher PLP levels than healthy controls (p = 0.002). We observed normal ALP activity in some patients classified as mild HPP, and slightly increased levels of PLP in two subjects with normal genetic screening and four healthy controls. Among 51 patients with persistent hypophosphatasaemia, fifteen subjects (29.4%) received antiresorptive treatment. Two patients with unrecognized HPP were treated with bisphosphonates and did not show complications due to the treatment.

Conclusions

Pathogenic variants in ALPL are common among patients with endocrinological diagnoses and low ALP. Regarding diagnostics, genetic testing is necessary to identify mild HPP due to fluctuating biochemical findings. Antiresorptive treatment is a frequent reason for hypophosphatasaemia and effects of these agents in adults with a variant in ALPL and osteoporosis remain unclear and require further studies.

•

Mild HPP is overlooked among adults with endocrinological diagnoses.

•

Biochemical hallmarks of HPP can fluctuate to normal among mild forms.

•

Genetic screening of ALPL including MLPA is necessary to identify mild HPP.

•

Musculoskeletal pain is the most common symptom in adult HPP.

•

Effects of bisphosphonates in mild HPP need further studies.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.

LIMITATIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

MicroRNA-155 inhibition up-regulates LEPR to inhibit osteoclast activation and bone resorption via activation of AMPK in alendronate-treated osteoporotic mice

Osteoporosis is characterized by a progressive increase in bone fragility, leading to low bone mass and structural deterioration of bone tissue. MicroRNA-155 (miR-155) is highly expressed in osteoporosis. Thus, the current study aimed to investigate the effect of miR-155 on the inhibition of osteoclast activation and bone resorption by targeting leptin receptor (LEPR) through the adenosine monophosphate activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway in alendronate-treated osteoporotic mice. An osteoporosis mouse model was established to examine the bone tension and bone density and the expression of miR-155 in osteoclasts. Binding sites between miR-155 and LEPR were verified. Osteoclasts in the treatment group were transfected with different mimic, inhibitor, vector, or siRNA for subsequent experiments. The expression of miR-155, LEPR, AMPK, p-AMPK, RANKL, OPG, M-CSF, RANK, TRAP, Bax, Bcl-2, and the contents of TNF-α and IL-1β were all examined. The proliferation and bone resorption of osteoclasts were also detected. Mice with osteoporosis exhibited decreased bone density and bone tension, along with elevated expression of miR-155. LEPR was verified as a target gene of miR-155. Down-regulated miR-155 was found to increase the expression of LEPR, AMPK, p-AMPK, OPG, Bax, decrease expression of TNF-α, IL-1β, RANKL, M-CSF, RANK, TRAP, Bcl-2, inhibit the cell proliferation and bone resorption of osteoclasts. Taken together, decreased miR-155 up-regulated LEPR via activation of AMPK, which ultimately repressed osteoclast activation and bone resorption of osteoclasts in alendronate-treated osteoporotic mice.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax^® and Fosamax^® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel^® and Actonel Once a Week^®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva^®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta^®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture^® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX^® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX.

LIMITATIONS

We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The effects of downhill and uphill exercise training on osteogenesis-related factors in ovariectomy-induced bone loss

PURPOSE

Recent evidence suggests that regular exercise training plays a decisive role in maintaining homeostasis and promoting muscle and skeletal formation. However, the effect of downhill exercise training on osteogenesis-related factors is not well understood.

METHODS

Thus, we investigated the effect of uphill and downhill training on ovariectomy (OVX)-induced bone loss. After ovary removal, the exercise method performed included uphill (16 m/min, +15°) and downhill training (16 m/min, -15°) for 60 min/day and 5 days/week, respectively, for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Our results showed that both uphill and downhill training significantly decreased the body weight, total cholesterol, and creatine kinase (CK) levels in the context of OVX-induced bone loss. On the contrary, levels of an osteogenesis indicator, osteocalcin and alkaline phosphatase were elevated. Consequently, the uphill and downhill training reduced OVX- induced bone loss in the distal femoral metaphysis. Likewise, the bone microstructure in OVX-induced bone loss was enhanced upon training. In particular, the inhibition of RANKL-induced osteoclast formation and osteoclast-specific gene expression improved upon downhill training compared to uphill training.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the uphill and downhill exercise types appeared to positively affect the expression of osteogenesis-related factors along with bone density and microstructure. Particularly, the downhill training has more beneficial effects on the maintenance of homeostasis during bone formation.

Clinical effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative efficacy of bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate and zoledronic acid) for the treatment of osteoporosis using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A network meta-analysis was used to determine the relative efficacy of treatments on four fracture outcomes (vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist) and percentage change in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Treatment effects were modelled using an exchangeable treatment effects model. Heterogeneity in treatment effects was explored by considering potential treatment effect modifiers using meta-regression. Where appropriate, inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was assessed using node-splitting.

RESULTS

46 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Twenty seven RCTs provided fracture data and 35 RCTs provided BMD data for analysis. Zoledronic acid was associated with the greatest treatment effect on vertebral fractures (HR 0.41, 95% CrI: 0.28, 0.56) and percentage change in BMD (3.21, 95%: CrI 2.52, 3.86) compared to placebo. The greatest treatment effect on non-vertebral and wrist fractures was given by risedronate (HR 0.72, 95%: CrI 0.53, 0.89 and HR 0.77, 95%: CrI 0.44, 1.24, respectively). For hip fractures the greatest treatment effect was given by alendronate (HR 0.78, 95% CrI: 0.44, 1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

All treatments examined were associated with beneficial effects on fractures and femoral neck BMD relative to placebo. For vertebral fractures and percentage change in femoral neck BMD the treatment effects were statistically significant for all treatments. Pairwise comparisons between treatments indicated that no active treatment was statistically significantly more effective than any other active treatment for fracture outcomes. There was some heterogeneity in treatment effects between studies suggesting differential treatment effects according to study characteristics; however, there was no evidence of differential treatment effects with respect to gender and age.

An old friend in a new light: the role of osteocalcin in energy metabolism

Accumulating evidence suggests interactions between bone and energy metabolism, which may affect the risk of cardiovascular disease. Recent animal studies indicate that osteocalcin (OC) plays a key role in the coordinated regulation of glucose and insulin metabolism while insulin receptors on osteoblasts may regulate bone turnover and circulating OC levels. Association studies, weight loss interventions, and observational data lend some support to the existence and relevance of these mechanisms in humans. However, corroborating evidence from pharmacologic interventions in either bone or glucose metabolism is limited by the number, design, and complex pharmacological effects of the drugs used. Furthermore, such clinical trials are complicated by the alteration of metabolic feedback mechanisms in the insulin resistant state. Purpose-designed studies are needed to further establish the existence and significance of the role of OC and its subfractions in human insulin metabolism. In this review we summarize existing animal evidence regarding the role of OC and its subfractions in bone and energy metabolism and assess current clinical trial evidence relating to the significance and consequences of this relationship in humans.

Biochemical effects of calcifediol supplementation in mild, asymptomatic, hyperparathyroidism with concomitant vitamin D deficiency

It has been proposed to cautiously supplement with vitamin D to any patient with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHTP) and a plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration <50 nmol/l. Evidence about the safeness of this intervention is limited to two studies. Our aim was to prospectively assess the biochemical effects of one-year 25(OH)D supplementation in this context. Twenty-seven patients were included in this study. Calcifediol was started at a dose of 480-960 IU/24 h (8-16 microg/24 h) and adjusted up to a maximum of 960 IU/24 h (16 microg/24 h). Basal calcium, phosphate, albumin, total alkaline phosphatase (ALP), creatinine, 24 h calcium urinary excretion, intact PTH (iPTH) and 25(OH)D were measured before and during vitamin D supplementation. The mean basal 25(OH)D was 28.7 +/- 8.0 nmol/l, and at 12 months was 71.5 +/- 32.5 nmol/l (P = 0.00 vs. baseline). After 3, 6 and 12 months iPTH levels were 141.7 +/- 108.4 ng/l (P = 0.00 vs. baseline), 131.1 +/- 95.7 ng/l (P = 0.03 vs. baseline) and 162.2 +/- 139.3 ng/l (P = ns vs. baseline). Mean calcium did not change. Mean urinary calcium excretion increased significantly (basal: 5.7 +/- 2.9 mmol/24 h, 12 months: 7.9 +/- 4.9 mmol/24 h, P = 0.02). Cautious calcifediol supplementation significantly increased mean 25(OH)D and temporarily reduced mean iPTH. It did not change mean serum calcium, but urinary calcium excretion increased significantly. We suggest that serum calcium and 24 h calciuria be measured at regular intervals in patients with PHTP, while on calcifediol supplementation.

Osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with use of risedronate: Report of 2 new cases

Use of various bisphosphonates has been associated with the development of osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJ). At least 865 cases of ONJ attributed to these agents have been reported in the English-language literature. Approximately 96% of these published cases were seen with administration of the intravenous agents pamidronate and zoledronate, whereas only 26 cases have been associated with oral bisphosphonates, 25 of them with alendronate. Only a single case of ONJ associated with the oral bisphosphonate risedronate has been previously cited. We report 2 cases of ONJ attributed to risedronate administration. The patients developed osteonecrosis 15 and 24 months after treatment for osteopenia. A regimen of antibiotics and chlorhexidine mouthrinse resolved the osseous defect in the mandible caused by complete exfoliation of a lingual torus in 1 patient. The other patient required sequestrectomy, repeated courses of antibiotics, surgical debridement, and steroids to promote closure of an oroantral fistula and management of sinusitis after bone grafting and implant placement in the posterior maxilla. A demographic profile of reported oral bisphosphonate users affected by ONJ is also provided. With the millions of patients receiving various oral bisphosphonates for osteopenia and osteoporosis, health care practitioners should be aware of the potential for the onset of osteonecrosis and familiar with its management.

Effects of alendronate and risedronate on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in late postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

This study was undertaken to compare the effects of alendronate and risedronate on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTMs) in late postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Thirty women older than 60 y of age were randomly assigned to receive alendronate 10 mg (n=16) or risedronate 5 mg (n=14) on a daily basis. The patients were followed every 3 mo for 12 mo. BMD measurements were taken at baseline and at the end of the study, and BTMs were measured at 3-mo intervals. By the end of the study, there were statistically significant increases in BMD in both groups at all sites at which they were measured (P<.001). However, these differences were not statistically significant between groups. By the end of the study, all BTMs had decreased significantly and to a similar extent in both groups. The most significant change was observed in the third month of the study. A negative correlation was noted between percentage change in bonespecific alkaline phosphatase and femoral neck BMD (r=-0.467). This study reported no difference between the 2 drugs in their effects on BMD and BTMs.

Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management of osteoporosis

Fractures that occur as a result of osteoporosis are associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. A treatment regimen consisting of both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions can be used to decrease the risk of fracture. Nonpharmacologic interventions include calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercise, muscle strengthening, and fall prevention. Pharmacologic options include: the bisphosphonates, estrogen therapy, raloxifene, salmon calcitonin, and the anabolic agent teriparatide. Although bone mineral density is used clinically to diagnose osteoporosis, it is of limited value when evaluating pharmacologic treatment; the primary indicator of treatment efficacy is fracture risk reduction. The bisphosphonates are the preferred therapy for osteoporosis. Studies have demonstrated that in postmenopausal women, both risedronate and alendronate are associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk. The newest approved bisphosphonate, ibandronate, reduces vertebral fracture risk. Studies also support a reduction in fracture risk when alendronate and risedronate are used in men with osteoporosis and patients with corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. When used appropriately, the bisphosphonates are well tolerated. Estrogen and raloxifene decrease fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis but are associated with thromboembolic events. Use of estrogen therapy is also limited by concerns about the safety of this type of therapy. Although the anabolic agent teriparatide is associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, its use has been limited by the necessity of subcutaneous administration and its cost relative to other agents. Regardless of which treatment regimen is selected, health care providers need to emphasize the importance of compliance and adherence to improve persistence with therapy, and subsequent fracture reduction efficacy.