Comparison of the analgesic effects of bisphosphonates: etidronate, alendronate and risedronate by electroalgometry utilizing the fall of skin impedance

Etidronate 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. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

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.

Release of Nitrogen-Containing Bisphosphonates (NBPs) from Hydroxyapatite by Non-NBPs and by Pyrophosphate

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are major anti-bone-resorptive drugs. Among them, the nitrogen-containing BPs (NBPs) exhibit much stronger anti-bone-resorptive activities than non-nitrogen-containing BPs (non-NBPs). However, BP-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) has been increasing without effective strategies for its prevention or treatment. The release of NBPs (but not non-NBPs) from NBP-accumulated jawbones has been supposed to cause BRONJ, even though non-NBPs (such as etidronate (Eti) and clodronate (Clo)) are given at very high doses because of their low anti-bone-resorptive activities. Our murine experiments have demonstrated that NBPs cause inflammation/necrosis at the injection site, and that Eti and Clo can reduce or prevent the inflammatory/necrotic effects of NBPs by inhibiting their entry into soft-tissue cells. In addition, our preliminary clinical studies suggest that Eti may be useful for treating BRONJ. Notably, Eti, when administered together with an NBP, reduces the latter's anti-bone-resorptive effect. Here, on the basis of the above background, we examined and compared in vitro interactions of NBPs, non-NBPs, and related substances with hydroxyapatite (HA), and obtained the following results. (i) NBPs bind rapidly to HA under pH-neutral conditions. (ii) At high concentrations, Eti and Clo inhibit NBP-binding to HA and rapidly expel HA-bound NBPs (potency Eti>>Clo). (iii) Pyrophosphate also inhibits NBP-binding to HA and expels HA-bound NBPs. Based on these results and those reported previously, we discuss (i) possible anti-BRONJ strategies involving the use of Eti and/or Clo to reduce jawbone-accumulated NBPs, and (ii) a possible involvement of pyrophosphate-mediated release of NBPs as a cause of BRONJ.

High bone turnover state under osteoporotic changes induces pain-like behaviors in mild osteoarthritis model mice

INTRODUCTION

Our previous studies demonstrated that a high bone turnover state under osteoporotic changes decreased the threshold of skeletal pain. Recent studies reported that the incidence of joint pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) in postmenopausal women was higher than that in males even with the same radiographic OA grade. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a high bone turnover state affects the induction of pain-like behaviors in mild OA model mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We established mild OA model mice with accompanying osteoporotic changes by monosodium iodoacetate injection after ovariectomy. We assessed pain-like behaviors by von Frey test and paw-flick test; histological changes in OA joints; the expression of Runx2, Osterix, Osteocalcin, and Rankl; bone micro-architecture by μCT and measured serum tartrate-resistant acid-phosphatase 5b levels in the model mice.

RESULTS

Pain-like behaviors in mice with OA and osteoporotic changes were significantly increased in comparison with those in OA mice without osteoporotic changes. The severity of histological OA changes did not differ significantly between the OA mice with and without osteoporotic changes. Bisphosphonate significantly improved pain-like behaviors accompanied with improvement in the high bone turnover state in the OA mice with osteoporosis, while it had no significant effect on pain-like behaviors in the OA mice without osteoporosis. In addition, the improvement was maintained for more than 4 weeks even after the discontinuation of bisphosphonate treatment.

CONCLUSION

These results indicated that a high bone turnover state under osteoporotic changes could affect the induction of pain-like behaviors in mild OA model mice.

[Basic Studies on the Mechanism, Prevention, and Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Induced by Bisphosphonates]

Since the first report in 2003, bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) has been increasing, without effective clinical strategies. Osteoporosis is common in elderly women, and bisphosphonates (BPs) are typical and widely used anti-osteoporotic or anti-bone-resorptive drugs. BRONJ is now a serious concern in dentistry. As BPs are pyrophosphate analogues and bind strongly to bone hydroxyapatite, and the P-C-P structure of BPs is non-hydrolysable, they accumulate in bones upon repeated administration. During bone-resorption, BPs are taken into osteoclasts and exhibit cytotoxicity, producing a long-lasting anti-bone-resorptive effect. BPs are divided into nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs) and non-nitrogen-containing BPs (non-N-BPs). N-BPs have far stronger anti-bone-resorptive effects than non-N-BPs, and BRONJ is caused by N-BPs. Our murine experiments have revealed the following. N-BPs, but not non-N-BPs, exhibit direct and potent inflammatory/necrotic effects on soft-tissues. These effects are augmented by lipopolysaccharide (the inflammatory component of bacterial cell-walls) and the accumulation of N-BPs in jawbones is augmented by inflammation. N-BPs are taken into soft-tissue cells via phosphate-transporters, while the non-N-BPs etidronate and clodronate inhibit this transportation. Etidronate, but not clodronate, has the effect of expelling N-BPs that have accumulated in bones. Moreover, etidronate and clodronate each have an analgesic effect, while clodronate has an anti-inflammatory effect via inhibition of phosphate-transporters. These findings suggest that BRONJ may be induced by phosphate-transporter-mediated and infection-promoted mechanisms, and that etidronate and clodronate may be useful for preventing and treating BRONJ. Our clinical trials support etidronate being useful for treating BRONJ, although additional clinical trials of etidronate and clodronate are needed.

Augmentation of Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Production of IL-1α and IL-1β in Mice Given Intravenous Zoledronate (a Nitrogen-Containing Bisphosphonate) and Its Prevention by Clodronate (a Non-nitrogen-containing Bisphosphonate)

Bisphosphonates (BPs) bind strongly to bone and exhibit long-acting anti-bone-resorptive effects. Among BPs, nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs) have far stronger anti-bone-resorptive effects than non-N-BPs. However, N-BPs induce acute inflammatory reactions (fever, arthralgia and myalgia, etc.) after their first injection. The mechanisms underlying these side effects remain unclear. Zoledronate (one of the most potent N-BPs) is given intravenously to patients, and the side-effect incidence is reportedly the highest among N-BPs. Our murine experiments have clarified that (a) intraperitoneally injected N-BPs induce various inflammatory reactions, including a production of interleukin-1 (IL-1) (a typical inflammatory cytokine), and these inflammatory reactions are weak in IL-1-deficient mice, (b) subcutaneously injected N-BPs induce inflammation/necrosis at the injection site, (c) lipopolysaccharide (LPS; a cell-wall component of Gram-negative bacteria) and N-BPs mutually augment their inflammatory/necrotic effects, (d) the non-N-BP clodronate can reduce N-BPs' inflammatory/necrotic effects. However, there are few animal studies on the side effects of intravenously injected N-BPs. Here, we found in mice that (i) intravenous zoledronate exhibited weaker inflammatory effects than intraperitoneal zoledronate, (ii) in mice given intravenous zoledronate, LPS-induced production of IL-1α and IL-1β was augmented in various tissues, including bone, resulting in them increasing in serum, and (iii) clodronate (given together with zoledronate) prevented such augmentation and enhanced, slightly but significantly, zoledronate's anti-bone-resorptive effect. These results suggest that infection may be a factor promoting the acute inflammatory side effects of N-BPs via augmented production of IL-1 in various tissues (including bone), and that clodronate may be useful to reduce or prevent such side effects.

Etidronate attenuates tactile allodynia by spinal ATP release inhibition in mice with partial sciatic nerve ligation

Etidronate is widely used as a therapeutic agent for osteoporosis. We have recently shown that intrathecal administration of etidronate into mice produces an analgesic effect against the capsaicin-induced nociceptive behavior. However, the effect of etidronate on neuropathic pain at the spinal level remains unknown. Therefore, we examined whether etidronate attenuates pain after partial sciatic nerve ligation (PSNL). We evaluated tactile allodynia 7 days after PSNL by measuring paw withdrawal with the von Frey filament test. The mRNA and protein levels of SLC17A9 in the ipsilateral lumbar dorsal spinal cord of PSNL-operated mice were determined using real-time PCR and western blotting, respectively. PSNL-induced tactile allodynia was attenuated by oral and intrathecal administration of etidronate, with maximum efficiency at 90 and 60 min after injection, respectively. The anti-allodynic effect of intrathecally administered etidronate was completely inhibited by an intrathecal administration of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The solute carrier family, SLC17, mediates the transport of pain transmitters, like ATP and glutamate. Indeed, we detected several members of the SLC17 family in the mouse dorsal lumbar spinal cord. Among the detected mRNAs, only Slc17a9, encoding for neuronal vesicular ATP transporter, was significantly increased upon PSNL. SLC17A9 protein levels were also significantly increased. In mice subjected to PSNL, SLC17A9 was present in neurons and microglia, but not in astrocytes of the lumbar superficial dorsal horn. Collectively, our results suggest that etidronate produces its anti-allodynic effects by inhibiting SLC17A9-dependent exocytotic ATP release from the dorsal horn in mice subjected to PSNL.

Selective Calcium-Dependent Inhibition of ATP-Gated P2X3 Receptors by Bisphosphonate-Induced Endogenous ATP Analog ApppI

Pain is the most unbearable symptom accompanying primary bone cancers and bone metastases. Bone resorptive disorders are often associated with hypercalcemia, contributing to the pathologic process. Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (NBPs) are efficiently used to treat bone cancers and metastases. Apart from their toxic effect on cancer cells, NBPs also provide analgesia via poorly understood mechanisms. We previously showed that NBPs, by inhibiting the mevalonate pathway, induced formation of novel ATP analogs such as ApppI [1-adenosin-5'-yl ester 3-(3-methylbut-3-enyl) triphosphoric acid diester], which can potentially be involved in NBP analgesia. In this study, we used the patch-clamp technique to explore the action of ApppI on native ATP-gated P2X receptors in rat sensory neurons and rat and human P2X3, P2X2, and P2X7 receptors expressed in human embryonic kidney cells. We found that although ApppI has weak agonist activity, it is a potent inhibitor of P2X3 receptors operating in the nanomolar range. The inhibitory action of ApppI was completely blocked in hypercalcemia-like conditions and was stronger in human than in rat P2X3 receptors. In contrast, P2X2 and P2X7 receptors were insensitive to ApppI, suggesting a high selectivity of ApppI for the P2X3 receptor subtype. NBP, metabolite isopentenyl pyrophosphate, and endogenous AMP did not exert any inhibitory action, indicating that only intact ApppI has inhibitory activity. Ca²⁺-dependent inhibition was stronger in trigeminal neurons preferentially expressing desensitizing P2X3 subunits than in nodose ganglia neurons, which also express nondesensitizing P2X2 subunits. Altogether, we characterized previously unknown purinergic mechanisms of NBP-induced metabolites and suggest ApppI as the endogenous pain inhibitor contributing to cancer treatment with NBPs.

A Strategy against the Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Associated with Nitrogen-Containing Bisphosphonates (N-BPs): Attempts to Replace N-BPs with the Non-N-BP Etidronate

Bisphosphonate (BP)-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) can occur when enhanced bone-resorptive diseases are treated with nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs). Having previously found, in mice, that the non-N-BP etidronate can (i) reduce the inflammatory/necrotic effects of N-BPs by inhibiting their intracellular entry and (ii) antagonize the binding of N-BPs to bone hydroxyapatite, we hypothesized that etidronate-replacement therapy (Eti-RT) might be useful for patients with, or at risk of, BRONJ. In the present study we examined this hypothesis. In each of 25 patients receiving N-BP treatment, the N-BP was discontinued when BRONJ was suspected and/or diagnosed. After consultation with the physician-in-charge and with the patient's informed consent, Eti-RT was instituted in one group according to its standard oral prescription. We retrospectively compared this Eti-RT group (11 patients) with a non-Eti-RT group (14 patients). The Eti-RT group (6 oral N-BP patients and 5 intravenous N-BP patients) and the non-Eti-RT group (5 oral N-BP patients and 9 intravenous N-BP patients) were all stage 2-3 BRONJ. Both in oral and intravenous N-BP patients (particularly in the former patients), Eti-RT promoted or tended to promote the separation and removal of sequestra and thereby promoted the recovery of soft-tissues, allowing them to cover the exposed jawbone. These results suggest that Eti-RT may be an effective choice for BRONJ caused by either oral or intravenous N-BPs and for BRONJ prevention, while retaining a level of anti-bone-resorption. Eti-RT may also be effective at preventing BRONJ in N-BP-treated patients at risk of BRONJ. However, prospective trials are still required.

Inflammatory Effects of Nitrogen-Containing Bisphosphonates (N-BPs): Modulation by Non-N-BPs

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are used against diseases with enhanced bone resorption. Those classed as nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs) exhibit much stronger anti-bone-resorptive effects than non-nitrogen-containing BPs (non-N-BPs). However, N-BPs carry the risk of inflammatory/necrotic side effects. Depending on their side-chains, BPs are divided structurally into cyclic and non-cyclic types. We previously found in mice that etidronate and clodronate (both non-cyclic non-N-BPs) could reduce the inflammatory effects of all three N-BPs tested (cyclic and non-cyclic types), possibly by inhibiting their entry into soft-tissue cells via SLC20 and/or SLC34 phosphate transporters. Tiludronate is the only available cyclic non-N-BP, but its effects on N-BPs' side effects have not been examined. Here, we compared the effects of etidronate, clodronate, and tiludronate on the inflammatory effects of six N-BPs used in Japan [three cyclic (risedronate, zoledronate, minodronate) and three non-cyclic (pamidronate, alendronate, ibandronate)]. Inflammatory effects were evaluated in mice by measuring the hind-paw-pad swelling induced by subcutaneous injection of an N-BP (either alone or mixed with a non-N-BP) into the hind-paw-pad. All of six N-BPs tested induced inflammation. Etidronate, clodronate, and the SLC20/34 inhibitor phosphonoformate inhibited this inflammation. Tiludronate inhibited the inflammatory effects of all N-BPs except ibandronate and minodronate, which have higher molecular weights than the other N-BPs. The mRNAs of SLC20a1, SLC20a2, and SLC34a2 (but not of SLC34a1 and SLC34a3) were detected in the soft-tissues of hind-paw-pads. These results suggest that etidronate, clodronate, and phosphonoformate may act non-selectively on phosphate transporter members, while tiludronate may not act on those transporting N-BPs of higher molecular weights.

The Bisphosphonates Clodronate and Etidronate Exert Analgesic Effects by Acting on Glutamate- and/or ATP-Related Pain Transmission Pathways

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are typical anti-bone-resorptive drugs, with nitrogen-containing BPs (N-BPs) being stronger than non-nitrogen-containing BPs (non-N-BPs). However, N-BPs have inflammatory/necrotic effects, while the non-N-BPs clodronate and etidronate lack such side effects. Pharmacological studies have suggested that clodronate and etidronate can (i) prevent the side effects of N-BPs in mice via inhibition of the phosphate transporter families SLC20 and/or SLC34, through which N-BPs enter soft-tissue cells, and (ii) also inhibit the phosphate transporter family SLC17. Vesicular transporters for the pain transmitters glutamate and ATP belong to the SLC17 family. Here, we examined the hypothesis that clodronate and etidronate may enter neurons through SLC20/34, then inhibit SLC17-mediated transport of glutamate and/or ATP, resulting in their decrease, and thereby produce analgesic effects. We analyzed in mice the effects of various agents [namely, intrathecally injected clodronate, etidronate, phosphonoformic acid (PFA; an inhibitor of SLC20/34), and agonists of glutamate and ATP receptors] on the nociceptive responses to intraplantar injection of capsaicin. Clodronate and etidronate produced analgesic effects, and these effects were abolished by PFA. The analgesic effects were reduced by N-methyl-D-aspartate (agonist of the NMDA receptor, a glutamate receptor) and α,β-methylene ATP (agonist of the P2X-receptor, an ATP receptor). SLC20A1, SLC20A2, and SLC34A1 were detected within the mouse lumbar spinal cord. Although we need direct evidence, these results support the above hypothesis. Clodronate and etidronate may be representatives of a new type of analgesic drug. Such drugs, with both anti-bone-resorptive and unique analgesic effects without the adverse effects associated with N-BPs, might be useful for osteoporosis.

Bisphosphonates therapy for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

High-turnover type bone metabolism derangement has been considered to be one of the major causes of osteoarthritis (OA). Bisphosphonates can attach to hydroxyapatite binding sites on bony surfaces, particularly those which are undergoing active bone resorption. To evaluate the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in OA treatment, literature databases were searched from inception to February 28, 2016 for clinical studies of bisphosphonates for OA treatment. All randomized controlled trials in which bisphosphonates therapy was compared with a placebo or a conventional medication, were selected. 15/1145 studies were eligible for analysis, which included 3566 participants. Bisphosphonates therapy improved pain, stiffness and function significantly in OA assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scale (MD = 4.59; 95 % CI 2.83-6.34; P < 0.00001; MD = 1.43; 95 % CI 0.83-2.23; P = 0.0005; MD = 2.01; 95 % CI 1.27-2.75; P < 0.00001). Bisphosphonates also reduced osteophyte score significantly (MD = -0.51; 95 % CI -0.84 to -0.19; P = 0.002). However, no significant differences were found in subjective improvement, osteoarthritis progression, the number of required acetaminophen treatment or joint replacement. In conclusion, bisphosphonates therapy is effective in relieving pain,stiffness and accelerating functional recovery in OA. Limitations of the studies we analysed included the differences in duration of bisphosphonates use, the doses and types of bisphosphonates and the lack of long-term data on OA joint structure modification after bisphosphonates therapy. More targeted studies are required to evaluate on the effectiveness of bisphosphonates for OA treatment.

Are bisphosphonates effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis pain? A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis worldwide. Pain and reduced function are the main symptoms in this prevalent disease. There are currently no treatments for OA that modify disease progression; therefore analgesic drugs and joint replacement for larger joints are the standard of care. In light of several recent studies reporting the use of bisphosphonates for OA treatment, our work aimed to evaluate published literature to assess the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in OA treatment.

METHODS

Literature databases were searched from inception to the 30th June 2012 for clinical trials of bisphosphonates to treat OA pain. Data was appraised and levels of evidence determined qualitatively using best evidence synthesis from the Cochrane Collaboration. The two largest studies were conducted with risedronate in the treatment of knee OA, for which meta-analyses were performed for pain and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Our searches found 13/297 eligible studies, which included a total of 3832 participants. The trials recruited participants with OA of the hand (n=1), knee (n=8), knee and spine (n=3), or hip (n=1). Our meta-analysis of the two largest knee studies using risedronate 15 mg showed odds ratios favouring placebo interventions for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain (1.73), WOMAC function (2.03), and WOMAC stiffness (1.82). However, 8 trials (61.5%) reported that bisphosphonates improve pain assessed by VAS scores and 2 (38.5%) reported significant improvement in WOMAC pain scores compared to control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence that bisphosphonates are effective in the treatment of OA pain. Limitations of the studies we analysed included the differences in duration of bisphosphonate use, the dose and route of administration and the lack of long-term data on OA joint structure modification post-bisphosphonate therapy. Future more targeted studies are required to appreciate the value of bisphosphonates in treating osteoarthritis pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Register CRD42012002541.

Analgesic effects of the non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates etidronate and clodronate, independent of anti-resorptive effects on bone

Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (NBPs) have greater anti-bone-resorptive effects than non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (non-NBPs). Hence, NBPs are the current first-choice drug for osteoporosis. However, NBPs carry a risk of osteonecrosis of jaws. Some animal and human studies suggest that non-NBPs may have anti-bone-resorptive effect-independent analgesic effects, but there has been no detailed comparison between NBPs and non-NBPs. Here, we compared the analgesic effects of several non-NBPs and NBPs, using (a) writhing responses induced in mice by intraperitoneal injection of 1% acetic acid, (b) acetic acid-induced neuronal expression of c-Fos, (c) acetic acid-induced elevation of blood corticosterone, and (d) hindpaw-licking/biting responses induced by intraplantar injection of capsaicin. Among the NBPs and non-NBPs tested, only etidronate and clodronate displayed clear analgesic effects, with various routes of administration (including the oral one) being effective. However, they were ineffective when intraperitoneally injected simultaneously with acetic acid. Intracerebroventricular administration of etidronate or clodronate, but not of minodronate (an NBP), was also effective. The effective doses of etidronate and clodronate were much lower in writhing-high-responder strains of mice. Etidronate and clodronate reduced acetic acid-induced c-Fos expression in the brain and spinal cord, and also the acetic acid-induced corticosterone increase in the blood. Etidronate and clodronate each displayed an analgesic effect in the capsaicin test. Etidronate and clodronate displayed their analgesic effects at doses lower than those inducing anti-bone-resorptive effects. These results suggest that etidronate and clodronate exert potent, anti-bone-resorptive effect-independent analgesic effects, possibly via an interaction with neurons, and that they warrant reappraisal as safe drugs for osteoporosis.

Comparison of the effects of elcatonin and risedronate on back and knee pain by electroalgometry using fall of skin impedance and quality of life assessment using SF-36

Back and knee pain is a widespread health problem and a serious threat to the quality of life (QOL) in middle-aged and older adults, as it frequently accompanies osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. In order to compare the effects of elcatonin and risedronate on such pain, 20 units of elcatonin was intramuscularly injected to 18 patients, and 5 mg of risedronate was orally administered daily to 20 others with similar backgrounds. Exercise-induced pain was analyzed by measuring the fall of skin impedance by electroalgometry (EAM), and subjective pain was recorded by a visual rating system (VRS) on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (unbearable pain). In patients treated with elcatonin, the mean EAM-estimated pain was significantly reduced after 4, 5 and 6 months of treatment, and the VRS score after 3, 5 and 6 months, indicating a significant analgesic effect. In the risedronate group, however, improvement was less remarkable. Two-way analysis of variance using pain as a dependent variable and treatment group and time as independent variables revealed a significantly greater effect of elcatonin over risedronate on both the EAM and VRS scores, and the influence of treatment time on pain was indistinguishable between the two treatment groups. Effect of exercise load on pain was less on knee load than knee and spine load and spine load, but indistinguishable between the two groups. Changes in QOL were evaluated by the SF-36 system. Norm-based scoring showed significant improvements in 3 of 4 categories for elcatonin and in 2 of 4 for risedronate, suggesting comparable effects on the physical aspects of QOL, whereas responses to emotionally and socially directed questions indicated significant improvements in all 4 categories for risedronate, but none for elcatonin, suggesting a more physical than emotional component in elcatonin effects compared to risedronate.

Analgesic effect of raloxifene on back and knee pain in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and/or osteoarthritis

To assess the effect of raloxifene on bone and joint pain, 24 postmenopausal women with back or knee pain or both were randomly divided into two groups, based on the chronological sequence of consultation, to be treated with 60 mg raloxifene and 1 microg alfacalcidol (RA)/day (group RA) or 1 microg alfacalcidol alone (A)/day (group A), respectively, for 6 months. Pain following knee loading (KL) by standing up from a chair and bending the knee by squatting, knee and spine loading (KSL) by walking horizontally and ascending and descending stairs, and spine loading (SL) by lying down supine on a bed and leaving the bed to stand was evaluated by electroalgometry (EAM), based on measurement of the fall of skin impedance, and a visual rating scale (VRS), recording subjective pain on a scale of 0-100 between no pain and unbearable pain. The two groups showed no significant difference as to age, indices of mineral metabolism, back and knee pain, and bone status. RA gave a significantly greater analgesic effect than A by both EAM (P = 0.0158) and VRS (P = 0.0268) on overall comparison of the mean response to all modalities of exercise loading. Paired comparison between pretreatment and posttreatment indicated a significant effect of RA by both EAM (P = 0.0045) and VRS (P = 0.0017), but not that of A. The analgesic effect was more clearly noted on combined knee-spine loading (KSL) and spine loading (SL) than simple knee loading (KL). Monthly comparison of the analgesic effect indicated a significantly better analgesic effect in the fifth month by VRS. RA effect greater than A was more evident by EAM than VRS and during months 3-6 than during 1-2 months, suggesting a slowly progressive effect of RA. Pain evaluation by EAM and VRS mostly gave parallel results, except for a few occasions such as knee loading and spine loading by sitting up and leaving a bed, when EAM detected a positive effect but VRS failed to do so. RA appeared to be more effective on bone and joint pain than A in postmenopausal women according to both EAM and VRS measurements.