Additive effect of elcatonin to risedronate for chronic back pain and quality of life in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial

Osteoporosis treatment and pain relief: A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Anti-osteoporosis (OP) drugs have been suggested to contribute to pain reduction during OP management. This scoping review aimed at mapping the literature on pain relief with anti-OP drugs in OP treatment.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane databases were searched by two reviewers with keywords combinations. Randomized controlled and real-life English studies, pain as an endpoint, antiosteoporosis drugs were inclusion criteria. Case reports, surveys, comment letters, conference abstracts, animal studies and grey literature were excluded. Predetermined data were extracted by two reviewers and disagreement solved through discussion.

RESULTS

A total of 130 articles were identified, 31 publications were included, 12 randomized clinical trials and 19 observational studies. Pain reduction was assessed by different tools: Visual Analogue Scale, Verbal Rating Scale, Facial Scale or as a domain of quality of life questionnaires including Short form 8, 36, mini-OP, Japanese OP, Qualeffo, Roland Morris Disability questionnaires. Collective data show that anti-OP drugs may display an analgesic effect that may be linked to the local mode of action of drugs on bone and consecutive modulation of pain sensitization. The methodology of the studies showed a heterogeneity of endpoints, comparators, statistical approaches and follow-up duration.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limitations of the literature, there is a need for more rigorous trials and larger real-life studies taking into account the recommendations published for research in rheumatology and in pain medicine. The identification of responders, patient subtypes, and of analgesic-effect doses would allow optimization and individualization for pain relief in patients with OP.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

This scoping review shows that anti-OP drugs may improve pain and quality of life of patients with OP. The heterogeneity in design, choice of endpoints, methodology, comparators and follow-up duration of included randomized clinical trials and real-life studies does not allow so far to identify a predominant antiosteoporosis drug or an optimal dosage for pain relief. These gaps need to be addressed and warrant further research in the future for optimizing pain improvement in the course of OP drug treatment.

Impact of Alendronate Sodium plus Elcatonin on Postoperative Bone Pain in Patients with Osteoporotic Fractures

Objective

This research aims to investigate and analyze the impact of alendronate sodium (ALN) plus elcatonin (EC) in treating postoperative bone pain (BP) in patients with osteoporotic fractures (OPFs).

Methods

One hundred and thirty-eight cases of OPFs admitted between July 2018 and July 2021 were selected, of which 68 cases receiving ALN were set as the control group and 70 cases receiving ALN plus EC were set as the research group. Intercomparisons were performed in terms of BP, curative effect, complication rate, and serum bone metabolism indexes such as bone Gla protein (BGP), parathyroid hormone (PTH), and bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP).

Results

Better postoperative BP relief, higher overall response rate, and lower complication rate were identified in the research group versus the control group. On the other hand, the research group presented with increased BGP and BALP after treatment, higher than those in the control group, while the posttreament PTH decreased obviously and was lower versus the control group.

Conclusions

For OPF patients, ALN plus EC contributes to significantly reduced postoperative BP, improved clinical efficacy, higher treatment safety, and better bone metabolism, which has high clinical application value.

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.

Spatiotemporally controlled calcitonin delivery: Long-term and targeted therapy of skeletal diseases

Bone is a connective tissue that support the entire body and protect the internal organs. However, there are great challenges on curing intractable skeletal diseases such as hypercalcemia, osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. To address these issues, calcitonin (CT) therapy is an effective treatment alternative to regulate calcium metabolism and suppress inflammation response, which are closely related to skeletal diseases. Traditional calcitonin formulation requires frequent administration due to the low bioavailability resulting from the short half-life and abundant calcitonin receptors distributed through the whole body. Therefore, long-term and targeted calcitonin delivery systems (LCDS and TCDS) have been widely explored as the popular strategies to overcome the intrinsic limitations of calcitonin and improve the functions of calcium management and inflammation inhibition in recent years. In this review, we first explain the physiological effects of calcitonin on bone remodeling: (i) inhibitory effects on osteoclasts and (ii) facilitated effects on osteoblasts. Then we summarized four strategies for spatiotemporally controlled delivery of calcitonin: micro-/nanomedicine (e.g. inorganic micro-/nanomedicine, polymeric micro-/nanomedicine and supramolecular assemblies), hydrogels (especially thermosensitive hydrogels), prodrug (PEGylation and targeting design) and hybrid biomaterials. Subsequently, we discussed the application of LCDS and TCDS in treating hypercalcemia, osteoporosis, and arthritis. Understanding and analyzing these advanced calcitonin delivery applications are essential for future development of calcitonin therapies toward skeletal diseases with superior efficacy in clinic.

A 3-year postmarketing study on the safety and effectiveness of once-monthly risedronate in Japanese patients with osteoporosis

Objectives

This postmarketing study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of oral administration of risedronate at 75 mg once monthly for 36 months in patients with osteoporosis in Japan.

Methods

Participants were ambulatory outpatients with osteoporosis who were ≥ 50 years old and had prevalent vertebral fractures. Outcomes were the incidence rate of adverse drug reaction (ADR), cumulative incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, the percent changes of lumbar spinal L_2–4 bone mineral density (BMD), and low back pain. In addition, medication compliance was examined.

Results

Safety, vertebral fractures, and other outcomes were analyzed in 542, 328, and 535 patients, respectively. In the safety analysis set, 88.38% of the patients were women and the mean age was 75.9 years. The monthly medication compliance rate ranged from 83.24% to 95.38%. The incidence rate of ADRs, including 4 severe ADRs, was 10.52% (n = 57). The common ADRs were gastrointestinal disorders, musculoskeletal, and connective tissue disorders. No osteonecrosis of the jaw was reported. The cumulative incidences (95% CI) of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures at 36 months were 12.58% (8.61–18.18), 6.59% (4.31–10.01), and 1.58% (0.64–3.88), respectively. The L_2–4 BMD increased by 10.59% compared with baseline value (P < 0.01), and the proportion of patients with low back pain decreased to 30.77%, at 36 months.

Conclusions

Administering 75 mg of risedronate once a month remains a favorable compliance rate and may be useful for the treatment of patients, even the elderly, with osteoporosis in daily practice.

Efficacy and safety of elcatonin in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

The present systematic review aimed to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD) change and complication rates of elcatonin on treating postmenopausal osteoporosis. The result confirmed efficacy of elcatonin and safety in combination therapies of elcatonin (C-E).

INTRODUCTION

Postmenopausal osteoporosis is an important issue in global aging trends. One treatment of osteoporosis is elcatonin, a kind of calcitonin. However, it has been challenged for long time because of safety. Many trials investigated on this topic, but they were designed differently. Those designs can be categorized in monotherapy of elcatonin (M-E) and C-E. Unfortunately, no synthesized evidence dealt this topic.

METHODS

This study systematically identified target trials from six important databases and only included randomized controlled trial for synthesis. Two investigators assessed quality of eligible trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and they independently extracted data. Network meta-analysis performed Peto odds ratio (POR, used for dealing with zero cell) or weighted mean difference (WMD, for continuous data) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and consistency H.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials recruiting 2754 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were included in our study. Elcatonin therapies and non-elcatonin medications had comparable fracture rates and bone mineral density change. Yet, C-E (WMD, - 18.93; 95% CI, - 23.97 to - 13.89) and M-E (WMD, - 13.72; 95% CI, - 19.51 to - 7.94) had significantly lower pain score than non-elcatonin medications. However, M-E (POR = 8.413, 95% CI, 2.031 to 34.859) and non-elcatonin medication (Peto OR, 7.450; 95% CI, 1.479 to 37.530) had significantly higher complication rates than placebo. No evidence detected inconsistency and small study effect in this network model.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, C-E may be considered for treating postmenopausal osteoporosis because it benefits on pain relief and complications. Moreover, it shows comparable fracture rate and bone mineral density change as compared with anti-osteoporosis and calcium supplements. Nevertheless, further trials are needed to investigate formula and dosages of elcatonin.

Effect of Thunder-Fire Moxibustion on Pain, Quality of Life, and Tension of Multifidus in Patients with Primary Osteoporosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Primary osteoporosis is a common disease among postmenopausal women and the elderly; low back pain is the most typical clinical manifestation an is the primary reason for a clinic visit, and directly affects patients’ quality of life. Anti-osteoporosis medications have undesirable side effects, and many kinds of special traditional Chinese moxibustion methods have been widely used in the clinical treatment of osteoporosis low back pain. The purpose of this study was to observe whether thunder-fire moxibustion therapy, compared to calcium supplements alone, can ease osteoporosis low back pain, improve quality of life, and reduce tension of the multifidus.

Material/Methods

Sixty-three eligible patients were enrolled in the study (7 of these patients did not finish the study and are not included in analysis). Participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: a moxibustion group that received calcium carbonate D3 and thunder-fire moxibustion therapy, and a control group that received calcium carbonate D3 only. Level of pain experienced, assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), and quality of life (SF-36) were measured pre-treatment, at the end of 4 weeks of treatment, and at a 1-month post-treatment evaluation. Changes in values of Young’s modulus of the multifidus were also collected before and after treatment.

Results

After 4 weeks of treatment and at 1 month after treatment had ended, low back pain in both groups was reduced relative to pre-treatment levels. The moxibustion group was significantly improved at BP, GH, SF, and MH dimensions compared to pre-treatment levels. The control group improved in BP dimensions, but not to the same extent as the moxibustion group. Similarly, after treatment for 4 weeks with moxibustion, multifidus tension was significantly reduced.

Conclusions

Thunder-fire moxibustion is an effective method for treating low back pain due to primary osteoporosis.

Pathomechanisms and management of osteoporotic pain with no traumatic evidence

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a pathological state with an unbalanced bone metabolism mainly caused by accelerated osteoporotic osteoclast activity due to a postmenopausal estrogen deficiency, and it causes some kinds of pain, which can be divided into two types: traumatic pain due to a fragility fracture from impaired rigidity, and pain derived from an osteoporotic pathology without evidence of fracture. We aimed to review the concepts of osteoporosis-related pain and its management.

Methods

We reviewed clinical and basic articles on osteoporosis-related pain, especially with a focus on the mechanism of pain derived from an osteoporotic pathology (i.e., osteoporotic pain) and its pharmacological treatment.

Results

Osteoporosis-related pain tends to be robust and acute if it is due to fracture or collapse, whereas pathology-related osteoporotic pain is vague and dull. Non-traumatic osteoporotic pain can originate from an undetectable microfracture or structural change such as muscle fatigue in kyphotic patients. Furthermore, basic studies have shown that the osteoporotic state itself is related to pain or hyperalgesia with increased pain-related neuropeptide expression or acid-sensing channels in the local tissue and nervous system. Traditional treatment for osteoporotic pain potentially prevents possible fracture-induced pain by increasing bone mineral density and affecting related mediators such as osteoclasts and osteoblasts. The most common agent for osteoporotic pain management is a bisphosphonate. Other non-osteoporotic analgesic agents such as celecoxib have also been reported to have a suppressive effect on osteoporotic pain.

Conclusions

Osteoporotic pain has traumatic and non-traumatic factors. Anti-osteoporotic treatments are effective for osteoporotic pain, as they improve bone structure and the condition of the pain-related sensory nervous system. Physicians should always consider these matters when choosing a treatment strategy that would best benefit patients with osteoporotic pain.

Effectiveness of elcatonin for alleviating pain and inhibiting bone resorption in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Elderly patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures often experience severe pain that reduces their quality of life (QOL). Calcitonin, a bone resorption inhibitor, has been reported to alleviate pain in such patients; however, few clinical studies have demonstrated this effect. The objective of this study was to compare changes in pain scores, activities of daily living (ADL), QOL, bone resorption, bone mineral density (BMD), and fracture healing among patients with new vertebral fractures who received different treatment modalities. We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized, parallel control group study comprising 107 female patients ≥55 years old with acute back pain from vertebral fracture. All subjects received either intramuscular injections of elcatonin, a derivative of calcitonin, or an oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) combined with an active vitamin D₃ (VD3) analogue for 6 months. The pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale, and ADL and QOL were assessed using questionnaires. BMD was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. A two-tailed significance level of 5% was used. The elcatonin IM group had significantly higher QOL score at 2 weeks and later, and significantly lower VAS and ADL scores than those in the NSAID + VD3 group at 1 month and later. The elcatonin IM group had significantly reduced TRACP-5b levels compared with those in the NSAID + VD3 group at 3 months and later and significantly higher percent changes in BMD than the NSAID + VD3 group. These results suggest that elcatonin significantly alleviated pain, inhibited bone resorption, and improved ADL, QOL, and BMD compared with NSAID + VD3.

Effect of elcatonin versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for acute back pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a multiclinic randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of elcatonin injections and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for patients with osteoporosis who have acute lumbar pain after experiencing new vertebral compression fractures. Two hundred twenty-eight Japanese female patients (mean age 77.3 years) with acute lumbar pain from osteoporotic vertebral fractures were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in one group were given an NSAID (NSAIDs group) and patients in the other group were given weekly intramuscular injections of 20 units of elcatonin (elcatonin group). All patients underwent follow-up examinations up to 6 weeks from the start of the trial. Outcome measures were the level of functional impairment according to the Japan Questionnaire for Osteoporotic Pain (JQ22), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ), and a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain intensity. Statistical analyses focused on (1) the time course of pain and functional level using linear mixed effects models to analyze the longitudinal data and (2) the effectiveness of elcatonin injection with mean difference values and 95 % confidence intervals. Significant differences were seen over time between the initial values and the postintervention values (4 and 6 weeks) in JQ22, RDQ, and VAS scores (effect size d > 0.4) in each group. The mean differences between the elcatonin group and the NSAIDs group in each measure at 4 and 6 weeks were -4.8 and -8.3 for the JQ22, -1.3 and -2.6 for the RDQ, and -11.3 and -11.5 for the VAS, shifted to elcatonin. Once weekly elcatonin injection was more effective than NSAIDs for treating acute lumbar pain and improving mobility in Japanese women with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

Effectiveness of monotherapy and combined therapy with calcitonin and minodronic acid hydrate, a bisphosphonate, for early treatment in patients with new vertebral fractures: An open-label, randomized, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

Evidence related to the effectiveness of combination drug therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis is currently considered insufficient. Therefore, this study was performed to clarify the effects of monotherapy, and combination therapy, with a bisphosphonate (minodronic acid hydrate), a bone resorption inhibitor, and calcitonin (elcatonin), which is effective for the alleviation of pain due to vertebral fractures in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

Study participants comprised of 51 female subjects with post-menopausal osteoporosis, whose main complaint was acute lower back pain caused by vertebral fractures. Subjects were randomly allocated into three groups and then administered with either intramuscular injections of elcatonin at a dose of 20 units weekly, minodronic acid hydrate at a dose of 1 mg daily, or a combination of these two drugs. As primary endpoints, time-dependent changes in levels of pain were assessed using a visual analog scale from baseline to 6 months of duration. In addition, we examined the effects of monotherapies, and a combination therapy on bone resorption, with changes in bone mineral density at 4 sites and advanced hip assessment parameters from baseline to 6 months. A two-tailed significance level of 5% was used for hypothesis testing.

RESULTS

Elcatonin monotherapy showed some alleviation of pain immediately after any vertebral fractures, which was more than in the minodronic acid hydrate monotherapy group. In addition, the minodronic acid hydrate monotherapy group experienced more effective inhibited bone resorption than the elcatonin monotherapy group. In the combination therapy, the efficacy for alleviating pain and inhibiting bone resorption was equivalent to the effect observed in the elcatonin and minodronic acid hydrate monotherapy groups respectively, with further improved values of bone mineral density observed in the femoral neck and lumbar vertebrae, and in parameters of advanced hip assessment compared with both monotherapy groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with elcatonin and minodronic acid hydrate appears to be an effective treatment for osteoporosis patients with lower back pain, caused by fresh vertebral fractures.

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.

Elcatonin attenuates disuse osteoporosis after fracture fixation of tubular bone in rats

BACKGROUND

Elcatonin (ECT) is used to prevent and treat osteoporosis. However, little is known about its effect on the disuse osteoporosis (DOP). The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of ECT on DOP caused by fracture fixation.

METHODS

Forty-five male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats, aged 6 weeks, were randomly allocated into three groups: the control group without surgery and elcatonin treatment (CTR, n = 15), the surgery group without elcatonin treatment (SUR, n = 15), and the surgery group which received elcatonin subcutaneously (SUR + ECT, n = 15). Surgery was produced by cutting the midshaft of the right femur transversely, fixing with stainless intramedullary needle, and immobilizing the right leg. All the proximal tibias from the random five rats in each group were harvested and investigated by evaluating bone mineral density (BMD), X-ray images, and histological staining respectively at the 4th, 8th, and 12th weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

Both of the SUR and SUR + ECT groups obviously exhibited lower BMD values compared to the CTR group; however, the SUR + ECT group showed significantly higher BMD values (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, and p < 0.05) than the SUR group at each time point after surgery. Moreover, similar changes were observed between these groups when examining the radiographs and hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining.

CONCLUSIONS

Elcatonin attenuates disuse osteoporosis after fractures in rats, which may provide a new avenue to prevent and treat disuse osteoporosis after surgery in clinic.