Patient preference for monthly bisphosphonate versus weekly bisphosphonate in a cluster-randomized, open-label, crossover trial: Minodroate Alendronate/Risedronate Trial in Osteoporosis (MARTO)

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.

Utility of monthly minodronate for osteoporosis after gastrectomy: Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trials

AIM

Osteoporosis in patients after gastrectomy is increasing with the aging of gastric cancer patients. Bisphosphonates are effective treatments for osteoporosis; however, their safety or efficacy in postgastrectomy patients has not been established. The purpose of this multicenter prospective intervention study was to investigate the impact of monthly minodronate on osteoporosis after gastrectomy.

METHODS

Of the 261 enrolled gastric cancer patients, 164 patients were diagnosed with osteoporosis based on criteria of the Japan Society of Osteoporosis. They were randomly assigned 1:1 to groups treated with active vitamin D (VD group) or monthly minodronate (MIN group). The primary endpoint was changes in lumbar bone mineral density (L-BMD) 12 mo after the start of administration. The secondary endpoints were changes in bone metabolism markers, adverse events (AEs), or treatment completion rates.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patient background between the VD (n = 82) and MIN (n = 82) groups. In the MIN group, the increase in L-BMD was significantly higher than that in the VD group (4.52% vs 1.72%, P = .001), with a significant reduction in bone metabolism markers; blood NTX (-25.6% vs -1.6%, P < .01) and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (-34.3% vs -20.1%, P < .01). AEs were observed in 26.8% and 9.3% of the patients and treatment completion rates were 77.5% and 89.3% in the MIN and VD groups, respectively. Serious AEs were not observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of monthly minodronate, suggesting that this treatment may be useful for osteoporosis after gastrectomy (UMIN000015517).

Adherence to Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Dosing Regimens of Bisphosphonates for Osteoporosis Treatment in Postmenopausal Women in Japan: A Retrospective Study Using Claims Data

Poor medication adherence of osteoporosis patients is a major global medical problem because of its negative impact on health outcomes and quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate how differences in dosing regimens influence adherence to oral bisphosphonates using data from a large health insurance provider in Japan. This was a retrospective observational study using claims data obtained between October 2012 and January 2018, from the community-based National Health Insurance program of a large city in Japan. The data included in the analysis were obtained from women 60 to 74 years old whose oral bisphosphonate prescription was detected between April 2013 and February 2017. Treatment adherence was monitored from the initial prescription for one year, i.e., up to January 2018. Primary comparisons among the daily-dosing, weekly-dosing, and monthly-dosing groups were based on the mean medication possession ratio (MPR). Data from a total of 3,958 patients were analyzed. The numbers of patients aged 60-64, 65-69, and 70-74 were 425, 1,400, and 2,133, respectively. The highest mean MPR was 69.4% for the monthly-dosing of bisphosphonates, followed by the weekly-dosing at 63.5%, and daily-dosing at 57.2%. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn-Bonferroni correction, there were significant differences in mean MPR for daily versus weekly (p < 0.01), daily versus monthly (p < 0.001), and weekly versus monthly dosing regimens (p < 0.05). These results suggest significantly more patients adhere to a monthly or weekly regimen of bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis than to a daily regimen.

Discontinuation of bisphosphonates in seniors: a systematic review on health outcomes

PURPOSE

Bisphosphonates are used to treat osteoporosis. Despite their benefits on bone mineral density (BMD) and fractures, they have shown adverse effects, sometimes severe, during chronic use. Taken for several years, they achieve long-term bone retention, making deprescribing feasible. This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the success and health outcomes of deprescribing of bisphosphonates in seniors, aged over 60 years.

METHODS

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including articles in English, French, or German published before July 2020. Eligible studies included seniors having discontinued bisphosphonates and reported on health outcomes; some allowed meta-analyses on fracture risk.

RESULTS

The review included 9 RCTs and 9 cohort studies of moderate quality. Bisphosphonates were discontinued after 2 to 7 years of use, and BMD or fractures were assessed during follow-up of 0.5 to 5 years. A significant reduction in BMD after discontinuation was observed in 9 of 10 studies. Results on fracture risk after discontinuation are mitigated: 6 RCT extensions showed no increase in the risk of any osteoporotic fractures after discontinuation. Meta-analyses including 4 RCTs showed an increased odds ratio of vertebral fractures of 2.04 (95% CI, 1.39-2.99) among discontinuers. Results from 2 large cohort studies showed no increased risks of any osteoporotic or vertebral fractures, while 2 studies found increased fracture risks.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates have successfully been discontinued low overall fracture risk after at least 3 years of use, but a risk for decreased BMD and increased vertebral fractures remained.

A randomized, open-label, controlled trial of monthly oral minodronate or semiannual subcutaneous injection of denosumab for bone loss by androgen deprivation in Asian men with prostate cancer: the PRevention of Osteopenia with Minodronate And DEnosumab (PROMADE) study

There is still a lack of evidence that minodronate or denosumab prevents bone loss due to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in non-Western patients. This study showed that both drugs significantly improved lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density in Asian men with prostate cancer who received ADT.

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate whether monthly oral minodronate or semiannual subcutaneous injection of denosumab improves bone mineral density (BMD) in Asian men with prostate cancer (PCa) receiving ADT.

METHODS

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled study including patients with hormone-sensitive PCa without bone metastasis receiving ADT was performed. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to minodronate, denosumab, or no agent control groups. The primary end point was the mean percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine at 12 months. Secondary end points were the mean percentage change in BMD at the femoral neck and total hip and changes in bone turnover markers. Statistical comparison was performed using analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Of the 147 subjects enrolled in this study, 102 were randomly assigned into the minodronate (n = 36), denosumab (n = 36), and control (n = 30) groups. The percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine was significantly improved in the minodronate (2.5%, p < 0.05) and denosumab groups (4.0%, p < 0.01) compared with that in the control group (- 0.1%). Denosumab increased BMD at the femoral neck and total hip at 12 months, whereas minodronate only increased BMD at the total hip compared with controls (all p < 0.05). The percentage change in bone turnover markers at 12 months was significantly lower in the minodronate and denosumab groups compared with that in the control group (both p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Minodronate or denosumab can be used for preventing bone loss related to ADT in Asian patients with PCa.

Assessing Preferences for Rare Disease Treatment: Qualitative Development of the Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Patient Preference Questionnaire (PNH-PPQ©)

PURPOSE

To develop a patient preference questionnaire (PPQ) assessing eculizumab and ravulizumab treatment for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The development of the PNH-PPQ© was consistent with Food and Drug Administration guidelines for patient-reported outcome measure development, and included 1) a targeted literature review; 2) PNH expert clinician input on treatment preferences; 3) review of existing qualitative data on the PNH treatment and disease experience; 4) concept elicitation interviews with 8 PNH patients who received eculizumab and/or ravulizumab; 5) translatability review; and 6) cognitive debriefing with 5 patients. Interview participants were recruited through a United Kingdom PNH patient advocacy group and a Canadian clinical site involved in clinical trial ALXN1210-PNH-302.

RESULTS

Six themes were identified as most relevant to the PNH treatment experience from the concept elicitation interviews: disease symptoms (n=8/8); treatment frequency (n=7/8); quality of life impact of treatment/disease (n=7/8); treatment burden (n=7/8); treatment efficacy (n=5/8); and treatment side effects (n=5/8). An initial list of 88 preference questions was reduced to 11 highly relevant and non-redundant questions reflecting the 6 themes. Cognitive interview participants unanimously agreed that the PNH-PPQ instructions were clear; response options were understandable, easy to use, and provided enough choices; and the questions captured the factors that inform treatment preferences.

DISCUSSION

When new drugs have similar efficacy to existing medications, documenting patient preferences is important for confirming patient benefit from the new medication. Understanding what matters most to patients is essential for delivering patient-centered care and may play a particularly significant role in treatment decision making. The availability of such a tool may be especially important as new orphan drugs are developed and patients with rare diseases have more than one treatment option to consider.

CONCLUSION

The PNH-PPQ provides a patient-centered approach for evaluating preferences for the treatment of PNH. The PNH-PPQ has subsequently assessed patient preference in the clinical trial sub-study ALXN1210-PNH-302s.

Patient satisfaction and efficacy of switching from weekly bisphosphonates to monthly minodronate for treatment and prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in Japanese patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial

The randomized, clinical trial demonstrated that switching to monthly minodronate from weekly alendronate and risedronate provides greater increases in patients' satisfaction and bone mineral density and more substantial decreases in a bone resorption marker than continuing weekly alendronate and risedronate in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases on glucocorticoid therapy.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis and associated fractures are major concerns for patients with systemic rheumatic diseases on long-term glucocorticoid therapy. Bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce the frequency of vertebral fractures, but they are associated with poor adherence. The effects of monthly oral minodronate on patients' satisfaction, BMD, and bone turnover markers were investigated in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases on glucocorticoids and weekly oral alendronate or risedronate.

METHODS

Study patients with systemic rheumatic diseases on oral glucocorticoids and weekly alendronate 35 mg or risedronate 17.5 mg were randomly assigned either to switch to minodronate 50 mg every 4 weeks or to continue the currently taking weekly bisphosphonate for 52 weeks after a 24-week run-in period.Patients were stratified by hospital site, sex, and menopausal status in women at enrollment. The primary endpoint was the difference between the proportions of patients who responded very satisfactory or satisfactory for the current bisphosphonate therapy at weeks 48 and 76 between the two groups. Secondary endpoints included percentage changes in lumbar spine BMD and bone turnover markers from the time of starting allocated treatment.

RESULTS

Monthly minodronate was superior to weekly alendronate or risedronate for patients' satisfaction, the increase of lumbar spine BMD, and suppression of serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b at week 76.

CONCLUSIONS

Monthly minodronate is more acceptable and may be more effective than weekly alendronate or risedronate for prevention and treatment of bone loss in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases on glucocorticoid therapy.

Minodronate for the treatment of osteoporosis

Minodronate is a third-generation bisphosphonate that was developed and approved for clinical use in osteoporosis therapy in Japan. The mechanism of action for suppressing bone resorption is the inhibition of farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, a key enzyme in the mevalonic acid metabolic pathway of osteoclasts, to induce apoptosis of the cells. Minodronate is the strongest inhibitor of bone resorption among the currently available oral bisphosphonates. Large randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials have revealed an increase in bone mineral density of both the lumbar spine and femoral neck over 3 years of daily minodronate therapy and risk reduction in vertebral fractures over 2 years of therapy. The increase in bone mass and the prevention of vertebral fractures are similar to those with alendronate or risedronate. The incidence of adverse events, especially gastrointestinal disturbance, is the same as or less than that with weekly or daily alendronate or risedronate. The unique mechanism of action of minodronate via the inhibition of the P2X(2/3) receptor compared with other bisphosphonates may be an advantage in reducing low back pain in patients with osteoporosis. The monthly regimen of minodronate, introduced in 2011, is expected to have better patient adherence and longer persistence. In experimental animal models, minodronate preserved, or even ameliorated, bone microarchitectures, including microcracks and perforation of the trabeculae in the short term. The lowest incidence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw among all bisphosphonates and the lack of atypical femoral fractures attributed to its use to date, however, are partly because only a smaller population used minodronate than those using other bisphosphonates. To date, minodronate is available only in Japan. Hip fracture risk reduction has not been verified yet. More clinical studies on minodronate and its use in osteoporosis treatment, with a large number of subjects, should be conducted to verify hip fracture risk reduction and long-term results.

The Pharmacological Profile of a Novel Highly Potent Bisphosphonate, OX14 (1-Fluoro-2-(Imidazo-[1,2-α]Pyridin-3-yl)-Ethyl-Bisphosphonate)

Bisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of clinical disorders characterized by increased bone resorption, including osteoporosis, Paget's disease, and the skeletal complications of malignancy. The antiresorptive potency of the nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on bone in vivo is now recognized to depend upon two key properties, namely mineral binding affinity and inhibitory activity on farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS), and these properties vary independently of each other in individual bisphosphonates. The better understanding of structure activity relationships among the bisphosphonates has enabled us to design a series of novel bisphosphonates with a range of mineral binding properties and antiresorptive potencies. Among these is a highly potent bisphosphonate, 1-fluoro-2-(imidazo-[1,2 alpha]pyridin-3-yl)-ethyl-bisphosphonate, also known as OX14, which is a strong inhibitor of FPPS, but has lower binding affinity for bone mineral than most of the commonly studied bisphosphonates. The aim of this work was to characterize OX14 pharmacologically in relation to several of the bisphosphonates currently used clinically. When OX14 was compared to zoledronate (ZOL), risedronate (RIS), and minodronate (MIN), it was as potent at inhibiting FPPS in vitro but had significantly lower binding affinity to hydroxyapatite (HAP) columns than ALN, ZOL, RIS, and MIN. When injected i.v. into growing Sprague Dawley rats, OX14 was excreted into the urine to a greater extent than the other bisphosphonates, indicating reduced short-term skeletal uptake and retention. In studies in both Sprague Dawley rats and C57BL/6J mice, OX14 inhibited bone resorption, with an antiresorptive potency equivalent to or greater than the comparator bisphosphonates. In the JJN3-NSG murine model of myeloma-induced bone disease, OX14 significantly prevented the formation of osteolytic lesions (p < 0.05). In summary, OX14 is a new, highly potent bisphosphonate with lower bone binding affinity than other clinically relevant bisphosphonates. This renders OX14 an interesting potential candidate for further development for its potential skeletal and nonskeletal benefits. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Monthly minodronate inhibits bone resorption to a greater extent than does monthly risedronate

As a bisphosphonate, minodronate (MIN) is one of the strongest inhibitors of bone resorption. However, there have been no reports directly comparing the antiresorptive effects of monthly MIN with those of monthly risedronate (RIS). We enrolled 30 cases of osteoporosis (OP; 16 in the MIN group [mean age: 68.2 years] and 14 in the RIS group [mean age: 68.1 years]) to investigate the early effects of treatment by monthly MIN or RIS over a 4-month period using bone turnover marker values. Only female patients were enrolled to avoid gender bias. Urinary cross-linked N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTX) before treatment and at 1, 2, and 4 months of therapy, as well as serum bone alkaline phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase before treatment and at 4 months afterwards, were evaluated. All bone turnover marker values were significantly decreased at 4 months in both groups. The changes in urinary NTX at the study end point for RIS and MIN were -30.1% and -63.1%, respectively. From 2 months of treatment, the antiresorptive effects on urinary NTX by MIN were significantly higher than those by RIS, indicating that MIN more immediately and strongly inhibited bone absorption. Thus, monthly MIN seems to suppress bone resorption faster and more strongly than RIS in OP treatment.

Initiation of Monthly Minodronate Therapy at an Early Stage After Hip Fracture

The incidence of second hip fractures occurring within a year of initial fractures is 20%-45%. The high incidence of second hip fractures in this period can be attributed to the rapid bone loss that occurs during this time. Restoring bone mass at an early stage after hip fractures is critical for preventing subsequent fractures. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of monthly minodronate therapy (50 mg/4 wk) for preventing bone loss over a 9-mo period following hip fractures. Minodronate was administered monthly to 51 patients (44 females), beginning within 3 mo after hip fracture surgery. The mean (±standard deviation) age of the patients was 82.0 ± 0.9 yr. Demographics, mobility status, bone turnover makers, and bone mineral density (BMD) in the lumbar spine and proximal femur (including femoral neck and total hip BMD) were examined prior to and after 9 mo of treatment. Lumbar BMD was increased by 2.7% ± 4.4% (p < 0.001) compared to the baseline values. However, femoral neck and total hip BMD did not significantly change. Bone formation and resorption markers both decreased by approximately 70% during treatment. Monthly treatment with minodronate did not adversely affect the healing process on the fracture site or the patients' laboratory results. The patients who were independently mobile prior to injury exhibited greater recovery of BMD in the femoral neck during the 9-mo treatment period. Monthly minodronate therapy during the early stages after hip fractures has favorable effects on restoring overall lumbar BMD and contralateral femoral neck BMD in patients with independent mobility prior to fractures.

Hip fracture incidence in Japan: Estimates of new patients in 2012 and 25-year trends

We estimated the number of hip fracture patients in 2012 in Japan and investigated the trends in incidence during a 25-year period from 1987 to 2012. Despite the increasing number of patients, the incidence of hip fracture in both men and women aged 70-79 years showed the possibility of decline.

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to estimate the number of hip fracture patients in 2012, to investigate the trends in incidence during a 25-year period from 1987 to 2012, and to determine the regional differences in Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected through a nationwide survey based on hospitals by a mail-in survey. Hip fracture incidences by sex and age and standardized incidence ratios by region were calculated.

RESULTS

The estimated numbers of new hip fracture patients in 2012 were 175,700 in total (95 % CI 170,300-181,100), 37,600 (36,600-38,600) for men and 138,100 (134,300-141,900) for women. The incidence rates in both men and women aged 70-79 years were the lowest in the 20-year period from 1992 to 2012. The incidence was higher in western areas of Japan than that in eastern areas in both men and women; however, the difference in the incidence of hip fracture between western and eastern areas is becoming smaller.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increasing number of new patients, the incidence of hip fracture in both men and women aged 70-79 years showed the possibility of decline. The exact reasons for this are unknown, but various drugs for improving bone mineral density or preventing hip fracture might have influenced the results. A decrease in the differences in nutrient intake levels might explain some of the change in regional differences in Japan.