Efficacy, tolerability and safety of once-monthly administration of 75mg risedronate in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis: a comparison with a 2.5mg once-daily dosage regimen

Lower bone mineral density can be a risk for an enlarging bone marrow lesion: A longitudinal cohort study of Japanese women without radiographic knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to elucidate the relationship between bone mineral density (BMD) at baseline and the change of bone marrow lesion (BML) during a 2-year follow-up (2YFU) period.

METHODS

Seventy-eight female participants (mean age: 54.9 ± 9.6 years) without radiographic knee osteoarthritis were eligible. Based on right-knee magnetic resonance imaging, maximum BML area (BMLa) was calculated by tracing the BML border. The change in BMLa was defined using the following formula: [2YFU] - [Baseline] = ΔBMLa. Positive ΔBMLa was defined as enlarged; negative ΔBMLa was defined as regressed. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was performed to measure the BMD of distal radius. Young adult mean [YAM (%)] of the BMD was used for statistical analysis. Linear regression analysis was conducted with ΔBMLa as the dependent variable and YAM as the independent variable. Receiver operating characteristic curve and logistic regression analyses were conducted for YAM to predict the prevalence of BML enlargement or regression.

RESULTS

Twenty-six (33.3%) patients had enlarged BMLa, 12 (15.4%) participants showed regressing BMLa, and 40 (51.3%) patients remained stable. YAM was negatively associated with ΔBMLa (β: - 0.375, P = 0.046). The best predictor of BML enlargement risk was 85% (odds ratio: 8.383, P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower BMD could predict BML enlargement during a 2YFU period.

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.

Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no treatment or usual care for osteoporosis in people with chronic kidney disease stages 3-5D

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for osteoporosis and is more prevalent among people with CKD than among people who do not have CKD. Although several drugs have been used to effectively treat osteoporosis in the general population, it is unclear whether they are also effective and safe for people with CKD, who have altered systemic mineral and bone metabolism.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for osteoporosis in patients with CKD stages 3-5, and those undergoing dialysis (5D).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 January 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any anti-osteoporotic drugs with a placebo, no treatment or usual care in patients with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality using the risk of bias tool, and extracted data. The main outcomes were the incidence of fracture at any sites; mean change in the bone mineral density (BMD; measured using dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry (DXA)) of the femoral neck, total hip, lumbar spine, and distal radius; death from all causes; incidence of adverse events; and quality of life (QoL). Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies involving 9164 randomised participants with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D met the inclusion criteria; all participants were postmenopausal women. Five studies included patients with CKD stages 3-4, and two studies included patients with CKD stages 5 or 5D. Five pharmacological interventions were identified (abaloparatide, alendronate, denosumab, raloxifene, and teriparatide). All studies were judged to be at an overall high risk of bias. Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.69; low certainty evidence). Anti-osteoporotic drugs probably makes little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; moderate certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; moderate certainty evidence). We were unable to incorporate studies into the meta-analyses for BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine and total hip as they only reported the percentage change in the BMD in the intervention group. Among patients with severe CKD stages 5 or 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low (MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02). Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.04, low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the included studies. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.56; very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in low certainty evidence. Anti-osteoporotic drugs make little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture and adverse events in moderate certainty evidence. Among patients with CKD stages 5 and 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture and death because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine in low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Larger studies including men, paediatric patients or individuals with unstable CKD-mineral and bone disorder are required to assess the effect of each anti-osteoporotic drug at each stage of CKD.

Vaccination for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Relationship to Osteoporosis Care: Current Evidence and Suggested Approaches

The development of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has proceeded at an unprecedented pace, with numerous trials conducted simultaneously across the world as a result of massive technological and financial resource expenditures. With multiple vaccines having now received regulatory approval, public health efforts to promote widespread vaccine dissemination are currently underway. There has been particular emphasis placed on vaccination of older populations, the age group in which COVID-19 infection has been most lethal. However, such widespread vaccination approaches have necessarily raised important questions related to potential interactions with underlying diseases and concomitant treatments among persons to be vaccinated. Osteoporosis is a chronic condition marked by reduced bone strength and an associated increased risk for fracture that generally requires sustained medical intervention(s). Osteoporosis is neither associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection nor by more pronounced disease severity following infection, such that individuals with osteoporosis need not be more highly prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination. Osteoporosis therapies do not interfere with the efficacy or side effect profiles of COVID-19 vaccines and should not be stopped or indefinitely delayed because of vaccination. Depending on the specific drug profile within an anti-osteoporosis medication category, minor adjustments to the timing of drug administration may be considered with respect to the patient's COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Herein we provide practical recommendations for the care of patients requiring treatment for osteoporosis in the setting of COVID-19 vaccination. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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.

Assessment of baseline bone turnover marker levels and response to risedronate treatment: Data from a Japanese phase III trial

Background

Risedronate increases bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk, but treatment response may depend on the baseline state of bone turnover. Data regarding the selection of therapeutic drugs or the prediction of therapeutic effects with baseline levels of bone turnover markers (BTMs) as a reference are insufficient. We hypothesized that when the baseline levels of BTMs are higher, baseline BMD might be lower, changes in BMD at 12 months after risedronate treatment might be higher, and the reduction of fracture incidence might be greater. This study aimed to analyze the data of a phase III clinical trial of risedronate from Japan to investigate the relationships between baseline BTM levels and (1) baseline BMD, (2) changes in BMD at 12 months after the start of treatment, and (3) the incidence of new vertebral fractures.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis included 788 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis whose baseline BTM levels as well as baseline and endpoint BMDs were measured. Relationships between baseline BTM levels and BMD at baseline and 12 months after risedronate treatment and new vertebral fractures were examined. One-way analysis of variance, two-tailed Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test were used to analyze the data.

Results

Baseline BMD showed a significant upward trend when baseline BTM levels were lower in the analysis by tertiles. New vertebral fractures tended to occur in patients with prevalent vertebral fractures, but the relationship between new fractures and BTM levels was not statistically significant. Regardless of BTM types, BMD percentage increments (%) and increments (g/cm²) with the 12-month treatment were high when pretreatment BTM levels were high (P < 0.0001), and a >5.0% increase in BMD was observed even if baseline BTM levels were within the normal range. A new vertebral fracture occurred in only six patients (0.77%), and there was not enough statistical power to clarify the relationship between baseline BTM levels and fracture risk reduction.

Conclusions

When pretreatment BTM levels increased, baseline BMD tended to be lower and the increase in BMD with 12-month risedronate treatment was higher. However, BMD could still be increased even if the baseline BTM levels are within the normal range. Combined with available evidence, baseline BTMs may not have an important role in deciding the optimal therapy. To elucidate the relationship between baseline BTM levels and long-term fracture risk, it will be necessary to conduct more large-scale studies with a longer follow-up period in severe osteoporotic patients with a high fracture risk.

Mini abstract

We evaluated the significance of baseline bone turnover markers in the response to risedronate treatment. The increase in the bone mineral density (BMD) with the 12-month treatment may be higher when the state of bone turnover at baseline is higher, and BMD could still be increased even if the baseline bone turnover is within the normal range.

•

Baseline bone turnover markers in response to risedronate treatment are unknown.

•

Higher BMD may be achieved when the state of bone turnover at baseline is higher.

•

Further increase in BMD is possible even if the baseline bone turnover is normal.

Phase II/III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of monthly delayed-release versus daily immediate-release risedronate tablets in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis

Absorption of oral immediate-release (IR) risedronate tablets is reduced by food intake, thus a delayed-release (DR) tablet has been developed to overcome the necessity of taking IR tablets under fasting conditions. This randomized, double-blind, phase II/III study compared efficacy and safety of risedronate IR once-daily (QD) and DR once-monthly (QM) tablets in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis. Patients received 2.5 mg IR on awakening QD, or 25 or 37.5 mg DR on awakening, following breakfast, or 30 min after breakfast, QM for 12 months. Primary endpoint was non-inferiority in mean percent change from baseline to end of study (month 12, last observation carried forward [M12, LOCF]) in mean lumbar spine (L₂-L₄) bone mineral density (BMD) between risedronate IR on awakening and DR following breakfast. Mean percent changes in (L₂-L₄) BMD at M12, LOCF were 5.07% (IR at awakening, n = 190), 3.36% (25 mg DR following breakfast, n = 194), and 4.11% (37.5 mg DR following breakfast, n = 181). Mean percent change in (L₂-L₄) BMD was numerically lower in the DR following breakfast groups versus the respective on awakening and 30 min after breakfast DR groups. Overall incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between groups. In the DR groups, 1.5-4.0% of patients reported TEAEs potentially associated with acute-phase reactions versus 0% in the IR group. In this study, non-inferiority could not be declared for 37.5 or 25 mg DR following breakfast QM (p = 0.1346 or p = 0.6711, respectively) versus 2.5 mg IR on awakening QD.

Efficacy and safety of once-monthly risedronate in osteoporosis subjects with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease: a post hoc subgroup analysis of a phase III trial in Japan

Limited data are available on the safety and efficacy of anti-resorptive agents, particularly once-monthly bisphosphonates, for use in osteoporotic patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, phase III study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of once-monthly risedronate (RIS-OM) 75 mg tablets in Japanese osteoporosis patients with mild-to-moderate CKD. Patients who received RIS-OM 75 mg were stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; ≥ 90, ≥ 60 to < 90, or ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²). Safety endpoints were incidence of adverse events (AEs) and percent change from baseline in eGFR, serum creatinine, calcium, and phosphorus. Efficacy endpoints were percent change from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTMs). In 420 patients included (age 67.7 ± 6.7 years, women 98.8%), the incidence of all AEs, gastrointestinal disorders, acute phase reaction, non-vertebral fractures, and renal and urinary disorders was not significantly different among subgroups. Interaction between subgroups and time was significant for eGFR (p = 0.010) and serum creatinine (p = 0.001) but considered to be regression to the mean and clinically insignificant. BMD significantly increased while BTMs significantly decreased from baseline with a similar degree of change among the subgroups. In conclusion, RIS-OM 75 mg showed consistent safety and efficacy in suppressing bone turnover and increasing BMD in Japanese primary osteoporosis patients with mild-to-moderate CKD. These results should, however, be interpreted with caution because the number of patients with moderate CKD was limited.

Symptoms and Upper Gastrointestinal Mucosal Injury Associated with Bisphosphonate Therapy

Objective The incidence of osteoporosis is increasing with the rapid aging of the Japanese population. Bisphosphonates are first-line agents used for the treatment of osteoporosis, but they can cause upper gastrointestinal mucosal injury. This study investigated symptoms and upper gastrointestinal mucosal injury associated with oral bisphosphonates. Methods Symptoms were evaluated using the F-scale questionnaire, and esophageal mucosal injury and gastroduodenal ulceration were assessed by endoscopy. Patients were stratified by the type of bisphosphonate (alendronate, risedronate, or minodronate), treatment schedule (once weekly or every four weeks), and the concomitant use of other medications [antithrombotic agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or acid suppressants]. Patients The subjects included 221 patients treated with oral bisphosphonates for at least one month. Results The median F-scale total score was 4 (0-34), reflux score was 2 (0-20), and the mean dyspepsia score was 2 (0-16). Endoscopy showed esophageal mucosal injury of Grade A or worse (Los Angeles classification) in 22/221 patients (10.0%) and gastroduodenal ulcers in 9 patients (4.1%). The dyspepsia score in patients who took minodronate every four weeks was significantly lower (p<0.05) in comparison to patients who took other bisphosphonates. The dyspepsia score was significantly higher (p<0.05) and mucosal injury was significantly more frequent in patients who also used antithrombotic agents and NSAIDs. Conclusion Symptoms and upper gastrointestinal mucosal damage were not necessarily frequent or severe in patients treated with bisphosphonates. However, the concomitant use of bisphosphonates with antithrombotic agents and NSAIDs increased both symptoms and mucosal injury. The symptoms were milder in patients using minodronate once monthly.

Factors associated with inadequate responses to risedronate in Japanese patients with osteoporosis

Factors associated with an inadequate response (IR) to bisphosphonates have been reported in many countries, but not in Japan, where the approved dose is half the global dose. We analyzed factors associated with IR to risedronate in Japanese patients with osteoporosis. This was a post hoc analysis of 1261 Japanese osteoporosis patients who received risedronate for 1 year in phase III trials. IR was defined as more than one new vertebral fracture (VF) and/or negative change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) at 1 year. Various baseline and follow-up variables were examined for potential contribution to IR. Of the 1261 subjects, 118 exhibited an IR. At baseline, IR was associated with a higher BMD, lower levels of bone turnover markers (BTM) (serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, urinary N-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen and C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen), and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] below 16 ng/mL. BTM changes were blunted at 6 months in subjects with IR. On simple regression analysis, all the above variables and poor drug adherence were associated with an IR. On multivariate regression analysis, factors associated with IR were high BMD, vitamin D deficiency at baseline and low BTM at baseline, or a decreased BTM response at 6 months. Low serum 25(OH)D and BTM as well as high BMD at baseline were independent predictors of an IR to risedronate in Japan. These results emphasize the importance of the assessment of serum 25(OH)D and BTM in the management of osteoporosis with bisphosphonates.

Effects of once-monthly minodronate versus risedronate in osteoporosis patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12-month randomized head-to-head comparison

A head-to-head comparison of once-monthly oral bisphosphonates minodronate (MIN) and risedronate (RIS) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) demonstrated that MIN has the same effect as RIS on increase in bone mineral density (BMD) and a stronger effect on inhibition of bone resorption than RIS, suggesting that MIN is a promising treatment option for osteoporosis patients with RA.

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effect of once-monthly oral MIN in patients with RA, a prospective, randomized, open-label, head-to-head comparison with once-monthly oral RIS was conducted.

METHODS

A total of 83 patients with RA were randomly assigned to either once-monthly oral MIN 50 mg (n = 42) or once-monthly oral RIS 75 mg (n = 41). Serial BMD and bone turnover markers were measured and compared between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

BMD (lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck) increased significantly after 12 months of treatment with MIN (3.8, 2.0, and 2.2%, respectively, P < 0.05) and RIS (3.6, 1.9, and 1.9%, respectively, P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups. Percent changes of bone turnover markers from baseline to 12 months in the MIN group were significantly greater than those in the RIS group (TRACP-5b: - 36.3 vs - 19.3%, P < 0.05; NTX: - 27.1 vs - 17.3%, P < 0.05; BAP: -30.2 vs -19.4%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study of RA patients demonstrated that MIN has the same effect as RIS on increase in BMD and a stronger effect on inhibition of bone resorption than RIS. The results suggest that MIN is a promising treatment option for osteoporosis patients with RA.

Relationship between baseline characteristics and response to risedronate treatment for osteoporosis: data from three Japanese phase III trials

We evaluated the influence of baseline age, bone mineral density (BMD), and serum levels of vitamin D on the response to risedronate treatment. Risedronate consistently increased BMD, but our results suggest vitamin D supplementation may be necessary to achieve optimal treatment effect. Furthermore, early intervention may help prevent bone fractures.

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate the influence of baseline age, BMD, and vitamin D insufficiency on the response to risedronate treatment.

METHODS

Data regarding 1447 patients was obtained from the registries of three phase III clinical trials of risedronate. The response to treatment was expressed in terms of BMD increase and occurrence of new vertebral fractures. The patients were stratified by baseline values for age (<65, 65-72, and ≥72 years), lumbar spine BMD T-score (osteoporotic, <-2.5; and non-osteoporotic, ≥- 2.5), and serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (deficient, <21 ng/mL; and non-deficient, ≥21 ng/mL).

RESULTS

Risedronate consistently increased lumbar spine BMD in all the groups, with similar percentage and absolute increments in all the age tertiles. The percentage, but not absolute, increment in BMD was significantly higher (p = 0.0003) in the osteoporotic than that in the non-osteoporotic patients (baseline). Of the 1330 patients whose baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D were available, 44.7% had vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/mL), while 89.2% had insufficiency (<30 ng/mL). The percentage and absolute increments in BMD were lower (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) in the vitamin D-deficient than those in the non-deficient patients. New vertebral fractures occurred in 1.5 and 0.8% of the osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic patients, respectively (end of the treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic response in elderly patients is consistent, but early initiation of risedronate treatment may help prevent fractures. Risedronate-induced increase in BMD is lower in patients with vitamin D deficiency, suggesting that vitamin D supplementation is important to achieve optimal treatment response.

Risedronate therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease with osteoporosis: post-hoc analysis of data from the risedronate phase III clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The clinical effect of bisphosphonate treatment has not been clearly evaluated by kidney function in Japanese Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) patients with osteoporosis. This study analyzed the data from three risedronate Japanese phase III trials. The clinical effect of risedronate therapy was evaluated in CKD patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Japanese clinical trials involved 852 subjects who received risedronate (2.5 mg once daily or 17.5 mg once weekly) and whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were calculable and at ≥ 30 mL/min. The subjects were divided into subgroups according to the eGFR level: ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m2, ≥ 60 to < 90 mL/min/1.73 m2, ≥ 30 to < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers (BTMs) and adverse events were evaluated at 48 weeks.

RESULTS

Adverse event incidence was similar among three subgroups. There was also no exacerbation of impaired kidney function associated with risedronate administration in the subjects with eGFR above 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Risedronate administration induced a significant increase in lumbar spine BMD and significant inhibition of BTMs in three subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The risedronate therapy showed similar clinical effects in CKD patients with osteoporosis compared to those without CKD.

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.

Minodronic acid suppresses gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-induced bone remodeling biomarkers: a retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Estrogen deprivation therapy for myoma/adenomyosis decreases bone mineral density and can only be applied in the short term, as temporizing measures in the premenopausal woman.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of bisphosphonate minodronic acid on markers of bone turnover over a 6-month period in women receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 19 premenopausal patients with myoma/adenomyosis, who received GnRHa (leuprolide acetate, 1.88 mg/month or buserelin acetate, 900 µg/day) for 6 months from January 2014 to December 2014. Eight patients concomitantly received minodronic acid 50 mg every month during GnRHa therapy, and 11 treated with GnRHa alone. To compare these data in a case-controlled study, we analyzed an age-matched group of seven (premature or natural) menopausal women treated with minodronic acid. The primary outcome was percent changes in bone turnover markers in urine at 6 months.

RESULTS

In menopausal women group, minodronic acid (50 mg once-monthly) for 6 months decreased urinary deoxypyridinoline (DPD) and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type 1 collagen (NTX). Women receiving a GnRHa had a significant increase in urinary DPD and TNX at 6 months while minodronic acid during GnRHa therapy improved urinary levels of DPD and NTX to near baseline.

CONCLUSION

Minodronic acid treatment appears to be promising in women with secondary bone loss receiving GnRHa treatment.

Clinical efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate 100 mg versus monthly intravenous ibandronate 1 mg in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis

The MOVEST study evaluated the efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate versus licensed monthly IV ibandronate in Japanese osteoporotic patients. Relative BMD gains after 12 months were 5.22 % oral and 5.34 % IV, showing non-inferiority of oral to IV ibandronate (primary endpoint). No new safety concerns were identified.

INTRODUCTION

The randomized, phase 3, double-blind MOVEST (Monthly Oral VErsus intravenouS ibandronaTe) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of monthly oral ibandronate versus the licensed monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate regimen in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Ambulatory patients aged ≥ 55 years with primary osteoporosis were randomized to receive oral ibandronate 100 mg/month plus monthly IV placebo, or IV ibandronate 1 mg/month plus monthly oral placebo. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of oral versus IV ibandronate with respect to bone mineral density (BMD) gains at the lumbar spine after 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled with 372 patients in the per-protocol set (183 and 189 in the oral and IV ibandronate groups, respectively). The relative change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD values for the oral and IV ibandronate groups, respectively, was 5.22 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.65, 5.80) and 5.34 % (95 % CI 4.78, 5.90). The least squares mean difference between the two groups was -0.23 % (95 % CI -0.97, 0.51), showing non-inferiority of oral ibandronate to IV ibandronate (non-inferiority limit = -1.60). Changes in BMD values at other sites, and bone turnover marker levels in the oral ibandronate group, were comparable with those of the IV group. The safety profile was similar to that previously demonstrated; no new safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of oral ibandronate 100 mg/month to IV ibandronate 1 mg/month (licensed dose in Japan) in increasing lumbar spine BMD in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis.

Risedronate as an intra-abdominal sepsis mimic: a case report

This case report highlights the potential severity of bisphosphonate-associated reactions.

CASE REPORT

A 76-year-old lady underwent several hospital admissions for investigation of fever associated with rigors, abdominal pain, and vomiting.

DISCUSSION

Despite multiple investigations, no cause was found, but the timing of the symptoms coincided with monthly risedronate administration.

The therapeutic effectiveness of the coadministration of weekly risedronate and proton pump inhibitor in osteoporosis treatment

This trial was conducted to investigate the long-term effects of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) coadministration on the efficacy of weekly risedronate treatment for osteoporosis. Ninety-six women over 50 years old with low bone mineral density (BMD) participated in this trial. Subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups: a 17.5 mg dose of sodium risedronate was administered weekly, with or without a daily 10 mg dose of sodium rabeprazole (n = 49 and 47 in the BP + PPI and BP groups, resp.). The following biomarkers were measured at the baseline and every 3 months: bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen corrected for creatinine, parathyroid hormone, BMD of the lumbar spine, and physical parameters evaluated according to the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Statistical comparisons of these parameters were performed after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The Δ values of improvement in physical functioning after 12 months and bodily pain after 6 and 12 months in the BP + PPI group were significantly larger than those in the BP group. These results suggest that PPI does not adversely affect bone metabolism. Alternatively, approved bone formation by concomitant PPI treatment may have had favorable effects on the improvement of bodily pain and physical functions.