A comparison of the effect of alendronate and risedronate on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: 24-month results from FACTS-International

Beyond Antiresorptive Activity: Risedronate-Based Coordination Complexes To Potentially Treat Osteolytic Metastases

Coordination of clinically employed bisphosphonate, risedronate (RISE), to bioactive metals, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and Zn²⁺, allowed the formation of bisphosphonate-based coordination complexes (BPCCs). Three RISE-based BPCCs, RISE-Ca, RISE-Mg, and RISE-Zn, were produced, and their structures were elucidated by single crystal X-ray diffraction. Interestingly, the addition of an auxiliary ligand, etidronic acid (HEDP), resulted in the recrystallized protonated form of the ligand, H-RISE. The pH-dependent structural stability of the RISE-based BPCCs was measured by means of dissolution profiles under neutral and acidic simulated physiological conditions (PBS and FaSSGF, respectively). In comparison to RISE (Actonel), the complexes showed a lower equilibrium solubility (∼70-85% in 18-24 h) in PBS, while a higher equilibrium solubility (∼100% in 3 h) in acidic media. The results point to the capacity to release this BP in a pH-dependent manner from the RISE-based BPCCs. Subsequently, the particle size of RISE-Ca was reduced, from 300 μm to ∼350 d.nm, employing the phase inversion temperature (PIT)-nanoemulsion method, resulting in nano-Ca@RISE. Aggregation measurements of nano-Ca@RISE in 1% fetal bovine serum (FBS):H₂O was monitored after 24, 48, and 72 h to study the particle size longevity in physiological media, showing that the suspended material has the potential to maintain its particle size over time. Furthermore, binding assays were performed to determine the potential binding of nano-Ca@RISE to the bone, where results show higher binding (∼1.7×) for the material to hydroxyapatite (HA, 30%) when compared to RISE (17%) in 1 d. The cytotoxicity effects of nano-Ca@RISE were compared to those of RISE against the human breast cancer MDA-MB-231 and normal osteoblast-like hFOB 1.19 cell lines by dose-response curves and relative cell viability assays in an in vitro setting. The results demonstrate that nano-Ca@RISE significantly decreases the viability of MDA-MB-231 with high specificity, at concentrations ∼2-3× lower than the ones reported employing other third-generation BPs. This is supported by the fact that when normal osteoblast cells (hFOB 1.19), which are part of the tissue microenvironment at metastatic sites, were treated with nano-Ca@RISE no significant decrease in viability was observed. This study expands on the therapeutic potential of RISE beyond its antiresorptive activity through the design of BPCCs, specifically nano-Ca@RISE, that bind to the bone and degrade in a pH-dependent manner under acidic conditions.

How Efficient are Alendronate-Nano/Biomaterial Combinations for Anti-Osteoporosis Therapy? An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature

Osteoporosis is defined as a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. Because of the systemic nature of osteoporosis, the associated escalation in fracture risk affects virtually all skeletal sites. The problem is serious since it is estimated that more than 23 million men and women are at high risk of osteoporotic-like breakages in the European Union. Alendronate (ALN) is the most commonly prescribed oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate (BP) for the prevention and the therapy of osteoporosis. This is also one of the most intensely studied drugs in this field. However, ALN is characterized by restricted oral absorption and bioavailability and simultaneously its administration has serious side-effects (jaw osteonecrosis, irritation of the gastrointestinal system, nausea, musculoskeletal pain, and cardiovascular risks). Therefore, delivery systems enabling controlled release and local action of this drug are of great interest, being widely researched and presented in the literature. In this review, we discuss the current trends in the design of various types of alendronate carriers. Our paper is focused on the most recent developments in the field of nano/biomaterials-based systems for ALN delivery, including nano/microformulations, synthetic/natural polymeric and inorganic materials, hydrogel-based materials, scaffolds, coated-like structures, as well as organic-inorganic hybrids. Topics related to the treatment of complex bone diseases including osteoporosis have been covered in several more general reviews; however, the systems for this particular drug have not yet been discussed in detail.

Aminobisphosphonates: Reconsideration 25 years after their approval for the treatment of osteoporosis

Aminobisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis. They have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite, binding primarily to resorbing surfaces, but also to forming surfaces and to some extent to resting surfaces. They inhibit osteoclasts, thereby decreasing remodelling units. Consequently, they increase bone mass and reduce stress risers. This decreases the risk of fractures. If this decrease is sufficient, they can be temporarily withdrawn (drug holidays), which prevents serious complications (atypical femoral fracture). They probably reduce mortality. Virtually all patients with osteoporosis can benefit from them at some point in the course of their disease (at the beginning of treatment or after the administration of anabolics, selective estrogen receptor modulators or denosumab). If well tolerated orally, alendronate and risedronate are preferable. Otherwise, zoledronate is preferred. Their efficacy vs. cost-safety-convenience ratio makes aminobisphosphonates reference drugs in the field of osteoporosis.

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

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

Randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of odanacatib in the treatment of men with osteoporosis

Odanacatib (ODN) was investigated as an osteoporosis treatment in 292 men. Compared with placebo, odanacatib improved bone mineral density and led to sustained bone resorption decreases while producing relatively little bone formation reduction that leveled off with time. However, increased risk of stroke in another study stopped further odanacatib development.

INTRODUCTION

ODN, a selective oral cathepsin K inhibitor, was in development for osteoporosis treatment. This phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-month study investigated ODN safety and efficacy in men with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Men with idiopathic osteoporosis or osteoporosis due to hypogonadism and a lumbar spine or hip (total hip [TH], femoral neck [FN], or trochanter) bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of ≤ - 2.5 to ≥ - 4.0 without prior vertebral fracture or ≤ - 1.5 to ≥ - 4.0 with one prior vertebral fracture were randomized (1:1) to once-weekly ODN 50 mg or placebo. All received 5600 IU vitamin D₃ weekly and calcium supplementation as needed (≥ 1200 mg daily). The primary efficacy outcome was changed from baseline in lumbar spine BMD versus placebo.

RESULTS

Overall, 292 men, mean age 68.8 years, were randomly assigned to ODN or placebo. Versus placebo, ODN increased BMD from baseline at the lumbar spine, TH, FN, and trochanter by 5.6%, 2.0%, 1.7%, and 2.1%, respectively (all p < 0.01), and decreased uNTx/Cr (68%, p < 0.001), sCTx (77%, p < 0.001), sP1NP (16%, p = 0.001), and sBSAP (8%, p = 0.019). The between-group bone formation marker decrease peaked at 3 months, then returned toward baseline. The safety profile, including cardiovascular events, was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Though a promising osteoporosis therapy for men, ODN development was discontinued due to increased risk of stroke in the LOFT phase 3 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01120600 (registered May 11, 2010).

Zoledronate

Zoledronate is the most potent and most long-acting bisphosphonate in clinical use, and is administered as an intravenous infusion. Its major uses are in osteoporosis, Paget's disease, and in myeloma and cancers to reduce adverse skeletal related events (SREs). In benign disease, it is a first- or second-line treatment for osteoporosis, achieving anti-fracture efficacy comparable to that of the RANKL blocker, denosumab, over 3 years, and it reduces fracture risk in osteopenic older women. It is the preferred treatment for Paget's disease, achieving higher rates of remissions which are much more prolonged than with any other agent. Some trials have suggested that it reduces mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer, but these findings are not consistent across all studies. It is nephrotoxic, so should not be given to those with significant renal impairment, and, like other potent anti-resorptive agents, can cause hypocalcemia in patients with severe vitamin D deficiency, which should be corrected before administration. Its most common adverse effect is the acute phase response, seen in 30-40% of patients after their first dose, and much less commonly subsequently. Clinical trials in osteoporosis have not demonstrated increases in osteonecrosis of the jaw or in atypical femoral fractures. Observational databases are currently inadequate to determine whether these problems are increased in zoledronate users. Now available as a generic, zoledronate is a cost-effective agent for fracture prevention and for management of Paget's disease, but wider provision of infusion facilities is important to increase patient access. There is a need to further explore its potential for reducing cancer, cardiovascular disease and mortality, since these effects could be substantially more important than its skeletal actions.

Glucocorticoid induced osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is the most common secondary cause of osteoporosis. Despite this, many patients receiving glucocorticoids are not evaluated for their skeletal health.

AREAS COVERED

Glucocorticoids have profound effects on bone cells, resulting in increases in bone resorption and impairments in bone formation. Bone loss and subsequent increases in fracture risk occur early after the administration of glucocorticoids. Incidence of fractures is highest within the first 6 months of glucocorticoid treatment, and declines with longer exposure. Decreases in bone mass follow a dose-dependent relationship with glucocorticoid dosage. Pharmacologic prevention and treatment for osteoporosis are recommended for all patients receiving glucocorticoids. Oral bisphosphonates, with concomitant vitamin D and calcium supplementation, are considered as the first-line treatment option. However, a number of alternative treatment options, including intravenous bisphosphonates, anabolic agents, and denosumab have all proven efficacy in increasing lumbar spine or hip bone mineral density. The mechanism of action and recent controlled trials for these therapies are reviewed. The literature search was conducted within PubMed in November 2018. 492 articles were found and 45 were included.

EXPERT OPINION

Future studies will likely evaluate the safety profiles of alternative treatments, while focusing on its ability to reduce fracture risk.

Need for Deprescribing in Hospital Elderly Patients Discharged with a Limited Life Expectancy: The REPOSI Study

OBJECTIVE

Older people approaching the end of life are at a high risk for adverse drug reactions. Approaching the end of life should change the therapeutic aims, triggering a reduction in the number of drugs.The main aim of this study is to describe the preventive and symptomatic drug treatments prescribed to patients discharged with a limited life expectancy from internal medicine and geriatric wards. The secondary aim was to describe the potentially severe drug-drug interactions (DDI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed Registry of Polytherapies Societa Italiana di Medicina Interna (REPOSI), a network of internal medicine and geriatric wards, to describe the drug therapy of patients discharged with a limited life expectancy.

RESULTS

The study sample comprised 55 patients discharged with a limited life expectancy. Patients with at least 1 preventive medication that could be considered for deprescription at the end of life were significantly fewer from admission to discharge (n = 30; 54.5% vs. n = 21; 38.2%; p = 0.02). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, lipid-lowering drugs, and clonidine were the most frequent potentially avoidable medications prescribed at discharge, followed by xanthine oxidase inhibitors and drugs to prevent fractures. Thirty-seven (67.3%) patients were also exposed to at least 1 potentially severe DDI at discharge.

CONCLUSION

Hospital discharge is associated with a small reduction in the use of commonly prescribed preventive medications in patients discharged with a limited life expectancy. Cardiovascular drugs are the most frequent potentially avoidable preventive medications. A consensus framework or shared criteria for potentially inappropriate medication in elderly patients with limited life expectancy could be useful to further improve drug prescription.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Effect of Sequential Treatment with Bisphosphonates After Teriparatide in Ovariectomized Rats: A Direct Comparison Between Risedronate and Alendronate

Teriparatide (TPTD), a recombinant human parathyroid hormone N-terminal fragment (1-34), is a widely used bone anabolic drug for osteoporosis. Sequential treatment with antiresorptives such as bisphosphonates after TPTD discontinuation is generally recommended. However, relative effects of bisphosphonates have not been determined. In the present study, we directly compared effects of risedronate (RIS) and alendronate (ALN) on bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover, structural property and strength in ovariectomized (OVX) rats, when administered after TPTD. Female Sprague Dawley rats were divided into one sham-operated and eight ovariectomized groups. TPTD, RIS, and ALN were given subcutaneously twice per week for 4 or 8 weeks after 4 week treatment with TPTD. TPTD significantly increased BMD (+9.6%) in OVX rats after 4 weeks of treatment. 8 weeks after TPTD withdrawal, vehicle-treated group showed a blunted BMD increase of +8.4% from the baseline. In contrast, 8 weeks of treatment with RIS and ALN significantly increased BMD to 17.4 and 21.8%, respectively. While ALN caused a consistently larger increase in BMD, sequential treatment with RIS resulted in lower Tb.Sp compared to ALN in the fourth lumbar vertebra as well as in greater stiffness in compression test. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that sequential therapy with ALN and RIS after TPTD both improved bone mass and structure. Our results further suggest that RIS may have a greater effect on improving bone quality and stiffness than ALN despite less prominent effect on BMD. Further studies are necessary to determine clinical relevance of these findings to fracture rate.

Comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates in short-term fracture prevention for primary osteoporosis: a systematic review with network meta-analyses

Our network meta-analyses compared the efficacy of different bisphosphonates preventing fractures for primary osteoporosis. By including 36 studies, we found that zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture.

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted in order to analyze the available evidence on the efficacy of bisphosphonates for preventing fractures.

METHODS

We considered randomized trials comparing any bisphosphonate with other bisphosphonate or placebo. We searched Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed and manually searched reference list of relevant articles. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. The primary outcome is vertebral fracture. Secondary outcomes include nonvertebral fracture, hip fracture, wrist fracture, and any fracture.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included. Significant difference was found between bisphosphonates for vertebral fracture and nonvertebral fracture (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.04, respectively). Compared with placebo, alendronate, clodronate, ibandronate, minodronate, pamidronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid significantly prevented vertebral fracture. Zoledronic acid significantly reduced the risk of vertebral fracture, compared with alendronate, clodronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and tiludronate (0.65 (0.46, 0.91), 0.53 (0.33, 0.86), 0.45 (0.27, 0.74), 0.52 (0.36, 0.75), 0.59 (0.42, 0.83), and 0.31 (0.21, 0.48), respectively). Compared with etidronate, clodronate and zoledronic acid significantly prevented nonvertebral fracture. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid significantly prevented any fracture. The possibility rankings showed that zoledronic ranked first in preventing vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and any fracture, and pamidronate ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture and wrist fracture. In the sensitivity analyses, zoledronic acid ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture, and alendronate ranked first in preventing hip fracture and wrist fracture.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture. Uncertainty still remains and future studies are needed to accurately evaluate the comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates.

Difference in Bone Mineral Density Change at the Lateral Femoral Cortices according to Administration of Different Bisphosphonate Agents

BACKGROUND

To retrospectively assess whether the response of subtrochanteric lateral cortex (STLC) is different according to the bisphosphonate agents in terms of bone mineral density (BMD) change.

METHODS

A total of 149 subjects, who had 2- to 4-year interval follow-up of BMD using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), were included in this retrospective study divided into following 3 groups: control group (no consumption of any anti-osteoporotic drugs, n=38), alendronate group (naïve alendronate users, n=48), risedronate group (naïve risedronate users, n=63). BMD was measured at the STLC and subtrochanteric medial cortex (STMC) in each patient by drawing rectangular ROIs at the bone cortices. The percent change of BMD at the STLC were compared between the aforementioned 3 groups by using analysis of covariance model to control five independent variables of age, body mass index, percent change of STMC, hip axis length, time interval between DXA examinations.

RESULTS

The least square mean values±standard deviation of the percent change of BMD in the control, alendronate, and risedronate groups were 1.46±1.50, 2.23±1.26, and 6.96±1.11, respectively. The risedronate group showed significantly higher change of BMD percentage compared with the control (adjusted P=0.012) or alendronate (adjusted P=0.016) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The percent change of BMD at the STLC in the risedronate user group was greater than the alendronate and control groups. The implication of these changes needs to be further verified.

Effects of switching weekly alendronate or risedronate to monthly minodronate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12-month prospective study

Switching weekly ALN or RIS to monthly MIN in patients with RA, of whom two-thirds were treated with low-dose PSL, significantly decreased bone turnover markers and increased BMD at 12 months, suggesting that monthly MIN may be an effective alternative treatment option of oral bisphosphonate treatment.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this prospective, observational study was to evaluate the effects of switching weekly alendronate (ALN 35 mg) or risedronate (RIS 17.5 mg) to monthly minodronate (MIN 50 mg) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Patient characteristics were as follows: n = 172; 155 postmenopausal women, age 65.5 (44–87) years; T-score of lumbar spine (LS), −1.4; total hip (TH), −1.8; femoral neck (FN), −2.1; dose and rate of oral prednisolone (2.3 mg/day), 69.1 %; prior duration of ALN or RIS, 46.6 months; were allocated, based on their preference, to either the (1) continue group (n = 88), (2) switch-from-ALN group (n = 44), or (3) switch-from-RIS group (n = 40).

RESULTS

After 12 months, increase in BMD was significantly greater in group 3 compared to group 1: LS (4.1 vs 1.2 %; P < 0.001), TH (1.9 vs −0.7 %; P < 0.01), and FN (2.7 vs −0.5 %; P < 0.05); and in group 2 compared to group 1: LS (3.2 vs 1.2 %; P < 0.05) and TH (1.5 vs −0.7 %; P < 0.01). The decrease in bone turnover markers was significantly greater in group 3 compared to group 1: TRACP-5b (−37.3 vs 2.5 %; P < 0.001), PINP (−24.7 vs −6.2 %; P < 0.05), and ucOC (−39.2 vs 13.0 %; P < 0.05); and in group 2 compared to group 1: TRACP-5b (−12.5 vs 2.5 %; P < 0.05) at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching weekly ALN or RIS to monthly MIN in patients with RA may be an effective alternative treatment option of oral bisphosphonate treatment.

Efficacy and safety of odanacatib treatment for patients with osteoporosis: a meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib (ODN) for the treatment of osteoporosis, using data in studies reported in the literature. We performed a literature search to compare the outcomes of applications of once-weekly ODN 50 mg and control. The outcomes of osteoporosis evaluated include primary outcome as bone mineral density (BMD) at different skeletal sites, and secondary outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), such as incidence of skin AEs, fracture, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Four trials were included. Mean difference (95% CI) of lumbar spine BMD was 3.41 (1.57-5.24) at 12 months and 4.89 (2.72-7.05) at 24 months; mean difference (95% CI) of femoral neck BMD was 1.90 (0.73-3.08) at 12 months and 3.85 (2.55-5.15) at 24 months; mean difference (95% CI) of total hip BMD was 2.65 (1.20-4.09) at 12 months and 3.70 (1.76-5.64) at 24 months; risk ratio (95% CI) of AEs was 0.98 (0.91-1.07); risk ratio (95% CI) of SAEs was 1.11 (0.72-1.72); risk ratio (95% CI) of skin AEs was 0.92 (0.63-1.35); and risk ratio (95% CI) of fracture was 0.34 (0.16-0.70). In this study, application of 50 mg ODN produced significantly greater BMD increases and lower fracture incidence than that of the control. In addition, ODN was generally well tolerated.

Risedronate improves bone architecture and strength faster than alendronate in ovariectomized rats on a low-calcium diet

Clinical evidence suggests that, compared with alendronate, risedronate reduces fracture risk faster and more potently, with less bone mass gain. We tested the hypothesis that risedronate improves bone quality faster than alendronate using calcium-deficient, ovariectomized (OVX) rats. Female Sprague-Dawley rats at 24 weeks of age were divided into sham-operated and OVX groups and fed a low-calcium (0.05%) diet under paired feeding. After 12 weeks, OVX rats were divided into five groups and treated with vehicle, risedronate (3.5 and 17.5 μg/kg/week, s.c.) or alendronate (7 and 35 μg/kg/week, s.c.). Rats were killed 6-8 weeks later and the bone architecture and strength of the left femur were evaluated by micro-computed tomography and a three-point bending test. Trabecular bone mineral density (BMD), number and thickness were significantly lower in OVX rats than in the sham-operated group. Cortical BMD, bone area (Ct.Ar), and thickness (Ct.Th) were similarly decreased. Risedronate significantly improved Ct.Ar (+8%) and Ct.Th (+9%) at 6 weeks, while alendronate only caused a significant improvement in Ct.Ar (+8% at 6 weeks) and only at the higher dose. At 8 weeks, both risedronate and alendronate significantly increased trabecular BMD compared with the vehicle. Bone strength parameters showed a significant correlation between Ct.Ar and Ct.Th. Risedronate significantly improved maximum load at 6 weeks, while alendronate failed to produce any significant changes. Our results suggest that risedronate is superior to alendronate at improving cortical bone architecture and strength, and that enhanced bone quality partly accounts for risedronate's efficacy.

Fracture incidence after 3 years of aromatase inhibitor therapy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to describe the fracture incidence and bone mineral density (BMD) evolution in a large cohort of post-menopausal women with breast cancer after 3 years of aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal study in real-life setting. Each woman had an extensive medical assessment, a biological evaluation, a BMD measurement, and systematic spinal X-rays at baseline and after 3 years of AI therapy. Women with osteoporosis at baseline (T-score < -2.5 and/or non-traumatic fracture history) were treated by oral weekly bisphosphonates.

RESULTS

Among 497 women (mean age 63.8 ± 9.6 years) included in this study, 389 had a bone evaluation both at baseline and after 3 years of AI therapy: 267 women (mean age 61.2 ± 8.6) with no osteoporosis at baseline and 122 women (mean age 67.2 ± 9.1) with osteoporosis at baseline justifying a weekly oral bisphosphonate treatment. Women without bisphosphonates had a significant decrease in spine BMD (-3.5%, P < 0.01), neck BMD (-2.0%, P < 0.01), and total hip BMD (-2.1%, P < 0.01) over the 3 years but only 15 of them (5.6%) presented an incident vertebral or non-vertebral fracture. In osteoporotic women treated with bisphosphonates, spine and hip BMD were maintained at 3 years but 12 of them (9.8%) had an incident fracture. These fractured women were significantly older (74.1 ± 9.8 versus 66.5 ± 8.8) but also presented BMD loss during treatment suggesting poor adherence to bisphosphonate treatment.

CONCLUSION

This real-life study confirmed that AIs induced moderate bone loss and low fracture incidence in post-menopausal women without initial osteoporosis. In women with baseline osteoporosis and AI therapy, oral bisphosphonates maintain BMD but were associated with a persistent fracture risk, particularly in older women.

Effect of the cathepsin K inhibitor odanacatib administered once weekly on bone mineral density in Japanese patients with osteoporosis--a double-blind, randomized, dose-finding study

The efficacy and safety of oral placebo or odanacatib 10, 25, or 50 mg once weekly for 52 weeks were evaluated in a double-blind, randomized, multi-center study in Japanese female and male patients with osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

Odanacatib is a selective and reversible cathepsin K inhibitor that decreases bone resorption and increases bone mineral density (BMD).

METHODS

The primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline to week 52 in lumbar spine BMD. Secondary endpoints included percent change in total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter BMD and in bone biomarkers after treatment for 52 weeks.

RESULTS

In this study, 286 patients [94% female, mean age (SD) 68.2 (7.1) years] were included in the analysis. The least-squares mean percent changes from baseline to week 52 in the groups receiving placebo, 10, 25 and 50 mg of odanacatib for lumbar spine (L1~L4) BMD were 0.5, 4.1, 5.7, and 5.9% and for total hip BMD were -0.4, 1.3, 1.8, and 2.7%, respectively. The changes in femoral neck and trochanter BMD were similar to those at the total hip. Bone turnover markers were reduced in a dose-dependent manner. However, the effects of odanacatib on bone formation markers were less compared with the effects on bone resorption markers. Tolerability and safety profiles were similar among all treatment groups with no dose-related trends in any adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly odanacatib treatment for 52 weeks increased BMD at the lumbar spine and at all hip sites in a dose-dependent manner and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

Preventive medication use among persons with limited life expectancy

Persons with limited life expectancy (LLE) – less than 1 year – are significant consumers of health care, are at increased risk of polypharmacy and adverse drug events, and have dynamic health statuses. Therefore, medication use among this population must be appropriate and regularly evaluated. The objective of this review is to assess the current state of knowledge and clinical practice presented in the literature regarding preventive medication use among persons with LLE. We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL using Medical Subject Headings. Broad searches were first conducted using the terms ‘terminal care or therapy’ or ‘advanced disease’ and ‘polypharmacy’ or ‘inappropriate medication’ or ‘preventive medicine’, followed by more specific searches using the terms ‘statins’ or ‘anti-hypertensives’ or ‘bisphosphonates’ or ‘laxatives’ and ‘terminal care’. Frameworks to assess appropriate versus inappropriate medications for persons with LLE, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use among this population, are presented. A considerable proportion of individuals with a known terminal condition continue to take chronic disease preventive medications until death despite questionable benefit. The addition of palliative preventive medications is advised. There is an indication that as death approaches the shift from a curative to palliative goal of care translates into a shift in medication use. This literature review is a first step towards improving medication use and decreasing polypharmacy in persons at the end of life. There is a need to develop consensus criteria to assess appropriate versus inappropriate medication use, specifically for individuals at the end of life.

Alendronate sodium hydrate (oral jelly) for the treatment of osteoporosis: review of a novel, easy to swallow formulation

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by loss of bone mass, decreased bone strength, and an increased risk of bone fracture. The disease progresses with age, especially in postmenopausal women. Japan is one of the most rapidly aging societies worldwide. Japanese individuals over 65 years of age constituted 23.0% of the population in 2010 and 25.1% to 25.2% as of 2013. The estimated number of people with osteoporosis in Japan is currently 13 million. Bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density by inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, thereby reducing the risk of fractures. Alendronate sodium hydrate (alendronate) is a bisphosphonate that potently inhibits bone resorption and is used to treat osteoporosis. Sufficient water is required to take an alendronate oral tablet; insufficient water could result in digestive system diseases, such as esophageal ulceration. Elderly patients with swallowing difficulty may choke on the tablet. Taking a tablet with oral jelly is a method to prevent digestive system disease and reduce the choking hazard. Once-weekly alendronate oral jelly was approved in 2012 by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan as the world's first drug for osteoporosis in a jelly formulation. It consists of a jelly portion and an air portion. The jelly formulation is smoothly discharged by pushing the air portion. Therefore, elderly patients with physical disabilities are able to easily take all of the jelly formulation from the package. In this review, this new formulation of alendronate sodium hydrate (oral jelly) is introduced and discussed in terms of osteoporosis treatment. This new formulation provides an alternative so that patients may select a method of dosing tailored to their preferences. Management of osteoporosis involves assessing fracture risk and preventing fractures. Higher adherence to the treatment of patients with osteoporosis and prevention of osteoporotic fractures are issues to be resolved.

Comparison of the efficacy of three once-weekly bisphosphonates on bone mineral density gains in Korean women

Objective

To assess the efficacies of once-weekly bisphosphonates on bone mineral density (BMD) gains in Korean women aged 50 years or more.

Methods

We selected 166 patients who received: alendronate 70 mg (n=48), alendronate 70 mg + cholecalciferol 2,800 IU (n=31) or risedronate 35 mg (n=87) for one year. The baseline BMD and the % changes of BMD at one-year were compared among the three medication groups.

Results

The menopausal status and number of women with osteoporosis was not different among the three groups, but mean age of women was significantly lower in alendronate group. Baseline BMD at L1-4 and femur neck (FN) was similar, but baseline BMD at femur total (FT) was significantly lower in alendronate group. After one-year use, the median % changes of BMD at three sites were similar among the three groups; however, the median values were highest in alendronate + cholecalciferol group (L1-4: 4.48%, 6.74%, and 4.50%; FT: 2.09%, 3.70%, and 2.31%; FN: 3.05%, 3.79%, and 2.03%).

Conclusion

Among three once-weekly bisphosphonates, BMD gains were highest after one-year use of alendronate+cholecalciferol, although statistically not significant.

A meta-analysis characterizing the dose-response relationships for three oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women

A meta-analysis of spine BMD dose-response relationships for alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate was performed. Data from all three oral bisphosphonates conform to a log-linear relationship between dose and change in spine BMD relative to placebo at 1 year, with an incremental gain of about 1 % for each doubling of dose.

INTRODUCTION

Animal data suggesting differences in potency and differences in approved oral dosage strengths for alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate in the treatment of osteoporosis raise questions about their dose-response relationships and relative potencies in humans.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of dose-response relationships for spine BMD increases for these three bisphosphonates was performed using data from 21 placebo-controlled trials that collectively included over 13,000 patients on active treatment and over 8,000 on placebo.

RESULTS

For alendronate over the range of 1 to 20 mg/day, there was a strong log-linear relationship between dose and the increase in spine BMD relative to placebo at 1 year (R (2) = 0.994 using sample-weighted means). For each doubling in alendronate dose, there was an incremental gain of about 1 % in spine BMD. On the same scale, risedronate and ibandronate are approximately equipotent to alendronate on a weight-for-weight basis. The increases in BMD efficacy with each doubling of dose are parallel for all three nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (NCBPs).

CONCLUSIONS

All three NCBPs are approximately equipotent and exhibit a log-linear relationship between dose and the increase in spine BMD. Differences in efficacy between the available oral bisphosphonate regimens appear to be a function of dose rather than inherent differences in therapeutic potential.

Diagnostic thresholds in osteoporosis: how are they used in clinical trials?

Clinical trials are used to determine the efficacy and safety of a medication prior to approval for commercial use and to influence the prescribing habits of clinicians. The lack of uniformity in the diagnostic thresholds used in clinical trials on osteoporosis makes it difficult to compare the results of these trials. The use of placebo, different anatomical sites, T-score cutoff points, and risk factors precludes any meaningful comparison being made between the outcomes of clinical trials. Finally, the lack of uniform reporting format makes it difficult to retrieve important information to compare one medication to another. Because the diagnostic thresholds used affect the outcomes of these trials, health care providers need to be aware of these criteria to determine whether the results of a particular clinical trial can be applied to a particular patient.

Update on the use of zoledronic acid in the management of osteoporosis

Zoledronic acid is a third-generation bisphosphonate that is administered as an annual infusion, and it has some interesting features. After a successful preclinical development program, it has undergone extensive testing in postmenopausal osteoporosis where it has substantial antifracture efficacy at the vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip sites. It has been shown to be effective in reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in patients who had recently suffered a femoral neck fracture, and has demonstrated efficacy in preventing and reversing bone loss in glucocorticoid osteoporosis. The drug is generally well tolerated, although it has been shown to cause significant acute phase reactions occurring in the first 3 days, mainly after the first infusion. Care must be taken to avoid using the drug in those with significantly impaired renal function, although initial concerns about a relationship to atrial fibrillation and osteonecrosis of the jaw have so far proved to be unfounded.

Osteoporosis management: a perspective based on bisphosphonate data from randomised clinical trials and observational databases

AIMS

The efficacy of treatments for osteoporosis can be evaluated using a variety of study designs. This article aims to comprehensively review the evidence for bisphosphonate anti-fracture efficacy in postmenopausal women, discussing the strengths and limitations associated with each study method.

METHODS

Literature analysis included English-language publications reporting results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), post hoc analyses, meta analyses and observational studies evaluating the efficacy of alendronate (ALN), ibandronate (IBN), risedronate (RIS) and zoledronate (ZOL), with an initial sample size > or = 100 patients, and follow-up data for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

Primary and secondary analyses of RCT data suggest differences among bisphosphonates with regard to site-specific anti-fracture efficacy and onset of fracture risk reduction. While some observational studies indicate differences in clinical outcomes among these agents, others report similar effectiveness. ALN and RIS data demonstrate sustained fracture protection for up to 10 and 7 years of treatment respectively. The efficacy of IBN and ZOL has been evaluated for up to 3 and 5 years respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of the benefits of bisphosphonate treatment can be maximised by evaluating complementary data from RCTs and observational database studies. Fracture risk reduction with bisphosphonates is shown in RCTs and in real-world clinical settings.

DXA-based hip structural analysis of once-weekly bisphosphonate-treated postmenopausal women with low bone mass

SUMMARY

DXA-based hip structural analysis from 947 individuals completing two large osteoporosis clinical trials was pooled and analyzed. Treatment with once-weekly (OW) ALN or OW RIS resulted in significant improvements from baseline in geometric parameters at all three HSA ROIs. Improvements were generally greater with OW ALN than OW RIS.

INTRODUCTION

BMD can be altered by changes in distribution and quantity of bone and changes in mineralization. These effects cannot be distinguished with conventional measurements of BMD. Currently, tissue composition is evaluated only by invasive means. Structural geometry of the proximal femur, however, can be measured in vivo by several methods, including dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using specialized hip structure analysis (HSA) software.

METHODS

DXA-based HSA was obtained and analyzed in a subset of 947 subjects participating in the Fosamax Actonel Comparison Trials. Data were pooled to evaluate treatment effects on the structural geometry of the proximal femur by once-weekly alendronate (ALN) 70 mg and risedronate (RIS) 35 mg in postmenopausal women with low bone mass.

RESULTS

Both ALN and RIS treatment over 2 years resulted in improvements in HSA-derived geometry at all three HSA regions of interest (ROI). The largest treatment effects were seen at the intertrochanteric ROI. Consistently greater treatment effects were seen with ALN compared with RIS at all three HSA-ROIs.

CONCLUSIONS

HSA offers insight into the potential mechanisms of fracture risk reduction from pharmacologic intervention. In the current study, treatment with once-weekly bisphosphonates resulted in significant improvements in hip geometric parameters.