Monthly oral ibandronate therapy in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 1-year results from the MOBILE study

The effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world evidence has been published evaluating the anti-nonvertebral fracture effect of ibandronate.

AIM

This meta-analysis of observational studies assessed the effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis.

METHOD

Pubmed/Embase databases were searched for observational studies. Risks of nonvertebral fractures and hip fractures were the outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed pooling rate ratios (RRs), using random-effects models. Data were reanalysed in sensitivity analyses considering Knapp-Hartung method and Bayesian random-effects.

RESULTS

Six cohort studies were included. Overall, once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate reduced the risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Similar results were obtained when the comparison was restricted to once-monthly 150 mg risedronate, but no differences were found when the comparator was other oral bisphosphonates (weekly alendronate/risedronate). Ibandronate didn't significantly change the risk of hip fractures (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89-1.76). The risk of hip fracture was comparable between once monthly, 150 mg oral ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. Intravenous ibandronate was not effective in reducing hip fractures comparing to intravenous zoledronate. The low number of studies diminished the robustness of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate may be as effective as other oral bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures. However, uncertainty associated to the small number of included studies, which are characterized by heterogeneous demographics and methodologies, precluded definitive conclusions.

Response rates for lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck bone mineral density in men treated with abaloparatide: results from the ATOM study

Osteoporosis in men is an underappreciated public health issue, accounting for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis. Although the prevalence of osteoporosis in men is lower, fracture-related morbidity and mortality rates exceed those of women. Abaloparatide is a synthetic, 34-amino acid peptide with homology to human parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP), which favors bone formation by selective activation of PTH receptor type 1. In the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM; NCT03512262) trial, 228 men with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of abaloparatide 80 μg or placebo. Abaloparatide significantly improved LS, TH, and FN BMD when compared with placebo. In this prespecified analysis, the proportion of men with a percent change from baseline of >0%, >3%, and > 6% in BMD at the LS, TH, and FN at 3, 6, and 12 mo and/or a shift in T-score category (based on LS and TH T-scores) at 12 mo was compared between the abaloparatide and placebo groups in ATOM. There were significantly more men with a BMD gain of >3% at all 3 anatomical sites in the abaloparatide than placebo group at month 6 (18/122 [14.8%] vs 1/70 [1.4%], P = .002) and at month 12 (38/119 [31.9%] vs 1/66 [1.5%], P < .0001). At month 3, more men treated with abaloparatide than placebo had a > 3% BMD increase at the LS (82/134 [61.2%] vs 21/68 [30.9%], P < .0001). A greater proportion of men treated with abaloparatide had an improvement in T-score category from osteoporosis to low BMD or normal when compared with placebo. In conclusion, use of abaloparatide compared with placebo for 12 mo resulted in significant and rapid improvements in BMD in men with osteoporosis from the ATOM study.

Enhancing the Oral Rehabilitation and Quality of Life of Bisphosphonate-Treated Patients: The Role of Dental Implants

The purpose of this review is to examine the literature on the topic of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) and dental implant failure in patients undergoing bisphosphonate (BP) therapy who also received dental implants before, during, or after BP treatment, as compared to healthy patients. This research followed the guidelines in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The "PICO" or population, intervention, comparison, and outcome clinical question was as follows: does the insertion of dental implants in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy increase the failure and loss of implants or the incidence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to healthy patients? The articles published in PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) up to July 1, 2023, were retrieved using a mix of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) words and their entry terms. The absence of randomized clinical trials examining this issue underscores the need for additional studies with extended follow-ups to answer outstanding questions. Because of the potential for BRONJ and implant failure, patients receiving bisphosphonate medication should exercise caution when planning dental implant surgery. In addition, when such procedures are carried out, the patient's entire systemic condition must be considered.

Osteoprotegerin genetic polymorphisms and their influence on therapeutic response to ibandronate in postmenopausal osteoporotic females

OBJECTIVES

The present study investigated osteoprotegerin (OPG) genetic polymorphisms and their influence on the therapeutic response to ibandronate in postmenopausal osteoporotic females.

METHODS

This case-control study included 135 postmenopausal females (89 osteoporotic females and 46 non-osteoporotic females). Each osteoporotic patient received a monthly 150 mg ibandronate tablet for six months, and blood samples were taken before and after treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using DEXA Scan. Three SNPs (A163G, T245G, and G1181C) of the OPG gene were selected for analysis.

RESULTS

Serum OPG levels were significantly lower in osteoporotic subjects than in the control group. The percentage changes in OPG levels in the osteoporotic group before and after treatment with ibandronate were significant (p < .001). After six months of therapy with ibandronate, the percentage changes in OPG levels with AA, TT, TC, GC, and GG genotypes were significant. Following six months of ibandronate treatment, the AA genotype of rs3134069, TT, TC genotypes of rs3102735, GG, and GC genotypes of rs2073618 SNP showed a significant increase in OPG levels. Age, BMI, and GC polymorphism (rs2073618 (G/C) G1181C) were inversely associated with low BMD. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) showed that BMI, GC, GG polymorphism (rs2073618 (G/C) G1181C) and TC polymorphism (rs3102735 (T/C) A163G) were inversely associated with low BMD.

CONCLUSION

The inverse association of rs2073618 and rs3102735 with low BMD indicates the protective role of these SNPs in our population. More research is needed to replicate these results in another cohort and to determine the molecular processes by which such SNPs may influence BMD.

Summary of the Thai Osteoporosis Foundation (TOPF) Clinical Practice Guideline on the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis 2021

Objectives

The Thai Osteoporosis Foundation (TOPF) is an academic organization that consists of a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals managing osteoporosis. The first clinical practice guideline for diagnosing and managing osteoporosis in Thailand was published by the TOPF in 2010, then updated in 2016 and 2021. This paper presents important updates of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Thailand.

Methods

A panel of experts in the field of osteoporosis was recruited by the TOPF to review and update the TOPF position statement from 2016. Evidence was searched using the MEDLINE database through PubMed. Primary writers submitted their first drafts, which were reviewed, discussed, and integrated into the final document. Recommendations are based on reviews of the clinical evidence and experts' opinions. The recommendations are classified using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation classification system.

Results

The updated guideline comprises 90 recommendations divided into 12 main topics. This paper summarizes the recommendations focused on 4 main topics: the diagnosis and evaluation of osteoporosis, fracture risk assessment and indications for bone mineral density measurement, fracture risk categorization, management according to fracture risk, and pharmacological management of osteoporosis.

Conclusions

This updated clinical practice guideline is a practical tool to assist healthcare professionals in diagnosing, evaluating, and managing osteoporosis in Thailand.

Ibandronate in the Prevention of Vertebral and Nonvertebral Osteoporotic Fractures: A Systematic Review of Experimental and Observational Studies

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's guidance and reporting in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement 2020. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE since their inception until February 7, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, experimental, and observational studies evaluating adult patients treated with ibandronate and assessed to osteoporotic fractures prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed according to study design. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Eight references from 4 RCTs, 7 meta-analyses, and 6 observational studies were included. In RCTs, oral ibandronate was superior to placebo in the prevention of VF. However, the doses were lower than those approved. The meta-analyses confirmed these results and showed that adequate doses of oral ibandronate reduce the risk of NVF compared with insufficient doses. In observational studies, oral ibandronate (in approved doses) reduced the risk of VF compared with no treatment or risedronate or alendronate and the risk of NVF versus risedronate or alendronate; the risk of hip fractures was similar between ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence that ibandronate reduces the risk of VF in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available evidence further suggests that ibandronate may reduce the risk of NVF versus insufficient doses of ibandronate, as well as risedronate or alendronate.

A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis

Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health.

PURPOSE

To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.

RESULTS

Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in the USA and the world. It is a subclinical condition until complicated by fracture(s). These fractures place an enormous medical and personal burden on individuals who suffer from them and take a significant economic toll. Any new fracture in an adult aged 50 years or older signifies imminent elevated risk for subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following the initial fracture. What a patient perceives as an unfortunate accident may be seen as a sentinel event indicative of bone fragility and increased future fracture risk even when the result of considerable trauma. Clinical or subclinical vertebral fractures, the most common type of osteoporotic fractures, are associated with a 5-fold increased risk for additional vertebral fractures and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for fractures at other sites. Untreated osteoporosis can lead to a vicious cycle of recurrent fracture(s), often resulting in disability and premature death. In appropriate patients, treatment with effective antifracture medication prevents fractures and improves outcomes. Primary care providers and medical specialists are critical gatekeepers who can identify fractures and initiate proven osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis detection, diagnosis, and treatment should be routine practice in all adult healthcare settings. The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) - formerly the National Osteoporosis Foundation - first published the Clinician's Guide in 1999 to provide accurate information on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Since that time, significant improvements have been made in diagnostic technologies and treatments for osteoporosis. Despite these advances, a disturbing gap persists in patient care. At-risk patients are often not screened to establish fracture probability and not educated about fracture prevention. Most concerning, the majority of highest risk women and men who have a fracture(s) are not diagnosed and do not receive effective, FDA-approved therapies. Even those prescribed appropriate therapy are unlikely to take the medication as prescribed. The Clinician's Guide offers concise recommendations regarding prevention, risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and older. It includes indications for bone densitometry as well as fracture risk thresholds for pharmacologic intervention. Current medications build bone and/or decrease bone breakdown and dramatically reduce incident fractures. All antifracture therapeutics treat but do not cure the disease. Skeletal deterioration resumes sooner or later when a medication is discontinued-sooner for nonbisphosphonates and later for bisphosphonates. Even if normal BMD is achieved, osteoporosis and elevated risk for fracture are still present. The diagnosis of osteoporosis persists even if subsequent DXA T-scores are above - 2.5. Ongoing monitoring and strategic interventions will be necessary if fractures are to be avoided. In addition to pharmacotherapy, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, avoidance of smoking and excessive alcohol intake, weight-bearing and resistance-training exercise, and fall prevention are included in the fracture prevention armamentarium. Where possible, recommendations in this guide are based on evidence from RCTs; however, relevant published data and guidance from expert clinical experience provides the basis for recommendations in those areas where RCT evidence is currently deficient or not applicable to the many osteoporosis patients not considered for RCT participation due to age and morbidity.

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.

Efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy on postmenopausal osteoporotic women with and without diabetes: a prospective trial

BACKGROUND

The co-occurrence of diabetes and osteoporosis is common in postmenopausal women. For the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, current guidelines recommend initial treatment with bisphosphonates, but it is unclear whether bisphosphonates provide a similar degree of therapeutic efficacy in patients with diabetes. This study sought to compare the efficacy of monthly oral ibandronate for retaining bone mineral density (BMD) in diabetic and non-diabetic postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Postmenopausal osteoporotic women with or without diabetes were enrolled in this study from three hospitals in an open-label approach from 2018 to 2020. Each group of patients received oral ibandronate 150 mg once monthly for 1 year. BMD, trabecular bone score (TBS), serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTx) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) were evaluated prospectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in glucose metabolism during drug use were also monitored.

RESULTS

Among the 120 study participants, 104 (86.7%) completed the study. Following 1 year of treatment, BMD increased by 3.41% vs. 3.71% in the lumbar spine, 1.30% vs. 1.18% in the femur neck, and 1.51% vs. 1.58% in the total hip in the non-diabetes and diabetes groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in BMD changes between the groups, and the differences in CTx or P1NP changes between groups were not significant. We did not observe any significant differences in baseline TBS values or the degree of change between before and after 1 year of ibandronate treatment in either group in this study. A total of 11 adverse events (9.2%) that recovered without sequelae occurred among the 120 included patients, and there was no significant difference in the frequency of adverse events between the groups (p = 0.862). The changes in fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels between before and after treatment were not significant in the diabetic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonate therapy showed similar increases in BMD and decreases in CTx and P1NP of postmenopausal women with and without diabetes. Monthly oral ibandronate can be a safe and effective therapeutic option in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT number: NCT05266261, Date of registration: 04 March 2022.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Ibandronate versus Intravenous Zoledronic Acid on Bone Metabolism and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Japanese Women with Osteoporosis

There are no published clinical reports comparing ibandronate (IBN) treatment and zoledronic acid (ZOL) treatment in Japanese postmenopausal osteoporotic patients. This investigation therefore compared the efficacy and safety of the drugs on improving bone metabolism and bone mineral density (BMD) in Japanese postmenopausal women with primary osteoporosis. Eighty-two treatment-naïve primary osteoporotic female patients were randomly divided into IBN-treated or ZOL-treated groups. Bone turnover markers and BMD were examined immediately prior to treatment (baseline) and at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months of therapy. Compared with baseline levels, the values of type 1 procollagen N-terminal propeptide, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP), urinary type-I collagen amino-terminal telopeptide (NTX), and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b were all significantly decreased at every time point in both groups apart from BAP at 30 months in the ZOL group, urinary NTX at 12 months in the ZOL group and at 24 and 30 months in both groups. Lumbar BMD values were significantly increased at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months in the IBN group and at 6 and 12 months in the ZOL group compared with pre-treatment levels. Hip BMD values were also significantly increased at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months in the IBN group and at 6, 12, and 18 months in the ZOL group compared with baseline values. The percentage changes of hip BMD at 18 and 24 months in the ZOL group were significantly higher than those in the IBN group (both p < 0.05). No remarkable adverse events were noted in either group. In conclusion, both IBN and ZOL significantly and safely improved bone turnover markers and BMD during 30 months of treatment in Japanese osteoporosis patients. The ZOL group tended to exhibit greater gains in BMD as compared with the IBN group, which merits further investigation.

The Effects of Osteoporotic and Non-osteoporotic Medications on Fracture Risk and Bone Mineral Density

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent bone disease affecting more than 37.5 million individuals in the European Union (EU) and the  United States of America (USA). It is characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD), impaired bone quality, and loss of structural and biomechanical properties, resulting in reduced bone strength. An increase in morbidity and mortality is seen in patients with osteoporosis, caused by the approximately 3.5 million new osteoporotic fractures occurring every year in the EU. Currently, different medications are available for the treatment of osteoporosis, including anti-resorptive and osteoanabolic medications. Bisphosphonates, which belong to the anti-resorptive medications, are the standard treatment for osteoporosis based on their positive effects on bone, long-term experience, and low costs. However, not only medications used for the treatment of osteoporosis can affect bone: several other medications are suggested to have an effect on bone as well, especially on fracture risk and BMD. Knowledge about the positive and negative effects of different medications on both fracture risk and BMD is important, as it can contribute to an improvement in osteoporosis prevention and treatment in general, and, even more importantly, to the individual's health. In this review, we therefore discuss the effects of both osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic medications on fracture risk and BMD. In addition, we discuss the underlying mechanisms of action.

Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: the 2021 position statement of The North American Menopause Society

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence regarding osteoporosis screening, prevention, diagnosis, and management in the past decade and update the position statement published by The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) in 2010 regarding the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women as new therapies and paradigms have become available.

DESIGN

NAMS enlisted a panel of clinician experts in the field of metabolic bone diseases and/or women's health to review and update the 2010 NAMS position statement and recommendations on the basis of new evidence and clinical judgement. The panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.

RESULTS

Osteoporosis, especially prevalent in older postmenopausal women, increases the risk of fractures that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Postmenopausal bone loss, related to estrogen deficiency, is the primary contributor to osteoporosis. Other important risk factors for postmenopausal osteoporosis include advanced age, genetics, smoking, thinness, and many diseases and drugs that impair bone health. An evaluation of these risk factors to identify candidates for osteoporosis screening and recommending nonpharmacologic measures such as good nutrition (especially adequate intake of protein, calcium, and vitamin D), regular physical activity, and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption are appropriate for all postmenopausal women. For women at high risk for osteoporosis, especially perimenopausal women with low bone density and other risk factors, estrogen or other therapies are available to prevent bone loss. For women with osteoporosis and/or other risk factors for fracture, including advanced age and previous fractures, the primary goal of therapy is to prevent new fractures. This is accomplished by combining nonpharmacologic measures, drugs to increase bone density and to improve bone strength, and strategies to reduce fall risk. If pharmacologic therapy is indicated, government-approved options include estrogen agonists/antagonists, bisphosphonates, RANK ligand inhibitors, parathyroid hormone-receptor agonists, and inhibitors of sclerostin.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis is a common disorder in postmenopausal women. Management of skeletal health in postmenopausal women involves assessing risk factors for fracture, reducing modifiable risk factors through dietary and lifestyle changes, and the use of pharmacologic therapy for patients at significant risk of osteoporosis or fracture. For women with osteoporosis, lifelong management is necessary. Treatment decisions occur continuously over the lifespan of a postmenopausal woman. Decisions must be individualized and should include the patient in the process of shared decision-making.

Efficacy of annual zoledronic acid in initial percutaneous kyphoplasty patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a 3-year follow-up study

This study investigated the efficacy of annual zoledronic acid (ZOL) administration against previously treated recompression vertebral fractures (RVF) and new vertebral fractures (NVF) in initial percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) over a 3-year follow-up period.

INTRODUCTION

Although PKP achieves a satisfactory outcome, previously treated RVF and NVF can limit its effectiveness. The annual infusion of ZOL over 3 years can improve fracture protection, particularly in the vertebrae. We hypothesized that ZOL can reduce the incidence of RVFs and/or NVFs, and improve the clinical outcomes of PKP.

METHODS

This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind prospective trial of 154 PKP patients (mean age: 70 years) with OVCFs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single infusion of ZOL (5 mg) or placebo (78 ZOL vs. 76 placebo) at 1 week, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. Patients were followed-up for 36 months.

RESULTS

ZOL treatment lowered the risk of RVF by ~ 65% over the 36-month period when compared to placebo controls (6.41% in ZOL vs. 18.42% in placebo groups; relative risk, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.92). ZOL also reduced the risk of NVF by ~ 73% (3.85% in ZOL vs. 14.47% in placebo groups; relative risk, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.92). ZOL also significantly reduced the vertebral height lost rate (HLR) at 12, 24, and 36 months. ZOL also improved the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and bone mineral density (BMD).

CONCLUSION

Annual ZOL administration significantly lowers the risk of RVFs and NVFs, improving the clinical outcome of initial PKP in patients with OVCFs over a 3-year follow-up period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000029307.

Summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines for osteoporosis

A summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines on osteoporosis developed by members of the Russian Association of  Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Traumatologists and Orthopedists of Russia, the Russian Association for Menopause and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics is presented. The recommendations were developed from the perspective of evidence-based medicine, in accordance with the requirements for compiling clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Russia published in 2019. A significant place is given to screening of primary osteoporosis in adults, differential diagnosis with other metabolic diseases of the skeleton, modern methods of diagnosing osteoporosis, principles of prescribing pathogenetic treatment, features of sequential and combination therapy, disease prevention and rehabilitation. Clinical recommendations will be useful both to general practitioners and physicians, as well as to narrow specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic traumatologists, nephrologists, obstetrician-gynecologists and neurologists, since osteoporosis is a multifactorial and multidisciplinary disease.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS-2020 UPDATE

Objective: The development of these guidelines is sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Methods: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. Results: The Executive Summary of this 2020 updated guideline contains 52 recommendations: 21 Grade A (40%), 24 Grade B (46%), 7 Grade C (14%), and no Grade D (0%). These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world care of patients. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for the Executive Summary recommendations. This update contains 368 citations: 123 (33.5%) evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 132 (36%) EL 2 (intermediate), 20 (5.5%) EL 3 (weak), and 93 (25%) EL 4 (lowest). New or updated topics in this CPG include: clarification of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, stratification of the patient according to high-risk and very-high-risk features, a new dual-action therapy option, and transitions from therapeutic options. Conclusion: This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis. Abbreviations: 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxyvitamin D; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ACE = American College of Endocrinology; AFF = atypical femoral fracture; ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; BEL = best evidence level; BMD = bone mineral density; BTM = bone turnover marker; CI = confidence interval; CPG = clinical practice guideline; CTX = C-terminal telopeptide type-I collagen; DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; EL = evidence level; FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FRAX® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool; GI = gastrointestinal; HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic acid ONce yearly Pivotal Fracture Trial (zoledronic acid and zoledronate are equivalent terms); ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry; IU = international units; IV = intravenous; LSC = least significant change; NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation; ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw; PINP = serum amino-terminal propeptide of type-I collagen; PTH = parathyroid hormone; R = recommendation; ROI = region of interest; RR = relative risk; SD = standard deviation; TBS = trabecular bone score; VFA = vertebral fracture assessment; WHO = World Health Organization.

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.

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.

Bone mineral density response rates are greater in patients treated with abaloparatide compared with those treated with placebo or teriparatide: Results from the ACTIVE phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Abaloparatide is a 34-amino acid peptide that selectively binds to the RG conformation of the parathyroid hormone receptor type 1. It was developed for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk of fracture. In ACTIVE, an 18-month phase 3 study (NCT01343004), abaloparatide increased bone mineral density (BMD), decreased the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures compared with placebo, and decreased the risk of major osteoporotic fractures compared with placebo and teriparatide. Here, we report a prospective, exploratory BMD responder analysis from ACTIVE.

METHODS

Proportions of patients experiencing BMD gains from baseline of >0%, >3%, and >6% at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine at 6, 12, and 18 months of treatment were compared among the placebo, abaloparatide, and teriparatide groups in ACTIVE. Responders were defined prospectively as patients experiencing BMD gains at all 3 anatomic sites.

RESULTS

At months 6, 12, and 18, there were significantly more >3% BMD responders in the abaloparatide group compared with placebo and teriparatide: month 6, 19.1% vs 0.9% for placebo and 6.5% for teriparatide; month 12, 33.2% vs 1.5% and 19.8%; month 18, 44.5% vs 1.9% and 32.0% (P < 0.001 for all comparisons of abaloparatide to placebo and to teriparatide). Findings were similar for the >0% and >6% responder thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with abaloparatide experienced increases in BMD than did those treated with placebo or teriparatide.

Pharmacology of bisphosphonates

The biological effects of the bisphosphonates (BPs) as inhibitors of calcification and bone resorption were first described in the late 1960s. In the 50 years that have elapsed since then, the BPs have become the leading drugs for the treatment of skeletal disorders characterized by increased bone resorption, including Paget's disease of bone, bone metastases, multiple myeloma, osteoporosis and several childhood inherited disorders. The discovery and development of the BPs as a major class of drugs for the treatment of bone diseases is a paradigm for the successful journey from "bench to bedside and back again". Several of the leading BPs achieved "blockbuster" status as branded drugs. However, these BPs have now come to the end of their patent life, making them highly affordable. The opportunity for new clinical applications for BPs also exists in other areas of medicine such as ageing, cardiovascular disease and radiation protection. Their use as inexpensive generic medicines is therefore likely to continue for many years to come. Fifty years of research into the pharmacology of bisphosphonates have led to a fairly good understanding about how these drugs work and how they can be used safely in patients with metabolic bone diseases. However, while we seemingly know much about these drugs, a number of key aspects related to BP distribution and action remain incompletely understood. This review summarizes the existing knowledge of the (pre)clinical and translational pharmacology of BPs, and highlights areas in which understanding is lacking.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS - 2016

ABBREVIATIONS

AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AFF = atypical femur fracture ASBMR = American Society for Bone and Mineral Research BEL = best evidence level BMD = bone mineral density BTM = bone turnover marker CBC = complete blood count CI = confidence interval DXA = dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry EL = evidence level FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration FLEX = Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-term Extension FRAX_® = Fracture Risk Assessment Tool GFR = glomerular filtration rate GI = gastrointestinal HORIZON = Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly IOF = International Osteoporosis Foundation ISCD = International Society for Clinical Densitometry IU = international units IV = intravenous LSC = least significant change NBHA = National Bone Health Alliance NOF = National Osteoporosis Foundation 25(OH)D = 25-hydroxy vitamin D ONJ = osteonecrosis of the jaw PINP = serum carboxy-terminal propeptide of type I collagen PTH = parathyroid hormone R = recommendation RANK = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B RANKL = receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand RCT = randomized controlled trial RR = relative risk S-CTX = serum C-terminal telopeptide SQ = subcutaneous VFA = vertebral fracture assessment WHO = World Health Organization.

Anabolic and antiresorptive actions of locally delivered bisphosphonates for bone repair: A review

During the last decades, several research groups have used bisphosphonates for local application to counteract secondary bone resorption after bone grafting, to improve implant fixation or to control bone resorption caused by bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). We focused on zoledronate (a bisphosphonate) due to its greater antiresorptive potential over other bisphosphonates. Recently, it has become obvious that the carrier is of importance to modulate the concentration and elution profile of the zoledronic acid locally. Incorporating one fifth of the recommended systemic dose of zoledronate with different apatite matrices and types of bone defects has been shown to enhance bone regeneration significantly in vivo. We expect the local delivery of zoledronate to overcome the limitations and side effects associated with systemic usage; however, we need to know more about the bioavailability and the biological effects. The local use of BMP-2 and zoledronate as a combination has a proven additional effect on bone regeneration. This review focuses primarily on the local use of zoledronate alone, or in combination with bone anabolic factors, in various preclinical models mimicking different orthopaedic conditions.

Cite this article: I. Qayoom, D. B. Raina, A. Širka, Š. Tarasevičius, M. Tägil, A. Kumar, L. Lidgren. Anabolic and antiresorptive actions of locally delivered bisphosphonates for bone repair: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:548–560. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0015.R2.

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.

Cessation rate of anti-osteoporosis treatments and risk factors in Spanish primary care settings: a population-based cohort analysis

Among 95,057 patients ≥50 years with new anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM) (2001-2013) in primary care, 1-year cessation was 51% (28%-68%), higher in men, smokers, patients with missing lifestyle data, and out normal BMI, and lower in those aged 60-79, with recent fractures or other anti-osteoporotics, suggesting non-severe osteoporosis and less risk awareness.

PURPOSE

Low compliance to anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM) has been previously reported. We aimed to estimate 1-year cessation rates of different AOMs as used in Spanish healthcare settings, and to identify associated risk factors.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed using primary care records data (BIFAP). Patients entered the cohort when aged 50 years in 2001-2013, with ≥1 year of data available, and identified as incident users of AOM (1-year washout). Participants were divided into six cohorts: alendronate, other oral bisphosphonates, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, strontium ranelate, teriparatide, and denosumab. Patients were followed from therapy initiation to the earliest of cessation (90-day refill gap), switching (to alternative AOM), loss to follow-up, death, or end of 2013. One-year therapy cessation was estimated using life tables. Hazard ratios (of cessation) according to age, sex, lifestyle factors, morbidity, and co-medication were estimated after stepwise backwards selection.

RESULTS

A total of 95,057 AOM users were identified (91% women; mean age 68). One-year cessation was 51% overall, highest for strontium ranelate (68%), and lowest for denosumab (28%). Cessation probability was higher in men (14% to 2.1-fold), smokers (>6%), and patients with missing BMI (19-28%) or smoking (6-20%) data, and overweight/obese/underweight (7% to 2.6-fold increase compared to normal weight). Patients aged 60-79 years, with a recent fracture or other drugs used for osteoporosis, had better persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the patients initiating AOM stopped therapy within the first year after initiation. The described risk factors for cessation could be proxies for non-severe osteoporosis, and/or disease/risk awareness, which could inform the targeting of high-risk patients for monitoring and/or interventions aimed at improving persistence.

Secular trends of use of anti-osteoporotic treatments in Spain: A population-based cohort study including over 1.5million people and more than 12years of follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Different regulatory actions for anti-osteoporotic medication (AOM) were taken during the last years, including marketing of new drugs, safety warnings, or restrictions on the indications. We aimed to characterise the secular trends of AOM use in Spain from 2001 to 2013.

METHODS

A cohort study using the Spanish Database for Pharmacoepidemiological Research in Primary Care (BIFAP), was performed. BIFAP includes anonym records for 4million patients. Participants entered the study when aged ≥50years in 2001-2013 and after 1year of data available, and were followed to an AOM prescription (including alendronate, other bisphosphonates, SERM (selective estrogen receptor modulators), strontium ranelate, teriparatide or denosumab), death, lost or the end of December 2013. Prevalence (%) and incidence rate (IR/1000person-years (py)) of AOM users were computed by years and sex.

RESULTS

Out of 1.5million participants, 135,410 received AOM treatment during 2001-2013. Prevalence was 6.1% (women) and 1.1% (men), that increased from 2001 (2.0%) to 2009 (7.6%) to decrease thereafter. Out of them, 95,057 were incident. The IR was 24.90 (women) and 2.77 (men), that increased from 2001 (21.25 and 1.96) to 2007 (35.84 and 3.64), and decreased to 12.48 and 1.81 (2013). IRs were highest for bisphosphonates along the years (ranging 3.70-14.73 and 0.57-1.75 in women and men respectively), followed by SERM up to 2005 (6.51-9.02 and 0.06-0.07), and strontium ranelate from 2006 (4.66 and 0.45) to 2012 (2.05 and 0.26). IR for teriparatide increased from marketing in 2004 (0.10-1.01 and 0.02-0.29), as was denosumab from marketing in 2011 (0.03-2.64 and 0.09-0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based estimates of AOM use in Spain peaked in 2007-2009 and decreased thereafter, irrespective of age and sex. New treatments were ten times higher in women than men. Bisphosphonates were the most frequently prescribed class, followed by SERM in women before 2006, strontium otherwise till 2012, and denosumab in women or teriparatide in men in 2013. Changes in the osteoporosis criteria, fracture risk assessment strategies, and regulatory actions for AOM around the time, may explain that trend.

[Osteoporosis: Current state of the art]

As of now, osteoporosis (OP) is one of the most important sociomedical problems because of its high prevalence and resultant disability, as well as significant mortality attributable to complications. The current strategy for providing care for patients of OP is its early diagnosis, by determining the high risk of fractures, and early pathogenetic treatment. The article gives an update on the epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of OP.

Alfacalcidol Increases the Therapeutic Efficacy of Ibandronate on Bone Mineral Density in Japanese Women with Primary Osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates (BPs) increase bone mineral density (BMD) through the inhibition of osteoclast activity. Among BPs, ibandronate (IBN) is a strong inhibitor of bone resorption. However, the effects of a vitamin D analogue, alfacalcidol (ALF), on IBN treatment for osteoporosis is unknown. Fifty-three treatment-naïve post-menopausal women with primary osteoporosis were recruited and divided into IBN-treatment group (IBN group) and IBN with ALF group (IBN/ALF group). IBN (1.0 mg) was intravenously injected once a month, with or without oral ALF (1.0 μg/day). Ultimately, 19 subjects in IBN group and 26 in IBN/ALF group were analyzed. Bone turnover markers were examined at 4, 6, 12, and 18 months, and BMD was measured at 6, 12, and 18 months. Compared with pre-treatment, bone turnover markers significantly decreased in both groups after 4 months. The levels of serum N-terminal propeptide of type-1 procollagen and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b, and urinary N-terminal telopeptide of type-I collagen were significantly lower in IBN/ALF group than those in IBN group at 12 months. Lumbar 1-4 (L)-BMD significantly increased from 6 months in IBN/ALF group and at 18 months in IBN group. L-BMD was significantly higher in IBN/ALF group (6.6% increase) than in IBN group (3.4%) at 18 months. Total hip (H)-BMD significantly increased from 6 months in IBN/ALF group and tended to improve in IBN group. H-BMD was significantly higher in IBN/ALF group (4.8%) than in IBN group (3.2%) at 18 months. In conclusion, treatment with ALF in combination with IBN improves BMD in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis.

Effect of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections on vertebral or non-vertebral fracture risk in Japanese patients with high-risk osteoporosis in the MOVER study

We examined the efficacy of intravenous (IV) ibandronate 1 mg/month in patient subgroups in the phase III MOVER study. Here we present results of analyses on the incidence of fractures in patients with prevalent vertebral fractures (1 or ≥2, and ≥3) at screening and femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) T scores ≥-2.5 or <-2.5, and <-3.0 at baseline. The per-protocol set comprised 1134 patients (ibandronate 0.5 mg/month n = 376; ibandronate 1 mg/month n = 382; risedronate oral 2.5 mg/day n = 376). The incidence of vertebral fractures in patients with 1 or ≥2 prevalent vertebral fractures was 11.2 and 20.4 %, respectively, with ibandronate 1 mg/month, and 12.6 and 22.1 %, respectively, with risedronate. In patients with FN BMD T scores ≥-2.5 or <-2.5, the vertebral fracture incidence was 13.7 and 16.4 %, respectively, with ibandronate 1 mg/month, and 17.3 and 19.1 %, respectively, with risedronate. The incidence of non-vertebral fractures in patients with ≥2 prevalent vertebral fractures or FN BMD T score <-2.5 was 7.6 and 7.6 %, respectively, with ibandronate 1 mg/month, and 9.5 and 9.4 %, respectively, with risedronate. Fracture incidence was consistently lower, but not significant, with ibandronate 1 mg/month than with risedronate in patients with ≥2 prevalent vertebral fractures and FN BMD T score <-2.5. The efficacy of the fracture reduction of monthly IV ibandronate appears consistent and seemingly independent of the number of prevalent vertebral fractures or baseline BMD values.

How Can Osteoporosis Patients Benefit More from Their Therapy? Adherence Issues with Bisphosphonate Therapy

Objective:

To review the evidence on adherence with bisphosphonates and evolving dosing strategies for osteoporosis treatment.

Data Sources:

Articles were identified by searching MEDLINE (1975–December 2005) using the following terms: osteoporosis, postmenopausal, fracture, adherence, compliance, persistence, drug therapy, bisphosphonates, alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate. Additional data included bibliographies from identified articles.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

All pertinent English-language articles that discussed adherence issues in patients with osteoporosis were included. Both those that reviewed overall issues of medication adherence in osteoporosis and those that focused specifically on adherence to bisphosphonates were included, as were articles that addressed strategies for overcoming nonadherence.

Data Synthesis:

Inadequate diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis result in a higher risk of fractures than is necessary. Even patients who are diagnosed and beginning treatment often do not persist with their osteoporosis medication because they perceive their fracture risk to be low and, given the asymptomatic nature of osteoporosis, do not experience the benefit of symptom reduction after taking the drugs. Factors that affect adherence to osteoporosis therapy include drug costs, adverse effects, dosing frequency, disease education, patient follow-up, and patient involvement in treatment decisions.

Conclusions:

By considering and implementing strategies that can improve adherence and persistence, primary care providers and pharmacists (via counseling) may enhance long-term outcomes for patients with osteoporosis.

Long-Term Use of Bisphosphonates in Osteoporosis

The rate of bone turnover increases around the time of menopause, and new bone may be remodeled before it is has been completely mineralized. If this is left untreated, osteoporosis often develops, leading to fractures, particularly of the spine and hip, which represent an enormous burden in terms of suffering, healthcare expenditure, disabilities and death. Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of bone resorption, which slow or arrest progressive bone loss. Continuous treatment with bisphosphonates reduces bone turnover, improves bone microarchitecture and increases bone mass, leading to greater mechanical strength and reduced fracture risk. Since osteoporosis is a chronic, progressive condition, treatment has to continue for many years. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates, particularly alendronate and risedronate, have been evaluated in many thousands of patients for up to 10 years of continuous use. These drugs remain the cornerstone of osteoporosis treatment and appear to have favorable safety and efficacy profiles throughout long-term usage.

Clinical effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative efficacy of bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate and zoledronic acid) for the treatment of osteoporosis using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A network meta-analysis was used to determine the relative efficacy of treatments on four fracture outcomes (vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist) and percentage change in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Treatment effects were modelled using an exchangeable treatment effects model. Heterogeneity in treatment effects was explored by considering potential treatment effect modifiers using meta-regression. Where appropriate, inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was assessed using node-splitting.

RESULTS

46 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Twenty seven RCTs provided fracture data and 35 RCTs provided BMD data for analysis. Zoledronic acid was associated with the greatest treatment effect on vertebral fractures (HR 0.41, 95% CrI: 0.28, 0.56) and percentage change in BMD (3.21, 95%: CrI 2.52, 3.86) compared to placebo. The greatest treatment effect on non-vertebral and wrist fractures was given by risedronate (HR 0.72, 95%: CrI 0.53, 0.89 and HR 0.77, 95%: CrI 0.44, 1.24, respectively). For hip fractures the greatest treatment effect was given by alendronate (HR 0.78, 95% CrI: 0.44, 1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

All treatments examined were associated with beneficial effects on fractures and femoral neck BMD relative to placebo. For vertebral fractures and percentage change in femoral neck BMD the treatment effects were statistically significant for all treatments. Pairwise comparisons between treatments indicated that no active treatment was statistically significantly more effective than any other active treatment for fracture outcomes. There was some heterogeneity in treatment effects between studies suggesting differential treatment effects according to study characteristics; however, there was no evidence of differential treatment effects with respect to gender and age.

The treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis : a review of current and emerging therapeutic options

Several chemical entities have shown their ability to reduce axial and/or appendicular fractures in patients with osteoporosis. Since patients who have experienced a previous fracture are at high risk for subsequent vertebral or hip fracture, it is of prime importance to treat such patients with medications that have unequivocally demonstrated their ability to reduce fracture rates in patients with prevalent fractures. Results obtained with calcium and vitamin D, in this particular population, are not fully satisfactory and these medications are probably better used in conjunction with other therapeutic regimens. Bisphosphonates have shown their ability to reduce vertebral (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate) and non-vertebral (alendronate, risedronate) fractures in patients with established osteoporosis. Raloxifene has also shown similar properties, notwithstanding its effect on non-vertebral fractures, which has only been derived from a post hoc analysis limited to patients with prevalent severe vertebral fractures at baseline. This compound also has interesting non-skeletal benefits, including effects on the breast and heart. Teriparatide, a bone-forming agent, promptly reduces the rate of vertebral and all non-vertebral fractures, without significant adverse effects. Strontium ranelate, the first agent shown to concomitantly decrease bone resorption and stimulate bone formation, has also shown its ability to reduce rates of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in patients with established osteoporosis. It significantly reduces hip fractures in elderly individuals at high risk for such events. Its safety profile is also excellent.

Predictors of Ibandronate Efficacy for the Management of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Regression Analysis

Background

Aim of the present study was to identify the predictors of ibandronate efficacy in subjects with osteoporosis or decreased bone mineral density (BMD).

Method

Several electronic databases were searched by using specific keywords for the acquisition of research articles reporting the efficacy of ibandronate in subjects with osteoporosis or decreased BMD. Metaregression analyses were carried out by using changes in the BMD of lumbar spine and total hip following ibandronate treatment as dependent (outcome) variables against several independent (explanatory) variables.

Results

Data were extracted from 34 studies (11,090 ibandronate treated subjects) which fulfilled eligibility criteria. A history of previous fracture/s was reported by 46% of these subjects. In overall population, longer treatment duration from 1 to 5 years, increasing age, history of previous fractures, lower baseline T score, and higher baseline levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) predicted higher ibandronate efficacy in improving BMD of the lumbar spine as well as of the total hip. Lower baseline levels of vitamin D and higher baseline levels of bone specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) predicted higher efficacy of ibandronate for lumbar spine only. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or decreased BMD, in addition to above-mentioned predictors, better efficacy of ibandronate was also associated with increasing time since menopause for both lumbar spine and total hip and lower body weight for lumbar spine only.

Conclusion

Longer treatment duration from 1 to 5 years, increasing age, lower baseline T scores, and higher serum CTX levels are identified as the predictors of better efficacy of ibandronate in the study subjects with osteoporosis or decreased BMD.

A summary of the Malaysian Clinical Guidance on the management of postmenopausal and male osteoporosis, 2015

AIM

This Clinical Guidance is aimed to help practitioners assess, diagnose and manage their patients with osteoporosis (OP), using the best available evidence.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed (MEDLINE) and The Cochrane Library identified all relevant articles on OP and its assessment, diagnosis and treatment, from 2011, to update from the 2012 edition. The studies were assessed and the level of evidence assigned. For each statement, studies with the highest level of evidence were used to frame the recommendation.

RESULTS

This article summarizes the diagnostic and treatment pathways for postmenopausal and male OP, while addressing the risk-benefit ratio for OP treatment. Recognising the limitation of only depending on bone mineral density in assessing fracture risk, a move to assess 10 year fracture risk using tools such as FRAX, is recommended as a guide to decision-making on when to start treatment. A re-evaluation was done of the position of calcium supplementation and on the importance of vitamin D. There has been concern about the potential adverse effects of the long-term usage of bisphosphonates, which have been discussed fully. Algorithms for the management of postmenopausal and male OP have been updated.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate intake of calcium (1000 mg from both diet and supplements) and vitamin D (800 IU) daily remain important adjuncts in the treatment of OP. However, in confirmed OP, pharmacological therapy with anti-resorptives is the mainstay of treatment in both men and postmenopausal women. Patients need to be regularly assessed while on medication and treatment adjusted as appropriate.

Clodronate: new directions of use

Clodronate is the father of bisphosphonates. For over three decades it has been subject of study in biological and clinical areas, proving to be an extremely interesting molecule from different points of view. It has been the first drug for osteoporosis that can be administered pulsatorily (once every 15 days or once a week). This, along with good tolerability, has been the first cause of its success, when there were no solid data in literature about its antifracture efficacy. There are three published studies that prove its antifracture effect: two by McCloskey published in 2004 and 2007 on BMR, and our study about fracture prevention in corticosteroids OP. In these studies a dose of 800 mg/day orally administered or 100 mg/week I.M. was used, and they are basically the same if you consider that clodronate absorption, orally administered, is on average 1.9%. However, a series of works where higher doses were used (1600 mg orally administered) with greater effectiveness on bone mass, especially in higher risk populations, lead us to consider the use of 200 mg i.m. formulation. First of all, we proved densitometric equivalence of 200 mg i.m./14 days and 100 mg i.m./week in a first study; then, in a second study, we proved a greater densitometric efficacy of 200 mg/week compared to 100 mg/week, clearer at femoral level, where the drug had not proven to prevent femoral fracture because of inadequate bone mass increase at that level. Moreover, as for ibandronate case, monthly dose was doubled compared to pivotal trial, in order to maximize the effects on femoral bone mass and therefore prevent femoral fractures. Consequently, on the basis of the risk envelope, whether it is identified according to BMD and the presence of one risk factor at least or more correctly identified through risk chart (FRAX or DeFRA), you can put forward a differential use of 100 mg i.m. and 200 mg i.m., weekly, "off-label" or every 14 days, adjusting doses in relation to fracture risk and painful symptoms gravity, as well as improving its ease of use and therefore assist compliance. Common experience and clinical and biological works have proved that clodronate has an analgesic effect that can be increased by doubling the doses. The analgesic effect is present not only with patients with fractures, but also with patients suffering from osteoarthritis or arthritis. Therefore, the drug would fit well in the therapeutic program of rheumatic patient, also because of its symptomatic effects. Clodronate at small doses (2 mg) could also have protective effects on cartilage (introduction of intra-articular formulation is expected) and at 10-100 fold higher doses it has certainly anti-inflammatory effects and more specifically antimacrophage and anticytokine effects (IL-1, IL-6, TNFalpha, PGE). These effects are amplified by putting clodronate in monolayer liposomes. This drug, therefore, has to be considered as adjuvant in arthritis therapy, whose origin can be linked to a strong osteoclastic activation caused by an increase of cytokines and the RANKL/OPG relationship. It is clear that clodronate can work on cytokine at first and on osteoclastic effector in the end. The drug has been used "off-label" for decades intravenously in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS type 1) in relation to schemes that change according to different Authors and according to cumulative doses ranging from 3 to 5 g. The introduction on the market of the 200 mg i.m. formulation could allow to get more practical but equally effective schemes. For example, we used this scheme: 200 mg/day for 10 days and then 200 mg every other day for 20 days (cumulative dose of 4 g in a month). Said scheme can be repeated in the following months in particular cases. Results, as for efficacy and lack of relapses, show that clodronate is the leader drug for this syndrome. In recent years, relationship between costs and benefits has started to matter, especially after the creation of some algorithms, such as FRAX, that let us choose patients with a higher fracture risk in 10 years, and after pharmaceutic-economic models that let us calculate FRAX intervention threshold, on the basis of drug price and monitoring, antifracture efficacy, quality of life and how much a community can or wants to spend. In this respect, a sub-analysis of McCloskey's study on people over the age of 75, conducted on 3974 subjects, shows that clodronate is more efficient with patients with a higher fracture risk, calculated according to FRAX. Furthermore, another study by McCloskey revealed that, for a 100-pound/year drug (very similar to clodronate), 'cost effective' intervention threshold is about 7-10%. In conclusion, clodronate prevents fractures, decrease osteo-articular pain, is easy to handle, tolerable and had a great cost/benefit relationship.

Dose-Effectiveness Relationships Determining the Efficacy of Ibandronate for Management of Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on the efficacy of ibandronate by evaluating the effect sizes of different dosing regimens.Major electronic databases were searched from 1985 to February 2015. A random effects meta-analysis was performed in STATA.Data from 34 studies (13,639 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Ibandronate treatment significantly improved lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) as shown by the percent change from baseline (4.80%, P < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [4.14, 5.45]). The respective effect sizes for oral intake and intravenous (IV) infusion were 4.57% and 5.22% (P < 0.0001, CIs [3.71, 5.42] and [4.37, 6.07]), respectively. All doses led to a significant increase in BMD except 2 oral dose regimens (1 mg/d: 4.65%, P = 0.285, 95% CI [-3.87, 13.18] and 0.5 mg/d: 3.60%, P = 0.38, 95% CI [-4.43, 11.64]. Ibandronate treatment (overall as well as dose wise) also significantly improved the total hip BMD-2.30% overall, 2.13% oral, and 2.63% IV (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [1.96, 2.64], [1.70, 2.55], and [2.07, 3.20]), respectively. Ibandronate administration significantly decreased serum markers of bone resorption to -46.53% for C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen, -24.03% for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and -50.17% for procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P < 0.0001, 95% CIs [-53.16, -39.91], [-31.28, -16.77], and [-64.13, -36.20]), respectively. Parathyroid hormone levels remained unaffected by ibandronate treatment (3.03%, P = 0.439, 95% CI [-5.06, 11.66]).There was no significant difference in the efficacy of ibandronate between oral or IV administration. Predominant dose regimens for IV administration were 1 to 3 mg/3 mo and 150 mg/mo oral and 2.5 mg/d for oral ibandronate treatment.

An overview on the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a worldwide health problem related to the aging of the population, and it is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. It is related to substantial morbidity, mortality and impairment of the quality of life. Estrogen deficiency is the major contributing factor to bone loss after menopause. The lifetime fracture risk at 50 years of age is about 50% in women. The aim of the treatment of osteoporosis is to prevent fractures. Non-pharmacological treatment involves a healthy diet, prevention of falls, and physical exercise programs. Pharmacological treatment includes calcium, vitamin D, and active medication for bone tissue such, as anti-resorptives (i.e., SERMs, hormonal replacement therapy, bisphosphonates, denosumab), bone formers (teriparatide), and mixed agents (strontium ranelate). Bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate) are the most used anti-resorptive agents for the treatment of osteoporosis. Poor compliance, drug intolerance, and adverse effects can limit the benefits of the treatment. Based on the knowledge on bone cells signaling, novel drugs were developed and are being assessed in clinical trials.

Effect of ibandronate therapy on serum homocysteine and leptin in postmenopausal osteoporotic females

A significant change in serum leptin level and no change in homocysteine were observed with ibandronate treatment. No correlation of homocysteine and leptin was found with bone mass density (BMD). Results indicate that ibandronate reduces serum leptin levels but how does it help in reducing the osteoporosis. It needs to be explored.

INTRODUCTION

The current study was planned to determine the effects of ibandronate on serum homocysteine and leptin levels in postmenopausal osteoporotic females and to correlate these with BMD.

METHODS

Forty-two newly diagnosed and untreated postmenopausal osteoporotic females were selected on the basis of their BMD (BMD < -2.5) from Orthopaedic Out Patient Department of Shaikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, and 36, age and BMI matched non-osteoporotic postmenopausal females, were also selected as a control group. Baseline physical and biochemical parameters were compared. In osteoporotic patients, changes in circulating leptin and homocysteine levels were studied after 6 months of therapy with ibandronate (150 mg). The collected data were analyzed on SPSS 16.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference observed in the mean value of all baseline parameters except BMD in both groups. After 6 months of treatment with ibandronate (150 mg), a significant change was observed in serum leptin levels (19.48 ± 1.60 ng/ml vs. 14.09 ± 0.85 ng/ml, p < 0.002), while no considerable change observed in serum homocysteine levels (16.22 ± 0.95 μmol/l vs. 16.80 ± 1.03 μmol/l, p < 0.63). Serum leptin was found significantly correlated with anthropometric parameters. No correlation of serum leptin and homocysteine was found with BMD (r = 0.09, p value = 0.54; r = -0.17, p value = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that ibandronate reduces serum leptin levels while it has no effect on serum homocysteine levels. Further studies are needed to explain how the decrease in serum leptin level may help in reducing the progression of osteoporosis.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of ibandronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Several second-generation bisphosphonates (BPs) are approved in osteoporosis treatment. Efficacy and safety depends on potency of farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) inhibition, hydroxyapatite affinity, compliance and adherence. The latter may be influenced by frequency and route of administration. A literature search using “ibandronate”, “postmenopausal osteoporosis”, “fracture”, and “bone mineral density” (BMD) revealed 168 publications. The Phase III BONE study, using low dose 2.5 mg daily oral ibandronate demonstrated 49% relative risk reduction (RRR) in clinical vertebral fracture after 3 years. Non-vertebral fracture (NVF) reduction was demonstrated in a subgroup (pretreatment T-score ≤ −3.0; RRR 69%) and a meta-analysis of high annual doses (150 mg oral monthly or intravenous equivalent of ibandronate; RRR 38%). Hip fracture reduction was not demonstrated. Long-term treatment efficacy has been confirmed over 5 years. Long term safety is comparable to placebo over 3 years apart from flu-like symptoms which are more common with oral monthly and intravenous treatments. No cases of atypical femoral fracture or osteonecrosis of the jaw have been reported in randomized controlled trial studies. Ibandronate inhibits FPPS more than alendronate but less than other BPs which could explain rate of action onset. Ibandronate has a higher affinity for hydroxyapatite compared with risedronate but less than other BPs which could affect skeletal distribution and rate of action offset. High doses (150 mg oral monthly or intravenous equivalent) were superior to low doses (oral 2.5 mg daily) according to 1 year BMD change. Data are limited by patient selection, statistical power, under-dosing, and absence of placebo groups in high dose studies. Ibandronate treatment offers different doses and modalities of administration which could translate into higher adherence rates, an important factor when the two main limitations of BP treatment are initiation and adherence rates. However, lack of consistency in NVF reduction and absence of hip fracture data limits more generalized use of this agent.

Considerations regarding adherence of anti-osteoporosis therapy

Osteoporosis remains a challenging disease to treat due to a number of barriers including patient adherence to therapies. One of the most recent advances has been the development of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, which is helpful in conveying fracture risk to patients and providing treatment guidance to clinicians. The decision to use an anti-osteoporosis therapy must be tailored to the patient's specific clinical scenario. The bisphosphonates are first-line agents in the treatment of osteoporosis and are efficacious in substantially reducing fracture risk between 25% and 70% on average depending on fracture site. Compliance with oral bisphosphonate pills can be poor, resulting in a significant deterrent to the proper management of osteoporosis. Non-pill forms of bisphosphonate and nonbisphosphonate therapy are available for the treatment of osteoporosis and may increase compliance. Among these is Binosto, a new formulation of weekly effervescent alendronate, as well as intravenous bisphosphonates, teriparatide, and subcutaneously administered denosumab, which are all costly medications and are unlikely to become the mainstay of treatment over the oral bisphosphonate pills. Having a detailed conversation between the patient and physician is essential to the development of a tailored treatment plan that will decrease fracture risk.

Activation of p38 MAPK-regulated Bcl-xL signaling increases survival against zoledronic acid-induced apoptosis in osteoclast precursors

The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate zoledronic acid (ZA) induces apoptosis in osteoclasts and inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. It is widely used to treat osteoporosis. However, some patients are less responsive to ZA treatment, and the mechanisms of resistance are still unclear. Here, we identified that murine osteoclast precursors may develop resistance to ZA-induced apoptosis. These resistant cells survived the apoptotic effect of ZA following an increase in anti-apoptotic Bcl-xL. Pharmacologically inhibiting Bcl-xL facilitated ZA-induced apoptosis. Treatment with ZA activated p38 MAPK, increasing Bcl-xL expression and cell survival. Nuclear import of β-catenin regulated by p38 MAPK determined Bcl-xL mRNA expression and cell survival in response to ZA. ZA also inactivated glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)-3β, a negative upstream regulator of β-catenin, in a p38 MAPK-mediated manner. Synergistic pharmacological inhibition of p38 MAPK with ZA attenuated receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL)-induced osteoclast differentiation and facilitated ZA-induced apoptosis. These results demonstrate that elevated Bcl-xL expression mediated by p38 MAPK-regulated GSK-3β/β-catenin signaling is required for cell survival of ZA-induced apoptosis in both osteoclast precursors and osteoclasts. Finally, we demonstrated that inhibiting p38 MAPK-mediated pathway enhanced ZA effect on increasing the bone mineral density of ovariectomized mice. This result suggests that targeting these pathways may represent a potential therapeutic strategy.

Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis

The Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis was developed by an expert committee of the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) in collaboration with a multispecialty council of medical experts in the field of bone health convened by NOF. Readers are urged to consult current prescribing information on any drug, device, or procedure discussed in this publication.

Effect of intermittent and daily regimens of minodronic Acid on bone metabolism in an ovariectomized rat model of osteoporosis

The goal of the study was to compare the effects of minodronic acid on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover in a rat ovariectomized (OVX) osteoporosis model, using two intermittent treatment regimens (weekly and 4 continuous days every 4 weeks) and a daily regimen. Female F344 rats (age 14 weeks) underwent ovariectomy or a sham operation. Minodronic acid was orally administered at 0.042, 0.21, and 1.05 mg/kg in the intermittent regimens, and at 0.03 and 0.15 mg/kg in the daily regimen for 12 weeks from the day after surgery. Minodronic acid dose-dependently ameliorated the decreases in areal BMD of the lumbar vertebrae and femur, and volumetric BMD of total and trabecular bone in the distal femur. Minodronic acid also suppressed the increase in urinary deoxypyridinoline levels and reduced serum osteocalcin levels. In bone histomorphometry, all three minodronic acid regimens suppressed OVX-induced increases in bone turnover at the tissue level and ameliorated all structural indices, except that an effect on trabecular thickness only occurred with daily treatment. In conclusion, minodronic acid administered weekly or for 4 continuous days every 4 weeks suppressed increased bone resorption and BMD to a similar extent to that of a similar total dose given daily in a rat OVX model.

Denosumab significantly increases bone mineral density and reduces bone turnover compared with monthly oral ibandronate and risedronate in postmenopausal women who remained at higher risk for fracture despite previous suboptimal treatment with an oral bisphosphonate

Managing osteoporotic patients suboptimally adherent to bisphosphonates (BPs) is difficult. Such patients who remained at higher risk for fracture (≥1 risk factor) were transitioned to denosumab or a monthly oral BP. Denosumab-treated subjects had significantly greater increases in bone mineral density and decreases in bone turnover in this 12-month study.

INTRODUCTION

A clinical need exists to manage patients who are suboptimally adherent to oral BPs and remain at higher risk for fracture. Here, we compare the effects on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover of transitioning such patients to denosumab or monthly oral BP (ibandronate or risedronate).

METHODS

In two previous multicenter, open-label studies, postmenopausal women ≥55 years previously treated with, though suboptimally adherent to, a daily or weekly BP were randomized to denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months (N = 852) or oral BP 150 mg monthly (N = 851) for 12 months. In this combined post-hoc analysis, a subset of higher risk subjects was identified, and the percentage changes from baseline in BMD and serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen (sCTX-1) were assessed.

RESULTS

In the overall population, denosumab was associated with greater gains in BMD at 12 months than monthly oral BP at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine (p < 0.0001 for all). In higher risk subjects, denosumab led to greater gains in BMD than oral BPs at the total hip (2.2 vs 0.8 %), femoral neck (1.8 vs 0.3 %), and lumbar spine (3.7 vs 1.4 %) (p < 0.0001 for all). Denosumab also led to greater decreases in sCTX-1 in the overall population and higher risk subjects at months 1 and 6 (p < 0.0001 for both). Adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning to denosumab was well tolerated and more effective in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover than cycling to a monthly oral BP treatment in subjects who remained at higher fracture risk despite suboptimal BP treatment.

Long-term fracture rates seen with continued ibandronate treatment: pooled analysis of DIVA and MOBILE long-term extension studies

Ibandronate reduces the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures versus placebo in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. This analysis, in which fractures were reported as safety events, showed that long-term use of ibandronate was associated with low fracture rates over 5 years of treatment.

INTRODUCTION

A previous post-hoc meta-analysis of 2-3 year studies found that ibandronate regimens with annual cumulative exposure (ACE) of ≥10.8 mg reduced the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) versus placebo in postmenopausal women. This post-hoc analysis used individual patient data from the 2-year monthly oral ibandronate in ladies (MOBILE) and dosing intravenous administration (DIVA) studies, including the 3-year long-term extensions (LTEs), to assess fracture risk in patients treated with ibandronate for 5 years.

METHODS

Patients treated for 2 years in MOBILE with monthly oral ibandronate 150 mg (n = 176) and in DIVA with IV ibandronate every 2 months 2 mg (n = 253) or quarterly 3 mg (n = 263) who continued on the same regimens for 3 additional years in the LTEs were included. Three-year placebo data (n = 1,924) were obtained from the ibandronate osteoporosis vertebral fracture trial in North America and Europe (BONE) and IV Fracture Prevention trials. The primary endpoint was clinical fracture rate; clinical fracture data were collected as adverse events. Time to fracture was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and statistical analysis was conducted using the log-rank test. All clinical fractures included all NVFs and symptomatic vertebral fractures.

RESULTS

For ibandronate regimens with ACE ≥10.8 mg, time to fracture was significantly longer for all clinical fractures, NVFs, and clinical vertebral fractures versus placebo (P = 0.005). For all fracture types, the rate of fracture appeared stable during the 5-year treatment period.

CONCLUSION

In women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, continuous treatment with ibandronate over 5 years results in low sustained clinical fracture rate.

Randomized trial comparing monthly ibandronate and weekly alendronate for osteoporosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

Osteoporosis resulting in bone fractures is a complication in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). Once-weekly alendronate improves bone mass and is well tolerated in these patients, but there is a concern because of poor compliance. Therefore, the efficacy, adherence, and safety of monthly ibandronate (150 mg) with weekly alendronate (70 mg) were compared in a randomized, 2-year study in 42 postmenopausal women with PBC and osteoporosis. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine and proximal femur (by DXA), liver function, and bone markers were measured at entry and every 6 months over 2 years. Adherence to therapy was assessed by the Morisky-Green score. At enrollment, the two groups were similar with respect to age, BMD, severity of cholestasis, previous fractures, and bone markers. Thirty-three patients, 14 in the ibandronate group and 19 in the alendronate group, completed the trial. At 2 years both treatments resulted in a significant increase in BMD at the lumbar spine (from 0.875 ± 0.025 to 0.913 ± 0.026 g/cm(2), P < 0.001 with alendronate, and from 0.898 ± 0.024 to 0.949 ± 0.027 g/cm(2), P < 0.001 with ibandronate). The mean percentage change was 4.5% and 5.7%, respectively (P = not significant). BMD increased at the total hip by 2.0% and 1.2%, respectively. Changes in bone markers were similar in both groups and one patient with alendronate developed a new vertebral fracture. Adherence to therapy was higher with ibandronate (P = 0.009). Neither treatment impaired liver function or cholestasis.

CONCLUSION

Both regimens, weekly alendronate and monthly ibandronate, improve bone mass and are comparable in safety for osteoporosis therapy in patients with PBC, although adherence is higher with the monthly regimen. Further larger studies are needed to assess fracture prevention.