Daily oral pamidronate in women and men with osteoporosis: a 3-year randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial with a 2-year open extension

Refracture following vertebral fragility fracture when bone fragility is not recognized: summarizing findings from comparator arms of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Since vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) might increase the risk of subsequent fractures, we evaluated the incidence rate and the refracture risk of subsequent vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures (nVFFs) in untreated patients with a previous VFF.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that analyzed the occurrence of subsequent fractures in untreated patients with prior VFFs. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias in the selected studies. Primary outcomes were subsequent VFFs, while secondary outcomes were further nVFFs. The outcome of refracture within ≥ 2 years after the index fracture was measured as (i) rate, expressed per 100 person-years (PYs), and (ii) risk, expressed in percentage.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, ranging from medium to high quality. Among untreated patients with prior VFFs, the rate of subsequent VFFs and nVFFs was 12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 9-16] and 6 (95% CI 5-8%) per 100 PYs, respectively. The higher the number of previous VFFs, the higher the incidence. Moreover, the risk of VFFs and nVFFs increased within 2 (16.6% and 8%) and 4 years (35.1% and 17.4%) based on the index VFF.

CONCLUSION

The highest risk of subsequent VFFs or nVFFs was already detected within 2 years following the initial VFF. Thus, prompt interventions should be designed to improve the detection and treatment of VFFs, aiming to reduce the risk of future FFs and properly implement secondary preventive measures.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Efficacy of Antiresorptive Treatment in Osteoporotic Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

To investigate concerns surrounding the benefits of antiresorptive drugs in older adults, a systematic review was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in the prevention of osteoporotic hip fractures in older adults.

DESIGN

a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

older adults ≥65 years with osteoporosis, with or without a previous fragility fracture. Studies with cancer-related and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis, participants <65 years and no reported hip fracture were not included.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched. The primary outcome was hip fracture, and subgroup analysis (≥75 years, with different drug types and secondary prevention) and sensitivity analysis was carried out using a GRADE evaluation. Secondary outcomes were any type of fractures, vertebral fracture, bone markers and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessment with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 12 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) qualified for this meta-analysis, with 36,196 participants. Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on the prevention of hip fracture (RR=0.70; 95%CI 0.60 to 0.81), but with a moderate GRADE quality of evidence and a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 186. For other outcomes, there is a statistically significant effect, but with a low to moderate quality of evidence. Antiresorptives showed no reduction in the risk of hip fracture in people ≥75 years. The results for different drug types, secondary prevention and sensitivity analysis are similar to the main analyses and have the same concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on preventing hip fracture but with a moderate quality (unclear/high risk of bias) and high NNT (186). This small benefit disappears in those ≥75 years, but increases in secondary prevention. More RCTs in very old osteoporotic adults are needed.

Effect of bisphosphonate on hip fracture in patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia according to age: a meta-analysis and systematic review

This meta-analysis and systematic review investigated the efficacy of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fracture (IHF) in patients of different ages with osteoporosis or osteopenia. We searched Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and PubMed from inception to January 10, 2021, for trials reporting the effects of bisphosphonates on the IHF. We included only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. We pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis with risk ratios (RRs) and reported 95% CIs. We also used the Cochran Q and I² statistics to assess the heterogeneity in the results of individual studies. The primary endpoints were the total numbers of people in the bisphosphonates and placebo groups and the numbers of IHFs during the follow-up periods. Bisphosphonates reduced the IHF with an overall effect (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.77; zoledronic acid: RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.78; risedronate: RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.94, and alendronate: RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.95). The result of the heterogeneity assessment was I²=0, p=0.97. In all age groups (all ages, ≥55 years old, ≥65 years old), bisphosphonates reduced the IHF. In the ≥55 years old and ≥65 years old age groups, the RR and 95% CI were 0.63 and 0.43 to 0.93, and 0.60 and 0.44 to 0.81, respectively. Bisphosphonate reduced the IHF in the general population and all age groups (≥55 years old and ≥65 years old). Zoledronic acid, risedronate and alendronate reduced the IHF in osteoporosis or osteopenia populations. The association between bisphosphonate and the IHF does not appear to be influenced by age.

Effect of drugs on bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk with associated disability, morbidity and mortality. This Bayesian network meta-analysis compared the effects of current anti-osteoporosis drugs on bone mineral density.

Methods

The present systematic review and network meta-analysis follows the PRISMA extension statement to report systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions. The literature search was performed in June 2021. All randomised clinical trials that have investigated the effects of two or more drug treatments on BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. The network comparisons were performed through the STATA Software/MP routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method with standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for analysis.

Results

Data from 64 RCTs involving 82,732 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 29.7 ± 19.6 months. Denosumab resulted in a higher spine BMD (SMD −0.220; SE 3.379), followed by pamidronate (SMD −5.662; SE 2.635) and zoledronate (SMD −10.701; SE 2.871). Denosumab resulted in a higher hip BMD (SMD −0.256; SE 3.184), followed by alendronate (SMD −17.032; SE 3.191) and ibandronate (SMD −17.250; SE 2.264). Denosumab resulted in a higher femur BMD (SMD 0.097; SE 2.091), followed by alendronate (SMD −16.030; SE 1.702) and ibandronate (SMD −17.000; SE 1.679).

Conclusion

Denosumab results in higher spine BMD in selected women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab had the highest influence on hip and femur BMD.

Level of evidence

Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs

Predictive factors for refractory stage I and II anti-resorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to predict the possibility of patients with stage I and II anti-resorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (ARONJ) developing resistance to our treatment protocol by evaluating their clinical and imaging factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 58 patients with ARONJ who underwent imaging modality. As objective variables, we considered the healing, stage-down, and stable stages as successful outcomes, and the stage-up stage as resistant-to-treatment. As explanatory variables, we investigated the clinical and imaging factors. Furthermore, we examined stage-down as an improvement outcome to compare with the stable and stage-up stages, which were considered as no-improvement outcomes. We conducted unpaired between-group comparisons on all explanatory variables using χ² tests for independence.

RESULTS

Among 58 patients, the treatment was successful in 53 (91.4%); however, the disease was resistant in five (8.6%). Among the clinical factors, the resistant patients had a longer duration of administration of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) (cut-off: 1251 days, p = 0.032, odds ratio = 11.2, 95% confidence interval 1.115-122.518). In addition, the target disease that was being treated bone metastasis of malignant tumor was the only significant refractory factor (p = 0.024, OR: 3.667 95% CI 1.159-11.603) CONCLUSIONS: A combination of metabolic and morphological imaging modalities may be useful for oral surgeons to evaluate the disease activity and predict course of refractory ARONJ.

Pharmacological Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: a Level I Evidence Based - Expert Opinion

Objectives: Postmenopausal osteoporosis carries a high risk of fractures, which decrease quality of life and are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. The best pharmacological treatment options to manage and prevent osteoporotic fractures remain still unclear. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of the most commonly employed drugs in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Methods: Only RCTs comparing different drugs for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis were included. Data from 76 RCTs (205,011 patients) were collected. The mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 14.9 months. Results: Denosumab reported the lowest rate of non-vertebral fractures (LOR -1.57), Romosozumab the lowest rate of vertebral fractures (LOR 1.99), and Ibandronate the lowest rate of hip fractures (LOR0.18). Serious adverse events resulted in the lowest in the Raloxifene group (LOR 3.11), while those leading to study discontinuation were lowest in the Romosozumab cohort (LOR 2.65). Conclusions: Denosumab resulted in most effective, particularly in reducing the occurrence of non-vertebral fractures. Romosozumab and Ibandronate resulted best to prevent, respectively, vertebral fractures and hip fractures. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation were less frequent in the Romosozumab and Denosumab groups, while Raloxifene and Alendronate showed a lower incidence of serious adverse events overall. Level of evidence: I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Pamidronate: A model compound of the pharmacology of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates; A Leiden historical perspective

Pamidronate [3-amino-1-hydroxypropylidene-1,1-bisphosphonate (APD)] was the first nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate (N-BP) investigated in clinical studies. In contrast to other clinically used bisphosphonates, pamidronate was discovered and its properties were initially studied in an Academic Institution. On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the first publications on the biological effects of bisphosphonates, I review in this article the contribution of Leiden investigators to the development of pamidronate that led to the recognition of the significance of the Nitrogen atom in the side chain of bisphosphonates for their action on bone resorption and to the formulation of principles for the use of N-BPs in the management of patients with different skeletal disorders.

Effects of Adding Intravenous Pamidronate to Ongoing Menopausal Hormone Therapy in Postmenopausal Korean Women with Low Bone Mineral Density

Objectives

We evaluated the effects of adding intravenous pamidronate to ongoing menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal Korean women with low BMD.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 74 postmenopausal women who received MHT for at least 1 year and had a BMD T-score of less than −2.0. Maintaining the same MHT regimen, these women were divided into two groups: oral placebo group (n = 44) and a pamidronate group of patients with gastrointestinal discomfort (n = 30) who received 15–30 mg pamidronate intravenously every 3–12 months. BMD was reviewed at 12-month follow-up. Bone resorption markers in both groups, urinary deoxypyridinoline levels in the placebo group, and serum N-telopeptide of type I collagen in the pamidronate group were assessed at 6 and 12 months.

Results

At baseline, the body mass index (BMI), duration of previous MHT, and femur neck (FN) BMD differed between the groups. Within-group analysis revealed that BMD of the lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) significantly increased in the placebo group, whereas those of the LS, FN, and TH increased in the pamidronate group. The increase in BMD of LS was significantly greater in the pamidronate group, after adjusting for BMI and duration of previous MHT (mean change: 3.7% vs. 6.2%; P < 0.001). There were no changes in bone resorption markers in either group.

Conclusions

Adding intravenous pamidronate to ongoing MHT for 12 months might increase LS BMD in postmenopausal Korean women with low BMD.

Effect of medications on prevention of secondary osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, non-vertebral fracture, and discontinuation due to adverse events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Bone loss with aging and menopause increases the risk of fragile vertebral fracture, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). The fracture causes severe pain, impedes respiratory function, lower the quality of life, and increases the risk of new fractures and deaths. Various medications have been prescribed to prevent a secondary fracture, but few study summarized their effects. Therefore, we investigated their effects on preventing subsequent OVCF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched for published randomized controlled trials from June 2015 to June 2019. The trials that recruited participants with at least one OVCF were included. We assessed the risk of bias of every study, estimated relative risk ratio of secondary OVCF, non-vertebral fracture, gastrointestinal complaints and discontinuation due to adverse events. Finally, we evaluated the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Forty-one articles were included. Moderate to high quality evidence proved the effectiveness of zoledronate (Relative Risk, RR: 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69, p = 0.003), alendronate (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.68; p < 0.0001), risedronate (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.51-0.73; p < 0.0001), etidronate (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87, p < 0.01), ibandronate (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.71; p < 0.0001), parathyroid hormone (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.41; p < 0.0001), denosumab (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; p < 0.0001) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (Raloxifene, RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.44-0.76; p < 0.0001; Bazedoxifene, RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.82; p = 0.0002) in preventing secondary fractures. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate (Romosozumab vs. alendronate, RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.84; p = 0.001) and high quality evidence proved that teriparatide had better effect than risedronate (risedronate vs. teriparatide, RR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, parathyroid hormone, denosumab and selective estrogen receptor modulators had significant secondary prevention effects on OVCF. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate. High quality evidence proved PTH had better effect than risedronate, but with higher risk of adverse events.

Effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs to prevent secondary fragility fractures: systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with osteoporotic fractures have an increased risk for secondary fractures. However, a rigorous study that assesses the effectiveness of individual osteoporotic drugs in preventing subsequent fractures is lacking. The purpose of this review was to analyze the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs in preventing secondary fractures. We searched for randomized controlled trials that showed the incidence of secondary fractures while using anti-osteoporotic drugs (bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone (PTH), or calcitonin) in MEDLINE, Embase.com , and Cochrane Central Register databases. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent secondary fractures. Twenty-six studies met our eligibility criteria. There was a significant reduction in RR (0.38-0.77) after the use of anti-osteoporotic drugs for secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH significantly reduced the risk of a secondary non-vertebral fracture (RR 0.59 and 0.64). PTH needed the fewest number of patients to be treated to prevent a secondary vertebral fracture (NNT: 56). Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic agents included in our systematic review in preventing secondary vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates and PTH were most effective in preventing non-vertebral fractures. We suggest that clinicians should prescribe these drugs to prevent secondary vertebral/non-vertebral fractures.

The Potential of microRNAs for Stem Cell-based Therapy for Degenerative Skeletal Diseases

Purpose of Review

Degenerative skeletal disorders including osteoarthritis (OA) and osteoporosis (OP) are the result of attenuation of tissue regeneration and lead to painful conditions with limited treatment options. Preventative measures to limit the onset of OA and OP remain a significant unmet clinical need. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are known to be involved in the differentiation of stem cells, and in combination with stem cell therapy could induce skeletal regeneration and potentially prevent OA and OP onset.

Recent Findings

The combination of stem cells and miRNA has been successful at regenerating the bone and cartilage in vivo. MiRNAs, including miR-146b known to be involved in chondrogenic differentiation, could provide innovative targets for stem cell-based therapy, for the repair of articular cartilage defects forestalling the onset of OA or in the generation of a stem cell-based therapy for OP.

Summary

This review discusses the combination of skeletal stem cells (SSCs) and candidate miRNAs for application in a cell-based therapy approach for skeletal regenerative medicine.

Bone mineral density changes of lumbar spine and femur in osteoporotic patient treated with bisphosphonates and beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB): Case report

RATIONALE

Currently available approaches to osteoporosis treatment include application of antiresorptive and anabolic agents influencing bone tissue metabolism. The aim of the study was to present bone mineral density (BMD) changes of lumbar spine in osteoporotic patient treated with bisphosphonates such as ibandronic acid and pamidronic acid, and beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB).

PATIENT CONCERNS

BMD and volumetric BMD (vBMD) of lumbar spine were measured during the 6 year observation period with the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and quantitative computed tomography (QCT).

DIAGNOSES

The described case report of osteoporotic patient with family history of severe osteoporosis has shown site-dependent response of bone tissue to antiosteoporotic treatment with bisphosphonates.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

Twenty-five-month treatment with ibandronic acid improved proximal femur BMD with relatively poor effects on lumbar spine BMD. Over 15-month therapy with pamidronic acid was effective to improve lumbar spine BMD, while in the proximal femur the treatment was not effective. A total of 61-week long oral administration with calcium salt of HMB improved vBMD of lumbar spine in the trabecular and cortical bone compartments when monitored by QCT. Positive effects of nearly 2.5 year HMB treatment on BMD of lumbar spine and femur in the patient were also confirmed using DEXA method.

LESSONS

The results obtained indicate that HMB may be applied for the effective treatment of osteoporosis in humans. Further studies on wider human population are recommended to evaluate mechanisms influencing bone tissue metabolism by HMB.

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Osteoporosis and Low Bone Mineral Density in Men with Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Testosterone deficiency syndrome (TDS) is a risk factor for low bone mineral density (BMD) and osteoporosis. Knowledge of the relationship between TDS and bone health, as well as the practical aspects of how to diagnose and treat low BMD, is therefore of practical importance to sexual medicine practitioners.

AIM

The aim of this study was to review the physiologic basis and clinical evidence of the relationship between TDS and bone health; and to provide a practical, evidence-based algorithm for the diagnosis and management of low BMD in men with TDS.

METHODS

Method used was a review of relevant publications in PubMed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pathophysiology of low BMD in TDS, morbidity, and mortality of osteoporosis in men, association between TDS and osteoporosis, indications for dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning in TDS, evidence for testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in men with osteoporosis, treatment for osteoporosis in the setting of TDS.

RESULTS

Sex hormones play a pleomorphic role in maintenance of BMD. TDS is associated with increased risk of osteoporosis and osteopenia, both of which contribute to morbidity and mortality in men. DXA scanning is indicated in men older than 50 years with TDS, and in younger men with longstanding TDS. Men with TDS and osteoporosis should be treated with anti-osteoporotic agents and TRT should be highly considered. Men with osteopenia should be stratified by fracture risk. Those at high risk should be treated with anti-osteoporotic agents with strong consideration of TRT; while those at low risk should be strongly considered for TRT, which has a beneficial effect on BMD.

CONCLUSION

Low BMD is a prevalent and treatable cause of morbidity and mortality in men with TDS. Utilization of a practical, evidence-based approach to diagnosis and treatment of low BMD in men with TDS enables sexual medicine practitioners to make a meaningful impact on patient quality of life and longevity. Gaffney CD, Pagano MJ, Kuker AP, Stember DS, and Stahl PJ. Osteoporosis and low bone mineral density in men with testosterone deficiency syndrome.

Endocrine and bone complications in β-thalassemia intermedia: current understanding and treatment

Thalassemia intermedia (TI), also known as nontransfusion dependent thalassemia (NTDT), is a type of thalassemia where affected patients do not require lifelong regular transfusions for survival but may require occasional or even frequent transfusions in certain clinical settings and for defined periods of time. NTDT encompasses three distinct clinical forms: β-thalassemia intermedia (β-TI), Hb E/β-thalassemia, and α-thalassemia intermedia (Hb H disease). Over the past decade, our understanding of the molecular features, pathophysiology, and complications of NTDT particularly β-TI has increased tremendously but data on optimal treatment of disease and its various complications are still lacking. In this paper, we shall review a group of commonly encountered complications in β-TI, mainly endocrine and bone complications.

Treatment of primary osteoporosis in men

With the aging of the population worldwide, osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures are becoming a serious health care issue in the Western world. Although less frequent than in women, osteoporosis in men is a relatively common problem. Hip and vertebral fractures are particularly relevant, being associated with significant mortality and disability. Since bone loss and fragility fractures in men have been recognized as serious medical conditions, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been undertaken in males with osteoporosis to investigate the anti-fracture efficacy of the pharmacological agents commonly used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis. Overall, treatments for osteoporosis in men are less defined than in women, mainly due to the fact that there are fewer RCTs performed in male populations, to the relatively smaller sample sizes, and to the lack of long-term extension studies. However, the key question is whether men are expected to respond differently to osteoporosis therapies than women. The pharmacological properties of bisphosphonates, teriparatide, denosumab, and strontium ranelate make such differentiation unlikely, and available clinical data support their efficacy in men with primary osteoporosis as well as in women. In a series of well-designed RCTs, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, and teriparatide were demonstrated to reduce the risk of new vertebral fractures in men presenting with primary osteoporosis (including osteoporosis associated with low testosterone levels) and to improve the bone mineral density (BMD). In preliminary studies, ibandronate, denosumab, and strontium ranelate also showed their beneficial effects on surrogate outcomes (BMD and markers of bone turnover) in men with osteoporosis. Although direct evidence about their non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy are lacking, the effects of bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, and strontium ranelate on surrogate outcomes (BMD and markers of bone turnover) were similar to those reported in pivotal RCTs undertaken in postmenopausal women, in which vertebral and non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy have been clearly demonstrated. In conclusion, sufficient data exist to support the use of these pharmacological agents in men with primary osteoporosis. Further RCTs are warranted to establish their long-term efficacy and safety.

New strategies for osteoporosis patients previously managed with strontium ranelate

The aim of this article is to describe potential alternatives to patients no longer eligible for management with strontium ranelate for osteoporosis according to the recommendations by the European Medicines Agency. A systematic search of Pubmed was done for papers on fracture efficacy of various treatments for osteoporosis, and potential harms especially in terms of cardiovascular events and stroke. The results showed that drugs more efficacious in terms of relative risk reduction of fractures than strontium ranelate were alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, and denosumab. Raloxifene, as for strontium, may be associated with an increased risk of deep venous thromboembolism and fatal stroke. In terms of cardiovascular events special attention may be given to calcium supplements. Thus, patients at risk of stroke and ischemic cardiac events such as acute myocardial infarction should not use strontium ranelate. Ideally more efficacious drugs in terms of fracture reduction should be used such as alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate or denosumab. Raloxifene may pose a special problem as this too may be associated with an increased risk of fatal strokes. Other less-potent drugs in terms of fracture reduction should only be used if no alternatives are available (ibandronate, pamidronate, clodronate). Parathyroid hormone or analogs may be used for a limited time interval in specially selected patients and needs to be followed up with antiresorptive treatment to prevent loss of the bone gained. However, it should be remembered that no head-to-head comparison studies exist.

Bisphosphonates in the management of thalassemia-associated osteoporosis: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of bone resorption, widely used for the management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention. Recent evidence suggests that bisphosphonates may have beneficial effects in the treatment of thalassemia-associated osteoporosis, a complex and multifactorial condition. Here we summarise available data about the efficacy and tolerability of bisphosphonates in beta--thalassemic patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates in beta-thalassemia were identified searching PubMed. Studies were reviewed to retrieve relevant clinical information. The following variables were considered to assess the safety and efficacy of bisphosphonates-bone mineral density (BMD), markers of bone turnover, incidence of fragility fracture, bone pain, back pain, and clinical adverse events. Five RCTs were identified, investigating alendronate, clodronate, zoledronic acid and neridronate. All bisphosphonates produced a significant decrease of the markers of bone turnover. Alendronate, neridronate, and zoledronic acid significantly improved BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip. Zoledronic acid and neridronate were also shown to reduce bone and back pain. Probably due to the small sample sizes and to the short duration of the trials, it was not possible to establish the anti-fracture efficacy of bisphosphonates; however, they were well tolerated and adverse events were rare but expected on the basis of previous studies. Sufficient evidence exists to support the use of bisphosphonates in the management of thalassemia-associated osteoporosis (to prevent bone loss and improve the BMD). Further research is warranted to establish their anti-fracture efficacy and long-term safety.

Prevention of incident fractures in patients with prevalent fragility fractures: Current and future approaches

Fragility fractures are a significant, independent risk factor for new fractures, but treatment uptake in subjects with prevalent fractures is disappointing. We addressed the question of the efficacy of pharmacological interventions in reducing the risk of incident fractures in patients with prevalent fragility fractures. For this, we reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs), pre-planned and post-hoc analyses of RCTs of approved agents for the treatment of osteoporosis. Results showed that a number of agents decrease the risk of incident vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in subjects with prevalent vertebral fractures, justifying the recommendation of treating such patients independently of the level of bone mineral density (BMD). By contrast, the evidence of antifracture efficacy of these agents in patients with prevalent nonvertebral fractures is limited. Advances in our understanding of the regulation of bone metabolism at the molecular level have identified targets for the development of new therapeutics for osteoporosis, some of which are currently in phase 3 clinical development.

Tolerability of intravenous pamidronate for the treatment of osteoporosis and other metabolic osteopathies: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Intravenous disodium pamidronate has been described in the treatment of several osteopathies. Although tolerability has been found to be good in clinical trials, some mild to serious adverse events (AEs) have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to analyze the toelrability of IV pamidronate in patients being treated for osteoporosis and other metabolic osteopathies and to describe particular patients with relative contraindications, because such cases are not commonly seen in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with different osteopathies who were administered IV infusions of pamidronate at doses ranging from 15 to 90 mg/infusion and 15 to 900 mg/year. The study was conducted in patients who had received treatment at the Institute of Metabolic Investigations, University of Salvador, Buenos Aires, Argentina, between January 1995 and December 2003. To rule out dose-related AEs, a comparison was made between patients who received fewer IV infusions and had cumulative doses of 120 to 180 mg/y (less frequent administration [LFA] group) and those patients who received regular infusions and had cumulative doses of >180 mg/year (frequent administration [FA] group). To confirm data obtained from medical records and to assess the occurrence of AEs, attempts were made to interview all patients by phone. The following information was verified for each patient included in the study: the reason for treatment, documented evidence of current diagnostic criteria, and whether the dose administered was adequate to treat the patient's condition.

RESULTS

Six hundred eight patients (464 [76.3%]women, 144 [23.7%]men; mean [SD] age, 69 [10] years) with various osteopathies (osteoporosis, 367 [60.4%] of the patients; Paget's disease, 172 [28.3%]; Sudeck's disease, 63 [10.4%]; multiple myeloma, 3 [0.5%]; and bone metastases, 3 [0.5%]) were administered a total of 2933 IV infusions of pamidronate during the study period. We were able to confirm the clinical records of 69.4% (422/608) of the patients by telephone survey; 29.9% (124/415) of those patients experienced extraskeletal AEs (most commonly fever and flu-like symptoms [eg, headache, malaise, fatigue, chills, and asthenia]). The percentage of patients reporting AEs was significantly higher for the LFA group than that of the FA group (91.2 vs 19.5; P < 0.001), although factors other than the frequency of treatment might have had a bearing on this finding. All AEs were mild and transient in both groups of patients, and there were no reports of jaw osteonecrosis in either group. It should be noted that although LFA patients received lower doses of pamidronate per infusion than the FA group, they had higher cumulative doses/year. Biochemical variables for the entire study population were compared with baseline measurements, and no significant changes in mean values were observed. Both serum calcium and 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels remained within normal ranges. On the other hand, there was a transient decrease in white blood cell count (WBCC) in 73 (12.0%) patients, and leukopenia was observed in 8 (1.3%) patients. However, 5 of the 6 patients who were leukopenic at the beginning of treatment had normal WBCCs during follow-up. Platelet count decreased significantly in 20 (3.3%) patients, and 5 (0.8%) patients developed thrombocytopenia. Serum creatinine (sCreat) levels increased significantly in 91 (15.0%) patients. This increase was transient and within normal limits (0.6-1.2 mg/dL) in 79 (86.8%) of those patients but persistent in the other 12 (13.2%), all of whom received higher doses of pamidronate or had other risk factors for renal failure such as advanced age, diabetes, multiple myeloma, or an obstructor disease. Baseline sCreat level for 7 of these 12 patients was >1.20 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Pamidronate administered IV was well tolerated when used for treating osteoporosis or other metabolic osteopathies in our study population. The clinical AEs observed with IV pamidronate administration were not serious and hematologic changes were mild, transient, and not associated with dose, time of treatment, or any particular underlying disease. An increase in sCreat level was the most frequent biochemical complication and was found in patients with additional risk factors for renal failure and particular diseases. Whether certain patients with risk factors for osteoporosis may require even fewer IV administrations of the drug is an issue that remains to be elucidated.

Risk of severe upper gastrointestinal complications among oral bisphosphonate users

BACKGROUND

Oral bisphosphonates (BPs) are the primary agents for the treatment of osteoporosis. Although BPs are generally well tolerated, serious gastrointestinal adverse events have been observed.

AIM

To assess the risk of severe upper gastrointestinal complications (UGIC) among BP users by means of a large study based on a network of Italian healthcare utilization databases.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was carried out by including 110,220 patients aged 45 years or older who, from 2003 until 2005, were treated with oral BPs. Cases were the 862 patients who experienced the outcome (hospitalization for UGIC) until 2007. Up to 20 controls were randomly selected for each case. Conditional logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio (OR) associated with current use of BPs after adjusting for several covariates. A set of sensitivity analyses was performed in order to account for sources of systematic uncertainty.

RESULTS

The adjusted OR for current use of BPs with respect to past use was 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.08). There was no evidence that this risk changed either with BP type and regimen, or concurrent use of other drugs or previous hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence was found that current use of BPs increases the risk of severe upper gastrointestinal complications compared to past use.

Zoledronic acid in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer: is there a final verdict?

Breast cancer, which preferentially metastasizes to bone, is the most common malignancy among women worldwide and is a leading cause of death. Clinical data from large, phase 3 trials (ie, ABCSG-12, ZO-FAST, and AZURE) demonstrate significantly improved disease-free survival with zoledronic acid in some patient populations with early breast cancer. Although the interim results from the AZURE trial did not show a disease-free survival benefit with zoledronic acid in the overall patient population, subset analyses showed that zoledronic acid significantly improved disease-free survival in women with established postmenopausal status at baseline. Similarly, subset analyses of the ABCSG-12 trial showed greater benefits from zoledronic acid in patients over 40 years of age who theoretically would have achieved more complete ovarian suppression. Together, these data support a potential role for zoledronic acid beyond bone health in breast cancer and suggest that the endocrine environment may influence the anticancer potential of zoledronic acid.

The treatment of symptomatic osteoporotic spinal compression fractures

This clinical practice guideline is based on a series of systematic reviews of published studies on the treatment of symptomatic osteoporotic spinal compression fractures. Of 11 recommendations, one is strong; one, moderate; three, weak; and six, inconclusive. The strong recommendation is against the use of vertebroplasty to treat the fractures; the moderate recommendation is for the use of calcitonin for 4 weeks following the onset of fracture. The weak recommendations address the use of ibandronate and strontium ranelate to prevent additional symptomatic fractures, the use of L2 nerve root blocks to treat the pain associated with L3 or L4 fractures, and the use of kyphoplasty to treat symptomatic fractures in patients who are neurologically intact.

Treating postmenopausal osteoporosis in women at increased risk of fracture - critical appraisal of bazedoxifene: a review

Several categories of drugs to treat osteoporosis exist in the form of bisphosphonates, strontium, parathyroid hormone, and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM). Advantages and disadvantages exist for each category as some patients may, for example, not tolerate bisphosphonates for gastrointestinal side effects, and especially in women in whom osteoporosis is frequent, several options for treatment are needed. The objectives of this review were to critically appraise the effects of bazedoxifene on risk of fractures especially in women at high risk of fractures. A systematic literature search was conducted for studies, especially randomized controlled trials with fractures as end-points. Bazedoxifene is a new member of the SERM group. The literature search identified one randomized controlled trial with fractures as end-point. This was a 3-year randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial in which 7492 postmenopausal women aged 55 to 85 years were randomly allocated to 1) bazedoxifene (20 [n = 1886] or 40 [n = 1872] mg/day); 2) raloxifene (60 mg/day, n = 1849); or 3) placebo (n = 1885). The risk of vertebral fractures decreased with both 20 (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89) and 40 (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96) mg of bazedoxifene per day compared to placebo. There was no reduction in non-vertebral fractures. A subgroup of women with a priori high risk of fractures was identified post hoc. In this subgroup there was a reduction in the risk of non-vertebral fractures with the 20 mg dose of bazedoxifene compared to placebo (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.90). In the 40 mg bazedoxifene group no significant reduction in non-vertebral fractures was seen in this subgroup (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.20). In general post-hoc defined subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution. However, the results indicate that bazedoxifene may be effective in preventing vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Management of osteoporosis in the aging male: focus on zoledronic acid

Osteoporosis in the aging male remains an important yet under-recognized and undertreated disease. Current US estimates indicate that over 14 million men have osteoporosis or low bone mass, and men suffer approximately 500,000 osteoporotic fractures each year. Men experience fewer osteoporotic fractures than women but have higher mortality after fracture. Bisphosphonates are potent antiresorptive agents that inhibit osteoclast activity, suppress in vivo markers of bone turnover, increase bone mineral density, decrease fractures, and improve survival in men with osteoporosis. Intravenous zoledronic acid may be a preferable alternative to oral bisphosphonate therapy in patients with cognitive dysfunction, the inability to sit upright, or significant gastrointestinal pathology. Zoledronic acid (Reclast) is approved in the US as an annual 5 mg intravenous infusion to treat osteoporosis in men. The zoledronic acid (Zometa) 4 mg intravenous dose has been studied in the prevention of bone loss associated with androgen deprivation therapy.

Bisphosphonate dose and incidence of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

The specific pharmacological properties of bisphosphonates have raised concerns about their long-term effects on skeletal fragility that may be related to the total dose of bisphosphonate given. However, the effect of different doses on the incidence of osteoporotic fractures has not been adequately studied.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we investigated the effect of different doses of intravenous pamidronate given at 3-monthly intervals on the incidence of fractures in 92 women with severe postmenopausal osteoporosis.

RESULTS

The risk of sustaining a new vertebral fracture on treatment was significantly increased by 32% for every prevalent vertebral fracture (OR: 1.32, CI: 1.05, 1.66; p=0.02). Patients with nonvertebral fractures received a significantly lower dose of pamidronate and their risk for these fractures increased by 25% for every prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline (OR: 1.25, CI: 1.01, 1.53; p=0.03). Patients who had received oral bisphosphonate before intravenous pamidronate had a significantly higher incidence of nonvertebral fractures which, however, did not hold true after adjustment for baseline BMD and prevalent fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with established osteoporosis bone fragility during treatment with intravenous pamidronate is mainly determined by the severity of the disease, assessed by the presence and numbers of prevalent fractures, rather than the dose of the bisphosphonate or the rate of bone turnover.

Bisphosphonates: how do they work?

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are taken up preferentially by the skeleton and decrease osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. The capacity of the skeleton to retain BPs is large, and there is no indication for saturation of binding sites with the doses used in osteoporosis. The anti-resorptive action of BPs includes their selective binding to calcium crystals and their subsequent release and uptake by the osteoclasts. There are differences in the affinities of PBs for bone as well as in their anti-resorptive potencies, and the whole molecule is responsible for their inhibitory effect on bone resorption. At the tissue level, they decrease the rate of bone resorption and turnover, increase bone mineral density, and maintain or improve structural and material properties of bone and thereby reduce the risk of fractures. Current studies address questions related primarily to the pharmacological properties of these compounds that are essential for their optimal clinical use, such as for example long-term safety and efficacy.

Mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates: similarities and differences and their potential influence on clinical efficacy

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are well established as the leading drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis. There is new knowledge about how they work. The differences that exist among individual BPs in terms of mineral binding and biochemical actions may explain differences in their clinical behavior and effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

The classical pharmacological effects of bisphosphonates (BPs) appear to be the result of two key properties: their affinity for bone mineral and their inhibitory effects on osteoclasts.

DISCUSSION

There is new information about both properties. Mineral binding affinities differ among the clinically used BPs and may influence their differential distribution within bone, their biological potency, and their duration of action. The antiresorptive effects of the nitrogen-containing BPs (including alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate) appear to result from their inhibition of the enzyme farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) in osteoclasts. FPPS is a key enzyme in the mevalonate pathway, which generates isoprenoid lipids utilized for the post-translational modification of small GTP-binding proteins that are essential for osteoclast function. Effects on other cellular targets, such as osteocytes, may also be important. BPs share several common properties as a drug class. However, as with other families of drugs, there are obvious chemical, biochemical, and pharmacological differences among the individual BPs. Each BP has a unique profile that may help to explain potential clinical differences among them, in terms of their speed and duration of action, and effects on fracture reduction.

Changes in bone remodelling and antifracture efficacy of intermittent bisphosphonate therapy: implications from clinical studies with ibandronate

Bisphosphonates reduce the rate of bone resorption and bone remodelling. Given daily, they decrease the risk of fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis. When bisphosphonates were given at extended drug-free intervals this antifracture efficacy was generally not seen. This may be due to the different pattern of bone remodelling changes. Data from randomised clinical studies of ibandronate, given orally or intravenously, at different doses and for variable time intervals to women with osteoporosis were examined to explore the relationship between intermittent bisphosphonate therapy, changes in bone resorption and fracture risk. The magnitude of the reduction of the rate of bone resorption at the end of the drug-free interval rather than its fluctuation pattern after bisphosphonate administration determines antifracture efficacy, provided that these fluctuations occur within the premenopausal range. Prolongation of the drug-free interval beyond 2 weeks should be compensated by a dose higher than the cumulative daily dose.

Use of intravenous bisphosphonates in osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates, which are potent bone resorption inhibitors, currently are the mainstay of treatment for osteoporosis. Antifracture efficacy has been demonstrated for at least three nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates in oral formulations that are designed to be administered in weekly or monthly dosing regimens. Frequent reports of adverse events, primarily related to the upper gastrointestinal tract, and the strict dosing schedule necessary for oral bisphosphonate therapy are considered the major reasons for disappointing adherence to therapy. New intravenous formulations have been developed that allow dosing at very long intervals, thus avoiding the gastrointestinal complications associated with oral bisphosphonates and, it is hoped, improving compliance, particularly for patients who are intolerant of oral bisphosphonates or have contraindications to their use. This alternative approach holds promise for improved outcomes of osteoporosis treatment and ultimately for reduced health care costs related to caring for people with fragility fractures.

A new concept for bisphosphonate therapy: a rationale for the development of monthly oral dosing of ibandronate

Oral daily and weekly bisphosphonates represent the current mainstay of treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). However, the inconvenience of frequent dosing is known to negatively affect adherence to therapy in the long term. This has prompted the development of convenient oral bisphosphonate regimens that feature simple, less frequent dosing schedules. Such regimens require high potency agents, which can be given at low effective doses and that also have good tolerability. Ibandronate is a potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate with proven efficacy when given intermittently to estrogen-depleted beagle dogs, rats and cynomolgus monkeys. Clinically, a pivotal prospective study has established that oral ibandronate has significant vertebral fracture efficacy in PMO, whether given daily (2.5 mg) or intermittently (20 mg every other day for 12 doses every 3 months; extended between-dose interval>2 months). Both oral regimens were well tolerated, which is noteworthy as patients with a history of gastrointestinal (GI) disturbance were not specifically excluded. As a result of these findings, a large, multinational, randomized, double-blind study (Monthly Oral iBandronate In LadiEs: MOBILE) is currently exploring the non-inferiority of once-monthly oral ibandronate (100 or 150 mg) to the oral daily ibandronate (2.5 mg) regimen with proven anti-fracture efficacy, in terms of lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) change. As with the trials investigating the weekly administration of other bisphosphonates, vertebral fracture efficacy will be inferred if the study demonstrates the non-inferiority of once-monthly ibandronate to the proven oral daily regimen in terms of spinal BMD change. The availability of this once-monthly ibandronate regimen is expected to offer benefits in terms of convenience (by having to follow dosing recommendations once a month vs. once daily or weekly) and potentially tolerability (by reducing the potential for upper GI irritation that can result from frequent, repeated exposure). Greater convenience and tolerability may enhance the therapy adherence and, hence, improve long-term therapeutic outcomes in PMO.

Current Pharmacological Options for the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism

Drugs for treating primary hyperparathyroidism can be divided into two main groups: (i) antiresorptive drugs that inhibit the increased bone turnover, which can be divided into estrogen-like compounds (estrogen, oral contraceptives and selective estrogen receptor modulators [SERMs]), bisphosphonates and calcitonin; and (ii) drugs that interfere with parathyroid hormone (PTH) secretion (currently only cinacalcet is available). No drugs that interfere with PTH action are currently available. Available studies suggest that all classes of drugs are able to lower serum calcium levels. However, calcitonin does so only temporarily. Estrogen-containing compounds (hormone replacement therapy) may be less attractive because of the potential risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease and deep vein thromboembolism. Oral contraceptives have not been shown to be able to prevent fractures in the general population, and no data are available on their effect in women with primary hyperparathyroidism. The only SERM marketed for hyperparathyroidism is raloxifene and this has not been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular diseases, and has been shown to be able to prevent vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Two small trials suggest that raloxifene may increase bone mineral density (BMD) and decrease serum calcium levels in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Bisphosphonates have been shown to decrease serum calcium and increase BMD in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, but PTH levels may increase. Cinacalcet effectively induces a sustained decrease in serum calcium and PTH for up to 1 year. However, BMD does not seem to increase. No data on hard endpoints such as fractures, kidney stones, cardiovascular disease etc. are available for any of the drugs available for the treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism.

Intravenous pamidronate for pain relief in recent osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a randomized double-blind controlled study

INTRODUCTION

We performed a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing intravenous pamidronate and placebo for pain relief in recent osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCF).

METHODS

Patients suffered from recent (<21 days), painful, osteoporosis-related VCF. They were randomized to receive daily intravenous infusions of either placebo or 30 mg pamidronate for three consecutive days (total pamidronate: 90 mg). The main criterion for efficacy was improvement in standing pain on a 100-mm visual analogical scale (VAS) at day 7. Secondary criteria were standing pain at days 3 and 30; supine pain at days 3, 7, and 30; patients' overall assessment of improvement; mobility index; and number of "20% responders" and "50% responders" (respectively, 20% and 50% improvement in standing pain at days 7 and 30). Statistical analysis with non-parametric tests was carried out on an intention to treat basis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled in the study; 16 were given placebo and 16 pamidronate. Thirty-one patients were evaluated at day 7 and 26 patients at day 30. VAS pain decreased significantly in both groups at day 7 (placebo -23 mm, pamidronate -42 mm, p<0.01). The difference in pain scores between groups was -23.25 mm (confidence interval (CI) [-42.3; -4.2], p=0.018) at day 7 and -26 mm at day 30 (p=0.03), in favor of pamidronate. At day 7, there were 4 versus 12 "50% responders," respectively, in the placebo and in the pamidronate groups (likelihood ratio: 8.372; p=0.004) and 9 versus 14 "20% responders" (likelihood ratio: 4.038; p=0.044). At day 30, there were 5 versus 10 "50% responders," respectively, in the placebo and in the pamidronate groups, and 7 versus 11 "20% responders." Patients' overall assessment of improvement at day 7 was 37+/-26 mm in the placebo group and 59+/-30 mm in the pamidronate group (p=0.019), and 42+/-26 mm and 72+/-21 mm at day 30 (p=0.07). The two groups did not differ significantly at days 7 and 30 for supine pain, Schober index, or finger-ground distance. No significant adverse reaction related to treatment occurred.

CONCLUSION

Pamidronate provides rapid and sustained pain relief in patients with acute painful osteoporotic VCF and is well tolerated. Further investigations are needed to better define the place of pamidronate in the management of painful recent osteoporotic collapse.

Anti-resorptive therapy for the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis : when should treatment begin?

Osteoporosis is a condition associated with decreased bone strength and an increased fracture risk. It may be defined based on bone mineral density (BMD) with a T-score at the hip or spine of less than -2.5 standard deviations in young healthy individuals or from an osteoporotic fracture (i.e. a fracture occurring after low-energy trauma or no apparent trauma). Risk factors predisposing to fractures include: increasing age; female gender; low BMD; a prior fragility fracture; a family history of fragility fractures; low bodyweight; lack of estrogen in women (i.e. post menopause); corticosteroid use; smoking; a number of diseases; deficiency in calcium and vitamin D; an increased risk of falls (i.e. impaired vision); immobilization; and Caucasian race. The more risk factors that are present the higher the risk of fractures over the following 10 years. The need to initiate preventive therapy with anti-osteoporotic treatment increases steeply with the absolute fracture risk. Indications for referral for dual energy x-ray absorptiometry measurement of BMD include: age >65 years; age <65 years in postmenopausal women with any of the risk factors already mentioned; premature menopause (<45 years); prolonged amenorrhea (>1 year) in younger women; fragility fractures; and diseases or conditions known to lead to osteoporosis.Anti-resorptive therapies include calcium plus vitamin D, bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, ibandronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene), hormone replacement therapy, and calcitonin. Guidelines from several countries on when to initiate anti-resorptive therapy state that therapy may be started in patients with a prior fragility fracture (some guidelines state that in this situation no BMD measurements are necessary) or in patients with a T-score of less than -2.5 (some guidelines state that additional risk factors need to be present in this situation). Some guidelines state that anti-resorptive therapy may be initiated in patients with a T-score in the osteopenic range (from -1 to -2.5, i.e. not frank osteoporosis) in the presence of other risk factors. The cost effectiveness of anti-resorptive therapy increases with the absolute fracture risk. In some scenarios, treatment with bisphosphonates may be cost effective in a 50-year-old woman with an absolute hip fracture risk of >or=1.1% over the next 10 years.

Who will benefit from antiresorptive treatment (bisphosphonates)?

Bisphosphonates are very effective treatments of postmenopausal osteoporosis. They suppress bone turnover, increase bone mineral density (BMD), and maintain or improve structural and material properties of bone, thereby decreasing the risk of fractures. All patients selected for treatment according to current international guidelines can benefit from bisphosphonate therapy independently of their prevalent rate of bone turnover. Long-term extensions (up to 10 years) of pivotal clinical trials with daily bisphosphonate administration showed sustained efficacy with no evidence of adverse effects on bone metabolism and skeletal fragility. Recent studies focus on the resolution of the effects of bisphosphonates on bone metabolism and fracture risk following cessation of long-term treatment. Such studies may help to formulate treatment recommendations according to the risk of the individual patient.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of bisphosphonates: use for optimisation of intermittent therapy for osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates suppress osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and are widely used in the management of osteoporosis. Daily oral administration of alendronic acid and risedronic acid have been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Once-weekly regimens with these bisphosphonates are pharmacologically equivalent to daily regimens. Regimens with treatment-free intervals longer than 1 week present an attractive therapeutic option as they may offer additional patient convenience and long-term adherence to treatment. However, until recently, such regimens, usually referred to as intermittent or cyclical, have not shown any convincing antifracture efficacy in clinical trials, probably because of the empirical manner in which the design of these regimens has been approached. Investigation of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of bisphosphonates may help in the design of effective intermittent dosage regimens. Bisphosphonates are poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and about 50% of the absorbed drug is taken up selectively by the skeleton, while the rest is excreted unaltered in urine. Bisphosphonates exert their action at the bone surface, where they are taken up by the osteoclasts during bone resorption. Therefore, when describing the pharmacokinetics of bisphosphonates in relation to the pharmacodynamics, the amount of bisphosphonate at the skeleton should be accounted for. Few of the reported clinical pharmacokinetic studies addressed this issue. This is partly due to the absence of study design elements to account for skeletal binding of the drugs. Pharmacokinetic studies have also been hampered by technical difficulties in determining the concentration of bisphosphonates in serum and urine. Moreover, most clinical pharmacokinetic (but also pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic) studies have primarily used noncompartmental analysis, leaving out the distinct advantages of modelling and simulation techniques. Clinically, the primary action of bisphosphonates can be assessed by the measurement of biochemical markers of bone resorption. Recent studies indicate that the pattern of these markers during bisphosphonate treatment may be predictive of antifracture efficacy; however, only limited data are available for the development of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models that are able to predict the response of these markers to different treatment regimens with bisphosphonates. Recently, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models for response to bisphosphonates have been described and, at present, some of them are being used in the design of bisphosphonate regimens with long drug-free intervals.

Intravenous bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis: where do we stand?

The use of oral bisphosphonates, particularly members of the aminobisphosphonate subclass, is well established for the treatment of osteoporosis. In a number of clinical settings, intravenous administration appears to be advantageous. However, current dosing and efficacy data are limited while definitive, long-term trials with some of these agents are ongoing. In this article, we review the available information and discuss the use of these drugs on that basis.

Pamidronate is an effective treatment for osteoporosis in patients with beta-thalassaemia

Osteoporosis in beta-thalassaemia is multifactorial; increased osteoclast function seems to play an important role in its pathogenesis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pamidronate on the osteoporosis of thalassaemia. To this effect we studied 26 patients who received this drug in doses of 30 or 60 mg i.v. once a month over 12 months. The effects were monitored by measuring bone mineral density (BMD) in association with markers of osteoclast function [soluble receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (sRANKL), osteoprotegerin (OPG)] and of bone remodelling [N-telopeptide of collagen type-I (NTX), tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase isoform-5b (TRACP-5b), bone-alkaline phosphatase (bALP), and osteocalcin (OC)]. Thirty healthy individuals were also studied, as controls. NTX, TRACP-5b, bALP and OC levels were significantly higher in thalassaemic patients compared with controls; in contrast, OPG levels were significantly lower, while the levels of sRANKL varied within normal limits. Administration of pamidronate was followed by a clear decrease of NTX, TRACP-5b, OPG, and OC, and by a significant increase in the BMD of the lumbar spine, which was similar in patients of both treatment groups. These data suggest that pamidronate, at a monthly dose of 30 mg, is an effective treatment for thalassaemic osteoporosis.

Medical treatment of vertebral osteoporosis

Although osteoporosis is a systemic disease, vertebral fractures due to spinal bone loss are a frequent, sometimes early and often neglected complication of the disease, generally associated with considerable disability and pain. As osteoporotic vertebral fractures are an important predictor of future fracture risk, including at the hip, medical management is targeted at reducing fracture risk. A literature search for randomized, double-blind, prospective, controlled clinical studies addressing medical treatment possibilities of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal Caucasian women was performed on the leading medical databases. For each publication, the number of patients with at least one new vertebral fracture and the number of randomized patients by treatment arm was retrieved. The relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT, i.e. the number of patients to be treated to avoid one radiological vertebral fracture over the duration of the study), together with the respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated for each study. Treatment of steroid-induced osteoporosis and treatment of osteoporosis in men were reviewed separately, based on the low number of publications available. Forty-five publications matched with the search criteria, allowing for analysis of 15 different substances tested regarding their anti-fracture efficacy at the vertebral level. Bisphosphonates, mainly alendronate and risedronate, were reported to have consistently reduced the risk of a vertebral fracture over up to 50 months of treatment in four (alendronate) and two (risedronate) publications. Raloxifene reduced vertebral fracture risk in one study over 36 months, which was confirmed by 48 months' follow-up data. Parathormone (PTH) showed a drastic reduction in vertebral fracture risk in early studies, while calcitonin may also be a treatment option to reduce fracture risk. For other substances published data are conflicting (calcitriol, fluoride) or insufficient to conclude about efficacy (calcium, clodronate, etidronate, hormone replacement therapy, pamidronate, strontium, tiludronate, vitamin D). The low NNTs for the leading substances (ranges: 15-64 for alendronate, 8-26 for risedronate, 23 for calcitonin and 28-31 for raloxifene) confirm that effective and efficient drug interventions for treatment and prevention of osteoporotic vertebral fractures are available. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated similar efficacy in treatment and prevention of steroid-induced and male osteoporosis as in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The selection of the appropriate drug for treatment of vertebral osteoporosis from among a bisphosphonate (alendronate or risedronate), PTH, calcitonin or raloxifene will mainly depend on the efficacy, tolerability and safety profile, together with the patient's willingness to comply with a long-term treatment. Although reduction of vertebral fracture risk is an important criterion for decision making, drugs with proven additional fracture risk reduction at all clinically relevant sites (especially at the hip) should be the preferred options.

Injectable bisphosphonates in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a "silent" disease and the patient has usually no clue of it until the occurrence of a fragility fracture. Prevention requires a continuous daily treatment that could be uncomfortable to the patient. Besides the recently introduced weekly oral schedules, injectable bisphosphonates have often been used as an off-label option to ameliorate compliance. In general, although with different efficiency, almost all injectable bisphosphonates can improve bone mineral density and suppress bone resorption markers. The effect of intravenous infusions of bisphosphonates are, to a large extent, similar to equivalent intramuscular administrations, but doses and dosing intervals represent the critical issues. Pain at the injection site and acute phase reactions are relatively common to intramuscular clodronate and intravenous infusions of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, respectively. Under certain circumstances, intermittent treatment with injectable bisphosphonates might represent a feasible alternative when compliance is at risk.

Bisphosphonates

Bisphosphonates now occupy a prominent position among therapeutic options for the prevention and treatment of various forms of osteoporosis. Their clinical profile of bone-specific efficacy, rapid response, protection from both spine and hip fractures in patients with osteoporosis, and excellent tolerability is all that can be expected of an anti-remodeling drug. Even in the era of anabolic agents, bisphosphonates will continue to be important treatment options. It is not possible to compare or contrast the clinical effectiveness of the various bisphosphonates on the basis of existing data. Despite marked differences in the in vitro potency of drugs, the clinical responses to each of the bisphosphonates discussed above are similar. New bisphosphonates may not be more effective but will provide different tolerability profiles and different routes of administration, thereby increasing the number of patients in whom bisphosphonates can be used. Having these effective agents challenges clinicians to identify the most appropriate patients for bisphosphonate use and to develop strategies to improve acceptance of and adherence to these useful agents.