Is the use of placebo controls ethically permissible in clinical trials of agents intended to reduce fractures in osteoporosis?

Low-dose add-on memantine treatment may improve cognitive performance and self-reported health conditions in opioid-dependent patients undergoing methadone-maintenance-therapy

An important interaction between opioid and dopamine systems has been indicated, and using opioids may negatively affect cognitive functioning. Memantine, a medication for Alzheimer's disease, increasingly is being used for several disorders and maybe important for cognitive improvement. Opioid-dependent patients undergoing methadone-maintenance-therapy (MMT) and healthy controls (HCs) were recruited. Patients randomly assigned to the experimental (5 mg/day memantine (MMT+M) or placebo (MMT+P) group: 57 in MMT+M, 77 in MMT+P. Those completed the cognitive tasks at the baseline and after the 12-week treatment were analyzed. Thirty-seven age- and gender-matched HCs, and 42 MMT+P and 39 MMT+M patients were compared. The dropout rates were 49.4% in the MMT+P and 26.3% in the MMT+M. Both patient groups' cognitive performances were significantly worse than that of the HCs. After the treatment, both patient groups showed improved cognitive performance. We also found an interaction between the patient groups and time which indicated that the MMT+M group's post-treatment improvement was better than that of the MMT+P group. Memantine, previously reported as neuroprotective may attenuate chronic opioid-dependence-induced cognitive decline. Using such low dose of memantine as adjuvant treatment for improving cognitive performance in opioid dependents; the dose of memantine might be a worthy topic in future studies.

Osteoporosis treatment: why ibandronic acid?

INTRODUCTION

In this article, we have summarized the specific evidence on ibandronic acid (or ibandronate) efficacy, tolerability, and feasibility acquired from trials and clinical use.

AREAS COVERED

This critical review focuses on evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, surrogate markers, bridging trials, long-term extension studies, observational studies, clinical experiences in osteoporosis in addition to postmenopausal treatment adherence in clinical practice, and safety profile of ibandronic acid.

EXPERT OPINION

Pivotal studies on ibandronic acid efficacy in terms of antifracture effects on nonvertebral fractures had some intrinsic limitations. However, a large body of indirect evidence suggests that ibandronate has significantly sustained vertebral and nonvertebral antifracture efficacies in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, in comparison to those observed with other nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. Discrepancies in efficacy between the available bisphosphonate regimens appear to be a function of dose rather than to inherent differences in their respective therapeutic potential. Drugs or treatment regimens that minimize the risk of osteoporotic fractures and make the treatment of osteoporosis more convenient and suitable for patients are preferred: ibandronic acid marketed at oral doses of 150 mg once monthly and 3 mg quarterly as intravenous injection has these characteristics. The safety profile of ibandronic acid treatment appears to be good overall and in some cases better than that of other nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates.

Evidence of sustained vertebral and nonvertebral antifracture efficacy with ibandronate therapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The antifracture efficacy of ibandronate at vertebral and nonvertebral sites was assessed.

METHODS

A literature review of randomized phase III clinical trials, meta-analyses or observational studies that reported fracture endpoints or surrogate markers, and compared ibandronate with placebo or an active comparator.

RESULTS

In a phase III study, 2.5 mg daily oral ibandronate reduced the incidence of new vertebral fractures versus placebo and the relative risk reduction (RRR) was sustained over 3 years (62%; p = 0.0001). In two bridging studies, oral ibandronate 150 mg once monthly and 3 mg quarterly intravenous (i.v.) were superior to oral 2.5 mg daily in producing bone mineral density (BMD) increases at all sites over 2 years (p < 0.05). These improvements were sustained over 5 years. In meta-analyses of pivotal ibandronate studies, doses equivalent to annual cumulative exposure (ACE) ≥ 10.8 mg (including 150 mg once monthly and 3 mg quarterly i.v.) significantly reduced the incidence of nonvertebral fractures versus placebo or ACE 5.5 mg (2.5 mg daily) (RRR 29.9% and 38%, respectively; p < 0.05). Therefore, prevention of nonvertebral fractures was found in all patients with the commercially available highest doses, and not only in high-risk patients as observed in randomized clinical trials with lower doses. Finally, a 12-month, observational study of claims databases reported comparable rates of nonvertebral fractures and a statistically significantly lower rate of vertebral fractures (p < 0.01) with ibandronate versus weekly bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSION

A large body of evidence suggests that ibandronate has sustained vertebral and nonvertebral antifracture efficacy in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Low bone density and bone metabolism alterations in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: response to calcium and vitamin D treatment

Boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy often have reduced bone mass and increased fracture risk. In this prospective study on 33 patients, calcifediol (25-OH vitamin D(3)) plus adjustment of dietary calcium to the recommended dose reduced bone resorption, corrected vitamin D deficiency, and increased bone mass in about two-thirds of cases.

INTRODUCTION

Low BMC and BMD and bone metabolism alterations are frequent in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), especially now that long-term glucocorticosteroid (GC) treatment is the standard of care. This prospective study was designed to evaluate the effects of a first-line treatment (25-OH vitamin D(3) [calcifediol] plus adjustment of dietary calcium to the recommended daily dose) on bone.

METHODS

Thirty-three children with DMD on GC treatment were followed for 3 years: one of observation and two of treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME

spine and total body BMC and BMD increase; secondary outcome: changes in bone turnover markers (C-terminal [CTx] and N-terminal [NTx] telopeptides of procollagen type I; osteocalcin [OC]).

RESULTS

During the observation year, BMC and BMD decreased in all patients. At baseline and after 12 months, serum CTx and urinary NTx were higher than normal; OC and parathyroid hormone at the upper limit of normal; 25-OH vitamin D(3) significantly lower than normal. After 2 years of calcifediol and calcium-rich diet, BMC and BMD significantly increased in over 65% of patients, and bone metabolism parameters and turnover markers normalized in most patients (78.8%). During the observation year, there were four fractures in four patients, while during the 2 years of treatment there were two fractures in two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Calcifediol plus adequate dietary calcium intake seems to be an effective first-line approach that controls bone turnover, corrects vitamin D deficiency, and increases BMC and BMD in most patients with DMD. Lack of response seems related to persistently high bone turnover.

Update on monthly oral bisphosphonate therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis: focus on ibandronate 150 mg and risedronate 150 mg

BACKGROUND

Patient adherence to daily and weekly bisphosphonate treatments is poor and adversely affects their clinical outcome. To increase compliance, bisphosphonate therapies with longer dose-free intervals, such as oral once monthly, were developed.

METHODS

The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the efficacy and safety of the two once-monthly oral bisphosphonates, ibandronate 150 mg and risedronate 150 mg. Fracture trials were initially performed with daily formulations, then bridging trials, in which the efficacy of intermittent dosing was assessed versus daily using validated surrogate endpoints for fracture. Two literature searches were carried out using the MEDLINE and BIOSIS online scientific citation database of published, peer-reviewed manuscripts up to and including December 2008.

FINDINGS

The relative risk reduction (RRR) of new vertebral fractures with risedronate 5 mg daily was 41% (p = 0.003), and 49% (p < 0.001) versus placebo after 3 years in two Phase III studies. In patients at risk of incident fracture, the relative risk of non-vertebral fractures was significantly reduced by 39% (p = 0.02) with 5 mg risedronate versus placebo. In a post-hoc pooled analysis of 2.5 mg and 5 mg risedronate doses, also in patients at high risk of fracture, the relative risks of non-vertebral and hip fractures were significantly reduced by 20% (p = 0.03) and 30% (p = 0.02), respectively. In a Phase III study, the RRR of new vertebral fractures with 2.5 mg daily ibandronate was 62% (p = 0.0001) versus placebo after 3 years. Two pooled analyses of data from key randomised, double-blind, controlled trials with ibandronate dose levels consistent with 150 mg once-monthly reported significant RRRs in non-vertebral fractures of 38% (p = 0.038) and 30% (p = 0.041). In a bridging study, 150 mg once-monthly risedronate was non-inferior to 5 mg daily treatment for improvements in bone mineral density (BMD), but was significantly inferior for reductions in bone turnover markers (BTMs) (p < 0.05). Ibandronate 150 mg once monthly was superior to daily at 2 years in both surrogate marker measures, with significantly superior BMD gains reported at all sites (p < 0.05). In an extension of the bridging study, lumbar spine BMD progressively improved and previously reported femoral neck BMD gains were maintained with monthly ibandronate. Serum sCTX remained reduced within the premenopausal range.

CONCLUSIONS

Risedronate 150 mg once monthly has demonstrated less reduction of BTM and non-inferior BMD gains versus daily, whereas 150 mg once monthly ibandronate has demonstrated BTM suppression within the premenopausal range and BMD gains superior to the daily regimen. Furthermore, ibandronate has demonstrated antifracture efficacy with intermittent dosing in two pooled analyses. Risedronate has yet to demonstrate anti-fracture efficacy with an extended (intermittent) dosing regimen.

Glucocorticoids and the risk of osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) refers to a clinical condition in which a class of corticosteroids increases the susceptibility of bones to fracture. Numerous recent studies have improved our understanding of the underlying biology of this condition, whereas data from randomized controlled trials have provided clinicians with more options for prevention of GIO.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pathophysiology and epidemiology of GIO, as well as current pharmacologic treatment and prevention modalities available. To review the state of healthcare provider concordance with GIO prevention guidelines.

METHODS

Representative examples of various cellular and molecular processes underlying GIO were included, with an emphasis towards more recent discoveries. The data used to describe the epidemiology of GIO were derived from both randomized controlled studies and observational studies, framed through a discussion of known osteoporosis risk factors.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Progress has been made in clarifying the pathophysiologic mechanisms that result in GIO. Although the options for preventions and treatment of GIO continue to expand, provider compliance with preventive measures remains suboptimal.

Considerations for development of surrogate endpoints for antifracture efficacy of new treatments in osteoporosis: a perspective

Because of the broad availability of efficacious osteoporosis therapies, conduct of placebo-controlled trials in subjects at high risk for fracture is becoming increasing difficult. Alternative trial designs include placebo-controlled trials in patients at low risk for fracture or active comparator studies, both of which would require enormous sample sizes and associated financial resources. Another more attractive alternative is to develop and validate surrogate endpoints for fracture. In this perspective, we review the concept of surrogate endpoints as it has been developed in other fields of medicine and discuss how it could be applied in clinical trials of osteoporosis. We outline a stepwise approach and possible study designs to qualify a biomarker as a surrogate endpoint in osteoporosis and review the existing data for several potential surrogate endpoints to assess their success in meeting the proposed criteria. Finally, we suggest a research agenda needed to advance the development of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for fracture in osteoporosis trials. To ensure optimal development and best use of biomarkers to accelerate drug development, continuous dialog among the health professionals, industry, and regulators is of paramount importance.

Ethics in the rheumatology literature: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To address the perception that ethical issues are underrepresented in the rheumatology literature, a systematic review was conducted using multiple databases to identify articles that addressed ethical and rheumatologic issues.

METHODS

A rheumatologist, research librarian, and clinician-ethicist designed queries for 4 electronic and ethics databases, searching for articles with content that was relevant to rheumatology/rheumatic diseases and that primarily focused on ethics. Based upon the Beauchamp and Childress framework, the retrieved articles were classified according to their ethical content, and the proportions addressing each Beauchamp and Childress ethical principle were analyzed using Cochran's Q statistic. Correlations between the appearance of discussions involving each of the 4 ethical principles were determined via chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

The total number of manuscripts in the rheumatologic literature with an ethical focus was 104 out of an estimated library of >400,000 rheumatologically oriented manuscripts (0.026%). Very few manuscripts consisted of original research studies. Nonmaleficence (66%) was the most common theme, whereas justice represented the least frequently addressed ethical issue (12%). The differences in the proportions of each ethical principle reached statistical significance (Q = 73.8, P < 0.0001). Only 8 articles addressed >2 ethical principles. Discussion touching on autonomy and nonmaleficence frequently appeared in the same article (Pearson's chi(2) = 14.9, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the frequency of ethical issues while caring for patients, few reports within the rheumatic disease literature have focused on ethical issues. Further work should ascertain the degree to which the literature addresses the ethical questions in rheumatology.

Clinical evaluation of novel bisphosphonate dosing regimens in osteoporosis: The role of comparative studies and implications for future studies

BACKGROUND

Daily nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have shown antifracture efficacy in many studies of postmenopausal osteoporosis. However, current dosing schedules are often inconvenient or impractical for patients. Efforts to reduce dosing frequency to improve adherence (ie, compliance and persistence), and therefore treatment outcomes, are ongoing. Although a number of trial designs can be used to consider the efficacy of therapy, comparing the efficacy of different regimens should only be undertaken in purposefully designed head-to-head studies.

OBJECTIVE

This article summarizes the design and conduct of clinical studies that have investigated alternative bisphosphonate regimens and those that have directly compared different approved bisphosphonates. It also explores the implications for future studies of postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment.

METHODS

Using the terms bisphosphonate, daily, weekly, and monthly, a search (completed in 2006) of the PubMed database was conducted to identify primary English-language publications of pertinent studies comparing either novel with established regimens of the same bisphosphonates or different established bisphosphonates.

RESULTS

The first option is the equivalence or noninferiority bridging study for comparison of new treatment regimens versus the established regimen of the same bisphosphonate, known as the active comparator. Four such studies have led to the registration of novel bisphosphonate dosing regimens designed to provide easier dosing alternatives for patients. The second option is the active comparator study, which compares one bisphosphonate with the most prescribed weekly bisphosphonate. Weekly dosed oral alendronate has previously been shown to be superior (for bone mineral density gains) to daily and weekly dosed oral risedronate. An ongoing noninferiority study, Monthly Oral Therapy with Ibandronate for Osteoporosis Intervention, is comparing weekly alendronate with ibandronate, a monthly oral bisphosphonate.

CONCLUSIONS

The exploration of new dosing schedules and formulations aims to identify the optimal bisphosphonate regimen for postmenopausal osteoporosis. To achieve this, careful consideration must be given to the choice of a scientifically valid study design that effectively, and ethically, meets the study objectives. Given the concerns regarding placebo-controlled antifracture studies, 2 alternative study designs should be considered, both using validated surrogate end points (bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover) as the principal mode of assessment.

The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future

The World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki was first adopted in 1964. In its 40-year lifetime the Declaration has been revised five times and has risen to a position of prominence as a guiding statement of ethical principles for doctors involved in medical research. The most recent revision, however, has resulted in considerable controversy, particularly in the area of the ethical requirements surrounding placebo-controlled trials and the question of responsibilities to research participants at the end of a study. This review considers the past versions of the Declaration of Helsinki and asks the question: How exactly has the text of the Declaration changed throughout its lifetime? Regarding the present form of the Declaration of Helsinki we ask: What are the major changes in the most recent revision and what are the controversies surrounding them? Finally, building on the detailed review of the past and present versions of the Declaration of Helsinki, we give consideration to some of the possible future trajectories for the Declaration in the light of its history and standing in the world of the ethics of medical research.

Randomized comparison of the effects of the vitamin D3 adequate intake versus 100 mcg (4000 IU) per day on biochemical responses and the wellbeing of patients

Background

For adults, vitamin D intake of 100 mcg (4000 IU)/day is physiologic and safe. The adequate intake (AI) for older adults is 15 mcg (600 IU)/day, but there has been no report focusing on use of this dose.

Methods

We compared effects of these doses on biochemical responses and sense of wellbeing in a blinded, randomized trial. In Study 1, 64 outpatients (recruited if summer 2001 25(OH)D <61 nmol/L) were given 15 or 100 mcg/day vitamin D in December 2001. Biochemical responses were followed at subsequent visits that were part of clinical care; 37 patients completed a wellbeing questionnaire in December 2001 and February 2002. Subjects for Study 2 were recruited if their 25(OH)D was <51 nmol/L in summer 2001. 66 outpatients were given vitamin D; 51 completed a wellbeing questionnaire in both December 2002 and February 2003.

Results

In Study 1, basal summer 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] averaged 48 ± 9 (SD) nmol/L. Supplementation for more than 6 months produced mean 25(OH)D levels of 79 ± 30 nmol/L for the 15 mcg/day group, and 112 ± 41 nmol/L for the 100 mcg/day group. Both doses lowered plasma parathyroid hormone with no effect on plasma calcium. Between December and February, wellbeing score improved more for the 100-mcg/day group than for the lower-dosed group (1-tail Mann-Whitney p = 0.036). In Study 2, 25(OH)D averaged 39 ± 9 nmol/L, and winter wellbeing scores improved with both doses of vitamin D (two-tail p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The highest AI for vitamin D brought summertime 25(OH)D to >40 nmol/L, lowered PTH, and its use was associated with improved wellbeing. The 100 mcg/day dose produced greater responses. Since it was ethically necessary to provide a meaningful dose of vitamin D to these insufficient patients, we cannot rule out a placebo wellbeing response, particularly for those on the lower dose. This work confirms the safety and efficacy of both 15 and 100 mcg/day vitamin D₃ in patients who needed additional vitamin D.