Long-term tolerability of the bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a comparative review

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparative gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis

We completed a network meta-analysis of published papers to compare bisphosphonate gastrointestinal safety. We found that zoledronic acid had the highest chance of causing gastrointestinal adverse events. Etidronate had the highest chance of discontinuation due to an adverse event. No difference was found for serious adverse events.

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates are first-line treatment for osteoporosis. Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AE) are the primary reason for non-adherence. Little is known about the comparative GI safety of bisphosphonates.

PURPOSE

Leverage published clinical trial data to examine the comparative GI safety of bisphosphonates.

METHODS

We completed a systematic review of all English-language clinical trials that assessed bisphosphonate safety and/or efficacy in primary osteoporosis through to 2012. Randomized, blinded, and controlled studies were eligible. The primary outcome was any GI-related AE. Subanalyses were completed for upper GI symptoms, serious GI, nausea, esophageal-related events, and discontinuation due to AE. A Bayesian-based network meta-analysis was completed to allow for indirect comparisons. Results were reported as the probability that a specific drug had the highest number of events.

RESULTS

We identified 50 studies: 32 alendronate, 12 risedronate, 5 etidronate, and 7 zoledronic acid. Zoledronic acid had the highest probability of having the highest number of any GI AE (91%) and nausea (70%). Etidronate (70%) and zoledronic acid (28%) had the highest probability of having the greatest attrition due to AE. Etidronate had the highest probability (56%) of having the greatest number of upper GI symptoms among oral bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid had the highest probability of causing the greatest number of GI AE, possibly related to nausea. These results question the assumption that annual zoledronic acid will translate into better adherence. Little difference was found between alendronate and risedronate for serious AE. More research into real-world implications of the comparative safety of bisphosphonates is needed.

The association between serious upper gastrointestinal bleeding and incident bisphosphonate use: a population-based nested cohort study

Background

Oral bisphosphonates are commonly used to prevent / treat osteoporosis. However, bisphosphonate treatment is not without risk and serious adverse effects, including upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) have been described. We sought to determine if new users of bisphosphonate drugs were more likely to suffer a serious UGIB within 120 days of drug initiation.

Methods

This was a population-based nested cohort study utilizing administrative healthcare data in British Columbia, Canada. Community based individuals ≥ 65 years with a new prescription for a bisphosphonate between 1991 and 2007 were included. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to examine the relationship between older age and the development of a serious UGIB within 120 days of new exposure to oral bisphosphonate drugs.

Results

Within the exposure cohort (n = 26,223), 117 individuals had suffered a serious UGIB within 120 days of incident bisphosphonate use. Cases tended to be > 80 years old, and were significantly more likely to have had a past history of gastric ulcer disease, a remote history of serious UGIB, and had been dispensed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) medications (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). After adjustment for confounding covariates, those > 80 years were more than twice as likely to suffer a UGIB when compared to those ≤ 80 years (adjusted OR = 2.03; 95% CI 1.40–2.94). A past history of serious UGIB was the strongest predictor of UGIB within 120 days of incident bisphosphonate use (adjusted OR = 2.28; 95% CI = 1.29–4.03) followed by PPI use (adjusted OR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.35–3.07). Males were 70% more likely to suffer an UGIB compared to females (adjusted OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.05–2.72).

Conclusions

Upper GIB is a rare, but serious, side effect of bisphosphonate therapy more often afflicting older individuals. At the same time, concern about potential rare adverse events should not discourage clinicians from prescribing bisphosphonate drugs, particularly in older patients who have already sustained a fragility fracture. Clinicians must remain cognizant of potential adverse events associated with bisphosphonate use and should routinely ask about pre-existing GI disorders and concurrent medication history prior to prescribing these drugs.

Comparison of Tamoxifen and Testosterone Propionate in Male Rats: Differential Prevention of Orchidectomy Effects on Sex Organs, Bone Mass, Growth, and the Growth Hormone-IGF-I Axis

Testis dysfunction can weaken bone and reduce muscle mass as well as impair sexual function. Testosterone (T) therapy has useful effects on sex organs, bone, and muscle in T-deficient males, but prostate concerns can preclude T use in some men. Although estrogens or other drugs can protect bone in men, gynecomastia makes estrogens unappealing, and other drugs may also be undesirable in some cases. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) inhibit estrogen-evoked sex organ growth but mimic estrogen effects on bone and cholesterol and are advantageous for some women. SERMs may also be useful in men who must avoid androgens. As a preclinical test of this idea, tamoxifen (a SERM) and testosterone propionate (TP, a classic androgen) were compared for their efficacy in preventing varied effects of orchidectomy (ORX) in adult male rats. ORX led to ventral prostate and seminal vesicle atrophy and decreases in somatic growth, proximal tibia bone mineral density (BMD), and serum growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I). ORX also increased anterior pituitary glandular kallikrein, serum cholesterol, and body temperature. Pituitary prolactin (PRL) content was unaltered. ORX effects on sex organs, somatic growth, IGF-I, cholesterol, body temperature, and pituitary kallikrein were prevented by TP at 1 mg/kg (3 doses per week), but BMD and GH were unresponsive. ORX effects on BMD and GH were prevented by TP at 10 mg/kg, but this dose evoked supraphysiologic increases in sex organs and PRL, failed to restore somatic growth, and further reduced IGF-I. Tamoxifen (1 mg/kg daily) prevented ORX effects on BMD, GH, and cholesterol without altering basal or TP-induced sex organ growth and further reduced IGF-I and somatic growth. Tamoxifen did not alter basal PRL but blocked increases caused by TP at 10 mg/kg. In summary, tamoxifen prevented ORX effects on bone and cholesterol in male rats without affecting sex organs or PRL and might be useful for men who must avoid androgens. Unexpectedly, a TP dose that replicated testis effects on sex organs and other targets had no effect on BMD or GH, and a larger TP dose that restored BMD and GH was worse at replicating normal male physiology. In addition, correlation/regression results suggested that the GH-IGF-I axis contributes to changes in BMD.

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

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of residronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Women receiving at least one year of risedronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis were compared to those receiving placebo or concurrent calcium/vitamin D or both. The outcome was fracture incidence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We carried out study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. Study quality was assessed through the reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals. Meta-analysis was preformed using relative risks and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials were included in the review representing 14,049 women. Relative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 5 mg dose were as follows. Risk estimates for primary prevention were available only for vertebral and non vertebral fractures and showed no statistically significant effect of risedronate on fractures. For secondary prevention, a significant 39% RRR in vertebral fractures (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.76) with 5% ARR was found. For non-vertebral fractures, a significant 20% RRR (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.90) with 2% ARR and for hip fractures there was a significant 26% RRR (RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94) with a 1% ARR. When primary and secondary prevention studies were combined, the reduction in fractures remained statistically significant for both vertebral (RR 0.63, 0.51 to 0.77) and non vertebral fractures (RR 0.80, 0.72 to 0.90)For adverse events, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the included studies. However, observational data has led to concerns regarding the potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At 5 mg/day a statistically significant and clinically important benefit in the secondary prevention of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures was observed, but not for wrist. The level of evidence for secondary prevention is Gold (www.cochranemsk.org) for vertebral and non-vertebral and Silver for hip and wrist. There were no statistically significant reductions in the primary prevention of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. The level of evidence is Silver.

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

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Women receiving at least one year of alendronate, for postmenopausal osteoporosis, were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We undertook study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analysis of fracture outcomes using relative risks and a > 15% relative change was considered clinically important. We assessed study quality through reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials representing 12,068 women were included in the review. Relative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 10 mg dose were as follows. For vertebral fractures, a significant 45% RRR was found (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67). This was significant for both primary prevention, with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80) and 2% ARR, and secondary prevention with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69) and 6% ARR. For non-vertebral fractures, a significant 16% RRR was found (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94). This was significant for secondary prevention, with 23% RRR (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92) and 2% ARR, but not for primary prevention (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). There was a significant 40% RRR in hip fractures (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92), but only secondary prevention was significant with 53% RRR (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85) and 1% ARR. The only significance found for wrist was in secondary prevention, with a 50% RRR (RR 0.50 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) and 2% ARR. For adverse events, we found no statistically significant differences in any included study. However, observational data raise concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At 10 mg per day, both clinically important and statistically significant reductions in vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures were observed for secondary prevention ('gold' level evidence, www.cochranemsk.org). We found no statistically significant results for primary prevention, with the exception of vertebral fractures, for which the reduction was clinically important ('gold' level evidence).

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

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Women receiving at least one year of etidronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection and data abstraction was done in duplicate. Meta-analysis of fracture outcomes was performed with data presented as relative risks and a relative change greater than 15% was considered clinically important. Study quality was assessed through the reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies representing a total of 1248 patients were included in the review.A significant 41% relative risk reduction (RRR) in vertebral fractures across eight studies (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.96) was found. The six secondary prevention trials demonstrated a significant RRR of 47% in vertebral fractures (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) and a 5% absolute risk reduction (ARR); compared with the pooled result for the two primary prevention trials (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44), which was not significant. There were no statistically significant risk reductions for non-vertebral (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.42), hip (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.88) or wrist fractures (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.32 to 2.36). For adverse events, no statistically significant differences were found in the included studies. However, observational data has led to concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Etidronate, at 400 mg per day, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically important benefit in the secondary prevention of vertebral fractures. No statistically significant reductions in vertebral fractures were observed when it was used for primary prevention. In addition, no statistically significant reductions in non-vertebral, hip, or wrist fractures were found, regardless of whether etidronate was used for primary or secondary prevention. The level of evidence for all outcomes is Silver (www.cochranemsk.org.).

Tolerability of different dosing regimens of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis and malignant bone disease

Bisphosphonates are the primary pharmacological agents used for the management of osteoporosis and hypercalcaemia of malignant bone disease. The efficacy of these agents in these two conditions has been demonstrated in many well designed trials published over the past 2 decades. The variety of bisphosphonates currently available to us provides a wide range of tolerability and dosing profiles thus necessitating a thorough comparison of the most recent oral and intravenous bisphosphonates to differentiate the clinical context in which they should be used. Despite the fact that bisphosphonates are generally well accepted, their tolerability is dependent on complications which encompass gastrointestinal (GI) and renal toxicity. Other adverse events include osteonecrosis of the jaw, arthralgias, flu-like symptoms and uveitis. Studies have shown that various dosing regimens are able to modulate these rates of toxicity. To maximise tolerability, the direction of future therapy will likely fall into a pattern of decreasing the frequency of administration of bisphosphonates, whether it is oral or intravenous formulations, thus improving patient adherence. To review the literature on different dosing regimens of various bisphosphonates and their associated tolerability, we searched MEDLINE for articles from 1975 to 2006. Oral bisphosphonates, in particular alendronate and risedronate, have been systematically evaluated with regards to GI toxicity. Overall tolerability with these oral formulations has found GI toxicity to be the primary adverse event of interest. Both alendronate and risedronate have been found to have similar rates of GI toxicity when compared with placebo. Mounting evidence has developed validating the use of intravenous ibandronate and zoledronic acid for the purpose of treating hypercalcaemia secondary to malignancy. Unique to all other bisphosphonates, ibandronate also has an oral form which has a similar GI-toxicity profile to placebo. In addition, no significant differences in renal toxicity have been observed between those receiving intravenous ibandronate compared with placebo. Because of its potency and mode of administration, zoledronic acid has been widely accepted for the treatment of hypercalcaemia secondary to malignancy. However, a decrease in renal function, albeit rare, remains a significant complication of zoledronic acid; therefore, regular renal monitoring is recommended.

Dietary protein: an essential nutrient for bone health

Nutrition plays a major role in the development and maintenance of bone structures resistant to usual mechanical loadings. In addition to calcium in the presence of an adequate vitamin D supply, proteins represent a key nutrient for bone health, and thereby in the prevention of osteoporosis. In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health by inducing chronic metabolic acidosis which in turn would be responsible for increased calciuria and accelerated mineral dissolution. This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures. The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological "cascade" that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, many experimental and clinical published data concur to indicate that low protein intake negatively affects bone health. Thus, selective deficiency in dietary proteins causes marked deterioration in bone mass, micro architecture and strength, the hallmark of osteoporosis. In the elderly, low protein intakes are often observed in patients with hip fracture. In these patients intervention study after orthopedic management demonstrates that protein supplementation as given in the form of casein, attenuates post-fracture bone loss, increases muscles strength, reduces medical complications and hospital stay. In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures. As to the increased calciuria that can be observed in response to an augmentation in either animal or vegetal proteins it can be explained by a stimulation of the intestinal calcium absorption. Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation. Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis and alendronate

Osteoporosis is a systemic metabolic disorder associated with a decreased bone mass and resistance. Bisphosphonates suppress bone resorption and bone turnover by a mechanism that depends on their structure. They are characterized by low gastrointestinal absorption. In postmenopausal women, alendronate (ALN) reduces bone resorption markers and increases bone mineral density (BMD) in the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total body. Individuals receiving ALN have been studied for up to 10 years with an apparent linear increase in BMD over that time period estimated at 13.7% at the lumbar spine. Treatment with ALN reduced the risk of both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, including hip fractures, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Direct comparisons of the results obtained with different antiresortive agents is difficult, because the designs of the respective studies, populations and other factors. However, the meta-analysis of available publications seems to indicate that ALN reduces the relative risk of vertebral fractures in a greater proportion than any other agent. Furthermore, ALN prevents the reduction in BMD after hormone replacement therapy discontinuation.

Bisphosphonate use and subsequent prescription of acid suppressants

AIM

To determine the extent of prescribing of acid suppression agents associated with initiation of bisphosphonate therapy.

METHODS

This was a case control study, performed within the General Practice Network, Australia. The main outcome measure was re-attendance within six weeks from index bisphosphonate prescription for acid supression agents.

RESULTS

Of the bisphosphonate cases, 2.9%[95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8, 3.9] returned within 6 weeks for a prescription for proton pump inhibitor, histamine 2 receptor antagonist or antacid, compared with 0.9% of control patients (95% CI 0.5, 1.2). However, the bisphosphonate cases had significantly higher rates of previous use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents. After controlling for previous nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, the increased use of acid suppression agents was statistically significant, the odds ratio = 3.21 (95% CI 2.02, 5.11).

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonate use appears to be associated with increased use of acid suppressant agents within 6 weeks of first supply.

Rational use of oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis has become a major public health concern worldwide. Significant morbidity, mortality, and health expenditures are associated with osteoporotic fractures. Evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta- analyses supports the efficacy and safety of oral bisphosphonates as first-line pharmacologic agents for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. This article reviews the evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of etidronate, alendronate, and risedronate on improving bone mass and preventing fractures in individuals with or at risk for osteoporosis. Issues surrounding dosing intervals and optimal duration of therapy are also discussed. We conclude that the nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are safe and efficacious agents in preventing and treating osteoporosis. They are superior to cyclical etidronate in improving appendicular bone mass, and in reducing future risk for nonvertebral fractures. Once-weekly dosing options with alendronate and risedronate are effective and reduce serious adverse drug effects, and therefore, are welcome additions to our therapeutic armamentarium.

The Impact of Fragility Fracture on Health-Related Quality of Life

Both general and specific health status instruments can be utilised in evaluating health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) deficits resulting from osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporotic hip, vertebral and wrist fractures significantly decrease HR-QOL in most HR-QOL domains investigated. The presence of multiple vertebral fractures leads to larger decrements in HR-QOL. More research needs to be completed with these HR-QOL tools to better assess the true burden of osteoporotic fractures, particularly in the case of hip fractures, as the burden is surely being underestimated without recognition of HR-QOL. Only when the burden of fragility fractures is understood, inclusive of HR-QOL, will the value of proven antifracture prevention and treatment therapies be appreciated. Information collected by HR-QOL instruments may provide new insight as to how to improve quality of life for patients with fractures and how to properly allocate healthcare spending.