Effect of High Doses of Oral Risedronate (20 Mg/Day) on Serum Parathyroid Hormone Levels and Urinary Collagen Cross-Link Excretion in Postmenopausal Women with Spinal Osteoporosis

peer reviewedThe present study describes the biological effects of risedronate, a pyridinyl bisphosphonate, on bone and assesses the safety and tolerability of risedronate when given at high doses, with or without calcium, to postmenopausal women with spinal osteoporosis. This single-center descriptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel group study included 32 postmenopausal white women with at least one radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fracture. Patients were randomized to one of four different dose regimen groups: (i) R-P, risedronate 20 mg/day for 14 days, followed by placebo for 42 days; (ii) R-CP-P, risedronate 20 mg/day for 14 days, followed by elemental calcium 1000 mg/day and placebo for 14 days, then by placebo for 28 days; (iii) R-CP-R-CP, risedronate 20 mg/day for 7 days, followed by elemental calcium 1000 mg/day and placebo for 21 days, then risedronate 20 mg/day for 7 days, and finally elemental calcium 1000 mg/day and placebo for 21 days; and (iv) P, placebo for 56 days. The biological response was investigated by measuring serum calcium, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and 2 h urinary pyridinoline/creatinine (Pyr/Cr) and deoxypyridinoline/creatinine (DPyr/Cr) ratios at baseline and at days 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, and 84. Overall, there were no consistent trends observed between the active group and placebo for serum calcium. In groups R-P, R-CP-P, and R-CP-R-CP, mean serum PTH levels were elevated above baseline values for the entire 56 day treatment period and remained elevated, although to a lesser extent, at the day 84 follow-up visit. The effect of calcium supplementation on PTH was variable. Urinary Pyr/Cr and DPyr/Cr ratios were decreased from baseline over the entire study period in all groups receiving risedronate. The maximum observed percent decreases from baseline for Pyr/Cr and DPyr/Cr were -46.9% and -58.8%, respectively, at day 49 in the R-CP-R-CP group. In conclusion, risedronate given orally at a dose of 20 mg/day, continuously for 7 or 14 days, resulted in the expected biological response in osteoporotic women. The time course of changes in PTH levels following cessation of dosing was unaffected by calcium supplementation. There was no evidence of a PTH-mediated rebound in bone resorption following cessation of therapy. Furthermore, based on collagen cross-link data, patients did not show an excessive reduction in bone turnover

Prevention of Postmenopausal Bone Loss by Tiludronate

76 healthy women, who had been menopausal for less than 96 months and who had never received any form of treatment to prevent bone loss, were entered into a randomised double-blind study. For the first 6 months, half the patients received tiludronate 100 mg daily, while the others received placebo. During the second 6 months, all patients received placebo. Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine decreased significantly by 2.1% (SE 0.8%) in the placebo group and did not significantly change in the tiludronate group (+1.33 [0.8]%). The difference in response between the groups was significant, as were the differences between values for corrected urinary hydroxyproline and calcium. Treatment with tiludronate was not followed by increased secretion of parathyroid hormone. A 6 month course of oral tiludronate may counteract postmenopausal bone loss for at least a year by decreasing bone resorption

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and biochemical markers of osteoarthritis of the knee

peer reviewe

Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study

Adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications is currently low and is associated with poor anti-fracture efficacy. This manuscript reviews the potential design of clinical studies that aim to demonstrate improved adherence, with new chemical entities to be used in the management of osteoporosis. Introduction Several medications have been unequivocally shown to decrease fracture rates in clinical trials. However, in real life settings, long-term persistence and compliance to anti-osteoporosis medication is poor, hence decreasing the clinical benefits for patients. Methods An extensive search of Medline from 1985 to 2006 retrieved all trials including the keywords osteoporosis, compliance, persistence or adherence followed by a critical appraisal of the data obtained through a consensus expert meeting. Results The impact of non-adherence on the clinical development of interventions is reviewed, so that clinicians, regulatory agencies and reimbursement agencies might be better informed of the problem, in order to stimulate the necessary research to document adherence. Conclusion Adherence to therapy is a major problem in the treatment of osteoporosis. Both patients and medication factors are involved. Adherence studies are an important aspect of outcomes studies, but study methodologies are not well developed at the moment and should be improved. Performing adherence studies will be stimulated when registration authorities accept the result of these studies and include the relevant information in Sect. 5.1 of the summary of product characteristics. Reimbursement authorities might also consider such studies as important information for decisions on reimbursement

Recommendations for the use of new methods to assess the efficacy of disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis

Background: Recent innovations in the pharmaceutical drug discovery environment have generated new chemical entities with the potential to become disease modifying drugs for osteoarthritis (DMOAD's). Regulatory agencies acknowledge that such compounds may be granted a DMOAD indication, providing they demonstrate that they can slow down disease progression; progression would be calibrated by a surrogate for structural change, by measuring joint space narrowing (JSN) on plain X-rays with the caveat that this delayed JSN translate into a clinical benefit for the patient. Recently, new technology has been developed to detect a structural change of the OA joint earlier than conventional X-rays. Objective: The Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) organized a working party to assess whether these new technologies may be used as surrogates to plain x-rays for assessment of DMOADs. Methods: GREES includes academic scientists, members of regulatory authorities and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. After an extensive search of the international literature, from 1980 to 2002, two experts meetings were organized to prepare a resource document for regulatory authorities. This document includes recommendations for a possible update of guidelines for the registration of new chemical entities in osteoarthritis. Results: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now used to measure parameters of cartilage morphology and integrity in OA patients. While some data are encouraging, correlation between short-term changes in cartilage structure observed with MRI and long-term radiographic or clinical changes are needed. Hence, the GREES suggests that MRI maybe used as an outcome in phase II studies, but that further data is needed before accepting MRI as a primary end-point in phase III clinical trials. Biochemical markers of bone and cartilage remodelling are being tested to predict OA and measure disease progression. Recently published data are promising but validation as surrogate end-points for OA disease progression requires additional study. The GREES suggests that biochemical markers remain limited to 'proof of concept' studies or as secondary end-points in phase II and III clinical trials. However, the GREES emphasizes the importance of acquiring additional information on biochemical markers in order to help better understand the mode of action of drugs to be used in OA. Regulatory agencies consider that evidence of improvement in clinical outcomes is critical for approval of DMOAD. Time to total joint replacement surgery is probably the most relevant clinical end-point for the evaluation of efficacy of a DMOAD. However, at this time, time to surgery can not be used in clinical trials because of bias by non disease-related factors like patient willingness for surgery or economic factors. At this stage, it appears that DMOAD should demonstrate a significant difference compared to placebo. Benefit should be measured by 3 co-primary end-points: JSN, pain and function. Secondary end-points should include the percentage of patients who are 'responder' (or 'failure'). The definition of a 'failure' patient would be someone with progression of JSN>0.5 mm over a period of 2-3 years or who has a significant worsening in pain and/or function, based on validated cut-off values. The definition of the clinically relevant cut-off points for pain and function must be based on data evaluating the natural history of the disease (epidemiological cohorts or placebo groups from long-term studies). These cut-offs points should reflect a high propensity, for an individual patient, to later require joint replacement. Conclusion: GREES has outlined a set of guidelines for the development of a DMOAD for OA. Although these guidelines are subject to change as new information becomes available, the information above is based on the present knowledge in the field with the addition of expert opinion. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Recommendations for the registration of agents to be used in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: updated recommendations from the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science.

OBJECTIVES: The Group for the Respect and Excellence in Science (GREES) has reviewed and updated their recommendations for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new chemical entities to be used in the treatment and prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). METHODS: Consensus discussion of the committee. RESULTS: With the exception of steroid use posttransplantation, there is no need to differentiate between underlying diseases. Prevention and treatment for GIOP are dependent on exposure to glucocorticoids rather than T-scores as in postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). If fracture data are obtained for PMO, it need not be repeated for GIOP, relying instead on bone mineral density (BMD) trials of at least 1 year. GREES recommends several changes in the previous guidance for GIOP. The committee saw no need to repeat preclinical studies if those have been previously done to assure bone quality in PMO. Similarly, phase I and phase II trials, if careful dose selection has been done for PMO, should not be repeated. The "prevention" and "treatment" claims should remain. Since the most recent evidence suggests significant increase in fracture risk for daily doses of prednisone of 5 mg/day or equivalent, clinical trials should concentrate on patients receiving at least this daily dosage. The emergence of bisphosphonates as the reference treatment, together with the rapid bone loss and high fracture incidence in glucocorticoid users, necessitates recommending a noninferiority trial design with lumbar spine BMD as the primary endpoint after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Registration of new chemical entities to be used in the management of GIOP should be granted, based on a 1-year noninferiority trial, using BMD as primary outcome and alendronate or risedronate as comparator. Demonstration of antifracture efficacy should have been previously demonstrated in PMO

Clinical evaluation of medicinal products for acceleration of fracture healing in patients with osteoporosis.

Pre-clinical studies indicate that pharmacologic agents can augment fracture union. If these pharmacologic approaches could be translated into clinical benefit and offered to patients with osteoporosis or patients with other risks for impaired fracture union (e.g. in subjects with large defects or open fractures with high complication rate), they could provide an important adjunct to the treatment of fractures. However, widely accepted guidelines are important to encourage the conduct of studies to evaluate bioactive substances, drugs, and new agents that may promote fracture union and subsequent return to normal function. A consensus process was initiated to provide recommendations for the clinical evaluation of potential therapies to augment fracture repair in patients with meta- and diaphyseal fractures. Based on the characteristics of fracture healing and fixation, the following study objectives of a clinical study may be appropriate: a) acceleration of fracture union, b) acceleration of return to normal function and c) reduction of fracture healing complications. The intended goal(s) should determine subsequent study methodology. While an acceleration of return to normal function or a reduction of fracture healing complications in and of themselves may be sufficient primary study endpoints for a phase 3 pivotal study, acceleration of fracture union alone is not. Radiographic evaluation may either occur at multiple time points during the healing process with the aim of measuring the time taken to reach a defined status (e.g. cortical bridging of three cortices or disappearance of fracture lines), or could be obtained at a single pre-determined timepoint, were patients are expected to reach a common clinical milestone (i.e. pain free full weight-bearing in weight-bearing fracture cases). Validated Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO's) measures will need to support the return to normal function co-primary endpoints. If reduction of complication rate (e.g. non-union) is the primary objective, the anticipated complications must be defined in the study protocol, along with their possible associations with the specified fracture type and fixation device. The study design should be randomized, parallel, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, and all fracture subjects should receive a standardized method of fracture fixation, defined as Standard of Care