Are bisphosphonates effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis pain? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis worldwide. Pain and reduced function are the main symptoms in this prevalent disease. There are currently no treatments for OA that modify disease progression; therefore analgesic drugs and joint replacement for larger joints are the standard of care. In light of several recent studies reporting the use of bisphosphonates for OA treatment, our work aimed to evaluate published literature to assess the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in OA treatment

Impact of generic alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment

Introduction: Since alendronate became available in generic form in the Unites States in 2008, its price has been decreasing. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of alendronate cost on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment in postmenopausal women. Methods: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness model of osteoporosis screening and treatment for U.S. women age 65 and older. We assumed screening initiation at age 65 with central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and alendronate treatment for individuals with osteoporosis; with a comparator of "no screening" and treatment only after fracture occurrence. We evaluated annual alendronate costs of $20 through$800; outcome measures included fractures; nursing home admission; medication adverse events; death; costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2010 U.S. dollars per QALY gained. A lifetime time horizon was used, and direct costs were included. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Base-case analysis results showed that at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less, osteoporosis screening followed by treatment was cost-saving, resulting in lower total costs than no screening as well as more QALYs (10.6 additional quality-adjusted life-days). When assuming alendronate costs of$400 through $800, screening and treatment resulted in greater lifetime costs than no screening but was highly cost-effective, with ICERs ranging from$714 per QALY gained through $13,902 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment was robust to joint input parameter estimate variation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of$50,000/QALY at all alendronate costs evaluated. Conclusions: Osteoporosis screening followed by alendronate treatment is effective and highly cost-effective for postmenopausal women across a range of alendronate costs, and may be cost-saving at annual alendronate costs of $200 or less. © 2012 Nayak et al

Strontium ranelate and alendronate have differing effects on distal tibia bone microstructure in women with osteoporosis

The structural basis of the antifracture efficacy of strontium ranelate and alendronate is incompletely understood. We compared the effects of strontium ranelate and alendronate on distal tibia microstructure over 2 years using HR-pQCT. In this pre-planned, interim, intention-to-treat analysis at 12 months, 88 osteoporotic postmenopausal women (mean age 63.7 ± 7.4) were randomized to strontium ranelate 2 g/day or alendronate 70 mg/week in a double-placebo design. Primary endpoints were changes in microstructure. Secondary endpoints included lumbar and hip areal bone mineral density (aBMD), and bone turnover markers. This trial is registered with http://www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN82719233. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Treatment with strontium ranelate was associated with increases in mean cortical thickness (CTh, 5.3%), cortical area (4.9%) and trabecular density (2.1%) (all P < 0.001, except cortical area P = 0.013). No significant changes were observed with alendronate. Between-group differences in favor of strontium ranelate were observed for CTh, cortical area, BV/TV and trabecular density (P = 0.045, 0.041, 0.048 and 0.035, respectively). aBMD increased to a similar extent with strontium ranelate and alendronate at the spine (5.7% versus 5.1%, respectively) and total hip (3.3% versus 2.2%, respectively). No significant changes were observed in remodeling markers with strontium ranelate, while suppression was observed with alendronate. Within the methodological constraints of HR-pQCT through its possible sensitivity to X-ray attenuation of different minerals, strontium ranelate had greater effects than alendronate on distal tibia cortical thickness and trabecular volumetric density

Effectiveness of bisphosphonates on nonvertebral and hip fractures in the first year of therapy: The risedronate and alendronate (REAL) cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Randomized clinical trials have shown that risedronate and alendronate reduce fractures among women with osteoporosis. The aim of this observational study was to observe, in clinical practice, the incidence of hip and nonvertebral fractures among women in the year following initiation of once-a-week dosing of either risedronate or alendronate. METHODS: Using records of health service utilization from July 2002 through September 2004, we created two cohorts: women (ages 65 and over) receiving risedronate (n = 12,215) or alendronate (n = 21,615). Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to compare the annual incidence of nonvertebral fractures and of hip fractures between cohorts, adjusting for potential differences in risk factors for fractures. RESULTS: There were 507 nonvertebral fractures and 109 hip fractures. Through one year of therapy, the incidence of nonvertebral fractures in the risedronate cohort (2.0%) was 18% lower (95% CI 2% – 32%) than in the alendronate cohort (2.3%). The incidence of hip fractures in the risedronate cohort (0.4%) was 43% lower (95% CI 13% – 63%) than in the alendronate cohort (0.6%). These results were consistent across a number of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving risedronate have lower rates of hip and nonvertebral fractures during their first year of therapy than patients receiving alendronate

The impact of bisphosphonates on the osteoblast proliferation and Collagen gene expression in vitro

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bisphosphonates are widely used in the clinical treatment of bone diseases with increased bone resorption. In terms of side effects, they are known to be associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw (BONJ).</p> <p>The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of bisphosphonates on osteoblast proliferation by cell count and gene expression analysis of cyclin D1 <it>in vitro</it>. Furthermore, the gene expression of the extracellular matrix protein collagen type I was evaluated. Nitrogen-containing and non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have been compared on gene expression levels.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Human osteoblast obtained from hip bone were stimulated with zoledronate, ibandronate and clodronate at concentrations of 5 × 10^-5M over the experimental periods of 1, 2, 5, 10 and 14 days. At each point in time, the cells were dissolved, the mRNA extracted, and the gene expression level of cyclin D1 and collagen type I were quantified by Real-Time RT-PCR. The gene expression was compared to an unstimulated osteoblast cell culture for control.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The proliferation appeared to have been influenced only to a small degree by bisphosphonates. Zolendronate led to a lower cyclin D1 gene expression after 10 days. The collagen gene expression was enhanced by nitrogen containing bisphosphonates, decreased however after day 10. The non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate clodronate, however, did not significantly influence cyclin D1 and collagen gene expression.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The above data suggest a limited influence of bisphosphonates on osteoblast proliferation, except for zoledronate. The extracellular matrix production seems to be initially advanced and inhibited after 10 days. Interestingly, clodronate has little influence on osteoblast proliferation and extracellular matrix production in terms of cyclin D1 and collagen gene expression.</p

Contralateral hip fractures and other osteoporosis-related fractures in hip fracture patients: Incidence and risk factors. An observational cohort study of 1,229 patients

Purpose: To report risk factors, 1-year and overall risk for a contralateral hip and other osteoporosis-related fractures in a hip fracture population. Methods: An observational study on 1,229 consecutive patients of 50 years and older, who sustained a hip fracture between January 2005 and June 2009. Fractures were scored retrospectively for 2005-2008 and prospectively for 2008-2009. Rates of a contralateral hip and other osteoporosis- related fractures were compared between patients with and without a history of a fracture. Previous fractures, gender, age and ASA classification were analysed as possible risk factors. Results: The absolute risk for a contralateral hip fracture was 13.8 %, for one or more osteoporosis-related fracture( s) 28.6 %. First-, second- and third-year risk for a second hip fracture was 2, 1 and 0 %. Median (IQR) interval between both hip fractures was 18.5 (26.6) months. One-year incidence of other fractures was 6 %. Only age was a risk factor for a contralateral hip fracture, hazard ratio (HR) 1.02 (1.006-1.042, p = 0.008). Patients with a history of a fracture (33.1 %) did not have a higher incidence of fractures during follow-up (16.7 %) than patients without fractures in their history (14 %). HR for a contralateral hip fracture for the fracture versus the non-fracture group was 1.29 (0.75-2.23, p = 0.360). Conclusion: The absolute risk of a contralateral hip fracture after a hip fracture is 13.8 %, the 1-year risk was 2 %, with a short interval between the 2 hip fractures. Age was a risk factor for sustaining a contralateral hip fracture; a fracture in history was not

Effect of vitamin D on bone mineral density of elderly patients with osteoporosis responding poorly to bisphosphonates

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are indicated in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. However, bone mineral density (BMD) continues to decline in up to 15% of bisphosphonate users. While randomized trials have evaluated the efficacy of concurrent bisphosphonates and vitamin D, the incremental benefit of vitamin D remains uncertain. METHODS: Using data from the Canadian Database of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia (CANDOO), we performed a 2-year observational cohort study. At baseline, all patients were prescribed a bisphosphonate and counseled on vitamin D supplementation. After one year, patients were divided into two groups based on their response to bisphosphonate treatment. Non-responders were prescribed vitamin D 1000 IU daily. Responders continued to receive counseling on vitamin D. RESULTS: Of 449 patients identified, 159 were non-responders to bisphosphonates. 94% of patients were women. The mean age of the entire cohort was 74.6 years (standard deviation = 5.6 years). In the cohort of non-responders, BMD at the lumbar spine increased 2.19% (p < 0.001) the year after vitamin D was prescribed compared to a decrease of 0.55% (p = 0.36) the year before. In the cohort of responders, lumbar spine BMD improved 1.45% (p = 0.014) the first year and 1.11% (p = 0.60) the second year. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant the first year (p < 0.001) but not the second (p = 0.60). Similar results were observed at the femoral neck but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with osteoporosis not responding to bisphosphonates, vitamin D 1000 IU daily may improve BMD at the lumbar spine

Bone loss and the aromatase inhibitors

The increasing use of systemic adjuvant therapies has considerably improved the prognosis from early breast cancer. However, some of these therapies affect bone metabolism, resulting in osteoporosis. Aromatase inhibitors lower circulating oestrogen levels to almost unrecordable levels in postmenopausal women, predisposing them to bone loss with an increase in fracture risk. Ongoing clinical trials are favouring the use of the aromatase inhibitors over tamoxifen and this may advocate greater use of these drugs in the future. Strategies for the identification and management of treatment-induced bone loss are currently being defined

Comparison of Monthly Ibandronate Versus Weekly Risedronate in Preference, Convenience, and Bone Turnover Markers in Korean Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women

Patient preferences, convenience, and bone turnover markers were evaluated for the monthly ibandronate over the weekly risedronate regimen in Korean postmenopausal osteoporotic women. This was a 6-month, prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study with a two-period and two-sequence crossover treatment design. After a 30-day screening period, eligible participants with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomized to receive either monthly oral ibandronate 150 mg for 3 months followed by weekly oral risedronate 35 mg for 12 weeks (sequence A) or the same regimen in reverse order (sequence B). Patient preference and convenience were evaluated by questionnaire. The changes in serum C-telopeptide after 3 months of treatment were analyzed. A total of 365 patients were enrolled in this study (sequence A 182, sequence B 183). Of patients expressing a preference (83.4%), 74.8% preferred the monthly ibandronate regimen over the weekly regimen (25.2%). More women stated that the monthly ibandronate regimen was more convenient (84.2%) than the weekly regimen (15.8%). There was no significant difference in the change in bone turnover marker between the two treatments. The two regimens were similarly tolerable. There were fewer adverse events in the monthly ibandronate group compared to the weekly risedronate group in terms of gastrointestinal side effects (nausea and abdominal distension). This study revealed a strong preference and convenience for monthly ibandronate over weekly risedronate in Korean postmenopausal osteoporotic women. There was no significant difference in change of bone turnover marker and safety profile between the two regimens