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

Should digestion assays be used to estimate persistence of potential allergens in tests for safety of novel food proteins?

Food allergies affect an estimated 3 to 4% of adults and up to 8% of children in developed western countries. Results from in vitro simulated gastric digestion studies with purified proteins are routinely used to assess the allergenic potential of novel food proteins. The digestion of purified proteins in simulated gastric fluid typically progresses in an exponential fashion allowing persistence to be quantified using pseudo-first-order rate constants or half lives. However, the persistence of purified proteins in simulated gastric fluid is a poor predictor of the allergenic status of food proteins, potentially due to food matrix effects that can be significant in vivo. The evaluation of the persistence of novel proteins in whole, prepared food exposed to simulated gastric fluid may provide a more correlative result, but such assays should be thoroughly validated to demonstrate a predictive capacity before they are accepted to predict the allergenic potential of novel food proteins