Ten Years’ Experience with Alendronate for Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women

Background Antiresorptive agents are widely used to treat osteoporosis. We report the results of a multinational randomized, double-blind study, in which postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were treated with alendronate for up to 10 years. Methods The initial three-year phase of the study compared three daily doses of alendronate with placebo. Women in the original placebo group received alendronate in years 4 and 5 and then were discharged. Women in the original active-treatment groups continued to receive alendronate during the initial extension (years 4 and 5). In two further extensions (years 6 and 7, and 8 through 10), women who had received 5 mg or 10 mg of alendronate daily continued on the same treatment. Women in the discontinuation group received 20 mg of alendronate daily for two years and 5 mg daily in years 3, 4, and 5, followed by five years of placebo. Randomized group assignments and blinding were maintained throughout the 10 years. We report results for the 247 women who participated in all four phases of the study. Results Treatment with 10 mg of alendronate daily for 10 years produced mean increases in bone mineral density of 13.7 percent at the lumbar spine (95 percent confidence interval, 12.0 to 15.5 percent), 10.3 percent at the trochanter (95 percent confidence interval, 8.1 to 12.4 percent), 5.4 percent at the femoral neck (95 percent confidence interval, 3.5 to 7.4 percent), and 6.7 percent at the total proximal femur (95 percent confidence interval, 4.4 to 9.1 percent) as compared with base-line values; smaller gains occurred in the group given 5 mg daily. The discontinuation of alendronate resulted in a gradual loss of effect, as measured by bone density and biochemical markers of bone remodeling. Safety data, including fractures and stature, did not suggest that prolonged treatment resulted in any loss of benefit. Conclusions The therapeutic effects of alendronate were sustained, and the drug was well tolerated over a 10-year period. The discontinuation of alendronate resulted in the gradual loss of its effects

How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Infliximab is usually administered by two monthly intravenous (iv) infusions, therefore requiring visits to hospital. Adalimumab is administered by self subcutaneous (sc) injections every other week. Both of these anti-TNF drugs appear to be equally efficacious in the treatment of Crohn's Disease and therefore the decision regarding which drug to choose will depend to some extent on patient choice, which may be based on the mode of administration.</p> <p>The aims of this study were to compare preferences in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients for two currently available anti-TNF agents and the reasons for their choices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to IBD patients who had attended the Gastroenterology service (Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, Belfast, N. Ireland. UK) between January 2007 and December 2007. The patients were asked in a hypothetical situation if the following administering methods of anti-TNF drugs (intravenous or subcutaneous) were available, which drug route of administration would they choose.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and twenty-five patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were issued questionnaires, of these 78 questionnaires were returned (62 percent response). The mean age of respondent was 44 years. Of the total number of respondents, 33 patients (42 percent) preferred infliximab and 19 patients (24 percent) preferred adalimumab (p = 0.07). Twenty-six patients (33 percent) did not indicate a preference for either biological therapy and were not included in the final analysis. The commonest reason cited for those who chose infliximab (iv) was: <it>"I do not like the idea of self-injecting," </it>(67 percent). For those patients who preferred adalimumab (sc) the commonest reason cited was: <it>"I prefer the convenience of injecting at home," </it>(79 percent). Of those patients who had previously been treated with an anti-TNF therapy (n = 10, all infliximab) six patients stated that they would prefer infliximab if given the choice in the future (p = 0.75).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was a trend towards patient preference for infliximab (iv) treatment as opposed to adalimumab (sc) in patients with IBD. This difference may be due to the frequency of administration, mode of administration or differing 'times in the market-place', as infliximab had been approved for a longer period of time in Crohn's disease. Further studies are required in IBD patients to investigate whether patient choice will affect compliance, patient satisfaction and efficacy of treatment with anti-TNF therapies.</p

Effect of Longâ Term Oral Bisphosphonates on Implant Wound Healing: Literature Review and a Case Report

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141603/1/jper0584.pd

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