Zoledronate.

Zoledronate is the most potent and most long-acting bisphosphonate in clinical use, and is administered as an intravenous infusion. Its major uses are in osteoporosis, Paget's disease, and in myeloma and cancers to reduce adverse skeletal related events (SREs). In benign disease, it is a first- or second-line treatment for osteoporosis, achieving anti-fracture efficacy comparable to that of the RANKL blocker, denosumab, over 3 years, and it reduces fracture risk in osteopenic older women. It is the preferred treatment for Paget's disease, achieving higher rates of remissions which are much more prolonged than with any other agent. Some trials have suggested that it reduces mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer, but these findings are not consistent across all studies. It is nephrotoxic, so should not be given to those with significant renal impairment, and, like other potent anti-resorptive agents, can cause hypocalcemia in patients with severe vitamin D deficiency, which should be corrected before administration. Its most common adverse effect is the acute phase response, seen in 30-40% of patients after their first dose, and much less commonly subsequently. Clinical trials in osteoporosis have not demonstrated increases in osteonecrosis of the jaw or in atypical femoral fractures. Observational databases are currently inadequate to determine whether these problems are increased in zoledronate users. Now available as a generic, zoledronate is a cost-effective agent for fracture prevention and for management of Paget's disease, but wider provision of infusion facilities is important to increase patient access. There is a need to further explore its potential for reducing cancer, cardiovascular disease and mortality, since these effects could be substantially more important than its skeletal actions.

Intravenous zoledronic acid in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are effective agents for the management of osteoporosis. Their low bioavailability and low potency necessitate frequent administration on an empty stomach, which may reduce compliance. Gastrointestinal intolerance limits maximal dosing. Although intermittent intravenous treatments have been used, the optimal doses and dosing interval have not been systematically explored. METHODS: We studied the effects of five regimens of zoledronic acid, the most potent bisphosphonate, on bone turnover and density in 351 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density in a one-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Women received placebo or intravenous zoledronic acid in doses of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1 mg at three-month intervals. In addition, one group received a total annual dose of 4 mg as a single dose, and another received two doses of 2 mg each, six months apart. Lumbar-spine bone mineral density was the primary end point. RESULTS: There were similar increases in bone mineral density in all the zoledronic acid groups to values for the spine that were 4.3 to 5.1 percent higher than those in the placebo group (P<0.001) and values for the femoral neck that were 3.1 to 3.5 percent higher than those in the placebo group (P<0.001). Biochemical markers of bone resorption were significantly suppressed throughout the study in all zoledronic acid groups. Myalgia and pyrexia occurred more commonly in the zoledronic acid groups, but treatment-related dropout rates were similar to that in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid infusions given at intervals of up to one year produce effects on bone turnover and bone density as great as those achieved with daily oral dosing with bisphosphonates with proven efficacy against fractures, suggesting that an annual infusion of zoledronic acid might be an effective treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

First-dose analgesic effect of the cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor lumiracoxib in osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison with celecoxib [NCT00267215].

Cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors are frequently used to manage osteoarthritis. We compared the analgesic efficacy of the novel cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor lumiracoxib (Prexige) versus placebo and celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis. This seven day, double-blind, placebo and active comparator controlled, parallel group study included 364 patients aged > or = 50 years with moderate-to-severe symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Patients received lumiracoxib 400 mg/day (four times the recommended chronic dose in osteoarthritis; n = 144), placebo (n = 75), or celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (n = 145). The primary variable was actual pain intensity difference (100 mm visual-analogue scale) between baseline and the mean of three hour and five hour assessments after the first dose. Actual pain intensity difference, average and worst pain, pain relief and functional status (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) were measured over seven days. Patients also completed a global evaluation of treatment effect at study end or premature discontinuation. For the primary variable, the superiority of lumiracoxib versus placebo, the noninferiority of lumiracoxib versus celecoxib, and the superiority of lumiracoxib versus celecoxib were assessed by closed test procedure adjusting for multiplicity, thereby maintaining the overall 5% significance level. In addition, celecoxib was assessed versus placebo in a predefined exploratory manner to assess trial sensitivity. Lumiracoxib provided better analgesia than placebo 3-5 hours after the first dose (P = 0.004) through to study end. The estimated difference between lumiracoxib and celecoxib 3-5 hours after the first dose was not significant (P = 0.185). Celecoxib was not significantly different from placebo in this analysis (P = 0.069). At study end 13.9% of lumiracoxib-treated patients reported complete pain relief versus 5.5% and 5.3% of celecoxib and placebo recipients, respectively. WOMAC total and subscales improved for both active treatments versus placebo except for difficulty in performing daily activities, for which celecoxib just failed to achieve significance (P = 0.056). In the patient's global evaluation of treatment effect, 58.1% of patients receiving lumiracoxib rated treatment as 'excellent' or 'good', versus 48.6% of celecoxib and 25.3% of placebo patients. Lumiracoxib was well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups.