Rodents as an animal model for studying tooth extraction-related medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: assessment of outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of several rodent animal models for studying tooth extraction-related medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). DESIGN: After a search of the databases, 2004 articles were located, and 118 corroborated the inclusion factors (in vivo studies in rodents evaluating tooth extraction as a risk factor for the development of MRONJ). RESULTS: Numerous studies attempting to establish an optimal protocol to induce MRONJ were found. Zoledronic acid (ZA) was the most used drug, followed by alendronate (ALN). Even when ZA did not lead to the development of MRONJ, its effect compromised the homeostasis of the bone and soft tissue. The association of other risk factors (dexamethasone, diabetes, and tooth-related inflammatory dental disease) besides tooth extraction also played a role in the development of MRONJ. In addition, studies demonstrated a relationship between cumulative dose and MRONJ. CONCLUSIONS: Both ZA and ALN can lead to MRONJ in rodents when equivalent human doses (in osteoporosis or cancer treatment) are used. Local oral risk factors and tooth-related inflammatory dental disease increase the incidence of MRONJ in a tooth extraction-related rodent model.

Comparability of Osteoporosis Treatment Groups Among Female Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States.

It is often difficult to obtain valid estimates of comparative treatment effectiveness and safety owing to differences across patient populations taking different medications in the real world. One approach for assessing comparability between treatment groups in effectiveness studies is to use negative control outcomes (NCOs). NCOs share similar sources of bias with the primary outcomes but have no plausible causal relationship to the treatment of interest. Observing differences in the risk of NCOs thus provides evidence for residual confounding between groups. This retrospective study assessed the comparability of postmenopausal women, treated with osteoporosis medications with various mechanisms of action such as denosumab (receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand [RANKL] inhibitor), zoledronic acid (bisphosphonate derivative), or oral bisphosphonates including alendronate. Administrative claims data were extracted from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Warehouse database (May 2010-December 2016). Propensity scores were used to match denosumab patients 1:1 to comparators. Four nonfracture NCOs and three early fracture NCOs (before substantial biologic effects of treatment would be expected) were assessed over 1-year and 3-month follow-up periods, respectively. According to comparability decision rules established a priori, patients initiating denosumab were comparable to those initiating zoledronic acid or alendronate, irrespective of prior osteoporosis treatment experience. Among new users, new switchers, and in the historical fracture subgroup, no meaningful differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of the seven NCOs comparing denosumab to zoledronic acid. This empirical examination can assist in the selection of appropriate comparator groups for future comparability research using real-world data. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Denosumabe e teriparatida para o tratamento indivíduos com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no Sistema Único de Saúde / Denosumab and teriparatide for the treatment of individuals with severe osteoporosis and therapeutic failure to the drugs available in the Unified Health System

INTRODUÇÃO: A osteoporose, doença que aumenta da fragilidade óssea e suscetibilidade à fratura, afeta cerca de 200 milhões de pessoas no mundo. No geral, a prevalência de osteoporose em estudos brasileiros varia de 6% a 33% dependendo da população e outras variáveis avaliadas. Entre os indivíduos com osteoporose, aqueles que apresentaram fratura osteoporótica têm duas vezes o risco para nova fratura. Para evitar novas fraturas, o tratamento preconizado deve incluir estratégias medicamentosas e não medicamentosas. Entre as medicamentosas, suplementação de cálcio e colecalciferol, alendronato, risedronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno, calcitonina e estrógenos conjugados são opções disponíveis no Protocolo Clínico de Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) de Osteoporose do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Apesar da disponibilidade de tratamentos, estima-se que 25% dos pacientes continuam a apresentar falha terapêutica aos tratamentos disponíveis. Nesse contexto, as diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais de sociedade médicas, recomendam o uso de denosumabe ou teriparatida a pacientes com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). Entretanto, há incerteza se os benefícios identificados para população em tratamento de primeira linha, principal população incluída nos estudos, são sustentados em população com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica em vigência de tratamento; e se a escolha, por estas opções terapêuticas, pode valer a pena e ser viável economicamente para o SUS. Assim, o objetivo do presente relatório é analisar as evidências científicas sobre eficácia, efetividade, segurança, bem como evidências econômicas do denosumabe e da teriparatida para o tratamento de pacientes com osteoporose grave com falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). TECNOLOGIAS: Denosumabe (Prolia®) e teriparatida (Fortéo®). PERGUNTA: Os medicamentos denosumabe e

Assessment of eldecalcitol and alendronate effect on postural balance control in aged women with osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION: Older people aged over 75 are more prone to falls because physical functions become deteriorated along with aging, and also fracture risk is strongly correlated with age. We evaluated the effects of anti-osteoporosis agents, eldecalcitol (ELD) and alendronate (ALN) on physical functions by assessing dynamic and static postural balance in aged patients with osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial has been conducted with 124 female patients aged 65 or over with osteoporosis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 0.75 µg of ELD once-a-day or 35 mg of ALN once-a-week for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in a postural balance index, adjusted composite equilibrium score (CES) of sensory organization test (SOT). The SOT equilibrium scores, leg muscle strength, and other physical functions were also evaluated. RESULTS: The Adjusted CES increased from baseline by 6.10% in the ELD group and 6.28% in the ALN group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The static postural balance at fixed platform were maintained in the ELD group, but declined in the ALN group. The dynamic postural balance at swaying platform and knee extension power increased from baseline in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ELD and ALN treatments may each be beneficial to improve postural balance control in older patients with osteoporosis via different mechanisms of action.

History of alendronate.

Alendronate was synthesized in 1970s in a search for inhibitors of calcification. Istituto Gentili investigators identified it as a potent inhibitor of bone resorption and obtained a patent covering its use in the treatment of osteoporosis and other disorders of excessive bone resorption in the 1980s. Merck licensed alendronate in 1988 and its pharmaceutical chemists reformulated it as a sodium salt with good solubility in a tablet that reduced its potential for esophageal irritation. Clinical trials proved that it reduced bone turnover, increased BMD and reduced the risk of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Merck sponsored a large clinical trials that won FDA approval for treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and showed that it reduced the risk of spine and hip fractures. Its approval in the US in 1995 spurred sales of bone densitometers and BMD testing to screen for low bone mineral density and identify osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement was supported by medical society guidelines and reimbursement by Medicare and other insurers in the USA. A 70 mg weekly instead of 10 mg daily dose of alendronate produced the same effect on BMD and biochemical markers of bone remodelling with greater convenience and reduced potential for upper GI adverse events. Consequently, by 2006, about 30 million prescriptions for alendronate were written annually in the U.S. for about 15% of postmenopausal women in the U.S. Thereafter, publicity about rare but concerning atypical femoral fractures (AFF) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) along with the expiry of Merck's patent (in 2008) and cessation of their promotion of alendronate, and a decline in use of densitometry led to a steady slide in its use even among patients for whom the benefits of alendronate far outweigh its potential risks. Nevertheless, in 25 years since its regulatory approval, alendronate has undoubtedly prevented millions of fractures world-wide.

Temporal Trends and Factors Associated with Bisphosphonate Discontinuation and Restart.

Adverse events related to long-term use of bisphosphonates have raised interest in temporary drug discontinuation. Trends in bisphosphonate discontinuation and restart, as well factors associated with these decisions, are not fully understood at a population level. We investigated temporal trends of bisphosphonate discontinuation from 2010 to 2015 and identified factors associated with discontinuation and restart of osteoporosis therapy. Our cohort consisted of long-term bisphosphonate users identified from 2010 to 2015 Medicare data. We defined discontinuation as ≥12 months without bisphosphonate prescription claims. We used conditional logistic regression to compare factors associated with alendronate discontinuation or osteoporosis therapy restart in the 120-day period preceding discontinuation or restart referent to the 120-day preceding control periods. Among 73,800 long-term bisphosphonate users, 59,251 (80.3%) used alendronate, 6806 (9.2%) risedronate, and 7743 (10.5%) zoledronic acid, exclusively. Overall, 26,281 (35.6%) discontinued bisphosphonates for at least 12 months. Discontinuation of bisphosphonates increased from 1.7% in 2010, reaching a peak of 14% in 2012 with levels plateauing through 2015. The factors most strongly associated with discontinuation of alendronate were: benzodiazepine prescription (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1, 3.0), having a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan (aOR = 1.8; 95% CI 1.7, 2.0), and skilled nursing facility care utilization (aOR = 1.8; 95% CI 1.6, 2.1). The factors most strongly associated with restart of osteoporosis therapy were: having a DXA scan (aOR = 9.9; 95% CI 7.7, 12.6), sustaining a fragility fracture (aOR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.8, 4.5), and an osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnosis (aOR = 2.5; 95% CI 2.0, 3.1). Our national evaluation of bisphosphonate discontinuation showed that an increasing proportion of patients on long-term bisphosphonate therapy discontinue medications. The factors associated with discontinuation of alendronate were primarily related to worsening of overall health status, whereas traditional factors associated with worsening bone health were associated with restarting osteoporosis medication. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Eficácia e segurança do denosumabe comparado aos bifosfonados orais para tratamento de osteoporose e prevenção de fraturas: revisão rápida de evidências / Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared to oral biposphonates for treating osteoporosis and fracture prevention: rapid review of evidence

Tecnologia: Denosumabe e bifosfonados. Indicação: tratamento de osteoporose para prevenção de fraturas. Pergunta: O denosumabe é mais eficaz e seguro que os bifosfonados orais para tratamento da osteoporose e prevenção de fraturas secundárias à osteoporose? Métodos: Levantamento bibliográfico realizado na PUBMED seguindo estratégia de busca predefinida. Avaliação da qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas com a ferramenta AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foram selecionadas e incluídas 3 revisões sistemáticas, com pontuação de 9 a 11 no AMSTAR. Conclusão: Denosumabe tem menor risco relativo que alendronato e risedronato de sódio para fraturas vertebrais e maior efeito sobre densidade óssea mineral femoral, com risco similar de outros tipos de fratura e eventos adversos (infecções, transtornos cardiovasculares, óbito por infecção, morte cardiovascular ou por qualquer causa). Denosumabe evita 0,00154 fraturas, previne 0,00025 institucionalizações (ou cuidados permanentes de enfermagem no domicílio) e promove um ganho de 0,0018 anos de vida a mais que o alendronato de sódio por paciente tratado. Denosumabe é um pouco mais eficaz e tão seguro quanto os bifosfonados, mas a diferença de eficácia é mínima

Technology: Denosumab and bisphosphonates. Indication: osteoporosis treatment for fracture prevention. Question: Denosumab is more effective and safer than oral bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis and preventing fractures related to osteoporosis? Methods: Bibliographic search was performed on PUBMED, following predefined search strategies. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews was carried out using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. Results: We selected and included 3 systematic reviews. Their scores ranged from 9 to 11 on AMSTAR. Conclusion: Denosumab has a lower relative risk than sodium alendronate and risedronate for vertebral fractures and greater effect on femoral mineral bone density, with a similar risk for non-vertebral fractures and adverse events (infections, cardiovascular disorders, death caused by infection, cardiovascular death or any cause mortality). Denosumab avoids 0.00154 fractures, prevents 0.00025 nursing home/ residential care admissions and get 0.0018 years of life gained per treated patient more than sodium alendronate. Denosumab is slightly more effective and as safe as bisphosphonates, but the effectiveness difference is minimal

Randomized clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of brand versus generic alendronate (Bonmax®) for osteoporosis treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Although the same efficacy and tolerability are anticipated due to both drugs containing the same active ingredients, comparative studies between brand and generic alendronate are limited. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety between brand alendronate and a recently introduced generic alendronate drug. METHODS: A total of 140 postmenopausal women or men aged older than 50 years who met the indications for osteoporosis treatment were randomized to receive either generic (Bonmax®) or brand alendronate (Fosamax®) 70 mg/week over a 12-month period during the May 2014 to June 2015 study period. Endpoints included bone mineral density (BMD) changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck; percentage of patients with predefined levels of change in total hip and lumbar spine BMD at 12 months; and, changes in biochemical bone markers at 3, 6, and 12 months. Tolerability was evaluated by patient self-reporting of adverse experiences. RESULTS: At 12 months post-treatment, BMD significantly increased at all sites in both groups. There were no differences in BMD percentage changes or the number of patients with stable or increased BMD after 1 year between groups. No significant differences in the amount of biochemical bone marker reduction or incidence of adverse events were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Generic and brand alendronate produced similar gains in BMD and reduction in bone turnover markers. Both medicadoitions were also equally well-tolerated. Based on these findings, generic alendronate (Bonmax®) is a viable alternative to the original brand of alendronate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02371252.

The deception and fallacies of sponsored randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trials: the bisphosphonate research example.

The randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trial (RCT) is accepted as Level I evidence and is highly regarded. However, RCTs that gained FDA approval of drugs such as Vioxx, Fen-Phen, and oral and intravenous bisphosphonates have proven to generate misleading results and have not adequately identified serious adverse reactions. The development, research, and clinical marketing of the oral and intravenous bisphosphonates can serve as a representative example for the deteriorated value of many of today's RCTs. The expected high value of RCTs is jeopardized by: (1) sponsorship that incorporates bias; (2) randomization that can select out an expected improved result or eliminate higher-risk individuals; (3) experimental design that can avoid recognition of serious adverse reactions; (4) blinding that can easily become unblinded by the color, shape, odor, or administration requirements of a drug; (5) definitions that can define an observation as something other than what it actually represents, or fail to define it as an adverse reaction; (6) labeling of retrospective data as a prospective trial by using adjudicators prospectively to look at retrospective data; (7) change of the length of study to avoid the longer-term adverse reaction from accumulation of drug or treatment effects; (8) ghost writing, as when drug company physicians or a hired corporation either edit or write the entire protocol and/or manuscript for publication. Such corruption of the well-intended properly conducted RCT should be viewed with a sense of outrage by practitioners and requires a restructuring of the levels of evidence accepted today.

[Risk assessment in patients undergoing osseous antiresorptive therapy in dentistry. An update]. / Risikobeurteilung von Patienten mit ossärer, antiresorptiver Therapie in der zahnärztlichen Praxis. Ein Update.

Antiresorptive therapy is prescribed in particular for the treatment of osteoporosis as well as for the treatment of tumor-induced hypercalcemia and metastatic bone disease. As a consequence, osteopathologies such as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) may occur. In 2008, our department reported on BRONJ in a paper that provided dental clinicians with information on diagnostics, therapy, and prevention (Dannemann et al., Schweizer Monatsschrift für Zahnmedizin, Vol. 118, 2/2008). During the last 8 years, new findings have emerged concerning potential etiologies, modes of therapy, and the use of additional antiresorptive therapies. For example, an important point for colleagues in dental practice is the now common intravenous administration of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis patients, which may lead to uncertainty when assessing risk in these patients. For this reason, this article provides an update of the above mentioned publication and gives dental clinicians an updated guideline concerning risk assessment in patients undergoing antiresorptive therapy. In this context, a risk assessment algorithm is presented. The pathogenesis, diagnosis, therapy, and prevention of BRONJ and oral implantation in patients receiving antiresorptive therapy are addressed with regard to the current literature. Finally, we present two example cases.

Switching from one generic alendronate to another--a common procedure in Poland in the years 2001-2005.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical ambulatory practice, patients often, rather than discontinuing treatment, change to another one. This study aims to assess the reasons why patients with osteoporosis switch from one alendronate to another with a different brand name. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 747 bisphosphonate-treated patients was performed (651 female, average age 67.3 ± 8.9 years, BMI 26.5 ± 4.0 kg/m(2)). The frequency and reasons for drug switching during the 19.4 ± 13.4 months of observation were analysed. RESULTS: In 387 (51.8%) patients, treatment was not changed during the observation period, whereas in 360 (48.2%) patients, at least one drug switch occurred. Almost 40% of patients from that group (138 patients) switched from one alendronate to another alendronate with a different brand name. The most frequent reasons were: adverse event (36.9%), high price of the drug (23.2%) and request of patient (16.7%). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of persistent bisphosphonate-treated patients switch treatment from one alendronate to another. The most frequent reasons for that kind of switching are the occurrence of an adverse event and the high cost of treatment.

Retrospective study of two biochemical markers for the risk assessment of oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: can they be utilized as risk markers?

PURPOSE: the purpose of this retrospective study was to examine the possibility of utilizing serum C-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type I collagen (s-CTX) and serum osteocalcin (s-OC) as risk markers for oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: the s-CTX values and the s-OC values were measured from 23 patients (one male, 22 females) diagnosed with BRONJ using clinical and radiographic examinations. The two biochemical markers were evaluated during a regular checkup for osteoporosis management. For the control group of s-CTX study, s-CTX values were obtained from 61 independently recruited postmenopausal women who have been on bisphosphonate therapy for >6 months. The s-CTX values of the ONJ group and the control group were compared. Because of retrospective nature of this study, the control group for s-OC study could not be established. A single sample t-test was performed for the s-OC value from the ONJ group. RESULT: twenty-three ONJ patients had taken alendronate for osteoporosis treatment, and the s-CTX testing results were low levels of 10-192 pg/ml (mean: 93.2 ± 49.4 pg/ml). Mean of s-CTX of the control (n=61) was 125 ± 85.7 pg/ml. The duration of BP therapy ranged between 1 and 10 years (4.82 ± 2.6). The s-OC level was estimated between 0.2 and 5.4 ng/ml (1.91 ± 1.51 ng/ml). The mean s-CTX value of the control group was higher but without significance (P=0.12). The s-OC values of the ONJ group were significantly lower than the lowest value of the reference range (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: as a result of the s-CTX and s-OC testings at the diagnosis of BRONJ, the values of the two markers were decreased. The decrease of the s-OC values implies a problem during the bone-formation process. Therefore, we can assume that in this patient group, invasive dental surgery contributes to an increase in the risk of BRONJ incidence. This result may imply that, during bisphosphonate therapy, simultaneous consideration of s-CTX showing inhibition of bone resorption and s-OC indicating the degree of bone formation might be a set of risk markers assessing risk prediction for BRONJ before invasive dental surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in men who receive androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) increases the risk for fractures in patients with prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of measuring bone mineral density (BMD) before initiating ADT followed by alendronate therapy in men with localized prostate cancer. DESIGN: Markov state-transition model simulating the progression of prostate cancer and the incidence of hip fracture. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of men aged 70 years with locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer starting a 2-year course of ADT after radiation therapy. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: No BMD test or alendronate therapy, a BMD test followed by selective alendronate therapy for patients with osteoporosis, or universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The ICERs for the strategy of a BMD test and selective alendronate therapy for patients with osteoporosis and universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test were $66,800 per QALY gained and $178,700 per QALY gained, respectively. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: The ICER for universal alendronate therapy without a BMD test decreased to $100,000 per QALY gained, assuming older age, a history of fractures, lower mean BMD before ADT, or a lower cost of alendronate. LIMITATIONS: No evidence shows that alendronate reduces actual fracture rates in patients with prostate cancer who receive ADT. The model predicted fracture rates by using data on the surrogate BMD end point. CONCLUSION: In patients starting adjuvant ADT for locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer, a BMD test followed by selective alendronate for those with osteoporosis is a cost-effective use of resources. Routine use of alendronate without a BMD test is justifiable in patients at higher risk for hip fractures.

Adverse events, bone mineral density and discontinuation associated with generic alendronate among postmenopausal women previously tolerant of brand alendronate: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A rise in gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) and a decline in bone mineral density (BMD) was observed in patients previously tolerant to brand alendronate shortly after generic versions were introduced in July 2005 to the Canadian market. The objective of our study was to quantify changes in AE rates and BMD scores, as well as associated alendronate discontinuation among patients before and after switch from brand to generic alendronate. METHODS: A chart review of postmenopausal women 50 years of age and older between 2003 and 2007 was conducted in two specialized tertiary care referral centers. Patients on alendronate both before and after July 2005 were included. The change in the number of AEs, changes in BMD and associated alendronate discontinuation was compared before and after the switch from brand to generic alendronate. RESULTS: 301 women with an average age of 67.6 years (standard deviation (SD) = 9.5) had a total of 47 AEs between July 2003 and December 2007 that resulted in discontinuation of the medication. There was a significant increase in the rate of AEs per patient-months-at-risk from 0.0001 before to 0.0044 after October 2005 (p < 0.001). The most common AEs were GI in nature (stomach pain, GI upset, nausea, and reflux). In addition, 23 patients discontinued alendronate due to BMD reduction after January 2006. In these patients, BMD scores were significantly reduced from their prior BMD measures (change of -0.0534, p < 0.001 for spine BMD and change of -0.0338, p = 0.01 for femur BMD). Among patients who discontinued due to BMD reduction, BMD was stable in the period prior to January 2006 (change of -0.0066, p = 0.5 for spine BMD and change of 0.0011, p = 0.9 for femur BMD); however, testing for reduction after January 2006 in BMD measures (one-sided T-test) revealed there was a significant reduction in BMD scores for both anatomic sites (change of -0.0321, p = .005 for spine, change of -0.0205, p = 0.05 for femur). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were previously stable on doses of brand alendronate experienced an increase in AEs causing discontinuation after introduction of automatic substitution to generic alendronate. In addition, reductions in BMD were observed in some patients who had stable BMDs before January 2006. Given the substantial increase in AEs, generic alendronate may not be as well tolerated as brand alendronate.

Review of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy for geriatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Fractures are a significant problem in geriatric patients, and understanding the evidence for benefit and possible harm of osteoporosis treatments is critical to appropriate management of this patient population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to review the evidence and treatment considerations related to use of the approved osteoporosis treatments in the United States across the continuum of ages in the geriatric population. METHODS: MEDLINE and the Web of Science were searched to find English-language articles published from 2000 through July 2009. Search terms included: practice guideline, osteoporosis, calcium, vitamin D, pharmacoeconomics, ethnicity, and treatment. The generic names of each of the osteoporosis treatments approved in the United States were searched to find relevant clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pivotal trials that included fracture data or focused specifically on elderly patients (> or = 60 years of age) were selected. Bibliographies in the identified articles were searched for additional articles, and the prescribing information for each of the approved treatments was reviewed. RESULTS: Many osteoporosis studies have a mean patient age >60 years, but data for older patients are limited. Subanalyses of older patient groups have found risedronate to be beneficial for vertebral fractures in patients aged 70 to 79 years (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 8.4%; P < 0.001) and teriparatide to be beneficial for both vertebral (ARR, 6.4%; P < 0.05) and new nonvertebral fragility fractures (ARR, 9.9%; P < 0.05) in women aged > or = 75 years. However, no RCTs of geriatric patients who were either nonambulatory or had multiple comorbidities were identified in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that the osteoporosis treatments currently available in the United States are beneficial for treating osteoporosis in geriatric patients. However, data are limited for the oldest patients (> or = 80 years) and those with significant comorbidities. Because of the limited availability of data for geriatric patients with significant comorbidities, the properties of the various agents, including efficacy, tolerability, and potential contraindications, should be considered carefully for each geriatric patient.

Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene, alendronate and conservative care in this population. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to assess the incremental cost and effectiveness of raloxifene and alendronate relative to conservative care. We assumed a societal perspective and a lifetime time horizon. We examined clinical scenarios involving postmenopausal women from 55 to 75 years of age with bone mineral density T-scores ranging from -1.0 to -2.4. Modeled health events included vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, invasive breast cancer, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Raloxifene and alendronate were assumed to reduce the incidence of vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures; raloxifene was assumed to decrease the incidence of breast cancer and increase the incidence of VTEs. Cost-effectiveness is reported in $/QALYs gained. RESULTS: For women 55 to 60 years of age with a T-score of -1.8, raloxifene cost approximately $50,000/QALY gained relative to conservative care. Raloxifene was less cost-effective for women 65 and older. At all ages, alendronate was both more expensive and less effective than raloxifene. In most clinical scenarios, raloxifene conferred a greater benefit (in QALYs) from prevention of invasive breast cancer than from fracture prevention. Results were most sensitive to the population's underlying risk of fracture and breast cancer, assumed efficacy and costs of treatment, and the discount rate. CONCLUSION: For 55 and 60 year old women with osteopenia, treatment with raloxifene compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective.

Brand versus generic alendronate: gastrointestinal effects measured by resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reactions related to the upper gastrointestinal tract (UGIT) that are associated with generic alendronate formulations may differ from those associated with the brand drug. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that adverse UGIT effects of alendronate formulations may differ between generic and brand products. METHODS: We conducted a database health resource utilization analysis of UGIT outcomes in patients who started treatment with generic or brand alendronate formulations during 2001-2005. We included 6962 patients who were treated continuously for 3 months with 1 of 4 alendronate formulations: brand 10 mg/day (Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, n = 1418), generic A 10 mg/day (Teva, Israel, n = 650), generic B 10 mg/day (Unipharm, Israel, n = 628), and brand 70 mg/wk (n = 4266). In these patients, who had neither filled a prescription for alendronate nor had any gastrointestinal problems in the year preceding the study, we compared incidence rates of new use of gastric medications (H2-blockers, proton-pump inhibitors, or antacids), gastroenterology visits, endoscopies, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: Incident rate ratios (IRR) for treatment discontinuation were higher with both daily generic products (IRR 1.3; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR] >80%) was better with brand 10 mg/day (IRR 1.19; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.27). All comparisons were adjusted for use of concurrent corticosteroids, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and potassium supplements. Hospitalization rates (2.7-3.2%) were similar in all groups. New use of gastric medications (3.4-4.9%) was lower with brand 10 mg/day (IRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95). Rates of UGIT endoscopy (n = 49) in patients receiving 10 mg were 0.6% (brand), 1.1% (generic A), and 1.6% (generic B), with generic B higher (IRR 2.88; 95% CI 1.14 to 7.29) in the entire cohort, but not among new users (n = 273) of gastric drugs (IRR 2.46; 95% CI 0.55 to 11.05). Endoscopic findings were normal in 22 patients, hiatal hernia with no mucosal lesion was present in 10 patients, and there was mild-to-moderate esophagitis or gastritis in 17 patients; there were no significant differences among the formulations. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to indicate major differences in UGIT adverse effects related to use of daily generic, as compared with brand, alendronates.