Computed tomography-based structural rigidity analysis can assess tumor- and treatment-induced changes in rat bones with metastatic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BrCa) is a predominant malignancy, with metastasis occurring in one in eight patients, nearly half of which target the bone, leading to serious complications such as pain, fractures, and compromised mobility. Structural rigidity, crucial for bone strength, becomes compromised with osteolytic lesions, highlighting the vulnerability and increased fracture risk in affected areas. Historically, two-dimensional radiographs have been employed to predict these fracture risks; however, their limitations in capturing the three-dimensional structural and material changes in bone have raised concerns. Recent advances in CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis (CTRA), offer a promising, more accurate non-invasive 3D approach. This study aims to assess the efficacy of CTRA in monitoring osteolytic lesions' progression and response to therapy, suggesting its potential superiority over existing methodologies in guiding treatment strategies. METHODS: Twenty-seven female nude rats underwent femoral intra-medullary inoculation with MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells or saline control. They were divided into Control, Cancer Control, Ibandronate, and Paclitaxel groups. Osteolytic progression was monitored weekly using biplanar radiography, quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). CTRA was employed to predict fracture risk, normalized using the contralateral femur. Statistical analyses, including Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA, assessed differences in outcomes among groups and over time. RESULTS: Biplanar radiographs showed treatment benefits over time; however, only certain time-specific differences between the Control and other treatment groups were discernible. Notably, observer subjectivity in X-ray scoring became evident, with significant inter-operator variations. DEXA measurements for metaphyseal Bone Mineral Content (BMC) did not exhibit notable differences between groups. Although diaphyseal BMC highlighted some variance, it did not reveal significant differences between treatments at specific time points, suggesting a limited ability for DEXA to differentiate between treatment effects. In contrast, the CTRA consistently demonstrated variations across different treatments, effectively capturing bone rigidity changes over time, and the axial- (EA), bending- (EI), and torsional rigidity (GJ) outcomes from the CTRA method successfully distinguished differences among treatments at specific time points. CONCLUSION: Traditional approaches, such as biplanar radiographs and DEXA, have exhibited inherent limitations, notably observer bias and time-specific inefficacies. Our study accentuates the capability of CTRA in capturing real-time, progressive changes in bone structure, with the potential to predict fractures more accurately and provide a more objective analysis. Ultimately, this innovative approach may bridge the existing gap in clinical guidelines, ushering in enhanced Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) for both surgical and non-surgical treatments.

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Undercarboxylated osteocalcin and ibandronate combination ameliorates hindlimb immobilization-induced muscle wasting.

Immobilization leads to muscle wasting and insulin resistance, particularly during ageing. It has been suggested that undercarboxylated osteocalcin (ucOC) improves muscle mass and glucose metabolism. Bisphosphonates, an anti-osteoporosis treatment, might protect muscle wasting independent of ucOC. We hypothesize that the combination of ucOC and ibandronate (IBN) treatments has superior protective effects against immobilization-induced muscle wasting and insulin resistance than either treatment alone. C57BL/6J mice were hindlimb-immobilized for two weeks, with injections of vehicle, ucOC (90 ng/g daily) and/or IBN (2 µg/g weekly). Insulin/oral glucose tolerance tests (ITT/OGTT) were performed. Immediately after immobilization, muscles (extensor digitorum longus (EDL), soleus, tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius and quadriceps) were isolated and measured for muscle mass. Insulin-stimulated glucose uptake (EDL and soleus) was examined. Phosphorylation/expression of proteins in anabolic/catabolic pathways were examined in quadriceps. Primary human myotubes derived from older adult muscle biopsies were treated with ucOC and/or IBN, then signalling proteins were analysed. Combined treatment, but not individual treatments, significantly increased the muscle weight/body weight ratio in immobilized soleus (31.7%; P = 0.013) and quadriceps (20.0%; P = 0.0008) muscles, concomitant with elevated p-Akt (S473)/Akt ratio (P = 0.0047). Combined treatment also enhanced whole-body glucose tolerance (16.6%; P = 0.0011). In human myotubes, combined treatment stimulated greater activation of ERK1/2 (P = 0.0067 and 0.0072) and mTOR (P = 0.036), and led to a lesser expression of Fbx32 (P = 0.049) and MuRF1 (P = 0.048) than individual treatments. These findings suggest a potential therapeutic role for the ucOC and bisphosphonates combination in protecting against muscle wasting induced by immobilization and ageing. KEY POINTS: It has been suggested that undercarboxylated osteocalcin (ucOC) improves muscle mass and glucose metabolism. Bisphosphonates, an anti-osteoporosis treatment, might protect against muscle wasting independent of ucOC. The combination treatment of ucOC and ibandronate was shown to exert a greater therapeutic effect against immobilization-induced muscle wasting, and led to greater activation of anabolic pathway and less expression of catabolic signalling proteins in myotubes derived from older adults, compared with individual treatments. The combination treatment was found to improve whole-body glucose tolerance. Our findings suggest a potential therapeutic role for the ucOC and bisphosphonates combination in protecting against muscle wasting induced by immobilization and ageing.

Comparison of anti-fracture effectiveness of zoledronate, ibandronate and alendronate versus denosumab in a registry-based cohort study.

This registry-based study of 3068 patients with osteoporosis compared the anti-fracture effectiveness of denosumab versus bisphosphonates. Denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral and any fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab. PURPOSE: To analyse the fracture risk of patients with osteoporosis receiving bisphosphonates or denosumab in a real-world setting. METHODS: This registry-based cohort study evaluated patients taking denosumab, bisphosphonates or both sequentially. Fractures were analysed using rates, rate ratios and hazard ratios (HR), including both therapies as time-varying co-variates. Fracture risk hazards were adjusted (aHR) for baseline T-Scores and trabecular bone score (TBS) and were additionally analysed with inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: A total of 3068 patients (89% female; median age at treatment onset, 69 years [63 to 76]) received denosumab (median duration 2.8 years, [2.2 to 4.7]), bisphosphonates (3.4 years, [2.1 to 5.7]) or both sequentially. Thus, 11,078 subject-years were assessed for bisphosphonates (41% alendronate, 36% ibandronate, 23% zoledronate) and 4216 for denosumab. Moreover, 48,375 subject-years were observed before treatment onset, in addition to 2593 years of drug holidays. A total of 1481 vertebral fractures (435 under therapy), 1508 non-vertebral fractures (499 under therapy) and 202 hip fractures (67 under therapy) occurred after age 50. The risks of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures were significantly lower under all bisphosphonates, denosumab and drug holidays than before treatment onset (all p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, baseline T-scores and TBS, denosumab was associated with lower risk than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral fractures (aHR 0.47 (0.35 to 0.64) and 0.70 [0.53 to 0.91], p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively) and any fractures (aHR 0.62 [0.51 to 0.76] and 0.77 [0.64 to 0.92], p < 0.001 and p = 0.004). With propensity weighting, denosumab was associated with a lower hip fracture risk compared to alendronate (HR 0.54 [0.29 to 0.98], p = 0.044). No difference in fracture risk reduction (vertebral, non-vertebral or hip) was found between zoledronate and denosumab. CONCLUSIONS: When adjusting for disease severity, denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate and ibandronate for vertebral fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab.

The Clinical Effectiveness of Denosumab (Prolia®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women, Compared to Bisphosphonates, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM), and Placebo: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; bazedoxifene, raloxifene) or placebo, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW). Systematic searches were run in PubMed, Embase & Cochrane Library on 27-April-2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included osteoporotic PMW allocated to denosumab, SERMs, bisphosphonates, or placebo were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Bayesian network and/or pairwise meta-analyses were conducted on predetermined outcomes (i.e. vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, adverse events [AEs], serious AEs (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, AEs caused by denosumab discontinuation). A total of 12 RCTs (k = 22 publications; n = 25,879 participants) were included in the analyses. Denosumab, reported a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD, compared to placebo. Similarly, denosumab also resulted in a statistically significant increase in TH BMD compared to the raloxifene and bazedoxifene. However, relative to denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate resulted in significant improvements in both femoral neck (FN) and LS BMD. With regards to vertebral fractures and all safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between denosumab and any of the comparator. Relative to placebo, denosumab was associated with significant benefits in both LS and TH BMD. Additionally, denosumab (compared to placebo) was not associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Finally, denosumab was not associated with improvement in safety outcomes, compared to placebo. These findings should be interpreted with caution as some analyses suffered from statistical imprecision.

Lutetium177-Labeled DOTA-Ibandronate: A Novel Radiopharmaceutical for Targeted Treatment of Bone Metastases.

Bone metastases of malignant tumors significantly threaten the patient survival and quality of life. We designed and synthesized a novel bisphosphonate radiopharmaceutical [68Ga- or 177Lu-labeled DOTA-Ibandronate(68Ga/177Lu-DOTA-IBA)] for targeted diagnosis and treatment of bone metastases. This study explored the basic biological characteristics of 177Lu-DOTA-IBA, guiding clinical translation and providing evidence for future clinical applications. The control variable method was used to optimize the optimal labeling conditions. The in vitro properties, biological distribution, and toxicity of 177Lu-DOTA-IBA were studied. Normal mice and tumor-bearing mice were imaged using micro SPECT/CT. With Ethics Committee approval, five volunteers were recruited for a preliminary clinical translation study. 177Lu-DOTA-IBA has a radiochemical purity of more than 98%, with good biological properties and safety. Blood clearance is fast and soft tissue uptake is low. Tracers are excreted mainly through the urinary system, targeting and continuously concentrating in the bones. Three patients experienced significant pain relief within 3 days after 177Lu-DOTA-IBA treatment (740-1110 MBq), lasting more than 2 months, with no toxic side effects. 177Lu-DOTA-IBA is easy to prepare and exhibits good pharmacokinetic characteristics. Low-dose 177Lu-DOTA-IBA is effective, well tolerated, and was associated with no significant adverse reactions. It is a promising radiopharmaceutical for the targeted treatment of bone metastases, controlling the progress of bone metastasis and improving survival and quality of life of patients with advanced bone metastasis.

Denosumab Improves Glycaemic Parameters in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis Patients with Combined Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

This study aimed to determine whether RANKL inhibitors in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with combined type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could improve their glucose metabolism index. First of all, 84 patients affected with postmenopausal osteoporosis with combined T2DM attending the Department of Endocrinology at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University were selected and randomized into two groups of 42 patients each. One group was given Denosumab 60 mg once every six months (denosumab group, D.G.), and the other group was given 2 mg ibandronate once every three months (ibandronate group, I.G.). Blood glucose parameters were compared before and after treatment in both groups and serum active GLP-1 levels and DPP-4 levels were also assessed. After treatment, there was no significant difference in fasting glucose between the two groups, but there was a significant decrease in fasting glucose in the Denosumab Group (D.G.) compared to before treatment. There was a significant difference in 2-hour postprandial glucose (2hPG) between the two groups after treatment, with the D.G. being lower than the ibandronate group (I.G.). Glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was lower in the D.G. than in the I.G. after treatment, but the difference between them was insignificant. In the D.G., serum active GLP-1 levels increased after treatment, and serum DPP-4 levels decreased. Serum GLP-1 and DPP-4 levels in the I.G. did not change compared with those before treatment. In conclusion, In the clinical management of postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with combined T2DM, the choice of RANKL inhibitors as anti-osteoporosis therapy may benefit their glycaemic parameters by elevating serum active GLP-1 levels and decreasing serum DPP-4 levels.

Clinicians' views of prescribing oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments. METHODS: This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation. RESULTS: The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices. CONCLUSION: Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

Constraining in reimbursement criteria and the adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) in Taiwan: Urbanization makes the difference.

BACKGROUND: The Bureau of National Health Insurance in Taiwan implemented a new reimbursement scheme incorporating bone mineral density (BMD) criteria on Jan. 1, 2011. This study aimed to investigate a real-life 11-year secular trend of adherence in new AOMs users and evaluated the change of adherence to AOMs therapy in different urbanization areas after reimbursement criteria were restrained. METHODS: We used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to identify new AOMs users as our study population. The AOMs in this study included denosumab, zoledronate, ibandronate, alendronate, raloxifene, and risedronate. The first prescription date of AOMs was defined as the cohort entry date. The adherence rates within one year after initiation were assessed. RESULTS: High adherence (≥75%) in the first year increased markedly after the new reimbursement scheme in 2011, changing from 31.8% in 2008, and 41.7% in 2011 to 54.2% in 2018. On the other hand, low adherence (<25%) decreased from 38.8% in 2008 to 14.6% in 2018. In addition, the switchers increased from 5.9% in 2008 to 9.3% in 2018, indicating a more flexible choice of AOMs. The proportion of high adherence to AOMs was highest in high-urbanization areas, and the proportion increased about two times from 30% in 2008 to 60% in 2018. CONCLUSION: The implementation of new reimbursement criteria in 2011 was associated with increased adherence to AOMs and the increase was most apparent in high-urbanization areas.

Ibandronate in the Prevention of Vertebral and Nonvertebral Osteoporotic Fractures: A Systematic Review of Experimental and Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's guidance and reporting in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement 2020. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE since their inception until February 7, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, experimental, and observational studies evaluating adult patients treated with ibandronate and assessed to osteoporotic fractures prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed according to study design. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Eight references from 4 RCTs, 7 meta-analyses, and 6 observational studies were included. In RCTs, oral ibandronate was superior to placebo in the prevention of VF. However, the doses were lower than those approved. The meta-analyses confirmed these results and showed that adequate doses of oral ibandronate reduce the risk of NVF compared with insufficient doses. In observational studies, oral ibandronate (in approved doses) reduced the risk of VF compared with no treatment or risedronate or alendronate and the risk of NVF versus risedronate or alendronate; the risk of hip fractures was similar between ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that ibandronate reduces the risk of VF in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available evidence further suggests that ibandronate may reduce the risk of NVF versus insufficient doses of ibandronate, as well as risedronate or alendronate.

Ibandronate Suppresses Changes in Apatite Orientation and Young's Modulus Caused by Estrogen Deficiency in Rat Vertebrae.

Bone material quality is important for evaluating the mechanical integrity of diseased and/or medically treated bones. However, compared to the knowledge accumulated regarding changes in bone mass, our understanding of the quality of bone material is lacking. In this study, we clarified the changes in bone material quality mainly characterized by the preferential orientation of the apatite c-axis associated with estrogen deficiency-induced osteoporosis, and their prevention using ibandronate (IBN), a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate. IBN effectively prevented bone loss and degradation of whole bone strength in a dose-dependent manner. The estrogen-deficient condition abnormally increased the degree of apatite orientation along the craniocaudal axis in which principal stress is applied; IBN at higher doses played a role in maintaining the normal orientation of apatite but not at lower doses. The bone size-independent Young's modulus along the craniocaudal axis of the anterior cortical shell of the vertebra showed a significant and positive correlation with apatite orientation; therefore, the craniocaudal Young's modulus abnormally increased under estrogen-deficient conditions, despite a significant decrease in volumetric bone mineral density. However, the abnormal increase in craniocaudal Young's modulus did not compensate for the degradation of whole bone mechanical properties due to the bone loss. In conclusion, it was clarified that changes in the material quality, which are hidden in bone mass evaluation, occur with estrogen deficiency-induced osteoporosis and IBN treatment. Here, IBN was shown to be a beneficial drug that suppresses abnormal changes in bone mechanical integrity caused by estrogen deficiency at both the whole bone and material levels.

Efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy on postmenopausal osteoporotic women with and without diabetes: a prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: The co-occurrence of diabetes and osteoporosis is common in postmenopausal women. For the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, current guidelines recommend initial treatment with bisphosphonates, but it is unclear whether bisphosphonates provide a similar degree of therapeutic efficacy in patients with diabetes. This study sought to compare the efficacy of monthly oral ibandronate for retaining bone mineral density (BMD) in diabetic and non-diabetic postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: Postmenopausal osteoporotic women with or without diabetes were enrolled in this study from three hospitals in an open-label approach from 2018 to 2020. Each group of patients received oral ibandronate 150 mg once monthly for 1 year. BMD, trabecular bone score (TBS), serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTx) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) were evaluated prospectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in glucose metabolism during drug use were also monitored. RESULTS: Among the 120 study participants, 104 (86.7%) completed the study. Following 1 year of treatment, BMD increased by 3.41% vs. 3.71% in the lumbar spine, 1.30% vs. 1.18% in the femur neck, and 1.51% vs. 1.58% in the total hip in the non-diabetes and diabetes groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in BMD changes between the groups, and the differences in CTx or P1NP changes between groups were not significant. We did not observe any significant differences in baseline TBS values or the degree of change between before and after 1 year of ibandronate treatment in either group in this study. A total of 11 adverse events (9.2%) that recovered without sequelae occurred among the 120 included patients, and there was no significant difference in the frequency of adverse events between the groups (p = 0.862). The changes in fasting glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels between before and after treatment were not significant in the diabetic group. CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonate therapy showed similar increases in BMD and decreases in CTx and P1NP of postmenopausal women with and without diabetes. Monthly oral ibandronate can be a safe and effective therapeutic option in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT number: NCT05266261, Date of registration: 04 March 2022.

Patterns of Osteoporosis Medications Selection After Drug Holiday or Continued Therapy: A Real-World Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Published literature on physicians' preferences and sequential treatment patterns of osteoporosis therapy is scarce. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who received bisphosphonates, denosumab, and/or raloxifene for at least 3 consecutive years or teriparatide for at least 18 months for osteoporosis. Data collection spanned 10 years, from October 2007 to September 2016, at a tertiary care center in the United States. RESULTS: In total, 12 885 patients were identified on the basis of receiving at least 1 treatment at any point in time; 1814 patients were randomly reviewed, and 274 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 68.8 ± 10.7 years, and women represented 90.9% of all the cases. Primary care physicians and rheumatologists constituted 65.7% and 22.6% of the prescribers, respectively. Before instituting a drug holiday, alendronate was the most common initial treatment (percentage, mean duration ± standard deviation in years: 69%, 5.4 ± 2.4 years) followed by ibandronate (9.5%, 4.9 ± 2.1 years) and raloxifene (9.1%, 5.2 ± 1.6 years). Denosumab was the most common second course of treatment, accounting for 29.3% of 82 patients who were subsequently prescribed another therapy, followed by alendronate (24.4%) and zoledronate (20.7%). Among patients who were placed on a drug holiday and eventually restarted on osteoporosis therapy, denosumab was the most common treatment instituted (n = 21), accounting for 40% of the total patients, followed by alendronate (32%) and zoledronate (16%). There was a progressive decline in osteoporosis therapy over the duration of the study. CONCLUSION: Alendronate was the most common initial therapy. Denosumab was the most common second course of treatment prescribed.

Denosumab Versus Bisphosphonates for the Prevention of the Vertebral Fractures in Men with Osteoporosis: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the prevention of vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis by treatment with denosumab is debated. This study aimed to update the comparative effectiveness of denosumab and bisphosphonates for preventing vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials that enrolled men with osteoporosis. Fixed-effects network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the risk of vertebral fractures, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confident interval (CI) values were calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, and the identified bisphosphonates were risedronate, alendronate, zoledronic acid, and ibandronate. Compared with placebo or control, a significant reduction in vertebral fractures was observed for denosumab (RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.13 0.68), risedronate (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.19 0.77), and zoledronic acid (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.21 0.98). According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), denosumab was the most effective one among the included agents for the risk reduction of vertebral fracture. However, compared with each bisphosphonate, the RR values of denosumab were not significant [RR 0.78 (95%CI 0.25 2.43) vs. risedronate, RR 0.55 (95%CI 0.18 1.75) vs. alendronate, RR 0.66 (95%CI 0.19 2.32) vs. zoledronic acid and RR 1.12 (95%CI 0.08 14.83) vs. ibandronate]. CONCLUSION: Denosumab effectively reduced the risk of vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis, and this effect was comparable to that of bisphosphonates.

Pharmacological Therapies for Osteoporosis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for eligible RCTs from their inception up to January 2021. The primary endpoints were all fractures, vertebral fractures, and non-vertebral fractures, while the secondary endpoints were fractures at hip or peripheral locations, bone mineral density (BMD) at various sites, and potential adverse events. RESULTS We included 79 RCTs reporting a total of 108 797 individuals in the final quantitative analysis. The results of network analysis indicated that romosozumab (92.1%) was the most effective in reducing the risk for all fractures, with the best therapeutic effects on vertebral fracture (97.2%) and non-vertebral fracture (88.0%). Romosozumab (92.5%) provided better therapeutic effects for the reduction of hip fracture. The best treatment agents for improving whole-body BMD (100.0%), spine BMD (95.7%), hip BMD (92.4%), femoral neck BMD (86.7%), and trochanter BMD (95.5%) were alendronate, strontium ranelate, ibandronate, risedronate, and ibandronate, respectively. Finally, the use of bazedoxifene was associated with the highest incidence of any upper-gastrointestinal event, nasopharyngitis, and back pain, while risedronate was associated with higher incidence of abdominal pain and dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS This study found that romosozumab yielded the best effects for preventing fracture risk, while abaloparatide was the most effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fracture and non-vertebral fracture.

Hepatitis C-Associated Osteosclerosis: Improvement After Treatment with Sofosbuvir, Daclatasvir, and Ibandronate: Case Report and Literature Review.

Hepatitis C-associated osteosclerosis (HCAO) remains a rare condition despite the growing prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection worldwide. Since the first case reported in 1992, this is the twenty-second case described. Patients with HCAO present with severe bone pain and elevated serum levels of bone markers, especially alkaline phosphatase (ALP), with increased bone density. We report here the case of a 59-year-old man with generalized bone pain and diagnosis of HCV infection. Biochemical tests showed elevated bone turnover markers, specifically, ALP, carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks and osteocalcin. Imaging studies revealed generalized bone sclerosis. Bone mineral density was elevated in all validated sites. His clinical symptoms and bone-related findings were attributed to HCAO. He was sequentially treated with cholecalciferol, prednisone, sofosbuvir associated with daclatasvir and ibandronate, and progressed with undetectable viral load after HCV treatment, normalization of ALP levels after introduction of ibandronate, and pain improvement 1 year after discontinuation of the bisphosphonate. Bone pain complaints must be investigated in patients with HCV. HCAO is a differential diagnosis of increased bone mass.

Which Bone-Modifying Agent is Associated with Better Outcomes in Patients with Skeletal Metastases from Lung Cancer? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Metastatic bone disease occurs in 20% to 40% of patients with lung cancer, and these patients often present with pain or skeletal-related events (SREs) that are associated with decreased survival. Bone-modifying agents such as denosumab or bisphosphonates are routinely used; however, to our knowledge, there has been no quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trial data to determine the most effective pharmacologic treatment of metastatic bone disease because of lung cancer. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis of randomized trials to identify the bone-modifying agent that is associated with the (1) highest overall survival, (2) longest time to SRE, (3) lowest SRE incidence, and (4) greatest likelihood of pain resolution. METHODS: We conducted our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol and pre-registered the analysis on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019124364). We performed a librarian-assisted search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data. We included randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes specifically for patients with lung cancer treated with a bisphosphonate or denosumab. SREs included pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia of malignancy, or pain resulting in surgical intervention or radiation therapy. We excluded trials exclusively reporting surrogate outcomes such as changes in bone turnover markers. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias evaluation, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evaluations were performed in duplicate. We included 131 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 11,105 patients with skeletal metastases from lung cancer. The network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist model and the R statistical software. Results are reported as relative risks or mean differences, and the I2 value is reported for heterogeneity. The P-score, a measure of ranking certainty that accounts for standard error, is reported for each outcome. Heterogeneity in the network was considered moderate for overall survival and time to SRE, mild for the incidence of SRE, and low for pain resolution. RESULTS: For overall survival, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid and estimated to confer a mean of 3.3 months (95% CI 0.3-6.3) of increased overall survival compared with untreated patients (P-score = 89%). For the time to SRE, denosumab was ranked first with a mean of 9.1 additional SRE-free months (95% CI 6.7-11.5) compared with untreated patients (P-score = 99%), while zoledronic acid conferred an additional 4.8 SRE-free months (95% CI 3.6-6.1). Reduction in the incidence of SREs was not different between patients treated with denosumab (relative risk 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.87) and those treated with zoledronic acid (relative risk 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.67). Patients treated with the combination of ibandronate and systemic therapy were more likely to experience successful pain resolution than untreated patients (relative risk 2.4; 95% CI 1.8-3.2). CONCLUSION: In this comprehensive synthesis of all available randomized controlled trial evidence guiding the pharmacologic treatment of bone metastases from lung cancer, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid for overall survival and time to SRE and was not different for reducing the incidence of SRE. Both were superior to no treatment for each of these outcomes. Given this, we encourage physicians to consider the use of denosumab or zoledronic acid in treating this patient population. The combination of ibandronate and systemic therapy was the most effective at reducing pain because of metastases. No cost-effectiveness analysis has yet been performed for denosumab and zoledronic acid on patients with metastatic lung cancer, and this represents an avenue for future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Effect of lumbar spinal stenosis on bone mineral density in osteoporosis patients treated with ibandronate.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can cause various neurological symptoms and reduce the daily activity of patients. Many studies have shown that free physical activities and exercise can improve bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with osteoporosis. However, the effect of LSS on BMD has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of LSS on BMD in patients treated with ibandronate for newly diagnosed osteoporosis. METHODS: Group 1 included 83 patients treated for osteoporosis alone, and group 2 included 76 patients treated for both osteoporosis and symptomatic LSS. We confirmed four BMD values presented as T-score at initial, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-ups. Mean BMD and annual changes of BMD for three years were compared between the two groups. Correlations between initial BMD and total change of BMD, and related factors for continuous BMD improvement for three years were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean annual BMDs were significantly higher in group 1 compared than in group 2 (-3.39 vs. -3.58 at 1-year; -3.27 vs. -3.49 at 2-year; -3.13 vs. -3.45 at 3-year; all p < 0.05). Annual change of BMD at 1-year follow-up (0.32 vs. 0.21, p = 0.036) and total change of BMD for three years (0.57 vs. 0.35, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in group 1. Group 1 had a strong negative correlation (r = -0.511, P = 0.000) between initial BMD and total change of BMD, whereas group 2 showed a weak negative correlation (r = -0.247, p = 0.032). In multivariate analysis, symptomatic LSS was the only independent risk factor for continuous BMD improvement (Odds ratio = 0.316, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic LSS may interfere with BMD improvement in the treatment of osteoporosis with ibandronate. Active treatment for LSS with more potent treatment for osteoporosis should be taken to increase BMD for patients with osteoporosis and LSS.

The relation of oral bisphosphonates to bone marrow lesion volume among women with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Bone marrow lesions (BMLs) contribute to pain and progression of knee OA. Bisphosphonates may be a potential disease-modifier through amelioration of BMLs. We sought to determine the effect of oral bisphosphonates on BML volume over 12 months. DESIGN: Women in the Osteoarthritis Initiative who newly initiated an oral bisphosphonate were propensity-score matched to non-initiators. BML volume was assessed using sagittal turbo spin echo fat-suppressed intermediate-weighted MR images at the index date and 12 months later. A validated semi-automated process was used to segment subchondral OA-related BMLs to determine total volume of BMLs based on number of voxels within the outlined area of interest. Mean change in BML volume over 12 months among bisphosphonate initiators was compared with non-initiators using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: 145 bisphosphonate initiators were identified, who were well-matched to their comparators. The difference in mean change in total BML volume between the two groups, regardless of presence of baseline BMLs, was not significant (P = 0.4, 95% CI -156.6 to +354.2). The proportion of participants with decreased, increased, or unchanged BML volumes over the 12 months were similar in both groups. Among those with baseline BMLs, bisphosphonate initiators had a greater proportion with a decrease in BML volume compared with stable or increased BML volume than non-initiators (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this 'real-world' setting of women starting bisphosphonates, we found no clear evidence of benefit on BML volume over a 12-month period, though a trend towards a decrease in BML volume was noted.

Racial difference in bioavailability of oral ibandronate between Caucasian and Taiwanese postmenopausal women.

Following 150 mg of oral ibandronate, Taiwanese females have greater serum and urine levels of this drug and bone resorption marker suppression than Caucasian women. These inter-ethnic differences seems to be partly explained by a 2.48-fold higher bioavailability of ibandronate in Taiwanese postmenopausal women. INTRODUCTION: Interethnic differences in the pharmacokinetics of oral ibandronate for osteoporosis are unknown. We compared the disposition of oral ibandronate between Caucasian and Taiwanese postmenopausal women. METHODS: Ibandronate 150 mg was administered to 35 Caucasian and 16 Taiwanese postmenopausal women in two separate phase 1 studies. Interethnic comparisons were performed to assess pharmacokinetic properties, including the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), peak concentration (Cmax), elimination half-life, urinary drug recovery (Ae%), renal clearance (CLr), apparent total clearance (CL/F), and apparent volume of distribution (Vd/F). RESULTS: The mean AUC, Cmax, and Ae% were 2.41-, 1.69-, and 2.95-fold greater in the Taiwanese than in the Caucasian subjects, and the average CL/F and Vd/F were 2.48- and 2.46-fold smaller. There were no significant differences in mean CLr and half-life between both groups. As bisphosphonates are not biotransformed but are mainly excreted in the urine, the total body clearance is close to the CLr. These results suggested a larger bioavailability in the Taiwanese group which resulted in the differences in the CL/F and Vd/F. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated ethnicity influences of the pharmacokinetic properties after adjusting for the other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Bioavailability was largely responsible for the interethnic pharmacokinetic differences following oral administration of 150 mg ibandronate and seemed greater in the Taiwanese compared with the Caucasian subjects. Further dose-ranging studies are warranted to determine the optimal dosages of oral ibandronate in patients of Asian or Taiwanese ethnicity.