RESUMEN
SUMMARY: The ROSE study compared a once-yearly intravenous dose of zoledronic acid with a once-weekly oral dose of alendronate in postmenopausal women. Once-yearly zoledronic acid showed a greater and faster reduction in the levels of two markers of bone turnover and may be an effective option for the treatment of osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: The open-label Rapid Onset and Sustained Efficacy (ROSE) study was designed to compare a once-yearly intravenous (iv) dose of zoledronic acid with a once-weekly oral dose of alendronate with respect to markers of bone turnover in approximately 600 postmenopausal women in Germany. METHODS: Levels of N-telopeptide of collagen type I (NTx) and procollagen 1 C terminal extension peptide (P1NP) were assessed during the study. The primary objective was to assess if zoledronic acid was superior to alendronate in reducing serum NTx levels after 12 months' treatment. RESULTS: A significantly greater reduction in NTx levels from baseline to month 12 (as determined by the area under the curve) was observed in patients treated with zoledronic acid (n = 408) versus those receiving alendronate (n = 196; 0.282 ng/mL vs. 0.270 ng/mL; P = 0.012). The reduction in levels of P1NP after 1 year was also significantly greater in patients treated with zoledronic acid compared with those receiving alendronate (28.21 vs. 25.53 ng/mL; P = 0.0024). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between groups; both treatments were generally well tolerated. Although post-dose symptoms, including the incidence of influenza-like symptoms, were higher with zoledronic acid than alendronate initially, the incidence was similar between groups from days 4-360. Gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent with alendronate than zoledronic acid throughout the study. CONCLUSION: In this study, once-yearly iv zoledronic acid provided a greater and faster reduction in the levels of NTx and P1NP versus once-weekly oral alendronate.
Asunto(s)
Alendronato/uso terapéutico , Conservadores de la Densidad Ósea/uso terapéutico , Difosfonatos/uso terapéutico , Imidazoles/uso terapéutico , Osteoporosis Posmenopáusica/tratamiento farmacológico , Administración Oral , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Alendronato/administración & dosificación , Alendronato/efectos adversos , Biomarcadores/sangre , Densidad Ósea/efectos de los fármacos , Conservadores de la Densidad Ósea/administración & dosificación , Conservadores de la Densidad Ósea/efectos adversos , Huesos/metabolismo , Colágeno Tipo I/sangre , Difosfonatos/administración & dosificación , Difosfonatos/efectos adversos , Femenino , Humanos , Imidazoles/administración & dosificación , Imidazoles/efectos adversos , Inyecciones Intravenosas , Persona de Mediana Edad , Osteoporosis Posmenopáusica/metabolismo , Osteoporosis Posmenopáusica/fisiopatología , Fragmentos de Péptidos/sangre , Péptidos/sangre , Procolágeno/sangre , Ácido ZoledrónicoRESUMEN
SUMMARY: The ROSE study compared annual infusion with zoledronic acid and weekly generic alendronate. No significant differences in quality of life or health status between treatment groups were observed. Adherence to alendronate during the study was high, with 80.9% of patients achieving adequate adherence. INTRODUCTION: A secondary analysis to evaluate quality of life, health status, adherence to alendronate and therapy preference in postmenopausal women with low bone mass who received treatment with zoledronic acid or alendronate was conducted. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with low bone mass were randomised 2:1 to receive an annual infusion of zoledronic acid or weekly oral generic alendronate in this open-label, multicentre study. Changes in quality of life and health status were assessed using questionnaires at baseline and month 12. Adherence to alendronate was assessed by the investigator and/or study personnel, and subjective therapy preference was assessed using a questionnaire at month 12. RESULTS: Patients were randomised to zoledronic acid (n = 408) and alendronate (n = 191). Overall, there were no significant differences in quality of life between zoledronic acid and alendronate. However, improvements in quality of life with zoledronic acid versus alendronate could be detected by posthoc analysis in patients with previous fractures. There were no significant differences in health status between patients receiving zoledronic acid or alendronate. Adherence to alendronate during the study was high, with 80.9% of patients achieving adequate adherence. A total of 81% of patients who had received zoledronic acid indicated that they would prefer to continue with that treatment, and 43% of the patients who received oral alendronate would like to switch to zoledronic acid. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in quality of life between patients receiving zoledronic acid or alendronate.