Treatment rates and healthcare costs of patients with fragility fracture by site of care: a real-world data analysis.

In a characterization of treatment rates and healthcare costs among patients with an osteoporotic-related fragility fracture overall and by site of care, costs were high and treatment rates were low. PURPOSE: Osteoporotic fractures can be debilitating, even fatal, among older adults. The cost of osteoporosis and related fractures is projected to increase to more than $25 billion by 2025. The objective of this analysis is to characterize disease-related treatment rates and healthcare costs of patients with an osteoporotic fragility fracture overall and by site of fracture diagnosis. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, individuals with fragility fractures were identified in the Merative MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Databases among women 50 years of age or older and diagnosed with fragility fracture between 1/1/2013 and 6/30/2018 (earliest fracture diagnosis = index). Cohorts were categorized by clinical site of care where the diagnosis of fragility fracture was made and were continuously followed for 12 months prior to and following index. Sites of care were inpatient admission, outpatient office, outpatient hospital, emergency room hospital, and urgent care. RESULTS: Of the 108,965 eligible patients with fragility fracture (mean age 68.8), most were diagnosed during an inpatient admission or outpatient office visit (42.7%, 31.9%). The mean annual healthcare costs among patients with fragility fracture were $44,311 (± $67,427) and were highest for those diagnosed in an inpatient setting ($71,561 ± $84,072). Compared with other sites of care at fracture diagnosis, patients diagnosed during an inpatient admission also had highest proportion of subsequent fractures (33.2%), osteoporosis diagnosis (27.7%), and osteoporosis therapy (17.2%) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: The site of care for diagnosis of fragility fracture affects treatment rates and healthcare costs. Further studies are needed to determine how attitude or knowledge about osteoporosis treatment or healthcare experiences differ at various clinical sites of care in the medical management of osteoporosis.

Osteoanabolic therapy for osteoporosis in women.

Therapy to activate bone formation is required to reverse and restore the damaged bone architecture found in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. The osteoanabolic drugs include teriparatide, which has been available for several years, and abaloparatide and romosozumab, novel osteoanabolic drugs that have become available more recently. By stimulating bone formation, these drugs produce greater increases in bone mass and bone strength, and they do so more quickly compared to the commonly used anti-remodeling (also called antiresorptive) drugs such as bisphosphonates. In head-to-head trials, teriparatide and romosozumab reduce fracture risk more effectively than do oral bisphosphonates in women with osteoporosis and high fracture risk. Osteoanabolic drugs have little role in the prevention of bone loss during early menopause, but they have an important place in the treatment of women at very high risk of fracture or who remain at high fracture risk after a course of bisphosphonate therapy. Primarily because of the high cost of the drugs, these therapies are initiated by specialists rather than primary-care physicians in most countries. This review will present the evidence for efficacy and safety of these drugs so that clinicians may discern their appropriate use when caring for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A single dose of zoledronate preserves bone mineral density for up to 2 years after a second course of romosozumab.

This phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of transitioning to zoledronate following romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. A single dose of 5 mg zoledronate generally maintained the robust BMD gains accrued with romosozumab treatment and was well tolerated. INTRODUCTION: Follow-on therapy with an antiresorptive agent is necessary to maintain the skeletal benefits of romosozumab therapy. We evaluated the use of zoledronate following romosozumab treatment. METHODS: This phase 2, dose-finding study enrolled postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD). Subjects who received various romosozumab doses or placebo from months 0-24 were rerandomized to denosumab (60 mg SC Q6M) or placebo for 12 months, followed by open-label romosozumab (210 mg QM) for 12 months. At month 48, subjects who had received active treatment for 48 months were assigned to no further active treatment and all other subjects were assigned to zoledronate 5 mg IV. Efficacy (BMD, P1NP, and ß-CTX) and safety were evaluated for 24 months, up to month 72. RESULTS: A total of 141 subjects entered the month 48-72 period, with 51 in the no further active treatment group and 90 in the zoledronate group. In subjects receiving no further active treatment, lumbar spine (LS) BMD decreased by 10.8% from months 48-72 but remained 4.2% above the original baseline. In subjects receiving zoledronate, LS BMD was maintained (percentage changes: - 0.8% from months 48-72; 12.8% from months 0-72). Similar patterns were observed for proximal femur BMD in both groups. With no further active treatment, P1NP and ß-CTX decreased but remained above baseline at month 72. Following zoledronate, P1NP and ß-CTX levels initially decreased but approached baseline by month 72. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: A zoledronate follow-on regimen can maintain robust BMD gains achieved with romosozumab treatment.

Effect of denosumab on trabecular bone score in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Trabecular bone score (TBS) assesses bone quality in the lumbar spine using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly improved TBS independently of bone mineral density (BMD). This practical technique may have a role in managing patients with osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: TBS, a gray-level texture index determined from lumbar spine DXA scans, correlates with bone microarchitecture and enhances assessment of vertebral fracture risk independently of BMD. In the FREEDOM study, denosumab increased BMD and reduced new vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. This retrospective analysis explored the effect of denosumab on TBS and the association between TBS and BMD in FREEDOM. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with lumbar spine or total hip BMD T-score <-2.5 and -4.0 or higher at both sites received placebo or denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months. TBS indices were determined from DXA scans at baseline and months 12, 24, and 36 in a subset of 285 women (128 placebo, 157 denosumab) who had TBS values at baseline and ≥1 postbaseline visit. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups; mean (SD) lumbar spine BMD T-score was -2.79 (0.64), and mean (standard deviation [SD]) TBS was 1.200 (0.101) overall. In the placebo group, BMD and TBS increased by ≤0.2% or decreased from baseline at each visit. In the denosumab group, progressive increases from baseline at 12, 24, and 36 months were observed for BMD (5.7, 7.8, and 9.8%) and TBS (1.4, 1.9, and 2.4%). Percentage changes in TBS were statistically significant compared with baseline (p < 0.001) and placebo (p ≤ 0.014). TBS was largely unrelated to BMD, regardless of treatment, either at baseline or for annual changes from baseline (all r 2 ≤ 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly improved TBS independently of BMD.

Observations following discontinuation of long-term denosumab therapy.

Stopping denosumab after 8 years of continued treatment was associated with bone loss during a 1-year observation study in patients who were not prescribed osteoporosis treatment. Bone loss was attenuated in patients who began another osteoporosis therapy. Treatment to prevent bone loss upon stopping denosumab should be considered. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to understand osteoporosis management strategies during a 1-year observational follow-up after up to 8 years of denosumab treatment in a phase 2 study. METHODS: During the observational year, patients received osteoporosis management at the discretion of their physician and returned to the clinic for BMD assessment and completion of an osteoporosis management questionnaire. Incidence of serious adverse events and fractures was collected. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Of 138 eligible patients, 82 enrolled in and completed the observation study. Most (65 [79%]) did not receive prescription osteoporosis medication, with "my doctor felt I no longer needed a medication" being the most common reason (23 [35%]). Of the 17 patients who took osteoporosis medications, 8 discontinued therapy during the observation study. In patients treated with denosumab for 8 years (N = 52), BMD decreased during the 1-year observation study (6.7% [lumbar spine], 6.6% [total hip]). Those who took osteoporosis medication during the observation study showed a smaller decline in BMD than those who did not. No new safety concerns were identified. Eight patients (9.8%), all of whom had at least one predisposing risk factor, experienced 17 fractures. This included seven patients who experienced one or more vertebral fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with denosumab's mechanism of action, treatment cessation led to reversal of the drug's effect on BMD and perhaps fracture risk. For patients who took osteoporosis therapy, bone loss was attenuated. For patients at high fracture risk, switching to another osteoporosis therapy if denosumab is discontinued seems appropriate.

Vertebral Fractures: Clinical Importance and Management.

Vertebral fractures are common and can result in acute and chronic pain, decreases in quality of life, and diminished lifespan. The identification of vertebral fractures is important because they are robust predictors of future fractures. The majority of vertebral fractures do not come to clinical attention. Numerous modalities exist for visualizing suspected vertebral fracture. Although differing definitions of vertebral fracture may present challenges in comparing data between different investigations, at least 1 in 5 men and women aged >50 years have one or more vertebral fractures. There is clinical guidance to target spine imaging to individuals with a high probability of vertebral fracture. Radiology reports of vertebral fracture need to clearly state that the patient has a "fracture," with further pertinent details such as the number, recency, and severity of vertebral fracture, each of which is associated with risk of future fractures. Patients with vertebral fracture should be considered for antifracture therapy. Physical and pharmacologic modalities of pain control and exercises or physiotherapy to maintain spinal movement and strength are important components in the care of vertebral fracture patients.

New management options for osteoporosis with emphasis on SERMs.

Albright was the first of many to show that loss of bone mass due to estrogen deficiency is an important part of the pathogenesis of postmenopausal osteoporosis. This led to the use of estrogen therapy which was shown to prevent bone loss at menopause and to reduce the risk of important fragility fractures. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), with salutary estrogen-like skeletal effects and with protection from breast cancer, have important roles in the management of young postmenopausal women. New members of the SERM family may approach the effectiveness of estrogen in preventing bone loss and reducing fracture risk. When combined with estrogen, new SERMs prevent endometrial hyperplasia, and that combination reduces menopausal symptoms and prevents bone loss. Drugs that reduce bone turnover or stimulate bone formation by non-estrogen pathways have also been developed to treat osteoporosis. Emerging therapies, with unique mechanisms of action, may provide improved efficacy in treating women who already have osteoporosis.

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: development history and design and participant characteristics of LOFT, the Long-Term Odanacatib Fracture Trial.

SUMMARY: Odanacatib is a cathepsin K inhibitor investigated for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Phase 2 data indicate that 50 mg once weekly inhibits bone resorption and increases bone mineral density, with only a transient decrease in bone formation. We describe the background, design and participant characteristics for the phase 3 registration trial. INTRODUCTION: Odanacatib (ODN) is a selective cathepsin K inhibitor being evaluated for the treatment of osteoporosis. In a phase 2 trial, ODN 50 mg once weekly reduced bone resorption while preserving bone formation and progressively increased BMD over 5 years. We describe the phase III Long-Term ODN Fracture Trial (LOFT), an event-driven, randomized, blinded placebo-controlled trial, with preplanned interim analyses to permit early termination if significant fracture risk reduction was demonstrated. An extension was planned, with participants remaining on their randomized treatment for up to 5 years, then transitioning to open-label ODN. METHODS: The three primary outcomes were radiologically determined vertebral, hip, and clinical non-vertebral fractures. Secondary end points included clinical vertebral fractures, BMD, bone turnover markers, and safety and tolerability, including bone histology. Participants were women, 65 years or older, with a BMD T-score≤-2.5 at the total hip (TH) or femoral neck (FN) or with a prior radiographic vertebral fracture and a T-score≤-1.5 at the TH or FN. They were randomized to ODN or placebo tablets. All received weekly vitamin D3 (5600 international units (IU)) and daily calcium supplements as needed to ensure a daily intake of approximately 1200 mg. RESULTS: Altogether, 16,713 participants were randomized at 387 centers. After a planned interim analysis, an independent data monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped early due to robust efficacy and a favorable benefit/risk profile. Following the base study closeout, 8256 participants entered the study extension. CONCLUSIONS: This report details the background and study design of this fracture end point trial and describes the baseline characteristics of its participants.

Bone safety with risedronate: histomorphometric studies at different dose levels and exposure.

UNLABELLED: This report describes bone safety and histomorphometric data across different dose levels and dosing frequencies of risedronate. Normal bone structure and histomorphometric data were observed, with ongoing bone remodeling and mineralization regardless of dose. These data are reassuring and do not suggest compromised bone remodeling during treatment with established risedronate regimens. INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and bone safety of risedronate 5 mg daily were established in pivotal phase III randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Histomorphometric analysis of paired biopsies demonstrated bone safety as reflected by presence of fluorescent tetracycline double-labels in all evaluable biopsies. This report describes bone safety and histomorphometric data across studies of various dose regimens of risedronate. METHODS: Bridging studies, with bone mineral density as the primary endpoint, demonstrated non-inferiority of risedronate 35 mg and 50 mg once a week, risedronate 150 mg once a month, and a risedronate 75-mg dose on two consecutive days a month versus risedronate 5 mg daily. The low oral bioavailability and known dosing limitations due to food interactions of bisphosphonates have led to development of an oral delayed-release dose form of risedronate 35 mg to be taken weekly, before or after breakfast. Bone biopsies were collected at 24 months in studies involving these risedronate dosing regimens; bone safety and histomorphometric data were evaluated. RESULTS: Qualitative bone histology showed normal mineralization of newly formed bone without evidence of pathological findings, such as osteomalacia, bone marrow dyscrasia, or bone marrow fibrosis. Importantly, ongoing bone remodeling, based on fluorochrome labeling, was observed in all patients regardless of dose and exposure. Key histomorphometric variables were comparable to those observed with the risedronate 5 mg daily dose and were within the range seen in healthy pre- and post-menopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results are reassuring with respect to bone safety and histomorphometric data, and do not suggest oversuppression of bone remodeling during treatment with these established risedronate regimens.

Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with delayed-release risedronate 35 mg weekly for 2 years.

UNLABELLED: Bone mineral density response to once weekly delayed-release formulation of risedronate, given before or following breakfast, was non-inferior to that seen with traditional immediate-release risedronate given daily before breakfast. Delayed-release risedronate is a convenient dosing regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy that might avoid poor compliance. INTRODUCTION: This 2-year, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of a delayed-release (DR) 35-mg weekly oral formulation of risedronate that allows subjects to take their weekly risedronate dose before or immediately after breakfast. Results from the first year of the study were published previously (McClung et al. Osteoporos Int 23(1):267-276, 2012); we now report the final results after 2 years. METHODS: Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive risedronate 5 mg immediate-release (IR) daily (n = 307) at least 30 min before breakfast, or risedronate 35 mg DR weekly, either immediately following breakfast (FB, n = 307) or at least 30 min before breakfast (BB, n = 308). Bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers (BTMs), fractures, adverse events, and bone histomorphometry were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 248 subjects (80.8 %) in the IR daily group, 234 subjects (76.2 %) in the DR FB weekly group, and 240 subjects (77.9 %) in the DR BB weekly group completed the 2-year study. After 2 years of treatment, BMD increases at the lumbar spine and total hip with the weekly DR doses similar to or greater than that with the IR daily dose. Decreases in BTMs were similar or significantly lower in the DR groups. Bone histomorphometry results did not differ among the DR weekly and the IR daily formulations. The three regimens were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Risedronate 35 mg DR weekly is as effective and as well tolerated as risedronate 5 mg IR daily, and will allow subjects to take their weekly risedronate dose immediately after breakfast.

Effect of denosumab on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover: 8-year results of a phase 2 clinical trial.

UNLABELLED: In a phase 2 study, continued denosumab treatment for up to 8 years was associated with continued gains in bone mineral density and persistent reductions in bone turnover markers. Denosumab treatment was well tolerated throughout the 8-year study. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to present the effects of 8 years of continued denosumab treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) from a phase 2 study. METHODS: In the 4-year parent study, postmenopausal women with low BMD were randomized to receive placebo, alendronate, or denosumab. After 2 years, subjects were reallocated to continue, discontinue, or discontinue and reinitiate denosumab; discontinue alendronate; or maintain placebo for two more years. The parent study was then extended for 4 years where all subjects received denosumab. RESULTS: Of the 262 subjects who completed the parent study, 200 enrolled in the extension, and of these, 138 completed the extension. For the subjects who received 8 years of continued denosumab treatment, BMD at the lumbar spine (N = 88) and total hip (N = 87) increased by 16.5 and 6.8 %, respectively, compared with their parent study baseline, and by 5.7 and 1.8 %, respectively, compared with their extension study baseline. For the 12 subjects in the original placebo group, 4 years of denosumab resulted in BMD gains comparable with those observed during the 4 years of denosumab in the parent study. Reductions in BTM were sustained over the course of continued denosumab treatment. Reductions also were observed when the placebo group transitioned to denosumab. Adverse event profile was consistent with previous reports and an aging cohort. CONCLUSION: Continued denosumab treatment for 8 years was associated with progressive gains in BMD, persistent reductions in BTM, and was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of risedronate 150-mg once a month in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2-year data.

UNLABELLED: This study showed that risedronate 150-mg once a month provides similar efficacy and safety at 2 years compared with risedronate 5-mg daily for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. This adds to the range of risedronate dosing options and provides an alternative for patients who prefer once-a-month dosing. INTRODUCTION: Risedronate is effective in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in oral daily, weekly, or on two consecutive days per month doses. This 2-year randomized, double-blind, multicenter study assesses the efficacy and safety of a single risedronate 150-mg once-a-month oral dose compared with the 5-mg daily regimen. METHODS: Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive risedronate 5-mg daily (n = 642) or 150-mg once a month (n = 650) for 2 years. Bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, new vertebral fractures, and adverse events were evaluated. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD after 1 year. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-eight subjects in the daily group (77.6 %) and 513 subjects in the once-a-month group (78.9 %) completed the study. After 24 months, the mean percent change in lumbar spine BMD was 3.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 3.43 to 4.42 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI, 3.68 to 4.65 %) in the daily and once-a-month groups, respectively. The once-a-month regimen was determined to be non-inferior to the daily regimen. The mean percent changes in BMD at the hip were similar in both dose groups, as were changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover. The incidence of adverse events, adverse events leading to withdrawal, and upper gastrointestinal tract adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years, treatment with risedronate 150-mg once a month provided similar efficacy and tolerability to daily dosing and provides an alternative for patients who prefer once-a-month oral dosing.

Efficacy and safety of a novel delayed-release risedronate 35 mg once-a-week tablet.

UNLABELLED: Dosing regimens of oral bisphosphonates are inconvenient and contribute to poor compliance. The bone mineral density response to a once weekly delayed-release formulation of risedronate given before or following breakfast was non-inferior to traditional immediate-release risedronate given daily before breakfast. Delayed-release risedronate is a convenient regimen for oral bisphosphonate therapy. INTRODUCTION: We report the results of a randomized, controlled, clinical study assessing the efficacy and safety of a delayed-release (DR) 35 mg weekly oral formulation of risedronate that allows patients to take their weekly risedronate dose before or immediately after breakfast. METHODS: Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive risedronate 5 mg immediate-release (IR) daily (n = 307) at least 30 min before breakfast, or risedronate 35 mg DR weekly, either at least 30 min before breakfast (BB, n = 308) or immediately following breakfast (FB, n = 307). Bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers (BTMs), fractures, and adverse events were evaluated. The primary efficacy variable was percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Endpoint. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-seven subjects (83.7%) in the IR daily group, 252 subjects (82.1%) in the DR FB weekly group, and 258 subjects (83.8%) in the DR BB weekly group completed 1 year. Both DR weekly groups were determined to be non-inferior to the IR daily regimen. Mean percent changes in hip BMD were similar across groups. The magnitude of BTM response was similar across groups; some statistical differences were seen that were small and deemed by investigators to have no major clinical importance. The incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal and serious adverse events were similar across treatment groups. All three regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Risedronate 35 mg DR weekly is similar in efficacy and safety to risedronate 5 mg IR daily, and will allow patients to take their weekly risedronate dose immediately after breakfast.

Adherence, preference, and satisfaction of postmenopausal women taking denosumab or alendronate.

UNLABELLED: In this study, 250 women with osteoporosis were randomized to 12 months with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly, then crossed over to the other treatment. The primary endpoint, treatment adherence at 12 months, was 76.6% for alendronate and 87.3% for denosumab. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to evaluate treatment adherence with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-year, crossover study, 250 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density received denosumab or alendronate for 12 months, then the other treatment for 12 months. The alendronate bottle had a medication event monitoring system cap to monitor administration dates. Definitions were as follows: compliance, receiving both denosumab doses 6 (± 1) months apart or 80-100% of alendronate doses; persistence, receiving both denosumab doses and completing the month 12 visit within the visit window or ≥ 2 alendronate doses in the final month; adherence, achieving both compliance and persistence. This report includes data from the first 12 months. RESULTS: The primary study endpoint, adherence in the first 12 months, was 76.6% (95/124) for alendronate and 87.3% (110/126) for denosumab. Risk ratios for denosumab compared with alendronate at 12 months were 0.58 (p = 0.043) for non-adherence, 0.48 (p = 0.014) for non-compliance, and 0.54 (p = 0.049) for non-persistence. Subject ratings for treatment necessity, preference, and satisfaction were significantly greater for denosumab and ratings for treatment bother were significantly greater for alendronate. Adverse events were reported by 64.1% of alendronate-treated subjects and 72.0% of denosumab-treated subjects (p = 0.403). The most common adverse events were arthralgia, back pain, pain in extremity, cough, and headache (each in <10% of subjects in each group). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly greater treatment adherence was observed for subcutaneous administration of denosumab every 6 months than for oral alendronate once weekly.

Monthly dosing of 75 mg risedronate on 2 consecutive days a month: efficacy and safety results.

UNLABELLED: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis received 75 mg risedronate on two consecutive days each month or 5 mg daily for 12 months. Changes in bone mineral density and bone turnover markers were similar between treatments. Risedronate 75 mg twice monthly was effective and safe suggesting a new, convenient dosing schedule. INTRODUCTION: Patients perceive less frequent dosing as being more convenient. This 2-year trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of a new monthly oral regimen of risedronate; 1 year results are presented here. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 1229) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with 75 mg risedronate on two consecutive days each month (2CDM), or 5 mg daily. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) at month 12. Secondary efficacy was evaluated by mean percent changes from baseline in BMD in LS, total hip, trochanter, and femoral neck, and bone turnover markers (BTMs). RESULTS: Risedronate 75 mg 2CDM was non-inferior to 5 mg daily (treatment difference 0.21; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.62). Mean percent change in LS-BMD was 3.4% +/- 0.16 and 3.6% +/- 0.15 respectively. Mean percent changes in BMD and BTMs were significant and similar for both treatment groups. New vertebral fractures occurred in 1% of subjects with either treatment. Both treatments were generally well tolerated and safe. CONCLUSIONS: Risedronate 75 mg 2CDM was non-inferior in efficacy and did not show a difference in safety vs. 5 mg daily after 12 months, leading to a similar benefit.

Fracture risk remains reduced one year after discontinuation of risedronate.

UNLABELLED: One year after discontinuation of three year's treatment with risedronate, BMD decreased at the lumbar spine and femoral neck and bone turnover markers returned to control group levels. Despite these changes, the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures remained lower in previous risedronate patients compared with previous control patients. INTRODUCTION: Differences in bisphosphonate pharmacology and pharmacokinetics could influence persistence or resolution of the effects once treatment is stopped. We investigated changes in intermediate markers--bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM)--and fracture risk after discontinuation of treatment with risedronate. METHODS: Patients who received risedronate 5 mg daily (N = 398) or placebo (N = 361) during the VERT-NA study stopped therapy per protocol after 3 years but continued taking vitamin D (if levels at study entry were low) and calcium and were reassessed one year later. RESULTS: In the year off treatment, spine BMD decreased significantly, but remained higher than baseline (p < or = 0.001) and placebo (p < 0.001), with similar findings at the femoral neck and trochanter. Urinary NTX and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, which decreased significantly with treatment, were not significantly different from placebo after 1 year off treatment. Despite the changes in intermediate markers, the incidence of new morphometric vertebral fractures was 46% lower in the former risedronate group compared with the former placebo group (RR 0.54 [95% CI, 0.34, 0.86, p = 0.009]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the apparent resolution of effect on BMD and BTM, the risk reduction of new vertebral fractures remained in the year after treatment with risedronate was stopped.

Effects of risedronate on fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

UNLABELLED: This posthoc analysis of four trials studied the efficacy of risedronate to reduce fragility fractures in postmenopausal women with osteopenia (i.e., T-scores between -1 and -2.5). Risedronate reduced the fracture risk by 73% (p = 0.023) in this population of women with low femoral neck bone mass and no prevalent vertebral fractures. INTRODUCTION: Low bone mass represents an increasing health risk and burden. Half of fragility fractures occur in osteopenic women underscoring the need for treatments reducing fracture risk. This analysis reports the effect of risedronate to reduce fragility fracture risk in osteopenic women without prevalent vertebral fractures. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with osteopenia, defined as femoral neck T-score between -1 and -2.5 by DXA and no prevalent vertebral fractures, were identified from four controlled randomized trials (BMD Multinational, BMD North America, VERT Multinational and VERT North America). The risk reduction for fragility fractures in patients receiving 5 mg risedronate daily for 1.5 to 3 years compared to placebo was assessed. An additional sensitivity analysis excluded patients who were osteopenic at the femoral neck but had a BMD lower than -2.5 SD at the lumbar spine. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty postmenopausal women with osteopenia were included, receiving either placebo (n = 309) or risedronate 5 mg (n = 311). Risedronate reduced the risk of fragility fractures by 73% over 3 years versus placebo (p = 0.023); cumulative fragility fracture incidence was 6.9% in placebo-treated versus 2.2% in risedronate-treated patients. The magnitude of the effect was similar in the sensitivity analysis subset. CONCLUSION: Risedronate significantly reduced the risk of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women with osteopenia (femoral neck T-score between -1 and -2.5 SD) and no prevalent vertebral fractures.