Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Clin Densitom ; 12(1): 63-70, 2009.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19028124

ABSTRACT

Glucocorticoid use is a leading cause of secondary osteoporosis. This post hoc analysis compared teriparatide vs alendronate on bone mineral density (BMD) in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. The 18-mo results from all patients (N=428) in a double-blind trial of teriparatide (20 microg/d) and alendronate (10 mg/d) who had taken glucocorticoids for >or=3 mo were reported (Saag et al. N Engl J Med 2007). The present study analyzed results from the Hispanic (n=61) and non-Hispanic (n=367) cohorts. The BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). In the Hispanic cohort at 18 mo, there were significantly greater increases from baseline in the teriparatide vs alendronate group in lumbar spine BMD (9.8%+/-1.7% vs 4.2%+/-1.4%; p<0.001; mean+/-SE) and total hip BMD (5.9%+/-1.6% vs 1.3%+/-1.3%, p<0.001), with no significant difference between groups at the femoral neck (4.3%+/-2.2% vs 2.0%+/-1.8%, p=0.228). Within each treatment group, the BMD responses were not significantly different in the Hispanic vs non-Hispanic cohort. The number of patients reporting >or=1 adverse event was not significantly different between treatments in either cohort, with more patients reporting nausea in the teriparatide group. In summary, teriparatide was more efficacious than alendronate in increasing BMD in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.


Subject(s)
Alendronate/pharmacology , Bone Density Conservation Agents/pharmacology , Bone Density/drug effects , Osteoporosis/drug therapy , Osteoporosis/ethnology , Teriparatide/pharmacology , Argentina , Brazil , Cohort Studies , Colombia , Double-Blind Method , Female , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Hispanic or Latino , Humans , Male , Mexico , Middle Aged , Osteoporosis/chemically induced , Venezuela
2.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 191(6): 1979-88, 2004 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15592280

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: In a previous report, we described the results of a randomized, controlled trial that evaluated the potential of raloxifene to induce or exacerbate hot flushes. Here, we provide additional analyses that were undertaken to identify potential predictors of hot flushes and to assess the clinical usefulness of various therapeutic strategies for the reduction of hot flushes in postmenopausal women who receive raloxifene therapy. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 487 unselected postmenopausal women were assigned randomly to receive treatment for 8 months with raloxifene, which was administered either at a dose of 60 mg/d every other day for 2 months followed by 60 mg/d (slow-dose escalation) or 60 mg/d throughout (raloxifene), or placebo. Data on the number, duration, intensity, and severity of hot flushes and awakenings because of night sweats were collected. Logistic regression models were used to examine the predictive value of various demographic and menopausal factors on the development or worsening of hot flushes. RESULTS: At baseline, 40.4% of all randomly assigned patients had hot flushes. The mean number of hot flushes (3-5 per week) was low. Fewer years postmenopause, surgical menopause, and previous estrogen or estrogen/progestin therapy were significant predictors of hot flushes at baseline but were not predictive of incident hot flushes during treatment with raloxifene. Of the women who received raloxifene therapy who had pre-existing hot flushes at baseline, 36% women had none at the end point. Early postmenopause and surgical menopause were significant predictors of a biologically relevant increase in hot flushes (>/=14 flushes/week). Early postmenopause, previous estrogen/progestin therapy, high body mass index, and greater duration of hot flushes at baseline were significant predictors of the need for symptomatic treatment. After 2 months of treatment, women in early postmenopause had significantly more hot flushes with raloxifene therapy than with slow-dose escalation ( P = .042), whereas there was no significant difference between raloxifene therapy and slow-dose escalation among women in later postmenopause. In the 50 patients who requested symptomatic treatment during the study, phytohormones or veralipride did not reduce the number of hot flushes markedly. CONCLUSION: A shorter time since menopause and surgical menopause are important predictors of hot flushes both before and during treatment with raloxifene. Previous estrogen/progestin therapy also increases the risk of hot flushes at baseline. For women in early postmenopause, slow-dose escalation of raloxifene therapy may be a suitable therapeutic strategy for the reduction of the risk of hot flushes.


Subject(s)
Hot Flashes/drug therapy , Raloxifene Hydrochloride/therapeutic use , Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators/therapeutic use , Administration, Oral , Aged , Confidence Intervals , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hot Flashes/epidemiology , Humans , Logistic Models , Middle Aged , Postmenopause/drug effects , Probability , Risk Assessment , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL