Prolonged bone health benefits for breast cancer patients following adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy: the BoHFAB study.

Adjuvant bisphosphonates are often recommended in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer at intermediate-to-high risk of disease recurrence, but the magnitude and duration of their effects on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTMs) are not well described. We evaluated the impact of adjuvant zoledronate on areal BMD and BTMs in a sub-group of patients who had completed the large 5-yr randomized Adjuvant Zoledronic Acid to Reduce Recurrence (AZURE) trial. About 224 women (recurrence free) who had completed the AZURE trial within the previous 3 mo were recruited from 20 UK AZURE trial sites. One hundred twenty had previously been randomized to zoledronate (19 doses of 4 mg over 5 yr) and 104 to the control arm. BMD and BTMs were assessed at sub-study entry, 6 (BTMs only), 12, 24, and 60 mo following the completion of AZURE. As expected, mean BMD, T-scores, and Z-scores at sub-study entry were higher in the zoledronate vs the control arm. At the lumbar spine, the mean (SD) standardized BMD (sBMD) was 1123 (201) and 985 (182) mg/cm2 in the zoledronate and control arms, respectively (P < .0001). The baseline differences in sBMD persisted at all assessed skeletal sites and throughout the 5-yr follow-up period. In patients completing zoledronate treatment, BTMs were significantly lower than those in the control arm (α- and ß-urinary C-telopeptide of type-I collagen, both P < .00001; serum intact pro-collagen I N-propeptide, P < .00001 and serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b, P = .0001). Some offset of bone turnover inhibition occurred in the 12 mo following the completion of zoledronate treatment. Thereafter, during the 60 mo of follow-up, all BTMs remained suppressed in the zoledronate arm relative to the control arm. In conclusion, in addition to the known anti-cancer benefits of adjuvant zoledronate, there are likely to be positive, lasting benefits in BMD and bone turnover.

Treatment of Osteoporosis in Men on Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Japan.

Background and Objectives: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer has greatly improved treatment outcomes. As patient survival rates have increased, reports of decreased bone density and increased bone fractures as side effects of ADT have emerged. The prevalence of osteoporosis in Japanese men was 4.6%. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of osteoporosis treatment in prostate cancer patients who underwent ADT in Japan. Materials and Methods: The subjects were 33 male patients who had undergone ADT for prostate cancer, who were noted to have decreased bone density. Mean age was 76.2 ± 7.7 years (64-87). Medications included vitamin D in one case, bisphosphonates (BP) in 27 cases, and denosumab in five cases. The evaluation method examined the rate of change in bone mineral density (BMD) before osteoporosis treatment and 1 year after. For comparison, a group without osteoporosis treatment intervention (n = 33) was selected, and matched for prostate cancer treatment and age. The rate of change in trabecular bone score (TBS) was also calculated. Results: The percentage changes in BMD before and 1 year after treatment were as follows: lumbar spine, 7.1 ± 5.8% in the treatment group versus -3.9 ± 4.1% in the no treatment group; femoral neck, 5.5 ± 6.2% in the treatment group versus -0.9 ± 3.9% in the no treatment group; total femur, 6.6 ± 6.4% in the treatment group versus the no treatment group which was -1.7 ± 3.2%. In all cases, there was a clear significant difference (p < 0.01). The percent change in TBS was further calculated in the same manner. There was no significant difference between the two groups: +1.7 ± 3.8% in the treated group versus +0.3 ± 4.1% in the untreated group. Conclusions: Osteoporosis treatment in Japanese patients with prostate cancer on ADT therapy was found to significantly increase BMD compared to the untreated group. BP and denosumab were found to be very effective in increasing BMD.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study.

Background: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice. Objectives: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities. Methods: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates. Results: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting. Conclusions: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs. Future work: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting. Limitations: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients' and doctors' views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but 'continuing with treatment', particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community.

Engineering small-molecule and protein drugs for targeting bone tumors.

Bone cancer is common and severe. Both primary (e.g., osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma) and secondary (e.g., metastatic) bone cancers lead to significant health problems and death. Currently, treatments such as chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and radiation therapy are used to treat bone cancer, but they often only shrink or slow tumor growth and do not eliminate cancer completely. The bone microenvironment contributes unique signals that influence cancer growth, immunogenicity, and metastasis. Traditional cancer therapies have limited effectiveness due to off-target effects and poor distribution on bones. As a result, therapies with improved specificity and efficacy for treating bone tumors are highly needed. One of the most promising strategies involves the targeted delivery of pharmaceutical agents to the site of bone cancer by introduction of bone-targeting moieties, such as bisphosphonates or oligopeptides. These moieties have high affinities to the bone hydroxyapatite matrix, a structure found exclusively in skeletal tissue, and can enhance the targeting ability and efficacy of anticancer drugs when combating bone tumors. This review focuses on the engineering of small molecules and proteins with bone-targeting moieties for the treatment of bone tumors.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Denosumab in the Prevention of Skeletal-Related Events Among Patients With Breast Cancer With Bone Metastasis in India.

PURPOSE: Denosumab is clinically superior to zoledronic acid (ZA) for preventing and delaying time to first and subsequent skeletal-related events (SREs) among patients with breast cancer (BC) with bone metastases. We evaluated the cost and health benefits of denosumab and ZA (once every 4 weeks and once every 12 weeks) among four different molecular subtypes of BC with bone metastases in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate lifetime health consequences and resulting costs among cohort of 1,000 patients with BC with bone metastasis, for three intervention scenarios, namely denosumab (once every 4 weeks), ZA (once every 4 weeks), and ZA (once every 12 weeks). The health outcomes were measured in terms of SREs averted and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The cost of each intervention scenario was measured using both the health system and the patient's perspectives. Indirect costs because of lost productivity were not included. The future costs and outcomes were discounted at the standard rate of 3%. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the incremental number of SREs averted with use of denosumab once every 4 weeks (compared with ZA once every 4 weeks and once every 12 weeks) among patients with luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-enriched, and triple negative breast cancer were estimated as 0.39, 0.26, 0.25, and 0.19, respectively. The number of QALYs lived were slightly higher in the denosumab arm (1.45-2.80) compared with ZA once every 4 weeks and once every 12 weeks arms (1.44-2.78). However, denosumab once every 4 weeks was not found to be a cost-effective alternative for either of the four molecular subtypes of breast cancer. ZA once every 12 weeks was found to be a cost-effective option with an average cost-effectiveness ratio ranging between ₹68,254 and ₹73,636. CONCLUSION: ZA once every 12 weeks is the cost-effective treatment option for BC with bone metastases in India. The present study findings hold significance for standard treatment guidelines under India's government-funded health insurance program.

Theranostic Agent Targeting Bone Metastasis: A Novel [68Ga]Ga/[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-HBED-bisphosphonate.

Bone metastasis in cancer patients is a major disease advancement for various types of cancer. Previously, [68Ga]Ga-HBED-CC-bisphosphonate ([68Ga]Ga-P15-041) showed excellent bone uptake and efficient detection of bone metastasis in patients. To accommodate different α- or ß--emitting metals for radionuclide therapy, a novel DOTA-HBED-CC-bisphosphonate (P15-073, 1) was prepared and the corresponding [68Ga]Ga-1 and [177Lu]Lu-1 were successfully synthesized in high yields and purity. Gallium-68 conjugation to HBED-CC at room temperature and lutetium-177 conjugation to DOTA at 95 °C were verified in model compounds through secondary mass confirmation. These bisphosphonates, [68Ga]Ga-1 and [177Lu]Lu-1, displayed high binding affinity to hydroxyapatite in vitro. After an iv injection, it showed excellent uptake in the spine of normal mice, and micro-PET/CT imaging of nude mice model of bone metastasis showed high bone uptake in tumor tissue. The results indicated that [68Ga]Ga/[177Lu]Lu-1 holds promise as a theranostic radioligand agent for managing cancer bone metastases.

Postoperative Bisphosphonates Use is Associated with Reduced Adverse Outcomes After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty of Hip and Knee: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study.

Bisphosphonates have been associated with a decreased risk of revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty of the hip or knee (TJA) because of their effects on decreased periprosthetic bone loss and prosthetic migration. However, the results in the early literature are inconsistent, and the influence of bisphosphonates on associated complications and subsequent TJA remains unknown. This study investigated the association between the use of bisphosphonates and the risk of adverse outcomes after primary TJA. This matched cohort study utilized the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify patients who underwent primary TJA over a 15-year period (January 2000-December 2015 inclusive). Study participants were further categorized into two groups, bisphosphonate users and nonusers, using propensity score matching. The Kaplan-Meier curve analysis and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of revision surgery, adverse outcomes of primary surgery and subsequent TJA were calculated using Cox regression analysis. This study analyzed data from 6485 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 20,920 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The risk of revision hip and knee arthroplasty was significantly lower in the bisphosphonate users than in the nonusers (aHR, 0.54 and 0.53, respectively). Furthermore, the risk of a subsequent total joint arthroplasty, adverse events and all-cause mortality were also significantly reduced in the bisphosphonate users. This study, involving a large cohort of patients who underwent primary arthroplasties, revealed that bisphosphonate treatment may potentially reduce the risk of revision surgery and associated adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the use of bisphosphonates after TJA is also associated with a reduced need for subsequent arthroplasty.Research Registration Unique Identifying Number (UIN): ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier-NCT05623540 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT05623540 ).

Patient preference, efficacy, and compliance with zoledronic acid for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in patients with autoimmune diseases.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the preference, patient satisfaction, and efficacy of zoledronic acid compared with oral bisphosphonates (BPs) for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) in patients with autoimmune diseases. METHODS: We enrolled 50 patients with new fractures or osteoporosis detected on follow-up bone densitometry after at least 1 year of oral BP use among patients diagnosed with GIOP during treatment for autoimmune diseases. After 1 year of zoledronic acid treatment, patients completed a survey for preference and satisfaction assessment. Treatment efficacy was analysed by comparing bone mineral density changes and fractures with those in a control group of patients who continued oral BP use. RESULTS: Age, sex, treatment duration, and medication history did not differ significantly between the two groups. Among the participants, 86.7% preferred and were more satisfied with intravenous zoledronic acid than with oral BPs, primarily because of the convenience of its administration interval. Only two patients (4%) reported infusion-related adverse events with zoledronic acid. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in the annualized percentage change in the bone mineral density of the lumbar spine, femur neck, and hip between patients receiving zoledronic acid and those receiving oral BPs. The occurrence of new fractures was consistent across both groups, with two cases in each, showing no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Patients showed a preference for and greater satisfaction with zoledronic acid, and its efficacy in treating osteoporosis was comparable to that of oral BPs. Therefore, zoledronic acid is a suitable treatment option for GIOP in patients with autoimmune diseases.

Comparison of bone mineral density of osteoporotic and osteopenia menopausal women treated with oral bisphosphonates before stopping the treatment and 1 year after drug holiday period.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a skeletal and bone disorder characterized by bone fractures and decreased bone mineral density (BMD). Bisphosphonates have a great tendency to bind to minerals, and their long-term use can increase the risk of bone fragility in patients. Stopping bisphosphonates after a period of time is called a drug holiday (DH). Recent evidence has shown that patients' BMD may decrease again during DH. However, few studies have been done in this regard. In the present study, we compared the BMD of postmenopausal women during bisphosphonates treatment and 1 year after DH. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 202 patients were selected with osteopenia (n = 95) and osteoporosis (n = 107); they had been treated with alendronate for 5 years (a rheumatologist confirmed the diagnosis of osteopenia and osteoporosis) and had undergone DH for 1 year. At the arrival of all patients, BMD was checked with the DXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) method using the 2007 American Explorer model Hologic device based on the Caucasian race. One year later, patients were reassessed for BMD by the same device. RESULT: The analysis of femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) T-score indices in the osteopenia and the osteoporosis groups showed reduction after DH, and the difference was statistically significant in both groups (p = 0.001). After 1 year of stopping bisphosphonate treatment, the average of FN and LS BMD decreased in both groups (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In general, it can be said that DH can reduce FN and LS T-scores. The results indicated a significant reduction in BMD after the DH period for both the osteoporosis and osteopenia groups in the early months. Also, the effect of DH in osteoporosis patients was more compared to the osteopenia individuals, which could have implications for their treatment approach, and also its effect on bone health. Key Points • The DH can reduce FN and LS T-scores • The BMD reduced after the DH period for both the osteoporosis and osteopenia groups • After 1 year of stopping bisphosphonate treatment, the average of FN and LS BMD decreased in both groups.

Comparative clinical study of phosphorous necrosis and medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaws.

BACKGROUND: Phosphorous necrosis of the jaw (PNJ) exhibits similar clinical and pathological features as medical-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). This study aims at comparing the similarities and differences between PNJ and MRONJ regarding pathological features and to provide a theoretical basis for the clinical diagnosis and management of PNJ. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess clinical differences among 38 PNJ patients and 31 MRONJ patients, who were diagnosed and treated between January 2009 and October 2022. Pathological alterations in bone tissue were evaluated using EDS, H&E, Masson, and TRAP staining on five specimens from both MRONJ and PNJ cases; furthermore, immunohistochemistry was used to determine the expression levels of OPG, RANKL, and Runx2. The mandibular coronoid process was removed from individuals with temporomandibular joint ankylosis to serve as a control. RESULTS: CBCT imaging demonstrated necrotic bone formation in block, strip, or plaque shapes. EDS analysis showed that the calcium/phosphorus ratio in the bone tissue of PNJ and MRONJ was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05). Additionally, staining indicated reduced osteoblast counts, disrupted bone trabecular structure, and decreased collagen fiber content in the bone tissues of PNJ and MRONJ. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated that RANKL expression was significantly lower in MRONJ compared to PNJ and control groups (P < 0.05). Conversely, Runx2 expression was significantly higher in PNJ than in MRONJ and control groups (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in OPG expression. CONCLUSION: PNJ and MRONJ demonstrate comparable clinical manifestations and pathological traits, although disparities may exist in their underlying exhibit comparable clinical manifestations, pathological traits, and molecular mechanisms.

Inhibition of cysteine protease disturbs the topological relationship between bone resorption and formation in vitro.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis is a global health issue. Bisphosphonates that are commonly used to treat osteoporosis suppress both bone resorption and subsequent bone formation. Inhibition of cathepsin K, a cysteine proteinase secreted by osteoclasts, was reported to suppress bone resorption while preserving or increasing bone formation. Analyses of the different effects of antiresorptive reagents such as bisphosphonates and cysteine proteinase inhibitors will contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms underlying bone remodeling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our team has developed an in vitro system in which bone remodeling can be temporally observed at the cellular level by 2-photon microscopy. We used this system in the present study to examine the effects of the cysteine proteinase inhibitor E-64 and those of zoledronic acid on bone remodeling. RESULTS: In the control group, the amount of the reduction and the increase in the matrix were correlated in each region of interest, indicating the topological and quantitative coordination of bone resorption and formation. Parameters for osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and matrix resorption/formation were also correlated. E-64 disrupted the correlation between resorption and formation by potentially inhibiting the emergence of spherical osteoblasts, which are speculated to be reversal cells in the resorption sites. CONCLUSION: These new findings help clarify coupling mechanisms and will contribute to the development of new drugs for osteoporosis.

Heterogeneous osteoimmune profiles via single-cell transcriptomics in osteoporotic patients who fail bisphosphonate treatment.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis arises from imbalanced osteoclast and osteoblast activity, and mounting evidence suggests a role for the osteoimmune system in bone homeostasis. Bisphosphonate (BP) is an antiresorptive agent, but its treatment failure rate can be as high as 40%. Here, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing on peripheral immune cells from carefully selected postmenopausal women: non-osteoporotic, osteoporosis improved after BP treatment, and BP-failed cases. We found an increase in myeloid cells in patients with osteoporosis (specifically, T cell receptor+ macrophages). Furthermore, lymphoid lineage cells varied significantly, notably elevated natural killer cells (NKs) in the BP-failed group. Moreover, we provide fruitful lists of biomarkers within the immune cells that exhibit condition-dependent differences. The existence of osteoporotic- and BP-failure-specific cellular information flows was revealed by cell-cell interaction analysis. These findings deepen our insight of the osteoporosis pathology enhancing comprehension of the role of immune heterogeneity in postmenopausal osteoporosis and BP treatment failure.

Alendronate-Grafted Nanoemulsions for Bone-Targeted Vincristine Delivery: Preliminary Studies on Cell and Animal Models.

Bone is a site of distant metastases, which are a common cause of morbidity and mortality with a high socio-economic impact, for many malignant tumours. In order to engineer pharmacological therapies that are suitable for this debilitating disease, this experimental work presents injectable lipid nanoemulsions, which are endowed with a long history of safe clinical usage in parenteral nutrition, their loading with vincristine and their grafting with alendronate, with a dual purpose: merging the anticancer activity of bisphosphonates and vincristine, and enhancing bone-targeted delivery. In cell studies, alendronate synergised with the anti-migration activity of vincristine, which is important as migration plays a key role in the metastatisation process. In preliminary animal studies, carried out thanks to IVIS technology, alendronate conjugation enhanced the bone targeting of fluorescently labelled nanoemulsions. These encouraging results will drive further studies on suitable animal models of the disease.

The implications of competing risks and direct treatment disutility in cardiovascular disease and osteoporotic fracture: risk prediction and cost effectiveness analysis.

Background: Clinical guidelines commonly recommend preventative treatments for people above a risk threshold. Therefore, decision-makers must have faith in risk prediction tools and model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for people at different levels of risk. Two problems that arise are inadequate handling of competing risks of death and failing to account for direct treatment disutility (i.e. the hassle of taking treatments). We explored these issues using two case studies: primary prevention of cardiovascular disease using statins and osteoporotic fracture using bisphosphonates. Objectives: Externally validate three risk prediction tools [QRISK®3, QRISK®-Lifetime, QFracture-2012 (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK)]; derive and internally validate new risk prediction tools for cardiovascular disease [competing mortality risk model with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CRISK-CCI)] and fracture (CFracture), accounting for competing-cause death; quantify direct treatment disutility for statins and bisphosphonates; and examine the effect of competing risks and direct treatment disutility on the cost-effectiveness of preventative treatments. Design, participants, main outcome measures, data sources: Discrimination and calibration of risk prediction models (Clinical Practice Research Datalink participants: aged 25-84 years for cardiovascular disease and aged 30-99 years for fractures); direct treatment disutility was elicited in online stated-preference surveys (people with/people without experience of statins/bisphosphonates); costs and quality-adjusted life-years were determined from decision-analytic modelling (updated models used in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making). Results: CRISK-CCI has excellent discrimination, similar to that of QRISK3 (Harrell's c = 0.864 vs. 0.865, respectively, for women; and 0.819 vs. 0.834, respectively, for men). CRISK-CCI has systematically better calibration, although both models overpredict in high-risk subgroups. People recommended for treatment (10-year risk of ≥ 10%) are younger when using QRISK-Lifetime than when using QRISK3, and have fewer observed events in a 10-year follow-up (4.0% vs. 11.9%, respectively, for women; and 4.3% vs. 10.8%, respectively, for men). QFracture-2012 underpredicts fractures, owing to under-ascertainment of events in its derivation. However, there is major overprediction among people aged 85-99 years and/or with multiple long-term conditions. CFracture is better calibrated, although it also overpredicts among older people. In a time trade-off exercise (n = 879), statins exhibited direct treatment disutility of 0.034; for bisphosphonates, it was greater, at 0.067. Inconvenience also influenced preferences in best-worst scaling (n = 631). Updated cost-effectiveness analysis generates more quality-adjusted life-years among people with below-average cardiovascular risk and fewer among people with above-average risk. If people experience disutility when taking statins, the cardiovascular risk threshold at which benefits outweigh harms rises with age (≥ 8% 10-year risk at 40 years of age; ≥ 38% 10-year risk at 80 years of age). Assuming that everyone experiences population-average direct treatment disutility with oral bisphosphonates, treatment is net harmful at all levels of risk. Limitations: Treating data as missing at random is a strong assumption in risk prediction model derivation. Disentangling the effect of statins from secular trends in cardiovascular disease in the previous two decades is challenging. Validating lifetime risk prediction is impossible without using very historical data. Respondents to our stated-preference survey may not be representative of the population. There is no consensus on which direct treatment disutilities should be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. Not all the inputs to the cost-effectiveness models could be updated. Conclusions: Ignoring competing mortality in risk prediction overestimates the risk of cardiovascular events and fracture, especially among older people and those with multimorbidity. Adjustment for competing risk does not meaningfully alter cost-effectiveness of these preventative interventions, but direct treatment disutility is measurable and has the potential to alter the balance of benefits and harms. We argue that this is best addressed in individual-level shared decision-making. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021249959. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/12/22) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Before offering a medicine to prevent disease, prescribers must expect it to do more good than harm. This balance depends on how likely it is that the person will develop the disease we want to prevent. But people might first die for other reasons. We call this a 'competing risk'. In most cases, the mathematical tools we use to estimate the chance of developing a disease do not account for competing risks. Another problem is that, when weighing up the benefits and harms of medicines, we ignore the hassle they cause patients, even when they do not cause side effects. We used two examples: statins to prevent heart disease and bisphosphonates to prevent fractures. First, we assessed if existing tools get predictions wrong by not accounting for competing risks. We found that they exaggerate the chance of heart attacks and strokes. However, the exaggeration is greatest among people who would clearly benefit from preventative treatment. So it may not change treatment decisions much. The fracture prediction tool we studied was very inaccurate, exaggerating risk among older people, but underestimating risk among younger people. We made a new fracture risk prediction tool. It gave better predictions, but it was still inaccurate for people aged > 85 years and those with several health problems. Next, we asked people questions designed to put a number on the hassle that statins and bisphosphonates cause. Most people thought that taking either is inconvenient, but the hassle factor for bisphosphonates is bigger. Finally, we updated the mathematical models that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence used when recommending statins and bisphosphonates. We worked out if competing risks and the hassle of taking medicines make a difference to results. Statins remain a good idea for almost everyone, unless they really hate the idea of taking them. But bisphosphonates would do more harm than good for anyone who agrees with the hassle factor we found.

Bisphosphonate treatment for skeletal complications in paediatric cancer-Experience from a single tertiary centre.

AIMS: The aim was to analyse the use and safety of bisphosphonate treatment for metabolic bone complications in paediatric cancer patients. METHODS: We retrospectively describe our experience with bisphosphonate treatment in 25 childhood cancer patients (aged <18 years) in a single tertiary hospital between 1999 and 2020. RESULTS: The most common primary diagnosis was acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n = 16) and Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 3). Eleven patients (44%) had received allogeneic stem cell transplantation and two patients autologous stem cell transplantation. Sixteen patients (64%) had been treated with radiotherapy, either total-body (n = 11) or local (n = 5). The main indication for bisphosphonates was osteoporosis with vertebral compression fractures in 13/25, osteonecrosis in 6/25 and hypercalcaemia in 2/25. The bisphosphonate treatment was started on average 13 (range 0-76) months after the diagnosis of the bone complication. Bisphosphonate treatment lasted between weeks (hypercalcaemia) to 5 years (severe osteoporosis). Mild, non-symptomatic hypophosphatemia (n = 8), hypocalcaemia (n = 6) and moderate, transient pain (n = 6) were the most common adverse effects. No severe side effects were observed even when bisphosphonates were administered concomitantly with chemotherapy. Bone mineral density significantly improved with the bisphosphonate treatment (mean lumbar spine Z-score -1.17 vs. -0.07, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonate treatment was well tolerated in this paediatric patient cohort.

Treatment Sequence for Osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a chronic progressive disease that requires lifelong monitoring and treatment. Sequencing from one treatment to another at different ages and stages of disease is an approach that can maximize benefits and avoid potential risks from long-term treatment with a single agent. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews clinical trial data in postmenopausal women that evaluate the effects of antiresorptive agents followed by other antiresorptives, osteoanabolic agents followed by antiresorptives, and antiresorptives followed by osteoanabolic medications. METHODS: Literature review and discussion. RESULTS: When medications are discontinued, in the absence of sequential therapy, bone turnover rates return to baseline or above baseline, and bone loss occurs. The rate of bone loss differs for different treatments, with a very slow decline after stopping bisphosphonates and a particularly rapid decline after stopping denosumab. Careful attention to osteoporosis medication transitions can mitigate bone density loss and its consequences. For women who remain at high risk, switching from bisphosphonates to the more potent antiresorptive, denosumab, will result in further improvement in bone mineral density (BMD). When indicated, stopping denosumab can be accomplished safely by transition to an adequate bisphosphonate regimen. For high- and very-high-risk patients, treating with osteoanabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive agents, produces substantially larger BMD gains than the reverse treatment sequence, with the biggest differences seen for BMD of the hip. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the importance of treatment sequences can help improve osteoporosis care across the postmenopausal lifespan.