Hypoactive sexual desire disorder in postmenopausal women: US results from the Women's International Study of Health and Sexuality (WISHeS).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) among US women by reproductive status and age and to explore the correlates of sexually related distress. DESIGN: The Women's International Study on Health and Sexuality questionnaire was mailed to a national sample of US women in 2000. The survey included validated questionnaires: the Short Form-36, which measures overall health status; the Profile of Female Sexual Function, which assesses sexual desire; and the Personal Distress Scale, which measures distress caused by low desire. Four groups of women were studied: surgically postmenopausal, aged 20 to 49 years and 50 to 70 years; premenopausal, aged 20 to 49 years; and naturally postmenopausal, aged 50 to 70 years. Clinically derived cutoff Profile of Female Sexual Function and Personal Distress Scale scores were used to classify women with HSDD and determine its prevalence. The relations between sexual desire and frequency of sexual activity or relationship satisfaction were assessed. Overall health status of HSDD women and women with normal desire were compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of HSDD ranged from 9% in naturally postmenopausal women to 26% in younger surgically postmenopausal women. The prevalence of HSDD was significantly greater among surgically postmenopausal women, aged 20 to 49 years, than premenopausal women of similar age, whereas there were no significant differences in the prevalence between surgically postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 70 years, and naturally postmenopausal women. For many women, HSDD was associated with emotional and psychological distress as well as significantly lower sexual and partner satisfaction. HSDD was also associated with significant decrements in general health status, including aspects of mental and physical health. CONCLUSIONS: HSDD is prevalent among women at all reproductive stages, with younger surgically postmenopausal women at greater risk, and is associated with a less active sex life and decreased sexual and relationship satisfaction.

Hospitalization-related bone loss and the protective effect of risedronate.

Intercurrent illness and episodes of hospitalization and surgery are common in an aging population, who, at the same time, are experiencing age-related bone loss. The objective was to test the hypotheses (1) that intercurrent illness severe enough to require hospitalization produces clinically important bone loss, and (2) that antiresorptive therapy will reduce that loss. The study was a retrospective analysis of bone mineral density (BMD) change at hip and spine in subjects of the risedronate postmenopausal osteoporosis phase III trials experiencing serious adverse events (SAEs). Subjects were 243 hospitalized for non-skin cancers, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, gallbladder disease, and pancreatitis, on whom BMD data were available both before and after the SAE; and 286 non-hospitalized control subjects matched to those with SAEs by age, height, weight, prevalent fracture, and visit interval. In hospitalized, placebo-treated participants, the annualized percent change in BMD (mean+/-SEM) across the period of hospitalization was -0.65+/-0.39 at lumbar spine, -1.13+/-0.55 at femoral neck, and -2.66+/-0.58 at femoral trochanter; the corresponding values for the non-hospitalized, placebo controls were +0.46+/-0.28, -0.77+/-0.34, and -0.67+/-0.34. These values were more negative at all three sites for the hospitalized subjects, and significantly so at lumbar spine and femoral trochanter (P=0.019 and 0.002, respectively). By contrast, in the risedronate-treated participants, all sites exhibited bone gain and there was no significant difference between hospitalized and non-hospitalized participants. Intercurrent illness resulting in hospitalization produced a rapid bone loss across the period of illness comparable in magnitude to documented age-related loss. Risedronate in a dose of 5 mg/day effectively abolished this loss.

Relationship between changes in BMD and nonvertebral fracture incidence associated with risedronate: reduction in risk of nonvertebral fracture is not related to change in BMD.

UNLABELLED: Whether greater treatment-related changes in BMD result in greater decreases in fracture risk is controversial. We analyzed the relationship between BMD change and nonvertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from the risedronate fracture program. Change in BMD did not influence the magnitude of risedronate's effect on nonvertebral fractures; the incidence of nonvertebral fractures was equally low in treated patients whose BMD increased or decreased. INTRODUCTION: In untreated patients, low BMD correlates with increased fracture risk. Whether greater increases in BMD induced by anti-osteoporosis drugs are related to greater decreases in vertebral fracture risk is controversial, and little has been written about the relationship between change in BMD and nonvertebral fracture risk. We analyzed the relationship between BMD change and nonvertebral fracture incidence using individual patient data from postmenopausal osteoporotic women receiving antiresorptive treatment with risedronate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This posthoc analysis combined data from three pivotal risedronate fracture endpoint trials. Women received risedronate 2.5 or 5 mg (n = 2,561) or placebo (n = 1,418) daily for up to 3 years. BMD and nonvertebral fractures confirmed by radiograph (hip, wrist, pelvis, humerus, clavicle, and leg) were assessed periodically over 3 years. RESULTS: The incidence of nonvertebral fractures in risedronate-treated patients was not different between patients whose spine BMD decreased (7.8%) and those whose spine BMD increased (6.4%; hazard ratio to subgroup of patients who lost BMD [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.50, 1.25) or between those whose femoral neck BMD decreased (7.6%) and those whose femoral neck BMD increased (7.5%; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68, 1.28). The changes in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD explained only 12% (95% CI, 2%, 21%; p = 0.014) and 7% (95% CI, 2%, 13%; p = 0.005), respectively, of risedronate's nonvertebral fracture efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients treated with risedronate, changes in BMD as measured by DXA do not predict the degree of reduction in nonvertebral fractures.

Safety and efficacy of risedronate in patients with age-related reduced renal function as estimated by the Cockcroft and Gault method: a pooled analysis of nine clinical trials.

UNLABELLED: The incidences of osteoporosis and renal insufficiency increase with age. We studied the influence of renal function on the safety and efficacy of risedronate 5 mg daily in osteoporotic women. Risedronate was safe and effective in osteoporotic women with mild, moderate, or severe age-related renal impairment. INTRODUCTION: The incidences of both osteoporosis and renal insufficiency increase with age; thus, the effect of renal impairment on the safety and efficacy of osteoporosis treatments is a clinical concern. Risedronate is a pyridinyl bisphosphonate well established as safe and effective in the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Currently, there is little available information about the effect of bisphosphonate treatment in patients with renal insufficiency. This retrospective analysis was conducted to study the influence of renal function on the safety and efficacy of risedronate in a population of osteoporotic women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Combined data from nine randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III risedronate trials were analyzed. The patients in these studies had no markedly abnormal laboratory parameters that were considered clinically significant and no evidence of significant disease. This analysis included patients who received placebo (n = 4,500) or risedronate 5 mg (n = 4,496) for up to 3 years (average duration of exposure, 2 years) and who had renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl] < 80 ml/min). CrCl was estimated by the Cockcroft and Gault method, based on age, weight, and serum creatinine. Patients were categorized as having mild (CrCl >or=50 to <80 ml/min), moderate (CrCl >or=30 to <50 ml/min), or severe (CrCl < 30 ml/min) renal impairment. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, renal impairment at baseline was mild in 48% (mean [range] serum creatinine, 0.9 [0.4-1.6] mg/dl), moderate in 45% (1.1 [0.6-1.9] mg/dl), and severe in 7% (1.3 [0.7-2.7] mg/dl). In both the placebo and risedronate treatment groups, the patients with the most severe renal impairment were older and had more severe osteoporosis. The incidences of overall adverse events and of renal function-related adverse events were similar in the placebo and risedronate 5 mg groups regardless of renal function. Furthermore, evaluation of changes from baseline in serum creatinine revealed no difference in renal function between the placebo and risedronate 5 mg groups in any of the renal impairment subgroups at any time-point. In all three subgroups, risedronate effectively preserved BMD and reduced the incidence of vertebral fractures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that risedronate is safe and effective in osteoporotic women with age-related mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment.

Upper gastrointestinal tract safety of daily oral risedronate in patients taking NSAIDs: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract adverse events associated with risedronate during two (2-year) randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Male and female patients aged 40 to 80 years with mild to moderate medial-compartment knee osteoarthritis were enrolled. Data were pooled and analyzed for risedronate at 5 mg and at 15 mg once daily and compared with placebo. The results of the once-weekly dosages (35 or 50 mg) were assessed separately. RESULTS: A total of 2483 patients were randomized: 622 to placebo, 628 to risedronate at 5 mg/d, 609 to risedronate at 15 mg/d, 310 to risedronate at 35 mg once weekly, and 314 to risedronate at 50 mg once weekly. During the study, 77% of patients were regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and/or analgesic users (defined as those who took medication 23 days per week), and 68% were regular NSAID users. The number of upper GI tract adverse events was similar between treatment groups, with no dose-related response: 161 for placebo, 176 for rlsedronate at 5 mg/d, and 150 for risedronate at 15 mg/d. The time to the first upper GI tract adverse event was similar between treatment groups. There was no difference in the frequency of upper GI tract adverse events In risedronate-treated patients compared with patients who were regular users of NSAIDs or NSAIDs and/or analgesics. Findings were similar for those in the once-weekly risedronate groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that risedronate regimens at 5 mg/d or 15 mg/d as well as once weekly at 35 mg or 50 mg are not associated with an increased frequency of upper GI tract adverse events, even in patients who have an increased risk for such events.

Effect of osteoporosis treatments on risk of non-vertebral fractures: review and meta-analysis of intention-to-treat studies.

Most osteoporosis treatments have proven efficacy in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, whereas evidence is less straightforward for prevention of non-vertebral fractures. Conclusions as to the efficacy of a treatment should be based primarily on analyses of the intention to treat (ITT) population rather than on exploratory subgroup analyses; however, non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy has been largely derived by post-hoc subgroup analyses. This review and meta-analysis was performed to assess non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy of several osteoporosis therapies, including a more stringent assessment of the ITT populations. Data on non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy, a defined endpoint of the ITT analyses and confirmed by radiographs, were obtained from randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trials of at least 3-year duration. Meta-analyses were performed for the two bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate. Relative risks (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and statistical significance for active treatment compared with placebo were calculated. Eleven clinical trials met the criteria for review, three of which showed statistically significant ( P < or =0.05) non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in the ITT population: two trials with risedronate and one trial with strontium. A meta-analysis showed significant reductions in the relative risk of non-vertebral fracture for both alendronate (RR=0.86; 95% CI: 0.76-0.97, P =0.012) and risedronate (RR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.71-0.92, P =0.001). Risedronate and strontium ranelate were the only treatments to show non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in this robust assessment of anti-fracture efficacy of osteoporosis therapy using ITT populations in trials of 3 years or more in duration. Risedronate was the only agent shown to demonstrate efficacy in more than one trial. Meta-analysis showed that both alendronate and risedronate provide non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy.

Safety and efficacy of risedronate in reducing fracture risk in osteoporotic women aged 80 and older: implications for the use of antiresorptive agents in the old and oldest old.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of risedronate in reducing vertebral fracture risk in women aged 80 and older with osteoporosis. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of data from three randomized, double-blind, controlled, 3-year-fracture-endpoint trials conducted from November 1993 to April 1998: Hip Intervention Program (HIP), Vertebral Efficacy with Risedronate Therapy-Multinational (VERT-MN), and VERT-North America (NA). SETTING: Office-based practices, research centers, and osteoporosis clinics in Europe, North America, and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Osteoporotic (femoral neck bone mineral density T-score < -2.5 standard deviations or at least one prevalent vertebral fracture) women aged 80 and older. INTERVENTION: Patients received placebo (n=688) or risedronate 5 mg/d (n=704) for up to 3 years. All patients received 1,000 mg/d calcium and, if baseline levels were low, up to 500 IU/d vitamin D. MEASUREMENTS: Cumulative incidence of new vertebral fractures. RESULTS: After 1 year, the risk of new vertebral fractures in the risedronate group was 81% lower than with placebo (95% confidence interval=60-91%; P<.001). The number of women who needed to be treated to prevent one new vertebral fracture after 1 year was 12. This early onset of efficacy was consistent across the clinical programs, and antifracture efficacy was confirmed over 3 years. Risedronate was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo. CONCLUSION: These findings provide the first evidence that, even in the very old, reducing bone resorption rate remains an effective treatment strategy for osteoporosis. Because each therapeutic agent used for the treatment of osteoporosis may have unique characteristics, the observations made in this study should not be assumed to apply to other bisphosphonates.

Relationship between changes in bone mineral density and vertebral fracture risk associated with risedronate: greater increases in bone mineral density do not relate to greater decreases in fracture risk.

Low bone mineral density (BMD) is correlated with increased fracture risk. Whether greater BMD increases induced by osteoporosis drugs are related to greater decreases in fracture risk is controversial. We analyzed the relationship between BMD change and fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporotic women receiving antiresorptive treatment. The analysis combined data from three pivotal risedronate fracture end-point trials. Women received risedronate (n = 2047) or placebo (n = 1177) daily for up to 3 yr. The BMD and vertebral radiographs were assessed periodically during 3 yr. The estimated risk of new vertebral fracture was compared between patients whose BMD increased and those whose BMD decreased. Risedronate-treated patients whose BMD decreased were at a significantly greater risk (p = 0.003) of sustaining a vertebral fracture than patients whose BMD increased. The fracture risk was similar (about 10%) in risedronate-treated patients whose increases in BMD were < 5% (the median change from baseline) and in those whose increases were >/= 5% (p = 0.453). The changes in lumbar spine BMD explained only 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%, 26%; p < 0.001) of risedronate's vertebral fracture efficacy. Although patients showing an increase in BMD had a lower fracture risk than patients showing a decrease in BMD, greater increases in BMD did not necessarily predict greater decreases in fracture risk.