Safety and effectiveness of risedronate in Paget's disease of bone: postmarketing surveillance study in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted an all-case postmarketing surveillance study between 2008 and 2017 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of risedronate for Paget's disease of bone (PDB) in Japan. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study registered all patients who received once-daily risedronate 17.5 mg for the treatment of PDB and collected data over a 48-week follow-up period per treatment cycle for each patient. RESULTS: The safety analysis set included 184 patients (mean age, 63.7 years), 81 (44.0%) of whom previously received a bisphosphonate. Of them, 41 (22.3%) experienced 72 adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and 8 (4.3%) experienced 14 serious ADRs. Common ADRs included gastrointestinal disorders (20 patients, 10.9%) and hypocalcemia (6 patients, 3.3%). The effectiveness analysis set included 182 patients, 124 of whom completed only one treatment cycle and 58 of whom completed multiple treatment cycles. The proportions of patients who normalized serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) concentration were 71.1% (113/159 patients) and 67.3% (33/49 patients) for the first and second treatment cycles, respectively. The relapse rate according to ALP levels after the end of treatment for the first cycle was 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1-11.5) at 24 weeks and 12.9% (95% CI = 7.5-21.7) at 40 weeks. Regarding pain relief, the achievement rates were 70.0% (49/70 patients) and 30.8% (4/13 patients) for the first and second treatment cycles, respectively. CONCLUSION: To conclude, risedronate 17.5 mg/day is safe and effective for treating patients with PDB in daily practice.

The clinical effectiveness of denosumab (Prolia®) in patients with hormone-sensitive cancer receiving endocrine therapy, compared to bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), and placebo: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in cancer patients with osteoporosis. This is the first SR to assess treating osteoporotic cancer patients with denosumab. PURPOSE: This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (bazedoxifene, raloxifene) and placebo for the treatment of osteoporosis in hormone-sensitive cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy (men with prostate cancer [MPC] on hormone ablation therapy [HAT], and women with breast cancer [WBC] on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy [AAIT]). METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted in three biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Frequentist network meta-analyses and/or pairwise meta-analyses were performed on predetermined outcomes (i.e., vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, treatment-related adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], withdrawal due to treatment-related AEs). RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs (15 publications) were included. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab, zoledronate, and alendronate improved BMD at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) in MPC on HAT, relative to placebo. Denosumab, ibandronate and risedronate improved BMD at the LS and total hip (TH) in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Denosumab and risedronate improved trochanteric (TRO) BMD in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab improved FN BMD in WBC on AAIT. CONCLUSION: In MPC on HAT, denosumab (relative to placebo) was effective at preventing vertebral fractures and improving BMD at the FN and LS. Moreover, in WBC on AAIT, denosumab (relative to placebo) improved BMD at the FN, LS, TH, and TRO, as well as prevent vertebral fracture.

Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: 14 Years' Retrospective Study on Pathogenetic Trigger Events.

Although events such as tooth extraction and oral surgery were considered for a while the sole triggering factor for Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ), it is still unclear if trigger events may be precipitating factors that accelerate the onset of the disease that would have possibly occurred anyway. Therefore, this research aimed to retrospectively analyze MRONJ cases diagnosed in our tertiary referral hospital during the last 14 years, focusing on the onset of the disease, potential trigger events, and countermeasures to update the knowledge on their pathogenesis. An audit of patients diagnosed with MRONJ attending our department from 2008 to 2021was performed. χ2 test and Fisher exact test were employed to assess the relationship between the medications used and trigger events; χ2 test was also used to assess any relationship between MRONJ localization and drug, drug class, trigger, or trigger type. Seventy-six patients' records were identified. Fifty-two records were selected for analysis. Trigger events for the onset of the disease were found in 35 cases (67.3%). χ2 test showed a correlation between the drug used and trigger event occurrence (P=0.045) confirmed by Fisher exact test (P=0.34). Visual histogram analysis showed positive correlation when Alendronate (12 cases, 85.7%), Zoledronate (12 cases, 75%), and Risedronate (2 cases, 100%) were administered. Subgroup analysis per underlying disease, showed a significant correlation between the drug used and trigger event occurrence in the osteoporosis group (χ2 test, P=0.021; Fisher exact test, P=0.009).

Denosumabe e teriparatida para o tratamento indivíduos com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no Sistema Único de Saúde / Denosumab and teriparatide for the treatment of individuals with severe osteoporosis and therapeutic failure to the drugs available in the Unified Health System

INTRODUÇÃO: A osteoporose, doença que aumenta da fragilidade óssea e suscetibilidade à fratura, afeta cerca de 200 milhões de pessoas no mundo. No geral, a prevalência de osteoporose em estudos brasileiros varia de 6% a 33% dependendo da população e outras variáveis avaliadas. Entre os indivíduos com osteoporose, aqueles que apresentaram fratura osteoporótica têm duas vezes o risco para nova fratura. Para evitar novas fraturas, o tratamento preconizado deve incluir estratégias medicamentosas e não medicamentosas. Entre as medicamentosas, suplementação de cálcio e colecalciferol, alendronato, risedronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno, calcitonina e estrógenos conjugados são opções disponíveis no Protocolo Clínico de Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) de Osteoporose do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Apesar da disponibilidade de tratamentos, estima-se que 25% dos pacientes continuam a apresentar falha terapêutica aos tratamentos disponíveis. Nesse contexto, as diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais de sociedade médicas, recomendam o uso de denosumabe ou teriparatida a pacientes com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). Entretanto, há incerteza se os benefícios identificados para população em tratamento de primeira linha, principal população incluída nos estudos, são sustentados em população com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica em vigência de tratamento; e se a escolha, por estas opções terapêuticas, pode valer a pena e ser viável economicamente para o SUS. Assim, o objetivo do presente relatório é analisar as evidências científicas sobre eficácia, efetividade, segurança, bem como evidências econômicas do denosumabe e da teriparatida para o tratamento de pacientes com osteoporose grave com falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). TECNOLOGIAS: Denosumabe (Prolia®) e teriparatida (Fortéo®). PERGUNTA: Os medicamentos denosumabe e

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively. SEARCH METHODS: With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.

Antiresorptive treatments for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (CIO) is the most common type of secondary osteoporosis, leading to fractures, and increased morbidity and mortality. SOURCE OF DATA: Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar databases. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Prolonged glucocorticoids administration leads to secondary osteoporosis. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The optimal management for CIO is controversial. GROWING POINTS: The present study compared bone mineral density, fractures and adverse events in patients undergoing treatment with risedronate, alendronate, zoledronate, denosumab or etidronate for CIO. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: For selected patients with CIO, alendronate performed better overall. These results must be interpreted within the limitations of the present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Comparative Fracture Risk During Osteoporosis Drug Holidays After Long-Term Risedronate Versus Alendronate Therapy : A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: An osteoporosis drug holiday is recommended for most patients after 3 to 5 years of therapy. Risedronate has a shorter half-life than alendronate, and thus the residual length of fracture protection may be shorter. OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative risks of drug holidays after long-term (≥3 years) risedronate versus alendronate therapy. DESIGN: Population-based, matched, cohort study. SETTING: Province-wide health care administrative databases providing comprehensive coverage to Ontario residents aged 65 years or older between November 2000 and March 2020. PATIENTS: Persons aged 66 years or older who had long-term risedronate therapy and a drug holiday were matched 1:1 on propensity score to those who had long-term alendronate therapy and a drug holiday. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was hip fracture within 3 years after a 120-day ascertainment period. Secondary analyses included shorter follow-up and sex-specific estimates. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for fracture risk between groups. RESULTS: A total of 25 077 propensity score-matched pairs were eligible (mean age, 81 years; 81% women). Hip fracture rates were higher among risedronate than alendronate drug holidays (12.4 and 10.6 events, respectively, per 1000 patient-years; HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.34]; 915 total hip fractures). The association was attenuated when any fracture was included as the outcome (HR, 1.07 [CI, 1.00 to 1.16]) and with shorter drug holidays (1 year: HR, 1.03 [CI, 0.85 to 1.24]; 2 years: HR, 1.14 [CI, 0.96 to 1.32]). LIMITATION: Analyses were limited to health care administrative data (potential unmeasured confounding), and some secondary analyses contained few events. CONCLUSION: Drug holidays after long-term therapy with risedronate were associated with a small increase in risk for hip fracture compared with alendronate drug holidays. Future research should examine how best to mitigate this risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Efficacy and safety of sodium RISedronate for glucocorticoid-induced OsTeoporosis with rheumaTOid arthritis (RISOTTO study): A multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: No evidence has shown the efficacy of Sodium Risedronate (Risedronate) for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) in patients with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to explore the effectiveness and safety of Risedronate for GIO complicated with RA. METHODS: This was a six-month randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 95 patients with GIO complicated with RA from 19 centers. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density (L-BMD). Secondary endpoints included changes in femoral neck and total hip BMD and bone turnover markers, as well as rheumatoid arthritis Disease Activity Score with 28-joint counts. Incident of non-traumatic spine fractures and adverse events were tracked as safety endpoints. RESULTS: Increase in L-BMD was significantly greater in the Risedronate group compared to the Placebo group (Risedronate: 3.49% [95% CI: 1.92-5.05] vs Placebo: 0.12% [95% CI: -2.07 to 2.30], p < .0001). No significant difference was found in the femoral neck and total hip BMD. Although adverse events were observed in 28 patients, none were considered serious. Non-traumatic vertebral fractures were identified in 10 patients. CONCLUSION: Risedronate was effective in increasing L-BMD and was well tolerated in patients with GIO complicated with RA.

Bisphosphonates or RANK-ligand-inhibitors for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.

Conservative non-surgical management in medication related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To date, the best treatment for Medication Related Osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is controversial. Recent studies suggest different therapies, considering the stage of MRONJ; however, sometimes patients, although with remarkable extension of disease, cannot undergo surgery. The purpose of present preliminary study was to evaluate the efficacy of conservative non-surgical treatment of MRONJ lesions in a cohort of patients ineligible for surgery or refusing any surgical treatment for stage II and III of MRONJ. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MRONJ (staging II or III) ineligible for surgical treatment were selected for a retrospective study. A conservative non-surgical therapy (antibiotics and antiseptic) was administered for 1 year. Five scheduled checks were performed to assess changes in signs and symptoms during the observational period. RESULTS: Our observation was carried out on 12 patients. Improvement of signs and symptoms of disease were observed in population. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that non-surgical treatment may be a valid therapeutic option in patients ineligible for surgery. The sample size is small, further studies should be carried out to satisfy the aim of a conservative non-surgical treatment protocol establishment.

Efficacy of combined medication of risedronate sodium and selective estrogen receptor modulator on the postmenopausal osteoporosis.

To evaluate the efficacy of combined medication of risedronate sodium and raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) on the postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMOP). PMOP patients underwent the combined medication of risedronate sodium and raloxifene (SERM, Treatment group), or only medication of risedronate sodium (Control group). After medication, more significant increases were observed in the bone densities of the lumber vertebra (L1-4) and the neck of left femur of patients in the treatment group. Simultaneously, the levels of estrogen and progesterone in serum decreased sharply in the treatment group. After treatment, P1NP and ß-CTX levels in serum decreased significantly in two groups in comparison with the levels prior to treatment, with evident elevations in the levels of BAP and BGP; similarly, ameliorations in the treatment group were much more evident than those in the control group. In addition, significant declines were identified in the VAS scores of two groups after treatment when comparing to the scores prior to the treatment, and the decline in the treatment group was more evident than that in the control group. Combined medication of risedronate sodium and SERM (raloxifene) performs better in treatment of osteoporosis than the single use of risedronate sodium, without the deterioration of adverse effect of medication.

Effects of teriparatide compared with risedronate in the treatment of osteoporosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects and safety of teriparatide with risedronate in the treatment of osteoporosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library database were systematically reviewed for studies published up to February 24, 2019. Eligible studies that compared the effects of teriparatide with risedronate in osteoporosis were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes included percentage change in bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, the incidence of clinical fractures, serum bone markers, and adverse events. A random-effects or fixed-effects model was used to pool the estimate, according to the heterogeneity among the included studies. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with risedronate, teriparatide was associated with a significant increase in lumbar spine BMD [weight mean difference (WMD)=4.24, 95%CI: 3.11, 5.36; P < .001], femoral neck BMD (WMD=2.28, 95%CI: 1.39, 3.18; P < .001), and total hip BMD (WMD = 1.19, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.91; P = .001). Moreover, patients in teriparatide group had significantly lower incidences of clinical fracture (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.32, 0.72; P < .001), new vertebral fracture (RR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.32, 0.63; P < .001), and non-vertebral fracture (RR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.40, 0.98; P = .042) than those in risedronate group. There were significant differences between the 2 groups in serum change, including P1NP (WMD = 122.34, 95%CI: 68.89, 175.99; P < .001), CTx (WMD = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.29, 0.96; P < .001), and iPTH (WMD = -13.18, 95%CI: -15.04, -11.33; P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (RR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.69, 1.25; P = .610). CONCLUSION: This study suggested that teriparatide was more effective than risedronate for increasing the BMD in lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, as well as reducing the incidences of clinical fracture, new vertebral fracture and non-vertebral fracture. There was no significant difference in incidence of adverse events between the 2 drugs. Considering the potential limitations in the present study, further large-scale, well-performed randomized trials are needed to verify our findings.

Phase II/III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of monthly delayed-release versus daily immediate-release risedronate tablets in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis.

Absorption of oral immediate-release (IR) risedronate tablets is reduced by food intake, thus a delayed-release (DR) tablet has been developed to overcome the necessity of taking IR tablets under fasting conditions. This randomized, double-blind, phase II/III study compared efficacy and safety of risedronate IR once-daily (QD) and DR once-monthly (QM) tablets in Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis. Patients received 2.5 mg IR on awakening QD, or 25 or 37.5 mg DR on awakening, following breakfast, or 30 min after breakfast, QM for 12 months. Primary endpoint was non-inferiority in mean percent change from baseline to end of study (month 12, last observation carried forward [M12, LOCF]) in mean lumbar spine (L2-L4) bone mineral density (BMD) between risedronate IR on awakening and DR following breakfast. Mean percent changes in (L2-L4) BMD at M12, LOCF were 5.07% (IR at awakening, n = 190), 3.36% (25 mg DR following breakfast, n = 194), and 4.11% (37.5 mg DR following breakfast, n = 181). Mean percent change in (L2-L4) BMD was numerically lower in the DR following breakfast groups versus the respective on awakening and 30 min after breakfast DR groups. Overall incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between groups. In the DR groups, 1.5-4.0% of patients reported TEAEs potentially associated with acute-phase reactions versus 0% in the IR group. In this study, non-inferiority could not be declared for 37.5 or 25 mg DR following breakfast QM (p = 0.1346 or p = 0.6711, respectively) versus 2.5 mg IR on awakening QD.

Eficácia e segurança do denosumabe comparado aos bifosfonados orais para tratamento de osteoporose e prevenção de fraturas: revisão rápida de evidências / Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared to oral biposphonates for treating osteoporosis and fracture prevention: rapid review of evidence

Tecnologia: Denosumabe e bifosfonados. Indicação: tratamento de osteoporose para prevenção de fraturas. Pergunta: O denosumabe é mais eficaz e seguro que os bifosfonados orais para tratamento da osteoporose e prevenção de fraturas secundárias à osteoporose? Métodos: Levantamento bibliográfico realizado na PUBMED seguindo estratégia de busca predefinida. Avaliação da qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas com a ferramenta AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foram selecionadas e incluídas 3 revisões sistemáticas, com pontuação de 9 a 11 no AMSTAR. Conclusão: Denosumabe tem menor risco relativo que alendronato e risedronato de sódio para fraturas vertebrais e maior efeito sobre densidade óssea mineral femoral, com risco similar de outros tipos de fratura e eventos adversos (infecções, transtornos cardiovasculares, óbito por infecção, morte cardiovascular ou por qualquer causa). Denosumabe evita 0,00154 fraturas, previne 0,00025 institucionalizações (ou cuidados permanentes de enfermagem no domicílio) e promove um ganho de 0,0018 anos de vida a mais que o alendronato de sódio por paciente tratado. Denosumabe é um pouco mais eficaz e tão seguro quanto os bifosfonados, mas a diferença de eficácia é mínima

Technology: Denosumab and bisphosphonates. Indication: osteoporosis treatment for fracture prevention. Question: Denosumab is more effective and safer than oral bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis and preventing fractures related to osteoporosis? Methods: Bibliographic search was performed on PUBMED, following predefined search strategies. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews was carried out using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. Results: We selected and included 3 systematic reviews. Their scores ranged from 9 to 11 on AMSTAR. Conclusion: Denosumab has a lower relative risk than sodium alendronate and risedronate for vertebral fractures and greater effect on femoral mineral bone density, with a similar risk for non-vertebral fractures and adverse events (infections, cardiovascular disorders, death caused by infection, cardiovascular death or any cause mortality). Denosumab avoids 0.00154 fractures, prevents 0.00025 nursing home/ residential care admissions and get 0.0018 years of life gained per treated patient more than sodium alendronate. Denosumab is slightly more effective and as safe as bisphosphonates, but the effectiveness difference is minimal

Safety and efficacy of risedronate for patients with esophageal varices and liver cirrhosis: a non-randomized clinical trial.

Despite the high prevalence of osteoporosis in liver cirrhosis, the indication of bisphosphonates for patients with esophageal varices has been avoided due to risk of digestive mucosal damage. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety profile of risedronate treatment for patients with osteoporosis, liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices with low risk of bleeding. A total of 120 patients were allocated into two groups according to their bone mineral density measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. In the intervention group, 57 subjects with osteoporosis received oral risedronate at 35 mg weekly plus daily calcium and vitamin D supplementation. In the control group, 63 subjects with osteopenia received only calcium and vitamin D. The groups received the treatment for one year and underwent surveillance endoscopies at six and 12 months, as well as a control dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry after a 12-month follow-up. The study received Institutional Review Board approval. The groups had not only comparable Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and esophageal varices degree, but also similar incidence of digestive adverse effects. A significant improvement was achieved in the intervention group in the lumbar spine T score (p < 0.001). The results suggest that risedronate may be safely used in liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices with low bleeding risk under endoscopic surveillance, thus allowing bone mass recovery.

Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw by the use of osteoclast inhibitors in patients with bone metastases: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of osteoclast inhibitors in metastatic bone disease, increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk of fracture, patients with osteonecrosis have been reported after the chronic use of these inhibitors. In our country, the use of osteoclast inhibitors is in the context of osteoporosis and bone metastases, so it is important to describe the incidence of this complication in Mexican population. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaws at the Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, during the period from January 1st, 2010 to June 1st, 2016. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study developed at the Centro Medico Nacional 20 Noviembre, ISSSTE, Mexico. We included all patients who received bisphosphonates or denosumab in the context of metastatic bone disease due to solid tumors and who had osteonecrosis of the jaw. RESULTS: A 802 patients who used bisphosphonates or denosumab in metastatic bone disease (699 bisphosphonates and 103 denosumab). Of these, 28 (3.5%) patients presented osteonecrosis. The median use of zoledronic acid for the presence of osteonecrosis was 25 months (15-49 months) and for Denosumab it was 16 months (11-35 months), without finding significant differences between the use of drugs p = 0.511 and the risk of osteonecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-induced osteonecrosis has a low incidence in Mexican population, denosumab does not show a greater number of cases of osteonecrosis compared to bisphosphonates; no association was found between functional status, number of metastatic bone sites, nor use of antigenic or tyrosine kinase inhibitors as factor associated with osteonecrosis of the jaws.

ANTECEDENTES: El uso de inhibidores de osteoclastos en la enfermedad metastasica ósea tiene como objetivo aumentar la densidad mineral ósea y reducir el riesgo de fractura. Se han reportado pacientes con osteonecrosis de los maxilares tras el uso crónico de estos inhibidores. En nuestro país, los inhibidores de osteoclastos se usan en el contexto de osteoporosis y de metástasis óseas, por lo que es importante describir la incidencia de esta complicación en población mexicana. OBJETIVO: Describir la incidencia de osteonecrosis de los maxilares en el Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, durante el periodo del 1 de enero del 2010 al 1 de junio de 2016. MÉTODO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectiva desarrollado en el Centro Médico Nacional 20 de Noviembre, del Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado, en Ciudad de México. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes que recibieron bisfosfonatos o denosumab con enfermedad metastasica ósea por tumores sólidos, y que presentaron osteonecrosis de mandíbula. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron 802 pacientes que recibieron bisfosfonatos o denosumab en enfermedad metastasica ósea (699 bifosfonatos y 103 denosumab). De ellos, 28 (3.5%) presentaron osteonecrosis. La mediana de uso de ácido zoledrónico para la presencia de osteonecrosis fue de 25 meses (15-49 meses), y para denosumab fue de 16 meses (11-35 meses), sin encontrar diferencias significativas entre ellos (p = 0.511) y el riesgo de osteonecrosis. CONCLUSIONES: La osteonecrosis inducida por medicamentos tiene una baja incidencia en población mexicana. El denosumab no muestra un mayor número de casos de osteonecrosis en comparación con los bisfosfonatos. No se encontró asociación entre el estado funcional, el número de sitios óseos metastásicos ni el uso de antiangiogénicos o de inhibidores de la tirosina cinasa como factor asociado a osteonecrosis de los maxilares.

Fractura atípica de fémur relacionada con el uso prolongado de bifosfonatos. La importancia de decir "basta" / Atypical fracture of the femur related to prolonged bisphosphonate use. The importance of saying 'enough's enough'

La osteoporosis es una enfermedad con una alta prevalencia e importantes consecuencias. Los bifosfonatos son los fármacos más utilizados para controlarla, sin embargo, su uso durante periodos prolongados se asocia con el riesgo de fracturas atípicas. Se presentan los casos de 2 pacientes en tratamiento con bifosfonatos que presentaron fracturas femorales atípicas bilaterales; en un caso fueron simultáneas, sin traumatismo desencadenante, y en el otro fueron diferidas tras sendos traumatismos banales. En ambos casos la fractura fue precedida de clínica dolorosa. Fueron tratadas mediante enclavado intramedular y supresión de los bifosfonatos, con buenos resultados. Aunque los bifosfonatos han demostrado su eficacia en la prevención de fracturas por fragilidad, su uso prolongado se ha asociado paradójicamente a fracturas atípicas. Estas fracturas suelen estar precedidas de dolor, por lo que ante ello es necesario realizar estudios de imagen, en los que pueden evidenciarse fracturas incompletas que podrían beneficiarse de un enclavamiento profiláctico antes de que se produzca la fractura completa

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent disease with important consequences. The most widely used drugs to control this disease are bisphosphonates but their prolonged use is associated with the risk of atypical fractures. We report the cases of two patients under bisphosphonate treatment with bilateral atypical femoral fractures. In one patient the fractures occurred simultaneously, unprovoked by trauma, and in the other, they occurred as delayed fractures after mild trauma. In both cases, the fractures were preceded by pain. The fractures were treated with intramedullary nailing and bisphosphonate withdrawal with good outcomes. Although bisphosphonates have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing frailty-related fractures, their prolonged use has paradoxically been associated with atypical fractures. These fractures are usually preceded by pain. Consequently, when faced with this clinical picture, physicians should request imaging studies that could show incomplete fractures that could benefit from prophylactic nailing before becoming complete fractures