Twelve-month resistance and impact exercise program or risedronate provides a relative benefit to hip bone structure in postmenopausal women: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Bone strength estimates are important for fracture prevention. This study compared bone strength changes in postmenopausal women with low bone mass who were assigned to 12 months of exercise, a bone medication, or control. Exercise and bone medications benefited structure at the hip. Structure should be considered in fracture prevention research. PURPOSE: Exercise and bisphosphonates reduce fracture risk, but their impact on estimates of bone strength remains uncertain. This study compared changes in tibial bone strength using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) and hip structure analysis (HSA) outcomes from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans in postmenopausal women with low bone mass assigned to 12 months of exercise, risedronate, or control. METHODS: In this RCT, 276 postmenopausal women within 6 years of menopause were randomly assigned to three groups: exercise (92), risedronate (91), or control (93). Exercise included weighted jogging and progressive resistance exercises; risedronate treatment was 150 mg monthly; all groups received calcium and vitamin D. pQCT and DXA images were obtained at baseline and 6 and 12 months and compared between groups over time. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (± SD) age of 54.5 (± 3.2) years with an average of 36.7 (± 40.7) months postmenopause. No significant differences were found between groups for the change in pQCT outcomes (volumetric bone mineral density, area, and strength estimates). At 12 months, mean percent differences (95% CI) in HSA measures between exercise and controls were as follows: intertrochanteric, cross-sectional area 2.25% (0.28, 4.12) (p = .03), cross-sectional moment of inertia (CSMI) 5.67% (1.47, 9.87) (p < .01), and section modulus (SM) 4.38% (1.02, 7.74) (p = .01), and narrow neck, average cortical thickness 2.37% (-0.08, 4.83) (p = .031). Mean percent differences (95% CI) in HSA measures between risedronate and control were as follows: intertrochanteric, CSMI 4.28% (-0.24, 8.81) (p = .03) and SM 3.35% (-0.21, 6.91) (p = .03), and shaft, subperiosteal width 0.82% (0.05, 1.58) (p = .047), CSMI 2.53% (0.88, 4.18) (p = .004), and SM 1.57% (0.34, 2.8) (p = .008). Exercise maintained neck-shaft angle compared to both control 1.27% (0.13, 2.41) (p = .04) and risedronate 1.31% (0.23, 2.39) (p = .03). All other differences for changes in HSA outcomes over time were not significantly different between the exercise and risedronate groups. CONCLUSION: Exercise and bisphosphonates may influence structural and strength estimates at the hip, but not at peripheral sites (tibia). Neither exercise nor bisphosphonates were found to be superior in improving estimates of hip bone strength.

Micronanoparticled risedronate exhibits potent vaccine adjuvant effects.

Micro/Nano-scale particles are widely used as vaccine adjuvants to enhance immune response and improve antigen stability. While aluminum salt is one of the most common adjuvants approved for human use, its immunostimulatory capacity is suboptimal. In this study, we modified risedronate, an immunostimulant and anti-osteoporotic drug, to create zinc salt particle-based risedronate (Zn-RS), also termed particulate risedronate. Compared to soluble risedronate, micronanoparticled Zn-RS adjuvant demonstrated increased recruitment of innate cells, enhanced antigen uptake locally, and a similar antigen depot effect as aluminum salt. Furthermore, Zn-RS adjuvant directly and quickly stimulated immune cells, accelerated the formulation of germinal centers in lymph nodes, and facilitated the rapid production of antibodies. Importantly, Zn-RS adjuvant exhibited superior performance in both young and aged mice, effectively protecting against respiratory diseases such as SARS-CoV-2 challenge. Consequently, particulate risedronate showed great potential as an immune-enhancing vaccine adjuvant, particularly beneficial for vaccines targeting the susceptible elderly.

Cost-effectiveness of weekly gastro-resistant risedronate 35 mg, compared with weekly alendronate 70 mg tablets, in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) with weekly gastro-resistant risedronate 35 mg gastro-resistant tablets (RIS-GR), compared with weekly alendronate 70 mg tablets (ALN) in Spain. Methods: A probabilistic analysis (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) was performed with a time horizon of 5 years, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. The bone fracture probabilities were obtained from a cohort study of 3614 women from USA with PMO treated with RIS-GR (1807) or ALN (1807) (Thomasius, 2022). The pharmacological cost and the cost of fractures were obtained from Spanish sources (€ 2022). The utilities of patients with and without fracture (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were obtained from the medical literature. Results: Compared with ALN, treatment with RIS-GR can avoid 79 fractures (between 75 and 82) every 1000 patients treated, and 0.0119 QALYs would be gained (between 0.0098 and 0.0140) per patient. Additionally, GR-RIS would generate a cost saving per patient of €1994 (€1437-2904) with a probability of 99.7%. The scenario analyses confirmed the stability of the base case results. Conclusion: According to this study, RIS-GR would be the dominant treatment (lower costs with QALY gain) compared with ALN.

The Clinical Effectiveness of Denosumab (Prolia®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women, Compared to Bisphosphonates, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM), and Placebo: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; bazedoxifene, raloxifene) or placebo, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW). Systematic searches were run in PubMed, Embase & Cochrane Library on 27-April-2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included osteoporotic PMW allocated to denosumab, SERMs, bisphosphonates, or placebo were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Bayesian network and/or pairwise meta-analyses were conducted on predetermined outcomes (i.e. vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, adverse events [AEs], serious AEs (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, AEs caused by denosumab discontinuation). A total of 12 RCTs (k = 22 publications; n = 25,879 participants) were included in the analyses. Denosumab, reported a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD, compared to placebo. Similarly, denosumab also resulted in a statistically significant increase in TH BMD compared to the raloxifene and bazedoxifene. However, relative to denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate resulted in significant improvements in both femoral neck (FN) and LS BMD. With regards to vertebral fractures and all safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between denosumab and any of the comparator. Relative to placebo, denosumab was associated with significant benefits in both LS and TH BMD. Additionally, denosumab (compared to placebo) was not associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Finally, denosumab was not associated with improvement in safety outcomes, compared to placebo. These findings should be interpreted with caution as some analyses suffered from statistical imprecision.

Fracture risk in women with osteoporosis initiated on gastro-resistant risedronate versus immediate release risedronate or alendronate: a claims data analysis in the USA.

The study results indicate that women with osteoporosis initiated on gastro-resistant risedronate have a lower risk of fracture than those initiated on immediate release risedronate or alendronate. A large proportion of women discontinued all oral bisphosphonate therapies within 1 year of treatment start. PURPOSE: Using a US claims database (2009-2019), we compared risk of fractures between women with osteoporosis initiated on gastro-resistant (GR) risedronate and those initiated on (a) immediate release (IR) risedronate or (b) immediate release alendronate. METHODS: Women aged ≥ 60 years with osteoporosis who had ≥ 2 oral bisphosphonate prescription fills were followed for ≥ 1 year after the first observed bisphosphonates dispensing (index date). Fracture risk was compared between the GR risedronate and IR risedronate/alendronate cohorts using adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs), both overall and in subgroups with high fracture risk due to older age or comorbidity/medications. Site-specific fractures were identified based on diagnosis codes recorded on medical claims using a claims-based algorithm. Persistence on bisphosphonate therapy was evaluated for all groups. RESULTS: aIRRs generally indicated lower fracture risk for GR risedronate than IR risedronate and alendronate. When comparing GR risedronate to IR risedronate, statistically significant aIRRs (p < 0.05) were observed for pelvic fractures in the full cohorts (aIRRs = 0.37), for any fracture and pelvic fractures among women aged ≥ 65 years (aIRRs = 0.63 and 0.41), for any fracture and pelvic fractures among women aged ≥ 70 years (aIRRs = 0.69 and 0.24), and for pelvic fracture among high-risk women due to comorbidity/medications (aIRR = 0.34). When comparing GR risedronate to alendronate, statistically significant aIRRs were observed for pelvic fractures in the full cohorts (aIRR = 0.54), for any fracture and wrist/arm fractures among women aged ≥ 65 years (aIRRs = 0.73 and 0.63), and for any fracture, pelvic, and wrist/arm fractures among women aged ≥ 70 years (aIRRs = 0.72, 0.36, and 0.58). In all cohorts, ~ 40% completely discontinued oral bisphosphonates within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation rates of oral bisphosphonate therapy were high. However, women initiated on GR risedronate had a significantly lower risk of fracture for several skeletal sites than women initiated on IR risedronate/alendronate, particularly those aged ≥ 70 years.

Ibandronate in the Prevention of Vertebral and Nonvertebral Osteoporotic Fractures: A Systematic Review of Experimental and Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's guidance and reporting in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement 2020. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE since their inception until February 7, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, experimental, and observational studies evaluating adult patients treated with ibandronate and assessed to osteoporotic fractures prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed according to study design. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Eight references from 4 RCTs, 7 meta-analyses, and 6 observational studies were included. In RCTs, oral ibandronate was superior to placebo in the prevention of VF. However, the doses were lower than those approved. The meta-analyses confirmed these results and showed that adequate doses of oral ibandronate reduce the risk of NVF compared with insufficient doses. In observational studies, oral ibandronate (in approved doses) reduced the risk of VF compared with no treatment or risedronate or alendronate and the risk of NVF versus risedronate or alendronate; the risk of hip fractures was similar between ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that ibandronate reduces the risk of VF in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available evidence further suggests that ibandronate may reduce the risk of NVF versus insufficient doses of ibandronate, as well as risedronate or alendronate.

Utilization patterns and factors associated with persistence of new users of anti-osteoporosis treatment in Denmark: a population-based cohort study.

Persistence with initial treatment was highest after 1 year, decreasing afterwards. Persistence was highest for denosumab followed by alendronate. We identified several factors associated with treatment persistence, some of which were the same irrespective of OTx agent, which could help target subgroups of patients in terms of social and healthcare support. PURPOSE: To describe patient characteristics, persistence, and factors associated with the persistence of new users of the bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate) and the RANKL inhibitor denosumab in Denmark. METHODS: A population-based cohort study using health registries (2010-2018). We included alendronate (n = 128,590), risedronate (n = 892), ibandronate (n = 5,855), and denosumab (n = 16,469) users, aged ≥ 50 years. RESULTS: The 1-year persistence was 68.2% in the alendronate cohort; 39.3% in the risedronate cohort; 56.3% in the ibandronate cohort; and 84.0% in the denosumab cohort. The 2-year persistence was 58.7% in the alendronate cohort; 28.0% in the risedronate cohort; 42.9% in the ibandronate cohort; and 71.9% in the denosumab cohort. The 4-year persistence was 46.3%, 15.4%, 29.6%, and 56.9%, respectively. Later years of treatment initiation were associated with lower persistence for alendronate (adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was 0.86 (0.81-0.91) in 2016 compared to 2010), but not for risedronate (OR was 1.56 (0.60-4.06), ibandronate (OR was 0.92 (0.71-1.19) or denosumab (OR was 1.11 (0.87-1.43). Older age was associated with higher persistence for all medications and the same goes for the female sex except for ibandronate. Dementia was associated with higher persistence for alendronate but not denosumab, whereas prior osteoporosis treatment (OT) was the opposite. Several comorbidities were associated with lower persistence for alendronate, but not denosumab. CONCLUSION: Persistence was highest for denosumab followed by alendronate. We identified several factors associated with treatment persistence, some of which were the same irrespective of OTx agent, which could help target subgroups of patients in terms of social and healthcare support.

Nebulization of risedronate alleviates airway obstruction and inflammation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases via suppressing prenylation-dependent RAS/ERK/NF-κB and RhoA/ROCK1/MLCP signaling.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disorder that causes airway obstruction and lung inflammation. The first-line treatment of COPD is the bronchodilators of ß2-agonists and antimuscarinic drugs, which can help control the airway obstruction, but the long-term use might render the drug tolerance. Bisphosphonates are widely used in osteoclast-mediated bone diseases treatment for decades. For drug repurposing, can delivery of a third generation of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, risedronate (RIS) ameliorate the progression of COPD? METHODS: COPD rats or mice models have been established through cigarette-smoking and elastase injection, and then the animals are received RIS treatment via nebulization. Lung deposition of RIS was primarily assessed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The respiratory parameters of airway obstruction in COPD rats and mice were documented using plethysmography method and resistance-compliance system. RESULTS: High lung deposition and bioavailability of RIS was monitored with 88.8% of RIS input dose. We found that RIS could rescue the lung function decline of airspace enlargement and mean linear intercept in the COPD lung. RIS could curb the airway obstruction by suppressing 60% of the respiratory resistance and elevating the airway's dynamic compliance, tidal volume and mid-expiratory flow. As an inhibitor of farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FDPS), RIS suppresses FDPS-mediated RAS and RhoA prenylation to obstruct its membrane localization in airway smooth muscle cells (ASMCs), leading to the inhibition of downstream ERK-MLCK and ROCK1-MLCP pathway to cause ASMCs relaxation. Additionally, RIS nebulization impeded pro-inflammatory cell accumulation, particularly macrophages infiltration in alveolar parenchyma. The NF-κB, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, IL-1ß, IL-8, and IL-6 declined in microphages following RIS nebulization. Surprisingly, nebulization of RIS could overcome the tolerance of ß2-agonists in COPD-rats by increasing the expression of ß2 receptors. CONCLUSIONS: Nebulization of RIS could alleviate airway obstruction and lung inflammation in COPD, providing a novel strategy for treating COPD patients, even those with ß2-agonists tolerance.

Osteoclast and Sclerostin Expression in Osteocytes in the Femoral Head with Risedronate Therapy in Patients with Hip Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study.

Background and Objectives: The majority of research on the effects of osteoporosis drugs has measured the bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine and femur through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and compared and analyzed the effects of the drugs through changes in the BMD values. This study aims to compare osteoclast and sclerostin expression in osteocytes after risedronate therapy by obtaining femoral heads from patients with hip fractures. Materials and Methods: We obtained the femoral heads of 10 female patients (age: ≥65 years) who received risedronate therapy for at least 1 year through hip arthroplasty during 2019−2021 (risedronate group). Meanwhile, 10 patients who had never received osteoporosis treatment were selected as controls using propensity scores with age, body mass index, and bone density as covariates (control group). While the osteoclast count was evaluated using tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining, the sclerostin expression in osteocytes was assessed using immunohistochemistry. Moreover, Western blotting and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were performed for receptor activation of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (RANKL), RANK, osteoprotegerin (OPG), sclerostin, and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP2). Results: TRAP staining revealed significantly more TRAP-positive cells in the control group (131.75 ± 27.16/mm2) than in the risedronate group (28.00 ± 8.12/mm2). Moreover, sclerostin-positive osteocytes were expressed more in the control group (364.12 ± 28.12/mm2) than in the risedronate group (106.93 ± 12.85/mm2). Western blotting revealed that the expressions of RANKL, RANK, sclerostin, and BMP2 were higher in the control group than in the risedronate group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, RANK, sclerostin, and OPG protein levels were higher in the control group than in the risedronate group. Conclusions: In this study, the risedronate group demonstrated lower osteoclast activity and sclerostin expression in osteocytes in the femoral head than the control group.

Novel formulations of oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis.

Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of evidence; however, patient adherence to oral bisphosphonates remains poor in part due to complex dosing instructions and adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This problem has led to the development of novel oral bisphosphonate formulations. Buffered, effervescent alendronate is dissolved in water and so seeks to reduce upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, and gastro-resistant risedronate aims to reduce the complexity of dosing procedure (e.g. fasting prior to consumption) whilst still maintaining the efficacy of fracture risk reduction. Clinical trials and real-world data have been employed to demonstrate some benefits in terms of reduced upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, adherence, persistence and health economic outcomes. This report describes the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores where oral bisphosphonates sit in current clinical practice guidelines, review their risk-benefit profile and the consequences of poor adherence before exploring novel oral bisphosphonate formulations and their potential clinical and health economic impact. Further research is required but there are signs that these novel, oral bisphosphonate formulations may lead to improved tolerance of oral bisphosphonates and thus, improved adherence and fracture outcomes.

Polypharmacy in Osteoporosis Treatment.

In older adults, polypharmacy and osteoporosis frequently occur contemporaneously. Polypharmacy is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for hip and fall-related fractures. Treatments for osteoporosis include antiresorptive (alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, ibandronate, denosumab) and osteoanabolic (teriparatide, abaloparatide, romosozumab) agents. Polypharmacy is associated with worse adherence to pharmacologic therapy. Thus, the selection of osteoporosis treatment should be individualized and based on a variety of factors, including underlying fracture risk (high vs very high risk), medical comorbidities, medication burden, as well as fracture risk reduction profiles, modes of administration, and side effects of treatment options.

Aminobisfosfonatos: reconsideración a los 25 años de su aprobación para el tratamiento de la osteoporosis / Aminobisphosphonates: Reconsideration 25 years after their approval for the treatment of osteoporosis

Aminobisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis. They have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite, binding primarily to resorbing surfaces, but also to forming surfaces and to some extent to resting surfaces. They inhibit osteoclasts, thereby decreasing remodelling units. Consequently, they increase bone mass and reduce stress risers. This decreases the risk of fractures. If this decrease is sufficient, they can be temporarily withdrawn (drug holidays), which prevents serious complications (atypical femoral fracture). They probably reduce mortality. Virtually all patients with osteoporosis can benefit from them at some point in the course of their disease (at the beginning of treatment or after the administration of anabolics, selective estrogen receptor modulators or denosumab). If well tolerated orally, alendronate and risedronate are preferable. Otherwise, zoledronate is preferred. Their efficacy vs. cost-safety-convenience ratio makes aminobisphosphonates reference drugs in the field of osteoporosis. (AU)

Los aminobisfosfonatos se utilizan ampliamente en el tratamiento de la osteoporosis. Tienen gran afinidad por la hidroxiapatita, uniéndose fundamentalmente a las superficies en resorción, pero también a las superficies en formación y, en cierta medida, a las superficies en reposo. Inhiben a los osteoclastos, con lo que disminuyen las unidades de remodelación. En consecuencia, aumentan la masa ósea y reducen los concentradores de tensión. Ello disminuye el riesgo de fracturas. Si esta disminución es suficiente, pueden retirarse transitoriamente (vacaciones terapéuticas), lo que previene complicaciones graves (fractura atípica de fémur). Probablemente disminuyen la mortalidad. Pueden beneficiarse de ellos prácticamente todos los enfermos con osteoporosis en algún momento de su evolución (al comienzo del tratamiento o tras la administración de anabólicos, moduladores selectivos de los receptores estrogénicos o denosumab). Con buena tolerancia oral son preferibles el alendronato y el risedronato. En caso contrario, lo es el zoledronato. Su relación eficacia frente a coste-seguridad-comodidad los convierte en fármacos de referencia en el campo de la osteoporosis. (AU)

Denosumab Versus Bisphosphonates for the Prevention of the Vertebral Fractures in Men with Osteoporosis: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the prevention of vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis by treatment with denosumab is debated. This study aimed to update the comparative effectiveness of denosumab and bisphosphonates for preventing vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials that enrolled men with osteoporosis. Fixed-effects network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the risk of vertebral fractures, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confident interval (CI) values were calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, and the identified bisphosphonates were risedronate, alendronate, zoledronic acid, and ibandronate. Compared with placebo or control, a significant reduction in vertebral fractures was observed for denosumab (RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.13 0.68), risedronate (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.19 0.77), and zoledronic acid (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.21 0.98). According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), denosumab was the most effective one among the included agents for the risk reduction of vertebral fracture. However, compared with each bisphosphonate, the RR values of denosumab were not significant [RR 0.78 (95%CI 0.25 2.43) vs. risedronate, RR 0.55 (95%CI 0.18 1.75) vs. alendronate, RR 0.66 (95%CI 0.19 2.32) vs. zoledronic acid and RR 1.12 (95%CI 0.08 14.83) vs. ibandronate]. CONCLUSION: Denosumab effectively reduced the risk of vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis, and this effect was comparable to that of bisphosphonates.

Anti-malarial effect of a combination of risedronate and azithromycin against Plasmodium yoelii nigeriensis infection in Swiss mice.

Combination therapy is used to retard the selection of malaria parasite strains resistant to individual components of a combination of drugs. This approach has proved to be a success in the combination of sulphadoxine and pyrimethamine, which targets two different steps in the folate pathway of malaria parasites. However, after the success of this therapeutic combination, the efficacy of other combinations of drugs that target different enzymes in a particular metabolic pathway has, apparently, not been reported. In the current study, the antimalarial effect of a combination of risedronate (RIS), which is known for its anti-osteoporosis activity, and azithromycin (AZT) was investigated. Peter's suppression test was carried out on mice infected with 1 × 107P. yoelii infected erythrocytes. Drug efficacy was analyzed by comparing the percent reduction in parasitaemia on day 4 post-infection. RIS was observed to be a blood schizonticidal agent against P. yoelii infection which showed ED50 7.0 (4.04-12.13) mg/kg/day x 4. Normalized isobologram showed additive action between RIS 1 mg/kg/day x 4 and AZT 10 mg/kg/day x 4, and antagonistic action for the rest of the combinations (RIS 1 + AZT 20, RIS 1 + AZT 40, RIS 5 + AZT 10, RIS 5 + AZT 20, RIS 5 + AZT 40, RIS 10 + AZT 10, RIS 10 + AZT 20 and RIS 10 + AZT 40 mg/kg/day x 4). Furthermore, a combination of RIS with AZT showed inferior efficacy as compared to AZT treatment alone. This antagonistic interaction may be due to the high accumulation of AZT in WBCs, which will reduce its serum bio-availability, whereas RIS has anti-parasitic activity by increasing WBCs.

Aminobisphosphonates: Reconsideration 25 years after their approval for the treatment of osteoporosis. / Aminobisfosfonatos: reconsideración a los 25 años de su aprobación para el tratamiento de la osteoporosis.

Aminobisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis. They have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite, binding primarily to resorbing surfaces, but also to forming surfaces and to some extent to resting surfaces. They inhibit osteoclasts, thereby decreasing remodelling units. Consequently, they increase bone mass and reduce stress risers. This decreases the risk of fractures. If this decrease is sufficient, they can be temporarily withdrawn (drug holidays), which prevents serious complications (atypical femoral fracture). They probably reduce mortality. Virtually all patients with osteoporosis can benefit from them at some point in the course of their disease (at the beginning of treatment or after the administration of anabolics, selective estrogen receptor modulators or denosumab). If well tolerated orally, alendronate and risedronate are preferable. Otherwise, zoledronate is preferred. Their efficacy vs. cost-safety-convenience ratio makes aminobisphosphonates reference drugs in the field of osteoporosis.

Two-year risedronate treatment for osteoporosis in patients with esophageal varices: a non-randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are the mainstay of osteoporosis treatment, but their use for patients with esophageal varices has been avoided due to the risk of esophagitis, which may cause variceal bleeding. Since most clinical trials assessing osteoporosis treatment last 2-3 years, this study aimed to evaluate a 2-year risedronate treatment for patients with esophageal varices and liver cirrhosis. METHODS: The study received Institutional Review Board approval, and the sample was divided into two groups according to bone mineral density (BMD). Cirrhosis severity and endoscopic findings at baseline were similar between the groups. The intervention group had 51 patients with osteoporosis, who received oral risedronate 35 mg weekly plus calcium and vitamin D supplements. The control group had 51 patients with osteopenia, receiving only the supplements. Scheduled esophagogastroduodenoscopies and BMD measurements were carried out. RESULTS: The adjusted esophagitis risk was higher in the intervention group; however, none of the subjects had digestive bleeding. Lumbar spine BMD increased in the intervention group (- 3.06 ± 0.71 to - 2.33 ± 0.90; p < 0.001) and in the control group (- 1.38 ± 0.77 to - 1.10 ± 1.05; p = 0.012). Femoral neck BMD did not change in the intervention group (- 1.64 ± 0.91 to - 1.71 ± 0.95; p = 0.220), but tended to decrease in the control group (- 1.00 ± 0.74 to - 1.09 ± 0.82; p = 0.053). CONCLUSION: Oral risedronate was effective and did not cause gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices under endoscopic surveillance.

Reduced All-Cause Mortality With Bisphosphonates Among Post-Fracture Osteoporosis Patients: A Nationwide Study and Systematic Review.

We assessed the survival outcomes associated with real-world bisphosphonate use, stratified by fracture site, type, administration, and duration of treatment, among patients with osteoporosis. A systematic review that incorporates our findings was conducted to provide up-to-date evidence on survival outcomes with bisphosphonate treatment in real-world settings. Patients diagnosed with osteoporosis who had been hospitalized for major fractures were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database 2008-2017 and followed until 2018. There were 24,390 new bisphosphonate users who were classified and compared with 76,725 nonusers of anti-osteoporosis medications in terms of survival outcomes using Cox model analysis. An inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model and landmark analyses for minimizing immortal time bias were also performed. Bisphosphonate users vs. nonusers had a significantly lower mortality risk, regardless of fracture site (hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for patients with any major fracture, hip fracture, and vertebral fracture: 0.90 (0.88, 0.93), 0.83 (0.80, 0.86), and 0.86 (0.82, 0.89), respectively). Compared with nonuse, zoledronic acid (0.77 (0.73, 0.82)) was associated with the lowest mortality, followed by ibandronate (0.85 (0.78, 0.93)) and alendronate/risedronate (0.93 (0.91, 0.96)). Using bisphosphonates for ≥ 3 years had lower mortality (0.60 (0.53, 0.67)) than using bisphosphonates for < 3 years (0.98 (0.95, 1.01)). Intravenous bisphosphonates had a lower mortality than that of oral bisphosphonates. Our results are consistent with the systematic review findings among real-world populations. In conclusion, bisphosphonate use, especially persistence to intravenous bisphosphonates (e.g., zoledronic acid), may reduce post-fracture mortality among patients with osteoporosis, particularly those with hip/vertebral fractures. This supports the rational use of bisphosphonates in post-fracture care.

Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture in Canada.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab followed by alendronate versus oral bisphosphonates alone in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at very high risk for fracture in Canada. Results showed that romosozumab sequenced to alendronate is a cost-effective treatment option, dominating both alendronate and risedronate alone. PURPOSE: To demonstrate the value of romosozumab sequenced to alendronate compared to alendronate or risedronate alone, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with a history of osteoporotic fracture and who are at very high risk for future fracture in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model followed a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women at very high risk for future fractures, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab and alendronate compared to oral bisphosphonates alone. A total treatment period of 5 years was assumed. Quality-adjusted life years and costs were estimated for each comparator across health states defined by different types of fragility fractures. RESULTS: Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with a lifetime gain of 0.103 and 0.127 QALYs and a cost reduction of $343 and $3805, relative to alendronate and risedronate, respectively. These results were driven by a reduction of the number of fractures (2561 per 1000 patients, versus 2700 for alendronate and 2724 for risedronate over lifetime). Romosozumab/alendronate had the highest probability of being cost-effective, relative to alendronate and risedronate, at any willingness to pay threshold value. CONCLUSION: Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with reduced costs and greater benefit relative to other comparators. Probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses indicate that romosozumab/alendronate represents the best value for money; the uncertainty analyses are robust, and therefore romosozumab should be considered for reimbursement by public drug plans in Canada .

Pharmacological Therapies for Osteoporosis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for eligible RCTs from their inception up to January 2021. The primary endpoints were all fractures, vertebral fractures, and non-vertebral fractures, while the secondary endpoints were fractures at hip or peripheral locations, bone mineral density (BMD) at various sites, and potential adverse events. RESULTS We included 79 RCTs reporting a total of 108 797 individuals in the final quantitative analysis. The results of network analysis indicated that romosozumab (92.1%) was the most effective in reducing the risk for all fractures, with the best therapeutic effects on vertebral fracture (97.2%) and non-vertebral fracture (88.0%). Romosozumab (92.5%) provided better therapeutic effects for the reduction of hip fracture. The best treatment agents for improving whole-body BMD (100.0%), spine BMD (95.7%), hip BMD (92.4%), femoral neck BMD (86.7%), and trochanter BMD (95.5%) were alendronate, strontium ranelate, ibandronate, risedronate, and ibandronate, respectively. Finally, the use of bazedoxifene was associated with the highest incidence of any upper-gastrointestinal event, nasopharyngitis, and back pain, while risedronate was associated with higher incidence of abdominal pain and dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS This study found that romosozumab yielded the best effects for preventing fracture risk, while abaloparatide was the most effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fracture and non-vertebral fracture.

Effect of bisphosphonate on hip fracture in patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia according to age: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

This meta-analysis and systematic review investigated the efficacy of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fracture (IHF) in patients of different ages with osteoporosis or osteopenia. We searched Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and PubMed from inception to January 10, 2021, for trials reporting the effects of bisphosphonates on the IHF. We included only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. We pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis with risk ratios (RRs) and reported 95% CIs. We also used the Cochran Q and I² statistics to assess the heterogeneity in the results of individual studies. The primary endpoints were the total numbers of people in the bisphosphonates and placebo groups and the numbers of IHFs during the follow-up periods. Bisphosphonates reduced the IHF with an overall effect (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.77; zoledronic acid: RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.78; risedronate: RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.94, and alendronate: RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.95). The result of the heterogeneity assessment was I²=0, p=0.97. In all age groups (all ages, ≥55 years old, ≥65 years old), bisphosphonates reduced the IHF. In the ≥55 years old and ≥65 years old age groups, the RR and 95% CI were 0.63 and 0.43 to 0.93, and 0.60 and 0.44 to 0.81, respectively. Bisphosphonate reduced the IHF in the general population and all age groups (≥55 years old and ≥65 years old). Zoledronic acid, risedronate and alendronate reduced the IHF in osteoporosis or osteopenia populations. The association between bisphosphonate and the IHF does not appear to be influenced by age.