Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Computed tomography-based structural rigidity analysis can assess tumor- and treatment-induced changes in rat bones with metastatic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BrCa) is a predominant malignancy, with metastasis occurring in one in eight patients, nearly half of which target the bone, leading to serious complications such as pain, fractures, and compromised mobility. Structural rigidity, crucial for bone strength, becomes compromised with osteolytic lesions, highlighting the vulnerability and increased fracture risk in affected areas. Historically, two-dimensional radiographs have been employed to predict these fracture risks; however, their limitations in capturing the three-dimensional structural and material changes in bone have raised concerns. Recent advances in CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis (CTRA), offer a promising, more accurate non-invasive 3D approach. This study aims to assess the efficacy of CTRA in monitoring osteolytic lesions' progression and response to therapy, suggesting its potential superiority over existing methodologies in guiding treatment strategies. METHODS: Twenty-seven female nude rats underwent femoral intra-medullary inoculation with MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells or saline control. They were divided into Control, Cancer Control, Ibandronate, and Paclitaxel groups. Osteolytic progression was monitored weekly using biplanar radiography, quantitative computed tomography (QCT), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). CTRA was employed to predict fracture risk, normalized using the contralateral femur. Statistical analyses, including Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA, assessed differences in outcomes among groups and over time. RESULTS: Biplanar radiographs showed treatment benefits over time; however, only certain time-specific differences between the Control and other treatment groups were discernible. Notably, observer subjectivity in X-ray scoring became evident, with significant inter-operator variations. DEXA measurements for metaphyseal Bone Mineral Content (BMC) did not exhibit notable differences between groups. Although diaphyseal BMC highlighted some variance, it did not reveal significant differences between treatments at specific time points, suggesting a limited ability for DEXA to differentiate between treatment effects. In contrast, the CTRA consistently demonstrated variations across different treatments, effectively capturing bone rigidity changes over time, and the axial- (EA), bending- (EI), and torsional rigidity (GJ) outcomes from the CTRA method successfully distinguished differences among treatments at specific time points. CONCLUSION: Traditional approaches, such as biplanar radiographs and DEXA, have exhibited inherent limitations, notably observer bias and time-specific inefficacies. Our study accentuates the capability of CTRA in capturing real-time, progressive changes in bone structure, with the potential to predict fractures more accurately and provide a more objective analysis. Ultimately, this innovative approach may bridge the existing gap in clinical guidelines, ushering in enhanced Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) for both surgical and non-surgical treatments.

Adjuvant capecitabine versus nihil in older patients with node-positive/high-risk node-negative early breast cancer receiving ibandronate - The ICE randomized clinical trial.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Evaluation of the impact of a de-escaleted chemotherapy regimen consisting of capecitabine (Cap) on invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in patients ≥65 years with node-positive/high-risk node-negative early breast cancer (BC) receiving ibandronate (Ib). METHODS: ICE (Ib with or without Cap in Elderly patients with early breast cancer) was a multicentre phase 3 clinical trial with a 2020 update of long-term follow-up for overall survival enroling node-positive/high-risk node-negative patients ≥65 years with early BC. Patients were randomised to Cap 2000 mg/m² day 1-14 q3w for 6 cycles plus Ib (50 mg p.o. daily or alternatively 6 mg intravenous q4w) or Ib alone for 2 years. Endocrine therapy was recommended for hormone receptor (HR)-positive patients. The primary endpoint was iDFS analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank analysis. RESULTS: 1358 (96.4%) of 1409 randomised patients started treatment. 564 (83.4%) completed 6 cycles of Cap. 513 (77.7%) and 516 (78.8%) completed Ib in the Cap+Ib and Ib alone arm, respectively. Median age was 71 (range 64-88) years, 1099 (81%) were HR-positive, 705 (51.9%) node-negative. At a median follow-up of 61.3 months, 5-year iDFS was 78.8% for Cap+Ib versus 75.0% for Ib alone (p = 0.80). Effects were independent of age, nodal, and HR status. The addition of Cap caused significantly higher skin and gastrointestinal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The adjuvant combination of Cap+Ib did not show significantly better iDFS than Ib alone in node-positive/high-risk node-negative older BC patients, of whom HR-positive patients were also treated with endocrine therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study in elderly patients with early breast cancer (ICE), NCT00196859, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00196859?term=NCT00196859.

Clinicians' views of prescribing oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments. METHODS: This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation. RESULTS: The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices. CONCLUSION: Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

Comparison of anti-fracture effectiveness of zoledronate, ibandronate and alendronate versus denosumab in a registry-based cohort study.

This registry-based study of 3068 patients with osteoporosis compared the anti-fracture effectiveness of denosumab versus bisphosphonates. Denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral and any fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab. PURPOSE: To analyse the fracture risk of patients with osteoporosis receiving bisphosphonates or denosumab in a real-world setting. METHODS: This registry-based cohort study evaluated patients taking denosumab, bisphosphonates or both sequentially. Fractures were analysed using rates, rate ratios and hazard ratios (HR), including both therapies as time-varying co-variates. Fracture risk hazards were adjusted (aHR) for baseline T-Scores and trabecular bone score (TBS) and were additionally analysed with inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: A total of 3068 patients (89% female; median age at treatment onset, 69 years [63 to 76]) received denosumab (median duration 2.8 years, [2.2 to 4.7]), bisphosphonates (3.4 years, [2.1 to 5.7]) or both sequentially. Thus, 11,078 subject-years were assessed for bisphosphonates (41% alendronate, 36% ibandronate, 23% zoledronate) and 4216 for denosumab. Moreover, 48,375 subject-years were observed before treatment onset, in addition to 2593 years of drug holidays. A total of 1481 vertebral fractures (435 under therapy), 1508 non-vertebral fractures (499 under therapy) and 202 hip fractures (67 under therapy) occurred after age 50. The risks of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures were significantly lower under all bisphosphonates, denosumab and drug holidays than before treatment onset (all p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, baseline T-scores and TBS, denosumab was associated with lower risk than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral fractures (aHR 0.47 (0.35 to 0.64) and 0.70 [0.53 to 0.91], p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively) and any fractures (aHR 0.62 [0.51 to 0.76] and 0.77 [0.64 to 0.92], p < 0.001 and p = 0.004). With propensity weighting, denosumab was associated with a lower hip fracture risk compared to alendronate (HR 0.54 [0.29 to 0.98], p = 0.044). No difference in fracture risk reduction (vertebral, non-vertebral or hip) was found between zoledronate and denosumab. CONCLUSIONS: When adjusting for disease severity, denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate and ibandronate for vertebral fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab.

Constraining in reimbursement criteria and the adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) in Taiwan: Urbanization makes the difference.

BACKGROUND: The Bureau of National Health Insurance in Taiwan implemented a new reimbursement scheme incorporating bone mineral density (BMD) criteria on Jan. 1, 2011. This study aimed to investigate a real-life 11-year secular trend of adherence in new AOMs users and evaluated the change of adherence to AOMs therapy in different urbanization areas after reimbursement criteria were restrained. METHODS: We used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to identify new AOMs users as our study population. The AOMs in this study included denosumab, zoledronate, ibandronate, alendronate, raloxifene, and risedronate. The first prescription date of AOMs was defined as the cohort entry date. The adherence rates within one year after initiation were assessed. RESULTS: High adherence (≥75%) in the first year increased markedly after the new reimbursement scheme in 2011, changing from 31.8% in 2008, and 41.7% in 2011 to 54.2% in 2018. On the other hand, low adherence (<25%) decreased from 38.8% in 2008 to 14.6% in 2018. In addition, the switchers increased from 5.9% in 2008 to 9.3% in 2018, indicating a more flexible choice of AOMs. The proportion of high adherence to AOMs was highest in high-urbanization areas, and the proportion increased about two times from 30% in 2008 to 60% in 2018. CONCLUSION: The implementation of new reimbursement criteria in 2011 was associated with increased adherence to AOMs and the increase was most apparent in high-urbanization areas.

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.

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.

Inhibition of farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase alleviates cardiomyopathy in diabetic rat.

This study investigated the effects of ibandronate (IBN) on cardiomyopathy remodeling in diabetic rats. A rat model of diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM) was established by supplementing them with a high-calorie diet combined with a low dose of streptozotocin (STZ). The diabetic rats received IBN (5 µg/kg per day) or normal saline subcutaneously for 16 weeks. The hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Masson's trichrome staining were performed for evaluating the myocardial morphologies of the rats. Echocardiography and cardiac catheter were performed to assess their cardiac functional parameters. The protein levels of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS), and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) were determined using Western blot analysis. RhoA activation was detected using a small GTP protease-linked immunosorbent assay (GLISA). The diabetic rats showed the development of moderate hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia, myocardial fibrosis, FPPS overexpression, cardiac systolic, and diastolic dysfunction. Inhibiting the FPPS could ameliorate myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis. These anatomical findings were accompanied by a significant improvement in heart function. Furthermore, the inhibition of FPPS, the increased activation of RhoA, and phosphorylation of p38 and extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2 in DCM decreased significantly with the treatment of IBN. This study for the first time demonstrated that the upregulation of FPPS expression might be involved in diabetic myocardial remodeling in diabetes mellitus (DM). In addition, IBN might exert its inhibitory effects on myocardial tissue remodeling by suppressing the RhoA/ERK1/2 and RhoA/p38 MAPK pathways in DCM.

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.

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.

Bisphosphonate type-dependent cell viability suppressive effects of carbon nanohorn-calcium phosphate-bisphosphonate nanocomposites.

In the process of bone metastasis, tumor cells spread to the bones to activate osteoclasts, which cause pathological bone resorption and destruction. Bisphosphonates (BPs) inhibit osteoclast activation to resorb bone, reducing bone pain and fracture. We previously developed a nanocomposite for potential localized treatment of bone metastasis by loading a BP compound, ibandronate, onto oxidized carbon nanohorns (OxCNHs), a next-generation drug carrier, using calcium phosphates (CaPs) as mediators to generate OxCNH-CaP-BP nanocomposites. The objective of the present study was to determine nanocomposite formation and biological properties of nanocomposites constructed from two BPs, zoledronate and pamidronate. In vitro tests using murine macrophages (RAW264.7 cells) and osteoclasts differentiated from RAW264.7 cells revealed that the resulting OxCNH-CaP-BP nanocomposites suppressed cell viability in a BP type-dependent manner and more effectively than OxCNHs or BPs alone. The mechanism for the potent and BP type-dependent suppression of cell viability by OxCNH-CaP-BP nanocomposites, based on their relative cellular uptake and reactive oxygen species generation, is also discussed. The present study supports the conclusions that BPs can be loaded onto OxCNHs using CaPs as mediators, and that OxCNH-CaP-BP nanocomposites are putative medicines for localized treatment of metastatic bone destruction.

Real-world effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments in Germany.

This observational study assessed the impact on the fracture incidence of osteoporosis medications in postmenopausal women in Germany. Continued treatment with osteoporosis medications was associated with reductions of fracture rates in a real-world setting. PURPOSE: The efficacy of osteoporosis medications has been demonstrated in clinical trials, but a lack of evidence exists of their real-world effectiveness. This real-world study assessed the treatment patterns and impact on the fracture incidence of osteoporosis medications in postmenopausal women in Germany. METHODS: This cohort study used data from the WIG2 benchmark database, a German anonymised healthcare claims database. All women ≥ 50 years of age with ≥ 1 prescription for osteoporosis medication between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017 were included. The primary outcome was treatment effectiveness, evaluated as the change in fracture incidence after initiating treatment. Fracture types included all fractures, clinical vertebral, hip and wrist/forearm. Fracture incidence was assessed during the early-treatment period (0-3 months) and the on-treatment period (4-12, 13-24, 25-36 and 37-48 months). RESULTS: Baseline covariates and treatment patterns were determined for 41,861 patients. The median duration of therapy was longer with denosumab (587 days) than with intravenous ibandronate (451 days), intravenous zoledronate (389 days) or oral bisphosphonates (258 days). The baseline incidence rate of all fractures was higher in patients receiving denosumab than in those receiving other treatments (87.6, 78.2, 56.6 and 66.0 per 1000 person-years for denosumab, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous ibandronate and intravenous zoledronate, respectively). Rates of all fractures declined with continued denosumab (by 38%, 50%, 56% and 67% at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months, respectively) and oral bisphosphonates (by 39%, 44%, 49% and 42%, respectively) treatment. CONCLUSION: Continued treatment with osteoporosis medications was associated with reductions of fracture rates in a real-world setting.

Patterns of Osteoporosis Medications Selection After Drug Holiday or Continued Therapy: A Real-World Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Published literature on physicians' preferences and sequential treatment patterns of osteoporosis therapy is scarce. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who received bisphosphonates, denosumab, and/or raloxifene for at least 3 consecutive years or teriparatide for at least 18 months for osteoporosis. Data collection spanned 10 years, from October 2007 to September 2016, at a tertiary care center in the United States. RESULTS: In total, 12 885 patients were identified on the basis of receiving at least 1 treatment at any point in time; 1814 patients were randomly reviewed, and 274 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 68.8 ± 10.7 years, and women represented 90.9% of all the cases. Primary care physicians and rheumatologists constituted 65.7% and 22.6% of the prescribers, respectively. Before instituting a drug holiday, alendronate was the most common initial treatment (percentage, mean duration ± standard deviation in years: 69%, 5.4 ± 2.4 years) followed by ibandronate (9.5%, 4.9 ± 2.1 years) and raloxifene (9.1%, 5.2 ± 1.6 years). Denosumab was the most common second course of treatment, accounting for 29.3% of 82 patients who were subsequently prescribed another therapy, followed by alendronate (24.4%) and zoledronate (20.7%). Among patients who were placed on a drug holiday and eventually restarted on osteoporosis therapy, denosumab was the most common treatment instituted (n = 21), accounting for 40% of the total patients, followed by alendronate (32%) and zoledronate (16%). There was a progressive decline in osteoporosis therapy over the duration of the study. CONCLUSION: Alendronate was the most common initial therapy. Denosumab was the most common second course of treatment prescribed.

Verification of efficacy and safety of ibandronate or denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis after 12-month treatment with romosozumab as sequential therapy: The prospective VICTOR study.

Romosozumab is a potent drug for treating postmenopausal osteoporosis but has a limited dosing period of 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) decreases soon after romosozumab discontinuation, thus emphasizing the importance of appropriate sequential treatment. The present VICTOR randomized controlled study compared the efficacy of ibandronate and denosumab as sequential therapy options following 12-month romosozumab treatment. Subjects completing 12 months of romosozumab administration for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive either ibandronate or denosumab for an additional 12 months. The primary outcome of interest was the percentage changes in BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck from 12 months (completion of romosozumab) to 18 and 24 months of total treatment (6 and 12 months, respectively, after the conversion to sequential therapy). Secondary outcomes included alterations in serum bone turnover markers and the incidence of adverse events. Sixty-two subjects each in the ibandronate and denosumab groups completed the sequential therapy. The respective percentage changes in BMD at the lumbar spine from 12 months to 24 months were 2.5 % in the ibandronate group and 5.4 % in the denosumab group. At 24 months, we observed significant differences versus 12 months for both groups as well as between the groups (all P < 0.01), showing a superior ability to increase BMD at the lumbar spine for denosumab over ibandronate. BMD gains at the total hip and femoral neck exhibited comparably favorable trends. P1NP and TRACP-5b were significantly decreased from 12 to 24 months (-64.9 % and - 26.8 % in the ibandronate group and - 67.4 % and - 36.3 % in the denosumab group, respectively; all P < 0.001 versus 12 months). Several minor adverse events were recorded in both groups, none of which led to the discontinuation of the trial. The VICTOR study revealed that denosumab could be considered more effective than ibandronate, with few severe adverse events, for the enhancement of BMD as a sequential agent after romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients.

Treatment patterns of long-dose-interval medication for persistent management of osteoporosis in Taiwan.

Treatment persistence was higher among the patients who initially received an anti-osteoporosis medication (AOM) with a long-dose-interval. PURPOSE: With long-dose-interval anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) available for osteoporosis management, it is important to evaluate persistence of any AOM as long as it is continuously used. The purpose of this study was to investigate the treatment pattern and persistence of AOMs, allowing for medication switch. METHODS: This study was an observational retrospective cohort study using Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims data. We selected patients who first initiated an AOM between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016. AOM therapy included alendronate, raloxifene, teriparatide, denosumab, zoledronate, and ibandronate; the latter three were categorized as long-dose-interval medications. Persistence was defined as continual prescription of any AOM at a given time point with a grace period of 45 days within which to obtain prescription refill. The competing risk model was used to examine the factors affecting patients switching their initial AOM. RESULTS: During the study period, 126,539 patients with mean age of 75 years met the inclusion criteria; 85% were female. For initial AOM, 43.3%, 25.6%, 14.6%, 9.3%, 5.3%, and 1.9% of the patients received alendronate, denosumab, raloxifene, zoledronate, ibandronate, and teriparatide, respectively. During a mean 36-month follow-up, 29.6% of the patients who received at least two AOM pharmacy claims throughout the study period have ever switched their initial medication. Long-dose-interval medications, mainly denosumab and zoledronate, were the preferred choice for medication switch. Treatment persistence was higher in patients who initiated with long-dose-interval AOMs. CONCLUSION: The real-world data reveal long-dose-interval therapy as an initial treatment or at the first switch stage may improve management of persistent AOM treatment.

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.

Daily Oral Ibandronate With Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer (BOOG 2006-04): Randomized Phase III TEAM-IIB Trial.

PURPOSE: For postmenopausal patients with breast cancer, previous subgroup analyses have shown a modest benefit from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment. However, the efficacy of oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates such as ibandronate is unclear in this setting. TEAM-IIB investigates adjuvant ibandronate in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. METHODS: TEAM-IIB is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III study. Postmenopausal women with stage I-III ER+ breast cancer and an indication for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 years of ET with or without oral ibandronate 50 mg once daily for 3 years. Major ineligibility criteria were bilateral breast cancer, active gastroesophageal problems, and health conditions that might interfere with study treatment. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between February 1, 2007, and May 27, 2014, 1,116 patients were enrolled, 565 to ET with ibandronate (ibandronate arm) and 551 to ET alone (control arm). Median follow-up was 8.5 years. DFS was not significantly different between the ibandronate and control arms (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.24; log-rank P = .811). Three years after random assignment, DFS was 94% in the ibandronate arm and 91% in the control arm. Five years after random assignment, this was 89% and 86%, respectively. In the ibandronate arm, 97/565 (17%) of patients stopped ibandronate early because of adverse events. Significantly more patients experienced GI issues, mainly dyspepsia, in the ibandronate arm than in the control arm (89 [16%] and 54 [10%], respectively; P < .003). Eleven patients in the ibandronate arm developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer, adjuvant ibandronate 50 mg once daily does not improve DFS and should not be recommended as part of standard treatment regimens.

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.