Response to Alendronate in Osteoporosis after Previous Treatment with Etidronate

Bisphosphonates such as etidronate and alendronate are widely accepted as effective agents for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, some physicians find the choice of which one to use in different patients, and the comparative magnitude of response, unclear. Fifty postmenopausal women with osteoporosis [group 1: 27 women who had received 3 years of previous cyclical etidronate treatment, mean age 70.5 years, bone mineral density (BMD) mean T-score lumbar spine (LS) −3.58 and femoral neck (FN) −2.51; group 2: 23 women who had not previously received cyclical etidronate treatment, mean age 73.7 years, BMD mean T-score LS −3.65 and FN −2.96] were treated with 10 mg alendronate daily, to determine whether pretreatment with etidronate affected the response to alendronate, and whether patients who did not respond to etidronate, responded to alendronate. There was a significant increase in LS BMD after 2 years of treatment with alendronate compared with baseline (group 1: 7.84%, p<0.001; group 2: 6.69%, p<0.001), but there was no statistical difference between the groups. In the group 1 patients there was a significant difference between the initial response (at the LS BMD) to 2 years of cyclical etidronate (1.86%) and later response to 2 years of alendronate (7.84%) (p<0.0001). The 10 patients who did not respond at the LS to etidronate alone, showed a significantly better response (mean BMD change +6.3%) when subsequently treated with alendronate (a net difference of 9.3%, p = 0.002). In 15 patients who did not respond at the FN to etidronate alone, the mean response to alendronate was +0.96% (a difference of 7%, p = 0.004). This study shows that pretreatment with 3 years of cyclical etidronate is not detrimental to the subsequent LS BMD response to alendronate. There is evidence that alendronate produced a greater bone density response than etidronate, and patients who did not respond to etidronate with an increase in LS bone density, subsequently did so following alendronate. Received: 22 June 1999 / Accepted: 18 January 2000     

Cyclical Etidronate Therapy for Prevention of Postmenopausal Bone Loss: A 1-Year Open-Label Follow-Up Study

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the pharmacological activity of cyclical etidronate therapy is sustained beyond the dosing period. A group of 121 postmenopausal women who had completed a 2-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel study with etidronate or placebo (400 mg/day for 14 days every 3 months) and calcium agreed to participate in a 1-year open-label follow-up study to evaluate the effect of discontinuing etidronate treatment. Fifty-nine subjects in the former etidronate group and 62 in the placebo group received 500 mg/day of elemental calcium; 54/59 and 58/62 subjects, respectively, completed the study. Outcomes of the study were bone mineral density (BMD), measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and biochemical markers of bone turnover (urinary deoxypyridinoline/creatinine and serum osteocalcin). To determine whether there was a residual effect of previous therapy we compared mean percentage changes from baseline (year 0) to year 3 for both spinal and femoral neck BMD and markers of bone turnover in the former cyclical etidronate and placebo groups. To evaluate the carryover effect of treatment we compared the percent change from year 2 to year 3 for the same variables. Mean percentage change (SEM) from year 2 to year 3 for spinal BMD in the former cyclical etidronate group was −2.87% (0.48%) versus −0.99% (0.36%) in the placebo group (P= 0.0022). In the femoral neck, the BMD changes were −0.86% (0.42%) versus −1.01% (0.41%) (NS). Biochemical markers increased within 6 months toward baseline levels. Mean percentage changes from baseline (year 0) in both spinal and femoral neck BMD were significantly different between groups 1 year after treatment discontinuation. No differences between groups were maintained in deoxypyridinoline and osteocalcin. It is concluded that following withdrawal of cyclical etidronate therapy bone loss resumes at a normal and moderately accelerated rate in the proximal femur and lumbar spine, respectively. A positive effect on BMD at both cortical and trabecular sites is maintained for 1 year after treatment withdrawal. Received: 8 May 1999 / Accepted: 10 December 1999     

A Comparison of the Effect of Risedronate and Etidronate on Lumbar Bone Mineral Density in Japanese Patients with Osteoporosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

To demonstrate the clinical benefit of 2.5 mg daily risedronate in the treatment of involutional osteoporosis, the effect of risedronate on bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine was compared with that of etidronate, selected as a representative of the bisphosphonates currently marketed in Japan. In this multicenter, randomized, double-masked, active (etidronate) controlled comparative study, a total of 235 Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis were randomized to receive either treatment with 2.5 mg/day of risedronate for 48 weeks or intermittent treatment with etidronate (4 cycles of 2 weeks of treatment with 200 mg/day followed by 10-week medication-free periods). All patients received 200 mg of calcium supplement daily in the form of the calcium lactate. Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (L2–L4 BMD) was determined at 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The primary endpoint was the percent change in L2–L4 BMD from baseline to the time of final evaluation. Changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover and safety profiles were also compared. A significant increase in L2–L4 BMD was observed at 12 weeks after initiation of therapy in both the risedronate (2.8%) and etidronate (1.8%) groups. The increase in L2–L4 BMD at the time of final evaluation in the risedronate group (4.9%) was significantly greater (p = 0.002) than that in the etidronate group (3.1%). The changes in bone resorption markers (urinary total deoxypyridinoline and N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) from baseline to 48 weeks were −37.6% and −41.3% for risedronate and −22.5% and −26.6% for etidronate, respectively. New vertebral fractures or deterioration of existing fractures were observed in 2.8% (3/106) of the patients in the etidronate group, while no such cases (0/101) were observed in the risedronate group. No significant difference in the incidence of adverse events was found between two treatments. Daily oral risedronate (2.5 mg) exhibited efficacy superior to that of intermittent cyclical etidronate (200 mg) in increasing L2–L4 BMD, and was well tolerated by Japanese patients with involutional osteoporosis. Received: 7 February 2002 / Accepted: 18 July 2002     

Forearm Bone Mineral Densitometry Cannot be Used to Monitor Response to Alendronate Therapy in Postmenopausal Women

Alendronate significantly increases bone mass and reduces hip and spine fractures in postmenopausal women. To determine whether forearm densitometry could be used to monitor the efficacy of alendronate, we examined changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at the forearm (one-third distal, mid-distal, ultradistal radius) versus changes at the hip (femoral neck, total hip) and spine (posteroanterior and lateral) in a double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 120 elderly women (mean age 70 ± 4 years) treated with alendronate for 2.5 years. We found that among women in the treatment group, BMD increased by 4.0–12.2% at the hip and spine sites (all p<0.001), whereas BMD increased only nominally at the one-third distal radius (1.3%, p<0.001) and mid-radius (0.8%, p<0.05), and remained stable at the ultradistal radius. At baseline, forearm BMD correlated with that of the hip (r= 0.55–0.64, p<0.001), femoral neck (r= 0.54–0.61, p<0.001) and posteroanterior spine (r= 0.56–0.63, p<0.001). Changes in radial BMD after 1 year of therapy were not correlated with changes in hip and spine BMD after 2.5 years of therapy. In contrast, short-term changes in total hip and spine BMD were generally positively associated with long-term changes in total hip, femoral neck and spine BMD (r= 0.30–0.71, p<0.05). Furthermore, long-term BMD changes at the forearm did not correlate with long-term hip and spine BMD changes, in contrast to the moderate correlations seen between spine and hip BMD at 2.5 years (r= 0.38–0.45, p<0.01). We conclude that neither short- nor long-term changes in forearm BMD predict long-term changes in overall BMD for elderly women on alendronate therapy, suggesting that measurements of clinically relevant central sites (hip and spine) are necessary to assess therapeutic efficacy. Received: 18 February 1999 / Accepted: 20 May 1999     

Bone Turnover and the Response to Alendronate Treatment in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

This study investigated whether bone turnover influences the response to alendronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. One hundred postmenopausal osteoporotic women were randomized to receive either alendronate (10 mg/day) plus calcium (1000 mg/day) (n = 50) or calcium alone (n = 50). Vertebral and radial bone density, measured by DXA, and markers of bone turnover were assessed at baseline and after 1 and 2 years. At the end of treatment, alendronate users showed an increase of 5.0% and 2.3%, respectively, at the lumbar spine and ultradistal radius; in the group treated only with calcium, bone mineral density (BMD) decreased by 1.6% at the lumbar spine and 1.3% at the ultradistal radius. The difference between the two groups was significant (P < 0.001). The patients were divided into high (HT) or low (LT) bone turnover groups, as assessed by 24-hour whole body retention (WBR%) of ^99mTc-methylene-diphosphonate. The response to alendronate treatment was greater in HT patients compared with LT patients. In fact, at the end of the study period, BMD at the lumbar spine had increased by 7.9% in HT patients and by 3.0% in LT patients; the difference between the two groups was significant (P < 0.001). No significant difference between the two groups was found for BMD at the ultradistal radius. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that 2-year treatment with alendronate has highly positive effects on bone mass at both the lumbar spine and ultradistal radius. The increase in bone mass, especially at the axial level, is influenced by bone turnover. Therefore, the evaluation of bone turnover may be useful in predicting the response to alendronate treatment. Received: 23 April 1998 / Accepted: 10 June 1999     

Comparison of Bone and Total Alkaline Phosphatase and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women Treated with Alendronate

Alendronate therapy in osteoporotic women decreases bone turnover and increases bone mineral density (BMD). Optimal patient management should include verification that each patient is responding to therapy. Markers of bone turnover and BMD have both been proposed for this purpose. We have investigated changes resulting from alendronate therapy with an enzyme immunoassay for bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) and compared it with total alkaline phosphatase (TAP) and BMD of the lumbar spine, hip, and total body. Subjects were drawn from a multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled trial of alendronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. BAP and TAP levels were measured at baseline and following 3, 6 and 12 months of therapy with either placebo (n= 180) or alendronate 10 mg/day (n= 134). All subjects also received 500 mg/day supplemental calcium. BMD was measured at baseline and following 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months of therapy. To compare BAP, TAP and BMD at each site for identifying women that experienced a skeletal effect of alendronate, we calculated least significant change (LSC) values from the long-term intraindividual variability in each placebo-treated woman. Median levels of BAP decreased by 34%, 44% and 43% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, in alendronate-treated women (p<0.0001 compared with baseline and with placebo). These changes were significantly greater (p<0.0001) than changes observed for TAP. Following 6 months of alendronate therapy, 90% of the women had experienced a decrease in BAP exceeding the LSC compared with only 71% for TAP. The greatest number of women similarly identified with BMD at any site (i.e. a gain in BMD exceeding the LSC) was 81% for spinal BMD at 36 months. All other sites were less than 70% at 36 months. Short-term changes in BAP and TAP were modestly associated with subsequent changes in BMD at all sites (Spearman’s rho −0.22 to −0.52, p<0.05). Compared with TAP and BMD, BAP testing rapidly and sensitively identified skeletal effects of alendronate thus enabling appropriate drug monitoring of osteoporotic women. Though BAP and TAP changes were modestly predictive of BMD changes, the value of the bone marker tests is their ability to detect rapidly a skeletal effect of therapy. Received: 19 May 2000 / Accepted: 31 October 2000     

Skeletal Benefits of Two Years of Alendronate Treatment Are Similar for Early Postmenopausal Asian and Caucasian Women

Alendronate has been shown to increase bone density among early postmenopausal women. Osteoporosis is common among both Asian and Caucasian women, but most clinical trials have consisted primarily of Caucasian women, and it does not appear that the effectiveness of antiresorptive agents such as alendronate has been compared between the two races. In this study we compared the response of bone density and biochemical markers to alendronate among 136 Asian and 126 Caucasian women who participated in the Early Postmenopausal Interventional Cohort (EPIC) at the Hawaii center. Approximately 40 women of each race were randomly assigned to placebo or to 2.5 mg/day or 5 mg/day alendronate. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at the spine, total hip and total body at baseline, 12 months and 24 months; biochemical markers of bone turnover were measured at 6-month intervals. Responses were greater for the 5 mg dose than 2.5 mg, and were similar in the two races. For example, mean (SE) changes in spine BMD at 24 months for Caucasians and Asians, respectively, were –1.9% (0.5%) and –1.9% (0.4%) for the placebo group, 2.0% (0.5%) and 3.4% (0.5%) at 2.5 mg/day and 4.2% (0.5%) for both races at 5 mg/day. Corresponding changes in urinary N-telopeptide collagen crosslinks were –33.6% (5.6%) and –27.8% (5.8%) for placebo, –51.4% (4.0%) and –62.1 (4.3%) at 2.5 mg/day and –70.8% (2.4%) and –73.5% (3.1%) at 5 mg/day. We conclude that (1) the rate of bone loss in untreated Asian and Caucasian postmenopausal women is similar, with the possible exception of the hip; (2) 5 mg alendronate daily provides greater skeletal benefits than 2.5 mg/day in both Asian and Caucasian early postmenopausal women; and (3) the response at 5 mg/day is similar in the two races. Received: 15 July 1998 / Accepted: 30 September 1998     

Differences in the Capacity of Several Biochemical Bone Markers to Assess High Bone Turnover in Early Menopause and Response to Alendronate Therapy

We measured bone mineral density (BMD), four markers of bone formation [bone alkaline phosphatase (bAP), osteocalcin (Oc), N- and C-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP and PICP respectively)] and five markers of bone resorption [serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTx), urinary CTx, N-terminal cross-linked telopeptide (NTx), free and total deoxypyridinoline (fDpd and tDpd respectively)] in 28 healthy premenopausal women (45.7 ± 3.0 years), 15 early (<7 years) healthy menopausal women (53.8 ± 3.1 years) and 20 osteoporotic women (65.3 ± 8.2 years). Bone markers and BMD were also measured in the osteoporotic women 4.1 ± 0.2 and 12.6 ± 1.2 months after the beginning of alendronate therapy (Fosamax, 10 mg/day) respectively (BMD in 16/20). We calculated the intra-individual coefficient of variation (iCV) and the least significant change (LSC) for each bone marker from a subset of 9 healthy premenopausal women (32 ± 5 years) who had a first and a second morning void urine collection (FMV and SMV respectively) and a blood sample on 4 nonconsecutive days (mean interval 14 ± 3 days). None of the bone markers was correlated with BMD (except p= 0.043 between serum Oc and hip BMD). All markers, except fDpd, were increased significantly in early menopausal women when compared with the premenopausal group. Serum CTx presented the highest increase at menopause (+67.8%) and identified the highest rate (11/15) of early menopausal women with bone turnover above the premenopausal range. The iCVs for bone formation markers (7.2–14.4%) were lower than those for bone resorption markers (14.6–22.3%). The iCVs obtained on FMV and SMV were not different. The decrease after 4 months of alendronate was significant for each bone marker but variable from one marker to another. Serum CTx showed the largest decrease (70.8%) and identified the highest number of biologically responding patients (change >LSC; n= 17/20). A significant change in serum CTx after 4 months of alendronate was the best predictor of a significant gain in spine BMD (i.e., ≥27 mg/cm²) after 1 year of therapy, allowing 15 of 16 patients (94%) to be classified correctly (one false-positive). Urinary NTx/Cr was the second best predictor. Despite a moderately high iCV (20.6%), serum CTx appeared the most effective of the markers tested and could be of interest for the detection of high bone turnover and the longitudinal monitoring of alendronate therapy in the individual patient. It must be stressed that serum PINP and urinary NTx and tDpd compared very similarly with serum CTx for monitoring alendronate therapy. Received: 12 April 1999 / Accepted: 13 September 1999     

Alendronate treatment in women with normal to severely impaired renal function: an analysis of the fracture intervention trial.

To determine if alendronate had differential effects on BMD and fracture by renal function, we performed a secondary data analysis of women participating in the FIT. Alendronate increased BMD and decreased fractures to a similar degree among women with and without reduced renal function. There was no increase in adverse events among women with impaired renal function treated with alendronate. Alendronate is safe and effective among this group of women with reduced renal function. INTRODUCTION: Alendronate is cleared by the kidney and may have sustained effects on bone in subjects with impaired renal function. We hypothesized that, with decreasing renal function, alendronate treatment would result in greater increases in BMD and greater decreases in fractures and that the frequency of adverse events would be increased. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied women participating in the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT), a randomized controlled trial of alendronate or placebo (n = 6458). We estimated baseline creatinine clearance (eGFR) using the Cockcroft Gault Formula. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-one (9.9%) participants had a severely reduced eGFR (<45 ml/minute). Alendronate increased BMD regardless of eGFR, but women with reduced eGFR had a 5.6% (95% CI: 4.8-6.5) increase in total hip BMD compared with 4.8% (95% CI: 4.6-5.0) among women with normal to moderate renal dysfunction (interaction: p = 0.04). Compared with placebo, alendronate increased spine BMD by 6.6 +/- 5.8%, but there was no significant interaction for the increase in spine BMD (interaction: p = 0.75). Treatment with alendronate reduced the risk of clinical fractures to a similar degree in those with (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.51-1.21) and without reduced renal function (OR: 0.80; 95% CI; 0.70-0.93; p for interaction = 0.89). Treatment with alendronate reduced the risk of spine fractures to a similar degree in those with (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.31-1.7) and without reduced renal function (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p for interaction = 0.44). There were no differences in adverse events by renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Alendronate is safe and effective at increasing BMD and decreasing fractures among this group of women with reduced renal function.     

A Meta-analysis of Etidronate for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

The aim of the study was to review the effect of etidronate on bone density and fractures in postmenopausal women. We searched MEDLINE from 1966 to 1998, examined citations of relevant articles, and the proceedings of international osteoporosis meetings. We contacted osteoporosis investigators to identify additional studies, primary authors, and pharmaceutical industry sources for unpublished data. We included 13 trials that randomized women to etidronate or an alternative (placebo or calcium and/or vitamin D) and measured bone density for at least 1 year. For each trial, three independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality and abstracted data. The data suggested a reduction in vertebral fractures with a pooled relative risk of 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.92). There was no effect on nonvertebral fractures (relative risk 0.99, (95% CI 0.69 to 1.42). Etidronate, relative to control, increased bone density after 1–3 years of treatment in the lumbar spine by 4.06% (95% CI 3.12 to 5.00), in the femoral neck by 2.35% (95% CI 1.66 to 3.04) and in the total body by 0.97% (95% CI 0.39 to 1.55). Effects were larger at 4 years, though the number of patients followed much smaller. Etidronate increases bone density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck for up to 4 years. The pooled estimates of fracture reduction with etidronate suggest a reduction in vertebral fractures, but no effect on nonvertebral fractures. Received: 25 February 2000 / Accepted: 8 August 2000     

The Effect of Weight Change on Total Body Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry: Results from a Clinical Trial

In the past decade dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning has assumed an important role in the evaluation of new treatments for osteoporosis. Although the spine and hip are the sites usually chosen for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes, total body DXA is also of interest because of the comprehensive view it gives of the whole skeleton. However, recent studies have reported anomalies in total body DXA in subjects undergoing weight change, suggesting that the technique may not be valid in this circumstance. The present study evaluated total body DXA in a trial of cyclical etidronate therapy in which many subjects underwent significant weight change. The study population was 152 postmenopausal women who had spine, hip and total body DXA scans performed at baseline, 1 and 2 years. The total body scans were analyzed using two software options referred to as “standard” and “enhanced”. The following variables were studied: total body BMD, total body bone mineral content (BMC), and subregional BMD values for the following seven sites: lumbar spine, thoracic spine, pelvis, head, ribs, arms and legs. The percentage change from baseline was analyzed in a multivariate regression analysis to derive the treatment effect (defined as the difference in changes between the etidronate and placebo groups) and a coefficient that described the effect of weight change on the total body DXA variable. Mean weight change after 2 years was +1.1 kg (range −9.3 to +16.8 kg). Results for the weight change coefficient were significantly different from zero for five of nine total body variables using the standard analysis and seven of nine for the enhanced analysis with values (and standard errors) that varied from +0.67 (0.04) %/kg for standard total body BMC to −0.32 (0.11) %/kg for enhanced arm BMD. Results for the treatment effect at 2 years were significantly different from zero for total body BMD, total body BMC and for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine and pelvis BMD subregions, but were not significant for head, rib, arm or leg BMD. Findings for the standard and enhanced analyses agreed closely and the size of the treatment effect was related to the proportion of trabecular bone at the measurement site. We conclude that in a randomized study the effects of weight change can be corrected and total body DXA can give useful information about the response to treatment across the whole skeleton. Received: 18 February 2000 / Accepted: 12 April 2000     

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Alendronate in Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Chinese Women: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

Osteoporosis is a growing health problem in Asian women and it is expected that half of the world's hip fractures will occur in Asia in 50 years' time. As the use of hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) is extremely low in postmenopausal Asian women, nonhormonal agents will be more acceptable for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. The efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of alendronate, an amino-bisphosphonate, for Asian women was evaluated in 70 osteoporotic southern Chinese women in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. The subjects were randomized to receive either alendronate 10 mg daily or placebo, plus calcium supplementation 500 mg daily. The baseline L 1–4 and hip bone mineral density (BMD) were similar between both groups. At the end of 1 year, there was an increase of 5.8% in the lumbar spine BMD and 3.4% at the total hip with alendronate treatment when compared with baseline values (P < 0.001). Alendronate treatment for 1 year resulted in significant improvement in BMD at all sites measured when compared with placebo. There was also marked reduction in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and urinary n-telopeptide (NTx) in the alendronate group when compared with the placebo group (ALP 25% versus 2%, NTx 75% versus 14%, both P < 0.005). The changes in ALP and NTx at 6 and 12 months correlated with the change in BMD at all sites measured at 1 year (P all <0.05). Alendronate was well tolerated and accepted, although two cases of gastric ulcer were reported. We conclude that alendronate is an effective and well-accepted agent for the treatment of osteoporosis in Asian women. Received: 30 September 1999 / Accepted 6 April 2000     

Randomized trial of effect of alendronate continuation versus discontinuation in women with low BMD: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial long-term extension.

To determine the effects of continuation versus discontinuation of alendronate on BMD and markers of bone turnover, we conducted an extension trial in which 1099 older women who received alendronate in the FIT were re-randomized to alendronate or placebo. Compared with women who stopped alendronate, those continuing alendronate for 3 years maintained a higher BMD and greater reduction of bone turnover, showing benefit of continued treatment. However, among women who discontinued alendronate and took placebo in the extension, BMD remained higher, and reduction in bone turnover was greater than values at FIT baseline, showing persistence of alendronate's effects on bone. INTRODUCTION: Prior trials including the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) have found that therapy with alendronate increases BMD and decreases fracture risk for up to 4 years in postmenopausal women with low BMD. However, it is uncertain whether further therapy with alendronate results in preservation or further gains in BMD and if skeletal effects of alendronate continue after treatment is stopped. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a follow-up placebo-controlled extension trial to FIT (FIT long-term extension [FLEX]) in which 1099 women 60-86 years of age who were assigned to alendronate in FIT with an average duration of use of 5 years were re-randomized for an additional 5 years to alendronate or placebo. The results of a preplanned interim analysis at 3 years are reported herein. Participants were re-randomized to alendronate 10 mg/day (30%), alendronate 5 mg/day (30%), or placebo (40%). All participants were encouraged to take a calcium (500 mg/day) and vitamin D (250 IU/day) supplement. The primary outcome was change in total hip BMD. Secondary endpoints included change in lumbar spine BMD and change in markers of bone turnover (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and urinary type I collagen cross-linked N-telopeptide). RESULTS: Among the women who had prior alendronate therapy in FIT, further therapy with alendronate (5 and 10 mg groups combined) for 3 years compared with placebo maintained BMD at the hip (2.0% difference; 95% CI, 1.6-2.5%) and further increased BMD at the spine (2.5% difference; 95% CI, 1.9-3. 1%). Markers of bone turnover increased among women discontinuing alendronate, whereas they remained stable in women continuing alendronate. Cumulative increases in BMD at the hip and spine and reductions in bone turnover from 8.6 years earlier at FIT baseline were greater for women continuing alendronate compared with those discontinuing alendronate. However, among women discontinuing alendronate and taking placebo in the extension, BMD remained higher and reduction in bone turnover was greater than values at FIT baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with women who stopped alendronate after an average of 5 years, those continuing alendronate maintained a higher BMD and greater reduction of bone turnover, showing benefit of continued alendronate treatment on BMD and bone turnover. On discontinuation of alendronate therapy, rates of change in BMD at the hip and spine resumed at the background rate, but discontinuation did not result in either accelerated bone loss or a marked increase in bone turnover, showing persistence of alendronate's effects on bone. Data on the effect of continuation versus discontinuation on fracture risk are needed before making definitive recommendations regarding the optimal length of alendronate treatment.     

Comparison of Calcitriol Treatment with Etidronate–Calcitriol and Calcitonin–Calcitriol Combinations in Turkish Women with Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Prospective Study

Calcitriol has been widely used in the management of osteoporosis, but its efficiency is a matter of controversy. It is not known whether combinations of calcitriol and antiresorptive agents such as etidronate and calcitonin are superior to calcitriol alone in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. To make this determination, 30 Turkish women with postmenopausal osteoporosis between 45 and 68 years of age were randomized to receive either intermittent cyclical etidronate (400 mg/day, for 14 days) followed by 60 days of cyclical calcitriol therapy 0.25 μg twice daily (group 1; n= 10), or calcitriol 0.25 μg twice daily (group 2; n= 10), or calcitriol 0.25 μg/day in combination with 100 IU intranasal salmon calcitonin taken every other day (group 3; n= 10) through a 1-year period. Bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine (L2 to L4) was determined for each patient by dual-photon absorptiometry (¹⁵³Gd) at baseline, after 6 months, and at the end of the study. There was no significant difference among groups with respect to mean spinal BMD at baseline, after 6, and after 12 months. No significant spinal BMD changes occurred in any group from baseline, after 6 months, and after 12 months. Four patients in groups 1 and 2 and five patients in group 3 developed hypercalcemia at least once during therapy. Hypercalciuria occurred at least once in 9, 10, and 7 patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. One patient in group 2 developed a renal stone at the end of the study. Mean urine hydroxyproline levels did not change significantly in any group with respect to baseline. The data suggest that one-year treatment with calcitriol, given either alone or in combination with antiresorptive agents, does not improve spinal BMD in Turkish women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, and is associated with a high rate of adverse events. Received: 4 October 1996 / Accepted: 31 December 1996     

Comparison of the Effect of Denosumab and Alendronate on BMD and Biochemical Markers of Bone Turnover in Postmenopausal Women With Low Bone Mass: A Randomized,Blinded, Phase 3 Trial

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits bone resorption by neutralizing RANKL, a key mediator of osteoclast formation, function, and survival. This phase 3, multicenter, double‐blind study compared the efficacy and safety of denosumab with alendronate in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. One thousand one hundred eighty‐nine postmenopausal women with a T‐score ≤ ?2.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous denosumab injections (60 mg every 6 mo [Q6M]) plus oral placebo weekly (n = 594) or oral alendronate weekly (70 mg) plus subcutaneous placebo injections Q6M (n = 595). Changes in BMD were assessed at the total hip, femoral neck, trochanter, lumbar spine, and one‐third radius at 6 and 12 mo and in bone turnover markers at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events and laboratory values. At the total hip, denosumab significantly increased BMD compared with alendronate at month 12 (3.5% versus 2.6%; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, significantly greater increases in BMD were observed with denosumab treatment at all measured skeletal sites (12‐mo treatment difference: 0.6%, femoral neck; 1.0%, trochanter; 1.1%, lumbar spine; 0.6%, one‐third radius; p ≤ 0.0002 all sites). Denosumab treatment led to significantly greater reduction of bone turnover markers compared with alendronate therapy. Adverse events and laboratory values were similar for denosumab‐ and alendronate‐treated subjects. Denosumab showed significantly larger gains in BMD and greater reduction in bone turnover markers compared with alendronate. The overall safety profile was similar for both treatments.     

A Double-Masked Multicenter Comparative Study Between Alendronate and Alfacalcidol in Japanese Patients with Osteoporosis

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alendronate, a double-masked, active (alfacalcidol) controlled comparative study for 48 weeks was carried out in a total of 210 Japanese patients with osteoporosis. The doses of alendronate and alfacalcidol were 5 mg/day and 1 μg/day, respectively. The lumbar bone mineral density (LBMD) values observed at 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks after the initiation of alendronate treatment were 3.53 ± 0.53%, 5.37 ± 0.62%, 5.87 ± 0.74% and 6.21 ± 0.59% (mean ± SE), respectively, higher than the baseline value. Corresponding values in the alfacalcidol group were 1.50 ± 0.43%, 0.69 ± 0.63%, 1.12 ± 0.60% and 1.36 ± 0.63%, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two groups at each time point (p<0.05 or p<0.001). The bone turnover markers were depressed during treatment in the alendronate group: −32.2% for alkaline phosphatase, −53.7% for N-terminal osteocalcin and −45.0% for urinary deoxypyridinoline compared with the corresponding baseline values. On the contrary, no notable changes in these parameters were observed in the alfacalcidol group. Treatment with alendronate caused a transient decrease in serum calcium concentrations associated with an increase in the serum level of intact parathyroid hormone. In contrast, treatment with alfacalcidol resulted in a tendency of these parameters to change in the opposite direction. No difference in fracture incidence between the two groups was observed. The overall safety of alendronate was comparable to that of alfacalcidol. In conclusion, although it was a relatively short-term study of 48 weeks, the results of the present study indicate that alendronate at the daily dose of 5 mg was effective in increasing LBMD and that no serious drug-related adverse events were observed in the alendronate-treated patients. Alendronate is more efficacious than alfacalcidol in increasing bone mineral density, although the mechanisms of the actions of the two drugs are apparently different. Received: 2 July 1998 / Accepted: 4 February 1999     

Effectiveness of alendronate and etidronate in the treatment of osteoporosis in men: a prospective observational study

The prevalence of osteoporosis in men is higher than previously assumed; consequently, numerous therapies are being investigated to treat these patients. The Canadian Database of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia patients (CANDOO) was analyzed to examine changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in consecutively seen osteoporotic men administered alendronate, etidronate or no bone-active drugs (control) over 1 year. A total of 244 men attending six Canadian osteoporosis clinics were included in the study (42 alendronate, 102 etidronate and 100 control). Multiple imputation was used to model missing data to provide a more robust statistical model. The imputed datasets (five) were analyzed using multivariable linear regression to determine differences between groups in the percent change of lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) BMD from baseline to 1 year. Differences in the percent change in BMD from baseline were most notable at the LS in favor of alendronate (4.3%; 95% CI: 2.1, 6.6 ) and etidronate (2.1%; 95% CI: 0.3, 4.0) therapy when compared with controls. At the LS, alendronate therapy led to significantly greater (2.2%; 95% CI: 0.2, 4.2) gains in BMD as compared to etidronate therapy. Compared to controls, there were no significant differences in FN BMD with alendronate (2.1%; 95% CI: –0.4, 4.7) or etidronate therapy (0.9%; 95% CI: –1.1, 2.8), nor were there significant differences between bisphosphonate groups (1.3%; 95% CI: –1.1, 3.6, in favor of alendronate). While both alendronate and etidronate significantly increased LS BMD in osteoporotic men after 1 year in real-world settings, alendronate therapy resulted in significantly superior gains in LS BMD. The effect of these two bisphosphonates on fractures and FN BMD in osteoporotic men is likely positive, but requires further study.     

Use of Phalangeal Bone Mineral Density and Multi-site Speed of Sound Conduction to Monitor Therapy with Alendronate in Postmenopausal Women

In women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), response to therapy with bisphosphonates is conventionally monitored using central-site (hip and spine) bone mineral density (BMD), but more convenient alternatives are desirable. During a randomized parallel-group study of the efficacy of once-weekly (80 mg vs 160 mg) oral alendronate in the treatment of PMO, 81 women (mean age 70.2 years ± 4.6 SD) had BMD measurements of total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) (L1–L4, Hologic); and of the middle phalanx of the middle digit of the non-dominant hand (accuDXA) at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy with alendronate. At the same timepoints, subjects also had measurements of speed of sound (SOS) through bone at four sites (distal 1/3 radius, proximal phalanx of the third finger, midshaft of the tibia and fifth metatarsal) using the Sunlight Omnisense Ultrasound Bone Sonometer. Data from both patient groups were pooled for this analysis. Mean TH BMD at baseline was 0.705 g/cm²± 0.093 (SD) and increased by 1.7%± 2.3% and 2.5%± 2.3% at 6 and 12 months respectively (p= 0.09 and p<0.0001). Mean LS BMD at baseline was 0.718 ± 0.076 g/cm² and increased by 3.9%± 3.6% and 6.1%± 3.5 % at 6 and 12 months respectively (both p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant change from baseline in mean BMD by accuDXA at either 6 or 12 months. The only statistically significant changes in SOS were at the radius (decrease in SOS at 12 months, p = 0.04) and tibia (increase at 6 months, p<0.01, but no change between baseline and 12 months). Baseline correlation coefficients between accuDXA and LS and TH DXA were 0.22 (p= 0.05) and 0.27 (p= 0.02) respectively. Correlation coefficients between SOS and LS DXA ranged from 0.05 to 0.22; and between SOS and TH DXA ranged from –0.08 to 0.10 (all p= NS). These data suggest that the response to alendronate therapy over this time period cannot be measured by accuDXA or Sunlight SOS at the sites studied. Received: 26 June 2001 / Accepted: 27 September 2001     

Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis or Low Bone Density with Raloxifene

Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), has been shown to improved bone mineral density (BMD) and serum lipid profiles in healthy postmenopausal women. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of raloxifene on BMD, biochemical markers of bone metabolism and serum lipids in postmenopausal women with low bone density or osteoporosis. This Phase II, multicenter, 24-month, double-masked study assessed the efficacy and safety of raloxifene in 129 postmenopausal women (mean age ± SD: 60.2 ± 6.7 years) with osteoporosis or low bone density (baseline mean lumbar spine BMD T-score: −2.8). Women were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: placebo, 60 mg/day raloxifene-HCl (RLX 60) or 150 mg/day raloxifene-HCl (RLX 150) and concomitantly received 1000 mg/day calcium and 300 U/day vitamin D₃. At 24 months, BMD was significantly increased in the lumbar spine (+3.2%), femoral neck (+2.1%), trochanter (+2.7%) and total hip (+1.6%) in the RLX 60 group compared with the placebo group (p<0.05). The RLX 150 group had increases in BMD similar to those observed with RLX 60. A greater percentage of raloxifene-treated patients, compared with those receiving placebo, had increased BMD (p<0.05). Serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase activity, serum osteocalcin, and urinary type I collagen:creatinine ratio were significantly decreased in the RLX-treated groups, compared with the placebo group (p<0.01). RLX 60 treatment significantly decreased serum levels of triglycerides, and total- and LDL-cholesterol levels (p<0.01). The rates of patient discontinuation and adverse events were not significantly different among groups. In this study, raloxifene increased bone density, decreased bone turnover, and improved the serum lipid profile with minimal adverse events, and may be a safe and effective treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low bone density. Received: 26 December 1998 / Accepted: 31 March 1999     

Predicting Subsequent Bone Density Response to Intermittent Cyclical Therapy with Etidronate from Initial Density Response in Patients with Osteoporosis

We investigated whether an increase in lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS BMD) at 6 months or at 12 months could predict the response to intermittent cyclical therapy (ICT) with etidronate, defined in one of two ways: (i) an increase in LS BMD at 24 months (improvement) or (ii) an increase in LS BMD ≥0.028 g/cm² (significant improvement). The latter is a precision term calculated from test–retest values for LS BMD in osteoporotic patients. Two hundred and forty-seven patients (32 men; 5 premenopausal and 210 postmenopausal women) were followed for 24 months by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and were not taking estrogen, calcitonin or fluoride during treatment with ICT-etidronate. One hundred and fifty patients had a LS BMD measurement after 6 months of treatment with ICT-etidronate and 205 patients had one at 12 months. Baseline characteristics (mean;SD) were as follows: age, 66;11 years; years since menopause, 21;10; number of vertebral fractures at baseline, 0.87;1.26; LS BMD T-score, −2.8;1.2. After 24 months of treatment with ICT-etidronate, 81% of the patients had an improvement, and 55% had a significant improvement at the LS. Only 6% significantly lost bone (loss of 0.028 g/cm² or more). The mean percent change from baseline in LS BMD was 5.1% (95% confidence interval 4.2% to 6.0%). The results for men and postmenopausal women were similar to those for the entire group. Accuracy and sensitivity were marginally, but not significantly, higher when response was predicted using 12 month versus 6 month LS BMD measurements. The positive predictive values of improvement at 6 or 12 months were 89% and 90% respectively for improvement at 24 months, and 66% and 68% for significant improvement at 24 months. Identification of nonresponders was less successful and similar at 6 months and 12 months. Forty percent and 39% of the patients, who had no improvement at 6 or 12 months respectively, also had no improvement at 24 months, i.e., were true negatives, while 77% and 71% had no significant improvement at 24 months. The results may reflect slow response in a small subgroup of patients rather than nonresponse; however, no response at 1 year might identify patients whose rate of response is sufficiently slow that alternative therapy is justified. These data demonstrate a good response rate to ICT-etidronate and may help reduce the need for follow-up BMD measurements in those who show an early improvement. Received: 12 November 1999 / Accepted: 3 January 2000