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     

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     

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     

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     

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     

Randomized Trial of the Effects of Risedronate on Vertebral Fractures in Women with Established Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

The purpose of this randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study was to determine the efficacy and safety of risedronate in the prevention of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis. The study was conducted at 80 study centers in Europe and Australia. Postmenopausal women (n= 1226) with two or more prevalent vertebral fractures received risedronate 2.5 or 5 mg/day or placebo; all subjects also received elemental calcium 1000 mg/day, and up to 500 IU/day vitamin D if baseline levels were low. The study duration was 3 years; however, the 2.5 mg group was discontinued by protocol amendment after 2 years. Lateral spinal radiographs were taken annually for assessment of vertebral fractures, and bone mineral density was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at 6-month intervals. Risedronate 5 mg reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures by 49% over 3 years compared with control (p<0.001). A significant reduction of 61% was seen within the first year (p= 0.001). The fracture reduction with risedronate 2.5 mg was similar to that in the 5 mg group over 2 years. The risk of nonvertebral fractures was reduced by 33% compared with control over 3 years (p= 0.06). Risedronate significantly increased bone mineral density at the spine and hip within 6 months. The adverse-event profile of risedronate, including gastrointestinal adverse events, was similar to that of control. Risedronate 5 mg provides effective and well-tolerated therapy for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis, reducing the incidence of vertebral fractures and improving bone density in women with established disease. Received: 29 September 1999 / Accepted: 10 November 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     

Effects of Alendronate on Bone Density in Men with Primary and Secondary Osteoporosis

Alendronate has been reported to increase bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce fracture risk in women with osteoporosis. As there are no proven safe and effective treatments available for men with osteoporosis, we compared the effects of alendronate (10 mg/day) on BMD, measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, in a 12-month prospective, controlled, open label study involving (i) men with primary (n= 23) or secondary osteoporosis (n= 18), (ii) postmenopausal women with primary (n= 18) or secondary (n= 21) osteoporosis, and (iii) 29 male and 14 female untreated controls matched by age, height and weight. The patients had one or more vertebral fractures and ranged in age from 34.6 to 85.1 years. BMD was detectably increased relative to baseline by 6 months, and increased by comparable amounts in males and females with primary or secondary osteoporosis. At 12 months, lumbar spine BMD was 5.4%± 1.1% to 7.0%± 2.2% higher in the treated groups compared with baseline and controls (p<0.05 to 0.0001). Trochanteric BMD increased by 2.6%± 1.5% and 3.7%± 1.7% in treated men with primary and secondary osteoporosis, respectively (p = 0.06 to 0.08), and by 3.9%± 1.3% in treated women with primary osteoporosis (p<0.01) after 12 months. No significant changes were detected at the femoral neck or Ward’s triangle. BMD remained unchanged in controls. We infer that alendronate has comparable incremental effects on BMD in men and women with primary and secondary osteoporosis within 12 months of treatment. The changes are in the order of 0.5 SD – effects associated with a clinically worthwhile reduction in fracture risk. The data provide room for optimism regarding the role of alendronate in the treatment of osteoporosis in men. Randomized, double-masked and placebo-controlled trials are needed to confirm these preliminary findings and demonstrate antifracture efficacy using vertebral and nonvertebral fracture rates as the primary endpoint. Received: 23 February 1999 / Accepted: 2 June 1999     

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     

Alendronate Treatment in Men With Primary Osteoporosis: A Three-Year Longitudinal Study

Bisphosphonates have been widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis in women, whereas until now there have been few data on their use in men. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a 3-year alendronate treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) and quantitative ultrasound (QUS) in men with primary osteoporosis. We studied 77 osteoporotic men (aged 57.1 ± 10.8 yrs) who completed a 3-year treatment with alendronate (10 mg/day) plus calcium (1000 mg/day) (n = 39), or calcium alone (n = 38). At baseline and at a 12-month interval, we measured BMD at the lumbar spine and femur (femoral neck and total hip) by DXA (Hologic) and speed of sound (SOS), broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) and Stiffness (S) at the os calcis by Achilles plus (Lunar). Alendronate treatment had significantly increased lumbar spine BMD by 4.2% at year 1, by 6.3% at year 2, and 8.8% at year 3. BMD at the femoral neck and total hip had increased by 2.1% and 1.6% at year 1, by 3.2% and 2.9% at year 2, and by 4.2% and 3.9% at year 3, respectively. BUA and Stiffness showed a significant increase in the alendronate-treated group at year 2 (3.2% and 4.9%, respectively) and at year 3 (3.8% and 6%, respectively). BMD at the lumbar spine showed the best longitudinal sensitivity whereas longitudinal sensitivity of both QUS at the heel and femur BMD were similar. In conclusion, this study confirms that alendronate represents an important therapeutic advance in the management of male osteoporosis. BMD at the lumbar spine appears to be the best method for monitoring the effect of alendronate on bone mass in osteoporotic men.     

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     

Prevention of Bone Loss by Clodronate in Early Postmenopausal Women with Vertebral Osteopenia: A Dose-Finding Study

This double-masked, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of oral clodronate in the prevention of bone loss in early postmenopausal women with vertebral osteopenia. Altogether 610 women with a mean age of 53 years were recruited for the study. They were 1–5 years postmenopausal and their lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) was at least 1 standard deviation below the mean of premenopausal women (T-score ≤−1). The subjects were randomized into five study groups to receive either placebo, clodronate 65 mg, 400 mg or 800 mg daily, or intermittent clodronate in 3 month cycles with 400 mg daily for 15 days followed with no treatment for 75 days for 3 years. One hundred and eighty-seven of 509 women who completed the primary study continued in the extension study of 2 years in which previous placebo users were switched to clodronate 800 mg daily, while previous users of 400 mg or 800 mg of clodronate used either placebo or 800 mg of clodronate daily. In the primary study clodronate was administered in the evening, and in the extension 1 h before breakfast on an empty stomach. In the primary study mean changes in lumbar spine BMD were −3.4% in the placebo group and +0.4% in 800 mg clodronate group [difference between groups at 3 years 3.8% (95% CI 2.7% to 4.9%, p<0.0001)], and in the trochanter area BMD −1.1% in the placebo group, and + 0.4% in the 800 mg clodronate group [difference between groups at 3 years 1.5% (95% CI 0.05% to 2.9%)]. During the extension study mean changes in lumbar spine BMD were +1.5% in the clodronate group and −0.2 % in the placebo group [difference between groups 1.7% (CI 0.4% to 3.0%, p = 0.010)] and in trochanter BMD were +2.5% in the clodronate group and no change in the placebo group [difference between groups 2.1% (CI 0.3% to 3.9%, p = 0.007)]. No statistically significant differences between the placebo and 800 mg clodronate groups were found in the femoral neck BMD. In the primary study the urinary excretion of type I collagen aminoterminal telopeptide (NTX) decreased by 44% (p<0.0001 compared with placebo) and that of deoxypyridinoline by 18% (p<0.0001) in the clodronate 800 mg group. In the extension study urinary NTX decreased by 51% (p<0.0001) in those who were switched to 800 mg of clodronate and increased by 67% (p<0.0001) in those who stopped using that dose. There was no difference in the frequency of gastrointestinal complaints between clodronate- and placebo-treated patients in the primary study, but they were more common among women who received clodronate in the extension phase. Clodronate in daily doses of 400–800 mg caused a slight elevation of aminotransferase levels, usually within the reference range. In bone biopsies no defect in mineralization was found. In conclusion, clodronate in a daily dose of 800 mg prevents early postmenopausal bone loss at the sites of the skeleton in which cancellous bone predominates. It effectively reduces bone resorption and bone turnover rate. Antifracture efficacy of clodronate remains to be established by prospective, placebo-controlled trials. Received: 4 March 2002 / Accepted: 9 July 2002     

An Open-Label Extension Study of Alendronate Treatment in Elderly Women with Osteoporosis

We have recently reported the results of a 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 359 elderly osteoporotic women who were treated with daily oral alendronate (ALN) 1, 2.5, or 5 mg or placebo (PBO). We report the results of a 12-month, open-label, extension study during which 246 patients from the original study were treated with ALN 10 mg/day. Significant increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) were observed in patients who had previously received PBO or ALN 1 and 2.5 mg/day for 24 months. Significant gains in trochanter BMD were seen in all treatment groups. Small changes were observed in femoral neck, total body, and forearm BMD during the course of this extension study. In general, the greatest increases in BMD during the open-label extension year occurred in patients who received either PBO or the lower doses of ALN during the previous 2-year blinded study. The frequencies of all categories of upper gastrointestinal adverse experiences (AEs) were less during months 25–36 (open-label extension) than during months 0–24 (original study). In conclusion, treatment with ALN 10 mg/day for 12 months in elderly women with osteoporosis who were previously treated for 24 months with PBO or ALN 1, 2.5, or 5 mg/day increased or maintained BMD of the spine, trochanter, and forearm, and was generally safe and well tolerated, especially in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Received: 16 June 1998 / Accepted: 1 November 1998     

A Randomized Trial of Sodium Fluoride (60 mg) ± Estrogen in Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: Increased Vertebral Fractures and Peripheral Bone Loss with Sodium Fluoride; Concurrent Estrogen Prevents Peripheral Loss, But Not Vertebral Fractures

Postmenopausal Caucasian women aged less than 80 years (n= 99) with one or more atraumatic vertebral fracture and no hip fractures, were treated by cyclical administration of enteric coated sodium fluoride (NaF) or no NaF for 27 months, with precautions to prevent excessive stimulation of bone turnover. In the first study 65 women, unexposed to estrogen (–E study), age 70.8 ± 0.8 years (mean ± SEM) were all treated with calcium (Ca) 1.0–1.2 g daily and ergocalciferol (D) 0.25 mg per 25 kg once weekly and were randomly assigned to cyclical NaF (6 months on, 3 months off, initial dose 60 mg/day; group F CaD, n= 34) or no NaF (group CaD, n= 31). In the second study 34 patients, age 65.5 ± 1.2 years, on hormone replacement therapy (E) at baseline, had this standardized, and were all treated with Ca and D and similarly randomized (FE CaD, n= 17; E CaD, n= 17) (+E study). The patients were stratified according to E status and subsequently assigned randomly to ± NaF. Seventy-five patients completed the trial. Both groups treated with NaF showed an increase in lumbar spinal density (by DXA) above baseline by 27 months: FE CaD + 16.2% and F CaD +9.3% (both p= 0.0001). In neither group CaD nor E CaD did lumbar spinal density increase. Peripheral bone loss occurred at most sites in the F CaD group at 27 months: tibia/fibula shaft –7.3% (p= 0.005); femoral shaft –7.1% (p= 0.004); distal forearm –4.0% (p = 0.004); total hip –4.1% (p = 0.003); and femoral neck –3.5% (p= 0.006). No significant loss occurred in group FE CaD. Differences between the two NaF groups were greatest at the total hip at 27 months but were not significant [p<0.05; in view of the multiple bone mineral density (BMD) sites, an alpha of 0.01 was employed to denote significance in BMD changes throughout this paper]. Using Cox’s proportional hazards model, in the –E study there were significantly more patients with first fresh vertebral fractures in those treated with NaF than in those not so treated (RR = 24.2, p= 0.008, 95% CI 2.3–255). Patients developing first fresh fractures in the first 9 months were markedly different between groups: –23% of F CaD, 0 of CaD, 29% of FE CaD and 0 of E CaD. The incidence of incomplete (stress) fractures was similar in the two NaF-treated groups. Complete nonvertebral fractures did not occur in the two +E groups; there were no differences between groups F CaD and CaD. Baseline BMD (spine and femoral neck) was related to incident vertebral fractures in the control groups (no NaF), but not in the two NaF groups. Our results and a literature review indicate that fluoride salts, if used, should be at low dosage, with pretreatment and co-treatment with a bone resorption inhibitor. Received: 22 August 2000 / Accepted: 23 July 2001     

Prevention of Early Postmenopausal Bone Loss by Strontium Ranelate: The Randomized, Two-Year, Double-Masked, Dose-Ranging, Placebo-Controlled PREVOS Trial

Early postmenopausal women (n = 160) were randomised to receive placebo or strontium ranelate (SR) 125 mg/day, 500 mg/day or 1 g/day for 2 years (40 participants per group). All participants received calcium 500 mg/day. The primary efficacy parameter was the percent variation in lumbar bone mineral density (BMD), measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Secondary efficacy criteria included hip BMD and biochemical markers of bone turnover. At month 24, SR 1 g/day significantly increased lumbar BMD compared with placebo [mean (SD) +5.53% (5.12); p<0.001] for measured values and [mean (SD) +1.41% (5.33%); p<0.05] for values adjusted for bone strontium content. The annual increase for adjusted values was +0.66% compared with −0.5% with placebo, with an overall beneficial effect after 2 years of about 2.4% with SR 1 g/day relative to placebo. There were no other significant between-group differences in adjusted lumbar BMD. Femoral neck and total hip BMD were also significantly increased at month 24 with SR 1 g/day compared with placebo [mean (SD): +2.46% (4.78) and +3.21% (4.68), respectively; both p<0.001)]. SR 1 g/day significantly increased bone alkaline phosphatase at all time points (p<0.05) compared with baseline and between-group analysis showed a significant increase, compared with placebo, at month 18 (p = 0.048). No effect on markers of bone resorption was observed. SR was as well tolerated as placebo. The minimum does at which SR is effective in preventing bone loss in early postmenopausal non-osteoporotic women is therefore 1 g/day. Received: 7 February 2002 / Accepted: 2 July 2002     

Calcium Absorption in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: Benefit of HRT Plus Calcitriol, but not HRT Alone, in both Malabsorbers and Normal Absorbers

In a randomized trial involving 71 postmenopausal osteoporotic women with vertebral compression fractures, radiocalcium absorption studies using the ⁴⁵Ca single isotope method (α) were performed at baseline and after 8 months of treatment with either continuous combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT, as piperazine estrone sulfate 0.625–0.937mg daily ± medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg daily depending on uterine status) or HRT plus calcitriol 0.25 μg twice daily. A calcium supplement of 600 mg nocte was given to only those women who had a daily calcium intake of less than 1 g per day at baseline, as assessed by recalled dietary intake. There was a significant decrease [0.74 (± 0.35 SD) to 0.58 (± 0.22), Dα=−0.17 (± 0.26), p<0.0005] in α at 8 months compared with baseline in the HRT-treated group, but a significant increase [0.68 (± 0.31) to 0.84 (± 0.27), Dα=+0.16 (± 0.30), p<0.003] in the HRT-plus-calcitriol treated patients, resulting in α being significantly higher after 8 months in the latter group than in the HRT-only group. Although 72% of the patients had been supplemented with calcium between the first and second studies, separate analyses revealed that the change in calcium intake had not affected the result. Further breakdown of the groups into baseline ‘normal’ absorbers (α≥0.55) and ‘malabsorbers’ (α <0.55) revealed that α decreased with HRT treatment only in the normal absorbers, and remained stable in the malabsorbers. Conversely, following HRT plus calcitriol treatment, α increased only in the malabsorbers, the normal absorbers in this group remaining unchanged. In conclusion, our data show that HRT, of the type and dose used in this study, did not produce an increase in absorption efficiency; it was in fact associated with a fall. Increased absorption efficiency cannot be achieved unless calcitriol is used concurrently, and then only in patients with malabsorption. Calcitriol also had a significant effect in normal absorbers in that it prevented the decline in α seen with HRT alone, and thus should be considered in all patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis treated with HRT. Received: 6 October 1998 / Accepted: 3 May 1999     

VDR Genotype and Response to Etidronate Therapy in Late Postmenopausal Women

Twenty-four late postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were studied. The patients were separated in three subgroups according to the BsmI polymorphism of the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene: BB (n= 8), Bb (n = 10) and bb (n = 6). They did not differ in age (mean ages were 66.0 years, 65.9 years and 63.9 years, respectively), years after menopause (18.7 years, 18.1 years and 18.4 years) or body weight (64.9 kg, 65.3 kg and 63.8 kg), the variables known to be associated with bone mineral density (BMD). The results show that the response to antiresorptive bisphosphonate therapy in combination with calcium supplementation is modified by VDR genotype. The lumbar spine BMD increased significantly faster in the BB and Bb groups (7.3% and 7.0%, respectively) compared with the bb group (2.5%) during 1 year of cyclic etidronate therapy (400 mg/day) and calcium supplementation (1000 mg/day). The biochemical marker of bone resorption (urinary hydroxyproline excretion) as well as the bone formation marker (serum levels of osteocalcin) decreased during the treatment. With respect to VDR genotype, a significantly higher decrease in osteocalcin level was observed in bb as compared with BB subjects. We conclude that the VDR genotype is involved in an individual’s response to cyclic etidronate therapy with calcium supplementation. Received: 12 December 1998 / Accepted: 18 March 1999     

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