Prior Bisphosphonate Treatment Research Articles

Prescriber Perspectives and Experiences with Deprescribing Versus Continuing Bisphosphonates in Older Nursing Home Residents with Dementia.

Few guidelines address fracture prevention medication use in nursing home (NH) residents with dementia. We sought to identify factors that influence prescriber decision-making for deprescribing of bisphosphonates for older NH residents with dementia. We conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with prescribers who care for older adults with dementia in NHs. Interview prompts addressed experiences treating fractures, benefits, and harms of bisphosphonates, and experiences with deprescribing. Coding was guided by the social-ecological framework including patient-level (intrapersonal) and external (interpersonal, system, community, and policy) influences. Most prescribers were physicians (83%); 75% were female and 75% were White. Most (75%) spent less than half of their clinical effort in NHs and half were in the first decade of practice. Among patient-level influences, prescribers uniformly agreed that a prior bisphosphonate treatment course of several years, emergence of adverse effects, and changing goals of care or limited life expectancy were compelling reasons to deprescribe. External influences were frequently discussed as barriers to deprescribing. At the interpersonal level, prescribers noted that family/informal caregivers are diverse in their involvement in decision-making, and frequently concerned about the adverse effects of bisphosphonates, but perceive deprescribing as "withdrawing care." At the health system level, prescribers felt that frequent transitions make it difficult to determine duration of prior treatment and to implement deprescribing. At the policy level, prescribers highlighted the lack of guidelines addressing residents with limited mobility and dementia or criteria for deprescribing, including uncertainty in the setting of prior fractures and lack of bone densitometry in NHs. Systems-level barriers to evaluating bone densitometry and treatment history in NHs may impede person-centered decision-making for fracture prevention. Further research is needed to evaluate the residual benefits of bisphosphonates in medically complex residents with limited mobility and dementia to inform recommendations for deprescribing versus continued use.

The efficacy of denosumab in Korean male patients with osteoporosis.

Background/AimsDespite the prominence of denosumab as the number one prescribed anti-osteoporosis drug in Korea, the effects of denosumab in male osteoporosis patients were not researched sufficiently. Moreover, concerns on rebound vertebral fractures associated with poor denosumab adherence exist.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 147 Korean male osteoporosis patients treated with denosumab. After 12 months of treatment, 60 patients were lost during follow-up, and eight were excluded due to missing data. Out of the initial 147 patients, 79 were considered eligible for the analysis of the efficacy of denosumab. 54 patients were initially drug-naïve, and 25 had previously received bisphosphonate therapy.ResultsIn 54 drug-naïve patients, significant increases in bone mineral density (BMD) were observed in all measurement sites: 5.2% ± 3.7% in the lumbar spine, 2.3% ± 2.8% in the femoral neck, and 1.9% ± 2.8% in the total hip (p < 0.01, respectively). Trabecular bone score showed an increase of 0.5% ± 5.8% in drug-naïve patients. Likewise, in 25 patients with previous bisphosphonate treatment, increase in BMD were observed as well: 4.8% ± 3.5% in the lumbar spine, 1.4% ± 3.6% in the femoral neck, and 0.8% ± 2.1% in the total hip (p < 0.01, p = 0.06, p = 0.06, respectively). Significant declines of −55.1% ± 31.8% in C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX), and −62.9% ± 21.3% in total procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), in drug-naïve patients; and −37.7% ± 41.5%, in CTX and −55.4% ± 30.1%, in P1NP in patients with previous bisphosphonate treatment were exhibited after 12 months of treatment. The adherence rates of the second and third dosing schedules were 79.9% and 56.8%, respectively.ConclusionsOur study indicates that denosumab is effective in increasing BMD in Korean osteoporosis males regardless of prior bisphosphonate treatment.

Effects of denosumab versus teriparatide in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis patients with prior bisphosphonate treatment

IntroductionOsteoporosis is one of the serious adverse effects associated with glucocorticoid therapy. Although bisphosphonates have been used for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), some patients have shown an inadequate response. In such cases, denosumab or teriparatide are used. However, there is no consensus on which of these two drugs is superior. We prospectively compared denosumab's and teriparatide's effects on the bone mineral density (BMD) in GIO patients with prior bisphosphonate treatment. Materials and methodsAfter receiving oral bisphosphonates for ≥2 years, GIO patients with low T-score BMD (<−2.5) were switched from bisphosphonates to denosumab (n = 20) or daily teriparatide (n = 21). We measured the BMD (lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip) in both groups every 6 months for 24 months. ResultsAt 24 months of treatment, the lumbar spine BMD increased significantly from baseline in both the denosumab and teriparatide groups (baseline vs. denosumab and teriparatide; 5.9 ± 5.6%, P < 0.001 and 7.9 ± 5.4%, P < 0.001). A significant increase in femoral neck BMD from baseline occurred only in the teriparatide group (6.6 ± 10.8%, P < 0.05); denosumab (1.5 ± 5.0%). No significant changes occurred in the total hip BMD from baseline in either group (−0.1 ± 5.6% and 3.3 ± 7.5%, respectively). There was no significant difference between the denosumab and teriparatide groups at 24 months in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, but was significantly higher in the teriparatide group at 12 months (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05 in the lumbar spine and femoral neck, respectively). ConclusionTeriparatide might have some advantages over denosumab and be a good alternative for treating GIO patients with prior bisphosphonate treatment.

Investigation of Sustained BMP Delivery in the Prevention of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ) in a Rat Model.

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) poses an ongoing challenge for clinicians and researchers. Currently, there is a lack of preventative measures available for at-risk patients undergoing tooth extractions, especially those with prior bisphosphonate treatment due to osteoporosis or bone metastasis diagnoses. Here, these issues are addressed using a preventative tissue engineering strategy against MRONJ development. This study evaluates the efficacy of a poly(ethylene glycol)-heparin hydrogel as a tool for the delivery of arginylglycylaspartic acid (RGD) and recombinant human bone morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Three groups of skeletally mature rats each receive two doses of intravenous zoledronic acid prior to surgery and undergo extraction of the right first mandibular molar with gingival closure. Experimental groups either have the sockets left empty, filled with hydrogel minus rhBMP-2, or filled with hydrogel plus rhBMP-2. Eight weeks postoperatively specimens are analyzed using radiological, histological, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques. µCT analysis shows increased bone formation with hydrogel/rhBMP-2 delivery compared to the empty socket. Hydrogel-treated groups display increased presence of osteocytes and increased osteoclastic action compared to the empty sockets. These results represent the first step toward improved delivery of rhBMP-2 and a potential MRONJ preventative for patients undergoing bisphosphonate treatment.

Effects on bone resorption markers of continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high risk bone metastases from breast cancer

BackgroundSwitching patients who remain at high risk of skeletal related events (SREs) despite pamidronate to the more potent bisphosphonate zoledronate, may be an effective treatment strategy. As part of a previously reported clinic study in this setting, we evaluated whether biomarkers for bone resorption, such as Bone-Specific Alkaline Phosphatase (BSAP), bone sialoprotein (BSP), and N-terminal telopeptide (NTX) correlated with subsequent SRE risk. MethodsBreast cancer patients who remained at high risk of SREs despite at least 3 months of q.3–4 weekly pamidronate were randomized to either continue on pamidronate or to switch to zoledronate (4mg) once every 4 weeks for 12-weeks. High risk bone metastases were defined by either: occurrence of a prior SRE, bone pain, radiologic progression of bone metastases and/or serum C-terminal telopeptide (CTx) levels > 400ng/L despite pamidronate use. Serum samples were collected at baseline and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 (CTx and BSAP) and baseline and week 12 (NTx and BSP), and all putative biomarkers were measured by ELISA. Follow up was extended to 2 years post trial entry for risk of subsequent SREs. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event outcomes. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to evaluate if laboratory values over time or the change in laboratory values from baseline were associated with having a SRE within the time frame of this study. ResultsFrom March 2012 to May 2014, 76 patients were screened, with 73 eligible for enrolment. All 73 patients were available for biochemical analysis, with 35 patients receiving pamidronate and 38 patients receiving zoledronate. The GEE analysis found that no laboratory value was associated with having a subsequent SRE. Interaction between visit and laboratory values was also investigated, but no interaction effect was statistically significant. Only increased number of lines of prior hormonal treatment was associated with subsequent SRE risk. ConclusionOur analysis failed to find any association between serum BSAP, BSP, CTx or NTx levels and subsequent SRE risk in this cohort of patients. This lack of correlation between serum biomarkers and clinical outcomes could be due to influences of prior bisphosphonate treatment or presence of extra-osseous metastases in a significant proportion of enrolled patients. As such, caution should be used in biomarker interpretation and use to direct decision making regarding SRE risk for high risk patients in this setting.

Diaphyseal Femur Fractures in Osteogenesis Imperfecta: Characteristics and Relationship With Bisphosphonate Treatment.

Several recent case reports have suggested that bisphosphonate treatment in individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is causally related to atypical femur fractures. However, it is not known whether atypical femur fractures are actually more frequent in patients who have received bisphosphonates. In the present study, we retrospectively analyzed 166 femur fractures in 119 children with a diagnosis of OI that had not undergone intramedullary rodding procedures. A total of 130 fractures in 90 patients occurred in femurs with preexisting deformities (age at fracture between 1 month and 19.9 years; 43 girls). Because deformities are a typical cause of fracture in OI, deformed femurs were excluded from the analysis of atypical fractures. However, it was noted that in deformed femurs a transverse fracture pattern (one of the criteria of atypical fractures) was associated with a moderate to severe OI phenotype and not related to bisphosphonate treatment. Of the 36 fractures that occurred in nondeformed femurs (30 individuals; age at fracture between 1 month and 17.4 years; 13 girls), 11 (in nine children) occurred during bisphosphonate treatment. Three of these fractures (27%) resembled atypical femur fractures. Among the 25 femur fractures (23 patients) that occurred in the absence of prior bisphosphonate treatment, 8 (22%) resembled atypical femur fractures. Logistic regression analysis showed that bisphosphonate treatment history was not associated with the occurrence of atypical fractures. In contrast, the presence of moderate to severe OI (defined as any OI type other than OI type I) was strongly associated with atypical femur fractures. Thus, we observed an atypical appearance in about a quarter of nondeformed femur fractures that occurred in children with OI. Such atypical femur fractures seemed to be related to the severity of OI rather than to bisphosphonate treatment history. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Predictors of teriparatide treatment failure in patients with low bone mass

IntroductionWhile teriparatide is the only skeletal anabolic agent approved in the United States, treatment failure is a major concern which complicates its clinical utility. We sought to identify factors that predict response failure in patients with low bone mass. MethodWe performed a retrospective study of adults with osteopenia or osteoporosis (T-scores<−1.0 and −2.5 SD below normal, respectively, at the total hip or lumbar spine) treated with teriparatide at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) between November 2002–December 2012. Trained study investigators blinded to patient outcomes collected electronic medical record data. Potential response failure predictors were identified using univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify independent predictors of treatment failure based on either osteoporotic fragility fracture or BMD response. ResultsDuring the 10-year period, 494 patients received teriparatide treatment and met eligibility criteria. Thirty-five patients had osteoporotic fractures, while 172 did not achieve a≥3% BMD increase. Among predictors as defined by BMD change, both prior bisphosphonate treatment [odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.50 (1.01–2.24)] and vitamin D therapy [1.50 (1.01–2.22)] were significantly (P<0.05) associated with teriparatide treatment failure. By contrast, no predictors were associated with treatment failure when fracture was the endpoint. ConclusionThese data suggest that prior bisphosphonate or vitamin D exposure may predict response failure to teriparatide therapy. Although these findings may, in part, reflect increased severity or longer duration of disease, this knowledge should help guide clinicians and patients when therapy choices are made.

Fracturas Femorais Atípicas e o Tratamento com Bifosfonatos: É um Factor de Risco?

Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing osteoporotic fracture, however atypical femoral fractures with a well-defined radiological pattern have been described in association with prolonged treatment with bisphosphonates. Our objectives in this study were to characterize patients ≥ 65 years old with femoral fractures (subtrochanteric/diaphyseal) considered typical and atypical and the relationship between the occurrence of atypical fractures and bisphosphonate use. We conducted a case-control study with patients admitted in our hospital with subtrochanteric or diaphyseal femur fracture in a period of five and a half years. After applying the exclusion criteria, the 92 fractures (91 patients) were classified as typical or atypical. The determination of prior bisphosphonate treatment was obtained through consultation of the individual medical history. We found 11 atypical fractures (10 patients) and 81 typical fractures (81 patients). The median age of both groups was statistically different (72 years - atypical vs. 80 years - typical, p &lt; 0.01). The reason for the use of bisphosphonates was 0.60 in atypical fractures and 0.01 in typical, and an odds ratio of 101.1 was obtained (p &lt; 0.01). Our results are supported and are in agreement with published studies relating to the occurrence of atypical femoral fractures associated with treatment with bisphosphonates. Despite the small number of cases it was possible to demonstrate a statistically significant relation between atypical femoral fractures and treatment with bisphosphonates. One should note that these atypical fractures occurred in patients significantly younger than patients with typical fractures.

Determinants associated with bone mineral density increase in response to daily teriparatide treatment in patients with osteoporosis

IntroductionSeveral factors associated with bone mineral density (BMD) increase are reported with daily teriparatide treatment, but there has been no systematic analysis to summarize these associations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical determinants associated with BMD increase to daily teriparatide treatment. MethodsThis was a retrospective study. We performed an analysis of 306 patients diagnosed with osteoporosis. Teriparatide was administered at 20μg/day for 12months. The primary efficacy measure was a change in lumbar spine (LS) BMD from baseline at 12months. To determine the response variables of BMD changes, we investigated the clinical determinants using univariate and multivariate analyses. ResultsThere was a 9.8±8.2% increase in LS BMD after 12months. Prior bisphosphonate treatment and baseline procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP) concentration were significantly associated with LS BMD absolute response by univariate analyses. In the multiple regression model, patients with higher baseline PINP concentration had a significantly greater LS BMD absolute increase. Prior bisphosphonate use lost its correlation in the multiple regression models. ConclusionOur results showed that baseline PINP concentration was a useful predictor of LS BMD absolute increase regardless of prior treatment.

Comparative effects of teriparatide and risedronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men: 18-month results of the EuroGIOPs trial

Data on treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) in men are scarce. We performed a randomized, open-label trial in men who have taken glucocorticoids (GC) for ≥3 months, and had an areal bone mineral density (aBMD) T-score ≤ –1.5 standard deviations. Subjects received 20 μg/d teriparatide (n = 45) or 35 mg/week risedronate (n = 47) for 18 months. Primary objective was to compare lumbar spine (L1–L3) BMD measured by quantitative computed tomography (QCT). Secondary outcomes included BMD and microstructure measured by high-resolution QCT (HRQCT) at the 12th thoracic vertebra, biomechanical effects for axial compression, anterior bending, and axial torsion evaluated by finite element (FE) analysis from HRQCT data, aBMD by dual X-ray absorptiometry, biochemical markers, and safety. Computed tomography scans were performed at 0, 6, and 18 months. A mixed model repeated measures analysis was performed to compare changes from baseline between groups. Mean age was 56.3 years. Median GC dose and duration were 8.8 mg/d and 6.4 years, respectively; 39.1% of subjects had a prevalent fracture, and 32.6% received prior bisphosphonate treatment. At 18 months, trabecular BMD had significantly increased for both treatments, with significantly greater increases with teriparatide (16.3% versus 3.8%; p = 0.004). HRQCT trabecular and cortical variables significantly increased for both treatments with significantly larger improvements for teriparatide for integral and trabecular BMD and bone surface to volume ratio (BS/BV) as a microstructural measure. Vertebral strength increases at 18 months were significant in both groups (teriparatide: 26.0% to 34.0%; risedronate: 4.2% to 6.7%), with significantly higher increases in the teriparatide group for all loading modes (0.005 < p < 0.015). Adverse events were similar between groups. None of the patients on teriparatide but five (10.6%) on risedronate developed new clinical fractures (p = 0.056). In conclusion, in this 18-month trial in men with GIO, teriparatide showed larger improvements in spinal BMD, microstructure, and FE-derived strength than risedronate.

Teriparatide in Bisphosphonate-Resistant Osteoporosis: Microarchitectural Changes and Clinical Results After 6 and 18 months

A number of osteoporotic patients under bisphosphonate treatment present persistent fragility fractures and bone loss despite good compliance. The objective of this 18-month prospective study was to investigate the effect of teriparatide [rhPTH(1-34)] in 25 female osteoporotics who were inadequate responders to oral bisphosphonates and to correlate microarchitectural changes in three consecutive iliac crest biopsies measured by micro-computed tomography (μCT) with bone mineral density (BMD) and bone serum markers. Scanned biopsies at baseline (M0), 6months (M6), and 18months (M18) demonstrated early significant (P<0.01) increases in bone volume per tissue volume (+34%) and trabecular number (+14%) at M6 with only moderate changes in most μCT structural parameters between M6 and M18. μCT-measured bone tissue density was significantly decreased at M18, expressing an overall lower degree of tissue mineralization characteristic for new bone formation despite unchanged trabecular thickness due to increased intratrabecular tunneling at M18. μCT results were consistent with serum bone turnover markers, reaching maximal levels of bone alkaline phosphatase and serum β-crosslaps at M6, with subsequent decline until M18. BMD assessed by DXA demonstrated persistent increases at the lumbar spine until M12, whereas no significant change was observed at the hip. Type (alendronate/risedronate) and duration (3.5±4years) of prior bisphosphonate treatment did not influence outcome on μCT, BMD, or bone marker results. The overall results indicate a positive ceiling effect of teriparatide on bone microarchitecture and bone markers after 6 and 12months for lumbar spine BMD, with no additional gain until M18 in bisphosphonate nonresponders.

Effects of 1 year of daily teriparatide treatment on iliacal bone mineralization density distribution (BMDD) in postmenopausal osteoporotic women previously treated with alendronate or risedronate

Anabolic treatment with teriparatide of postmenopausal osteoporotic patients previously treated with bisphosphonates is a new therapeutic approach. However, its effects on the bone mineralization density distribution (BMDD) are unknown. We studied paired transiliac bone biopsy samples taken before and after 1 year of treatment with recombinant human parathyroid hormone peptide 1-34 (teriparatide) from 16 osteoporotic women treated with either alendronate (priorALN) or risedronate (priorRIS) for at least 2 years and subsequently treated for 12 months with teriparatide. Cancellous (Cn.) and cortical (Ct.) BMDD values were measured using quantitative backscattered electron imaging. At baseline, BMDD values of priorALN and priorRIS women were similar and within the normal range. One year of teriparatide treatment caused significant effects on the BMDD. Analyzing changes from baseline for each bisphosphonate group separately, priorALN patients revealed increases in the portion of low mineralized bone areas (Cn.Ca(Low) +25.9%, Ct.Ca(Low) +62.0%, both p < .05) and Ct. heterogeneity of mineralization (Ct.Ca(Width) +22.8%, p < .001). PriorRIS patients showed increased mineralization heterogeneity (Cn.Ca(Width) +14.8%, p < .05, and Ct.Ca(Width) +15.8%, p < .001). Analysis of the influence of the prior bisphosphonate treatment showed that the BMDD response to 1 year of teriparatide treatment did not depend on the type of prior bisphosphonate. In consequence, priorALN and priorRIS groups were combined. The pooled groups revealed increased Cn.Ca(Width) and Ct.Ca(Width) (+10.7%, p < .01, and +19.6%, p < .001, respectively) as well as increased Cn.Ca(Low) and Ct.Ca(Low) (+18.2%, p < .05, and +36.6%, p < .01, respectively). In summary, our findings indicate a significant effect of teriparatide on BMDD when administered subsequent to a bisphosphonate in agreement with teriparatide's anabolic action.

Bone pain reduction in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with ibandronate–results from a post-marketing surveillance study

Pain relief is an important treatment goal for breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease and treatment should be associated with a low rate of side effects. This interim analysis of a prospective non-interventional study documents the efficacy and safety of the amino-bisphosphonate ibandronate in the treatment of metastatic bone disease under real-life conditions. For up to 24 weeks 913 breast cancer patients received IV infusions of 6 mg ibandronate every 3-4 weeks or 50 mg of oral ibandronate once daily. Efficacy variables included pain severity, analgesic use, and skeletal-related events; the major safety parameter was renal function, assessed by serum creatinine levels. Subgroup analyses were performed according to pretreatment with bisphosphonates (none, ibandronate, or other bisphosphonates). At baseline, patients with ibandronate pretreatment tended to have lower mean pain scores and lower serum creatinine levels than those pre-treated with other bisphosphonates. Over the observation period, analgesic use did not increase. Among the 712 patients reporting pain at baseline, 70% achieved an improvement in pain severity during treatment with ibandronate, and there was no evidence to suggest relevant differences in mean pain reductions with IV or oral administration of ibandronate or according to prior bisphosphonate treatment. Skeletal-related events were rare (7%). Changes in serum creatinine levels during ibandronate treatment were small and both formulations of ibandronate were rated as well tolerated by physicians and patients. Data from this non-interventional study confirm the analgesic efficacy and safety profile of IV and oral ibandronate under real-life conditions.

MER-101–03, a multicenter, phase II study to compare MER-101 20mg tablets to intravenous zoledronic acid 4mg in prostate cancer patients

5161 Background: The primary objective of this study is to examine the pharmacodynamic effects of two different regimens of zoledronic acid, Orazol 20 mg tablets versus Zometa 4mg IV infusion once-monthly therapy on biomarkers in male bisphosphonate-naïve hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Methods: The study is an open-label, multi-center phase II clinical trial to compare oral Orazol 20 mg tablets weekly, to infusions of intravenous Zometa 4mg monthly, in males with hormone-refractory prostate cancer, bone metastases, and no prior bisphosphonate treatment. Patients were assigned into one of three cohorts. The three treatments administered were IV Zometa, 4 mg, 15 minute infusion, Day 0 and Day 28; Orazol po, 20 mg, Days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49; and Orazol po, 20 mg, Days 0, 1, 2, 3, 28, 35, 42, and 49. The study population consisted of men with hormone refractory prostate cancer as evidenced by history of rising PSA levels (last 2 of 3 PSA levels must be above nadir), who are bisphosphonate-naive, and have radiographically-confirmed bone metastases. Efficacy assessments: The primary endpoints are the assessment of response of four biomarkers, urinary NTX, serum CTX, serum bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and serum calcium on days -7, 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, and 56. Secondary endpoints are assessments of performance and pain scores based on ECOG performance status, BPI, and analgesic use. Safety assessments include physical examinations, vital signs and body weight, hematology panel, urinalysis, and blood chemistry panel. Results: The results demonstrated a rapid decrease for all four biomarkers. This decrease was seen at seven days, and was sustained throughout the study. There were no statistically significant differences between any of the treatments in the primary and secondary endpoints. Conclusions: From the results of MER-101–03, Orazol weekly therapy appears to be as effective as Zometa, based on the biomarkers analyzed. Orazol offers a substantial improvement in therapy over IV infusion for patients, with efficacy that is at least comparable based on the results obtained here. No significant financial relationships to disclose.