Zoledronic Acid and Clinical Fractures and Mortality after Hip Fracture

Self Cite

162

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) has shown beneficial effects on bone turnover and bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal osteoporosis. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a once-yearly i.v. infusion of ZOL with weekly oral alendronate (ALN) in men with osteoporosis. In this multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study, participants (n ¼ 302) were randomized to receive either once-yearly ZOL 5 mg i.v. or weekly oral ALN 70 mg for 24 months. Changes in BMD and bone marker levels were assessed. ZOL increased BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter and was not inferior to ALN at 24 months [least squares mean estimates of the percentage increases in lumbar spine BMD of 6.1% and 6.2%; difference approximately 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-0.85 in the ZOL and ALN groups, respectively]. At month 12, the median change from baseline of markers for bone resorption [serum b-C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (b-CTx) and urine N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx)] and formation [serum N-terminal propeptide of type I collagen (P1NP) and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP)] were comparable between ZOL and ALN groups. Most men preferred i.v. ZOL over oral ALN. The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment groups. It is concluded that a once-yearly i.v. infusion of ZOL 5 mg increased bone density and decreased bone turnover markers similarly to once-weekly oral ALN 70 mg in men with low bone density. ß

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…bisphosphonates. (12,18) These events generally did not lead to discontinuation from the study. Overall, they were mild to moderate in severity and resolved within 3 days of study drug administration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Efficacy and safety of a once-yearly i.v. Infusion of zoledronic acid 5 mg versus a once-weekly 70-mg oral alendronate in the treatment of male osteoporosis: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study

Orwoll

Miller

Adachi

et al. 2010

Self Cite

162

“…(2) Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have showed that bisphosphonate treatment is highly effective for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fracture, (5) including among hip fracture patients. (6) This is reflected in many clinical guidelines from around the world that recommend the use of bisphosphonate for patients having sustained a minimal trauma fracture. (7) In January 2005, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales published new guidance recommending bisphosphonate use as a first-line therapy for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fracture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-Osteoporosis Medication Prescriptions and Incidence of Subsequent Fracture Among Primary Hip Fracture Patients in England and Wales: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

Hawley

Leal

Delmestri

et al. 2016

In January 2005, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales provided new guidance on the use of antiosteoporosis therapies for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. This was shortly followed in the same year by market authorization of a generic form of alendronic acid within the UK. We here set out to estimate the actual practice impact of these events among hip fracture patients in terms of antiosteoporosis medication prescribing and subsequent fracture incidence using primary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) from 1999 to 2013. Changes in level and trend of prescribing and subsequent fracture following publication of NICE guidance and availability of generic alendronic acid were estimated using an interrupted time series analysis. Both events were considered in combination within a 1-year "intervention period." We identified 10,873 primary hip fracture patients between April 1999 and Sept 2012. Taking into account prior trend, the intervention period was associated with an immediate absolute increase of 14.9% (95% CI, 10.9 to 18.9) for incident antiosteoporosis prescriptions and a significant and clinically important reduction in subsequent major and subsequent hip fracture: -0.19% (95% CI, -0.28 to -0.09) and -0.17% (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.09) per 6 months, respectively. This equated to an approximate 14% (major) and 22% (hip) reduction at 3 years postintervention relative to expected values based solely on preintervention level and trend. We conclude that among hip fracture patients, publication of NICE guidance and availability of generic alendronic acid was temporally associated with increased prescribing and a significant decline in subsequent fractures.

“…(3) Pharmacologic treatment of individuals with a preexisting fracture can reduce further fracture (4) and mortality risk. (5) Therefore, a major priority in osteoporosis research at present is to develop prognostic models for identifying individuals who have high risk of fracture. Using established clinical risk factors, a number of prognostic models have been developed and implemented recently.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic profiling and individualized prognosis of fracture

Tran

Nguyen

et al. 2010

Fragility fracture is a serious public health problem in the world. The risk of fracture is determined by genetic and nongenetic clinical risk factors. This study sought to quantify the contribution of genetic profiling to fracture prognosis. The study was built on the ongoing Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study, in which fracture and risk factors of 858 men and 1358 women had been monitored continuously from 1989 and 2008. Fragility fracture was ascertained by radiologic reports. Bone mineral density at the femoral neck was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Fifty independent genes with allele frequencies ranging from 0.01 to 0.60 and relative risks (RRs) ranging from 1.01 to 3.0 were simulated. Three predictive models were fitted to the data in which fracture was a function of (1) clinical risk factors only, (2) genes only, and (3) clinical risk factors and 50 genes. The area under the curve (AUC) for model 1 was 0.77, which was lower than that of model II (AUC ¼ 0.82). Adding genes into the clinical risk factors model (model 3) increased the AUC to 0.88 and improved the accuracy of fracture classification by 45%, with most (41%) improvement in specificity. In the presence of clinical risk factors, the number of genes required to achieve an AUC of 0.85 was around 25. These results suggest that genetic profiling could enhance the predictive accuracy of fracture prognosis and help to identify high-risk individuals for appropriate management of osteoporosis or intervention. ß