Background
Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.

Objectives
To assess the efficacy of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

Search methods
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007.

Selection criteria
Women receiving at least one year of alendronate, for postmenopausal osteoporosis, were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence.

Data collection and analysis
We undertook study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analysis of fracture outcomes using relative risks and a > 15% relative change was considered clinically important. We assessed study quality through reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.

Main results
Eleven trials representing 12,068 women were included in the review.

Relative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 10 mg dose were as follows. For vertebral fractures, a significant 45% RRR was found (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67). This was significant for both primary prevention, with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80) and 2% ARR, and secondary prevention with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69) and 6% ARR. For non-vertebral fractures, a significant 16% RRR was found (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94). This was significant for secondary prevention, with 23% RRR (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92) and 2% ARR, but not for primary prevention (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). There was a significant 40% RRR in hip fractures (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92), but only secondary prevention was significant with 53% RRR (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85) and 1% ARR. The only significance found for wrist was in secondary prevention, with a 50% RRR (RR 0.50 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) and 2% ARR.

For adverse events, we found no statistically significant differences in any included study. However, observational data raise concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Authors' conclusions
At 10 mg per day, both clinically important and statistically significant reductions in vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures were observed for secondary prevention ('gold' level evidence, www.cochranemsk.org). We found no statistically significant results for primary prevention, with the exception of vertebral fractures, for which the reduction was clinically important ('gold' level evidence).

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

This Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) compares the benefits in fracture reduction and the harms from adverse events (AE) among and within the various classes of treatment for low bone density. Our outcomes of interest for measuring benefits are vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and radial fractures. The studies collect vertebral fracture outcomes in one of two ways. In some studies, all participants undergo radiography at pre-determined intervals. Other studies use clinical criteria, i.e. whether a fracture has been diagnosed by a clinician during the time interval. Trials that radiograph all participants will by nature detect more fractures. However the higher detection rate will apply to both treatment and placebo groups. Thus, the relative differences found should be similar that found in studies that use clinical criteria.

Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments To Prevent Fractures in Men and Women With Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis

These guidelines update issues covered in previous versions and introduce new ones that have arisen in recent years. The former refer mainly to the therapeutic developments that have been made during this time (zoledronate, denosumab, bazedoxifene), which have led to a change in the drug selection algorithm. The latter deal with therapeutic management, the description of new adverse effects (which have led to changes in therapeutic behaviour patterns, as is the case with atypical fracture of the femur), treatment duration (with consideration for the so-called ‘‘therapeutic holidays’’), the so-called sequential treatment and changes in treatment imposed by certain circumstances. A new algorithm has been introduced for sequential treatment. Attention has also been paid to vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. © 2015 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). All rights reserved.

Guías de práctica clínica en la osteoporosis posmenopáusica, glucocorticoidea y del varón. Sociedad Española de Investigación Ósea y del Metabolismo Mineral

Therapies for osteoporosis must be taken for at least 1 year to be effective. The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in adherence to etidronate, alendronate and hormone replacement therapy in a group of patients seen at our tertiary care centres. The Canadian Database of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia (CANDOO), a prospective observational database designed to capture clinical data, was searched for patients who started therapy following entry into CANDOO. There were 1196 initiating etidronate, 477 alendronate and 294 hormone replacement therapy women and men aged (mean, SD) 65.8 (8.7) years in the study. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess differences between treatment groups in the time to discontinuation of therapy. Several potential covariates such as anthropometry, medications, illnesses, fractures and lifestyle factors were entered into the model. A forward selection technique was used to generate the final model. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Adjusted results indicated that alendronate-treated patients were more likely to discontinue therapy as compared with etidronate-treated patients (1.404; 95% CI: 1.150, 1.714). After 1 year, 90.3% of patients were still taking etidronate compared with 77.6% for alendronate. No statistically significant differences were found between hormone replacement therapy and etidronate users (0.971; 95% CI: 0.862, 1.093) and hormone replacement therapy and alendronate users (0.824; 95% CI: 0.624, 1.088) after controlling for potential covariates. After 1 year, 80.1% of patients were still taking hormone replacement therapy, which decreased to 44.5% after 6 years. Increasing age and presence of incident non-vertebral fractures were found to be independent predictors of adherence. In conclusion, alendronate users were more likely to discontinue therapy than etidronate users over the follow-up period. Potential barriers to long-term patient adherence to osteoporosis therapies need to be evaluated.

Adherence to bisphosphonates and hormone replacement therapy in a tertiary care setting of patients in the CANDOO database.

Bisphosphonates are widely prescribed to treat Paget's disease of the bone and to prevent and treat osteoporosis. Soon after the release of alendronate, esophagitis and esophageal strictures were encountered, resulting in labeling changes. Subsequent endoscopic studies in normal subjects showed that alendronate also caused gastric erosions and ulcers. Although the clinical significance of these is still uncertain, the anatomic distribution of both the gastric ulcers and esophageal damage is consistent with a topical irritant effect. Recent data also suggest a synergistic ulcerogenic potential of concurrent alendronate and NSAID use. A 70-mg once-weekly dosage form of alendronate has recently been approved and clinical experience with its gastrointestinal tolerability is ongoing. Risedronate, a third-generation bisphosphonate, appears to have less ulcerogenic potential than alendronate, and esophageal stricture has not been reported. Experience with the bisphosphonates provide a paradigm for the critical role of endoscopists in evaluating the gastrointestinal profile of new drugs. As bisphosphonates are more widely prescribed and more types of bisphosphonates are developed, the role of the gastroenterologist is likely to assume even more importance.

What the gastroenterologist should know about the gastrointestinal safety profiles of bisphosphonates.

A number of drugs are now available for the treatment of established osteoporosis and have been shown to significantly increase bone mineral density (BMD). There are, however, few comparative treatment studies and, furthermore, adverse events remain a problem with some of the newer agents, particularly in the elderly, in everyday clinical practice. We report a 12 month, open labeled, randomized controlled, prospective treatment study in 140 postmenopausal women with established vertebral osteoporosis, comparing the effect of continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate with calcitriol in terms of gain in BMD, reduction in bone turnover markers and adverse event profile. The mean percentage increases in BMD at 12 months, at the spine and hip respectively, were: continuous alendronate 5.7%, 2.6%; cyclical alendronate 4.1%, 1.6%; cyclical etidronate 4.9%, 2.0% (p<0.0 1) and calcitriol 2.0%, 0.4% (NS). In comparison with calcitriol, the mean changes in BMD at the spine and hip respectively were greater in the other groups; continuous alendronate: 3.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 8.3), 2.2% (95% CI 0.7 to 4.0); cyclical alendronate: 2.1% (95% CI 1.2 to 6.4), 1.2% (95% CI -0.3 to 3.0); cyclical etidronate: 2.9% (95% CI 1.9 to 6.5), 1.6% (95% CI 0.9 to 3.1)). The reduction in bone turnover markers was between 26% and 32% in the alendronate and etidronate groups (p<0.01), with a trend toward greater reduction in the continuous alendronate group. Eight patients discontinued the study: 6 in the continuous alendronate group, 1 in the cyclical alendronate group and 1 in the calcitriol group. Two patients in the cyclical etidronate group were unable to tolerate the Cacit component, but continued on substituting Cacit with Calcichew. In summary, 12 months of treatment with continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate are effective in terms of the gain in BMD at the anteroposterior spine and total hip in a comparable treatment population. These treatments are more effective than calcitriol and were generally well tolerated. Continuous alendronate showed a trend toward a larger gain in BMD and greater suppression of bone turnover markers than the other treatment groups, but had a higher incidence of adverse events, particularly within the older subgroup. Cyclical alendronate offers a lower adverse event profile and appears to be effective in comparison with continuous treatment, and may possibly be an alternative in the elderly. However, further studies are necessary, but more importantly with fracture end-points.

A comparison of continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate with calcitriol in the treatment of postmenopausal vertebral osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial.

P J Blackwell

Papers

A comparison of continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate with calcitriol in the treatment of postmenopausal vertebral osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial.