Osteoporosis: Felsenberg D

Engelke K, Adams JE, Armbrecht G, Augat P, Bogado CE, Bouxsein ML, Felsenberg D, Ito M, Prevrhal S, Hans DB, Lewiecki EM. · Institute of Medical Physics, University of Erlangen, Germany; Synarc, Hamburg, Germany. <> · J Clin Densitom. · Pubmed #18442757 No free full text.

Abstract: The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) has developed Official Positions for the clinical use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and non-DXA technologies. While only DXA can be used for diagnostic classification according to criteria established by the World Health Organization, DXA and some other technologies may predict fracture risk and be used to monitor skeletal changes over time. ISCD task forces reviewed the evidence for clinical applications of non-DXA techniques and presented reports with recommendations at the 2007 ISCD Position Development Conference. Here we present the ISCD Official Positions for quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and peripheral QCT (pQCT), with supporting medical evidence, rationale, controversy, and suggestions for further study. QCT is available for bone mineral density measurements at the spine, hip, forearm, and tibia. The ISCD Official Positions presented here focus on QCT of the spine and pQCT of the forearm. Measurements at the hip may have clinical relevance, as this is an important fracture site; however, due to limited medical evidence, definitive advice on its use in clinical practice cannot be provided until more data emerge.

Khosla S, Burr D, Cauley J, Dempster DW, Ebeling PR, Felsenberg D, Gagel RF, Gilsanz V, Guise T, Koka S, McCauley LK, McGowan J, McKee MD, Mohla S, Pendrys DG, Raisz LG, Ruggiero SL, Shafer DM, Shum L, Silverman SL, Van Poznak CH, Watts N, Woo SB, Shane E, Anonymous00278. · No affiliation provided · J Bone Miner Res. · Pubmed #17663640 No free full text.

Abstract: ONJ has been increasingly suspected to be a potential complication of bisphosphonate therapy in recent years. Thus, the ASBMR leadership appointed a multidisciplinary task force to address key questions related to case definition, epidemiology, risk factors, diagnostic imaging, clinical management, and future areas for research related to the disorder. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the task force.INTRODUCTION: The increasing recognition that use of bisphosphonates may be associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) led the leadership of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) to appoint a task force to address a number of key questions related to this disorder. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed all pertinent published data on bisphosphonate-associated ONJ. Food and Drug Administration drug adverse event reports were also reviewed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A case definition was developed so that subsequent studies could report on the same condition. The task force defined ONJ as the presence of exposed bone in the maxillofacial region that did not heal within 8 wk after identification by a health care provider. Based on review of both published and unpublished data, the risk of ONJ associated with oral bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis seems to be low, estimated between 1 in 10,000 and <1 in 100,000 patient-treatment years. However, the task force recognized that information on incidence of ONJ is rapidly evolving and that the true incidence may be higher. The risk of ONJ in patients with cancer treated with high doses of intravenous bisphosphonates is clearly higher, in the range of 1-10 per 100 patients (depending on duration of therapy). In the future, improved diagnostic imaging modalities, such as optical coherence tomography or MRI combined with contrast agents and the manipulation of image planes, may identify patients at preclinical or early stages of the disease. Management is largely supportive. A research agenda aimed at filling the considerable gaps in knowledge regarding this disorder was also outlined.

Bock O, Felsenberg D. · Center for Muscle and Bone Research, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany. · Clin Interv Aging. · Pubmed #18686751 links to  free full text

Abstract: Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclastic bone resorption. With their individually proven efficacy to significantly reduce the incidence of vertebral and/or non-vertebral fractures and with their overall beneficial safety profile, alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate are considered today a treatment of first choice in postmenopausal osteoporosis. However, treatment effects in an individual patient and cost-effectiveness in public health perspective are vitally dependent on the long-term patient adherence as well as on compliance and persistence. As compliance and persistence with daily oral bisphosphonates are shown to be suboptimal in many patients, leading to an increased fracture incidence in non-compliant patients, there is a need to improve overall adherence for bisphosphonate treatment in order to achieve maximum treatment effects. One option is to extend dosing intervals to weekly (alendronate, risedronate) or monthly (ibandronate) oral regimens. Less frequent oral regimens are generally preferred by majority of patients. Another alternative is intravenous, instead of oral application (ibandronate, zoledronate). Treatment acceptance could be further improved by IV bisphosphonates with their benefit of only quarterly, or even once-yearly, application. Treatment decisions should be based on anti-fracture efficacy data first. In addition, to ensure best possible patient adherence and maximum treatment benefits, physicians should consider individual patient conditions affecting compliance and persistence as well as patient preferences.

Rizzoli R, Burlet N, Cahall D, Delmas PD, Eriksen EF, Felsenberg D, Grbic J, Jontell M, Landesberg R, Laslop A, Wollenhaupt M, Papapoulos S, Sezer O, Sprafka M, Reginster JY. · University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland. · Bone. · Pubmed #18314405 No free full text.

Abstract: A potential side effect associated with bisphosphonates, a class of drugs used in the treatment of osteoporosis, Paget's disease and metastatic bone disease, is osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The incidence of ONJ in the general population is unknown; this rare condition also may occur in patients not receiving bisphosphonates. Case reports have discussed ONJ development in patients with multiple myeloma or metastatic breast cancer receiving bisphosphonates as palliation for bone metastases. These patients are also receiving chemotherapeutic agents that might impair the immune system and affect angiogenesis. The incidence or prevalence of ONJ in patients taking bisphosphonates for osteoporosis seems to be very rare. No causative relationship has been unequivocally demonstrated between ONJ and bisphosphonate therapy. A majority of ONJ occurs after tooth extraction. Furthermore, the underlying risk of developing ONJ may be increased in osteoporotic patients by comorbid diseases. Treatment for ONJ is generally conservative.

Dunstan CR, Felsenberg D, Seibel MJ. · Bone Research Program, ANZAC Research Institute, The University of Sydney at Concord, Concord, NSW 2139, Australia. · Nat Clin Pract Oncol. · Pubmed #17183355 No free full text.

Abstract: Bisphosphonates are a valuable class of drugs with potent anti-resorptive actions that make them ideal for skeletal protection in osteoporosis, cancer bone metastasis, multiple myeloma, and Paget's disease of bone. It has become apparent, however, that these drugs also have the potential to cause a number of adverse effects. While these do not limit bisphosphonate use, the incidence of these adverse events can be minimized if appropriate care is taken with their administration, and by maintaining appropriate surveillance and patient care. We review the range of adverse reactions to bisphosphonate therapy with a particular emphasis on the recently identified association between long-term bisphosphonate treatment and osteonecrosis of the jaw. This is a potentially serious side effect seen mostly in patients with multiple myeloma or breast cancer bone metastases who receive intravenous bisphosphonate treatment. While the etiology is uncertain, a strong association with dental pathology and interventions highlights the need for close attention to dental health in this patient group.

Reginster JY, Felsenberg D, Cooper C, Stakkestad JA, Miller PD, Kendler DL, Adami S, McClung MR, Bolognese MA, Civitelli R, Dumont E, Bonvoisin B, Recker RR, Delmas PD. · Unite d'Exploration du Metabolisme de l'Os et du Cartilage, CHU Centre Ville, Liége, Belgium. · Osteoporos Int. · Pubmed #15959614 No free full text.

Abstract: Oral daily and weekly bisphosphonates represent the current mainstay of treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). However, the inconvenience of frequent dosing is known to negatively affect adherence to therapy in the long term. This has prompted the development of convenient oral bisphosphonate regimens that feature simple, less frequent dosing schedules. Such regimens require high potency agents, which can be given at low effective doses and that also have good tolerability. Ibandronate is a potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate with proven efficacy when given intermittently to estrogen-depleted beagle dogs, rats and cynomolgus monkeys. Clinically, a pivotal prospective study has established that oral ibandronate has significant vertebral fracture efficacy in PMO, whether given daily (2.5 mg) or intermittently (20 mg every other day for 12 doses every 3 months; extended between-dose interval>2 months). Both oral regimens were well tolerated, which is noteworthy as patients with a history of gastrointestinal (GI) disturbance were not specifically excluded. As a result of these findings, a large, multinational, randomized, double-blind study (Monthly Oral iBandronate In LadiEs: MOBILE) is currently exploring the non-inferiority of once-monthly oral ibandronate (100 or 150 mg) to the oral daily ibandronate (2.5 mg) regimen with proven anti-fracture efficacy, in terms of lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) change. As with the trials investigating the weekly administration of other bisphosphonates, vertebral fracture efficacy will be inferred if the study demonstrates the non-inferiority of once-monthly ibandronate to the proven oral daily regimen in terms of spinal BMD change. The availability of this once-monthly ibandronate regimen is expected to offer benefits in terms of convenience (by having to follow dosing recommendations once a month vs. once daily or weekly) and potentially tolerability (by reducing the potential for upper GI irritation that can result from frequent, repeated exposure). Greater convenience and tolerability may enhance the therapy adherence and, hence, improve long-term therapeutic outcomes in PMO.

Felsenberg D, Boonen S. · Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Centre of Muscle and Bone Research, Charité-Campus Benjamin Franklin, Free & Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. · Clin Ther. · Pubmed #15763602 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Bone mineral density (BMD) measurements are the standard tool in the diagnosis of osteoporosis. However, recent developments in bone research show that a BMD measurement, while still important in a clinical setting, is in itself insufficient to accurately predict fracture risk or measure treatment effects of an antiosteoporosis drug. Clinical experience with patient follow-up strongly suggests that bone quality must also be taken into account. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper are. (1) to describe the determinants of bone strength (structural and material properties of bone, both of which are affected by bone turnover) and their interrelationships, and (2) to provide a schematic explanation of these determinants of bone strength, which in this paper is referred to as the Bone Quality Framework. METHODS: Relevant information from the primary literature and review articles published in the English language were identified through a MEDLINE search of the medical literature, from 1990 to October 2004, in the fields of bone density, bone strength, bone quality, fracture risk, and fracture risk reduction. Additional publications were identified from the reference lists of the resulting articles. Identified publications relevant to the objectives of this review paper were selected. CONCLUSIONS: The Bone Quality Framework is presented in this paper as a means of summarizing and explaining the determinants of bone strength. In this framework, bone quality can be understood as an umbrella term that describes the set of characteristics that influence bone strength and explains the interrelationships of these characteristics. Bone strength depends on the structural and material properties of bone, both of which are influenced by the rate of bone turnover. Not all determinants of bone strength are well represented by a BMD measurement. The Bone Quality Framework presents an opportunity to examine all the determinants of bone strength. Greater understanding of the concept of bone quality will ultimately help improve the assessment of fracture risk and monitoring of patients receiving treatment for osteoporosis.

Scharla SH, Buttgereit F, Dreher R, Felsenberg D, Franck H, Hein G, Lemmel EM, Rau R, Sieper J, Braun J. · Klinikum Berchtesgadener Land, Schönau am Königssee Rheumatologie/Klin. Immunologie, Humboldt-Universität Berlin. · Z Rheumatol. · Pubmed #11383055 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Allolio B, Dambacher M, Dreher R, Felsenberg D, Franke J, Kruse HP, Leidig-Bruckner G, Ringe JD, Semler J, Willvonseder R, Ziegler R. · Medizinische Universitätsklinik Würzburg. · Med Klin (Munich). · Pubmed #10935417 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic fractures occur frequently also in men. Epidemiologic data from Germany indicate that more than 900,000 men are affected by osteoporotic fractures. Diagnosis and therapy of male osteoporosis are hampered by a lack of clinical studies. DIAGNOSIS: Risk factor analysis, conventional spine X-rays, bone densitometry and a limited number of serum and urine analyses contribute to the diagnosis of osteoporosis and the assessment of future fracture risk. Bone densitometry at the femoral neck is superior to measurements at the lumbar spine because of the high prevalence of degenerative changes at the lumbar spine in elderly men. Major risk factors for osteoporosis are hypogonadism, glucocorticoid therapy, hypercalciuria, gastrointestinal disease, and high alcohol consumption. In individual cases, bone histology or additional biochemical studies are needed to establish the cause of osteoporosis. THERAPY: Calcium and vitamin D deficits should be substituted both in prevention and treatment of male osteoporosis. Testosterone replacement therapy is effective in hypogonadism. In primary osteoporosis and in corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis, bisphosphonates (cyclical etidronate, alendronate) and fluorides are therapeutic options. CONCLUSION: Important principles in the care of men with osteoporosis are the transfer of knowledge established for postmenopausal osteoporosis and the rigorous search for secondary osteoporosis aiming at treatment of the underlying cause. Large prospective randomized trials aiming at the reduction of fracture rate in male osteoporosis are missing. They are urgently needed.

Felsenberg D, Gowin W. · Radiologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Benjamin Franklin, Freie Universität Berlin. · Radiologe. · Pubmed #10218211 No free full text.

Abstract: Osteoporosis is mainly diagnosed by means of bone densitometry. Dual X-ray absorptiometry examinations represent the basis for a highly reproducible and correct measurement. At present, densitometry is the only method at our disposal capable of assessing material-related fracture risk. The calculation of general fracture risk is dependent on a number of varios factors and is, therefore, not to be deduced from bone density values only. Reference values are necessary in order to estimate bone strength. The most sensible way to achieve this is to compare measured values with a normal, healthy population (T score). Material-related fracture risk increases with the decrease of bone density.

Sandor T, Felsenberg D, Brown E. · Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St., Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. · Calcif Tissue Int. · Pubmed #10024389 No free full text.

Abstract: It was shown in a recent multivariate analysis of lumbar vertebral (L1-L3) CT scans of 171 women without fractures and 57 fractures somewhere in their skeletons, that regional assessment of the spinal mineral distribution can result in the discrimination of the above patient groups with an accuracy of about 90%. This level of discrimination was possible even in those cases with bone densities below the fracture threshold, where the overlap of patients with and without fractures is the greatest and clinically the most significant. In this region this new analytical technique could also identify a subgroup of patients who not yet had a fracture, but for whom all three lumbar vertebrae were classified as osteoporotic. From these results it follows that the osteoporosis model proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), which assumes that fragility depends only on a single mean value of bone mineral density (BMD) for a patient, is overly simplistic and requires upgrading to include indices representing the distribution of bone mineral.

Ferrar L, Jiang G, Armbrecht G, Reid DM, Roux C, Glüer CC, Felsenberg D, Eastell R. · Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, Division of Clinical Sciences (North), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. · Bone. · Pubmed #17499570 No free full text.

Abstract: INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Diagnosis of prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fracture is complicated by normal or developmental variation in vertebral shape or size and non-osteoporotic deformities that appear to have 'reduced' height. Using our visual approach, the algorithm-based qualitative method (ABQ) a vertebra with apparent "reduced" height without evidence of osteoporotic endplate depression is classified as non-osteoporotic short vertebral height (SVH). We aimed to determine whether ABQ classification of SVH represents true or false negative diagnosis of osteoporotic vertebral fracture, by testing the associations with clinical outcomes of osteoporosis or vertebral fracture. METHODS: The ABQ method was used to assess spinal radiographs acquired at baseline for a subset of 904 postmenopausal women participating in the Osteoporosis and Ultrasound Study (OPUS). The sample was enriched with vertebral fracture cases. Subjects were categorized by ABQ diagnosis as (i) normal, (ii) non-osteoporotic short vertebral height (SVH) or (iii) osteoporotic vertebral fracture. RESULTS: Women were classified by ABQ as follows: osteoporotic vertebral fracture, n=231; SVH, n=376 and normal, n=297. Women with vertebral fracture were older, with lower height, weight and height loss than those classified as SVH or normal. Women with SVH were heavier and older, with greater historical height loss than normal women. Age-adjusted SD units (z-scores) for BMD were lower than expected among women with osteoporotic vertebral fracture, but not among those with SVH. There was a significant association between diagnosis of osteoporotic vertebral fracture and history of low-trauma non-vertebral and vertebral fracture (p<0.001, odds ratios=3.2 and 20.6, respectively). There was also an association between diagnosis of SVH and previous low-trauma non-vertebral fracture (p<0.05, odds ratio=1.7). CONCLUSIONS: Short vertebral height without evidence of central endplate fracture in postmenopausal women is largely unrelated to osteoporosis. Quantitative morphometry should not be used alone for the assessment of vertebral fracture in clinical decision making: we recommend differential diagnosis of morphometric vertebral deformities by an expert reader to rule out non-osteoporotic deformities with short vertebral height.

Recker R, Lips P, Felsenberg D, Lippuner K, Benhamou L, Hawkins F, Delmas PD, Rosen C, Emkey R, Salzmann G, He W, Santora AC. · Creighton University, Osteoporosis Research Center, Omaha, NE, USA. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #16968578 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Many osteoporosis patients have low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) and do not take recommended vitamin D amounts. A single tablet containing both cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) and alendronate would improve vitamin D status concurrently, with a drug shown to reduce fracture risk. This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a once-weekly tablet containing alendronate 70 mg and cholecalciferol 70 microg (2800 IU) (ALN + D) versus alendronate 70 mg alone (ALN). METHODS: This 15-week, randomized, double-blind, multi-center, active-controlled study was conducted during a season when 25OHD levels are declining, and patients were required to avoid sunlight and vitamin D supplements for the duration of the study. Men (n = 35) and postmenopausal women (n = 682) with osteoporosis and 25OHD >or= 9 ng/mL were randomized to ALN + D (n = 360) or ALN (n = 357). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serum 25OHD, parathyroid hormone, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), and urinary N-telopeptide collagen cross-links (NTX). RESULTS: Serum 25OHD declined from 22.2 to 18.6 ng/mL with ALN (adjusted mean change = -3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.0 to -2.8), and increased from 22.1 to 23.1 ng/mL with ALN + D (adjusted mean change = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.8). At 15 weeks, adjusted mean 25OHD was 26% higher (p < 0.001, ALN + D versus ALN), the adjusted relative risk (RR) of 25OHD < 15 ng/mL (primary endpoint) was reduced by 64% (incidence 11% vs. 32%; RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.48 [p < 0.001]), and the RR of 25OHD < 9 ng/mL (a secondary endpoint) was reduced by 91% (1% vs. 13%; RR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.23 [p < 0.001]). Antiresorptive efficacy was unaltered, as measured by reduction in bone turnover (BSAP and NTX). CONCLUSION: In osteoporosis patients who avoided sunlight and vitamin D supplements, this once-weekly tablet containing alendronate and cholecalciferol provided equivalent antiresorptive efficacy, reduced the risk of low serum 25OHD, improved vitamin D status over 15 weeks, and was not associated with hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria or other adverse findings, versus alendronate alone.

Delmas PD, Adami S, Strugala C, Stakkestad JA, Reginster JY, Felsenberg D, Christiansen C, Civitelli R, Drezner MK, Recker RR, Bolognese M, Hughes C, Masanauskaite D, Ward P, Sambrook P, Reid DM. · Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 and INSERM Research Unit 403, Lyon, France. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16729277 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Although oral bisphosphonates are effective treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, oral dosing may be unsuitable for some patients. An efficacious intravenously administered bisphosphonate could be beneficial for such patients. Ibandronate, a potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, can be administered using extended dosing intervals, either orally or by rapid intravenous injection. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal intravenous dosing regimen for ibandronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III, noninferiority study, we compared 2 regimens of intermittent intravenous injections of ibandronate (2 mg every 2 months and 3 mg every 3 months) with a regimen of 2.5 mg of oral ibandronate daily, the latter of which has proven antifracture efficacy. The study group comprised 1,395 women (ages 55-80 years) who were at least 5 years postmenopausal. All patients had osteoporosis (lumbar spine [L2-L4] bone mineral density [BMD] T score less than -2.5). Participants also received daily calcium (500 mg) and vitamin D (400 IU). The primary end point was change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 1 year. Changes in hip BMD and in the level of serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) were also measured, as were safety and tolerability. RESULTS: At 1 year, mean lumbar spine BMD increases were as follows: 5.1% among 353 patients receiving 2 mg of ibandronate every 2 months, 4.8% among 365 patients receiving 3 mg of ibandronate every 3 months, and 3.8% among 377 patients receiving 2.5 mg of oral ibandronate daily. Both of the intravenous regimens not only were noninferior, but also were superior (P < 0.001) to the oral regimen. Hip BMD increases (at all sites) were also greater in the groups receiving medication intravenously than in the group receiving ibandronate orally. Robust decreases in the serum CTX level were observed in all arms of the study. Both of the intravenous regimens were well tolerated and did not compromise renal function. CONCLUSION: As assessed by BMD, intravenous injections of ibandronate (2 mg every 2 months or 3 mg every 3 months) are at least as effective as the regimen of 2.5 mg orally daily, which has proven antifracture efficacy, and are well tolerated.

Reginster JY, Adami S, Lakatos P, Greenwald M, Stepan JJ, Silverman SL, Christiansen C, Rowell L, Mairon N, Bonvoisin B, Drezner MK, Emkey R, Felsenberg D, Cooper C, Delmas PD, Miller PD. · University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16339289 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Reducing bisphosphonate dosing frequency may improve suboptimal adherence to treatment and therefore therapeutic outcomes in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Once-monthly oral ibandronate has been developed to overcome this problem. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the 1 year results and provide more extensive safety and tolerability information for once-monthly dosing by a 2 year analysis. METHODS: MOBILE, a randomised, phase III, non-inferiority study, compared the efficacy and safety of once-monthly ibandronate with daily ibandronate, which has previously been shown to reduce vertebral fracture risk in comparison with placebo. RESULTS: 1609 postmenopausal women were randomised. Substantial increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) were seen in all treatment arms: 5.0%, 5.3%, 5.6%, and 6.6% in the daily and once-monthly groups (50 + 50 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg), respectively. It was confirmed that all once-monthly regimens were at least as effective as daily treatment, and in addition, 150 mg was found to be better (p<0.001). Substantial increases in proximal femur (total hip, femoral neck, trochanter) BMD were seen; 150 mg produced the most pronounced effect (p<0.05 versus daily treatment). Independent of the regimen, most participants (70.5-93.5%) achieved increases above baseline in lumbar spine or total hip BMD, or both. Pronounced decreases in the biochemical marker of bone resorption, sCTX, observed in all arms after 3 months, were maintained throughout. The 150 mg regimen consistently produced greater increases in BMD and sCTX suppression than the 100 mg and daily regimens. Ibandronate was well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-monthly oral ibandronate is at least as effective and well tolerated as daily treatment. Once-monthly administration may be more convenient for patients and improve therapeutic adherence, thereby optimising outcomes.

Ettinger MP, Felsenberg D, Harris ST, Wasnich R, Skag A, Hiltbrunner V, Wilson K, Schimmer RC, Miller PD. · Radiant Research and Regional Osteoporosis Center of South Florida, 2081 SE Ocean Boulevard, Stuart, FL, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16206354 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The risk of osteoporosis increases exponentially with age. Elderly patients, who are often frail, have declining functional status and take multiple medications, and require osteoporosis therapies that are not only effective, but also very well tolerated. Ibandronate is a potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate that can be given intermittently with extended between-dose intervals. Oral daily and intermittent ibandronate (interval between doses > 2 mo) was found to significantly reduce the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures by 62% and 50%, respectively, compared with calcium and vitamin D supplementation alone. We investigated the effect of age on the safety profile of oral daily and intermittent ibandronate, with particular emphasis on the upper gastrointestinal (GI) safety profile of ibandronate. METHODS: A predefined subgroup analysis examined the tolerability of oral ibandronate in women aged < 70 and > or = 70 years. RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events in patients aged > or = 70 years receiving oral daily and intermittent ibandronate was similar and comparable to placebo. The incidence of upper GI adverse events, including dyspepsia and esophagitis, was also similar between the 2 treatment groups and placebo. CONCLUSION: Older patients (> or = 70 yrs) receiving oral daily and intermittent ibandronate are at no greater risk of adverse events than older patients receiving placebo. Older patients were at no greater risk of upper GI adverse events than younger patients or patients receiving placebo. As a result of the good efficacy and tolerability observed in this trial, a once-monthly oral regimen of ibandronate is in late-stage clinical development.

Felsenberg D, Miller P, Armbrecht G, Wilson K, Schimmer RC, Papapoulos SE. · Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Centre of Muscle and Bone Research, Hindenburgdamm 30, Berlin 12200, Germany. · Bone. · Pubmed #16126016 No free full text.

Abstract: In a recent multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase III study (BONE: IBandronate Osteoporosis Vertebral Fracture trial in North America and Europe), oral daily ibandronate (2.5 mg) significantly and substantially reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures by 62% relative to placebo after 3 years of treatment. The objective of the present study was to retrospectively analyze data from the BONE study to examine the efficacy of oral ibandronate in preventing incident vertebral fractures of greater severity. This analysis was conducted on the placebo and oral daily ibandronate (2.5 mg) arms of the BONE study, comprising a total of 1964 women (aged 55-80 years, >or=5 years postmenopause) with osteoporosis. Vertebral fractures on annual lateral radiographs of the spine were graded as mild, moderate, or severe, using criteria derived from an established semiquantitative technique. The findings demonstrate that in addition to being effective in significantly reducing the risk of new vertebral fractures of all severities, oral daily ibandronate has a pronounced effect on the more severe, most clinically relevant, vertebral fractures: a significant and sustained reduction of 59% in the relative risk of combined new moderate and severe vertebral fractures was observed at years 1 (P = 0.0164), 2 (P = 0.0004), and 3 (P < 0.0001).

Miller PD, McClung MR, Macovei L, Stakkestad JA, Luckey M, Bonvoisin B, Reginster JY, Recker RR, Hughes C, Lewiecki EM, Felsenberg D, Delmas PD, Kendler DL, Bolognese MA, Mairon N, Cooper C. · Colorado Center for Bone Research, Lakewood, Colorado, USA. · J Bone Miner Res. · Pubmed #16007327 No free full text.

Abstract: Once-monthly (50/50, 100, and 150 mg) and daily (2.5 mg; 3-year vertebral fracture risk reduction: 52%) oral ibandronate regimens were compared in 1609 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. At least equivalent efficacy and similar safety and tolerability were shown after 1 year. INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal adherence to daily and weekly oral bisphosphonates can potentially compromise therapeutic outcomes in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Although yet to be prospectively shown in osteoporosis, evidence from randomized clinical trials in several other chronic conditions shows that reducing dosing frequency enhances therapeutic adherence. Ibandronate is a new and potent bisphosphonate with antifracture efficacy proven for daily administration and also intermittent administration with a dose-free interval of >2 months. This report presents comparative data on the efficacy and safety of monthly and daily oral ibandronate regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MOBILE is a 2-year, randomized, double-blind, phase III, noninferiority trial. A total of 1609 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were assigned to one of four oral ibandronate regimens: 2.5 mg daily, 50 mg/50 mg monthly (single doses, consecutive days), 100 mg monthly, or 150 mg monthly. RESULTS: After 1 year, lumbar spine BMD increased by 3.9%, 4.3%, 4.1%, and 4.9% in the 2.5, 50 /50, 100, and 150 mg arms, respectively. All monthly regimens were proven noninferior, and the 150 mg regimen superior, to the daily regimen. All monthly regimens produced similar hip BMD gains, which were larger than those with the daily regimen. All regimens similarly decreased serum levels of C-telopeptide, a biochemical marker of bone resorption. Compared with the daily regimen, a significantly larger proportion of women receiving the 100 and 150 mg monthly regimens achieved predefined threshold levels for percent change from baseline in lumbar spine (6%) or total hip BMD (3%). All regimens were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly ibandronate is at least as effective and well tolerated as the currently approved daily ibandronate regimen in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Reginster JY, Seeman E, De Vernejoul MC, Adami S, Compston J, Phenekos C, Devogelaer JP, Curiel MD, Sawicki A, Goemaere S, Sorensen OH, Felsenberg D, Meunier PJ. · Department of Epidemiology, Public Health and Health Economics, University of Liège, CHU Centre ville, 45 Quai Godefroid Kurth, 4020 Liège, Belgium. · J Clin Endocrinol Metab. · Pubmed #15728210 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Strontium ranelate, a new oral drug shown to reduce vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, was studied in the Treatment of Peripheral Osteoporosis (TROPOS) study to assess its efficacy and safety in preventing nonvertebral fractures also. METHODS: Strontium ranelate (2 g/d) or placebo were randomly allocated to 5091 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in a double-blind placebo-controlled 5-yr study with a main statistical analysis over 3 yr of treatment. FINDINGS: In the entire sample, relative risk (RR) was reduced by 16% for all nonvertebral fractures (P = 0.04), and by 19% for major fragility fractures (hip, wrist, pelvis and sacrum, ribs and sternum, clavicle, humerus) (P = 0.031) in strontium ranelate-treated patients in comparison with the placebo group. Among women at high risk of hip fracture (age > or = 74 yr and femoral neck bone mineral density T score < or = -3, corresponding to -2.4 according to NHANES reference) (n = 1977), the RR reduction for hip fracture was 36% (P = 0.046). RR of vertebral fractures was reduced by 39% (P < 0.001) in the 3640 patients with spinal x-rays and by 45% in the subgroup without prevalent vertebral fracture. Strontium ranelate increased bone mineral density throughout the study, reaching at 3 yr (P < 0.001): +8.2% (femoral neck) and +9.8% (total hip). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that strontium ranelate significantly reduces the risk of all nonvertebral and in a high-risk subgroup, hip fractures over a 3-yr period, and is well tolerated. It confirms that strontium ranelate reduces vertebral fractures. Strontium ranelate offers a safe and effective means of reducing the risk of fracture associated with osteoporosis.

Schoon EJ, Bollani S, Mills PR, Israeli E, Felsenberg D, Ljunghall S, Persson T, Haptén-White L, Graffner H, Bianchi Porro G, Vatn M, Stockbrügger RW, Anonymous00260. · Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Maastricht, The Netherlands. · Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. · Pubmed #15704045 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND & AIMS: Osteoporosis frequently occurs in Crohn's disease, often because of corticosteroids. Budesonide as controlled release capsules is a locally acting corticosteroid with low systemic bioavailability. We investigated its effects on bone compared with prednisolone. METHODS: In 34 international centers, 272 patients with Crohn's disease involving ileum and/or colon ascendens were randomized to once daily treatment with budesonide or prednisolone for 2 years at doses adapted to disease activity. One hundred eighty-one corticosteroid-free patients had active disease (98 had never received corticosteroids, corticosteroid naive; 83 had received corticosteroids previously, corticosteroid exposed), and 90 had quiescent disease, receiving long-term low doses of corticosteroids, corticosteroid-dependent; in 1 patient, no efficacy data were obtained. Bone mineral density and fractures were assessed in a double-blinded fashion; disease activity, side effects, and quality of life were monitored. RESULTS: Neither the corticosteroid-free nor the corticosteroid-dependent patients treated with budesonide differed significantly in bone mineral density from those receiving prednisolone. However, corticosteroid-naive patients receiving budesonide had smaller reductions in bone mineral density than those on prednisolone (mean, -1.04% vs -3.84%; P = .0084). Treatment-emergent corticosteroid side effects were less frequent with budesonide. Efficacy was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with budesonide is associated with better preserved bone mass compared with prednisolone in only the corticosteroid-naive patients with active ileocecal Crohn's disease. In both the corticosteroid-free and corticosteroid-dependent groups, budesonide and prednisolone were equally effective for up to 2 years, but budesonide caused fewer corticosteroid side effects.

Chesnut III CH, Skag A, Christiansen C, Recker R, Stakkestad JA, Hoiseth A, Felsenberg D, Huss H, Gilbride J, Schimmer RC, Delmas PD, Anonymous00283. · Osteoporosis Research Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98185, USA. · J Bone Miner Res. · Pubmed #15231010 No free full text.

Abstract: Oral daily (2.5 mg) and intermittent ibandronate (between-dose interval of >2 months), delivering a similar cumulative exposure, were evaluated in 2946 osteoporotic women with prevalent vertebral fracture. Significant reduction in incident vertebral fracture risk by 62% and 50%, respectively, was shown after 3 years. This is the first study to prospectively show antifracture efficacy for the intermittent administration of a bisphosphonate. INTRODUCTION: Bisphosphonates are important therapeutics in postmenopausal osteoporosis. However, they are currently associated with stringent dosing instructions that may impair patient compliance and hence therapeutic efficacy. Less frequent, intermittent administration may help to overcome these deficiencies. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of oral ibandronate administered either daily or intermittently with a dose-free interval of >2 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study enrolled 2946 postmenopausal women with a BMD T score < or = -2.0 at the lumbar spine in at least one vertebra (L1-L4) and one to four prevalent vertebral fractures (T4-L4). Patients received placebo or oral ibandronate administered either daily (2.5 mg) or intermittently (20 mg every other day for 12 doses every 3 months). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: After 3 years, the rate of new vertebral fractures was significantly reduced in patients receiving oral daily (4.7%) and intermittent ibandronate (4.9%), relative to placebo (9.6%). Thus, daily and intermittent oral ibandronate significantly reduced the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures by 62% (p = 0.0001) and 50% (p = 0.0006), respectively, versus placebo. Both treatment groups also produced a statistically significant relative risk reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (49% and 48% for daily and intermittent ibandronate, respectively). Significant and progressive increases in lumbar spine (6.5%, 5.7%, and 1.3% for daily ibandronate, intermittent ibandronate, and placebo, respectively, at 3 years) and hip BMD, normalization of bone turnover, and significantly less height loss than in the placebo group were also observed for both ibandronate regimens. The overall population was at low risk for osteoporotic fractures. Consequently, the incidence of nonvertebral fractures was similar between the ibandronate and placebo groups after 3 years (9.1%, 8.9%, and 8.2% in the daily, intermittent, and placebo groups, respectively; difference between arms not significant). However, findings from a posthoc analysis showed that the daily regimen reduces the risk of nonvertebral fractures (69%; p = 0.012) in a higher-risk subgroup (femoral neck BMD T score < -3.0). In addition, oral ibandronate was well tolerated. Oral ibandronate, whether administered daily or intermittently with an extended between-dose interval of >2 months, is highly effective in reducing the incidence of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. This is the first time that significant fracture efficacy has been prospectively shown with an intermittently administered bisphosphonate in the overall study population of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Thus, oral ibandronate holds promise as an effective and convenient alternative to current bisphosphonate therapies.

Arrenbrecht S, Caubel P, Garnero P, Felsenberg D. · R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Raritan, NJ, USA. · Maturitas. · Pubmed #15207885 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess in post-menopausal women the efficacy and tolerability of a continuous oestradiol/intermittent norgestimate HRT regimen to prevent and to reverse post-menopausal loss of bone mineral density (BMD) and to determine the effects on serum bone turnover markers markers. METHODS: A 1-year, multicentre, international, placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind clinical trial was conducted in 146 post-menopausal women with an intact uterus in order to assess the effect on bone loss of continuous oral 17beta-oestradiol (1 mg per day) combined with norgestimate (90 microg per day), for 3 consecutive days out of every 6-day treatment period (E2/iNGM). During a second year extension, all women agreeing to continue were on the E2/iNGM regimen. BMD was assessed prior to treatment and after 1 and 2 years or at the end of treatment in women stopping participation prematurely after at least 6 months of treatment. Serum bone turnover markers were determined prior to and at 1 year of treatment Adverse events were collected at three-monthly intervals during clinic visits over the treatment period. RESULTS: BMD in the lumbar spine, the primary endpoint, was evaluable in 117 subjects completing >6 months of treatment. BMD increased on average by 2.4% in women on the intermittent progestin regimen. It decreased by 1.4% in placebo treated women. The change from baseline and the difference between active and placebo treatment (Delta placebo) were highly significant (P < 0.0001). On E2/iNGM, also the BMD in the total hip increased (+1.49%, Delta placebo 3.73%, P < 0.0001). The serum markers for bone formation osteocalcin and type I collagen N-propeptide were significantly reduced compared to baseline by 31 and 44%, respectively and the bone resorption marker C-terminal crosslinked telopeptide of type I collagen by 59%. Minor increases (<10%) of markers in the placebo group were not significant. During a second year extension of the trial, all subjects were on active treatment. Subjects on placebo who lost (median+/-CI 95%) 0.66% (-2.3 to +0.5) of spine BMD during the first year now gained 4.41% (2.7-7.6). They also gained 1.6% (0.1-0.3.6) in the total hip. Subjects continuously on oestradiol/intermittent norgestimate (E2/iNGM) gained an additional 5.7% (2.3-13.5) in the lumbar spine and +0.1% (-0.6 to +2.2) at the total hip. Side effects reported by women on the intermittent progestin regimen significantly in excess over reports from the placebo group were uterine bleeding, abdominal and breast pain, but not headache. Back pain and weight gain was reported by significantly fewer women on active treatment compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: The continuous oestradiol/intermittent norgestimate HRT regimen is well tolerated, reduces bone turnover and prevents post-menopausal bone loss in healthy post-menopausal women.

Adami S, Felsenberg D, Christiansen C, Robinson J, Lorenc RS, Mahoney P, Coutant K, Schimmer RC, Delmas PD. · University of Verona, Valeggio, Italy. · Bone. · Pubmed #15121020 No free full text.

Abstract: Oral bisphosphonates are established therapeutics for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Alternative, simplified dosing regimens that improve tolerability and promote convenience may be advantageous. Ibandronate is a highly potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate that can be administered as a convenient intravenous (i.v.) injection (over 15-30 s) in schedules featuring extended between-dose intervals. In a recent fracture prevention study, 1 and 0.5 mg i.v. ibandronate injections, given once every 3 months, were shown to dose-dependently increase lumbar spine and hip bone mineral density (BMD) and decrease biochemical markers of bone turnover in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, but the overall magnitude of efficacy provided by both doses was suboptimal. In the present study (Intermittent Regimen intravenous Ibandronate Study: the IRIS study), the dose-response relationship with intermittent intravenous ibandronate injections was further evaluated in 520 postmenopausal osteoporotic women (aged 55-75 years, time since menopause >or= 5 years, lumbar spine [L1-L4] BMD T score < -2.5). At enrolment, participants were randomized to receive either 2 mg (n = 261) or 1 mg (n = 131) ibandronate or placebo (n = 128) intravenous injections, given once every 3 months. After 1 year, ibandronate therapy produced substantial and dose-dependent increases in lumbar spine and hip BMD, and decreases in biochemical markers of bone turnover, with the 2 mg dose providing significantly greater efficacy than the 1 mg dose. Most notably, lumbar spine BMD increased by 5.0% and 2.8% in the 2 and 1 mg groups, respectively, and decreased by 0.04% in the placebo group. Furthermore, total hip BMD increased by 2.9%, 2.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. Serum and urinary CTX, reflecting bone resorption, were decreased by 62.5% and 61%, respectively, with the 2 mg dose, and by 43.5% and 42%, respectively, with the 1 mg dose. Intravenous ibandronate was well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events to placebo. Importantly, no indicators of renal toxicity were reported. In summary, the 2 mg ibandronate regimen provides significantly greater BMD increases and significantly greater suppression of bone resorption markers than the 1 mg dose used in this study and in the previous fracture prevention study. Ongoing studies aim to further establish the efficacy and convenience of intermittent intravenous ibandronate injections in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Glüer CC, Eastell R, Reid DM, Felsenberg D, Roux C, Barkmann R, Timm W, Blenk T, Armbrecht G, Stewart A, Clowes J, Thomasius FE, Kolta S. · Medical Physics, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. · J Bone Miner Res. · Pubmed #15068502 No free full text.

Abstract: We compared the performance of five QUS devices with DXA in a population-based sample of 2837 women. All QUS approaches discriminated women with and without osteoporotic vertebral fractures. QUS of the calcaneus performed as well as central DXA. INTRODUCTION: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) methods have found widespread use for the assessment of bone status in osteoporosis, but their optimal use remains to be established. To determine QUS performance for current devices in direct comparison with central DXA, we initiated a large population-based investigation, the Osteoporosis and Ultrasound Study (OPUS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 463 women 20-39 years of age and 2374 women 55-79 years of age were measured on five different QUS devices along with DXA of the spine and the proximal femur. Their vertebral fracture status was evaluated radiographically. The association of QUS and DXA with vertebral fracture status was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: All QUS approaches tested discriminated women with and without osteoporotic vertebral fractures (20% height reduction), with age-adjusted standardized odds ratios ranging 1.2-1.3 for amplitude-dependent speed of sound (AD-SOS) at the finger phalanges, 1.2-1.4 for broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) at the calcaneus, and 1.4-1.5 for speed of sound (SOS) at the calcaneus, 1.4-1.6 for DXA of the total femur, and 1.5-1.6 for DXA at the spine. For more severe fractures (40% height reduction), age-adjusted standardized odds ratios increased to up to 1.9 for DXA of the spine and 2.3 for SOS of the calcaneus. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, all five QUS devices tested showed significant age-adjusted differences between subjects with and without vertebral fracture. When selecting the strongest variable, QUS of the calcaneus worked as well as central DXA for identification of women at high risk for prevalent osteoporotic vertebral fractures. QUS-based case-finding strategies would allow halving the number of radiographs in high-risk populations, and this strategy works increasingly well for women with more severe vertebral fractures. It is likely that the good performance of QUS was in part achieved by rigorous quality assurance measures that should also be used in clinical practice.

Hosking D, Adami S, Felsenberg D, Andia JC, Välimäki M, Benhamou L, Reginster JY, Yacik C, Rybak-Feglin A, Petruschke RA, Zaru L, Santora AC. · Nottingham City Hospital, David Evans Medical Research Centre, Nottingham, UK. · Curr Med Res Opin. · Pubmed #13678475 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of alendronate (ALN) 70 mg once weekly (OW) and risedronate (RIS) 5 mg daily between-meal dosing on biochemical markers of bone turnover and bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Research design and methods: This was a 3-month, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a double-blind extension to 12 months. The study enrolled 549 postmenopausal women (ALN 219, RIS 222 and placebo (PBO) 108) who were > or =60 years of age at outpatient centres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was reduction in urine N-telopeptides of type 1 collagen (NTx) corrected for creatinine level at 3 months. Secondary parameters included change in BMD at the spine and hip at 6 and 12 months, NTx at 1, 6 and 12 months, and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Adverse experiences (AEs) were recorded throughout the study for an assessment of treatment safety profiles and tolerability. RESULTS: Over 3 months, ALN produced a significantly greater mean reduction in urine NTx than did RIS (-52% vs -32%, p < 0.001), which was maintained at 12 months. ALN produced a significantly greater mean BMD increase than did RIS at 6 months, and it was maintained at 12 months at the lumbar spine (4.8% vs 2.8%, p < 0.001) and total hip (2.7% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001), as well as at the trochanter and femoral neck. Significant reductions in BSAP with ALN compared to RIS were maintained over the 12 months of treatment. Study size did not allow for meaningful assessment of differences in fracture rates. Tolerability was generally similar between ALN, RIS and PBO, and the incidence of upper GI AEs causing discontinuation and oesophageal AEs was similar in the ALN and RIS groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, ALN 70 mg OW produced a 50% greater reduction in bone resorption as measured by urine NTx and significantly greater increases in lumbar spine and hip BMD than did RIS 5 mg daily. The treatments had similar safety profiles and were generally well-tolerated. Additional studies are needed comparing OW ALN with OW RIS, which became available after the commencement of the present study.