Adverse effects of bisphosphonates: implications for osteoporosis management.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kennel KA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2704135 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adverse effects of bisphosphonates: implications for osteoporosis management.
Kennel Kurt A KA Drake Matthew T MT
Mayo Clinic proceedings 20090701 7
Bisphosphonates are widely prescribed and highly effective at limiting the bone loss that occurs in many disorders characterized by increased osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, including senile osteoporosis in both men and women, glucocorticoid-associated osteoporosis, and malignancies metastatic to bone. Although they are generally well tolerated, potential adverse effects may limit bisphosphonate use in some patients. Optimal use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis requires adequate calcium ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To report and describe the management and response to treatment of patients referred to the osteoporosis clinic after prolonged use of bisphosphonate BPs) (4 years and more) with and without new fracture (any site) or any other new skeletal symptoms. Methods: This is a single center observational retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2009 to May 2016 in a tertiary center. We describe cause of referral, X-rays findings, management, and response to treatment. Results: Thirty-four patients, aged 46-89 years, were collected. Reason for referral included review of therapy (11 patients), recent low trauma fracture (21 patients), or chronic severe thigh pain (2 patients) of unknown etiology. All patients with fracture or thigh pain (23/34 patients) were treated with teriparatide 20 mcg daily. Sixteen of them (16/23) completed teriparatide course (18-24 months), 11 patients had complete healing of fracture at the end of the course, and 5 remained with nonunion of fracture, the remaining 5 patients were lost to follow up. Conclusion: Prolonged use of bisphosphonates can lead to atypical femoral fracture that may involve sites other than femoral shaft or rarely chronic thigh pain without fracture. Teriparatide may facilitates fracture healing and improve thigh pain.
| S-EPMC5541183 | biostudies-other
Project description:[No Abstract Available].
| S-EPMC5556308 | biostudies-other
Project description:Despite access to effective, safe, and affordable treatment for osteoporosis, at-risk women may choose not to start bisphosphonate therapy. Understanding the reasons women give for rejecting a clinician's offer of treatment during consultations and how clinician's react to these reasons may help clinicians develop more effective strategies for fracture prevention and medication adherence.We conducted a videographic evaluation of encounters in the Osteoporosis Choice randomized trial of a decision aid about bisphosphonates vs. usual primary care. Eligible videos involved consultations with women with an estimated 10-year fragility fracture risk >20% who verbalized at least one reason to not take bisphosphonates. Two reviewers independently reviewed eligible videos and verbatim transcripts, classifying patient views about bisphosphonate use, clinicians response to those views, and patient adherence at 6 months post visit.Eighteen video recordings (12 with decision aid) were eligible for analyses. We identified 37 reasons for and against bisphosphonate therapy. Eleven patients rejected treatment, offering 9 (average of 2 per patient) unique reasons against initiating bisphosphonates (most common: side effects 39% and distrust of medications in general 33%). When physicians conceded to patient views the outcome was no bisphosphonate use. Adherence to choices at 6 months was 100%.The expression of patient preferences is sometimes unfavorable to bisphosphonates treatment even among well-informed patients at high risk for osteoporotic fractures. At 6 months, patients who expressed concerns about these medicines behaved consistently with the decision made during the visit.
| S-EPMC3076371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients, attempts at comprehensive quantification of potential adverse effects have been limited. We undertook a meta-analysis with novel methodology to identify and quantify these adverse effects.MethodsWe systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in breast cancer where at least one of the treatments was a bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate, alendronate or clodronate). Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings were examined. Primary outcomes were adverse events of any type or severity (excluding death). We carried out pairwise and network meta-analyses to estimate the size of any adverse effects potentially related to bisphosphonates. In order to ascertain whether adverse effects differed by individual factors such as age, or interacted with other common adjuvant breast cancer treatments, we examined individual-level patient data for one large trial, AZURE.FindingsWe identified 56 trials that reported adverse data, which included a total of 29,248 patients (18,301 receiving bisphosphonate drugs versus 10,947 not). 24 out of the 103 different adverse outcomes analysed showed a statistically and practically significant increase in patients receiving a bisphosphonate drug compared with those not (2 additional outcomes that appeared statistically significant came only from small studies with low event counts and no clinical suspicion so are likely artifacts). Most of these 24 are already clinically recognised: 'flu-like symptoms, fever, headache and chills; increased bone pain, arthralgia, myalgia, back pain; cardiac events, thromboembolic events; hypocalcaemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw; as well as possibly stiffness and nausea. Oral clodronate appeared to increase the risk of vomiting and diarrhoea (which may also be increased by other bisphosphonates), and there may be some hepatotoxicity. Four additional potential adverse effects emerged for bisphosphonate drugs in this analysis which have not classically be recognised: fatigue, neurosensory problems, hypertonia/muscle spasms and possibly dysgeusia. Several symptoms previously reported as potential side effects in the literature were not significantly increased in this analysis: constipation, insomnia, respiratory problems, oedema or thirst/dry mouth. Individual patient-level data and subgroup analysis revealed little variation in side effects between women of different ages or menopausal status, those with metastatic versus non-metastatic cancer, or between women receiving different concurrent breast cancer therapies.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis has produced estimates for the absolute frequencies of a range of side effects significantly associated with bisphosphonate drugs when used by breast cancer patients. These results show good agreement with previous literature on the subject but are the first systematic quantification of side effects and their severities. However, the analysis is limited by the availability and quality of data on adverse events, and the potential for bias introduced by a lack of standards for reporting of such events. We therefore present a table of adverse effects for bisphosphonates, identified and quantified to the best of our ability from a large number of trials, which we hope can be used to improve the communication of the potential harms of these drugs to patients and their healthcare providers.
| S-EPMC7864400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent evidence from in vitro and in vivo studies indicates that bisphosphonates may promote osteoblastic bone formation and potently inhibit osteoclast activity. However, little is known about the potential effect of bisphosphonates on the recruitment of osteoblastic precursors from patient-derived bone marrow stromal cells due to difficulties in accessing human bone marrow from healthy and disease subjects.MethodsIn this study, we evaluated the potential of using FDA-approved and clinically utilized bisphosphonates such as alendronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate to enhance the development of bone forming osteoblasts from osteoporosis patient- and healthy-person derived hBMSCs (op-MSCs and hp-MSCs, respectively). hBMSCs were obtained from postmenopausal women without endocrine diseases or receiving hormone replacement therapy. Cells were treated with or without a bisphosphonate (alendronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate) and analyzed over 21 days of culture.ResultshBMSC from osteoporosis-patient with bisphosphonates treatment demonstrated a significant increase in Alizarin red staining after 7 days compared to that from healthy-person. Calcium contents and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) enzyme activity also demonstrated an increased propensity in hMSCs from osteoporosis-patient compared to those from healthy-person, although there were inter-individual variations. Gene expression levels varied among different donors. There were no significant differences in the effect on the osteoblastic differentiation of hBMSCs among alendronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate. Statistical significance in the osteoblastic differentiation of hBMSCs between the positive control group cultured in osteogenic medium alone and groups cultured in osteogenic medium supplemented with bisphosphonate was not shown either. These results might be due to various cell types of hBMSCs from individual clinical patients and concentrations of bisphosphonate used.ConclusionOur study using a clinically relevant in vitro model suggests that bisphosphonate treatment is more effective for patients with osteoporosis than its preventive effect for healthy person. In addition, patient-specific responses to bisphosphonates should be considered rather than bisphosphonate type prior to prescription. Further investigations are needed to determine how bisphosphonates influence hBMSCs function to mediate bone quality and turnover in osteoporotic patients. Such studies can generate novel approaches to treat age-related osteoporotic bone loss.
| S-EPMC6171649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe standard treatment for osteoporosis was controversial. Denosumab and bisphosphonates were two most common drugs. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab with bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis.MethodsPublished literatures, only including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were searched in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google database from inception to April 20 2018. Studies that compared denosumab with bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis were included. Random-effect model was used for meta-analysis due to the unavoidable clinical heterogeneity. We used the risk of fracture as the primary outcome. Stata 12.0 was used for meta-analysis.ResultsEleven studies involving 5446 patients (denosumab = 2873, bisphosphonates = 2573) were included in the present meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the risk of fracture (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.55; P = 0.466), adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.04; P = 0.957) and withdrawn due to AEs (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34-137; P = 0.280). Denosumab compared with bisphosphonates significantly increased change in total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and one-third radius bone mineral density (BMD) for postmenopausal osteoporosis patients (P < 0.05).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggested that denosumab but not bisphosphonates significantly increased change in total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and one-third radius BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Current evidence suggested no benefit of denosumab for reducing risk of fracture than bisphosphonates. More long-term follow-up RCTs are needed to identify the potential complications of denosumab.
| S-EPMC6090940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This primary care database survey evaluated whether osteoporotic women treated with bisphosphonates were more adherent to monthly than to weekly treatment. Both compliance (medication possession ratio [MPR]) and persistence (time to discontinuation) were superior in the monthly ibandronate treatment group. Better control of fracture risk may thus be achieved using monthly treatment regimens.Treatment adherence in osteoporosis is poor. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether monthly bisphosphonate treatment provided superior adherence than weekly treatment.We analysed medical claims from a national prescription database (Thales). All women aged >45 years receiving a first prescription of monthly ibandronate or weekly bisphosphonates in 2007 were included. Treatment adherence was monitored from initial prescription until January 2008. Compliance was measured by the MPR and persistence by the time from treatment initiation to discontinuation. Multivariate analysis was used to identify variables independently associated with adherence.Twelve-month persistence rates were 47.5% for monthly ibandronate and 30.4% for weekly bisphosphonates. Compliance was significantly higher in the monthly cohort (MPR = 84.5%) than in the weekly cohort (MPR = 79.4%). After adjustment for potential confounding variables, women with monthly regimens were 37% less likely to be non-persistent (HR = 0.63 [0.56-0.72]) and presented a 5% higher mean MPR (84.5% versus 79.3%, p < 0.001) than women with weekly regimens. Other major factors associated with improved adherence were previous densitometry and calcium or vitamin D supplementation (p < 0.01).Adherence to bisphosphonates may be superior for monthly treatment than for weekly treatment and may thus provide improved fracture protection.
| S-EPMC2788149 | biostudies-other
Project description:Osteoporosis-pseudoglioma syndrome (OPPG) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder of severe juvenile osteoporosis and congenital blindness, due to mutations in the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 (LRP5) gene. Approximately fifty cases of OPPG have been reported. We report 9 new cases of OPPG, in three related nuclear families of Conservative Mennonites in Pennsylvania. All 9 children with OPPG were blind and had osteoporosis. Four of six parents had low bone mineral density (BMD) or osteoporosis; 2 were normal. Sequence analysis from genomic DNA revealed homozygosity for a nonsense mutation of exon 6 of LRP5 (W425X) in four OPPG cases tested in families A and C. In family B, OPPG cases were compound heterozygotes for the exon 6 W425X LRP5 mutation and a second exon 6 mutation (T409A); bone phenotype was milder than in family A. Neither of these mutations was present in an unrelated normal. The four treated OPPG patients all responded to bisphosphonates (duration 1.5-6.5 years) with improvement in Z-scores. One patient had a negligible response to teriparatide. In summary, we report 9 new cases of OPPG due to two novel LRP5 mutations, note a milder bone phenotype but similar ocular phenotype in LRP5 W425X/T409A compound heterozygotes than in W425X homozygotes and describe positive response to bisphosphonate treatment in four cases.
| S-EPMC2935289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in real-world settings.MethodsA systematic review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database NHS EED) databases were searched for studies published in English language up to April 2018. Prospective and retrospective observational studies that used prescription claim databases or hospital medical records to examine patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonate treatment among adults with osteoporosis were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies.ResultsThe search yielded 540 published studies, of which 89 were deemed relevant and were included in this review. The mean age of patients included within the studies ranged between 53 to 80.8 years, and the follow-up varied from 3 months to 14 years. The mean persistence of oral bisphosphonates for 6 months, 1?year and 2 years ranged from 34.8% to 71.3%, 17.7% to 74.8% and 12.9% to 72.0%, respectively. The mean medication possession ratio ranged from 28.2% to 84.5%, 23% to 50%, 27.2% to 46% over 1?year, 2 years and 3 years, respectively. All studies included scored between 6 to 8 out of 9 on the NOS. The determinants of adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates included geographic residence, marital status, tobacco use, educational status, income, hospitalisation, medication type and dosing frequency.ConclusionsWhile a number of studies reported high levels of persistence and adherence, the findings of this review suggest that patient persistence and adherence with oral bisphosphonates medications was poor and reduced notably over time. Overall, adherence was suboptimal. To maximise adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates, it is important to consider possible determinants, including characteristics of the patients.
| S-EPMC6500256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Several medications have been used for glucocorticoids-induced osteoporosis (GIO). However, the best therapeutic option for GIO is still controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab, teriparatide and bisphosphonates for patients with GIO. Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 2023 were searched. The following efficiency and safety outcomes were extracted for comparison: bone mineral density (BMD) percentage changes in lumbar spine, femur neck and total hip, and incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), vertebrae and non-vertebrae fracture. Bayesian random effects models were used for multiple treatment comparisons. Results: 11 eligible RCTs involving 2,877 patients were identified. All the six medications including alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, zoledronate, teriparatide, and denosumab and were effective in increasing BMD. Teriparatide and denosumab were more effective in improving lumbar spine and femur neck BMD, and reducing vertebrae fracture. Alendronate and denosumab were more effective in improving total hip BMD. Alendronate and teriparatide had the lowest incidences of AEs and SAEs. Conclusion: Teriparatide denosumab and the bisphosphonates are all effective in improving BMD for GIO patients. Based on this network meta-analysis, teriparatide and denosumab have higher efficiency in improving lumbar spine and femur neck BMD, and reducing vertebrae fracture. Systematic Review Registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/2G8YA, identifier CRD42023456305.
| S-EPMC10834754 | biostudies-literature