M A Paggiosi1, N Peel, E McCloskey, J S Walsh, R Eastell. 1. Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, The Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, The University of Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK, m.a.paggiosi@sheffield.ac.uk.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We compared the effects of oral alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate on the central and peripheral skeleton over 2 years. We report differences in effect on the central skeleton but not on the peripheral skeleton. Greater effects were observed for ibandronate (and alendronate) than risedronate at the spine but not the hip. INTRODUCTION: Generally, comparative clinical trials of bisphosphonates have examined changes in bone within central skeletal regions. We have examined the effects of bisphosphonate treatment on the peripheral skeleton. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year, open-label, parallel randomised control trial of three orally administered bisphosphonates, at their licensed dose, to examine and compare their effects on the peripheral skeleton using multiple modes of measurement. We studied 172 postmenopausal women (53-84 years) who had either a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of ≤ -2.5 at the spine and/or total hip or < -1.0 at either site plus a previous low trauma fracture. Participants were randomised to receive either (i) ibandronate 150 mg/month, (ii) alendronate 70 mg/week or (iii) risedronate 35 mg/week, plus calcium (1,200 mg/day) and vitamin D (800 IU/day), for 2 years. Premenopausal women (33-40 years, n = 226) were studied to monitor device stability. RESULTS: We measured central BMD of the lumbar spine, total hip, total body and forearm using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. We measured calcaneus BMD (using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry plus laser), radius and tibia BMD (using peripheral quantitative computed tomography), finger BMD (using radiographic absorptiometry), and phalangeal and calcaneal ultrasound variables (using quantitative ultrasound). Mixed effects regression models were used to evaluate effects of time and treatment allocation on BMD change. By 2 years, there were significant increases (p < 0.05) in central BMD sites (lumbar spine, total hip). In the peripheral skeleton, only significant changes in calcaneus BMD, 33 % total radius BMD and quantitative ultrasound (QUS)-2 broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) were evident for women receiving oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: The increases in lumbar spine and total body BMD were greater with ibandronate and alendronate than with risedronate. Treatment effects on peripheral measurements did not differ between the three bisphosphonates.
UNLABELLED: We compared the effects of oral alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate on the central and peripheral skeleton over 2 years. We report differences in effect on the central skeleton but not on the peripheral skeleton. Greater effects were observed for ibandronate (and alendronate) than risedronate at the spine but not the hip. INTRODUCTION: Generally, comparative clinical trials of bisphosphonates have examined changes in bone within central skeletal regions. We have examined the effects of bisphosphonate treatment on the peripheral skeleton. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year, open-label, parallel randomised control trial of three orally administered bisphosphonates, at their licensed dose, to examine and compare their effects on the peripheral skeleton using multiple modes of measurement. We studied 172 postmenopausal women (53-84 years) who had either a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of ≤ -2.5 at the spine and/or total hip or < -1.0 at either site plus a previous low trauma fracture. Participants were randomised to receive either (i) ibandronate 150 mg/month, (ii) alendronate 70 mg/week or (iii) risedronate 35 mg/week, plus calcium (1,200 mg/day) and vitamin D (800 IU/day), for 2 years. Premenopausal women (33-40 years, n = 226) were studied to monitor device stability. RESULTS: We measured central BMD of the lumbar spine, total hip, total body and forearm using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. We measured calcaneus BMD (using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry plus laser), radius and tibia BMD (using peripheral quantitative computed tomography), finger BMD (using radiographic absorptiometry), and phalangeal and calcaneal ultrasound variables (using quantitative ultrasound). Mixed effects regression models were used to evaluate effects of time and treatment allocation on BMD change. By 2 years, there were significant increases (p < 0.05) in central BMD sites (lumbar spine, total hip). In the peripheral skeleton, only significant changes in calcaneus BMD, 33 % total radius BMD and quantitative ultrasound (QUS)-2 broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) were evident for women receiving oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: The increases in lumbar spine and total body BMD were greater with ibandronate and alendronate than with risedronate. Treatment effects on peripheral measurements did not differ between the three bisphosphonates.
Authors: Clifford J Rosen; Marc C Hochberg; Sydney L Bonnick; Michael McClung; Paul Miller; Susan Broy; Risa Kagan; Erluo Chen; Richard A Petruschke; Desmond E Thompson; Anne E de Papp Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-09-29 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Anke J Roelofs; Charlotte A Stewart; Shuting Sun; Katarzyna M Błażewska; Boris A Kashemirov; Charles E McKenna; R Graham G Russell; Michael J Rogers; Mark W Lundy; Frank H Ebetino; Fraser P Coxon Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Sundeep Khosla; John P Bilezikian; David W Dempster; E Michael Lewiecki; Paul D Miller; Robert M Neer; Robert R Recker; Elizabeth Shane; Dolores Shoback; John T Potts Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Steven R Cummings; David B Karpf; Fran Harris; Harry K Genant; Kristine Ensrud; Andrea Z LaCroix; Dennis M Black Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: S Gonnelli; C Cepollaro; A Montagnani; D Bruni; C Caffarelli; M Breschi; L Gennari; C Gennari; R Nuti Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: A Diez-Perez; K E Naylor; B Abrahamsen; D Agnusdei; M L Brandi; C Cooper; E Dennison; E F Eriksen; D T Gold; N Guañabens; P Hadji; M Hiligsmann; R Horne; R Josse; J A Kanis; B Obermayer-Pietsch; D Prieto-Alhambra; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; S Silverman; M C Zillikens; R Eastell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: K E Naylor; M Bradburn; M A Paggiosi; F Gossiel; N F A Peel; E V McCloskey; J S Walsh; R Eastell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sandra R Torres; Curtis S K Chen; Brian G Leroux; Peggy P Lee; Lars G Hollender; Michelle Lloid; Shane Patrick Drew; Mark M Schubert Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2015-02-14
Authors: K E Naylor; E V McCloskey; R M Jacques; N F A Peel; M A Paggiosi; F Gossiel; J S Walsh; R Eastell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-01-06 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Sarah Davis; Emma Simpson; Jean Hamilton; Marrissa Martyn-St James; Andrew Rawdin; Ruth Wong; Edward Goka; Neil Gittoes; Peter Selby Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: K E Naylor; R M Jacques; M Paggiosi; F Gossiel; N F A Peel; E V McCloskey; J S Walsh; R Eastell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 4.507