K E Naylor1, R M Jacques2, M Paggiosi3, F Gossiel3, N F A Peel4, E V McCloskey3, J S Walsh3, R Eastell3. 1. Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, The Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S5 7AU, UK. k.e.naylor@sheffield.ac.uk. 2. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 3. Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism, The Mellanby Centre for Bone Research, University of Sheffield, Herries Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S5 7AU, UK. 4. Metabolic Bone Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We used bone turnover markers to identify women who responded to bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis. Response was more likely with alendronate and ibandronate than risedronate. There was a greater decrease in bone markers if baseline bone turnover markers were higher and if the patient took more than 80 % of her medication. INTRODUCTION: Biochemical response to bisphosphonate therapy can be assessed using either a decrease in bone turnover marker beyond the least significant change (LSC) or a reduction to within a reference interval (RI). We compared the performance of these target responses and determined whether response was related to the type of bisphosphonate, compliance and baseline bone turnover markers. METHODS: Biochemical responses to three oral bisphosphonates were assessed in an open, controlled trial comprising 172 postmenopausal osteoporotic women (age 53-84 years), randomised to alendronate, ibandronate or risedronate, plus calcium and vitamin D supplementation for 2 years. The LSC for each marker was derived within the study population, whereas RIs were obtained from a control group of healthy premenopausal women (age 35-40 years). RESULTS: Over 70 % of women achieved a target response for serum CTX and PINP, irrespective of the approach used. The percentage decrease at 12 weeks was greater for women with baseline PINP above the RI -63 % (difference 13 %, 95 % CI 0 to 27.1, P = 0.049) and good compliance -67 % (difference 15.9 %, 95 % CI 6.3 to 25.5, P = 0.001). Responders had a greater increase in spine bone density compared to nonresponders; for example 6.2 vs. 2.3 % (difference 3.9 %, 95 % CI 1.6 to 6.3, P = 0.0011) for PINP LSC. The magnitude of change in bone markers was greater with ibandronate and alendronate than risedronate. CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches to response identified similar proportions of women as responders. Nonresponders had smaller increases in BMD, and we suggest that biochemical assessment of response is a useful tool for the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.
UNLABELLED: We used bone turnover markers to identify women who responded to bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis. Response was more likely with alendronate and ibandronate than risedronate. There was a greater decrease in bone markers if baseline bone turnover markers were higher and if the patient took more than 80 % of her medication. INTRODUCTION: Biochemical response to bisphosphonate therapy can be assessed using either a decrease in bone turnover marker beyond the least significant change (LSC) or a reduction to within a reference interval (RI). We compared the performance of these target responses and determined whether response was related to the type of bisphosphonate, compliance and baseline bone turnover markers. METHODS: Biochemical responses to three oral bisphosphonates were assessed in an open, controlled trial comprising 172 postmenopausal osteoporotic women (age 53-84 years), randomised to alendronate, ibandronate or risedronate, plus calcium and vitamin D supplementation for 2 years. The LSC for each marker was derived within the study population, whereas RIs were obtained from a control group of healthy premenopausal women (age 35-40 years). RESULTS: Over 70 % of women achieved a target response for serum CTX and PINP, irrespective of the approach used. The percentage decrease at 12 weeks was greater for women with baseline PINP above the RI -63 % (difference 13 %, 95 % CI 0 to 27.1, P = 0.049) and good compliance -67 % (difference 15.9 %, 95 % CI 6.3 to 25.5, P = 0.001). Responders had a greater increase in spine bone density compared to nonresponders; for example 6.2 vs. 2.3 % (difference 3.9 %, 95 % CI 1.6 to 6.3, P = 0.0011) for PINP LSC. The magnitude of change in bone markers was greater with ibandronate and alendronate than risedronate. CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches to response identified similar proportions of women as responders. Nonresponders had smaller increases in BMD, and we suggest that biochemical assessment of response is a useful tool for the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bisphosphonate; Bone turnover markers; Postmenopausal osteoporosis; Variability
Authors: Richard Eastell; Bernard Vrijens; David L Cahall; Johann D Ringe; Patrick Garnero; Nelson B Watts Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: U A Liberman; S R Weiss; J Bröll; H W Minne; H Quan; N H Bell; J Rodriguez-Portales; R W Downs; J Dequeker; M Favus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald Emkey; Pierre D Delmas; Michael Bolognese; Joao Lindolfo C Borges; Felicia Cosman; Sergio Ragi-Eis; Christopher Recknor; Cristiano A Zerbini; Colin Neate; Farhad Sedarati; Solomon Epstein Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Charles H Chesnut; Arne Skag; Claus Christiansen; Robert Recker; Jacob A Stakkestad; Arne Hoiseth; Dieter Felsenberg; Hermann Huss; Jennifer Gilbride; Ralph C Schimmer; Pierre D Delmas Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2004-03-29 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: A Diez-Perez; J D Adachi; D Agnusdei; J P Bilezikian; J E Compston; S R Cummings; R Eastell; E F Eriksen; J Gonzalez-Macias; U A Liberman; D A Wahl; E Seeman; J A Kanis; C Cooper Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Samuel Vasikaran; Cyrus Cooper; Richard Eastell; Andrea Griesmacher; Howard A Morris; Tommaso Trenti; John A Kanis Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: K E Naylor; R M Jacques; M Paggiosi; F Gossiel; N F Peel; E V McCloskey; J S Walsh; R Eastell Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 4.507
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: 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