OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of ibandronate sodium and zoledronate sodium in the treatment of senile osteoporosis and their impact on quality of life, and to analyze the cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 215 patients with senile osteoporosis, who were admitted to our hospital from January 2017 to June 2019. Among them, 115 cases treated with ibandronate sodium were set to group A and 100 cases treated with zoledronate sodium were set to group B. The clinical efficacy, bone mineral density (BMD) before and after treatment, bone metabolic markers (alkaline phosphatase (ALP), blood phosphorus (P), blood calcium ion (Ca2+)), quality of life, adverse reactions, cost-effectiveness indicators (length of hospitalization, cost) and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Total therapeutic response rate in group A was 96.52% (111/115), which was not statistically different from that of 93.00% (93/100) in group B (P=0.242). After treatment, the BMD, ALP, BGP and Ca2+ levels of the lumbar spine L1-L4, left femoral neck and right femoral neck, as well as quality of life scores in the two groups increased (P < 0.05), while serum ALP levels decreased (P < 0.05), however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in group A was 3.48% (4/115), which showed no statistical significance with that of 5.00% (5/100) in group B (P=0.830). The length of hospitalization, annual treatment expense, medical insurance expense and out-of-pocket payments in group A were all lower than those in group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the treatment of senile osteoporosis, the efficacy and adverse reactions of ibandronate sodium and zoledronate sodium are similar, both of them can effectively improve the quality of life. However, the cost-effectiveness of ibandronate sodium is better than that of zoledronate sodium. AJTR
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of ibandronate sodium and zoledronate sodium in the treatment of senile osteoporosis and their impact on quality of life, and to analyze the cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 215 patients with senile osteoporosis, who were admitted to our hospital from January 2017 to June 2019. Among them, 115 cases treated with ibandronate sodium were set to group A and 100 cases treated with zoledronate sodium were set to group B. The clinical efficacy, bone mineral density (BMD) before and after treatment, bone metabolic markers (alkaline phosphatase (ALP), blood phosphorus (P), blood calcium ion (Ca2+)), quality of life, adverse reactions, cost-effectiveness indicators (length of hospitalization, cost) and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Total therapeutic response rate in group A was 96.52% (111/115), which was not statistically different from that of 93.00% (93/100) in group B (P=0.242). After treatment, the BMD, ALP, BGP and Ca2+ levels of the lumbar spine L1-L4, left femoral neck and right femoral neck, as well as quality of life scores in the two groups increased (P < 0.05), while serum ALP levels decreased (P < 0.05), however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in group A was 3.48% (4/115), which showed no statistical significance with that of 5.00% (5/100) in group B (P=0.830). The length of hospitalization, annual treatment expense, medical insurance expense and out-of-pocket payments in group A were all lower than those in group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the treatment of senile osteoporosis, the efficacy and adverse reactions of ibandronate sodium and zoledronate sodium are similar, both of them can effectively improve the quality of life. However, the cost-effectiveness of ibandronate sodium is better than that of zoledronate sodium. AJTR
Authors: Catherine C Reilly; William Y Raynor; Abigail L Hong; Daniel C Kargilis; Jae S Lee; Austin G Alecxih; Nishtha Gupta; Marie K Lim; Abdullah Al-Zaghal; Thomas J Werner; Sylvia S Rhodes; Abass Alavi; Chamith S Rajapakse Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: Ashley S Massey; Sreekanth Pentlavalli; Richard Cunningham; Cian M McCrudden; Emma M McErlean; Philip Redpath; Ahlam A Ali; Stephanie Annett; John W McBride; Joanne McCaffrey; Tracy Robson; Marie E Migaud; Helen O McCarthy Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Michelle A Lawson; Frank H Ebetino; Adam Mazur; Andrew D Chantry; Julia Paton-Hough; Holly R Evans; Darren Lath; Maria K Tsoumpra; Mark W Lundy; Roy Lm Dobson; Michael Quijano; Aaron A Kwaasi; James E Dunford; Xuchen Duan; James T Triffitt; Gwyn Jeans; R Graham G Russell Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 6.741