Priya Sharma1, Oday Al-Dadah1,2. 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, South Tyneside District Hospital, Harton Lane, South Shields, NE34 0PL, United Kingdom. 2. Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4HH, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Background: Bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies are drugs primarily developed to inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and are used to treat an array of skeletal pathologies. Their use is aimed at increasing bone health and therefore reducing fracture risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bone protection therapy on improving bone mineral density (BMD) in patients following a fracture. Methods: Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who sustained a skeletal fracture and were subsequently commenced on bone protection therapy. Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) scans were performed at baseline and following a consented period of drug therapy. Bone health data included T-Scores, Z-Scores, FRAX Major, FRAX Hip and BMD. The clinical effectiveness of four bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, pamidronate and zoledronate) and one monoclonal antibody (denosumab) were evaluated. Results: A total of 100 patients were included in the study. Overall, bone protection therapy significantly improved Z-score Hip, Z-score Spine, T-score Spine and BMD Spine (p < 0.05). There was a marked difference between drug therapies. Denosumab and zoledronate were associated with the greatest treatment effect size. Alendronate only improved Z-score Spine and Z-score Hip (p < 0.05). Pamidronate and risedronate did not demonstrate any statistically significant improvement across any DEXA parameter. Conclusion: Overall, bisphosphonates/monoclonal antibodies confer beneficial effects on bone health as measured by DEXA scans in patients following skeletal fractures. However, the magnitude of improvement varies among the commonly used drugs. Alendronate, zoledronate and denosumab were associated with greatest therapeutic benefit. Bone protection therapy did not improve fracture risk of patients (FRAX scores).
Background: Bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies are drugs primarily developed to inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and are used to treat an array of skeletal pathologies. Their use is aimed at increasing bone health and therefore reducing fracture risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bone protection therapy on improving bone mineral density (BMD) in patients following a fracture. Methods: Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who sustained a skeletal fracture and were subsequently commenced on bone protection therapy. Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) scans were performed at baseline and following a consented period of drug therapy. Bone health data included T-Scores, Z-Scores, FRAX Major, FRAX Hip and BMD. The clinical effectiveness of four bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, pamidronate and zoledronate) and one monoclonal antibody (denosumab) were evaluated. Results: A total of 100 patients were included in the study. Overall, bone protection therapy significantly improved Z-score Hip, Z-score Spine, T-score Spine and BMD Spine (p < 0.05). There was a marked difference between drug therapies. Denosumab and zoledronate were associated with the greatest treatment effect size. Alendronate only improved Z-score Spine and Z-score Hip (p < 0.05). Pamidronate and risedronate did not demonstrate any statistically significant improvement across any DEXA parameter. Conclusion: Overall, bisphosphonates/monoclonal antibodies confer beneficial effects on bone health as measured by DEXA scans in patients following skeletal fractures. However, the magnitude of improvement varies among the commonly used drugs. Alendronate, zoledronate and denosumab were associated with greatest therapeutic benefit. Bone protection therapy did not improve fracture risk of patients (FRAX scores).
Authors: G H Nancollas; R Tang; R J Phipps; Z Henneman; S Gulde; W Wu; A Mangood; R G G Russell; F H Ebetino Journal: Bone Date: 2005-07-20 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Redonda G Miller; Katherine C Chretien; Lucy A Meoni; Ya-Pei Liu; Michael J Klag; Michael A Levine Journal: J Clin Rheumatol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.517
Authors: Robert R Recker; Pierre D Delmas; Johan Halse; Ian R Reid; Steven Boonen; Pedro A García-Hernandez; Jerzy Supronik; E Michael Lewiecki; Luis Ochoa; Paul Miller; Huilin Hu; Peter Mesenbrink; Florian Hartl; Juerg Gasser; Erik F Eriksen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Jean Sanderson; Marrissa Martyn-St James; John Stevens; Edward Goka; Ruth Wong; Fiona Campbell; Peter Selby; Neil Gittoes; Sarah Davis Journal: Bone Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Danielle A Eekman; Marijn Vis; Irene E M Bultink; Harm J G M Derikx; Ben A C Dijkmans; Willem F Lems Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 2.362