Treatment with once-weekly alendronate 70 mg compared with once-weekly risedronate 35 mg in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: A randomized double-blind study

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (Impact Factor: 6.59). 01/2005; 20(1):141-51. DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.040920
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and once-weekly risedronate 35 mg are indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. These two agents were compared in a 12-month head-to-head trial. Greater gains in BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover were seen with alendronate compared with risedronate with similar tolerability.
The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate, are available in once-weekly (OW) formulations for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A 12-month, head-to-head study was performed to compare these agents in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low BMD.
A total of 1053 patients from 78 U.S. sites were randomized to OW alendronate 70 mg (N = 520) or risedronate 35 mg (N = 533), taken in the morning after fasting. Endpoints included BMD changes over 6 and 12 months at the hip trochanter, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine (LS); percent of patients with predefined levels of change in trochanter and LS BMD at 12 months; and change in biochemical markers of bone turnover at 3, 6, and 12 months. Tolerability was evaluated by adverse experience (AE) reporting.
Significantly greater increases in hip trochanter BMD were seen with alendronate (3.4%) than risedronate (2.1%) at 12 months (treatment difference, 1.4%; p < 0.001) as well as 6 months (treatment difference, 1.3%; p < 0.001). Significantly greater gains in BMD were seen with alendronate at all BMD sites measured (12-month difference: total hip, 1.0%; femoral neck, 0.7%; LS, 1.2%). Significant differences were seen as early as 6 months at all sites. A greater percentage of patients had > or =0% (p < 0.001) and > or =3% (p < 0.01) gain in trochanter and spine BMD at 12 months with alendronate than risedronate. Significantly greater (p < 0.001) reductions in all biochemical markers of bone turnover occurred with alendronate compared with risedronate by 3 months. No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal AEs or AEs causing discontinuation.
In this 12-month, head-to-head trial of alendronate and risedronate, given in accordance with the approved OW regimens for treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, alendronate produced greater gains in BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover than risedronate. The greater antiresorptive effect of alendronate was seen as early as 3 months, and the tolerability profiles were similar.


Available from: Risa Kagan, Feb 13, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the proven predictive ability of bone mineral density, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAXA (R)), bone turnover markers, and fracture for osteoporotic fracture, their use as targets for treatment of osteoporosis is limited. Treat-to-target is a strategy applied in several fields of medicine and has recently become an area of interest in the management of osteoporosis. Its role in this setting remains controversial. This article was prepared following a European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group meeting convened under the auspices of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) to discuss the feasibility of applying such a strategy in osteoporosis in Europe. Potential targets range from the absence of an incident fracture to fixed levels of bone mineral density (BMD), a desired FRAXA (R) score, a specified level of bone turnover markers or indeed changes in any one or a combination of these parameters. Despite the proven predictive ability of all of these variables for fracture (particularly BMD and FRAX), their use as targets remains limited due to low sensitivity, the influence of confounders and current lack of evidence that targets can be consistently reached. ESCEO considers that it is not currently feasible to apply a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis, though it did identify a need to continue to improve the targeting of treatment to those at higher risk (target-to-treat strategy) and a number of issues for the research agenda. These include international consensus on intervention thresholds and definition of treatment failure, further exploration of the relationship between fracture and BMD, and FRAX and treatment efficacy and investigation of the potential of short-term targets to improve adherence.
    Osteoporosis International 09/2014; 25(11). DOI:10.1007/s00198-014-2787-1 · 4.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent condition characterized by decreases in bone mass and microarchitectural alterations. Bone fractures, especially of the hip and vertebrae, are the most burdensome complications of osteoporosis, being associated with high risk of disability, institutionalization and mortality. The detection of osteoporosis relies on the quantification of bone mineral density via imaging techniques such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. However, therapeutic decision-making should be based on a comprehensive fracture risk assessment, which may be obtained through validated algorithms. Once the decision of treating has been taken, non-pharmacological strategies should be implemented together with the prescription of anti-osteoporotic agents. Numerous drugs are currently available to treat osteoporosis and the choice of a specific compound should be guided by efficacy and safety considerations. The present review provides a concise synopsis of the current evidence in the management of osteoporosis, from screening to drug prescription. Novel anti-osteoporotic agents are also briefly presented.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose — Use of bisphosphonates in women is associated with higher risk of atypical femoral fractures. The risk in terms of timing of use and type of bisphosphonate, and in men, remains unclear. Patients and methods — We reviewed radiographs of 5,342 Swedish women and men aged 55 years or more who had had a fracture of the femoral shaft in the 3-year period 2008–2010 (97% of those eligible), and found 172 patients with atypical fractures (93% of them women). We obtained data on medication and comorbidity. The risk of atypical fracture associated with bisphosphonate use was estimated in a nationwide cohort analysis. In addition, we performed a case-control analysis with comparison to 952 patients with ordinary shaft fractures. A short report of the findings has recently been presented (Schilcher et al. 2014a). Here we provide full details. Results — The age-adjusted relative risk (RR) of atypical fracture associated with bisphosphonate use was 55 (95% CI: 39–79) in women and 54 (CI: 15–192) in men. In bisphosphonate users, women had a 3-fold higher risk than men (RR = 3.1, CI: 1.1–8.4). Alendronate users had higher risk than risedronate users (RR = 1.9, CI: 1.1–3.3). The RR after 4 years or more of use reached 126 (CI: 55–288), with a corresponding absolute risk of 11 (CI: 7–14) fractures per 10,000 person-years of use. The risk decreased by 70% per year since last use. Interpretation — Women have a higher risk of atypical femoral fracture than men. The type of bisphosphonate used may affect risk estimates and the risk decreases rapidly after cessation.