16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk of hip, subtrochanteric, and femoral shaft fractures among mid and long term users of alendronate: nationwide cohort and nested case-control study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives To determine the skeletal safety and efficacy of long term (≥10 years) alendronate use in patients with osteoporosis.

          Design Open register based cohort study containing two nested case control studies.

          Setting Nationwide study of population of Denmark.

          Participants 61 990 men and women aged 50-94 at the start of treatment, who had not previously taken alendronate, 1996-2007.

          Interventions Treatment with alendronate.

          Main outcome measures Incident fracture of the subtrochanteric femur or femoral shaft (ST/FS) or the hip. Non-fracture controls from the cohort were matched to fracture cases by sex, year of birth, and year of initiation of alendronate treatment. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted to calculate odds ratios with and without adjustment for comorbidity and comedications. Sensitivity analyses investigated subsequent treatment with other drugs for osteoporosis.

          Results 1428 participants sustained a ST/FS (incidence rate 3.4/1000 person years, 95% confidence interval 3.2 to 3.6), and 6784 sustained a hip fracture (16.2/1000 person years, 15.8 to 16.6). The risk of ST/FS was lower with high adherence to treatment with alendronate (medication possession ratio (MPR, a proxy for compliance) >80%) compared with poor adherence (MPR <50%; odds ratio 0.88, 0.77 to 0.99; P=0.05). Multivariable adjustment attenuated this association (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 0.77 to 1.01; P=0.08). The risk was no higher in long term users (≥10 dose years; 0.70, 0.44 to 1.11; P=0.13) or in current compared with past users (0.91, 0.79 to 1.06; P=0.22). Similarly, MPR >80% was associated with a decreased risk of hip fracture (0.73, 0.68 to 0.78; P<0.001) as was longer term cumulative use for 5-10 dose years (0.74, 0.67 to 0.83; P<0.001) or ≥10 dose years (0.74, 0.56 to 0.97; P=0.03).

          Conclusions These findings support an acceptable balance between benefit and risk with treatment with alendronate in terms of fracture outcomes, even for over 10 years of continuous use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

          Bisphosphonates (BPs) and denosumab reduce the risk of spine and nonspine fractures. Atypical femur fractures (AFFs) located in the subtrochanteric region and diaphysis of the femur have been reported in patients taking BPs and in patients on denosumab, but they also occur in patients with no exposure to these drugs. In this report, we review studies on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and medical management of AFFs, published since 2010. This newer evidence suggests that AFFs are stress or insufficiency fractures. The original case definition was revised to highlight radiographic features that distinguish AFFs from ordinary osteoporotic femoral diaphyseal fractures and to provide guidance on the importance of their transverse orientation. The requirement that fractures be noncomminuted was relaxed to include minimal comminution. The periosteal stress reaction at the fracture site was changed from a minor to a major feature. The association with specific diseases and drug exposures was removed from the minor features, because it was considered that these associations should be sought rather than be included in the case definition. Studies with radiographic review consistently report significant associations between AFFs and BP use, although the strength of associations and magnitude of effect vary. Although the relative risk of patients with AFFs taking BPs is high, the absolute risk of AFFs in patients on BPs is low, ranging from 3.2 to 50 cases per 100,000 person-years. However, long-term use may be associated with higher risk (∼100 per 100,000 person-years). BPs localize in areas that are developing stress fractures; suppression of targeted intracortical remodeling at the site of an AFF could impair the processes by which stress fractures normally heal. When BPs are stopped, risk of an AFF may decline. Lower limb geometry and Asian ethnicity may contribute to the risk of AFFs. There is inconsistent evidence that teriparatide may advance healing of AFFs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of continuing or stopping alendronate after 5 years of treatment: the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (FLEX): a randomized trial.

            The optimal duration of treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis is uncertain. To compare the effects of discontinuing alendronate treatment after 5 years vs continuing for 10 years. Randomized, double-blind trial conducted at 10 US clinical centers that participated in the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT). One thousand ninety-nine postmenopausal women who had been randomized to alendronate in FIT, with a mean of 5 years of prior alendronate treatment. Randomization to alendronate, 5 mg/d (n = 329) or 10 mg/d (n = 333), or placebo (n = 437) for 5 years (1998-2003). The primary outcome measure was total hip bone mineral density (BMD); secondary measures were BMD at other sites and biochemical markers of bone remodeling. An exploratory outcome measure was fracture incidence. Compared with continuing alendronate, switching to placebo for 5 years resulted in declines in BMD at the total hip (-2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.9% to -1.8%; P<.001) and spine (-3.7%; 95% CI, -4.5% to -3.0%; P<.001), but mean levels remained at or above pretreatment levels 10 years earlier. Similarly, those discontinuing alendronate had increased serum markers of bone turnover compared with continuing alendronate: 55.6% (P<.001) for C-telopeptide of type 1 collagen, 59.5% (P < .001) for serum n = propeptide of type 1 collagen, and 28.1% (P<.001) for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, but after 5 years without therapy, bone marker levels remained somewhat below pretreatment levels 10 years earlier. After 5 years, the cumulative risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76-1.32) was not significantly different between those continuing (19%) and discontinuing (18.9%) alendronate. Among those who continued, there was a significantly lower risk of clinically recognized vertebral fractures (5.3% for placebo and 2.4% for alendronate; RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.85) but no significant reduction in morphometric vertebral fractures (11.3% for placebo and 9.8% for alendronate; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.22). A small sample of 18 transilial bone biopsies did not show any qualitative abnormalities, with bone turnover (double labeling) seen in all specimens. Women who discontinued alendronate after 5 years showed a moderate decline in BMD and a gradual rise in biochemical markers but no higher fracture risk other than for clinical vertebral fractures compared with those who continued alendronate. These results suggest that for many women, discontinuation of alendronate for up to 5 years does not appear to significantly increase fracture risk. However, women at very high risk of clinical vertebral fractures may benefit by continuing beyond 5 years. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 00398931.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bisphosphonates: the first 40 years.

              R. Russell (2011)
              The first full publications on the biological effects of the diphosphonates, later renamed bisphosphonates, appeared in 1969, so it is timely after 40years to review the history of their development and their impact on clinical medicine. This special issue of BONE contains a series of review articles covering the basic science and clinical aspects of these drugs, written by some of many scientists who have participated in the advances made in this field. The discovery and development of the bisphosphonates (BPs) as a major class of drugs for the treatment of bone diseases has been a fascinating story, and is a paradigm of a successful journey from 'bench to bedside'. Bisphosphonates are chemically stable analogues of inorganic pyrophosphate (PPi), and it was studies on the role of PPi as the body's natural 'water softener' in the control of soft tissue and skeletal mineralisation that led to the need to find inhibitors of calcification that would resist hydrolysis by alkaline phosphatase. The observation that PPi and BPs could not only retard the growth but also the dissolution of hydroxyapatite crystals prompted studies on their ability to inhibit bone resorption. Although PPi was unable to do this, BPs turned out to be remarkably effective inhibitors of bone resorption, both in vitro and in vivo experimental systems, and eventually in humans. As ever more potent BPs were synthesised and studied, it became apparent that physico-chemical effects were insufficient to explain their biological effects, and that cellular actions must be involved. Despite many attempts, it was not until the 1990s that their biochemical actions were elucidated. It is now clear that bisphosphonates inhibit bone resorption by being selectively taken up and adsorbed to mineral surfaces in bone, where they interfere with the action of the bone-resorbing osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates are internalised by osteoclasts and interfere with specific biochemical processes. Bisphosphonates can be classified into at least two groups with different molecular modes of action. The simpler non-nitrogen containing bisphosphonates (such as etidronate and clodronate) can be metabolically incorporated into non-hydrolysable analogues of ATP, which interfere with ATP-dependent intracellular pathways. The more potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (including pamidronate, alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate and zoledronate) are not metabolised in this way but inhibit key enzymes of the mevalonate/cholesterol biosynthetic pathway. The major enzyme target for bisphosphonates is farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS), and the crystal structure elucidated for this enzyme reveals how BPs bind to and inhibit at the active site via their critical N atoms. Inhibition of FPPS prevents the biosynthesis of isoprenoid compounds (notably farnesol and geranylgeraniol) that are required for the post-translational prenylation of small GTP-binding proteins (which are also GTPases) such as rab, rho and rac, which are essential for intracellular signalling events within osteoclasts. The accumulation of the upstream metabolite, isopentenyl pyrophosphate (IPP), as a result of inhibition of FPPS may be responsible for immunomodulatory effects on gamma delta (γδ) T cells, and can also lead to production of another ATP metabolite called ApppI, which has intracellular actions. Effects on other cellular targets, such as osteocytes, may also be important. Over the years many hundreds of BPs have been made, and more than a dozen have been studied in man. As reviewed elsewhere in this issue, bisphosphonates are established as the treatments of choice for various diseases of excessive bone resorption, including Paget's disease of bone, the skeletal complications of malignancy, and osteoporosis. Several of the leading BPs have achieved 'block-buster' status with annual sales in excess of a billion dollars. As a class, BPs share properties in common. However, as with other classes of drugs, there are obvious chemical, biochemical, and pharmacological differences among the various BPs. Each BP has a unique profile in terms of mineral binding and cellular effects that may help to explain potential clinical differences among the BPs. Even though many of the well-established BPs have come or are coming to the end of their patent life, their use as cheaper generic drugs is likely to continue for many years to come. Furthermore in many areas, e.g. in cancer therapy, the way they are used is not yet optimised. New 'designer' BPs continue to be made, and there are several interesting potential applications in other areas of medicine, with unmet medical needs still to be fulfilled. The adventure that began in Davos more than 40 years ago is not yet over. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor, consultant endocrinologist
                Role: consultant endocrinologistRole: clinical associate professor
                Role: associate professorRole: NIHR clinician scientist
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2016
                28 June 2016
                : 353
                : i3365
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9 A, 3. Sal, DK-5000, Odense, Denmark
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, Smedelundsgade 60, 4300 Holbæk, Denmark
                [3 ]Department of Cardiology, Nephrology and Endocrinology, Hillerød Hospital, Dyrehavevej 29, 3400 Hillerød, Denmark, Pia Eiken
                [4 ]Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark, Pia Eiken
                [5 ]Oxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeltal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
                [6 ]Musculoskeletal Research Unit, IMIM-Parc de Salut Mar and RETICEF, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Instituto Carlos III (FEDER Research Funds), Passeig Marítim 25-29, 08003 Barcelona, Spain,
                [7 ]Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism (AUBM), Northern General Hospital and University of Sheffield, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: D Prieto-Alhambra, Botnar Research Centre, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedics Centre, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK Daniel.prietoalhambra@ 123456ndorms.ox.ac.uk
                Article
                abrb031435
                10.1136/bmj.i3365
                4924596
                27353596
                4283f563-aef5-40fe-ab83-b213d3d1e30b
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

                History
                : 16 May 2016
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article