OBJECTIVE: The aim of this experimental in vivo pilot study was to evaluate the effect of the local delivery of pamidronate within a collagen membrane on the changes in the buccal soft and hard tissue dimensions at the time of immediate implant placement and whether this effect was influenced by the placement of bone substitutes.
METHODS: In six beagle dogs, the distal roots of the third and fourth premolars were extracted, and immediate implants were placed. Treatment groups were randomly allocated to each socket: (i) covering the buccal bone with pamidronate-soaked collagen membrane (BP group), (ii) filling the gap defect with synthetic bone substitute (BS group), (iii) filling the gap defect with synthetic bone substitute and covering the buccal bone with pamidronate soaked collagen membrane (BP/BS group), (iv) no treatment (control group). Intraoral scanning was performed immediately after the surgery and at 20 weeks. Histomorphometric and micro-computed tomography (CT) outcomes were evaluated at 20 weeks.
RESULTS: The micro CT analysis demonstrated that the BP group showed no apparent difference in vertical bone level with residual mesial root area, while control group showed significant buccal bone resorption at the implant site. The histomorphometric analysis demonstrated that the vertical bone level of buccal plate was significantly differed between the BP and control group (0.34 ± 0.93 and 1.27 ± 0.56 mm, respectively; p = .041). There was no statistically significant difference in the horizontal ridge width (HRW 1, 2, 3) among the groups. Also, the thickness, height and buccal contours of the soft tissue did not reveal significant changes among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The local delivery of pamidronate to the outer surface of the buccal wall at the time of immediate implant placement effectively limits buccal bone resorption. The results from the present investigation should be interpreted with caution, as well as its clinical translatability. Further investigation is needed to understand the pamidronate binding and releasing kinetic, as well as the ideal carrier of this drug for its topical application.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are common fragility fractures. Patients who undergo surgical treatment for their initial OVCFs warrant particular attention because there is an elevated risk of subsequent vertebral fractures and other types of fragility fractures. However, the optimal osteoporosis treatment for this specific patient group is less investigated.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures and mortality rate for patients who are initiated with denosumab and bisphosphonates and determines the effect of adherence to treatment.
METHODS: Retrospective nationwide cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 2,858 patients who had surgically-managed osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.
METHODS: The risk of osteoporotic fractures, vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fractures and death.
METHODS: This is a retrospective nationwide cohort study that uses the National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients aged ≥50 years who were admitted for surgical interventions for OVCF between 2012 and 2016 and subsequently received denosumab or bisphosphonates for one year were included. Patients were stratified according to their antiosteoporosis medications and adherence to treatment. A multivariable, time-varying Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the risk of osteoporotic fractures, vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fractures and death.
RESULTS: A total of 2,858 patients were included in this study: 1,123 patients in the denosumab group and 1,735 patients in the bisphosphonates group. Compared to persistent denosumab users, the nonpersistent denosumab users, persistent bisphosphonate users and nonpersistent bisphosphonate users had a greater risk of osteoporotic fractures, with respective hazard ratios of 1.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.32), 1.74 (95% CI, 1.25-2.42) and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.14-2.06). If osteoporotic fractures were divided into nonvertebral and vertebral fractures, none of the groups exhibited an increased risk of vertebral fractures compared to persistent denosumab users, with an HR of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.54-1.88) for nonpersistent denosumab users, 1.64 (95% CI: 0.96-2.81) for persistent bisphosphonate users and 1.52 (95% CI: 0.95-2.43) for nonpersistent bisphosphonate users. However, there was a significantly greater risk of nonvertebral fracture, with respective hazard ratios of 2.04 (95% CI, 1.33-3.11), 1.80 (95% CI, 1.18-2.76) and 1.56 (95% CI, 1.06-2.27) for nonpersistent denosumab users, persistent bisphosphonate users and nonpersistent users. Noteworthy, nonpersistent denosumab users exhibited a significantly greater risk of mortality than persistent denosumab users, with a hazard ratio of 3.12 (95% CI, 2.22-4.38).
CONCLUSIONS: In terms of patients with OVCFs who require hospitalization and surgical intervention, those who receive ongoing denosumab treatment exhibit less risk of developing subsequent osteoporotic fractures than those who receive bisphosphonates or nonpersistent denosumab treatment. However, discontinuation of denosumab is associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent fractures and mortality. Therefore, adherence to the treatment is crucial for patients who are initiated with denosumab.

UNASSIGNED: The Radiotherapy IBandronate (RIB) trial compared single dose radiotherapy and a single infusion of ibandronate in 470 bisphosphonate naïve patients with metastatic bone pain from prostate cancer randomised into a non-inferiority two arm study. Results for the primary endpoint of pain score response at 4 weeks showed that the ibandronate arm was non-inferior to single dose radiotherapy.
UNASSIGNED: In addition to pain assessments including analgesic use made at baseline, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks, urine was collected at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. It was subsequently analysed for urinary N-telopeptide (NTx) and cystatin C. Linear regression models were used to compare the continuous outcome measures for urinary markers within treatment arms and baseline measurements were included as covariates. Interaction terms were fitted to allow for cross-treatment group comparisons.
UNASSIGNED: The primary endpoint of the RIB trial was worst pain response at 4 weeks and there was no treatment difference seen. Urine samples and paired pain scores at 4 weeks were available for 273 patients (radiotherapy 168; ibandronate 159)The baseline samples measured for the RIB trial had an average concentration of 193 nM BCE/mM creatinine (range of 7.3-1871) compared to the quoted normal range of 33 nM BCE/mM creatinine (3 to 63). In contrast the average value of Cystatin C was 66 ng/ml (ranges ND - 1120 ng/ml) compared to the quoted normal range of 62.9 ng/ml (ranges 12.6-188 ng/ml). A statistically significant reduction in NTx concentrations between baseline and 4 weeks was seen in the ibandronate arm but not in the radiotherapy arm. No correlation between pain response and urinary marker concentration was seen in either the ibandronate or radiotherapy cohort at any time point.
UNASSIGNED: NTx was significantly raised compared to the normal range consistent with a role as a biomarker for bone metastases from prostate cancer. A significant reduction in NTx 4 weeks after ibandronate is consistent with its action in osteoclast inhibition which was not seen after radiotherapy implying a different mode of action for radiation. There was no correlation between bone biomarker levels and pain response.

BACKGROUND: It is well-known that oral surgical procedures pose a high risk for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients taking bisphosphonates. Although some position papers and guidelines have been published with regard to its treatment, few studies have investigated prevention methods. This study investigates the effectiveness of methenolone enanthate, an anabolic steroid, for the prevention of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
METHODS: Thirty-six Wistar rats were divided into three groups. Two experimental groups, Z and ZM, took zoledronic acid for 6 weeks prior to extraction of the left maxillary first molar. The Group ZM also was given methenolone enanthate continuously for 1 week before and 4 weeks after the extraction. The control group was not given any medication. The rats were euthanized 5 weeks after extraction. The extraction socket was evaluated clinically for bone exposure and histologically for inflammation, hyperemia, collagen fibers, epithelialization, number of osteoclasts, and empty lacunae.
RESULTS: Six rats died during the experimental research. The bone exposure rate, mean numbers of attached osteoclasts (in 40× magnification), and empty lacunae (in 100× magnification) were 0%, 4%, and 0.8% in Group C; 75%, 1%, and 8% in Group Z; and 10%, 2.1%, and 3% in Group ZM, respectively. Significant differences exist between all groups regarding the number of empty lacunae. There were significant differences between Group C/ZM and Group Z in terms of bone exposure rate, inflammation, hyperemia, collagen fiber organization, and epithelialization.
CONCLUSIONS: In our tested preclinical model, methenolone enanthate has shown potential for preventing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association of bisphosphonates with outcomes related to radiographic changes and pain in hip osteoarthritis (OA) over 4 years.
METHODS: This study examined data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), which included 4088 hips from 2057 participants. Bisphosphonate users were identified as those who reported usage at least three times, including at baseline and during the subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4-year follow-up visits. Non-users were participants who did not use bisphosphonates in the 5 years preceding the baseline and at subsequent follow-up visits. Generalized estimating equations were performed to assess the association between bisphosphonate use and outcomes related to radiographic changes and pain in hip OA over a 4-year follow-up.
RESULTS: The analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between bisphosphonate users and non-users concerning outcomes related to radiographic changes and pain in hip OA over 4 years. Specifically, the odds ratios for the incidence and transition of radiographic hip OA were 0.55 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.26 to 1.17) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.47 to 1.28), respectively. Furthermore, the odds ratios for the development and resolution of frequent hip pain were 1.04 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.42) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.36), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this longitudinal study do not suggest an association between bisphosphonate use and the prevention, slowing, or delay of development and transition of radiographic changes or pain in hip OA over a 4-year follow-up.

Denosumab initiation is related to a lower risk of type 2 diabetes than alendronate in anti-osteoporotic treatment-naïve users in primary care practices.
OBJECTIVE: Links have been suggested between bone metabolism and glucose tolerance. Downregulation of the receptor activator of nuclear factor κ B ligand (RANKL) signaling improves glucose metabolism. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, may be associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim was to compare incidence rates of T2DM in primary care patients initiating denosumab or alendronate, which is a first-line therapy of osteoporosis. Alendronate as comparator enhances comparability of the two cohorts.
METHODS: The IQVIA Disease Analyzer comprises a representative panel of general and specialist practices (Germany). A new-user comparative study was conducted among patients with denosumab or alendronate treatment (2010-2021) without history of diabetes and age ≥ 45 years. Incidence rates (per 1,000 person-years) and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR; 95%CI) for T2DM were estimated.
RESULTS: The cohorts consisted of 3,354 denosumab (age: 75 years; women: 87%) and 27,068 alendronate (76 years; 86%) users. Overall, 1,038 persons developed T2D during 54,916 person-years. T2DM incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 11.9 (9.5-14.4) for denosumab and 20.1 (18.8-21.3) for alendronate users, respectively. Denosumab was associated with a reduced risk of T2DM compared to alendronate, adjusting for age, sex, index year, visits, obesity, comorbidities and statins (HR: 0.73; 0.58-0.89).
CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative study of older patients seen in routine practices, denosumab was associated with a lower risk of developing T2DM than alendronate.

Osteoporosis is often detected late and becomes severe because of a lack of subjective symptoms. Digital panoramic radiography (DPR) has been reported to be useful for osteoporosis screening based on the morphological classification of the mandibular inferior cortex. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the mandibular cortical index (MCI) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in a group of patients who were and were not using antiosteoporosis medication (AOM). Three hundred and fifty female patients aged 40 years or older who had DPR imaging performed during a 6-year period from December 2015 to February 2022 met the selection criteria. Two examiners recorded mandibular cortical width and MCI from the images. These results were statistically examined together with the patients\' demographic data. Forty-nine patients were using AOM (13 nonbisphosphonate/denosumab and 36 bisphosphonate/denosumab). MCI type 3 was the most common in the AOM group. In the MCI classification, DPR imaging among the AOM group was more sensitive (0.95) than that of the control group. This method of estimating osteoporosis based on MCI classification using DPR images has high sensitivity, especially in patients using AOM, suggesting that this method is useful as a screening test.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the adult population. Potent anti-resorptive drugs such as intravenous zoledronic acid have been demonstrated to reduce Modic changes (MCs) upon magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine and concomitantly decrease associated LBP. It is uncertain whether oral alendronic acid has a similar effect.
METHODS: 82 subjects were recruited in this case-control study. Treatment subjects (n = 41) received oral alendronic acid treatment for at least 1-year and were matched by gender and age (± 2) to control subjects (n = 41) not receiving any anti-osteoporotic medication. The prevalence, type, and extent of MCs were quantified upon T1 and T2-weighted MRIs of the lumbosacral spine.
RESULTS: Treatment subjects received oral alendronic acid for 124.0 ± 62.1 weeks at the time of MRI assessment and exhibited a lower prevalence of MCs over the lumbosacral spine (18/41 vs. 30/41, p < 0.001) as compared to control subjects. Amongst both groups, type 2 MCs were predominant. Quantification of type 2 MCs in treatment subjects revealed a significant reduction in area (113 ± 106 mm2 vs. 231 ± 144 mm2, p < 0.01) and volume (453 ± 427 mm3 vs. 925 ± 575 mm3, p < 0.01) affected by type 2 MCs in comparison to matched controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral alendronic acid may be useful in the treatment of MC-associated LBP in patients with concomitant osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Antiresorptive therapy (AR) disrupts osseous homeostasis and can induce direct irritation over the gastrointestinal mucosa; however, its possible erosive effects on the oral epithelium have not been totally described. Among the most frequent oral erosive lesions, oral lichen planus (OLP) frequently presents as painful mucosal ulcerations, arising from basal membrane inflammatory damage. Thus, the aim of this retrospective study was to describe the association between AR and the incidence of OLP.
METHODS: This case-control study included data from 148 patients (17 patients undergoing AR therapy (AR group) / 131 without AR therapy (Control group)). Each patient record was systematically processed and the association between AR drugs and OLP clinical characteristics within both groups was assessed.
RESULTS: The erosive form of OLP was significantly more frequent in the AR group than in the Control group (p = 0.029). Indeed, the AR treatment using alendronic acid (41.2%) was the most frequently reported. Additionally, the erosive form of OLP showed the strongest association with pain and burning sensation among the OLP types (p < 0.050). However, disease worsening and AR consumption were not significantly associated (p = 0.150).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients under AR therapy show more clinical symptoms associated to the erosive type of OLP. Regardless of the AR therapy, the erosive type of OLP is associated with more severe symptoms.

UNASSIGNED: Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.
UNASSIGNED: 1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.
UNASSIGNED: The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.
UNASSIGNED: Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.
UNASSIGNED: Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.
UNASSIGNED: Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.
UNASSIGNED: Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.
UNASSIGNED: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Bisphosphonates are drug treatments commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is the most used and is taken by mouth, weekly at a specific time of the week, which can be challenging. Less than one in four people continue this treatment beyond 2 years. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which vary in frequency and how they are administered. The most acceptable and best value-for-money regimen is unclear. Our aim was to determine how effective alternative bisphosphonates are compared to alendronate at preventing fractures and whether reduction in fracture risk was achieved at a reasonable financial cost, but acceptable to patients. The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: Stage 1A: a review of the published evidence on patients’ and doctors’ views, experiences and preferences regarding different bisphosphonate treatment regimens, followed by interviews with patients and healthcare professionals. Stage 1B: an update of an existing study on how effective bisphosphonates are in preventing fragility fractures caused by osteoporosis and whether they are good value for money. Stage 2: identification of questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonate treatments. Taking bisphosphonate medication often involves quite a lot of effort by patients, particularly when taking alendronate tablets. A yearly infusion of zoledronate treatment was more acceptable, easier to engage with and the most effective treatment compared to alendronate. However, the cost of administering zoledronate in hospital made alendronate better value for money. Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk of fracture, but ‘continuing with treatment’, particularly alendronate tablets, remains a challenge. A yearly infusion of zoledronate offers an acceptable and effective treatment, but further research is needed to support patients and healthcare professionals in making decisions about the various treatments, benefits and cost savings of administering zoledronate outside of hospital and in the community.