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.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.

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.

Evaluation of the impact of a de-escaleted chemotherapy regimen consisting of capecitabine (Cap) on invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in patients ≥65 years with node-positive/high-risk node-negative early breast cancer (BC) receiving ibandronate (Ib).
ICE (Ib with or without Cap in Elderly patients with early breast cancer) was a multicentre phase 3 clinical trial with a 2020 update of long-term follow-up for overall survival enroling node-positive/high-risk node-negative patients ≥65 years with early BC. Patients were randomised to Cap 2000 mg/m² day 1-14 q3w for 6 cycles plus Ib (50 mg p.o. daily or alternatively 6 mg intravenous q4w) or Ib alone for 2 years. Endocrine therapy was recommended for hormone receptor (HR)-positive patients. The primary endpoint was iDFS analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank analysis.
1358 (96.4%) of 1409 randomised patients started treatment. 564 (83.4%) completed 6 cycles of Cap. 513 (77.7%) and 516 (78.8%) completed Ib in the Cap+Ib and Ib alone arm, respectively. Median age was 71 (range 64-88) years, 1099 (81%) were HR-positive, 705 (51.9%) node-negative. At a median follow-up of 61.3 months, 5-year iDFS was 78.8% for Cap+Ib versus 75.0% for Ib alone (p = 0.80). Effects were independent of age, nodal, and HR status. The addition of Cap caused significantly higher skin and gastrointestinal toxicity.
The adjuvant combination of Cap+Ib did not show significantly better iDFS than Ib alone in node-positive/high-risk node-negative older BC patients, of whom HR-positive patients were also treated with endocrine therapy.
Study in elderly patients with early breast cancer (ICE), NCT00196859, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00196859?term=NCT00196859.

Recently, the use of orthodontic mini-screws as an anchorage for orthodontic treatment is increasing, and the degree of osseointegration of the mini-screws affects the performance of orthodontic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the biocompatibility and osseointegration of Titanium 6Aluminum 4Vanadium (Ti-6Al-4V) alloy orthodontic mini-screws with an ibandronate-loaded TiO2 nanotube (TNT) layer. The TNT layer was formed on the surface of the Ti-6Al-4V alloy orthodontic mini-screws and loaded with ibandronate. The TNT formed by anodic oxidation formed a completely self-organized and compact structure and was stably released for 7 days after loading with ibandronate. Mini-screws loaded with ibandronate were implanted into both tibias of rats, confirming rapid initial bone regeneration. We demonstrate that the release of stable ibandronate from the TNT layer of Ti-6Al-4V alloy orthodontic mini-screws can effectively improve biocompatibility and osseointegration.

Early breast cancer is among the most common cancers worldwide. Recent advances continue to improve outcomes and increase long-term survivorship. However, therapeutic modalities are deleterious for patients\' bone health. While antiresorptive therapy may partially negate this, consequent reduction in rates of fragility fractures remains unproven. Selective prescription of bisphosphonates or denosumab may be an amicable middle ground. Recent evidence also suggests a possible role of osteoclast inhibitors as adjuvant therapy, but the evidence is modest at best. In this narrative clinical review, we explore the impact of various adjuvant modalities on bone mineral density and fragility fracture rates of early breast cancer survivors. We also review optimal patient selection for antiresorptive agents, their impact on rates of fragility fractures, and the possible role of these agents as adjuvant therapy.

The present study analyzed the effect of vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene polymorphisms (ApaI, TaqI, BsmI, FokI, and Cdx2) on bone mineral density (BMD), biochemical parameters and bone turnover markers, fracture prevalence, and response to three types of antiresorptive therapy (estrogen-progesterone, raloxifene, and ibandronate) in 356 postmenopausal women from Slovakia. Association analysis revealed a significant effect of BsmI polymorphism on lumbar spine BMD, serum osteocalcin (OC), and β-CrossLaps levels. While ApaI and Cdx2 polymorphisms were associated with OC and alkaline phosphatase, TaqI polymorphism affected all turnover markers. ApaI, TaqI, and BsmI genotypes increased the risk of spinal, radial, or total fractures with odds ratios ranging from 2.03 to 3.17. Each of therapy types evaluated had a beneficial effect on all osteoporosis-related traits; however, the VDR gene affected only ibandronate and raloxifene treatment. ApaI/aa, TaqI/TT, and BsmI/bb genotypes showed a weaker or no response to ibandronate therapy in femoral and spinal BMD. The impact of aforementioned polymorphisms on turnover markers was also genotype dependent. On the contrary, only TaqI and BsmI polymorphisms influenced raloxifene therapy, even only in lumbar spine BMD. These results point to the potential of using the VDR gene in personalized pharmacotherapy of osteoporosis.