No abstract

No abstract

Although alfacalcidol is widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis, its mechanism of action in bone is not fully understood. Alfacalcidol stimulates intestinal calcium (Ca) absorption, increases urinary Ca excretion and serum Ca levels, and suppresses parathyroid hormone (PTH) secretion. It remains to be clarified, especially under vitamin D-replete conditions, whether alfacalcidol exerts skeletal effects solely via these Ca-related effects, whether the resultant suppression of PTH is a prerequisite for the skeletal actions of alfacalcidol, and, by inference, whether alfacalcidol has an advantage over vitamin D in the treatment of osteoporosis. To address these issues, we (1) compared the effects of alfacalcidol p.o. (0.025-0.1 microg/kg BW) vis-à-vis vitamin D(3) (50-400 microg/kg BW) on bone loss in 8-month-old, ovariectomized (OVX) rats as a function of their Ca-related effects, and (2) examined whether the skeletal effects of alfacalcidol occur independently of suppression of PTH, using parathyroidectomized (PTX) rats continuously infused with hPTH(1-34). The results indicate that (1) in OVX rats, alfacalcidol increases BMD and bone strength more effectively than vitamin D(3) at given urinary and serum Ca levels: larger doses of vitamin D(3) are required to produce a similar BMD-increasing effect, in the face of hypercalcemia and compromised bone quality; (2) at doses that maintain serum Ca below 10 mg/dl, alfacalcidol suppresses urinary deoxypyridinoline excretion more effectively than vitamin D(3); and (3) alfacalcidol is capable of increasing bone mass in PTX rats with continuous infusion of PTH, and therefore acts independently of PTH levels. It is suggested that alfacalcidol exerts bone-protective effects independently of its Ca-related effects, and is in this respect superior to vitamin D(3), and that the skeletal actions of alfacalcidol take place, at least in part, independently of suppression of PTH. Together, these results provide a rationale for the clinical utility of alfacalcidol and its advantage over vitamin D(3) in the treatment of osteoporosis.

Although alfacalcidol has been widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis in certain countries, its mechanism of action in bone, especially in the vitamin D-replete state, remains unclear. Here we provide histomorphometric as well as biochemical evidence that alfacalcidol suppresses osteoclastic bone resorption in an ovariectomized rat model of osteoporosis. Furthermore, when compared with 17␤-estradiol, a representative antiresorptive drug, it is evident that alfacalcidol causes a dose-dependent suppression of bone resorption, and yet maintains or even stimulates bone formation, as reflected in increases in serum osteocalcin levels and bone formation rate at both trabecular and cortical sites. 17␤-Estradiol, which suppresses bone resorption to the same extent as alfacalcidol, causes a parallel reduction in the biochemical and histomorphometric markers of bone formation. As a final outcome, treatment with alfacalcidol increases bone mineral density and improves mechanical strength more effectively than 17␤-estradiol, with a more pronounced difference in cortical bone. We conclude that estrogens depress bone turnover primarily by suppressing bone resorption and, as a consequence, bone formation as well, whereas alfacalcidol "supercouples" these processes, in that it suppresses bone resorption while maintaining or stimulating bone formation. (J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:770 -779)

Background Esketamine nasal spray (Spravato) in conjunction with oral antidepressants (ADs) is approved in the European Union, United States, and other markets for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of esketamine nasal spray in Japanese patients with TRD needs to be assessed. Methods This Phase 2b, randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled study was conducted in adult Japanese patients with TRD meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fifth edition) criteria of major depressive disorder with nonresponse to ≥ 1 but < 5 different ADs in the current episode at screening. Patients were treated with a new oral AD for 6 weeks (prospective lead-in phase); nonresponders were randomized (2:1:1:1) to placebo or esketamine (28-, 56-, or 84-mg) nasal spray along with the continued use of AD for 4 weeks (DB induction phase). Responders (≥50% reduction from baseline in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score) from the DB induction phase continued into the 24-week posttreatment phase and patients who relapsed could participate in a 4-week open-label (OL) second induction (flexibly-dosed esketamine). The primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline in the MADRS total score at Day 28 in the DB induction phase, was based on mixed-effects model using repeated measures pairwise comparisons using a Dunnett adjustment. Results Of the 202 patients randomized in the DB induction phase (esketamine [n = 122] or placebo [n = 80]), the MADRS total scores decreased from baseline to Day 28 of the DB induction phase (− 15.2, − 14.5, − 15.1, and − 15.3 for esketamine 28 mg, 56 mg, 84 mg, and placebo groups, respectively), indicating an improvement in depressive symptoms; however, the difference between the esketamine and placebo groups was not statistically significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events during the DB induction phase in the combined esketamine group (incidences ranging from 12.3 to 41.0%) were blood pressure increased, dissociation, dizziness, somnolence, nausea, hypoaesthesia, vertigo, and headache; the incidence of each of these events was > 2-fold higher than the corresponding incidence in the placebo group. Conclusions Efficacy of esketamine plus oral AD in Japanese TRD patients was not established; further investigation is warranted. All esketamine doses were safe and tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02918318. Registered: 28 September 2016.