No abstract

No abstract

Changes in the level of biochemical markers of bone resorption with risedronate treatment for osteoporosis were examined as a surrogate for the decrease in fracture risk. Greater decreases in bone resorption markers were associated with greater decreases in vertebral (and nonvertebral) fractures.Antifracture efficacy of antiresorptive therapies is only partially explained by increases in bone mineral density. Early decreases in bone resorption may also play a role. We tested this hypothesis by measuring two bone resorption markers, the C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and the N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTX), in osteoporotic patients in risedronate vertebral fracture trials. We studied 693 women with at least one vertebral deformity (mean age, 69 ؎ 7 years) who received calcium (and vitamin D if required) and placebo or risedronate 5 mg daily for 3 years. The reductions in urinary CTX (median, 60%) and NTX (51%) at 3-6 months with risedronate therapy were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with the reduction in vertebral fracture risk (75% over 1 year and 50% over 3 years).

Bone resorption may generate collagen fragments such as ICTP and CTX, which can be quantified in serum and/or urine by using specific immunoassays, and which are used as clinical markers. However, the relative abundance of ICTP and CTX varies according to the type of bone pathology, suggesting that these two fragments are generated through distinct collagenolytic pathways. In this study, we analyzed the release of ICTP and CTX from bone collagen by the proteinases reported to play a role in the solubilization of bone matrix. Cathepsin K released large amounts of CTX, but did not allow a detectable release of ICTP. Conversely, the matrix metalloproteinases (

No abstract

No abstract

Published meta-analyses have investigated the relationship between changes in BMD and fracture risk reduction observed with antiresorptive agents, with inconsistent results. Many factors may affect the outcome of such analyses. Our work explores some of these factors and illustrates the need for caution in interpreting the results of meta-analyses. Introduction:The role of the increase in bone mineral density (BMD) in fracture risk reduction observed in osteoporotic patients treated with antiresorptive drugs is unclear. We examined the effects of study selection, the use of summary statistics or individual patient data (IPD) as the basis for the analyses, and the choice of BMD values used on the outcome of meta-analyses. Materials and Methods:To evaluate the effects of study selection, we performed Poisson regression analyses using the results from a number of published studies. To evaluate the effects of using individual patient data instead of summary statistics, we simulated the IPD for vertebral fracture to match the summary statistics for published trials and compared these results with those based on meta-regression using summary statistics. We also evaluated the effect of varying the BMD increase with treatment (3-8%) used in predicting the fracture risk reductions in these simulations. Results: The Poisson regression, which found a statistically significant relationship between nonvertebral fracture risk and spinal BMD when 18 trials of varying designs, duration, and sample size were included in the analysis (p ϭ 0.02), was no longer significant when the analysis was based on the 7 large studies that were placebo-controlled, at least 3 years in duration (at least 1000 patient-years). Meta-analyses of simulated IPD from 12 trials of six antiresorptive agents gave accurate results regardless of the proportion of vertebral risk reduction assumed to be related to BMD change, whereas meta-regression based on summary statistics always produced an estimate around 50%. When the actual data from two risedronate studies were analyzed, the meta-regression based on summary statistics demonstrated a stronger correlation between BMD change and fracture risk reduction than the results based on the IPD analysis. In predicting the fracture risk reduction, the use of the average BMD gain (3%) observed in all studies in the calculations produced an overall fracture risk reduction very similar to the one observed clinically. In contrast, the use of a large BMD gain (8%) produced a substantially higher estimated fracture risk reduction and resulted in a high proportion of fracture risk reduction being attributed to BMD change. Conclusions: Many factors may influence the outcome of meta-analyses, and caution should be used in interpreting the results of such analyses when exploring the relationship between BMD changes and fracture risk reduction with antiresorptive therapy of osteoporosis.

No abstract