Sahota O, Fowler I, Blackwell P J, Lawson N, Cawte S A, San P, Masud T, Hosking D J
Ageing and Disability Research Unit (ADRU), University Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Osteoporos Int. 2000;11(11):959-66. doi: 10.1007/s001980070035.
A number of drugs are now available for the treatment of established osteoporosis and have been shown to significantly increase bone mineral density (BMD). There are, however, few comparative treatment studies and, furthermore, adverse events remain a problem with some of the newer agents, particularly in the elderly, in everyday clinical practice. We report a 12 month, open labeled, randomized controlled, prospective treatment study in 140 postmenopausal women with established vertebral osteoporosis, comparing the effect of continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate with calcitriol in terms of gain in BMD, reduction in bone turnover markers and adverse event profile. The mean percentage increases in BMD at 12 months, at the spine and hip respectively, were: continuous alendronate 5.7%, 2.6%; cyclical alendronate 4.1%, 1.6%; cyclical etidronate 4.9%, 2.0% (p<0.0 1) and calcitriol 2.0%, 0.4% (NS). In comparison with calcitriol, the mean changes in BMD at the spine and hip respectively were greater in the other groups; continuous alendronate: 3.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 8.3), 2.2% (95% CI 0.7 to 4.0); cyclical alendronate: 2.1% (95% CI 1.2 to 6.4), 1.2% (95% CI -0.3 to 3.0); cyclical etidronate: 2.9% (95% CI 1.9 to 6.5), 1.6% (95% CI 0.9 to 3.1)). The reduction in bone turnover markers was between 26% and 32% in the alendronate and etidronate groups (p<0.01), with a trend toward greater reduction in the continuous alendronate group. Eight patients discontinued the study: 6 in the continuous alendronate group, 1 in the cyclical alendronate group and 1 in the calcitriol group. Two patients in the cyclical etidronate group were unable to tolerate the Cacit component, but continued on substituting Cacit with Calcichew. In summary, 12 months of treatment with continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate are effective in terms of the gain in BMD at the anteroposterior spine and total hip in a comparable treatment population. These treatments are more effective than calcitriol and were generally well tolerated. Continuous alendronate showed a trend toward a larger gain in BMD and greater suppression of bone turnover markers than the other treatment groups, but had a higher incidence of adverse events, particularly within the older subgroup. Cyclical alendronate offers a lower adverse event profile and appears to be effective in comparison with continuous treatment, and may possibly be an alternative in the elderly. However, further studies are necessary, but more importantly with fracture end-points.
目前有多种药物可用于治疗已确诊的骨质疏松症,并且已证明这些药物能显著提高骨矿物质密度(BMD)。然而,比较性治疗研究较少,此外,在日常临床实践中,一些新型药物的不良事件仍是个问题,尤其是在老年人中。我们报告了一项针对140名已确诊椎体骨质疏松的绝经后女性进行的为期12个月的开放标签、随机对照、前瞻性治疗研究,比较了连续阿仑膦酸钠、周期性阿仑膦酸钠和周期性依替膦酸钠联合骨化三醇在提高BMD、降低骨转换标志物以及不良事件方面的效果。12个月时,脊柱和髋部BMD的平均百分比增加分别为:连续阿仑膦酸钠5.7%、2.6%;周期性阿仑膦酸钠4.1%、1.6%;周期性依替膦酸钠4.9%、2.0%(p<0.01),骨化三醇为2.0%、0.4%(无显著性差异)。与骨化三醇相比,其他组脊柱和髋部BMD的平均变化分别更大;连续阿仑膦酸钠:3.7%(95%可信区间1.4至8.3),2.2%(95%可信区间0.7至4.0);周期性阿仑膦酸钠:2.1%(95%可信区间1.2至6.4),1.2%(95%可信区间 -0.3至3.0);周期性依替膦酸钠:2.9%(95%可信区间1.9至6.5),1.6%(95%可信区间0.9至3.1))。阿仑膦酸钠组和依替膦酸钠组骨转换标志物的降低幅度在26%至32%之间(p<0.01),连续阿仑膦酸钠组有更大幅度降低的趋势。8名患者退出研究:连续阿仑膦酸钠组6名,周期性阿仑膦酸钠组1名,骨化三醇组1名。周期性依替膦酸钠组有2名患者无法耐受碳酸钙成分,但继续用钙尔奇替代碳酸钙进行治疗。总之,在可比较的治疗人群中,连续阿仑膦酸钠、周期性阿仑膦酸钠和周期性依替膦酸钠治疗12个月在前后位脊柱和全髋部BMD增加方面是有效的。这些治疗比骨化三醇更有效,且总体耐受性良好。连续阿仑膦酸钠在BMD增加幅度和骨转换标志物抑制方面比其他治疗组有更大的趋势,但不良事件发生率更高,尤其是在老年亚组中。周期性阿仑膦酸钠不良事件较少,与连续治疗相比似乎有效,可能是老年人的一种替代选择。然而,有必要进行进一步研究,但更重要的是采用骨折终点进行研究。