Strontium Ranelate

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders show inflammatory components, heavily impacting on quality of life. Strontium ranelate has previously shown anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive effects on other experimental inflammatory pain models. Thus, we aim to investigate the strontium ranelate efficacy in reducing the zymosan-induced inflammatory hypernociception in the TMJ of rats by evaluating the TNF-α, IL-1β, and hemeoxygenase-1 (HO-1) involvement. METHODS: Wistar rats were treated with strontium ranelate (0.5, 5 or 50 mg/kg, per os) 1 h before zymosan injection (iart). Mechanical threshold was assessed by Von Frey test and synovial lavage was collected for leukocyte counting and myeloperoxidase measurement, joint tissue and trigeminal ganglion were excised for histopathological analysis (H&E) and TNF-α/IL-1β levels dosage (ELISA). Moreover, rats were pre-treated with ZnPP-IX (3 mg/kg, sc), a specific HO-1 inhibitor, before strontium ranelate administration (0.5 mg/kg, per os), and Evans Blue (5 mg/kg, iv) was administered to assess plasma extravasation. Pre-treatment with indomethacin (5 mg/kg, sc) was used as positive control while the sham group received 0.9% sterile saline (per os and iart). RESULTS: Strontium ranelate did not reduce leukocyte counting, myeloperoxidase activity, Evans Blue extravasation, IL-1β levels, and TNF-α/IL-1β immunolabeling; but it increased the nociceptive threshold and reduced TNF-α levels. Additionally, HO-1 inhibition did not change the strontium ranelate effects. CONCLUSION: Strontium ranelate may achieve its antinociceptive effects through the reduction of TNF-α levels in the trigeminal ganglion, but not suppressing IL-1β expression nor inducing the HO-1 pathway.

Osteoporosis is very common in elderly patients. Despite the severe health-related consequences for individual patients and the socioeconomic costs caused by osteoporotic fractures, treatment rates are still low. Due to drug interactions and patient compliance, polypharmacy is often mentioned as a reason for undertreatment. Several drugs have a direct or indirect effect on bone metabolism. The present paper discusses the risk of interactions of anti-osteoporotic drugs (oral and parenteral bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, teriparatide, and denosumab) with other common medications in elderly patients and their impact on bone metabolism and fracture risk. In summary, the number and risk of drug interactions of all common anti-osteoporotic drugs are small and clinically rather irrelevant. However, patients with a polypharmacy are at a higher risk of fractures and should receive osteoporosis treatment, if indicated.

The pharmacological management of disease should involve consideration of the balance between the beneficial effects of treatment on outcome and the probability of adverse effects. The aim of this review is to explore the risk of adverse drug reactions and drug-drug interactions with treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis. We reviewed evidence for adverse reactions from regulatory documents, randomized controlled trials, pharmacovigilance surveys, and case series. Bisphosphonates are associated with gastrointestinal effects, musculoskeletal pain, and acute-phase reactions, as well as, very rarely, atrial fibrillation, atypical fracture, delayed fracture healing, osteonecrosis of the jaw, hypersensitivity reactions, and renal impairment. Cutaneous effects and osteonecrosis of the jaw are of concern for denosumab (both very rare), though there are no pharmacovigilance data for this agent yet. The selective estrogen receptor modulators are associated with hot flushes, leg cramps, and, very rarely, venous thromboembolism and stroke. Strontium ranelate has been linked to hypersensitivity reactions and venous thromboembolism (both very rare) and teriparatide with headache, nausea, dizziness, and limb pain. The solidity of the evidence base depends on the frequency of the reaction, and causality is not always easy to establish for the very rare adverse reactions. Drug-drug interactions are rare. Osteoporosis treatments are generally safe and well tolerated, though they are associated with a few very rare serious adverse reactions. While these are a cause for concern, the risk should be weighed against the benefits of treatment itself, i.e., the prevention of osteoporotic fracture.

The commonest medical conditions following menopause are osteoporosis and atherosclerotic disease. This review considers the safety of pharmacotherapy of osteoporosis in cardiology patients. Drugs used for osteoporosis treatment may have adverse effects on the cardiovascular system. This article has detailed analysed of current drug classes, such as the bisphosphonates and strontium ranelate, as well as reviewed of the controversy surrounding hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs). Additionally, we discuss the adverse effects on the heart of calcium and drugs influencing calcium metabolism such as vitamin D, parathormone and calcitonin. We look at the interference between osteoporosis treatment and the drugs used for atherosclerosis. Moreover, the side effects on bones of cardiology drugs are analysed. Lastly, the possible advantages of selected drugs used for cardiovascular diseases in terms of osteoporosis prevention are evaluated.

Comment on J Bone Miner Res. 2009 Aug;24(8):1358-68. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.090315.

During the last two decades, the development of new, highly effective therapeutics (e.g. bisphosphonates, SERMs, strontium ranelate and PTH) has significantly extended the spectrum of osteoporosis therapy. However, the interest of combining bone-active agents and/or Vitamin D and calcium is still being debated, and is restricted to a very marginal set of compounds (Alendronate and native Vitamin D). On the other hand, Vitamin D-hormone analogs, calcitriol, and alfacalcidol, have repeatedly demonstrated their effectiveness in being valuable alternatives compared to native Vitamin D in this setting. A growing amount of data documents the pre-clinical and clinical efficacies of combinations of bisphosphonates with calcitriol, or with alfacalcidol in primary and secondary osteoporosis. This exhaustive review of the available animal and clinical data aimed at comparing the theoretical with demonstrated absolute and relative benefits of those therapeutic approaches. Most of the pre-clinical and clinical data in PMOP suggest significant, clinical improvements in response to combination therapies versus monotherapies in postmenopausal osteoporosis. As a investigated by most of the currently available trials, a daily dose of alendronate 10 mg or a weekly dose of Alendronate 70 m plus alfacalcidol 0.5-1.0 microg daily plus alfacalcidol 0.5 microg seems to surpass other combinations when BMD and bone metabolism markers are considered. A synergy with bisphosphonates in reducing the fracture episodes may lie in the pleiotropic effects of D-hormone analogs on musculoskeletal, immunological and neurological systems. Negative interactions between both drugs have not yet been reported, while a reduction of hypercalcuria episodes has been noted in combination therapies, as compared to monotherapies involving high doses of Vitamin D, calcitriol, or alfacalcidol. Based on the possible reduction of periodic safety checks of calcemia, an improved compliance could then be expected, which would, in turn, generate a better end result. However, to document this, long-term, high quality comparative studies with factorial designs are needed to determine which role this alternative should p

There are several lines of evidence about the effectiveness of parathyroid hormone (PTH) as a bone anabolic reagent for the treatment of osteoporosis, and the large-scale randomized controlled trial revealed that PTH increases and reduces lumbar spine bone mineral density and fracture risk, respectively, more potently than other inhibitors for bone resorption. Moreover, alendronate was useful for the further increase in bone mineral density after the withdrawal of PTH treatment, and the combined treatment of PTH and raloxifene was additive. On the other hand, strontium ranelate significantly inhibited osteoporotic fractures in randomized placebo controlled trial, which is expected as a new bone anabolic reagent for osteoporosis.

Pharmacokinetics of exogenous strontium (Sr) and bioequivalence of a new oral formulation of strontium ranelate compared with the brand-name drug in healthy Chinese subjects was evaluated. A balanced, randomized, single-dose, two-treatment parallel study was conducted in 36 healthy Chinese subjects. Subjects were randomly allocated into two groups of 18 to receive a single oral dose of test formulation and reference formulation under a fasting state, respectively. Blood samples were collected at 19 designated time points up to 240-h post-dose. Serum concentrations of Sr were quantified by ICP-MS. A total of 36 subjects were enrolled and completed the study. Nine mild adverse events in 6 subjects were reported. The Cmax, AUC0-72 h, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of test and reference formulations shown as mean ± SD were 6.97 ± 1.78 and 6.78 ± 1.80 µg/mL, 199 ± 51 and 187 ± 38 µg·h/mL, 303 ± 89 and 278 ± 54 µg·h/mL, and 337 ± 109 and 305 ± 60 µg·h/mL, respectively. Two formulations were bioequivalent, and both were generally well tolerated.

A rapid, sensitive and accurate ICP-MS method using alternate analyte-free matrix for calibration standards preparation and a rapid direct dilution procedure for sample preparation was developed and validated for the quantification of exogenous strontium (Sr) from the drug in human serum. Serum was prepared by direct dilution (1:29, v/v) in an acidic solution consisting of nitric acid (0.1%) and germanium (Ge) added as internal standard (IS), to obtain simple and high-throughput preparation procedure with minimized matrix effect, and good repeatability. ICP-MS analysis was performed using collision cell technology (CCT) mode. Alternate matrix method by using distilled water as an alternate analyte-free matrix for the preparation of calibration standards (CS) was used to avoid the influence of endogenous Sr in serum on the quantification. The method was validated in terms of selectivity, carry-over, matrix effects, lower limit of quantification (LLOQ), linearity, precision and accuracy, and stability. Instrumental linearity was verified in the range of 1.00-500ng/mL, corresponding to a concentration range of 0.0300-15.0μg/mL in 50μL sample of serum matrix and alternate matrix. Intra- and inter-day precision as relative standard deviation (RSD) were less than 8.0% and accuracy as relative error (RE) was within ±3.0%. The method allowed a high sample throughput, and was sensitive and accurate enough for a pilot bioequivalence study in healthy male Chinese subjects following single oral administration of two strontium ranelate formulations containing 2g strontium ranelate.

Strontium ranelate is a new effective anti-osteoporotic treatment having a unique mode of action, reducing bone resorption while promoting continued bone formation, with a broad range of anti-fracture efficacy at vertebral as well as peripheral sites. In Phase III studies, it has proven its early and sustained efficacy against vertebral fractures in Caucasians along with a significant increase in lumbar bone mineral density (BMD). The aim of this randomized double-blind study was to demonstrate the efficacy of strontium ranelate (2 g/day) on lumbar spine bone mineral density and the clinical and biological safety in Asian postmenopausal osteoporotic patients compared to placebo over 1 year. Three hundred and twenty-nine eligible women from mainland China, Hong Kong and Malaysia were randomized into the study. The baseline characteristics were similar in the treatment and placebo groups: mean age of 66.2+/-6.5 years, time since menopause 17.6+/-7.2 years. In the Full Analysis Set (FAS, N=302), the mean baseline lumbar L2-L4 BMD was 0.715+/-0.106 g/cm(2) in the strontium ranelate group and 0.708 +/- 0.109 g/cm2 in the placebo group. The mean baseline femoral neck BMD was 0.575+/-0.074 g/cm2 and 0.566+/-0.069 g/cm2 respectively and mean total hip BMD was 0.642+/-0.080 g/cm2 and 0.631 +/-0.088 g/cm2 respectively. The overall compliance was 91.4% in the study drug group, and 97.4% in the placebo group. After 1 year of treatment, the lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip BMD in the treated group was significantly increased by 3-5% as compared to placebo. Strontium ranelate was well tolerated. The most frequently reported emergent adverse events were comparable in both groups (60.4% versus 60.0%), with majority of them being mild gastrointestinal disorders. There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory tests, such as blood routine, hepatic and renal function. It is thus concluded that the effects of 2 g/day strontium ranelate on BMD and its safety profile in this cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic Asian women were consistent with results obtained from Caucasian women in which the efficacy on the reduction in risk of fracture has been proven.

Erratum in Calcif Tissue Int. 2009 Apr;84(4):334. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate in the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Taiwan. In this 12-month multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 125 women with osteoporosis were randomly given either strontium ranelate 2 g daily or placebo. Lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total-hip bone mineral density (BMD) and biochemical markers of bone turnover were measured; adverse events and tolerability were recorded and assessed. Subjects treated with strontium ranelate showed significant increases in BMD of 5.9% at the lumbar spine, 2.6% at the femoral neck, and 2.7% at the total hip, while the placebo group exhibited no significant change at 12 months. Serum level of a formation marker (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) was also significantly increased at 6 and 12 months. Thus, although the sample size and the treatment duration of this study could not show its effect of reducing osteoprotic fractures, strontium ranelate showed bone protection effects by increasing BMD and concentrations of a bone formation marker. Safety assessment revealed adverse events were mild and not significantly different from placebo.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and microarchitectural deterioration contribute to increased fracture risk. Although the effects of anti-fracture medications (AFMs) on BMD are well-documented, their impact on bone material properties (BMPs) remains poorly characterized. Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of AFMs on BMPs. Based on data availability, we further categorized AFMs into anti-resorptives, bisphosphonates alone, and strontium ranelate subgroups to perform additional analyses of BMPs in osteoporotic patients. METHODS: We did a comprehensive search of three databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using various permutation combinations, and used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software to analyze the extracted data. RESULTS: The 15 eligible studies (randomized and non-randomized) compared the following: (1) 301 AFM-treated patients with 225 on placebo; (2) 191 patients treated with anti-resorptives with 131 on placebo; (3) 86 bisphosphonate-treated patients with 66 on placebo; and (4) 84 strontium ranelate-treated patients with 70 on placebo. Pooled analysis showed that AFMs significantly decreased cortical bone crystallinity [standardized difference in means (SDM) -1.394] and collagen maturity [SDM -0.855], and collagen maturity in cancellous bone [SDM -0.631]. Additionally, anti-resorptives (bisphosphonates and denosumab) significantly increased crystallinity [SDM 0.387], mineral-matrix ratio [SDM 0.771], microhardness [SDM 0.858], and contact hardness [SDM 0.952] of cortical bone. Anti-resorptives increased mineral-matrix ratio [SDM 0.543] and microhardness [SDM 0.864] and decreased collagen maturity [SDM -0.539] in cancellous bone. Restricted analysis of only bisphosphonate-treated studies showed a significant decrease in collagen maturity [SDM -0.650] in cancellous bone and an increase in true hardness [SDM 1.277] in cortical bone. In strontium ranelate-treated patients, there was no difference in BMPs compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: Collectively, our study suggests that AFMs improve bone quality, which explains their anti-fracture ability that is not full

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacological strategies might influence bone healing in terms of time to union or quality of mature bone. This expert opinion discussed the current level I evidence on the experimental pharmacological agents used to favor bone fracture healing. AREAS COVERED: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the 2020 PRISMA statement. In April 2023, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Embase. All the randomized clinical trials investigating pharmacological agents for bone fracture healing were accessed. No time constraint was set for the search. The search was restricted to RCTs. No additional filters were used in the database search. Data from 19 RCTs (4067 patients) were collected. 78% (3160 of 4067) were women. The mean length of the follow-up was 9.3 months (range, 1-26 months). The mean age of the patients was 64.4 years (range, 8-84 years). EXPERT OPINION: Calcitonin could favor bone fracture healing. Bisphosphonates (alendronate, zoledronate, clodronate), monoclonal antibodies (denosumab, romosozumab), statins, vitamin D and calcium supplementation, strontium ranelate, and ibuprofen did not influence bony healing. Concerning the effect of parathormone, current level I evidence is controversial, and additional studies are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue leading to increased bone fragility. In people with beta-thalassaemia, osteoporosis represents an important cause of morbidity and is due to a number of factors. First, ineffective erythropoiesis causes bone marrow expansion, leading to reduced trabecular bone tissue with cortical thinning. Second, excessive iron loading causes endocrine dysfunction, leading to increased bone turnover. Lastly, disease complications can result in physical inactivity, with a subsequent reduction in optimal bone mineralization. Treatments for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia include bisphosphonates (e.g. clodronate, pamidronate, alendronate; with or without hormone replacement therapy (HRT)), calcitonin, calcium, zinc supplementation, hydroxyurea, and HRT alone (for preventing hypogonadism). Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, inhibits bone resorption and increases bone mineral density (BMD). Finally, strontium ranelate simultaneously promotes bone formation and inhibits bone resorption, thus contributing to a net gain in BMD, increased bone strength, and reduced fracture risk. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which includes references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries. Date of most recent search: 4 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with beta-thalassaemia with: a BMD Z score below -2 standard deviations (SDs) for children aged under 15 years, adult males (aged 15 to 50 years) and premenopausal females aged over 15 years; or a BMD T score below -2.5 SDs for postmenopausal females and males aged over 50 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the eligibility and

This paper systematically reviewed and assessed all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. Denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were more applicable to improve the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: There are many pharmacoeconomic studies on denosumab for osteoporosis. However, the corresponding reviews are outdated or incomplete and need to be updated and refined. This article aims to systematically review and evaluate all retrievable pharmacoeconomic studies of denosumab for osteoporosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed utilizing PubMed, EMBASE(Ovid), Proquest(EconLit), Chongqing VIP, WanFang Database, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify full-text articles published before September 2021. The quality of full-text articles was evaluated by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards(CHEERS) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases International Osteoporosis Foundation guideline(ESCEO-IOF). RESULTS: In total, 21 full-text articles were eligible for inclusion. Denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis was not dominant compared to zoledronate and teriparatide. However, denosumab was dominant compared with strontium ranelate, raloxifene, and ibandronate in patients over 65 years. The probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective or dominant were more than 85% compared with no treatment and risedronate in patients aged over 70 years. Compared to alendronate, the highest rate of denosumab dominance occurred in patients aged 65 to 75 years, at about 65%. Most of the articles had higher CHEERS scores than ESCEO-IOF scores (converted into percentages). CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis was influenced by multiple factors. Generally, denosumab was more cost-effective in patients with older age, prior fracture experience, lower BMD T-scores, and more risk factors. ESCEO-IOF guidelines were mo

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for osteoporosis and is more prevalent among people with CKD than among people who do not have CKD. Although several drugs have been used to effectively treat osteoporosis in the general population, it is unclear whether they are also effective and safe for people with CKD, who have altered systemic mineral and bone metabolism. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for osteoporosis in patients with CKD stages 3-5, and those undergoing dialysis (5D). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 January 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any anti-osteoporotic drugs with a placebo, no treatment or usual care in patients with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality using the risk of bias tool, and extracted data. The main outcomes were the incidence of fracture at any sites; mean change in the bone mineral density (BMD; measured using dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry (DXA)) of the femoral neck, total hip, lumbar spine, and distal radius; death from all causes; incidence of adverse events; and quality of life (QoL). Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies involving 9164 randomised participants with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D met the inclusion criteria; all participants were postmenopausal women. Five studies include

BACKGROUND: Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles. RESULTS: The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvemen

BACKGROUND: Teriparatide, a 1-34 fragment of parathyroid hormone (PTH) that maintains most of the biological activities of PTH, has been employed since 2002 as an anabolic agent for osteoporotic individuals who are at high risk of fracture. The purpose of the present review is to provide a systematic summary and timely update on treatment with teriparatide for fracture prevention. METHODS: Electronic databases, including OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and the Cochrane Library, were searched on February 9, 2018, to identify published systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing treatment with teriparatide for fracture prevention, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to assess the quality of included studies. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included. Of the 17 eligible studies, 3 were rated as high quality, 3 were rated as moderate quality, 6 were rated as low quality, and 5 were rated as critically low quality. Teriparatide reduced vertebral and overall nonvertebral fractures in osteoporotic patients regardless of the existence of precipitating conditions, including postmenopausal status, glucocorticoid treatment, and chronic kidney disease, as compared with placebo, but not the site-specific nonvertebral fractures of the wrist and hip. Teriparatide did not more effectively reduce fracture risks when compared with other medications, such as bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-beta ligand) inhibitor, or strontium ranelate. CONCLUSIONS: Teriparatide was safe and was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events when compared with other drugs. Teriparatide was effective for the prevention of vertebral and overall nonvertebral fractures in osteoporotic patients but not for the prevention of site-specific nonvertebral fractures at the wrist and hip. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comment in doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.0899. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.5283. IMPORTANCE: Even though osteoarthritis is a chronic and progressive disease, pharmacological agents are mainly studied over short-term periods, resulting in unclear recommendations for long-term disease management. OBJECTIVE: To search, review, and analyze long-term (≥12 months) outcomes (symptoms, joint structure) from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of medications for knee osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: The databases of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until June 30, 2018 (MEDLINE alerts through August 31, 2018) for RCTs of patients with knee osteoarthritis that had treatment and follow-up lasting 1 year or longer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data at baseline and at the longest available treatment and follow-up of 12 months' duration or longer (or the change from baseline) were extracted. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in knee pain. Secondary outcomes were physical function and joint structure (the latter was measured radiologically as joint space narrowing). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and mean differences with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrIs) were calculated. Findings were interpreted as associations when the 95% CrIs excluded the null value. RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs (22 037 patients; mean age range, mostly 55-70 years; and a higher mean proportion of women than men, around 70%) included the following medication categories: analgesics; antioxidants; bone-acting agents such as bisphosphonates and strontium ranelate; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; intra-articular injection medications such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids; symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis such as glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate; and putative disease-modifying agents such as cindunistat and sprifermin. Thirty-one interventions were studied for pain, 13 for physical function, and 16 for joint structure. Trial duration ranged from 1 to 4 years. Associations with decreases

The aim of this review was to identify factors that influence patients' adherence to anti-osteoporotic therapy. Factors identified that were associated with poorer medication adherence included polypharmacy, older age, and misconceptions about osteoporosis. Physicians need to be aware of these factors so as to optimize therapeutic outcomes for patients. INTRODUCTION: To identify factors that influence patients' adherence to anti-osteoporotic therapy. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed for articles published up till January 2018 using PubMed®, PsychINFO®, Embase®, and CINAHL®. Peer-reviewed articles which examined factors associated with anti-osteoporotic medication adherence were included. Classes of anti-osteoporotic therapy included bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone-related analogue, denosumab, selective estrogen receptor modulators, estrogen/progestin therapy, calcitonin, and strontium ranelate. Meta-analyses, case reports/series, and other systematic reviews were excluded. Identified factors were classified using the World Health Organization's five dimensions of medication adherence (condition, patient, therapy, health-system, and socio-economic domains). RESULTS: Of 2404 articles reviewed, 124 relevant articles were identified. The prevalence of medication adherence ranged from 12.9 to 95.4%. Twenty-four factors with 139 sub-factors were identified. Bisphosphonates were the most well-studied class of medication (n = 59, 48%). Condition-related factors that were associated with poorer medication adherence included polypharmacy, and history of falls was associated with higher medication adherence. Patient-related factors which were associated with poorer medication adherence included older age and misconceptions about osteoporosis while therapy-related factors included higher dosing frequency and medication side effects. Health system-based factors associated with poorer medication adherence included care under different medical specialties and lack of patient education. Socio-economic-related factors associated with poorer medication adherence included current smoker and lack of medical insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: This review id

BACKGROUND: Theoretically, root resorption could be modulated by any medication taken that exhibits possible effects on the implicated molecular pathways. OBJECTIVES: To systematically investigate and appraise the quality of the available evidence from animal studies, regarding the effect of commonly prescribed systemic medication on root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement. SEARCH METHODS: Search without restrictions in eight databases (PubMed, Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Arab World Research Source, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) and hand searching until April 2018 took place. One author developed detailed search strategies for each database that were based on the PubMed strategy and adapted accordingly. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled studies investigating the effect of systemic medications on root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following study retrieval and selection, relevant data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE's Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were finally identified, most of which at unclear risk of bias. Root resorption was shown to increase in Vitamin C treated animals in comparison with the control group, whereas a comparative decrease was noted after the administration of the alendronate, ibuprofen, growth hormone, low doses of meloxicam, simvastatin, lithium chloride and strontium ranelate. No difference was noted for acetaminophen, aspirin, fluoxetine, atorvastatin, misoprostol, zoledronic acid and zinc. Finally, inconsistent effects were observed after the administration of celecoxib, prednisolone and L-thyroxine. The quality of the available evidence was considered at best as low. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmaceutical substances investigated were shown to exhibit variable effects on root resorption. Although the overall quality of evidence provides the clinician with a cautious perspective on the strength of the relevant recommendations, good practice would suggest that it is important to identify patients consuming medications and consider the possible implic