Bone Mass Outcomes in Patients With Osteoporosis Treated With Risedronate After Alendronate Failure: a 12-Month Follow-Up Study

Página do item simplificado
dc.citation.issue1
dc.citation.volume20
dc.contributor.authorMendonca, Leonardo Teixeira [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorPinheiro, Marcelo Medeiros [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorSzejnfeld, Vera Lucia [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorCastro, Charlles Heldan de Moura [UNIFESP]
dc.coverageNew York
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-31T12:46:50Z
dc.date.available2020-07-31T12:46:50Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractOral bisphosphonates are the drugs most frequently used for the treatment of osteoporosis. Clinicians usually switch between these drugs in clinical practice based on differences in efficacy. We aim to investigate the reasons associated with switching between oral bisphosphonates and to evaluate bone mass response and the incidence of fractures 12 mo after the exchange in a cohort of patients with osteoporosis seen at a tertiary hospital. Patients with osteoporosis who switched between oral bisphosphonates between January 2007 and December 2014 were included. Bone mass measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and the incidence of fracture were evaluated. A total of 112 patients (73.1 yr old on average, 95.5% women, 98% postmenopausal) were included. All patients were taking alendronate at the time of the switch to risedronate. In 91 patients (81.3%), the following reasons for the exchange of medication were identified: bone loss (59.8%), adverse events (11.6%), and recent fragility fracture (10.7%). One year after the switch, bone densitometry revealed bone loss in 51 patients (45.5%), bone mass maintenance in 34 (30.4%), and bone mass gain in 27 (24.1%). No new vertebral fracture was detected and no nonvertebral fracture was reported in 12 mo of follow-up. Bone mass outcomes (gain, loss, or maintenance) were not associated with the reason for switching between oral bisphosphonates. Similarly, none of the parameters evaluated could predict good densitometric response (gain or maintenance) in this scenario. Our findings suggest that the use of risedronate should not be recommended in the scenario of treatment failure or adverse events following the use of alendronate.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Escola Paulista Med, Div Rheumatol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespRheumatology Division, Universidade Federal de São Paulo/Escola Paulista de Medicina (UNIFESP/EPM), São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science
dc.format.extent44-49
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2016.08.004
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Clinical Densitometry. New York, v. 20, n. 1, p. 44-49, 2017.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jocd.2016.08.004
dc.identifier.issn1094-6950
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/56395
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000395849400007
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier Science Inc
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Clinical Densitometry
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.subjectAlendronateen
dc.subjectbone mineral densityen
dc.subjectosteoporosisen
dc.subjectrisedronateen
dc.subjecttreatment failureen
dc.titleBone Mass Outcomes in Patients With Osteoporosis Treated With Risedronate After Alendronate Failure: a 12-Month Follow-Up Studyen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
Arquivos
Coleções
EPM - Artigos