Abbonarsi

Comparative efficacy and safety study of etidronate and alendronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Effect of adding hormone replacement therapy - 01/01/01

Bernard  Cortet 1 * ,  Anne  Béra-Louville 1 ,  Patrick  Gauthier 1 ,  Alain  Gauthier 2 ,  Xavier  Marchandise 3 ,  Bernard  Delcambre 1 *Correspondence and reprints:

Mostrare le affiliazioni

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

pagine 6
Iconografia 1
Video 0
Altro 0

Riassunto

Objectives. To compare the efficacy and safety of etidronate and alendronate in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis and to assess the efficacy of either bisphosphonate in combination with hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Patients and methods. In this pragmatic study, the main efficacy criterion was the mean annual change in bone mineral density (BMD). Patients who had a past or current history of etidronate or alendronate treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis with at least 18 months follow-up and an evaluation in 1999 were eligible. Recruitment was in an outpatient clinic with a special focus on metabolic bone diseases. Osteoporosis was defined as at least one low-energy fracture or as a lumbar spine or femoral neck BMD decrease to at least 2.5 SD below the mean in young women. HRT was not an exclusion criterion provided treatment duration was longer than 1 year. Etidronate was given cyclically (14-day courses in a dosage of 400 mg/d separated by 76-day intervals with calcium and vitamin D supplementation) and alendronate was given daily in a dosage of 10 mg/d. Results. Of the 99 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 53 received etidronate (including 23 on HRT) and 46 alendronate (18 on HRT). Repeat BMD measurements were obtained in 88 patients, including 11 who stopped their bisphosphonate therapy within the first year of use because of adverse events. Lumbar spine BMD (mean ± SD) increased significantly both in the etidronate group (+2.1% ± 0.7%/year) and in the alendronate group (+5.3% ± 0.9%/year). The increase was significantly greater with alendronate (P < 0.01). The lumbar spine BMD increase was largest in the patients on alendronate and HRT (+6.5% ± 1.4%/year) and was smallest (and nonsignificant) in the patients on etidronate without HRT (+1.2% ± 0.8%). Femoral neck BMD showed no significant changes in any group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, fractures occurred in 12 etidronate patients (22.6%) and six (13.0%) alendronate patients (nonsignificant). Adverse events requiring bisphosphonate discontinuation before the scheduled date of the follow-up BMD measurement occurred in one patient (1.9%) in the etidronate group (generalized osteomalacia) and in ten patients (21.7%) in the alendronate group (upper or lower gastrointestinal tract symptoms in six and four patients, respectively; P < 0.01). Conclusion. Both etidronate and alendronate significantly increased lumbar BMD, but the effect was significantly more marked with alendronate. Conversely, adverse effects, most notably gastrointestinal symptoms, were more common with alendronate, so that premature treatment discontinuation because of adverse events were more common in the alendronate group. Both differences should be taken into account when selecting the best drug for a patient with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Mots clés  : alendronate ; bisphosphonate ; bone mineral density ; etidronate ; postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Mappa



© 2001  Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.

Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 68 - N° 5

P. 410-415 - ottobre 2001 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Nutritional status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
  • Carmen Gómez-Vaquero, Joan M. Nolla, Jordi Fiter, Josep M. Ramon, Rosa Concustell, Josep Valverde, Daniel Roig-Escofet
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Diagnosing thoracic outlet syndrome: contribution of provocative tests, ultrasonography, electrophysiology, and helical computed tomography in 48 patients
  • Jérôme Gillard, Maryse Pérez-Cousin, Éric Hachulla, Jacques Remy, Jean-François Hurtevent, Ludmila Vinckier, André Thévenon, Bernard Duquesnoy

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.