-
Secondary Fracture Prevention: Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition.Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Jan 2020Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines....
Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fracture among people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, and subcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficacious and can reduce risk of future fracture. Patients need education, however, about the benefits and risks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive but may be beneficial for selected patients at high risk. Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the risk for second fractures is highest in the early post-fracture period, prompt treatment is recommended. Adequate dietary or supplemental vitamin D and calcium intake should be assured. Individuals being treated for osteoporosis should be reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, including via patient education about osteoporosis and fractures and monitoring for adverse treatment effects. Patients should be strongly encouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol in moderation at most, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease). © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Consensus; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risedronic Acid
PubMed: 31538675
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3877 -
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Nov 2022Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of... (Review)
Review
Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of evidence; however, patient adherence to oral bisphosphonates remains poor in part due to complex dosing instructions and adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This problem has led to the development of novel oral bisphosphonate formulations. Buffered, effervescent alendronate is dissolved in water and so seeks to reduce upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, and gastro-resistant risedronate aims to reduce the complexity of dosing procedure (e.g. fasting prior to consumption) whilst still maintaining the efficacy of fracture risk reduction. Clinical trials and real-world data have been employed to demonstrate some benefits in terms of reduced upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, adherence, persistence and health economic outcomes. This report describes the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores where oral bisphosphonates sit in current clinical practice guidelines, review their risk-benefit profile and the consequences of poor adherence before exploring novel oral bisphosphonate formulations and their potential clinical and health economic impact. Further research is required but there are signs that these novel, oral bisphosphonate formulations may lead to improved tolerance of oral bisphosphonates and thus, improved adherence and fracture outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Risedronic Acid; Alendronate
PubMed: 36331798
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-022-02272-z -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Mar 2023A retrospective study of 121 patients who stopped denosumab (Dmab) then received no treatment (NT), risedronate (RIS), alendronate (ALN), or zoledronic acid (ZOL). Bone...
UNLABELLED
A retrospective study of 121 patients who stopped denosumab (Dmab) then received no treatment (NT), risedronate (RIS), alendronate (ALN), or zoledronic acid (ZOL). Bone density (spine and hip) during and after Dmab discontinuation was measured. Treatment with ALN or ZOL, not NT and RIS, mitigated BMD loss after Dmab discontinuation.
INTRODUCTION
Denosumab (Dmab) discontinuation is associated with bone loss and multiple vertebral fractures. The purpose was to compare bone mineral density (BMD) change in patients following Dmab discontinuation with no subsequent treatment (NT) and three bisphosphonate (BP) treatments: risedronate (RIS), alendronate (ALN), and zoledronic acid (ZOL).
METHODS
In a review of 121 patients aged 71.2 ± 8.1 years, discontinuing Dmab (mean 5.4 doses), 33 received NT and 88 received BP (22 RIS; 34 ALN; 32 ZOL). BMD change after 1 year was compared between groups at the lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH). Risk factors for bone loss after Dmab discontinuation were compared between groups and incidence of vertebral fractures was determined.
RESULTS
Following Dmab discontinuation, LS mean change (g/cm; 95% CI) was for NT: - 0.041 (- 0.062 to - 0.021); RIS: - 0.035 (- 0.052 to - 0.017); ALN: - 0.005 (- 0.020 to 0.009); and ZOL: - 0.009 (- 0.025 to 0.008). Differences in LS were found between NT and ALN (p = 0.015), and NT and ZOL (p=0.037), but not between NT and RIS. The only significant difference in TH was found between NT and ZOL (p 0.034) with no group differences in FN. BMD gains during Dmab treatment were associated with BMD loss after Dmab discontinuation. In a subset, discontinuation after Dmab treatment (> 5 doses) followed by ALN (n = 22) and ZOL (n = 11) showed no difference in BMD. Five of 7 vertebral fractures occurred after Dmab discontinuation in NT.
CONCLUSION
Subsequent treatment with ALN or ZOL but not NT and RIS mitigates BMD loss after Dmab discontinuation.
Topics: Female; Humans; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Retrospective Studies; Risedronic Acid; Spinal Fractures; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36602607
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06648-9 -
Medical Science Monitor : International... Apr 2022BACKGROUND Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for eligible RCTs from their inception up to January 2021. The primary endpoints were all fractures, vertebral fractures, and non-vertebral fractures, while the secondary endpoints were fractures at hip or peripheral locations, bone mineral density (BMD) at various sites, and potential adverse events. RESULTS We included 79 RCTs reporting a total of 108 797 individuals in the final quantitative analysis. The results of network analysis indicated that romosozumab (92.1%) was the most effective in reducing the risk for all fractures, with the best therapeutic effects on vertebral fracture (97.2%) and non-vertebral fracture (88.0%). Romosozumab (92.5%) provided better therapeutic effects for the reduction of hip fracture. The best treatment agents for improving whole-body BMD (100.0%), spine BMD (95.7%), hip BMD (92.4%), femoral neck BMD (86.7%), and trochanter BMD (95.5%) were alendronate, strontium ranelate, ibandronate, risedronate, and ibandronate, respectively. Finally, the use of bazedoxifene was associated with the highest incidence of any upper-gastrointestinal event, nasopharyngitis, and back pain, while risedronate was associated with higher incidence of abdominal pain and dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS This study found that romosozumab yielded the best effects for preventing fracture risk, while abaloparatide was the most effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fracture and non-vertebral fracture.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Female; Hip Fractures; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Risedronic Acid; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 35430576
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.935491 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... Mar 2022The study discusses in vitro cytotoxicity of a combination of cytostatic drugs (doxorubicin, cisplatin, carboplatin, etoposide) and risedronate sodium against canine and...
The study discusses in vitro cytotoxicity of a combination of cytostatic drugs (doxorubicin, cisplatin, carboplatin, etoposide) and risedronate sodium against canine and human osteosarcoma (D-17 and U-2 OS). Standard protocols were used for the preparation of cell cultures and evaluation of their viability and apoptosis. MTT assay assessed the culture viability and EC50, while the apoptotic effect of the drugs was checked with a TUNEL assay. Doxorubicin alone showed the strongest cytotoxicity against D-17 (0.056 ± 0.019 µg/mL) and U-2 OS (0.051 ± 0.003 µg/mL), while the lowest cytotoxicity was observed for carboplatin (D-17, 6.45 ± 0.2 µg/mL and U2-OS, 27.5 ± 2.3 µg/mL). Risedronate sodium at 100, 10 and 1 µg/mL lowered viability in OS cell lines by 53.38 ± 1.46 and 49.56 ± 0.7%, 97.08 ± 3.32 and 74.92 ± 4.01%, and 102.67 ± 3.56 and 94.56 ± 3.52%, respectively. In all analyzed drug combinations, risedronate sodium significantly (* p < 0.05) increased the cytotoxicity against tested osteosarcoma cell lines. The decrease in cell viability caused by the studied compound combinations was weaker in canine than in human cell cultures. A combination of doxorubicin (all concentrations), cisplatin (1 µg/mL) and etoposide (1 µg/mL) with 100 µg/mL of risedronate sodium significantly improved the cytotoxicity of the drugs against canine and human osteosarcoma. Administration of carboplatin (1 µg/mL) and risedronate sodium (100 µg/mL), compared to carboplatin per se, produced no significant differences in cytotoxicity against the D-17 cell culture but significantly enhanced cytotoxicity in the U-2 OS line. The strongest apoptosis in both lines was detected for 0.01 µg/mL doxorubicin combined with 100 µg/mL risedronate sodium or 1 µg/mL cisplatin and 100 µg/mL risedronate sodium. In all combinations, the tested compounds revealed a synergistic mechanism of action.
PubMed: 35405855
DOI: 10.3390/ani12070866 -
Scientific Reports Jul 2023Atypical femur fracture (AFF) is a rare but catastrophic adverse event first reported in the long-term use of alendronate, one of the most commonly used drugs for...
Atypical femur fracture (AFF) is a rare but catastrophic adverse event first reported in the long-term use of alendronate, one of the most commonly used drugs for osteoporosis currently. However, further evidence is needed to learn more regarding other common anti-osteoporosis drugs and the risk for AFF. In this study, reports of AFF were identified from Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. Disproportionality analyses were performed to examine the reporting odds ratio (ROR), information component (IC) and adjusted ROR (adj. ROR) signals for AFF for common anti-osteoporosis drugs. A total of 1692 unique AFF reports were identified. The disproportionality signals (the lower bound of 95% confidence interval > 1 for ROR and adjusted ROR, and > 0 for IC) were detected for alendronate, denosumab, pamidronate, risedronate, zoledronate, ibandronate, and teriparatide while no signal was detected for raloxifene, abaloparatide, and romosozumab. When restricted in patients with osteoporosis, the disproportionality signals were still detected for alendronate, pamidronate, risedronate, denosumab, and ibandronate. Our results suggest that alendronate has the largest risk signal, while the risks varied among different bisphosphonates. In addition, denosumab was found statistically associated with AFF in both the entire database and patients with osteoporosis.
Topics: Humans; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Risedronic Acid; Denosumab; Ibandronic Acid; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Pamidronate; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Femur
PubMed: 37407650
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37944-x -
Medicina Clinica Oct 2022Aminobisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis. They have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite, binding primarily to resorbing surfaces, but also to... (Review)
Review
Aminobisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis. They have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite, binding primarily to resorbing surfaces, but also to forming surfaces and to some extent to resting surfaces. They inhibit osteoclasts, thereby decreasing remodelling units. Consequently, they increase bone mass and reduce stress risers. This decreases the risk of fractures. If this decrease is sufficient, they can be temporarily withdrawn (drug holidays), which prevents serious complications (atypical femoral fracture). They probably reduce mortality. Virtually all patients with osteoporosis can benefit from them at some point in the course of their disease (at the beginning of treatment or after the administration of anabolics, selective estrogen receptor modulators or denosumab). If well tolerated orally, alendronate and risedronate are preferable. Otherwise, zoledronate is preferred. Their efficacy vs. cost-safety-convenience ratio makes aminobisphosphonates reference drugs in the field of osteoporosis.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Hydroxyapatites; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Risedronic Acid; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 35738929
DOI: 10.1016/j.medcli.2022.04.003 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
Respiratory Research Dec 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disorder that causes airway obstruction and lung inflammation. The first-line treatment of COPD is the...
Nebulization of risedronate alleviates airway obstruction and inflammation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases via suppressing prenylation-dependent RAS/ERK/NF-κB and RhoA/ROCK1/MLCP signaling.
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disorder that causes airway obstruction and lung inflammation. The first-line treatment of COPD is the bronchodilators of β2-agonists and antimuscarinic drugs, which can help control the airway obstruction, but the long-term use might render the drug tolerance. Bisphosphonates are widely used in osteoclast-mediated bone diseases treatment for decades. For drug repurposing, can delivery of a third generation of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, risedronate (RIS) ameliorate the progression of COPD?
METHODS
COPD rats or mice models have been established through cigarette-smoking and elastase injection, and then the animals are received RIS treatment via nebulization. Lung deposition of RIS was primarily assessed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The respiratory parameters of airway obstruction in COPD rats and mice were documented using plethysmography method and resistance-compliance system.
RESULTS
High lung deposition and bioavailability of RIS was monitored with 88.8% of RIS input dose. We found that RIS could rescue the lung function decline of airspace enlargement and mean linear intercept in the COPD lung. RIS could curb the airway obstruction by suppressing 60% of the respiratory resistance and elevating the airway's dynamic compliance, tidal volume and mid-expiratory flow. As an inhibitor of farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FDPS), RIS suppresses FDPS-mediated RAS and RhoA prenylation to obstruct its membrane localization in airway smooth muscle cells (ASMCs), leading to the inhibition of downstream ERK-MLCK and ROCK1-MLCP pathway to cause ASMCs relaxation. Additionally, RIS nebulization impeded pro-inflammatory cell accumulation, particularly macrophages infiltration in alveolar parenchyma. The NF-κB, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, IL-1β, IL-8, and IL-6 declined in microphages following RIS nebulization. Surprisingly, nebulization of RIS could overcome the tolerance of β2-agonists in COPD-rats by increasing the expression of β2 receptors.
CONCLUSIONS
Nebulization of RIS could alleviate airway obstruction and lung inflammation in COPD, providing a novel strategy for treating COPD patients, even those with β2-agonists tolerance.
Topics: Rats; Mice; Animals; NF-kappa B; Risedronic Acid; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Lung; Airway Obstruction; Inflammation; Prenylation; rho-Associated Kinases
PubMed: 36575527
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-022-02274-5 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2022Bacteria expressing New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-1 (NDM-1) can hydrolyze β-lactam antibiotics (penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems) and, thus, mediate...
Bacteria expressing New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-1 (NDM-1) can hydrolyze β-lactam antibiotics (penicillins, cephalosporins, and carbapenems) and, thus, mediate multidrug resistance. The worldwide dissemination of NDM-1 poses a serious threat to public health, imposing a huge economic burden in the development of new antibiotics. Thus, there is an urgent need for the identification of novel NDM-1 inhibitors from a pool of already-known drug molecules. Here, we screened a library of FDA-approved drugs to identify novel non-β-lactam ring-containing inhibitors of NDM-1 by applying computational as well as in vitro experimental approaches. Different steps of high-throughput virtual screening, molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation, and enzyme kinetics were performed to identify risedronate and methotrexate as the inhibitors with the most potential. The molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations showed that both of the compounds (risedronate and methotrexate) formed a stable complex with NDM-1. Furthermore, analyses of the binding pose revealed that risedronate formed two hydrogen bonds and three electrostatic interactions with the catalytic residues of NDM-1. Similarly, methotrexate formed four hydrogen bonds and one electrostatic interaction with NDM-1's active site residues. The docking scores of risedronate and methotrexate for NDM-1 were -10.543 kcal mol and -10.189 kcal mol, respectively. Steady-state enzyme kinetics in the presence of risedronate and methotrexate showed a decreased catalytic efficiency (i.e., kcat/Km) of NDM-1 on various antibiotics, owing to poor catalytic proficiency and affinity. The results were further validated by determining the MICs of imipenem and meropenem in the presence of risedronate and methotrexate. The IC values of the identified inhibitors were in the micromolar range. The findings of this study should be helpful in further characterizing the potential of risedronate and methotrexate to treat bacterial infections.
Topics: Algorithms; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Discovery; Drug Repositioning; Ligands; Methotrexate; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Molecular Conformation; Molecular Docking Simulation; Molecular Dynamics Simulation; Protein Binding; ROC Curve; Risedronic Acid; Structure-Activity Relationship; beta-Lactamase Inhibitors; beta-Lactamases
PubMed: 35209073
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27041283