Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis
Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Endocrine practice 2015-03, Vol.21 (3), p.275-279 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 279 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 275 |
container_title | Endocrine practice |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Sheedy, Kellen C Camara, Maria I Camacho, Pauline M |
description | Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab and ZA.
The charts of patients who received denosumab and ZA at Loyola Hospital were reviewed, and adverse events were noted. Of primary interest were myalgias, flu-like symptoms, back pain, and fractures. A questionnaire regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and treatment cost supplemented this chart review in a subset of study participants. Bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone turnover markers, and questionnaire results were also compared.
The study cohort consisted of 107 patients (51 denosumab, 56 ZA). The denosumab group had a greater mean increase in spine BMD at 1 year (0.060 g/cm2) than the ZA group (0.021 g/cm2; P = .04). The change in femur and spine BMD at 1 year were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The ZA group had a significantly greater incidence of mild flu-like symptoms (29% ZA group vs. 0% denosumab group; P = .04).
The denosumab group had a higher mean increase in spine BMD, and the ZA group had a higher incidence of flu-like symptoms, but the study groups were statistically similar in terms of patient satisfaction. As denosumab is still a relatively new therapy, there were a limited number of patients with posttreatment data available for comparison. As more posttherapy data become available, it can be further investigated. |
doi_str_mv | 10.4158/EP14106.OR |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1666979229</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3637034461</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-e2ca5262a524b6ae9223c4e3253261bf87096070e46fa68bfc7a334986ea2e083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kF1LwzAUhoMobk5v_AFS8E7szFeT9lLG_IDBZCh4V9L0BDvWpiatMn-9WTe9OTm8ec57khehS4KnnCTp3fyFcILFdLk6QmOSMR5Tjtlx6BOG4zQj7yN05v0aY4ozkp6iEU2YxIzIMfqe2bpVrvK2iayJug-IwJhKK729jVT5Bc4PCujOB6EpI219t0N_7AZKZ5tKR0pX5XBXQmN9X6siqprBq3OguhqaYSIMgm2ts77y5-jEqI2Hi8M5QW8P89fZU7xYPj7P7hex5lJ2MVCtEipoKLwQCjJKmebAwgeoIIVJJc4Elhi4MEqkhdFSMcazVICigFM2Qdd739bZzx58l69t75qwMidCiEwGxyxQN3tKh8d5ByZvXVUrt80JzncZ54eM8-UqwFcHy76oofxH_0Jlv8Bidz8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1666979229</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Sheedy, Kellen C ; Camara, Maria I ; Camacho, Pauline M</creator><creatorcontrib>Sheedy, Kellen C ; Camara, Maria I ; Camacho, Pauline M</creatorcontrib><description>Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab and ZA.
The charts of patients who received denosumab and ZA at Loyola Hospital were reviewed, and adverse events were noted. Of primary interest were myalgias, flu-like symptoms, back pain, and fractures. A questionnaire regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and treatment cost supplemented this chart review in a subset of study participants. Bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone turnover markers, and questionnaire results were also compared.
The study cohort consisted of 107 patients (51 denosumab, 56 ZA). The denosumab group had a greater mean increase in spine BMD at 1 year (0.060 g/cm2) than the ZA group (0.021 g/cm2; P = .04). The change in femur and spine BMD at 1 year were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The ZA group had a significantly greater incidence of mild flu-like symptoms (29% ZA group vs. 0% denosumab group; P = .04).
The denosumab group had a higher mean increase in spine BMD, and the ZA group had a higher incidence of flu-like symptoms, but the study groups were statistically similar in terms of patient satisfaction. As denosumab is still a relatively new therapy, there were a limited number of patients with posttreatment data available for comparison. As more posttherapy data become available, it can be further investigated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1530-891X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1934-2403</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4158/EP14106.OR</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25370317</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Limited</publisher><subject>Aged ; Bone Density - drug effects ; Bone Density Conservation Agents - therapeutic use ; Cohort Studies ; Denosumab - adverse effects ; Denosumab - therapeutic use ; Diphosphonates - adverse effects ; Diphosphonates - therapeutic use ; Female ; Humans ; Imidazoles - adverse effects ; Imidazoles - therapeutic use ; Male ; Osteoporosis - drug therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Zoledronic Acid</subject><ispartof>Endocrine practice, 2015-03, Vol.21 (3), p.275-279</ispartof><rights>Copyright Allen Press Publishing Services Mar 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-e2ca5262a524b6ae9223c4e3253261bf87096070e46fa68bfc7a334986ea2e083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-e2ca5262a524b6ae9223c4e3253261bf87096070e46fa68bfc7a334986ea2e083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25370317$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sheedy, Kellen C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camara, Maria I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camacho, Pauline M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis</title><title>Endocrine practice</title><addtitle>Endocr Pract</addtitle><description>Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab and ZA.
The charts of patients who received denosumab and ZA at Loyola Hospital were reviewed, and adverse events were noted. Of primary interest were myalgias, flu-like symptoms, back pain, and fractures. A questionnaire regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and treatment cost supplemented this chart review in a subset of study participants. Bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone turnover markers, and questionnaire results were also compared.
The study cohort consisted of 107 patients (51 denosumab, 56 ZA). The denosumab group had a greater mean increase in spine BMD at 1 year (0.060 g/cm2) than the ZA group (0.021 g/cm2; P = .04). The change in femur and spine BMD at 1 year were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The ZA group had a significantly greater incidence of mild flu-like symptoms (29% ZA group vs. 0% denosumab group; P = .04).
The denosumab group had a higher mean increase in spine BMD, and the ZA group had a higher incidence of flu-like symptoms, but the study groups were statistically similar in terms of patient satisfaction. As denosumab is still a relatively new therapy, there were a limited number of patients with posttreatment data available for comparison. As more posttherapy data become available, it can be further investigated.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Bone Density - drug effects</subject><subject>Bone Density Conservation Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Denosumab - adverse effects</subject><subject>Denosumab - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Diphosphonates - adverse effects</subject><subject>Diphosphonates - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imidazoles - adverse effects</subject><subject>Imidazoles - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Osteoporosis - drug therapy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Zoledronic Acid</subject><issn>1530-891X</issn><issn>1934-2403</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kF1LwzAUhoMobk5v_AFS8E7szFeT9lLG_IDBZCh4V9L0BDvWpiatMn-9WTe9OTm8ec57khehS4KnnCTp3fyFcILFdLk6QmOSMR5Tjtlx6BOG4zQj7yN05v0aY4ozkp6iEU2YxIzIMfqe2bpVrvK2iayJug-IwJhKK729jVT5Bc4PCujOB6EpI219t0N_7AZKZ5tKR0pX5XBXQmN9X6siqprBq3OguhqaYSIMgm2ts77y5-jEqI2Hi8M5QW8P89fZU7xYPj7P7hex5lJ2MVCtEipoKLwQCjJKmebAwgeoIIVJJc4Elhi4MEqkhdFSMcazVICigFM2Qdd739bZzx58l69t75qwMidCiEwGxyxQN3tKh8d5ByZvXVUrt80JzncZ54eM8-UqwFcHy76oofxH_0Jlv8Bidz8</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Sheedy, Kellen C</creator><creator>Camara, Maria I</creator><creator>Camacho, Pauline M</creator><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis</title><author>Sheedy, Kellen C ; Camara, Maria I ; Camacho, Pauline M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c477t-e2ca5262a524b6ae9223c4e3253261bf87096070e46fa68bfc7a334986ea2e083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Bone Density - drug effects</topic><topic>Bone Density Conservation Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Denosumab - adverse effects</topic><topic>Denosumab - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Diphosphonates - adverse effects</topic><topic>Diphosphonates - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imidazoles - adverse effects</topic><topic>Imidazoles - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Osteoporosis - drug therapy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Zoledronic Acid</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sheedy, Kellen C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camara, Maria I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camacho, Pauline M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Endocrine practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sheedy, Kellen C</au><au>Camara, Maria I</au><au>Camacho, Pauline M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis</atitle><jtitle>Endocrine practice</jtitle><addtitle>Endocr Pract</addtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>275</spage><epage>279</epage><pages>275-279</pages><issn>1530-891X</issn><eissn>1934-2403</eissn><abstract>Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab and ZA.
The charts of patients who received denosumab and ZA at Loyola Hospital were reviewed, and adverse events were noted. Of primary interest were myalgias, flu-like symptoms, back pain, and fractures. A questionnaire regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and treatment cost supplemented this chart review in a subset of study participants. Bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone turnover markers, and questionnaire results were also compared.
The study cohort consisted of 107 patients (51 denosumab, 56 ZA). The denosumab group had a greater mean increase in spine BMD at 1 year (0.060 g/cm2) than the ZA group (0.021 g/cm2; P = .04). The change in femur and spine BMD at 1 year were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The ZA group had a significantly greater incidence of mild flu-like symptoms (29% ZA group vs. 0% denosumab group; P = .04).
The denosumab group had a higher mean increase in spine BMD, and the ZA group had a higher incidence of flu-like symptoms, but the study groups were statistically similar in terms of patient satisfaction. As denosumab is still a relatively new therapy, there were a limited number of patients with posttreatment data available for comparison. As more posttherapy data become available, it can be further investigated.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Limited</pub><pmid>25370317</pmid><doi>10.4158/EP14106.OR</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1530-891X |
ispartof | Endocrine practice, 2015-03, Vol.21 (3), p.275-279 |
issn | 1530-891X 1934-2403 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1666979229 |
source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Aged Bone Density - drug effects Bone Density Conservation Agents - therapeutic use Cohort Studies Denosumab - adverse effects Denosumab - therapeutic use Diphosphonates - adverse effects Diphosphonates - therapeutic use Female Humans Imidazoles - adverse effects Imidazoles - therapeutic use Male Osteoporosis - drug therapy Retrospective Studies Surveys and Questionnaires Zoledronic Acid |
title | Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T05%3A52%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20efficacy,%20adverse%20effects,%20and%20cost%20of%20zoledronic%20acid%20and%20denosumab%20in%20the%20treatment%20of%20osteoporosis&rft.jtitle=Endocrine%20practice&rft.au=Sheedy,%20Kellen%20C&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=275&rft.epage=279&rft.pages=275-279&rft.issn=1530-891X&rft.eissn=1934-2403&rft_id=info:doi/10.4158/EP14106.OR&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3637034461%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1666979229&rft_id=info:pmid/25370317&rfr_iscdi=true |