Journal of Rheumatology and Orthopedics

Journal of Rheumatology and Orthopedics

ISSN 2055-7000
Original Research

Comparative evaluation of clinical effectivity and side effects of two different parenteral agents used in the treatment of osteoporosis

Ahmet Aslan1*, Ahmet Özmeriç2, Ökkeş Bilal3, Fatih Doğar4, Zübeyde Özkaya5 and Emin Uysal6

*Correspondence: Ahmet Aslan draaslan@hotmail.com

1. Departmants of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Afyonkarahisar State Hospital, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.

Author Affiliations

2. Departmants of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Ankara Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

3. Medicine Faculty, Departmants of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Sütçü İmam Universty, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.

4. Kayseri Education and Research Hospital, Departmants of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kayseri, Turkey.

5. Departmants of Neurosurgery, Afyonkarahisar State Hospital, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.

6. Bağcılar Education and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to make a comparative analysis of short term clinical effectivity and side effects of intravenous zoledronate administration as single dose yearly and intravenous ibandronate administration as four doses per year.

Methods: The patients whom were included in our study had osteoporosis according to WHO criteria and were treated with either parenteral zoledronate or ibandronate. 43 patients were treated with single dose of 5mg intravenous zolendronat which was applied once in a year; whereas in 39 patients were treated with 3 mg intravenous ibandronate which was applied four times in a year in three months intervals. Biochemical tests were performed in all patients before intravenous drug infusion. Side effects during drug administration and also in the first three months of the treatment were noted for all patients. Clinical effectivity was analyzed according to changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at the end of two year after treatment.

Results: Eighty-two patients who were followed-up and evaluated for the effectivity and side effects of the treatment were included in our study. The compliance of patients were 100% in both groups. Mean age was 75.23±6.9 years and mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.94±7.2. In zoledronate group in which there were 23 females and 20 males. Mean age was 73.64±8.7 years and mean BMI was 27.34±4.4. In ibandronate group in which there were 39 females. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of gender (p=0.000) Mean age, BMI and rate of diagnosed side effects were not statistically significant in between the groups. According to a one-year follow-up in both groups comparison with before application had a statistically significant increase in BMD (p<0.01). However, a one-year follow-up between the two groups in terms of mean values of bone mineral density did not differ significantly (p>0.05).

Conclusion: Choice of medical treatment is decided according to bone mineral density and personal risk factors in osteoporosis. Parenteral agents in the treatment of osteoporosis may be the preferred choice for the patients with comorbid diseases, using multiple drug therapies, or having trouble in using oral drug therapy. However, it should always be kept in mind that drug related side effects may be seen more commonly with parenteral agents. Clinicians should be aware of the probable side effects during and after application.

Keywords: Osteoporosis, treatment, zoledronat, ibandronat, effectivity, side effects

ISSN 2055-7000
Volume 1
Abstract Download