唑来膦酸盐和依班膦酸盐治疗可显著改善骨质疏松症患者的骨密度值

Jaxon Dawson
{"title":"唑来膦酸盐和依班膦酸盐治疗可显著改善骨质疏松症患者的骨密度值","authors":"Jaxon Dawson","doi":"10.31579/2641-0427/013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":394480,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedics and Surgical Sports Medicine","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Zoledronate and ibandronate treatments provide a significant improvement in BMD values in osteoporosis patients\",\"authors\":\"Jaxon Dawson\",\"doi\":\"10.31579/2641-0427/013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394480,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopaedics and Surgical Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopaedics and Surgical Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0427/013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedics and Surgical Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0427/013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对比分析每年单次静脉注射唑来膦酸钠和每年4次静脉注射依班膦酸钠的近期临床疗效和不良反应。方法:纳入本研究的骨质疏松症患者均符合WHO标准,并给予唑来膦酸钠或依班膦酸钠肠外治疗。43例患者单次静脉注射唑仑膦酸钠5mg, 1年1次;39例患者接受3毫克静脉注射依班膦酸盐治疗,每年4次,间隔3个月。所有患者在静脉输注药物前均进行生化试验。在给药期间和治疗的前三个月,所有患者的副作用都被记录下来。根据治疗两年后骨密度(BMD)的变化分析临床疗效。结果:我们对82例患者进行了随访,并对治疗的有效性和副作用进行了评估。两组患者的依从性均为100%。平均年龄75.23±6.9岁,平均体重指数(BMI) 26.94±7.2。唑来膦酸钠组女性23例,男性20例。平均年龄73.64±8.7岁,平均BMI为27.34±4.4。依班膦酸钠组有39只雌性。组间性别差异无统计学意义(p=0.000),组间平均年龄、BMI、不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义。经1年随访,两组患者骨密度较用药前均有统计学意义的提高(p0.05)。结论:骨质疏松症患者应根据骨密度及个人危险因素选择治疗方案。对于有合并症、使用多种药物治疗或口服药物治疗有困难的患者,口服药物治疗骨质疏松症可能是首选。然而,应该始终牢记的是,药物相关的副作用可能在肠外用药中更常见。临床医生应该意识到在使用期间和之后可能的副作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Zoledronate and ibandronate treatments provide a significant improvement in BMD values in osteoporosis patients
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信