The greater responses in lumbar spine and femoral trochanter BMD and serum CTX to the DR doses are unexpected. It is unlikely that this is explained simply by a difference in the 5-mg daily dose and the 35-mg weekly Selleckchem Selonsertib dose since the BMD and marker responses to risedronate
5 mg daily IR and 35 mg weekly IR were not different over a 2-year treatment interval . The greater response could be due to increased bioavailability of the DR formulation compared to the IR daily dose. Enteric coating did not affect bioavailability of alendronate 70 mg . Since a formal dose-ranging study with risedronate was never performed, it is uncertain that the 5 mg daily IR or 35 mg weekly IR dose is at the top of the dose–response curve. Supporting this possibility is the observation that the changes in lumbar spine and proximal femur BMD and in BTMs were somewhat greater with a weekly IR dose of risedronate at 50 mg compared to TEW-7197 price those observed with the 5 mg daily or 35 mg weekly doses . Thus, it is possible that a modest increased bioavailability could result in greater responses in bone turnover and bone mineral
density. However, the increased response observed with risedronate 50 mg weekly IR dose was observed within the first 6 PHA-848125 datasheet months of treatment and did not separate further from the lower doses with continued therapy out to 2 years. Furthermore, in the limited testing of risedronate DR bioavailability, no clear difference was noted compared to IR dosing . Another possible explanation is that compliance with the
IR daily dosing instructions was suboptimal, even in the setting of a clinical trial where subjects were seen and reminded of proper dosing instructions more often than occurs in clinical practice. The protection from the food effect afforded by the DR formulation would, in theory, obviate the effect of poor compliance. Subjects were seen less frequently during the second year of our study than during the first year, and it is possible that compliance find more with dosing diminished with continued use. This effect would not be captured by the standard strategy of assessing treatment compliance by simply counting tablets taken by the study participants. If suboptimal compliance is the explanation for the observed difference in our clinical study, it is probable that an even greater difference would occur between the DR and IR preparations in daily practice. The histomorphometric results seen in this study were consistent with those seen after 1, 3, and 5 years in previous 5 mg risedronate IR studies in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis [24–28]. In those studies, no histological abnormalities or defects in matrix mineralization were noted, and long-term treatment with risedronate preserved bone material properties.