Abstract
Objective
To test the hypothesis that bisphosphonates reduce AMI risk among new users and to assess whether the effect depends on the duration of treatment.
Methods
Case–control study nested in a primary cohort composed of patients aged 40 to 99 years, with at least 1-year registry in the BIFAP database throughout the study period 2002–2015. Out of this cohort, incident AMI cases were identified and five controls per case were randomly selected, matched by exact age, sex, and index date. The association of AMI with current, recent and past use of bisphosphonates was assessed by computing adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) through an unconditional logistic regression. Only initiators of bisphosphonates were considered.
Results
A total of 23,590 cases of AMI and 117,612 controls were included. The mean age was 66.8 (SD 13.4) years, and 72.52% was male, in both groups. About 276 (1.17%) cases and 1458 (1.24%) controls were current users of bisphosphonates yielding an AOR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.854–1.14). Recent and past use were not associated with a reduced risk, either, nor was it found a reduction with treatment duration (AOR less than 1 year = 0.92; 95% CI 0.73–1.15; AOR more than 1 year = 1.03; 95% CI 0.86–1.23). Stratified analysis by age, sex and background cardiovascular risk did not show an effect modification by these variables.
Conclusion
The results do not support a cardioprotective effect of bisphosphonates regardless of the duration of treatment, age, sex or background cardiovascular risk. However, a small protective effect could have been masked if patients with osteoporosis have had a background higher risk of AMI.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Osteoporosis and cardiovascular diseases are epidemiologically associated. Subjects with osteoporosis have a higher vascular calcification load and progressive atherosclerosis when compared with individuals with normal bone mass [1,2,3,4]. Each decrease of a standard deviation in bone mineral density (BMD) is associated with an increase between 1.3 and 2.3 times of CV mortality risk [5,6,7,8]. In fact, emerging evidence shows that vascular calcification is an actively regulated process that shares some biologic mechanisms with bone mineralization [9,10,11,12]. Both in vitro and in vivo studies have shown vascular cells’ predisposition to suffer osteoblast differentiation [13, 14]. Similarly, cells similar to osteoclasts have been found in calcified human atherosclerotic lesions [15]. Various bone matrix proteins and other factors have been reported to regulate vascular calcification [9, 12].
Understanding biologic similarities between vascular calcification and bone mineralization has led to the notion that bisphosphonates can have an influence on vascular calcification. Evidence suggests that in addition to inhibiting bone resorption, bisphosphonates can inhibit atherosclerosis and vascular calcification. In several small-scaled clinical trials, etidronate modestly improved some of the atherosclerosis intermediate objectives, such as carotid intima-media thickness, coronary artery calcium score [16] and aortic calcification [17]. Other studies found a lower risk of AMI or stroke among bisphosphonate users in comparison to non-users [18,19,20]. On the other hand, several observational studies found an increase in AMI risk among patients with fractures treated with bisphosphonates [21]. Furthermore, in recent years, some meta-analyses reported a decrease of calcification in artery wall, while they did not found a decrease of cardiovascular events [22, 23]. Although this epidemiological evidence suggests that bisphosphonates can protect from CV events [24, 25], research conducted to date includes prevalent users, and therefore, a bias overestimating protection cannot be excluded [26]. In order to avoid this bias, a study should be carried out only with new users (initiators) of bisphosphonates [26]. Moreover, a possible increase of atrial fibrillation associated with bisphosphonates [25] can counteract potential benefits.
Currently, there are no randomized clinical trials with bisphosphonates designed to study cardiovascular events. For this reason, analytical observational studies with strategies limiting introduction of bias (new users), but at the same time allowing to reflect real-world evidence, are warranted. This study was carried out to test the hypothesis of whether bisphosphonates can have a protective effect against AMI.
Patients and methods
Data source and study design
A case–control study nested in a cohort selected from BIFAP (Spanish primary care database, see Appendix A for more information) [27] from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2015. The study cohort consisted of patients 40 to 99 years old, registered by their primary care physician (PCP) for at least 1 year and with no cancer or AMI history. The first day patients that met all criteria mentioned above were considered the “starting date.” The study cohort consisted of 3,764,470 subjects. The subjects were then followed-up until one of the following events occurred: AMI incident, 100 years old, cancer diagnosis, death or end of the study period.
Case and control selection
Incident AMI cases were initially searched for by entering codes and text in diagnostic record fields and were validated by manual review of clinical records (see Appendix B for more information). The date of the first record of AMI was considered as the “index date.” Five controls matched with cases by exact age, sex and index date were randomly selected from the underlying cohort.
New user design
Analysis was performed for new users of bisphosphonates. To this end, all cases and controls who had bisphosphonates prescribed prior to the starting date were excluded [26] (Fig. 1).
Exposure definition
Bisphosphonates included in this study are those available in Spain for primary care physician prescription (alendronic acid, ibandronic acid and risedronic acid), except for etidronic acid, which is available for prescription but not used practically. Zoledronate is prescribed and administered at hospital level, and then it is not recorded in BIFAP database. Patients were classified as “current users” of bisphosphonates when the last prescription period finished within 30 days before the index date, “recent users” when it finished between 31 and 365 days before the index date, “past users” when it finished over 365 days before the index date, and “non-users” when there was no bisphosphonate prescription recorded before the index date. In a sensitivity analysis current and recent user were pooled together.
Treatment duration was calculated for current users by adding up each prescription duration that was given consecutively (an interval no longer than 90 days between the end of one prescription and the beginning of the following one). Then patients were grouped into two categories: less than 365 days, and 365 days or more. In a sensitivity analysis duration effect was also explored in the pool of current plus recent users.
Potential confounding factors
The following comorbidities (recorded before the index date) were evaluated as possible confounding factors: cerebrovascular disease (ischemic, haemorrhagic or unspecified stroke and transient ischemic attack), heart failure, angina pectoris (recorded as such, and/or use of nitrates), peripheral artery disease (PAD), hypertension, atrial fibrillation, diabetes (recorded as such, and/or use of glucose-lowering medications), dyslipidemia (recorded as such, and/or use of lipid-lowering medications), rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and chronic kidney disease. In addition, the following factors were considered: number of visits to the PCP in the year prior to the index date (as an indicator of comorbidities), body mass index (BMI), smoking and current use of the following drugs: low dose aspirin, other antiplatelet drugs, oral anticoagulants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, metamizole, calcium and vitamin D supplements, corticosteroids, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, alpha blockers, diuretics and proton-pump inhibitors.
Statistical analysis
The association between incident AMI and exposure to drugs of interest was evaluated by calculating the odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) through an unconditional logistic regression. Firstly, crude ORs only including exposure and matching variables (age, sex and calendar year) were estimated. Secondly, adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated by adding all possible confounding factors mentioned in the above section. In addition, interaction with age (stratified as under 70 years old, and 70 or over), sex and background cardiovascular risk were examined. The latter was defined as follows: high-risk patients with records of peripheral artery disease, angina pectoris, cerebrovascular accident or diabetes; intermediate risk, patients without criteria for high risk and with records of hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney failure, smoking or BMI > 30 kg/m2; and low risk, the remainder. We included patients with diabetes mellitus within the high-risk group because it has been reported to have a risk equivalent to ischemic heart disease [28]. For statistical evaluation of interaction, adjusted models were used in different categories of interaction variables, and AOR associated with the current use of bisphosphonates was calculated in comparison with the non-use in each stratum. AORs of different strata were compared using the test of interaction described by Altman and Bland [29]. Results were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05.
Missing values in some specific covariables such as smoking (49.9%) and BMI (39.3%) were addressed with multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) models [30] (see Appendix C). All analyses were performed with STATA/SE 15 (StataCorp. College Station, TX, US).
Sensitivity analyses
A sensitivity analysis was performed by also using prevalent users of bisphosphonates. Additionally, we explored the effect of pooling current and recent users.
Ethical aspects
The scientific committee of BIFAP granted access to pseudonymized data in the database (#04/2016 project; approval date: 26 May 2016). In accordance with Spanish law, a specific ethical review is not required when the study does not use personal data.
Results
A total of 23,590 incident AMI cases and 117,612 controls were included (Fig. 1). Characteristics are described in Table 1. As expected, prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and use of cardiovascular drugs were more frequent in cases than in controls.
Bisphosphonates use and AMI risk
Current, recent or past use of bisphosphonates in cases (1.17%/0.46%/0.84%, respectively) was similar to those found among controls (1.24%/0.41%/0.81%, respectively), yielding to an unadjusted OR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.81–1.06), 1.13 (95% CI 0.92–1.40) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.89–1.21), respectively. After full adjustment, results hardly changed: 0.98 (95% CI 0.85–1.14), 1.14 (95% CI 0.91–1.43) and 1.01 (95% CI 0.85–1.20). Table 2 shows results for the whole pharmacological group and for individual drugs.
Bisphosphonates use and AMI risk by treatment duration
Current use according to treatment duration (less than 365 days/365 days or more) was similar in cases (0.41%/0.76%, respectively) and controls (0.48%/0.76%, respectively). This entails an unadjusted OR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.68–1.06) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.83–1.15), respectively. After full adjustment, results were roughly unchanged: 0.92 (95% CI 0.73–1.15) and 1.03 (95% CI 0.86–1.23), respectively. Table 3 shows results by duration for the whole pharmacological group and for individual drugs.
Bisphosphonates use and AMI risk in different subgroups
No evidence of statistical interaction of bisphosphonate current use with sex, age and baseline cardiovascular risk was found (Fig. 2; supplementary table 2).
Sensitivity analysis
The inclusion of prevalent users of bisphosphonates was associated with a slight risk reduction of AMI among current users (AOR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.79–0.99) (supplementary table 1). Pooling current and recent users yielded an AOR of 1.02 (95% CI 0.90–1.17) overall, and 1.01 (95% CI 0.86–1.19) with treatment duration of 365 days or longer.
Discussion
This study does not find evidence that bisphosphonate treatment, by group or by active ingredient (alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate), is associated with a reduction of AMI risk, irrespective of treatment duration, age, sex or baseline cardiovascular risk.
Diverse mechanisms have been postulated to explain a potential reduction of CV events with bisphosphonates use: induction of macrophage apoptosis, prevention of macrophage foam cells from forming, reduction of cholesterol levels by inhibiting the mevalonate pathway and a potential anti-inflammatory effect [10, 11, 24, 25]. Bisphosphonates have proved to prevent atherosclerosis development or to reduce atherosclerosis degree in animal models [31,32,33,34]. As for humans, etidronate has been studied in various clinical trials as a vascular calcification inhibitor. In patients with high CV risk, bisphosphonates decreased the carotid intima-media (CIM) thickness in 0.038 mm [35], coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) in 372 mm3 [16] and aortic calcification by 14–15% [17]. Values in the mentioned reduction of CIM thickness were comparable to the effects observed with some statins: pitavastatin decreased CIM thickness by 0.024 mm/year in patients with known atherosclerosis [36], while rosuvastatin decreased CIM thickness by 0.0014 mm/year in low-risk subjects [37]. Evidence with other bisphosphonates is mixed. Alendronate reduced CIM thickness by 0.025 mm in patients receiving haemodialysis [38], but not in patients with chronic kidney disease [39]. On another note, an ibandronate treatment of 36 months did not alter aortic calcification progression [40]. Despite the benefits of bisphosphonates on intermediate variables, there is no clear evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular event reduction in contrast to statins. Some studies suggest that most of the benefits of statins come from plaque stabilization and are not due to atherosclerosis regression [41]. So far, the effects of bisphosphonates on plaque stabilization continue to be unknown. It is also possible that CV protective effects are different among different molecules. For instance, etidronate is considered as the most potent inhibitor of vascular calcification [25], but this study does not count on enough subjects with this drug to provide a meaningful analysis.
This study’s results are contrary to findings from other previous observational studies [18,19,20, 25, 42] and clinical trials with intermediate variables, i.e. CIM thickness [35, 38], coronary artery calcium score [16] and aortic calcification [17, 43], suggesting possible benefits of bisphosphonates in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. Kang et al [19], using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database, found an AMI risk reduction of 65% in patients receiving at least 1 year of continued treatment with bisphosphonates in comparison with patients with acute osteoporotic fracture who did not received bisphosphonates. In a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Wolfe et al. [20] observed a reduction of 28% in AMI rate in subjects treated with bisphosphonates versus those who did not receive bisphosphonates. In another study Sing et al. [41] observed that alendronate was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17–0.65) and incident myocardial infarction (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.34–0.89). “Prevalent user bias” is a common potential bias in numerous observational studies when part of the cohort took the drug for some time before the study follow-up began. Prevalent users are “survivors” of the early period of pharmacotherapy, and therefore, there is a trend to spuriously overestimate the protective effect of drugs. To avoid this potential bias, it has been suggested to restrict the study cohort to new users [26], this way mimicking clinical trials that recruit “new users” by definition. This design is employed in our study, which may explain the discrepancies mentioned above regarding previous observational studies. In fact, a slight protective effect of 11% was found in our study when prevalent users were included in the analysis, supporting the notion of a potential “prevalent user bias.” Results obtained in this study are similar to those from two meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) [22, 23], where no such cardioprotective effect from bisphosphonates was found either. Kim et al. [22] analysed a total of 58 RCTs without finding any association between treatment with commonly prescribed bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate and zoledronic acid) with significant clinical effects in CV events. Moreover, they found a slight increase of risk for atrial fibrillation with intravenous zoledronic acid, although evidence was not conclusive [22]. Kranenburg et al. analysed a total of 61 RCTs including patients with osteoporosis and patients with cancer. Bisphosphonates had beneficial effects regarding arterial calcification, but not regarding arterial stiffness. Any effects due to bisphosphonate treatment were not found in cardiovascular events (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91–1.17), while a non-statistically significant decrease of cardiovascular mortality risk (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.64–1.02) and a decrease of all-cause mortality (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.84–0.98) were observed [23]. Other recent clinical trials not included in the above-mentioned meta-analyses, such as the study by Reid et al. [44] and a post-hoc analysis [45], observed a trend (not statistically significant) towards a possible cardioprotective effect of zoledronate in women with osteopenia.
Strengths of this study are as follows: (1) researchers who validated the cases were blind to drug exposure, which prevented from a differential misclassification of AMI cases conditioned by exposure; (2) controls were randomly extracted from the underlying cohort, ensuring the representation of the exposure in the source population and avoiding a bias in control selection; and (3) only new users of bisphosphonates were taken into consideration in order to avoid the “prevalent user” bias [26].
Main limitations of this study are as follows: first, it is an observational study, and therefore, there is a possibility for residual confounding due to unknown or unmeasured factors; second, since there is evidence that low bone mass is a risk factor for AMI (4), and bisphosphonates are mostly prescribed for osteoporosis, we cannot rule out the possibility of a confounding by indication, which might have masked a possible protective effect of bisphosphonates as a result; however, we would like to note that in our study we did adjust for use of calcium and vitamin D supplements which can be considered as a marker of an underlying osteoporosis, thereby minimizing this potential bias; third, misclassification of the exposure due to a deficient recording of drugs prescribed is quite unlikely because clinicians write the prescriptions using the computerized system, but adherence to treatments by patients cannot be guaranteed; and fourth, exposure to bisphosphonates other than the ones included was too low to perform a meaningful analysis (zoledronate and etidronate).
Conclusions
Bisphosphonates that are most commonly prescribed (alendronate, risedronate and ibandronate) do not show beneficial or harmful effects for AMI, irrespective of treatment duration, age, sex or baseline cardiovascular risk. However, a small protective effect could have been masked if patients with osteoporosis have had a background higher risk of AMI.
References
Barengolts EI, Berman M, Kukreja SC, Kouznetsova T, Lin C, Chomka EV (1998) Osteoporosis and coronary atherosclerosis in asymptomatic postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 62:209–213
Shaffer JR, Kammerer CM, Rainwater DL, O'Leary DH, Bruder JM, Bauer RL, Mitchell BD (2007) Decreased bone mineral density is correlated with increased subclinical atherosclerosis in older, but not younger, Mexican American women and men: the San Antonio Family Osteoporosis Study. Calcif Tissue Int 81:430–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-007-9079-0
van der Klift M, Pols HA, Hak AE, Witteman JC, Hofman A, de Laet CE (2002) Bone mineral density and the risk of peripheral arterial disease: the Rotterdam Study. Calcif Tissue Int 70:443–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-001-2076-9
Kiel DP, Kauppila LI, Cupples LA, Hannan MT, O'Donnell CJ, Wilson PW (2001) Bone loss and the progression of abdominal aortic calcification over a 25 year period: the Framingham Heart Study. Calcif Tissue Int 68:271–276
Browner WS, Seeley DG, Vogt TM, Cummings SR (1991) Non-trauma mortality in elderly women with low bone mineral density. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Lancet 338:355–358 DOI 0140-6736(91)90489-C [pii]
Kado DM, Browner WS, Blackwell T, Gore R, Cummings SR (2000) Rate of bone loss is associated with mortality in older women: a prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 15:1974–1980. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.10.1974
von der Recke P, Hansen MA, Hassager C (1999) The association between low bone mass at the menopause and cardiovascular mortality. Am J Med 106:273–278 DOI S0002934399000285 [pii]
Veronese N, Stubbs B, Crepaldi G, Solmi M, Cooper C, Harvey NC, Reginster JY, Rizzoli R, Civitelli R, Schofield P, Maggi S, Lamb SE (2017) Relationship between low bone mineral density and fractures with incident cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res 32:1126–1135. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3089
Demer LL, Tintut Y (2003) Mineral exploration: search for the mechanism of vascular calcification and beyond: the 2003 Jeffrey M. Hoeg award lecture. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 23:1739–1743. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.ATV.0000093547.63630.0F
Anagnostis P, Karagiannis A, Kakafika AI, Tziomalos K, Athyros VG, Mikhailidis DP (2009) Atherosclerosis and osteoporosis: age-dependent degenerative processes or related entities? Osteoporos Int 20:197–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0648-5
McFarlane SI, Muniyappa R, Shin JJ, Bahtiyar G, Sowers JR (2004) Osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease: brittle bones and boned arteries, is there a link? Endocrine 23:1–10 DOI ENDO:23:1:01 [pii]
Szekanecz Z, Raterman HG, Petho Z, Lems WF (2019) Common mechanisms and holistic care in atherosclerosis and osteoporosis. Arthritis Res Ther 21:15–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1805-7
Schor AM, Allen TD, Canfield AE, Sloan P, Schor SL (1990) Pericytes derived from the retinal microvasculature undergo calcification in vitro. J Cell Sci 97(Pt 3):449–461
Doherty MJ, Ashton BA, Walsh S, Beresford JN, Grant ME, Canfield AE (1998) Vascular pericytes express osteogenic potential in vitro and in vivo. J Bone Miner Res 13:828–838. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.5.828
Jeziorska M, McCollum C, Wooley DE (1998) Observations on bone formation and remodelling in advanced atherosclerotic lesions of human carotid arteries. Virchows Arch 433:559–565
Nitta K, Akiba T, Suzuki K, Uchida K, Watanabe R, Majima K, Aoki T, Nihei H (2004) Effects of cyclic intermittent etidronate therapy on coronary artery calcification in patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 44:680–688 DOI S0272638604009370 [pii]
Kawahara T, Nishikawa M, Kawahara C, Inazu T, Sakai K, Suzuki G (2013) Atorvastatin, etidronate, or both in patients at high risk for atherosclerotic aortic plaques: a randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 127:2327–2335. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.001534
Kang JH, Keller JJ, Lin HC (2012) A population-based 2-year follow-up study on the relationship between bisphosphonates and the risk of stroke. Osteoporos Int 23:2551–2557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-1894-0
Kang JH, Keller JJ, Lin HC (2013) Bisphosphonates reduced the risk of acute myocardial infarction: a 2-year follow-up study. Osteoporos Int 24:271–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2213-5
Wolfe F, Bolster MB, O'Connor CM, Michaud K, Lyles KW, Colon-Emeric CS (2013) Bisphosphonate use is associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Miner Res 28:984–991. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1792
Pittman CB, Davis LA, Zeringue AL, Caplan L, Wehmeier KR, Scherrer JF, Xian H, Cunningham FE, McDonald JR, Arnold A, Eisen SA (2014) Myocardial infarction risk among patients with fractures receiving bisphosphonates. Mayo Clin Proc 89:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.08.021
Kim DH, Rogers JR, Fulchino LA, Kim CA, Solomon DH, Kim SC (2015) Bisphosphonates and risk of cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 10:e0122646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122646
Kranenburg G, Bartstra JW, Weijmans M, de Jong PA, Mali WP, Verhaar HJ, Visseren FLJ, Spiering W (2016) Bisphosphonates for cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Atherosclerosis 252:106–115 DOI S0021-9150(16)30284-2 [pii]
Fiore CE, Pennisi P, Pulvirenti I, Francucci CM (2009) Bisphosphonates and atherosclerosis. J Endocrinol Investig 32:38–43
Santos LL, Cavalcanti TB, Bandeira FA (2012) Vascular effects of bisphosphonates-a systematic review. Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes 5:47–54. https://doi.org/10.4137/CMED.S10007
Ray WA (2003) Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 158:915–920. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwg231
BIFAP Base de Datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria. Available online: http://www.bifap.org (accessed on 28 December 2019)
Juutilainen A, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Pyorala K, Laakso M (2005) Type 2 diabetes as a “coronary heart disease equivalent”: an 18-year prospective population-based study in Finnish subjects. Diabetes Care 28:2901–2907 DOI 28/12/2901 [pii]
Altman DG, Bland JM (2003) Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 326:219. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7382.219
Azur MJ, Stuart EA, Frangakis C, Leaf PJ (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 20:40–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.329
Jackson B, Gee AN, Guyon-Gellin Y, Niesor E, Bentzen CL, Kerns WD, Suckling KE (2000) Hypocholesterolaemic and antiatherosclerotic effects of tetra-iso-propyl 2-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)ethyl-1,1-diphosphonate (SR-9223i). Arzneimittelforschung 50:380–386. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1300217
Ylitalo R, Oksala O, Yla-Herttuala S, Ylitalo P (1994) Effects of clodronate (dichloromethylene bisphosphonate) on the development of experimental atherosclerosis in rabbits. J Lab Clin Med 123:769–776
Ylitalo R, Syvala H, Tuohimaa P, Ylitalo P (2002) Suppression of immunoreactive macrophages in atheromatous lesions of rabbits by clodronate. Pharmacol Toxicol 90:139–143. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0773.2002.900305.x
Hollander W, Paddock J, Nagraj S, Colombo M, Kirkpatrick B (1979) Effects of anticalcifying and antifibrobrotic drugs on pre-established atherosclerosis in the rabbit. Atherosclerosis 33:111–123 DOI 0021-9150(79)90202-8 [pii]
Koshiyama H, Nakamura Y, Tanaka S, Minamikawa J (2000) Decrease in carotid intima-media thickness after 1-year therapy with etidronate for osteopenia associated with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:2793–2796. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.85.8.6748
Ikeda K, Takahashi T, Yamada H, Matsui K, Sawada T, Nakamura T, Matsubara H, (for the PEACE Investigators) (2013) Effect of intensive statin therapy on regression of carotid intima-media thickness in patients with subclinical carotid atherosclerosis (a prospective, randomized trial: PEACE (Pitavastatin Evaluation of Atherosclerosis Regression by Intensive Cholesterol-lowering Therapy) study). Eur J Prev Cardiol 20:1069–1079 DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312451539
Crouse JR, Raichlen JS, Riley WA, Evans GW, Palmer MK, O'Leary DH, Grobbee DE, Bots ML, METEOR Study Group (2007) Effect of rosuvastatin on progression of carotid intima-media thickness in low-risk individuals with subclinical atherosclerosis: the METEOR Trial. JAMA 297:1344–1353 297.12.1344 [pii]
Celiloglu M, Aydin Y, Balci P, Kolamaz T (2009) The effect of alendronate sodium on carotid artery intima-media thickness and lipid profile in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Menopause 16:689–693
Toussaint ND, Lau KK, Strauss BJ, Polkinghorne KR, Kerr PG (2010) Effect of alendronate on vascular calcification in CKD stages 3 and 4: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis 56:57–68. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.12.039
Tanko LB, Qin G, Alexandersen P, Bagger YZ, Christiansen C (2005) Effective doses of ibandronate do not influence the 3-year progression of aortic calcification in elderly osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 16:184–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1662-x
Blumenthal RS, Kapur NK (2006) Can a potent statin actually regress coronary atherosclerosis? JAMA 295:1583–1584 DOI 295.13.jed60019 [pii]
Sing CW, Wong AY, Kiel DP, Cheung EY, Lam JK, Cheung TT, Chan EW, Kung AW, Wong IC, Cheung CL (2018) Association of alendronate and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hip fracture. J Bone Miner Res 33:1422–1434. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3448
Kanazawa I, Yamaguchi T, Yano S, Yamamoto M, Yamauchi M, Kurioka S, Sugimoto T (2010) Baseline atherosclerosis parameter could assess the risk of bone loss during pioglitazone treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Osteoporos Int 21:2013–2018
Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, Stewart A, Garratt E, Wong S, Wiessing KR, Bolland MJ, Bastin S, Gamble GD (2018) Fracture prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia. N Engl J Med 379:2407–2416. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808082
Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, Stewart A, Garratt E, Bastin S, Gamble GD (2020) Effects of zoledronate on cancer, cardiac events, and mortality in Osteopenic older women. J Bone Miner Res 35:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3860
Acknowledgements
This study’s authors would like to thank the excellent collaboration of primary care practitioners participating in BIFAP. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the staff members of the BIFAP Unit.
Funding
BIFAP is funded and operated by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS, by its Spanish acronym). This study was supported by a research grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III—Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (# PI16/01353), granted to F.d.A., co-funded by FEDER.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None
Additional information
Outcomes, discussion, and conclusions have been issued by the authors of this study and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEMPS.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 42.9 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mazzucchelli, R., Rodríguez-Martín, S., García-Vadillo, A. et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction among new users of bisphosphonates: a nested case–control study. Osteoporos Int 31, 2403–2412 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05538-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05538-2