4.5 Article

Prior treatment with vitamin K2 significantly improves the efficacy of risedronate

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 1863-1872

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-0888-z

关键词

Bisphosphonate; Quality of bone; Raman spectroscopy; Risedronate; Sequential administration; Vitamin K-2

资金

  1. Ministry of Science, Education and Culture of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prior 8-week treatment with menatetrenone, MK-4, followed by 8-week risedronate prevented the shortcomings of individual drugs and significantly increased the strength of ovariectomized ICR mouse femur compared to the ovariectomized (OVX) controls. Neither MK-4 following risedronate nor the concomitant administration may be recommended because they brought the least beneficial effect. The objective of this study was to determine the best combinatory administration of risedronate at 0.25 mg/kg/day (R) with vitamin K-2 at approximately 100 mu g MK-4/kg/day (K) to improve strength of osteoporotic mouse bone. Thirteen-week-old ICR mice, ovariectomized at 9-week, were treated for 8 weeks with R, K, or R plus K (R/K), and then, either the treatment was withdrawn (WO) or switched to K or R in the case of R and K. After another 8 weeks, the mice were killed, and mechanical tests and analyses of femur properties by peripheral quantitative computed tomography, microfocus X-ray tube computed tomography, and confocal laser Raman microspectroscopy were carried out. The K to R femur turned out superior in parameters tested such as material properties, bone mineral density, BMC, trabecular structure, and geometry of the cortex. The increased cross-sectional moment of inertia, which occurred after K withdrawal, was prevented by risedronate in K to R. In addition to K to R, some properties of R to WO diaphysis and K to WO epiphysis were significantly better than OVX controls. Prior treatment with MK-4 followed by risedronate significantly increased femur strength in comparison to the OVX controls.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据