This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In response to the concerns raised by Dr Rothschild¹ in the June 12 issue of the ARCHIVES, it is correct that the Fracture Intervention Trial² had as its primary end point the evaluation of fracture reduction; however, the assessment of safety and tolerability of alendronate sodium were also prespecified study objectives. The trial was designed to collect the necessary data to accomplish these aims and went beyond standard adverse experience collection for serious upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract events by having a blinded physician at the coordinating center evaluate the medical records of patients who experienced such events. Collection and review of supportive documentation were accomplished for 115 of the 124 patients in this category.

There are 2 inaccuracies, or misperceptions, in Dr Rothchild's letter that require correction. First, he states that the method of administration of alendronate sodium (Fosamax) was "more stringent" than the package insert³ recommends. This is not . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLES

Alendronate and Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Interaction Safety Is Not Established
Bruce M. Rothschild
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(11):1702.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Safety Profile of Alendronate: The Fracture Intervention Trial
Douglas C. Bauer, Dennis Black, Kristine Ensrud, Desmond Thompson, Marc Hochberg, Michael Nevitt, Thomas Musliner, Debra Freedholm, and for the Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(4):517-525.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT