Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
View EudraVigilance report
Suspected adverse reactions reported for Etidronate disodium
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
8 branded products available
Part of the Didronel brand family (generic: Etidronate disodium)
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Etidronate disodium on the MHRA register
WHO defined daily dose (DDD)
400 mg
Not a recommended dose. The DDD is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults. It is a statistical measure used for research and comparison purposes only.
Source: WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, distributed via the NHS dm+d supplementary BNF/ATC mapping files (NHSBSA). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 5 · Trials: 3 · 1972–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
La Rosa GRM, Plotino G, Nagendrababu V, et al.
2024
- Smear Layer
- Anti-Infective Agents
- Chelating Agents
This scoping review aimed to synthesize and explore the current boundaries and limitations of laboratory research on the effectiveness of continuous chelation irrigation protocol in endodontics. This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews. Literature search was conducted on Pubmed and Scopus to identify all laboratory studies evaluating smear layer and hard-tissue debris removal or, antimicrobial efficacy, or dentine erosion induced by continuous chelation. Two independent reviewers performed the all review steps and the relevant items were recorded. Seventy-seven potentially relevant studies were identified. Finally, 23 laboratory studies met the eligibility criteria for qualitative synthesis. Seven studies focused on the smear layer/debris removal outcome, 10 on antimicrobial activity, and 10 on dentine erosion. In general, the continuous chelation protocol was equally or more effective in the cleanliness of root canals and antimicrobial activity compared with traditional sequential protocol. In addition, etidronate solutions seemed to be milder chelating agents compared to those with EDTA, thus resulting in reduced or no dentine erosion and roughness modification. Yet, the methodological differences among the included studies limit the results' generalizability. The continuous chelation seems to be equally or more effective in all investigated outcomes when compared with the traditional sequential protocol. The methodological variability among the studies and shortcomings in the methods employed limit the generalizability and clinical relevance of the results. Standardized laboratory conditions combined with reliable three-dimensional investigation approaches are necessary to obtain clinically informative findings.
Abstract licence: CC BY
R. Altman, C. Johnston, M. Khairi, et al.
The New England journal of medicine, 1973
Tsugeno H, Hida T, Higuchi Y, et al.
2025
We report a 31-year-old woman hospitalized for approximately two months for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Under sedation, she received physiotherapy to prevent joint contractures. When weaning from the mechanical ventilator began, she complained of pain and limited range of motion in her bilateral hip and knee joints. Radiography and computed tomography revealed non-traumatic heterotopic ossification (HO) in the bilateral vastus medialis and hips. Range-of-motion exercises were discontinued, and treatment with indomethacin and etidronate disodium was started. Alkaline phosphatase, an index of disease activity, peaked 15-fold higher than the normal range but decreased to near-normal levels four months after treatment. She could walk with a T-cane after rehabilitation, although her range of motion remained limited. If a COVID-19 patient has joint pain and is immobilized for a long time, HO should be considered accordingly.
Abstract licence: CC BY
R. Gucalp, P. Ritch, P. Wiernik, et al.
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 1992
- Neoplasms
- Hypercalcemia
- Calcium
W. Michael, W. R. King, J. Wakim
Toxicology and applied pharmacology, 1972
C. C. Johnston, Roy D. Altman, Robert E. Canfield, et al.
Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 1983
- Osteitis Deformans
- Etidronic Acid
- Fractures, Bone
R. Heaney, P. Saville
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 1976
- Menopause
- Osteoporosis
- Phosphates
Samah F. El-Malla, Eman A. Elshenawy, Sherin F. Hammad, et al.
Analytica Chimica Acta, 2022
- Quantum Dots
- Carbon
- Copper
S. Krane
Annals of internal medicine, 1982
N. Shiraishi, K. Kitamura, T. Miyoshi, et al.
American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation, 2006
- Skin Ulcer
- Calciphylaxis
- Etidronic Acid
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Structured knowledge from the free knowledge base
ATC classifications (Wikidata)
Linked open data from Wikidata (Q2758338), a free and open knowledge base operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Data is available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication. WHO INN from the World Health Organization.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.