Effect of alendronate for reducing fracture by FRAX score and femoral neck bone mineral density: the Fracture Intervention Trial

An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in osteoporosis

FRAX®, a simple-to-use fracture risk calculator, was first released in 2008 and since then has been used increasingly worldwide. By calculating the 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, it assists clinicians when deciding whether further investigation, for example a bone mineral density measurement (BMD), and/or treatment is needed to prevent future fractures. In this review, we explore the literature around osteoporosis and how FRAX has changed its management. We present the characteristics of this tool and describe the use of thresholds (diagnostic and therapeutic). We also present arguments as to why screening with FRAX should be considered. FRAX has several limitations which are described in this review. This review coincides with the release of a version, FRAXplus, which addresses some of these limitations.

Effectiveness of romosozumab in patients with osteoporosis at high fracture risk: a Japanese real-world study

INTRODUCTION

To describe the real-world use of romosozumab in Japan, we conducted a chart review of > 1000 Japanese patients with osteoporosis (OP) at high risk of fracture, across multiple medical institutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment-naïve and prior OP-treatment patients who received romosozumab for 12 months followed by ≥ 6 months of sequential OP treatment were included. The primary objective described the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics; secondary objectives evaluated changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers in all patients and effectiveness of romosozumab in a sub-group of treatment-naïve patients using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®).

RESULTS

Of the 1027 patients (92.4% female), 45.0% were treatment-naïve. The mean ± SD age of treatment-naïve versus prior OP-treatment patients was 76.8 ± 8.5 and 77.1 ± 8.5 years. The most frequent prior OP treatment was bisphosphonates (45.0%). Romosozumab treatment for 12 months increased BMD at the lumbar spine in all groups; the median percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was higher in the treatment-naïve (13.4%) versus prior OP-treatment group (bisphosphonates [9.2%], teriparatide [11.3%], denosumab [DMAb, 4.5%]). DMAb, bisphosphonates, or teriparatide after romosozumab maintained the BMD gains at all skeletal sites at month 18 in treatment-naïve patients. Most treatment-naïve patients were at high risk of fracture, BMD increased consistently with romosozumab regardless of the baseline fracture risk assessed by FRAX.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale, multicenter chart review provides clinically relevant insights into the profiles of patients initiating romosozumab, effectiveness of real-world romosozumab use, and sequential therapy in Japanese patients at high risk of fracture.

Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors.

DESIGN

Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events.

RESULTS

The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019128391.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I² = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I² = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I² = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I² = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Fracture risk assessment by the FRAX model

The introduction of the FRAX algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. FRAX integrates the influence of several well-validated risk factors for fracture with or without the use of bone mineral density. Since age-specific rates of fracture and death differ across the world, FRAX models are calibrated with regard to the epidemiology of hip fracture (preferably from national sources) and mortality (usually United Nations sources). Models are currently available for 73 nations or territories covering more than 80% of the world population. FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide, although the nature of this application has been heterogeneous. The limitations of FRAX have been extensively reviewed. Arithmetic procedures have been proposed in order to address some of these limitations, which can be applied to conventional FRAX estimates to accommodate knowledge of dose exposure to glucocorticoids, concurrent data on lumbar spine bone mineral density, information on trabecular bone score, hip axis length, falls history, type 2 diabetes, immigration status and recency of prior fracture.

Romosozumab efficacy on fracture outcomes is greater in patients at high baseline fracture risk: a post hoc analysis of the first year of the frame study

This study aimed to determine the interaction between baseline FRAX^® fracture probability and romosozumab efficacy. Using an ITT approach, it was determined that the efficacy of romosozumab on clinical fracture, osteoporotic fracture, and major osteoporotic fracture is significantly greater in patients at high baseline fracture risk, when compared with placebo.

INTRODUCTION

Post hoc analyses of placebo-controlled osteoporosis treatment studies have shown significantly greater reductions of fracture incidence for higher fracture risk patients. This study determined the interaction between baseline FRAX^® fracture probability and romosozumab efficacy in the placebo-controlled first year of the phase 3 FRAME study (NCT01575834).

METHODS

Using an ITT approach, an extension of Poisson regression analysis studied the relationship between treatment, FRAX^® 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF, calculated without BMD) and risk of first incident fracture (adjusting for age and follow-up time). Treatment interactions considered outcomes of all clinical fractures, osteoporotic fractures, MOF, clinical vertebral fractures, and morphometric vertebral fractures. Two-sided p value of < 0.1 for the interaction between treatment and FRAX^® was considered significant.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, romosozumab reduced the incidence of all fracture outcomes in the first year (range: 32% reduction in MOF [p = 0.07] to 80% reduction in clinical vertebral fractures [p = 0.038]). Significant interactions were observed between efficacy and baseline FRAX^® probability for composite outcomes of clinical fractures, osteoporotic fractures, and MOF (p = 0.064-0.084), but not vertebral fractures (p > 0.3). For example, romosozumab decreased all clinical fractures by 22% at the 25th centile of FRAX^® probability but the reduction was 41% at the 75th centile. Exclusion of vertebral fractures from each composite fracture outcome (i.e. only nonvertebral fractures included) showed even stronger interactions with baseline FRAX^® probability (p = 0.036-0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of romosozumab on clinical fracture, osteoporotic fracture, and MOF is significantly greater in patients at high baseline fracture risk compared with placebo.

Personalized fracture risk assessment: where are we at?

Introduction: Osteoporotic fracture imposes a significant health care burden globally. Personalized assessment of fracture risk can potentially guide treatment decisions. Over the past decade, a number of risk prediction models, including the Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator (Garvan) and FRAX®, have been developed and implemented in clinical practice. Areas covered: This article reviews recent development and validation results concerning the prognostic performance of the two tools. The main areas of review are the need for personalized fracture risk prediction, purposes of risk prediction, predictive performance in terms of discrimination and calibration, concordance between the Garvan and FRAX tools, genetic profiling for improving predictive performance, and treatment thresholds. In some validation studies, FRAX tended to underestimate fracture by as high as 50%. Studies have shown that the predicted risk from the Garvan tool is highly concordant with clinical decision. Expert opinion: Although there are some discrepancy in fracture risk prediction between Garvan and FRAX, both tools are valid and can aid patients and doctors communicate about risk and make informed decision. The ideal of personalized risk assessment for osteoporosis patients will be realized through the incorporation of genetic profiling into existing fracture risk assessment tools.

Comparison of Bone Mineral Density and Markers of Bone Turnover in Osteoporotic Women after 6-Month Treatment with Alendronate or Bazedoxifene: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

In a randomized controlled trial, we compared the bone mineral densities (BMDs) and blood markers of bone turnover during short-term treatment of osteoporotic women with bisphosphonate alendronate or bazedoxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator.

Methods

Ten and eleven patients were randomized to the alendronate and bazedoxifene groups, respectively. BMDs were measured before and after 6 months of treatment. Blood tests were used to measure the levels of osteocalcin (OC), C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX), vitamin D3, and parathyroid hormone pretreatment and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. The variables were compared statistically.

Results

The alendronate group showed decreases in blood levels of both OC and CTX during the study period (P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively), while the bazedoxifene group had a decrease only in OC levels (P=0.012). After 6 months of treatment, BMDs significantly increased in the alendronate group at multiple bone sites, including the L1–4 lumbar vertebrae, femur trochanter, and total femur. However, there was no significant increase in BMD in the bazedoxifene group. BMDs were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Patients treated with alendronate showed more rapid suppression of markers of bone turnover and higher BMD than those treated with bazedoxifene during a short-term regime. Considering the effects and complications of each medication, the relationship between bone turnover rate and bone quality will need to be investigated in future studies.

The Effect of Type of Femoral Component Fixation on Mortality and Morbidity after Hip Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip hemiarthroplasty is a well-established treatment of displaced femoral neck fracture, although debate exists over whether cemented or uncemented fixation is superior. Uncemented prostheses have typically been used in younger, healthier patients and cemented prostheses in older patients with less-stable bone. Also, earlier research has suggested that bone cement has cytotoxic effects and may trigger cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare morbidity and mortality rates after cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched seven medical databases for randomized clinical trials and observational studies. We compared cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), as well as measures of postoperative pain, mortality, and complications. Data were extracted and pooled as risk ratios or standardized mean difference with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals in a meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 34 studies (12 randomized trials and 22 observational studies), with a total of 42,411 patients. In the pooled estimate, cemented hemiarthroplasty was associated with less risk of postoperative pain than uncemented hemiarthroplasty. There were no significant differences between groups regarding HHS or rates of postoperative mortality, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, acute cardiac arrhythmia, or deep venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

While we found that cemented hemiarthroplasty results in less postoperative pain than uncemented hemiarthroplasty in older patients with femoral neck fracture, the lack of significant differences in functional hip scores, mortality, and complications was surprising. Further high-level research is needed.

Timing of anti-osteoporosis medications initiation after a hip fracture affects the risk of subsequent fracture: A nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The optimal time after hip fracture to start prophylactic anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) remains uncertain, especially in real-world practice. Therefore, we investigated how timing of AOMs initiation affects the risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures, and what factors influence timing of AOMs prescription.

METHOD

Patients ≥50 years old with diagnostic codes indicating hospitalization for hip fracture (n = 77,930) were identified from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database; 9986 who were prescribed AOMs ≤1 year after a newly-diagnosed hip fracture were grouped into those who started AOMs from: ≤14 days (very early); 15-84 days (early); 85-252 days (late); and 253-365 days (very late). Associations with fracture-related hospitalizations after an index fracture were analyzed using a multivariate, time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model, and between-group differences compared by log-rank testing. Factors influencing timing of AOMs initiation were elucidated using multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to AOMs initiation from 15 to 84 days, initiation after 252 days was associated with significantly increased risk of fracture-related hospitalization (HR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.29-2.89). Both sensitivity and pre-specified subgroup analyses yield similar results. Among patients with high adherence to AOMs, the increased risk of subsequent fracture-related hospitalization among very late users was profound (HR = 2.56, 95% CI 1.41-4.64).

CONCLUSION

Timing of AOMs initiation was significantly associated with age, index year, index hospital length of stay as well as the accreditation level and geographic region of index hospital. After adjusting factors associated with timing of AOMs initiation and patients' adherence, the anti-fracture benefit of AOMs still depends crucially on the timely initiation of AOMs.

Practical guidance for the use of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men. In clinical trials they have been shown to reduce fractures in women with osteoporosis and there is increasing evidence that they are also effective in women with osteopenia, in whom the majority of fractures occur. In addition to their role as initial therapy in individuals at increased risk of fracture, bisphosphonates are used as sequential therapy after treatment with anabolic drugs. There are no head-to head studies to compare the anti-fracture efficacy of different bisphosphonates, but there is limited evidence that zoledronate treatment results in greater increases in BMD than risedronate or alendronate. This, together with the need for less frequent administration of zoledronate, supports its wider use in clinical practice, particularly if longer dosing intervals than those currently recommended are shown to be effective.

Osteoporosis treatment considerations based upon fracture history, fracture risk assessment, vertebral fracture assessment, and bone density in Canada

Among 39,475 women, age 65 years and older, use of fracture history, major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) probability from FRAX®, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and bone mineral density (BMD) T-score stratified women into different levels of risk. The majority of women identified as being at high risk from fracture history, FRAX MOF-BMD > 20%, or vertebral fracture on VFA had a BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range.

PURPOSE

To inform criteria for pharmacologic treatment in women age 65 years and older, we examined subgroups defined from fracture history, MOF calculated with BMD (MOF-BMD), VFA, and BMD T-score using the population-based Manitoba BMD Program registry.

METHODS

The study population consisted of women age > 65 years was divided into mutually exclusive subgroups based upon fracture history, MOF-BMD ≥ 20%, vertebral fracture on VFA, and osteoporotic BMD T-score. Healthcare records were assessed for the presence of fracture diagnosis codes occurring after DXA assessment. For each subgroup, we estimated the proportion of individuals with BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range, predicted versus observed 10-year MOF probability, hazard ratio (HR) for MOF, and number needed to treat (NNT) for 3 years to prevent a fracture event.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 39,475 women (median age 72 years). The majority of women (76.8%) selected as being at high risk based on fracture history, MOF-BMD > 20%, or vertebral fracture on VFA had a BMD T-score in the osteoporotic range. During a median follow-up of 8 years, 5169 (13.1%) sustained one or more incident MOF. Fracture rates and HRs generally paralleled the FRAX prediction, except in women with a positive VFA where predicted risk based upon clinical risk factors prior to VFA underestimated the observed risk. NNT differed by the risk subgroup, and showed a gradient of decreasing NNT (consistent with greater benefit) in individuals with the highest fracture risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Fracture history, fracture probability from FRAX, targeted vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), and BMD T-score can stratify older women into different levels of risk and treatment benefit. These results are expected to inform clinical practice guidelines in Canada.

Comparison of treatment strategies and thresholds for optimizing fracture prevention in Canada: a simulation analysis

This comparison of osteoporosis treatment strategies and intervention thresholds highlights tradeoffs in terms of number of individuals qualifying for treatment and estimated fractures prevented.

PURPOSE

The current analysis was performed to inform the following key question as part of the Osteoporosis Canada's Osteoporosis Guidelines Update: "What is the best strategy to identify those at high fracture risk for pharmacotherapy in order to prevent the most fractures, considering both population and patient perspectives?"

METHODS

The study population consisted of 66,878 women age 50 years and older (mean age 66.0 ± 9.7 years) with documented fracture probability assessment (FRAX) and fracture outcomes. Fractures over the next 5 years were identified through linked administrative healthcare data. We estimated the fraction of the population that would warrant treatment and the number of fractures avoided per 1000 person-years according to multiple strategies and thresholds. Strategies were then rank ordered using 19 metrics.

RESULTS

During mean 4.4 years, 863 (3.5%) sustained one or more major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), 212 (0.8%) sustained a hip fracture, and 1210 (4.9%) sustained any incident fracture. For woman age 50-64 years, the highest ranked strategy was treatment based upon total hip T score ≤ -2.5, but several other strategies fell within 0.5 overall ranking. For women age 65 years and older, MOF > 20% was the highest ranked strategy with no closely ranked strategies. Pooling both age subgroups gave MOF > 20% as the highest ranked strategy, with several other strategies within 0.5 overall ranking.

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of treatment strategy and threshold for osteoporosis management strongly influences the number of individuals for whom pharmacologic treatment would be recommended and on estimated fracture rates in the population. This evidence-based approach to comparing these strategies will help to inform guidelines development in Canada and may be on interest elsewhere.

Anti-fracture efficacy of zoledronate in subgroups of osteopenic postmenopausal women: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We recently reported that the administration of zoledronate every 18 months to osteopenic older women reduces the incidence of fractures.

OBJECTIVE

Here, we present a more detailed analysis of that trial to determine whether baseline clinical characteristics impact on the anti-fracture efficacy of this intervention.

METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in osteopenic postmenopausal women aged ≥ 65 years, to determine the anti-fracture efficacy of zoledronate. 2000 women were recruited using electoral rolls and randomized to receive 4 infusions of either zoledronate 5 mg or normal saline, at 18-month intervals. Each participant was followed for 6 years. Calcium supplements were not supplied.

RESULTS

Fragility fractures (either vertebral or nonvertebral) occurred in 190 women in the placebo group (227 fractures) and in 122 women in the zoledronate group (131 fractures), odds ratio (OR) 0.59 (95%CI 0.46, 0.76; P < 0.0001). There were no significant interactions between baseline variables (age, anthropometry, BMI, dietary calcium intake, baseline fracture status, recent falls history, bone mineral density, calculated fracture risk) and the treatment effect. In particular, the reduction in fractures appeared to be independent of baseline fracture risk, and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one woman fracturing were not significantly different across baseline fracture risk tertiles.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analyses indicate that the decrease in fracture numbers is broadly consistent across this cohort. The lack of relationship between NNTs and baseline fracture risk calls into question the need for BMD measurement and precise fracture risk assessment before initiating treatment in older postmenopausal women.

Long-Term Drug Therapy and Drug Discontinuations and Holidays for Osteoporosis Fracture Prevention: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Optimal long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT) is uncertain.

PURPOSE

To summarize the effects of long-term ODT and ODT discontinuation and holidays.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic bibliographic databases (January 1995 to October 2018) and systematic review bibliographies.

STUDY SELECTION

48 studies that enrolled men or postmenopausal women aged 50 years or older who were being investigated or treated for fracture prevention, compared long-term ODT (>3 years) versus control or ODT continuation versus discontinuation, reported incident fractures (for trials) or harms (for trials and observational studies), and had low or medium risk of bias (ROB).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently rated ROB and strength of evidence (SOE). One extracted data; another verified accuracy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-five trials (9 unique studies) and 13 observational studies (11 unique studies) had low or medium ROB. In women with osteoporosis, 4 years of alendronate reduced clinical fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.82]) and radiographic vertebral fractures (both moderate SOE), whereas 4 years of raloxifene reduced vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures. In women with osteopenia or osteoporosis, 6 years of zoledronic acid reduced clinical fractures (HR, 0.73 [CI, 0.60 to 0.90]), including nonvertebral fractures (high SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (moderate SOE). Long-term bisphosphonates increased risk for 2 rare harms: atypical femoral fractures (low SOE) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (mostly low SOE). In women with unspecified osteoporosis status, 5 to 7 years of hormone therapy reduced clinical fractures (high SOE), including hip fractures (moderate SOE), but increased serious harms. After 3 to 5 years of treatment, bisphosphonate continuation versus discontinuation reduced radiographic vertebral fractures (zoledronic acid; low SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (alendronate; moderate SOE) but not nonvertebral fractures (low SOE).

LIMITATION

No trials studied men, clinical fracture data were sparse, methods for estimating harms were heterogeneous, and no trials compared sequential treatments or different durations of drug holidays.

CONCLUSION

Long-term alendronate and zoledronic acid therapies reduce fracture risk in women with osteoporosis. Long-term bisphosphonate treatment may increase risk for rare adverse events, and continuing treatment beyond 3 to 5 years may reduce risk for vertebral fractures. Long-term hormone therapy reduces hip fracture risks but has serious harms.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018087006).

European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were updated.

RESULTS

The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

A brief history of FRAX

This paper reviews the research programme that went into the development of FRAX® and its impact in the 10 years since its release in 2008.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is defined on the measurement of bone mineral density though the clinical consequence is fracture. The sensitivity of bone mineral density measurements for fracture prediction is low, leading to the development of FRAX to better calculate the likelihood of fracture and target anti-osteoporosis treatments.

METHODS

The method used in this paper is literature review.

RESULTS

FRAX, developed over an 8-year period, was launched in 2008. Since the launch of FRAX, models have been made available for 64 countries and in 31 languages covering more than 80% of the world population.

CONCLUSION

FRAX provides an advance in fracture risk assessment and a reference technology platform for future improvements in performance characteristics.

Review of the guideline of the American College of Physicians on the treatment of osteoporosis

This review, endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases, summarizes several failings of the recent guidelines of the American College of Physicians (ACP) on the treatment of low bone density or osteoporosis to prevent fractures.

INTRODUCTION

The ACP recently issued guidelines for the treatment of low bone density or osteoporosis to prevent fractures.

METHODS

Literature review and critical review of the ACP guidelines.

RESULTS

The guideline is lacking in scope due to the endorsement of treatment based on T-scores rather than fracture risk assessment and in failure to adequately consider anabolic therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACP guideline appears outdated.

The Effect of Abaloparatide-SC on Fracture Risk Is Independent of Baseline FRAX Fracture Probability: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ACTIVE Study

Daily subcutaneous (SC) injections of the investigational drug abaloparatide-SC (80 mcg) for 18 months significantly decrease the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fracture compared with placebo in postmenopausal women. We examined the efficacy of abaloparatide-SC as a function of baseline fracture risk, assessed using the FRAX tool. Baseline clinical risk factors (age, body mass index [BMI], prior fracture, glucocorticoid use, rheumatoid arthritis, and smoking) were entered into country-specific FRAX models to calculate the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures, with or without femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). The interaction between probability of a major osteoporotic fracture and treatment efficacy was examined by a Poisson regression. A total of 821 women randomized to placebo and 824 women to abaloparatide-SC, mean age 69 years in both groups, were followed for up to 2 years. At baseline, the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (with BMD) ranged from 2.3% to 57.5% (mean 13.2%). Treatment with abaloparatide-SC was associated with a 69% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38-85%) decrease in major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and a 43% (95% CI 9-64%) decrease in any clinical fracture compared with placebo. For all outcomes, hazard ratios tended to decrease (ie, greater efficacy) with increasing fracture probability. Whereas the interaction approached significance for the outcome of any fracture (p = 0.11), there was no statistically significant interaction for any of the fracture outcomes. Similar results were noted when FRAX probability was computed without BMD. Efficacy of abaloparatide-SC to decrease the risk of major osteoporotic fracture or any clinical fracture in postmenopausal women with low BMD and/or prior fracture appears independent of baseline fracture probability. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Fracture Risk Assessment: From Population to Individual

Fracture caused by osteoporosis remains a major public health burden on contemporary populations because fracture is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of mortality. Early identification of high-risk individuals for prevention is a priority in osteoporosis research. Over the past decade, few risk prediction models, including the Garvan Fracture Risk Calculator (Garvan) and FRAX^®, have been developed to provide absolute (individualized) risk of fracture. Recent validation studies suggested that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in fracture discrimination ranged from 0.61 to 0.83 for FRAX^® and from 0.63 to 0.88 for Garvan, with hip fractures having a better discrimination than fragility fractures as a group. Although the prognostic performance of Garvan and FRAX^® for fracture prediction is not perfect and there is room for further improvement, these predictive models can aid patients and doctors communicate about fracture risk in the medium term and to make rational decisions. However, the application of these predictive models in making decisions for an individual should take into account the individual's perception of the importance of fracture relative to other diseases.

Fracture Rates and Bone Density Among Postmenopausal Veteran and Non-Veteran Women From the Women's Health Initiative

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can impact quality-of-life even prefracture. To determine whether osteoporosis should be a greater concern in women Veterans versus non-Veterans, we compared fracture rates and bone mineral density (BMD) for Veterans and non-Veterans using Women's Health Initiative data.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In this cohort study, participants were women aged 50-79 years. Outcomes were hip, central body, and limb fractures occurring during up to 19 years of follow-up and hip, spine, and whole body BMD collected three times over a 6-year period in a participant subsample. Covariates comprised risk factors for fracture, including fall history and other components of the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to examine fracture rates for Veterans compared with non-Veterans.

RESULTS

Of 161,808 women, 145,521 self-identified as Veteran (n = 3,719) or non-Veteran (n = 141,802). Baseline FRAX scores showed that Veterans had higher 10-year probabilities for any major fracture (13.3 vs 10.2; p < .01) and hip fracture (4.1 vs 2.2; p < .01) compared with non-Veterans. The age-adjusted rate of hip fracture per 1,000 person-years for Veterans was 3.3 versus 2.4 for non-Veterans (p < .01). After adjustment, the hazards ratio for hip fracture was 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.49) for Veterans versus non-Veterans. Hazards ratios at other anatomic sites did not differ by Veteran status. Mean BMD at baseline and at Years 3 and 6 also did not differ by Veteran status at any site.

IMPLICATIONS

Women Veterans had an increased hip fracture rate not explained by differences in well-recognized fracture risk factors.

Favorable therapeutic response of osteoporosis patients to treatment with intravenous zoledronate compared with oral alendronate

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy of orally-administered alendronate compared with intravenously-administered zoledronate.

Methods:

This prospective study was carried out at Barts Health HNS Trust between April 2010 and March 2012. This study compares changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in 234 patients treated with 2 bisphosphonates: alendronate taken orally, and zoledronate administered intravenously. One hundred and eighteen patients received alendronate at 70 mg/week, while 116 patients received zoledronate once annually. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD of the left hip and anterior-posterior spine (lumbar L1-L4) skeletal sites at baseline, and at one-, and 2-years post-treatment.

Results:

This study provides evidence that lumbar spine BMD increased by 3.6% in patients receiving alendronate, and 5.7% in patients receiving zoledronate after 2 years compared with baseline values (p=0.0001 for both). Total hip BMD decreased in patients treated with alendronate by 0.4% but increased in patients receiving zoledronate by 0.8% (p=0.0001).

Conclusion:

This study provides evidence that zoledronate is more effective than alendronate in treating patients with osteoporosis and with no gastrointestinal (GI) serious side effects. Furthermore, zoledronate appears to have the added advantage of a better safety profile in patients suffering from GI intolerance of oral bisphosphonates.

Type 2 diabetes and the skeleton: new insights into sweet bones

Substantial evidence shows that skeletal fragility should be considered among the complications associated with type 2 diabetes. Individuals with type 2 diabetes have increased fracture risk, despite normal bone mineral density (BMD) and high BMI-factors that are generally protective against fractures. The mechanisms underlying skeletal fragility in diabetes are not completely understood, but are multifactorial and likely include effects of obesity, hyperglycaemia, oxidative stress, and accumulation of advanced glycation end products, leading to altered bone metabolism, structure, and strength. Clinicians should be aware that BMD measurements underestimate fracture risk in people with type 2 diabetes, and that new treatments for diabetes, with neutral or positive effects on skeletal health, might play a part in the management of diabetes in those at high risk of fracture. Data for the optimum management of osteoporosis in patients with type 2 diabetes are scarce, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, physicians should follow guidelines established for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Analysis of osteoporosis treatment patterns with bisphosphonates and outcomes among postmenopausal veterans

PURPOSE

Adherence and persistence with bisphosphonates are frequently poor, and stopping, restarting, or switching bisphosphonates is common. We evaluated bisphosphonate change behaviors (switching, discontinuing, or reinitiating) over time, as well as fractures and costs, among a large, national cohort of postmenopausal veterans.

METHODS

Female veterans aged 50+ treated with bisphosphonates during 2003-2011 were identified in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) datasets. Bisphosphonate change behaviors were characterized using pharmacy refill records. Patients' baseline disease severity was characterized based on age, T-score, and prior fracture. Cox Proportional Hazard analysis was used to evaluate characteristics associated with discontinuation and the relationship between change behaviors and fracture outcomes. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the relationship between change behaviors and cost outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 35,650 patients met eligibility criteria. Over 6800 patients (19.1%) were non-switchers. The remaining patients were in the change cohort; at least half displayed more than one change behavior over time. A strong, significant predictor of discontinuation was ≥5 healthcare visits in the prior year (11-23% more likely to discontinue), and discontinuation risk decreased with increasing age. No change behaviors were associated with increased fracture risk. Total costs were significantly higher in patients with change behaviors (4.7-19.7% higher). Change-behavior patients mostly had significantly lower osteoporosis-related costs than non-switchers (22%-118% lower).

CONCLUSIONS

Most bisphosphonate patients discontinue treatment at some point, which did not significantly increase the risk of fracture in this majority non-high risk population. Bisphosphonate change behaviors were associated with significantly lower osteoporosis costs, but significantly higher total costs.

Goal-directed treatment of osteoporosis in Europe

Despite the proven predictive ability of bone mineral density, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®), bone turnover markers, and fracture for osteoporotic fracture, their use as targets for treatment of osteoporosis is limited.

INTRODUCTION

Treat-to-target is a strategy applied in several fields of medicine and has recently become an area of interest in the management of osteoporosis. Its role in this setting remains controversial. This article was prepared following a European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group meeting convened under the auspices of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) to discuss the feasibility of applying such a strategy in osteoporosis in Europe.

METHODS

Potential targets range from the absence of an incident fracture to fixed levels of bone mineral density (BMD), a desired FRAX® score, a specified level of bone turnover markers or indeed changes in any one or a combination of these parameters.

RESULTS

Despite the proven predictive ability of all of these variables for fracture (particularly BMD and FRAX), their use as targets remains limited due to low sensitivity, the influence of confounders and current lack of evidence that targets can be consistently reached.

CONCLUSION

ESCEO considers that it is not currently feasible to apply a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis, though it did identify a need to continue to improve the targeting of treatment to those at higher risk (target-to-treat strategy) and a number of issues for the research agenda. These include international consensus on intervention thresholds and definition of treatment failure, further exploration of the relationship between fracture and BMD, and FRAX and treatment efficacy and investigation of the potential of short-term targets to improve adherence.

Implications of expanding indications for drug treatment to prevent fracture in older men in United States: cross sectional and longitudinal analysis of prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To quantify incremental effects of applying different criteria to identify men who are candidates for drug treatment to prevent fracture and to examine the extent to which fracture probabilities vary across distinct categories of men defined by these criteria.

DESIGN

Cross sectional and longitudinal analysis of a prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Multicenter Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

5880 untreated community dwelling men aged 65 years or over classified into four distinct groups: osteoporosis by World Health Organization criteria alone; osteoporosis by National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) but not WHO criteria; no osteoporosis but at high fracture risk (at or above NOF derived FRAX intervention thresholds recommended for US); and no osteoporosis and at low fracture risk (below NOF derived FRAX intervention thresholds recommended for US).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of men identified for drug treatment; predicted 10 year probabilities of hip and major osteoporotic fracture calculated using FRAX algorithm with femoral neck bone mineral density; observed 10 year probabilities for confirmed incident hip and major osteoporotic (hip, clinical vertebral, wrist, or humerus) fracture events calculated using cumulative incidence estimation, accounting for competing risk of mortality.

RESULTS

130 (2.2%) men were identified as having osteoporosis by using the WHO definition, and an additional 422 were identified by applying the NOF definition (total osteoporosis prevalence 9.4%). Application of NOF derived FRAX intervention thresholds led to 936 (15.9%) additional men without osteoporosis being identified as at high fracture risk, raising the total prevalence of men potentially eligible for drug treatment to 25.3%. Observed 10 year hip fracture probabilities were 20.6% for men with osteoporosis by WHO criteria alone, 6.8% for men with osteoporosis by NOF (but not WHO) criteria, 6.4% for men without osteoporosis but classified as at high fracture risk, and 1.5% for men without osteoporosis and classified as at low fracture risk. A similar pattern was noted in observed fracture probabilities for major osteoporotic fracture. Among men with osteoporosis by WHO criteria, observed fracture probabilities were greater than FRAX predicted probabilities (20.6% v 9.5% for hip fracture and 30.0% v 17.4% for major osteoporotic fracture).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Choice of definition of osteoporosis and use of NOF derived FRAX intervention thresholds have major effects on the proportion of older men identified as warranting drug treatment to prevent fracture. Among men identified with osteoporosis by WHO criteria, who comprised 2% of the study population, actual observed fracture probabilities during 10 years of follow-up were highest and exceeded FRAX predicted fracture probabilities. On the basis of findings from randomized trials in women, these men are most likely to benefit from treatment. Expanding indications for treatment beyond this small group has uncertain value owing to lower observed fracture probabilities and uncertain benefits of treatment among men not selected on the basis of WHO criteria.

The clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis: a position statement from the National Bone Health Alliance Working Group

Osteoporosis causes an elevated fracture risk. We propose the continued use of T-scores as one means for diagnosis but recommend that, alternatively, hip fracture; osteopenia-associated vertebral, proximal humerus, pelvis, or some wrist fractures; or FRAX scores with ≥3% (hip) or 20% (major) 10-year fracture risk also confer an osteoporosis diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is a common disorder of reduced bone strength that predisposes to an increased risk for fractures in older individuals. In the USA, the standard criterion for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men is a T-score of  ≤ -2.5 at the lumbar spine, femur neck, or total hip by bone mineral density testing.

METHODS

Under the direction of the National Bone Health Alliance, 17 clinicians and clinical scientists were appointed to a working group charged to determine the appropriate expansion of the criteria by which osteoporosis can be diagnosed.

RESULTS

The group recommends that postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years should be diagnosed with osteoporosis if they have a demonstrable elevated risk for future fractures. This includes having a T-score of less than or equal to -2.5 at the spine or hip as one method for diagnosis but also permits a diagnosis for individuals in this population who have experienced a hip fracture with or without bone mineral density (BMD) testing and for those who have osteopenia by BMD who sustain a vertebral, proximal humeral, pelvic, or, in some cases, distal forearm fracture. Finally, the term osteoporosis should be used to diagnose individuals with an elevated fracture risk based on the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Algorithm, FRAX.

CONCLUSIONS

As new ICD-10 codes become available, it is our hope that this new understanding of what osteoporosis represents will allow for an appropriate diagnosis when older individuals are recognized as being at an elevated risk for fracture.

One-leg standing time and hip-fracture prediction

A hip fracture results in a lower quality of life and a cost of £30,000. In this study, one-leg standing time (OLST) had a negative linear relationship to the risk of a hip fracture. OLST could be a useful tool to assess the need for fracture-preventive interventions.

INTRODUCTION

A hip fracture immobilizes, restricts autonomy, shortens life expectancy, and results in a cost of £30,000 in the UK health care system. However, effective preventive treatments can be offered to high-risk individuals. Impaired postural balance is an important risk factor for hip fractures, and the aim of this study was to evaluate whether OLST can predict hip fractures in elderly women. FRAX is the most established fracture risk assessment tool worldwide and a secondary aim was to relate the predictive ability of OLST to that of FRAX in this population.

METHODS

Three hundred fifty-one women aged between 69 and 79 years were timed standing on one leg up to 30 s with eyes open and assessed with FRAX. Fracture data was obtained from registers.

RESULTS

The main outcome, a hip fracture, occurred in 40 of the 351 participants (11.4%). The age-adjusted risk of a hip fracture was 5% lower with 1 s longer OLST (Hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.927-0.978). The relation between OLST and hip fracture risk was linear. Harrell's c was 0.60 for FRAX and 0.68 for OLST adjusted for age.

CONCLUSION

With 1 s longer OLST, the risk of a hip fracture decreased significantly by 5%. This risk reduction was not explained by differences in the classic fracture risk factors included in FRAX. OLST had a predictive ability similar to FRAX. OLST is an easily performed balance test which may prove to be valuable in the assessment of hip fracture risk.

Comparable effects of alendronate and strontium ranelate on femur in ovariectomized rats

This study compared the effects of alendronate (ALN) and strontium ranelate (SR) on bone mineral density (BMD), bone histomorphometry, and biomechanics in ovariectomized (OVX) rats. We randomly assigned 48 3-month-old female Sprague-Dawley rats to four groups: sham, OVX, ALN, and SR. Rats in the OVX, ALN, and SR groups received bilateral OVX. Rats in the ALN and SR groups were orally administrated ALN (7 mg/kg/week) and SR (500 mg/kg/day). Rats in the sham and OVX groups were treated with saline. All treatments continued for 12 weeks. Femoral BMD examination, distal femoral bone histomorphometry analysis, and biomechanical tests at the femoral diaphysis and metaphysis were performed to evaluate the effects of treatments in OVX rats. Results showed that both ALN and SR significantly increased femoral BMD (total femur, diaphyseal BMD, and distal metaphyseal BMD), distal femoral bone histomorphometric parameters (BV/TV, Tb.N, and Tb.Th), and femoral biomechanical parameters (maximum load, failure load, stiffness) compared with the OVX group (P < 0.05). No differences were found between ALN and SR in increasing femoral BMD, distal femoral bone histomorphometric parameters (BV/TV, Tb.N, and Tb.Th), and femoral diaphysis biomechanical parameters (maximum load, failure load, stiffness) (P > 0.05). The SR group was inferior to the ALN group in femoral metaphysis biomechanical parameters (P < 0.05). In conclusion, ALN (7 mg/kg/week) and SR (500 mg/kg/day) have similar effects by increasing BMD, distal femoral bone histomorphometric parameters, and femoral metaphysis biomechanical properties. Although ALN has greater effects than SR on distal femoral metaphysis biomechanical properties, in general, ALN and SR have comparable effects on the femur in OVX rats.

An evaluation of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) as an indicator of treatment efficacy: the effects of bazedoxifene and raloxifene on vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures as a function of baseline fracture risk assessed by FRAX®

SUMMARY

The relationship between baseline Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) and treatment efficacy was evaluated using data from a pivotal phase 3 study. Relative risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures decreased with increasing probability of fracture for bazedoxifene (BZA) versus placebo but remained generally constant for raloxifene (RLX).

INTRODUCTION

To determine whether the FRAX® predicts osteoporosis treatment efficacy, we evaluated reductions in fracture incidence associated with BZA and RLX according to baseline fracture risk determined by FRAX® using data from a phase 3 osteoporosis treatment study.

METHODS

Hazard ratios (HRs) for effects of BZA and RLX versus placebo on incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures were calculated using a Cox regression model. Cox regression analyses were performed in subgroups at or above 10-year fracture probability thresholds determined by FRAX®.

RESULTS

HRs for the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and all clinical fractures versus placebo decreased with increasing 10-year fracture probability for BZA, while those for RLX remained stable. In all 10-year fracture probability subgroups, all BZA doses significantly reduced vertebral fracture risk versus placebo (HR = 0.22-0.66). BZA at 20, 40, and 20/40 mg significantly reduced risk of nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.45, 0.44, and 0.45, respectively) and all clinical fractures (HR = 0.38, 0.41, and 0.40, respectively) for ≥20.0 % fracture probability. Vertebral fracture risk reductions for RLX 60 mg versus placebo were significant in subgroups at lower fracture probabilities (≥2.5- ≥ 10.0 %), but not higher (≥12.5 %), and in no subgroups for nonvertebral or all clinical fractures.

CONCLUSION

The antifracture efficacy of BZA increased with increasing baseline FRAX® score, but there was no clear relationship between RLX and baseline FRAX®. These findings provide independent confirmation of current literature, suggesting that the relationship between FRAX® and treatment efficacy varies for different agents.

Priming primary care physicians to treat osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: an integrated multidisciplinary approach

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate 2 incremental levels of intervention designed to increase initiation of osteoporosis treatment by primary care physicians (PCP) following fragility fractures (FF).

METHODS

Women and men over age 50 years were screened for incident FF in fracture clinics, and eligible outpatients were randomly assigned to standard care (SC) or to either minimal (MIN) or intensive (INT) interventions. The MIN and INT interventions were intended to educate and motivate both patients and PCP, but differed in their frequency of contact and information content. Delivery of osteoporosis medication was confirmed with pharmacists. Treatment rates were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

At inclusion, 74.3% of 881 outpatients with FF were untreated. Followup at 12 months was completed in 92.3% of patients. Up to 90% of patients treated at inclusion remained treated at 12 months. Among patients who initially were untreated, 18.8% in the SC group, 40.4% in the MIN, and 53.2% in the INT groups were treated at 12 months. Change in treatment rates (adjusted for age and initial treatment) increased significantly after both MIN and INT. Only the INT intervention significantly increased treatment rates in patients with previous fractures. Negative predictors of change in treatment status included non-major FF, age younger than 65 years, and male sex.

CONCLUSION

Both interventions significantly increased initiation of osteoporosis treatment. Our multidisciplinary intervention builds on existing first-line structures and uses minimal specialized resources. Iterative and systematic interventions in the context of clinical care may modify the approach of PCP to osteoporosis management after FF and narrow the care gap in the long term.

Treat-to-target for osteoporosis: is now the time?

OBJECTIVES

Current clinical practice guidelines identify patients at high risk for fracture who are likely to benefit from pharmacological therapy and suggest ways to monitor for effectiveness of therapy. However, there is no clear guidance on when fracture risk has been reduced to an acceptably low level. As a consequence, some patients at low risk for fracture may be treated for longer than necessary, whereas others at high risk for fracture may have treatment stopped when they might benefit from continuation of the same treatment or a change to a more potent therapeutic agent. The objective of this statement is to describe the potential clinical utility of developing a "treat-to-target" strategy for the management of patients with osteoporosis.

PARTICIPANTS

We recommend that a task force of clinicians, clinical investigators, and other stakeholders in the care of osteoporosis explore the options, review the evidence, and identify additional areas for investigation to establish osteoporosis treatment targets.

EVIDENCE

Data from large, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled registration trials for currently available osteoporosis therapies should be analyzed for commonalities of correlations between easily measured endpoints and fracture risk.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Osteoporosis experts, professional organizations, and patient care advocates should be involved in the process of developing consensus on easily measurable osteoporosis treatment targets that are supported by the best available evidence and likely to be accepted by clinicians and patients in the care of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

A treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis offers the potential of improving osteoporosis care by reducing the burden of osteoporotic fractures and limiting adverse effects of therapy.

What's in a name? What constitutes the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis?

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder in which reductions in bone strength predispose to an increased risk for fractures. Currently, the diagnosis is officially made based exclusively on bone mineral density T-scores that are ≤-2.5 at the spine or hip. Limiting the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis solely to a T-score-based criterion, which is the official convention in the USA, creates uncertainty about the use of the term osteoporosis to diagnose older women and men who have T-scores >-2.5, but either have already sustained low-trauma fractures or are recognized as having high fracture risk based on absolute fracture risk calculations from FRAX or other algorithms. A failure to diagnose such patients as having osteoporosis may be one component of the well-documented underdiagnosis and undertreatment of this disease which limits our ability to reduce the burden of fractures worldwide. There is a need to expand the criteria for making a clinical diagnosis and to codify these changes in order to help patients, physicians, policy makers, and payers better understand who has this disease and the elevated risk for fracture that it represents.