Effects of risedronate on fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteopenia

Correlations with clinical and radiologic findings and prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis in the patients with bilateral temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis

This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis in patients with bilateral temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ-OA) and its correlations with clinical and radiological findings. A total of 95 patients with bilateral TMJ-OA diagnosed by CBCT were included in the study. Clinical and radiological findings and bone mineral density (BMD) scores were recorded. Descriptive statistics and the Spearman rho correlation tests were performed. Osteopenia/osteoporosis was found in 44 of 95 patients (46.32 %) (30, osteopenia; 14 osteoporosis). Osteopenia/osteoporosis is significantly associated with postmenopausal status and age over 40 years, but it is not associated with clinical and radiological findings of TMJ-OA. Patients with bilateral TMJ-OA have a high prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis.

The 2023 Practitioner's Toolkit for Managing Menopause

OBJECTIVE

The Practitioner's Toolkit for Managing the Menopause, developed in 2014, provided an accessible desk-top tool for health-care practitioners caring for women at midlife. To ensure the Toolkit algorithms and supporting information reflect current best practice, the Toolkit has been revised in accordance with the published literature.

METHODS

A systematic search for guidelines, position and consensus statements pertaining to the menopause and published after 2014 was undertaken, and key recommendations extracted from the Clinical Practice Guidelines determined to be the most robust by formal evaluation. The peer-reviewed literature was further searched for identified information gaps.

RESULTS

The revised Toolkit provides algorithms that guide the clinical assessment and care of women relevant to menopause. Included are the reasons why women present, information that should be ascertained, issues that may influence shared decision-making and algorithms that assist with determination of menopausal status, menopause hormone therapy (MHT) and non-hormonal treatment options for symptom relief. As clear guidelines regarding when MHT might be indicated to prevent bone loss and subsequent osteoporosis in asymptomatic women were found to be lacking, the Toolkit has been expanded to support shared decision-making regarding bone health.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2023 Toolkit and supporting document provide accessible desk-top information to support health-care providers caring for women at midlife.The Toolkit has been endorsed by the International Menopause Society, Australasian Menopause Society, British Menopause Society, Endocrine Society of Australia and Jean hailes for Women's Health.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.

PURPOSE

To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies (n ≥1000) for harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).

LIMITATION

Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).

Inferring Bacterial Community Interactions and Functionalities Associated with Osteopenia and Osteoporosis in Taiwanese Postmenopausal Women

Growing evidence suggests that the gut microbiota and their metabolites are associated with bone homeostasis and fragility. However, this association is limited to microbial taxonomic differences. This study aimed to explore whether gut bacterial community associations, composition, and functions are associated with osteopenia and osteoporosis. We compared the gut bacterial community composition and interactions of healthy postmenopausal women with normal bone density (n = 8) with those of postmenopausal women with osteopenia (n = 18) and osteoporosis (n = 21) through 16S rRNA sequencing coupled with network biology and statistical analyses. The results of this study showed reduced alpha diversity in patients with osteoporosis, followed by that in patients with osteopenia, then in healthy controls. Taxonomic analysis revealed that significantly enriched bacterial genera with higher abundance was observed in patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia than in healthy subjects. Additionally, a co-occurrence network revealed that, compared to healthy controls, bacterial interactions were higher in patients with osteoporosis, followed by those with osteopenia. Further, NetShift analysis showed that a higher number of bacteria drove changes in the microbial community structure of patients with osteoporosis than osteopenia. Correlation analysis revealed that most of these driver bacteria had a significant positive relationship with several significant metabolic pathways. Further, ordination analysis revealed that height and T-score were the primary variables influencing the gut microbial community structure. Taken together, this study evaluated that microbial community interaction is more important than the taxonomic differences in knowing the critical role of gut microbiota in postmenopausal women associated with osteopenia and osteoporosis. Additionally, the significantly enriched bacteria and functional pathways might be potential biomarkers for the prognosis and treatment of postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

The Efficacy of Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators Monotherapies in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia

BACKGROUND

The impact of osteopenia as a risk factor for fractures is underrecognized. Moreover, the efficacy of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) in postmenopausal women with osteopenia is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SERMs in postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

METHODS

Thirty-two postmenopausal women with osteopenia were treated with 3 types of SERMs medication: raloxifene (group I, N=15), bazedoxifene (group II, N=8), and raloxifene with cholecalciferol (group III, N=9). Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans before treatment to after 3 years of treatment once a year.

RESULTS

Patients in group I showed significant increases in hip BMD, -1.93 to -1.73 and spine BMD, -1.85 to -1.67. In addition, patients in groups II and III showed significant increases in hip BMD, -1.93 to -1.69 and -2.22 to -1.86, respectively and spine BMD, -2.1 to -1.3 and -2.22 to -1.37, respectively. The BMD increased in the hip and spine by 9.7% and 10.3%, respectively in group I, 38.0% and 12.4%, respectively in group II, and 38.2% and 16.2%, respectively in group III.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that SERMs could improve spine and hip BMD. In conclusion, preemptive treatment using SERMs is necessary for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. None of the patients experienced fractures during the follow-up period.

Guideline No. 422g: Menopause and Osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Provide strategies for improving the care of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women based on the most recent published evidence.

TARGET POPULATION

Perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Target population will benefit from the most recent published scientific evidence provided via the information from their health care provider. No harms or costs are involved with this information since women will have the opportunity to choose among the different therapeutic options for the management of the symptoms and morbidities associated with menopause, including the option to choose no treatment.

EVIDENCE

Databases consulted were PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for the years 2002-2020, and MeSH search terms were specific for each topic developed through the 7 chapters.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: physicians, including gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, internists, emergency medicine specialists; nurses, including registered nurses and nurse practitioners; pharmacists; medical trainees, including medical students, residents, fellows; and other providers of health care for the target population.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: ACOG Clinical Practice Guideline No. 2

PURPOSE

To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

TARGET POPULATION

Postmenopausal patients with primary osteoporosis.

METHODS

This guideline was developed using an a priori protocol in conjunction with a writing team consisting of two specialists in obstetrics and gynecology appointed by the ACOG Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines-Gynecology and one external subject matter expert. ACOG medical librarians completed a comprehensive literature search for primary literature within Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies that moved forward to the full-text screening stage were assessed by two authors from the writing team based on standardized inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) evidence-to-decision framework was applied to interpret and translate the evidence into recommendation statements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This Clinical Practice Guideline includes updated recommendations on who should receive osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, the benefits and risks of available pharmacotherapy options, treatment monitoring and follow-up, and the role of calcium and vitamin D in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Recommendations are classified by strength and evidence quality. Ungraded Good Practice Points are included to provide guidance when a formal recommendation could not be made because of inadequate or nonexistent evidence.

Bone-loading exercises versus risedronate for the prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This randomized controlled trial compared changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass randomized to 12 months of either risedronate, exercise, or a control group.

METHODS

Two hundred seventy-six women with low bone mass, within 6 years of menopause, were included in analysis. Treatment groups were 12 months of (a) calcium and vitamin D supplements (CaD) (control), (b) risedronate + CaD (risedronate), or (c) bone-loading exercises + CaD (exercise). BMD and serum markers for bone formation (Alkphase B) and resorption (Serum Ntx) were analyzed at baseline, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Using hierarchical linear modeling, a group by time interaction was found for BMD at the spine, indicating a greater improvement in the risedronate group compared to exercise (p ≤ .010) or control groups (p ≤ .001). At 12 months, for women prescribed risedronate, changes in BMD at the spine, hip, and femoral neck from baseline were + 1.9%, + 0.9%, and + .09%; in exercise group women, + 0.2%, + 0.5%, and - 0.4%; and in control group women, - 0.7%, + 0.5%, and - 0.5%. There were also significant differences in reductions in Alkphase B (RvsE, p < .001, RvsC, p < .001) and Serum Ntx (RvsE, p = .004, RvsC, p = .007) in risedronate women compared to exercise and control groups. For risedronate, 12-month changes in Alkphase B and Serum Ntx were - 20.3% and - 19.0%; for exercise, - 6.7% and - 7.0%; and for control, - 6.3% and - 9.0%.

CONCLUSION

Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises. Additional use of BPs will increase BMD, especially at the spine.

Spine-Hip Discordance and FRAX assessment Fracture Risk in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia from Concordant Diagnosis Between Lumbar Spine and Femoral Neck

The diagnostic criteria proposed by the World Health Organization did not consider the discrepancy in diagnosis between lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) and the clinical implications is unclear. Therefore, this retrospective study evaluated the probability of fracture risk in postmenopausal women with lumbar spine (LS)-femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) discordance or not Patients included 1066 healthy postmenopausal women (median age 55.5 years) who visited our hospital for a health check-up between May 2013 and April 2017. Discordance was defined as a difference of one or two degrees between LS BMD and FN BMD. TBS was calculated from dual energy absorptiometry (DXA) images. Fracture risk was assessed using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), including TBS-adjusted FRAX Seven hundred and two patients (65.9%) showed concordant LS and FN results, whereas 364 patients (34.1%) exhibited discordance. Normal BMD was found in 519 concordant patients (73.9%). Concordant patients showed significantly higher FRAX scores, including TBS-adjusted FRAX results, than discordant patients with low LS or FN. Furthermore, FRAX results in concordant osteopenia patients were similar to that of osteoporosis patients with osteopenia or a normal result at one site. FRAX and TBS-adjusted FRAX results in concordant osteopenia patients were comparable to that of discordant osteoporosis patients We concluded that patients with colncordant osteopenia in both the FN and LS should be managed in a similar way to patients with discordant osteoporosis.

Pharmacologic intervention for prevention of fractures in osteopenic and osteoporotic postmenopausal women: Systemic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Emerging evidence has indicated a role for pharmacologic agents in the primary prevention of osteoporotic fracture, but have not yet been systematically reviewed for meta-analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without prevalent fragility fracture.

Method

The Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to September 30, 2019. Only randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating postmenopausal women with −1.0 > bone mineral density (BMD) T-score > −2.5 (low bone mass) and those with BMD T-score ≤ −2.5 (osteoporosis) but without baseline fractures, who were receiving anti-osteoporotic agents, providing quantitative outcomes data and evaluating risk of vertebral and/or non-vertebral fragility fracture at follow-up. The PRISMA guidelines were followed, applying a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was the effect of anti-osteoporotic regimens in reducing the incidence of vertebral fractures. Secondary endpoints were percentage changes in baseline BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip at 1 and 2 years follow up.

Results

Full-text review of 144 articles yielded, 20 for meta-analysis. Bisphosphonates reduced the risk of vertebral fracture (pooled OR = 0.50, 95%CIs = 0.36–0.71) and significantly increased lumbar spine BMD after 1 year, by 4.42% vs placebo (95%CIs = 3.70%–5.14%). At the hip, this value was 2.94% (95%CIs = 2.13%–3.75%). Overall results of limited studies for non-bisphosphonate drugs showed increased BMD and raloxifene significantly decreases the risk of subsequent clinical vertebral fractures.

Conclusion

The bisphosphonates are efficacious and most evident for the primary prevention of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, reducing their incidence and improving BMD in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis.

•

Bisphosphonates reduced the risk of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

•

Bisphosphonates increased BMD in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

•

Limited studies for non-bisphosphonate drugs showed increased BMD in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

•

Raloxifene decreased the risk of clinical vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis but without fracture.

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.

Clinical efficacy and safety of drug interventions for primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women: Network meta-analysis followed by factor and cluster analysis

We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of drugs respectively for primary prevention and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women (PMW), and to further identify the optimal intervention(s) respectively for the two groups when efficacy and safety both considered. We searched three databases. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted for two efficacy outcomes (vertebral fractures and nonvertebral fractures) and two safety outcomes (tolerability and acceptability) respectively in primary prevention group and secondary prevention group. We synthesized hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for nonvertebral fractures, and risk ratios (RRs) for three others. Factor and cluster analyses on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were conducted to identify the best intervention(s) with efficacy and safety both considered. The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO. We included 57 randomized trials involving fifteen anti-osteoporotic interventions and 106320 PMW. For primary prevention, only zoledronate (once per 18 months) reduced both vertebral (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.74) and nonvertebral (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85) fractures. For secondary prevention, abaloparatide, alendronate, denosumab, lasofoxifene, risedronate, romosozumab, teriparatide, and zoledronate (once per 12 months) reduced both vertebral (RRs: from 0.17 to 0.62) and nonvertebral (HRs: from 0.54 to 0.81) fractures. PTH (1-84) and abaloparatide increased withdrawal risk. Romosozumab, teriparatide, denosumab and risedronate, with the greatest composite scores, constituted the optimal cluster having both superior efficacy and superior safety. Zoledronate used at 5 mg per 18 months, with the similar safety as placebo, is the only drug intervention which has been shown to significantly reduce both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures for primary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in PMW; while romosozumab, teriparatide, denosumab, and risedronate are the optimal treatments for secondary prevention when efficacy and safety both considered. A limitation is that safety outcomes failed to consider the severity of adverse effects.

A broader strategy for osteoporosis interventions

Approximately 50% of women experience at least one bone fracture postmenopause. Current screening approaches target anti-fracture interventions to women aged >60 years who satisfy clinical risk and bone mineral density criteria for osteoporosis. Intervention is only recommended in 7-25% of those women screened currently, well short of the 50% who experience fractures. Large screening trials have not shown clinically significant decreases in the total fracture numbers. By contrast, six large clinical trials of anti-resorptive therapies (for example, bisphosphonates) have demonstrated substantial decreases in the number of fractures in women not identified as being at high risk of fracture. This finding suggests that broader use of generic bisphosphonates in women selected by age or fracture risk would result in a reduction in total fracture numbers, a strategy likely to be cost-effective. The utility of the current bone density definition of osteoporosis, which neither corresponds with who suffers fractures nor defines who should be treated, requires reappraisal.

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.

Role of Bisphosphonate Therapy in Patients with Osteopenia: A Systemic Review

By contrast to clinical trials exploring osteoporosis, clinical trials specifically designed for the osteopenic population are limited. Thus, less clinical data are available regarding treatment benefits and cost-effectiveness of treating a patient population with a bone mass density in the osteopenic range (T-score between -1 and -2.5). In this article, we aimed to highlight this high-risk population with a low bone mass density (BMD) susceptible to high fracture risk by reviewing different national and international guidelines for treating osteopenia. The cost-effectiveness of the therapy for the above-mentioned patient population is also discussed. By reviewing different clinical trials, we have specifically highlighted the role of bisphosphonate therapy for fracture risk reduction and increment in bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with osteopenia.

Fracture Prevention with Zoledronate in Older Women with Osteopenia

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates prevent fractures in patients with osteoporosis, but their efficacy in women with osteopenia is unknown. Most fractures in postmenopausal women occur in those with osteopenia, so therapies that are effective in women with osteopenia are needed.

METHODS

We conducted a 6-year, double-blind trial involving 2000 women with osteopenia (defined by a T score of -1.0 to -2.5 at either the total hip or the femoral neck on either side) who were 65 years of age or older. Participants were randomly assigned to receive four infusions of either zoledronate at a dose of 5 mg (zoledronate group) or normal saline (placebo group) at 18-month intervals. A dietary calcium intake of 1 g per day was advised, but calcium supplements were not provided. Participants who were not already taking vitamin D supplements received cholecalciferol before the trial began (a single dose of 2.5 mg) and during the trial (1.25 mg per month). The primary end point was the time to first occurrence of a nonvertebral or vertebral fragility fracture.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean (±SD) age was 71±5 years, the T score at the femoral neck was -1.6±0.5, and the median 10-year risk of hip fracture was 2.3%. A fragility fracture occurred in 190 women in the placebo group and in 122 women in the zoledronate group (hazard ratio with zoledronate, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.79; P<0.001). The number of women that would need to be treated to prevent the occurrence of a fracture in 1 woman was 15. As compared with the placebo group, women who received zoledronate had a lower risk of nonvertebral fragility fractures (hazard ratio, 0.66; P=0.001), symptomatic fractures (hazard ratio, 0.73; P=0.003), vertebral fractures (odds ratio, 0.45; P=0.002), and height loss (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of nonvertebral or vertebral fragility fractures was significantly lower in women with osteopenia who received zoledronate than in women who received placebo. (Funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12609000593235 .).

Anti-osteoporosis drug use: too little, too much, or just right? The HUNT study, Norway

Use of anti-osteoporotic drugs (AODs) was examined in a Norwegian population 50-85 years. Among them with Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) score for major osteoporotic fracture ≥ 20, 25% of the women and 17% of the men received AODs. The strongest predictors for AODs were high age in women and use of glucocorticoids among men.

INTRODUCTION

To examine the use of anti-osteoporotic drugs (AODs) and to identify predictors for prescriptions.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT3) performed in 2006-2008 and the Norwegian Prescription Database, including 15,075 women and 13,386 men aged 50-85 years. Bone mineral density (BMD) in the femoral neck was measured in a subgroup of 4538 women and 2322 men. High fracture risk was defined as a FRAX score for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) ≥ 20%; in the subgroup with BMD, high risk was in addition defined as FRAX_MOF ≥ 20% or T-score ≤ - 2.5. Hazard ratios (HRs) for predictors of incident use of AODs within 2 years after HUNT3 were estimated by Cox' proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Among individuals with FRAX MOF ≥ 20%, 25% of the women and 17% of the men were treated with AODs. Among those with FRAX MOF < 20%, 3% and 1% were treated, respectively. In the subgroup with BMD measurement, 24% of the women and 16% of the men at high risk of fractures were treated, compared to 3 and 1% in women and men not fulfilling the criteria. In women, high age was the strongest predictor for treatment (HR 3.84: 95% confidence interval 2.81-5.24), followed by use of glucocorticoids (GCs) (2.68:1.84-3.89). In men, predictors were use of GCs (5.28: 2.70-10.35) followed by multimorbidity (3.16:1.31-7.63). In the subgroup with BMD, T-score ≤ - 2.5 was the strongest predictor (women 3.98:2.67-5.89; men 13.31:6.17-28.74).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests an undertreatment of AODs in individuals at high risk of fracture.

Denosumab - a new medication in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a chronic, systemic skeletal disorder characterised by decreased bone density. It leads to an increased risk of bone fractures - one of the major causes of disability in modern societies. Bisphosphonates are the most commonly used medications in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab, a new approach to fracture prevention, is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), an important cytokine regulating formation and function of osteoclasts. Generally, denosumab is not used as initial therapy; however, in some cases it should be considered. It concerns patients at high risk of fracture, such as older patients who have difficulty with the dosing requirements of oral bisphosphonates or who have markedly impaired renal function. Denosumab can be also considered in patients who present intolerance or unresponsiveness to other therapies. Clinical studies have shown that denosumab is highly effective in increasing bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women regardless of the site analysed, as well as reducing the risk of bone fractures. The risk of developing antiresorptive, agent-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw related to denosumab therapy is low.

Changes in Nonosteoporotic Bone Density and Subsequent Fractures in Women

OBJECTIVES

Osteopenia is considerably more common than osteoporosis and accounts for most of the fracture burden in women older than 50 years. It is uncertain when to initiate treatment in osteopenia. We sought to determine in women with osteopenia what effect transitioning to lower categories had on subsequent fracturing.

METHODS

We surveyed 1150 women from office-based practices who had initial normal or osteopenic bone mineral densities (BMDs) and who were retested after 5.75 years. We classified categories related to baseline T scores as follows: normal (>-1.0), mild osteopenia (-1.0 to -1.49), moderate osteopenia (-1.5 to -1.99), and severe osteopenia (-2.0 to -2.49). We determined during a 9.6-year follow-up period the fracture occurrence in those who maintained their initial category status or transitioned into lower categories.

RESULTS

Transitioning to lower categories was not significantly different among baseline osteopenic categories but significantly more than normal baseline BMDs. Total fractures, individuals fracturing, and major fractures were significantly more, with baseline T scores of ≤-1.5 (<0.001). Although only 10.2% transitioned to osteoporosis, 90.5% of these transitions occurred with baseline T scores ≤-1.5 and accounted for significantly more fractures than baseline T scores of >-1.5.

CONCLUSIONS

Most subsequent fractures and transitions to osteoporosis occurred with baseline T scores ≤-1.5. Clinical risk factors need to be used to determine at what T score threshold treatment would be cost effective.

Cost-effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Interventions to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures in Postmenopausal Women with Osteopenia

Background

To assess the cost-effectiveness of drug therapy to prevent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with osteopenia in Korea.

Methods

A Markov cohort simulation was conducted for lifetime with a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal women with osteopenia and without prior fractures. They were assumed to receive calcium/vitamin D supplements only or drug therapy (i.e., raloxifene or risedronate) along with calcium/vitamin D for 5 years. The Markov model includes fracture-specific and non-fracture specific health states (i.e. breast cancer and venous thromboembolism), and all-cause death. Published literature was used to determine the model parameters. Local data were used to estimate the baseline incidence rates of fracture in those with osteopenia and the costs associated with each health state.

Results

From a societal perspective, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the base cases that had T-scores between -2.0 and -2.4 and began drug therapy at the age of 55, 60, or 65 years were $16,472, $6,741, and -$13,982 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively. Sensitivity analyses for medication compliance, risk of death following vertebral fracture, and relaxing definition of osteopenia resulted in ICERs reached to $24,227 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

ICERs for the base case and sensitivity analyses remained within the World Health Organization's willingness-to-pay threshold, which is less than per-capita gross domestic product in Korea (about $25,700). Thus, we conclude that drug therapy for osteopenia would be a cost-effective intervention, and we recommend that the Korean National Health Insurance expand its coverage to include drug therapy for osteopenia.

The Smallest Available Estradiol Transdermal Patch: A New Treatment Option for the Prevention of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Minivelle® (Noven Therapeutics, LLC, FL, USA) is an estradiol transdermal delivery system that has recently been approved in the USA for prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The decline in estrogen during menopause leads to bone resorption, increasing the risk of fractures. Transdermal estradiol has been shown to increase bone mineral density. Safety studies of transdermal estradiol have shown a decreased risk in cardiovascular disease as compared with oral estrogen therapy. Minivelle is currently the smallest available transdermal estradiol patch, providing the lowest effective dose of estrogen.

FRAX and fracture prediction without bone mineral density

The major application of FRAX in osteoporosis is to direct pharmacological interventions to those at high risk of fracture. Whereas the efficacy of osteoporosis treatment, with the possible exception of alendronate, is largely independent of baseline bone mineral density (BMD), it remains a widely held perception that osteoporosis therapies are only effective in the presence of low BMD. Thus, the use of FRAX in the absence of BMD to identify individuals requiring therapy remains the subject of some debate and is the focus of this review. The clinical risk factors used in FRAX have high evidence-based validity to identify a risk responsive to intervention. The selection of high-risk individuals with FRAX, without knowledge of BMD, preferentially selects for low BMD and thus identifies a risk that is responsive to pharmacological intervention. The prediction of fractures with the use of clinical risk factors alone in FRAX is comparable to the use of BMD alone to predict fractures and is suitable, therefore, in the many countries where facilities for BMD testing are sparse. In countries where access to BMD is greater, FRAX can be used without BMD in the majority of cases and BMD tests reserved for those close to a probability-based intervention threshold. Thus concerns surrounding the use of FRAX in clinical practice without information on BMD are largely misplaced.

Comparing fracture absolute risk assessment (FARA) tools: an osteoporosis clinical informatics tool to improve identification and care of men at high risk of first fracture

BACKGROUND

Fracture absolute risk assessment (FARA) is recommended for guiding osteoporosis treatment decisions in males. The best strategy for applying FARA in the clinic setting is not known.

OBJECTIVES

We compared 2 FARA tools for use with electronic health records (EHRs) to determine which would more accurately identify patients known to be high risk for fracture. Tools evaluated were an adaptation of the World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool used with electronic data (eFRAX) and the Veterans Affairs (VA)-based tool, VA-FARA.

METHODS

We compared accuracies of VA-FARA and eFRAX for correctly classifying male veterans who fractured and who were seen in the VA's Sierra Pacific Network in 2002-2013. We then matched those cases to nonfracture controls to compare odds of fracture in patients classified as high risk by either tool.

RESULTS

Among 8740 patients, the mean (SD) age was 67.0 (11.1) years. Based on risk factors present in the EHR, VA-FARA correctly classified 40.1% of fracture patients as high risk (33.0% and 34.6% for hip and any major fracture, respectively); eFRAX classified 17.4% correctly (17.4% for hip and 0.2% for any major fracture). Compared with non-high-risk patients, those classified as high risk by VA-FARA were 35% more likely to fracture (95% CI = 23%-47%; P < 0.01) compared with 17% for eFRAX (95% CI = 5%-32%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

VA-FARA is more predictive of first fracture than eFRAX using EHR data. Decision support tools based on VA-FARA may improve early identification and care of men at risk.

Use of pharmacologic agents for the primary prevention of osteoporosis among older women with low bone mass

We examined the use of pharmacologic agents for the primary prevention of osteoporosis among older women with osteopenia. We found that these individuals were not managed in concordance with the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) guidelines and that self-perceived osteoporosis risk and lower bone density were strongly associated with receipt of treatment.

INTRODUCTION

Although osteoporosis medications are used for the primary prevention of osteoporosis among persons with low bone mass (osteopenia), their use may be discordant with clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

We studied women 55 years and older participating in the Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). Eligible participants had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test performed at the University of Alabama at Birmingham hospital and had an osteopenia diagnosis based on their DXA test results. Participants' demographics, fracture risk factors, and exposure to osteoporosis medications were determined from the GLOW survey. We examined the proportions of women managed in concordance with the National Osteoporosis Foundation 2008 guidelines, and we assessed factors independently associated with osteoporosis treatment decisions. Women with a prior spine or hip fracture were excluded.

RESULTS

Among 597 eligible women from GLOW, the mean age ± standard deviation (SD) was 70 ± 7 years. Among all subjects, 309 (52%) were treated in concordance with the NOF 2008 guidelines. Greater self-perceived osteoporosis risk and lower bone mineral density were significantly and consistently associated with receipt of osteoporosis treatment, both for those considered appropriate and for those considered inappropriate for treatment based on the NOF guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant discordance between NOF 2008 guidelines and pharmacologic management of women with osteopenia. A person's self-perceived osteoporosis risk and bone mineral density were most strongly associated with receipt of osteoporosis medication use among women with low bone mass.

Compound risk of high mortality following osteoporotic fracture and refracture in elderly women and men

After fracture there is increased risk of refracture and premature mortality. These outcomes, particularly premature mortality following refracture, have not previously been studied together to understand overall mortality risk. This study examined the long-term cumulative incidence of subsequent fracture and total mortality with mortality calculated as a compound risk and separated according to initial and refracture. Community-dwelling participants aged 60+ years from Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study with incident fractures, followed prospectively for further fractures and deaths from 1989 to 2010. Subsequent fracture and mortality ascertained using cumulative incidence competing risk models allowing four possible outcomes: death without refracture; death following refracture; refracture but alive, and event-free. There were 952 women and 343 men with incident fracture. Within 5 years following initial fracture, 24% women and 20% men refractured; and 26% women and 37% men died without refracture. Of those who refractured, a further 50% of women and 75% of men died, so that total 5-year mortality was 39% in women and 51% in men. Excess mortality was 24% in women and 27% in men. Although mortality following refracture occurred predominantly in the first 5 years post-initial fracture, total mortality (post-initial and refracture) was elevated for 10 years. Most of the 5-year to 10-year excess mortality was associated with refracture. The long-term (>10 years) refracture rate was reduced, particularly in the elderly as a result of their high mortality rate. The 30% alive beyond 10 years postfracture were at low risk of further adverse outcomes. Refractures contribute substantially to overall mortality associated with fracture. The majority of the mortality and refractures occurred in the first 5 years following the initial fracture. However, excess mortality was observed for up to 10 years postfracture, predominantly related to that after refracture.

Clinical role of bisphosphonate therapy

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are synthetic analogues of pyrophosphate. They inhibit bone resorption and are therefore widely used in disorders where there are increases or disruptions in bone resorption. This includes postmenopausal osteoporosis, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, Paget's disease of bone, and malignancy-related bone loss. To best understand the clinical application of BPs, an understanding of their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics is important. This review describes the structure, pharmacology and mode of action of BPs, focusing on their role in clinical practice. Controversies and side effects surrounding their use will also be discussed.

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.

Denosumab reduces the risk of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women, particularly in those with moderate to high fracture risk as assessed with FRAX

Denosumab has been shown to reduce the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. The aim of the current study was to determine whether the antifracture efficacy of denosumab was dependent on baseline fracture probability assessed by FRAX. The primary data of the phase 3 FREEDOM study of the effects of denosumab in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were used to compute country-specific probabilities using the FRAX tool (version 3.2). The outcome variable comprised all clinical osteoporotic fractures (including clinical vertebral fractures). Interactions between fracture probability and efficacy were explored by Poisson regression. At baseline, the median 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (with bone mineral density) was approximately 15% and for hip fracture was approximately 5% in both groups. In the simplest model adjusted for age and fracture probability, treatment with denosumab over 3 years was associated with a 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20% to 42%) decrease in clinical osteoporotic fractures. Denosumab reduced fracture risk to a greater extent in those at moderate to high risk. For example, at 10% probability, denosumab decreased fracture risk by 11% (p = 0.629), whereas at 30% probability (90th percentile of study population) the reduction was 50% (p = 0.001). The reduction in fracture was independent of prior fracture, parental history of hip fracture, or secondary causes of osteoporosis. A low body mass index (BMI) was associated with greater efficacy. Denosumab significantly decreased the risk of clinical osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Overall, the efficacy of denosumab was greater in those at moderate to high risk of fracture as assessed by FRAX.

Validated risk rule using computerized data to identify males at high risk for fracture

Absolute risk assessment is now the preferred approach to guide osteoporosis treatment decisions. Data collected passively during routine healthcare operations can be used to develop discriminative absolute risk assessment rules in male veterans. These rules could be used to develop computerized clinical decision support tools that might improve fracture prevention.

INTRODUCTION

Absolute risk assessment is the preferred approach to guiding treatment decisions in osteoporosis. Current recommended risk stratification rules perform poorly in men, among whom osteoporosis is overlooked and undertreated. A potential solution lies in clinical decision support technology. The objective of this study was to determine whether data passively collected in routine healthcare operations could identify male veterans at highest risk with acceptable discrimination.

METHODS

Using administrative and clinical databases for male veterans ≥50 years old who sought care in 2005-2006, we created risk stratification rules for hip and any major fracture. We identified variables related to known or theoretical risk factors and created prognostic models using Cox regression. We validated the rules and estimated optimism. We created risk scores from hazards ratios and used them to predict fractures with logistic regression.

RESULTS

The predictive models had C-statistics of 0.81 for hip and 0.74 for any major fracture, suggesting good to acceptable discrimination. For hip fracture, the cut-point that maximized percentage classified correctly (accuracy) predicted 165 of 227 hip fractures (73%) and missed 62 (27%). All hip fractures in patients with prior fracture were identified and 67% in patients without. For any major fracture, the maximal-accuracy cut-point predicted 611 of 987 (62%) and missed 376 (38%); the rule predicted all 134 fractures in patients with prior fracture and 56% in patients without.

CONCLUSION

Data collected passively in routine healthcare operations can identify male veterans at highest risk for fracture with discrimination that exceeds that reported for other methods applied in men.

FRAX(®) with and without bone mineral density

The use of FRAX, particularly in the absence of BMD, has been the subject of some debate and is the focus of this review. The clinical risk factors used in FRAX have high validity as judged from an evidence-based assessment and identify a risk that is responsive to pharmaceutical intervention. Moreover, treatment effects, with the possible exception of alendronate, are not dependent on baseline BMD and strongly suggest that FRAX identifies high-risk patients who respond to pharmaceutical interventions. In addition, the selection of high-risk individuals with FRAX, without knowledge of BMD, preferentially selects for low BMD. The prediction of fractures with the use of clinical risk factors alone in FRAX is comparable to the use of BMD alone to predict fractures and is suitable, therefore, in the many countries where DXA facilities are sparse. In countries where access to BMD is greater, FRAX can be used without BMD in the majority of cases and BMD tests reserved for those close to a probability-based intervention threshold. Whereas the efficacy for agents to reduce fracture risk has not been tested prospectively in randomized controlled trials in patients selected on the basis of FRAX probabilities, there is compelling evidence that FRAX with or without the use of BMD provides a well-validated instrument for targeting patients most likely to benefit from an intervention.

clinical risk factors for osteoporosis in Ireland and the UK: a comparison of FRAX and QFractureScores

Recently two algorithms have become available to estimate the 10-year probability of fracture in patients suspected to have osteoporosis on the basis of clinical risk factors: the FRAX algorithm and QFractureScores algorithm (QFracture). The aim of this study was to compare the performance of these algorithms in a study of fracture patients and controls recruited from six centers in the United Kingdom and Ireland. A total of 246 postmenopausal women aged 50-85 years who had recently suffered a low-trauma fracture were enrolled and their characteristics were compared with 338 female controls who had never suffered a fracture. Femoral bone mineral density was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and fracture risk was calculated using the FRAX and QFracture algorithms. The FRAX algorithm yielded higher scores for fracture risk than the QFracture algorithm. Accordingly, the risk of major fracture in the overall study group was 9.5% for QFracture compared with 15.2% for FRAX. For hip fracture risk the values were 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively. The correlation between FRAX and QFracture was R = 0.803 for major fracture and R = 0.857 for hip fracture (P ≤ 0.0001). Both algorithms yielded high specificity but poor sensitivity for prediction of osteoporosis. We conclude that the FRAX and QFracture algorithms yield similar results in the estimation of fracture risk. Both of these tools could be of value in primary care to identify patients in the community at risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures for further investigation and therapeutic intervention.

Bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates are effective in reducing bone turnover, increasing BMD and reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The licensed bisphosphonates exhibit some differences in potency and speed of onset and offset of action. These differences mean that different agents may be more advantageous in different situations. Uncertainties still exist around the optimum duration of treatment and treatment holidays, how best to use bisphosphonates with anabolic treatments, and the benefits of treatment in patients who do not have a BMD T-score below -2.5.

Once-monthly risedronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates are the mainstay of treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Despite numerous clinical trials documenting efficacy, tolerability, and safety of bisphosphonate therapy, long-term persistence and adherence to these agents remains low. This has serious consequences for patients with osteoporosis in that medication non-compliance is associated with significantly higher fracture risk. This review explores the unique physicochemical properties of bisphosphonates that allow more convenient intermittent dosing and whether less frequent dosing regimens improve compliance. Bisphosphonates are now available as oral drugs (taken daily, weekly, or monthly) or as intravenous preparations (given every 3 months or annually). The safety and efficacy of these various preparations are reviewed and compared, with particular emphasis on the newest agent to be approved, once-monthly risedronate. In contrast to monthly oral ibandronate, risedronate is the first and only monthly oral bisphosphonate to offer both vertebral and non-vertebral fracture reduction, based upon non-inferiority trials. Whether the greater convenience of this monthly oral bisphosphonate will translate into improved compliance and lower fracture risk is yet to be determined.

Adverse effects of bisphosphonates

Use of bisphosphonates has been growing steadily in the last decade. This follows the introduction of simpler dosing regimes, the availability of lower-priced generics, and concerns about the safety of hormone-replacement therapy. Bisphosphonates have a relatively good safety record and are tolerated by the majority of patients, but serious adverse events have been recorded in some cases. Only the most common of adverse effects are robustly observable in clinical trials. In general, studies were not powered to detect effects that were lower in incidence than fractures. This review of adverse events in bisphosphonate-treated patients was based on published information from case reports, case series, claims databases, national databases, surveys, adverse event reporting databases, and single or pooled clinical trials. The most common acute adverse events with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis are gastrointestinal discomfort and acute influenza-like illness. Renal complications are very rare with oral bisphosphonates and rare with i.v. bisphosphonates when used appropriately. Based on our current knowledge, skeletal events in the form of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical fragility fractures are rare compared with the risk of osteoporotic fractures, at least in patients with the same risk of fractures as those in the phase III trials. It is biologically plausible that atypical fragility fractures could follow from suppression of bone remodeling, but high-quality studies proving causality are lacking. Physicians are advised to critically reassess BMD and risk profile after 3-5 years of therapy to avoid treatment in patients at low risk.

The cost-effectiveness of risedronate in the UK for the management of osteoporosis using the FRAX

SUMMARY

The study estimated the cost-effectiveness of risedronate compared to no treatment in UK women using the FRAX algorithm for fracture risk assessment. A Markov cohort model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness. Risedronate was found cost-effective from the age of 65 years, assuming a willingness to pay for a QALY of 30,000 pounds.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of risedronate for the prevention and treatment in a UK setting using the FRAX algorithm for fracture risk assessment. A further aim was to establish intervention thresholds with risedronate treatment.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of risedronate was compared to no treatment in post-menopausal women with clinical risk factors for fracture using a Markov cohort model populated with data relevant for the UK. The model incorporated the features of FRAX (the WHO risk assessment tool). The analysis had a health care perspective and quality adjusted life years was used as the main outcome measure.

RESULTS

Treatment was cost-effective from the age of 65 years, assuming a willingness to pay for a QALY of 30,000 pounds. Treatment was also cost-effective at all ages in women who had previously sustained a fragility fracture or in women with a parental history of hip fracture with a bone mineral density set at the threshold of osteoporosis. At the 30,000 pounds threshold value for a QALY, risedronate was on average found to cost-effective below the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fractures of 13.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Risedronate is a cost-effective agent for the treatment of established osteoporosis (osteoporosis and a prior fragility fracture) in women from the age of 50 years and older and above 65 years in women with osteoporosis alone. The results support the treatment recommendations in recent UK guidelines for osteoporosis.

Factors influencing the treatment of osteoporosis following fragility fracture

Treatment rates of osteoporosis after fracture are very low. Women who suffer a fragility fracture have a greater chance of receiving anti-fracture treatment if they had low bone mineral density (BMD), a fracture at the hip, femur or pelvis, administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements and/or an age > or =60 years.

INTRODUCTION

This investigation identifies the predictors of osteoporosis treatment 6 to 8 months following fragility fracture in women >50 years of age.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, women were recruited 0 to 16 weeks following fracture and classified as having experienced fragility or traumatic fractures (phase 1). Six to 8 months following fracture, women completed a questionnaire on demographic features, clinical characteristics and risk factors for osteoporosis (phase 2). Osteoporosis treatment was defined as initiating anti-fracture therapy (bisphosphonate, raloxifene, nasal calcitonin and teriparatide) after fracture in those previously untreated.

RESULTS

Of the 1,273 women completing phase 1, 1,001 (79%) sustained a fragility fracture, and of these women, 738 were untreated for osteoporosis at phase 1 and completed the phase 2 questionnaire. Significant predictors of treatment included BMD result, fracture site, administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements at the time of fracture and age > or =60 years. All other risk factors for osteoporosis, such as fracture history after the age of 40 years, family history of osteoporosis and comorbidities did not significantly influence the treatment rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians largely based their decision to treat on BMD results and not on the clinical event-fragility fracture.

Factors predicting osteoporosis treatment initiation in a regionally based cohort

Osteoporosis treatment initiation was assessed during the year after baseline BMD testing in 8,689 previously untreated women. Treatment initiation increased progressively as BMD T-scores decreased, but there was a gradient response rather than step increases at conventional T-score intervention thresholds.

INTRODUCTION

Bone mineral density (BMD) testing is used to identify those at high fracture risk and guide osteoporosis treatment (OTx) initiation. Clinical guidelines have used the World Health Organization T-score diagnostic cutoffs as thresholds for treatment intervention. Our objective was to assess whether OTx initiation tracks these T-score cutoffs.

METHODS

Eight thousand six hundred and eighty-nine women age > or = 50 years who had not been dispensed any OTx medication in the year prior to baseline BMD were identified from a regionally based database in the Province of Manitoba, Canada, and OTx initiation rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-four percent of women were dispensed OTx in the year after BMD. OTx initiation increased progressively as BMD T-scores decreased (8.2% normal, 41.0% osteopenic, 78.5% osteoporotic, p-for-trend < 0.0001). There was a gradient response to OTx initiation, rather than step increases at conventional T-score intervention thresholds. BMD was strongly associated with OTx (p < 0.0001) while age, weight, and fracture in the last year were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians rely heavily on BMD T-score to decide on OTx initiation. Although guidelines suggest using clinical risk factors to guide decision making, we did not see evidence of this. More explicit methods of reporting fracture risk may help physicians select patients who are likely to derive the largest benefit from OTx.

Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on BMD and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits bone resorption by neutralizing RANKL, a key mediator of osteoclast formation, function, and survival. This phase 3, multicenter, doubleblind study compared the efficacy and safety of denosumab with alendronate in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. One thousand one hundred eighty-nine postmenopausal women with a T-score <or= -2.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous denosumab injections (60 mg every 6 mo [Q6M]) plus oral placebo weekly (n = 594) or oral alendronate weekly (70 mg) plus subcutaneous placebo injections Q6M (n = 595). Changes in BMD were assessed at the total hip, femoral neck, trochanter, lumbar spine, and one-third radius at 6 and 12 mo and in bone turnover markers at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events and laboratory values. At the total hip, denosumab significantly increased BMD compared with alendronate at month 12 (3.5% versus 2.6%; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, significantly greater increases in BMD were observed with denosumab treatment at all measured skeletal sites (12-mo treatment difference: 0.6%, femoral neck; 1.0%, trochanter; 1.1%, lumbar spine; 0.6%, one-third radius; p <or= 0.0002 all sites). Denosumab treatment led to significantly greater reduction of bone turnover markers compared with alendronate therapy. Adverse events and laboratory values were similar for denosumab- and alendronate-treated subjects. Denosumab showed significantly larger gains in BMD and greater reduction in bone turnover markers compared with alendronate. The overall safety profile was similar for both treatments.