Bisphosphonates and the risk of atypical femur fractures

Treatment Sequence for Osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a chronic progressive disease that requires lifelong monitoring and treatment. Sequencing from one treatment to another at different ages and stages of disease is an approach that can maximize benefits and avoid potential risks from long-term treatment with a single agent.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews clinical trial data in postmenopausal women that evaluate the effects of antiresorptive agents followed by other antiresorptives, osteoanabolic agents followed by antiresorptives, and antiresorptives followed by osteoanabolic medications.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion.

RESULTS

When medications are discontinued, in the absence of sequential therapy, bone turnover rates return to baseline or above baseline, and bone loss occurs. The rate of bone loss differs for different treatments, with a very slow decline after stopping bisphosphonates and a particularly rapid decline after stopping denosumab. Careful attention to osteoporosis medication transitions can mitigate bone density loss and its consequences. For women who remain at high risk, switching from bisphosphonates to the more potent antiresorptive, denosumab, will result in further improvement in bone mineral density (BMD). When indicated, stopping denosumab can be accomplished safely by transition to an adequate bisphosphonate regimen. For high- and very-high-risk patients, treating with osteoanabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive agents, produces substantially larger BMD gains than the reverse treatment sequence, with the biggest differences seen for BMD of the hip.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of the importance of treatment sequences can help improve osteoporosis care across the postmenopausal lifespan.

Towards understanding how bisphosphonate-dependent alterations to nutrient canal integrity can contribute to risk for atypical femoral fractures: Biomechanical considerations and potential relationship to a real-world analogy

Bisphosphonates are a class of drugs which have shown good efficacy in the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis, as well as a good safety profile. However, side-effects such as risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFF) have appeared, leading to a decline in use of the drugs by many patients who would benefit from the treatment. While patient characteristics have contributed to improved understanding of risk factors, the mechanisms involved that explain AFF risk have not appeared. Recently, the possibility that the mechanism(s) involved drug-induced modification of cells of the nutrient canals of the femur and subsequent compromise in the bone matrix has been published. The present Hypothesis article builds on the concept presented earlier and expands into biomechanical considerations. An analogy of the mechanisms involved to a real-life scenario is also presented. While this analogy has limitations, consideration of the biomechanical implications of progressive alterations to defects presented by compromised nutrient canal-bone matrix also presents potential relationships with AFF risk.

Bisphosphonate Use May be Associated With an Increased Risk of Periprosthetic Hip Fracture

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is common among patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of bisphosphonate treatment on osteoporotic patients undergoing primary THA.

METHODS

Using a national database, 30,137 patients who had osteoporosis before primary elective THA were identified during 2010 to 2020. Patients undergoing nonelective THA and those using corticosteroids or other medications for osteoporosis were excluded. Bisphosphonate users and bisphosphonate naïve patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index, and a history of obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, tobacco use, and alcohol abuse. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate analyses were used to compare 2-year outcomes between groups.

RESULTS

Among matched cohorts of 9,844 patients undergoing primary THA, bisphosphonate use was associated with a significantly higher 2-year rate of periprosthetic fracture (odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.61, P = .022). There was a trend toward increased risk of any revision with bisphosphonate use (odds ratio 1.19, confidence interval 1.00 to 1.41, P = .056). Rates of infection, aseptic loosening, dislocation, and mortality were not statistically different between bisphosphonate users and bisphosphonate-naïve patients.

CONCLUSION

In osteoporotic patients, bisphosphonate use before primary THA is an independent risk factor for periprosthetic fracture. Additional longer-term data are needed to determine the underlying mechanism for this association and identify preventative measures.

Efficacy of Osteoporosis Medications in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The purpose of the review is to summarise the current scientific evidence on the efficacy of osteoporosis medications in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a growing global epidemic. The highest prevalence is observed in the elderly, the same population affected by osteoporosis. Despite normal or even increased bone mineral density and low bone turnover, T2D is associated with an increased risk of fractures in most skeletal sites. These findings raised concerns over the efficacy of anti-osteoporosis drugs in this population. There is no randomised controlled trial designed specifically for people with T2D. However, observational studies and post-hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials have provided valuable insights into the effects of various anti-osteoporosis treatments in this population. Overall, most anti-osteoporosis drugs seem to have similar efficacy and safety profiles for people with and without type 2 diabetes. However, continued research and long-term safety data are needed to optimise treatment strategies and improve bone health outcomes in this population. The current evidence suggests that most anti-osteoporosis drugs exhibit comparable efficacy in people with and without T2D.

Antiresorptive Versus Anabolic Therapy in Managing Osteoporosis in People with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetes is characterized by hyperglycemia, but the two main types, type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), have distinct pathophysiology and epidemiological profiles. Individuals with T1D and T2D have an increased risk of fractures, particularly of the hip, upper arm, ankle, and nonvertebral sites. The risk of fractures is higher in T1D compared to T2D. The diagnosis of osteoporosis in individuals with T1D and T2D follows similar criteria as in the general population, but treatment thresholds may differ. Antiresorptive therapies, the first-line treatment for osteoporosis, are effective in individuals with T2D. Observational studies and post hoc analyses of previous trials have indicated that antiresorptive drugs, such as bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators, are equally effective in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) in individuals with and without T2D. Denosumab has shown similar effects on vertebral fracture risk but increases the risk of nonvertebral fractures. Considering the low bone turnover observed in T1D and T2D, anabolic therapies, which promote bone formation and resorption, have emerged as a potential treatment option for bone fragility in this population. Data from observational studies and post hoc analyses of previous trials also showed similar results in increasing BMD and reducing the risk of fractures in people with or without T2D. However, no evidence suggests that anabolic therapy has greater efficacy than antiresorptive drugs. In conclusion, there is an increased risk of fractures in T1D and T2D. Reductions in BMD cannot solely explain the relationship between T1D and T2D and fractures. Bone microarchitecture and other factors play a role. Antiresorptive and anabolic therapies have shown efficacy in reducing fracture risk in individuals with T2D, but the evidence is more robust for antiresorptive drugs. Evidence in T1D is scant. Further research is needed to fully understand the underlying mechanisms and optimize management strategies for bone fragility in T1D and T2D. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk among Older US Asian Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding osteoporosis and fracture among older US Asian adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

Asian adults have lower (areal) bone density than non-Hispanic White adults and thus are more likely to be diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, despite their lower risk of hip fracture. The latter may relate to favorable characteristics in hip geometry, volumetric bone density, and bone microarchitecture; lower risk of falls; and other clinical factors. The fracture risk calculator FRAX accounts for the lower risk of hip fracture among US Asian adults. However, data on major osteoporotic fracture risk remain limited. Fracture rates also vary by Asian subgroup, which may have implications for fracture risk assessment. Furthermore, among women receiving bisphosphonate drugs, Asian race is a risk factor for atypical femur fracture, an uncommon complication associated with treatment duration. Recent clinical trial efficacy data pertaining to lower bisphosphonate doses and longer dosing intervals may be relevant for Asian adults. More research is needed to inform osteoporosis care of US Asian adults, including risk-benefit considerations and the optimal duration of bisphosphonate treatment. Greater evidence-based guidance for primary fracture prevention among US Asian adults will ensure health equity in the prevention of osteoporotic fractures.

Long-term and sequential treatment for osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder that causes impairment of bone structure and strength, leading to a progressively increased risk of fragility fractures. The global prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the ageing population. Owing to the chronic character of osteoporosis, years or even decades of preventive measures or therapy are required. The long-term use of bone-specific pharmacological treatment options, including antiresorptive and/or osteoanabolic approaches, has raised concerns around adverse effects or potential rebound phenomena after treatment discontinuation. Imaging options, risk scores and the assessment of bone turnover during initiation and monitoring of such therapies could help to inform individualized treatment strategies. Combination therapies are currently used less often than 'sequential' treatments. However, all patients with osteoporosis, including those with secondary and rare causes of osteoporosis, as well as specific patient populations (for example, young adults, men and pregnant women) require new approaches for long-term therapy and disease monitoring. New pathophysiological aspects of bone metabolism might therefore help to inform and revolutionize the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Using sequential pharmacotherapy for the treatment of osteoporosis: an update of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis, which is characterized by compromised bone density and heightened susceptibility to fractures, is a substantial public health concern, especially among the aging population. Underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and therapy non-adherence contribute to its impact. Anabolic and dual-action agents like teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab have emerged as effective treatments, allowing rapid gains in bone mineral density (BMD) and reducing fracture risk. However, administering treatments in the correct order is paramount, with an 'anabolic first' approach gaining traction for patients at high risk of fractures. This strategy involves starting anabolic therapies, followed by antiresorptive agents as maintenance therapy. It is important to note that the effectiveness of anabolic agents differs between treatment-naive and previously treated patients: tailored treatment approaches are therefore necessary. This comprehensive strategy adheres to clinical guidelines, emphasizing individualized care, early intervention, and patient-centered management to mitigate the burden of osteoporosis and enhance patients' quality of life.

AREA COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize recent evidence on the sequential treatment of osteoporosis and to provide recommendations on the best treatment strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

Effective treatments, such as anabolic agents, are key in high-risk patients, who require an 'anabolic first' approach. Sequential therapy, specifically tailored to a patient's history, can help to optimize prevention and management of fractures.

Mechanistic advances in osteoporosis and anti-osteoporosis therapies

Osteoporosis is a type of bone loss disease characterized by a reduction in bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue. With the intensification of global aging, this disease is now regarded as one of the major public health problems that often leads to unbearable pain, risk of bone fractures, and even death, causing an enormous burden at both the human and socioeconomic layers. Classic anti-osteoporosis pharmacological options include anti-resorptive and anabolic agents, whose ability to improve bone mineral density and resist bone fracture is being gradually confirmed. However, long-term or high-frequency use of these drugs may bring some side effects and adverse reactions. Therefore, an increasing number of studies are devoted to finding new pathogenesis or potential therapeutic targets of osteoporosis, and it is of great importance to comprehensively recognize osteoporosis and develop viable and efficient therapeutic approaches. In this study, we systematically reviewed literatures and clinical evidences to both mechanistically and clinically demonstrate the state-of-art advances in osteoporosis. This work will endow readers with the mechanistical advances and clinical knowledge of osteoporosis and furthermore present the most updated anti-osteoporosis therapies.

Revisiting Resveratrol as an Osteoprotective Agent: Molecular Evidence from In Vivo and In Vitro Studies

Resveratrol (RSV) (3,5,4'-trihydroxystilbene) is a stilbene found in abundance in berry fruits, peanuts, and some medicinal plants. It has a diverse range of pharmacological activities, underlining the significance of illness prevention and health promotion. The purpose of this review was to delve deeper into RSV's bone-protective properties as well as its molecular mechanisms. Several in vivo studies have found the bone-protective effects of RSV in postmenopausal, senile, and disuse osteoporosis rat models. RSV has been shown to inhibit NF-κB and RANKL-mediated osteoclastogenesis, oxidative stress, and inflammation while increasing osteogenesis and boosting differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells to osteoblasts. Wnt/β-catenin, MAPKs/JNK/ERK, PI3K/AKT, FoxOs, microRNAs, and BMP2 are among the possible kinases and proteins involved in the underlying mechanisms. RSV has also been shown to be the most potent SIRT1 activator to cause stimulatory effects on osteoblasts and inhibitory effects on osteoclasts. RSV may, thus, represent a novel therapeutic strategy for increasing bone growth and reducing bone loss in the elderly and postmenopausal population.

Are secondary effects of bisphosphonates on the vascular system of bone contributing to increased risk for atypical femoral fractures in osteoporosis?

Osteoporosis (OP) is a bone disease which affects a number of post-menopausal females and puts many at risk for fractures. A large number of patients are taking bisphosphonates (BPs) to treat their OP and a rare complication is the development of atypical femoral fractures (AFF). No real explanations for the mechanisms underlying the basis for development of where AFF develop while on BPs has emerged. The present hypothesis will discuss the possibility that part of the risk for an AFF is a secondary effect of BPs on a subset of vascular cells in a genetically at-risk population, leading to localized deregulation of the endothelial cell (EC)-bone cell-matrix units in nutrient channels/canals of the femur and increased risk for AFF. This concept of targeting ECs is consistent with location of AFF in the femur, the bilateral risk for occurrence of AFF, and the requirement for long term exposure to the drugs.

Current use of bone turnover markers in the management of osteoporosis

The adult bone is continuously being remodelled to repair microdamage, preserve bone strength and mechanical competence as well as maintain calcium homeostasis. Bone turnover markers are products of osteoblasts (bone formation markers) and osteoclasts (bone resorption markers) providing a dynamic assessment of remodelling (turnover). Resorption-specific bone turnover markers are typically degradation products of bone collagen molecules (N- [NTX] and C-telopeptide cross-linked type 1 collagen [CTX]), which are released into the circulation and excreted in urine; or enzymatic activities reflecting osteoclastic resorption, tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase [TRACP]. Formation-specific bone turnover markers embrace different osteoblastic activities: type 1 collagen synthesis (Procollagen type I N- propeptide [PINP]), osteoblast enzymes (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [BALP]), or bone matrix proteins [osteocalcin]. Among individuals not receiving osteoporosis treatment, resorption and formation markers are tightly linked and highly correlated (r= 0.6-0.8). Significant biological variability was reported in the past, but these issues have been greatly improved with automated assays and attention to pre-analytical and analytical factors that are known to influence bone turnover marker levels. Bone turnover markers are not useful in the diagnosis of osteoporosis, the individual prediction of bone loss, fracture, or rare complications, or in the selection of pharmacological treatment. Despite remaining issues with reference intervals and assays harmonization, bone turnover markers have proven to be useful in elucidating the pharmacodynamics and effectiveness of osteoporosis medications in clinical trials. As an alternative to BMD testing, BTMs may be useful to monitor osteoporosis therapies.

Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures: currently available pharmacological options and future directions

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. The average lifetime risk of a 50-year-old woman to suffer a fracture of the spine, hip, proximal humerus, or distal forearm has been estimated at close to 50%. In general, pharmacological treatment is recommended in patients who suffered a fragility fracture because their risk of suffering a subsequent fracture is increased dramatically. Therefore, many guidelines recommend pharmacological treatment in patients without a prevalent fracture if their fracture probability is comparable to or higher than that of a person of the same age with a prevalent fracture. The present review aims to highlight currently available pharmacological treatment options and their antifracture efficacy including safety aspects. Drug classes discussed comprise bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone peptides and derivatives, humanized monoclonal antibodies, and estrogens and gestagens and their combinations. Furthermore, a brief glimpse is provided into a potentially promising treatment option that involves mesenchymal stem cells.