Relationship of Bisphosphonate Therapy and Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter: Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men (MrOS Sleep) Study

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).

Cardiovascular Safety and Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates: From Intervention Trials to Real-Life Data

Both osteoporosis with related fragility fractures and cardiovascular diseases are rapidly outspreading worldwide. Since they are often coexistent in elderly patients and may be related to possible common pathogenetic mechanisms, the possible reciprocal effects of drugs employed to treat these diseases have to be considered in clinical practice. Bisphosphonates, the agents most largely employed to decrease bone fragility, have been shown to be overall safe with respect to cardiovascular diseases and even capable of reducing cardiovascular morbidity in some settings, as mainly shown by real life studies. No randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints are available. While contradictory results have emerged about a possible BSP-mediated reduction of overall mortality, it is undeniable that these drugs can be employed safely in patients with high fracture risk, since no increased mortality has ever been demonstrated. Although partial reassurance has emerged from meta-analysis assessing the risk of cardiac arrhythmias during bisphosphonates treatment, caution is warranted in administering this class of drugs to patients at risk for atrial fibrillation, possibly preferring other antiresorptives or anabolics, according to osteoporosis guidelines. This paper focuses on the complex relationship between bisphosphonates use and cardiovascular disease and possible co-management issues.

Bisphosphonates and atrial fibrillation: revisiting the controversy

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are widely prescribed drugs used to treat osteoporosis, commonly arising in postmenopausal women and in chronic glucocorticoid use. Their mechanism of action is through inhibiting osteoclast-induced bone remodeling, and they also possess calcium sequestering properties. Common side effects involve the gastrointestinal system and rare but serious side effects, including osteonecrosis of the jaw. However, a link between BPs and atrial fibrillation (AF) has been proposed, with early clinical trials, such as the Fracture Intervention Trial and the HORIZON Pivotal Fracture Trial, reporting that BPs are associated with increased risk of AF. Nevertheless, subsequent studies have reported contrasting results, ranging from no effect of BPs to antiarrhythmic effects of BPs. Preclinical and electrophysiological studies on any proarrhythmic effect of BPs are limited in scope and number, but suggest possible mechanisms that include antiangionesis-related myocardial remodeling, calcium handling abnormalities, and inflammatory changes. Contrastingly, some studies indicate that BPs are antiarrhythmic by inhibiting fibrotic myocardial remodeling. In order to continue established clinical prescribing of BPs within absolute margins of safety, it will be necessary to systematically rule in/rule out these mechanisms. Thus, we discuss these studies and examine in detail the potential mechanistic links, with the aim of suggesting further avenues for research.

Can Classification and Regression Tree Analysis Help Identify Clinically Meaningful Risk Groups for Hip Fracture Prediction in Older American Men (The MrOS Cohort Study)?

Although the WHO fracture risk algorithm (FRAX) is used to predict fracture, the utility of some simple machine‐learning methods, such as classification and regression trees (CARTs) should be evaluated to determine their efficacy in fracture prediction. Follow‐up time for the hip fracture analyses of 5977 community‐dwelling American men aged ≥65 years old was truncated to 10 years. There were 172 (2.9%) men who had an incident nontraumatic hip fracture. The CARTs were developed using hip BMD and common clinical risk factors as follows: model 1 = using classification with continuous variables of age, total hip BMD, and femoral neck BMD, or together with common clinical risk factors; and model 2 = using classification with continuous variables of age, total hip BMD, femoral neck BMD, FRAX score, osteoporosis by T‐score at the hip, and common clinical risk factors. The predictive performance of risk models derived from CARTs was compared with the basic classification of FRAX at 3% (basic model). From model 1, discriminators selected by CART were total hip BMD, age, and femoral neck BMD; no other clinical risk factors were selected. From model 2, discriminators selected by CART were FRAX score, femoral neck BMD, and age. Compared with the basic model using only a high‐risk group by FRAX ≥3%, no significantly improved predictive performance was demonstrated by model 1 or model 2 as identified by CART with the area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve for each model of 0.714 (95% CI, 0.676 to 0.751) or 0.726 (95% CI, 0.690 to 0.762) versus 0.703 (95% CI, 0.667 to 0.740), respectively. The improved overall net reclassification improvement index was 0.02 (95% CI, –0.04 to 0.08) and 0.05 (95% CI, –0.01 to 0.10), respectively. Although a FRAX category is a good clinical indicator for hip fracture risk, a simple classification by age and BMD may provide an alternative way to estimate a clinical risk level of 3.0%. © 2019 The Authors. JBMR Plus is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Melatonin: Another avenue for treating osteoporosis?

Melatonin is a signal molecule that modulates the biological circadian rhythms of vertebrates. Melatonin deficiency is thought to be associated with several disorders, including insomnia, cancer, and cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases. Accumulating evidence has also indicated that melatonin may be involved in the homeostasis of bone metabolism. Age-related reductions in melatonin are considered to be critical factors in bone loss and osteoporosis with aging. Thus, serum melatonin levels might serve as a biomarker for the early detection and prevention of osteoporosis. Compared to conventional antiosteoporosis medicines, which primarily inhibit bone loss, melatonin both suppresses bone loss and promotes new bone formation. Mechanistically, by activating melatonin receptor 2 (MT2), melatonin upregulates the gene expression of alkaline phosphatase (ALP), bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2), BMP6, osteocalcin, and osteoprotegerin to promote osteogenesis while inhibiting the receptor activator of NF-kB ligand (RANKL) pathway to suppress osteolysis. In view of the distinct actions of melatonin on bone metabolism, we hypothesize that melatonin may be a novel remedy for the prevention and clinical treatment of osteoporosis.

Sharing Pathological Mechanisms of Insomnia and Osteoporosis, and a New Perspective on Safe Drug Choice

Lack of adequate sleep has become increasingly common in our 24/7 modern society. Reduced sleep has significant health consequences including metabolic and cardiovascular disorders, and mental problems including depression. In addition, although the increase in life expectancy has provided a dream of longevity to humans, the occurrence of osteoporosis is a big obstacle to this dream for both male and female. It is known that insomnia and bone health problems, which are very critical conditions in human life, interestingly, share a lot of pathogenesis in recent decades. Nevertheless, due to another side effects of the synthetic drugs being taken for the treatment of insomnia and osteoporosis, patients have substantial anxiety for the safety of drugs with therapeutic expectation. This review examines the pathogenesis shared by sleep and osteoporosis together and herbal medicine, which has recently been shown to be safe and efficacious in the treatment of both diseases other than synthetic drugs. We suggestions for how to treat osteoporosis. These efforts will be the first step toward enabling patients to have comfortable and safe prescriptions through a wide selection of therapeutic agents in the future.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Central Compared to Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Analyses from the Sleep Heart Health Study Cohort

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Determine the prevalence of central sleep apnea (CSA) in a large community-based cohort using current definitions and contrast the clinical characteristics of subjects with CSA to those with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and no sleep apnea.

METHODS

A cross sectional analysis of baseline data from 5,804 participants of the Sleep Heart Health study was performed. Subjects meeting contemporary diagnostic criteria for CSA and Cheyne Stokes respiration (CSR) were compared to those without sleep apnea and those with OSA. Demographic data, medical comorbidities, medication use, and sleep related symptoms were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The prevalences of CSA and Cheyne Stokes respiration (CSR) in this sample were 0.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.7-1.2)% and 0.4 (95% CI: 0.3-0.6)%, respectively. Individuals with CSA were older, had lower body mass indexes (BMI), lower Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores, and were more likely to be male than individuals with obstructive sleep apnea OSA. Among those with self-reported heart failure (HF), OSA was much more common at 55.1% (95% CI: 45.6-64.6) than CSA 4.1% (95% CI: 0.3-7.9).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest community-based study of the prevalence and characteristics of CSA to date and demonstrates a prevalence of CSA that is intermediate to those previously noted. Contrary to prior data from clinic based samples, individuals with heart failure were much more likely to have OSA than CSA.