Effects of raloxifene on fracture risk in postmenopausal women: the Raloxifene Use for the Heart Trial

Bone Health in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and skeletal fragility is complex, with effects on bone at the cellular, molecular, and biomechanical levels. As a result, people with T2DM, compared to those without, are at increased risk of fracture, despite often having preserved bone mineral density (BMD) on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Maladaptive skeletal loading and changes in bone architecture (particularly cortical porosity and low cortical volumes, the hallmark of diabetic osteopathy) are not apparent on routine DXA. Alternative imaging modalities, including quantitative computed tomography and trabecular bone score, allow for noninvasive visualization of cortical and trabecular compartments and may be useful in identifying those at risk for fractures. Current fracture risk calculators underestimate fracture risk in T2DM, partly due to their reliance on BMD. As a result, individuals with T2DM, who are at high risk of fracture, may be overlooked for commencement of osteoporosis therapy. Rather, management of skeletal health in T2DM should include consideration of treatment initiation at lower BMD thresholds, the use of adjusted fracture risk calculators, and consideration of metabolic and nonskeletal risk factors. Antidiabetic medications have differing effects on the skeleton and treatment choice should consider the bone impacts in those at risk for fracture. T2DM poses a unique challenge when it comes to assessing bone health and fracture risk. This article discusses the clinical burden and presentation of skeletal disease in T2DM. Two clinical cases are presented to illustrate a clinical approach in assessing and managing fracture risk in these patients.

Bone metabolism in diabetes: a clinician's guide to understanding the bone-glucose interplay

Skeletal fragility is an increasingly recognised, but poorly understood, complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Fracture risk varies according to skeletal site and diabetes-related characteristics. Post-fracture outcomes, including mortality risk, are worse in those with diabetes, placing these people at significant risk. Each fracture therefore represents a sentinel event that warrants targeted management. However, diabetes is a very heterogeneous condition with complex interactions between multiple co-existing, and highly correlated, factors that preclude a clear assessment of the independent clinical markers and pathophysiological drivers for diabetic osteopathy. Additionally, fracture risk calculators and routinely used clinical bone measurements generally underestimate fracture risk in people with diabetes. In the absence of dedicated prospective studies including detailed bone and metabolic characteristics, optimal management centres around selecting treatments that minimise skeletal and metabolic harm. This review summarises the clinical landscape of diabetic osteopathy and outlines the interplay between metabolic and skeletal health. The underlying pathophysiology of skeletal fragility in diabetes and a rationale for considering a diabetes-based paradigm in assessing and managing diabetic bone disease will be discussed.

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.

Diabetes and Osteoporosis

Bone fragility is an emerging complication of diabetes. People with diabetes are at a significantly higher risk of fractures compared to the general population. Bone fragility occurs in diabetes as a result of complex and poorly understood mechanisms occurring at the cellular level contributed by vascular, inflammatory and mechanical derangements. Bone mineral density (BMD) as assessed by DEXA is low in type 1 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes has a high risk of fracture despite a normal to raised BMD. DEXA thus underestimates the fracture risk in diabetes. Data are scare regarding the efficacy of the available therapies in this low bone turnover state.

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.

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.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Diabetes Mellitus and the Benefit of Antiresorptive Therapy on Fracture Risk

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with increased risk of fractures. However, it is unclear whether current osteoporosis treatments reduce fractures in individuals with diabetes. The aim of the study was to determine whether presence of T2D influences the efficacy of antiresorptive treatment for osteoporosis using the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH)-American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)-Study to Advance Bone Mineral Density (BMD) as a Regulatory Endpoint (SABRE) cohort, which includes individual patient data from randomized trials of osteoporosis therapies. In this study we included 96,385 subjects, 6.8% of whom had T2D, from nine bisphosphonate trials, two selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) trials, two trials of menopausal hormone therapy, one denosumab trial, and one odanacatib trial. We used Cox regression to obtain the treatment hazard ratio (HR) for incident nonvertebral, hip, and all fractures and logistic regression to obtain the treatment odds ratio (OR) for incident morphometric vertebral fractures, separately for T2D and non-DM. We used linear regression to estimate the effect of treatment on 2-year change in BMD (n = 49,099) and 3-month to 12-month change in bone turnover markers (n = 12,701) by diabetes status. In all analyses, we assessed the interaction between treatment and diabetes status. In pooled analyses of all 15 trials, we found that diabetes did not impact treatment efficacy, with similar reductions in vertebral, nonvertebral, all, and hip fractures, increases in total hip and femoral neck BMD, and reductions in serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide (CTX), urinary N-telopeptide of type I collagen/creatinine (NTX/Cr) and procollagen type 1 N propeptide (P1NP) (all interactions p > 0.05). We found similar results for the pooled analysis of bisphosphonate trials. However, when we considered trials individually, we found a few interactions within individual studies between diabetes status and the effects of denosumab and odanacatib on fracture risk, change in BMD or bone turnover markers (BTMs). In sum, these results provide strong evidence that bisphosphonates and most licensed antiresorptive drugs are effective at reducing fracture risk and increasing BMD irrespective of diabetes status. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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.

Assessment and treatment of osteoporosis and fractures in type 2 diabetes

There is substantial, and growing, evidence that type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with skeletal fragility, despite often preserved bone mineral density. As post-fracture outcomes, including mortality, are worse in people with T2D, bone management should be carefully considered in this highly vulnerable group. However, current fracture risk calculators inadequately predict fracture risk in T2D, and dedicated randomised controlled trials identifying optimal management in patients with T2D are lacking, raising questions about the ideal assessment and treatment of bone health in these people. We synthesise the current literature on evaluating bone measurements in T2D and summarise the evidence for safety and efficacy of both T2D and anti-osteoporosis medications in relation to bone health in these patients.

Secondary Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a global public health problem, with fractures contributing to significant morbidity and mortality. Although postmenopausal osteoporosis is most common, up to 30% of postmenopausal women, > 50% of premenopausal women, and between 50% and 80% of men have secondary osteoporosis. Exclusion of secondary causes is important, as treatment of such patients often commences by treating the underlying condition. These are varied but often neglected, ranging from endocrine to chronic inflammatory and genetic conditions. General screening is recommended for all patients with osteoporosis, with advanced investigations reserved for premenopausal women and men aged < 50 years, for older patients in whom classical risk factors for osteoporosis are absent, and for all patients with the lowest bone mass (Z-score ≤ -2). The response of secondary osteoporosis to conventional anti-osteoporosis therapy may be inadequate if the underlying condition is unrecognized and untreated. Bone densitometry, using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, may underestimate fracture risk in some chronic diseases, including glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, and may overestimate fracture risk in others (eg, Turner syndrome). FRAX and trabecular bone score may provide additional information regarding fracture risk in secondary osteoporosis, but their use is limited to adults aged ≥ 40 years and ≥ 50 years, respectively. In addition, FRAX requires adjustment in some chronic conditions, such as glucocorticoid use, type 2 diabetes, and HIV. In most conditions, evidence for antiresorptive or anabolic therapy is limited to increases in bone mass. Current osteoporosis management guidelines also neglect secondary osteoporosis and these existing evidence gaps are discussed.

The Effects of Osteoporotic and Non-osteoporotic Medications on Fracture Risk and Bone Mineral Density

Osteoporosis is a highly prevalent bone disease affecting more than 37.5 million individuals in the European Union (EU) and the  United States of America (USA). It is characterized by low bone mineral density (BMD), impaired bone quality, and loss of structural and biomechanical properties, resulting in reduced bone strength. An increase in morbidity and mortality is seen in patients with osteoporosis, caused by the approximately 3.5 million new osteoporotic fractures occurring every year in the EU. Currently, different medications are available for the treatment of osteoporosis, including anti-resorptive and osteoanabolic medications. Bisphosphonates, which belong to the anti-resorptive medications, are the standard treatment for osteoporosis based on their positive effects on bone, long-term experience, and low costs. However, not only medications used for the treatment of osteoporosis can affect bone: several other medications are suggested to have an effect on bone as well, especially on fracture risk and BMD. Knowledge about the positive and negative effects of different medications on both fracture risk and BMD is important, as it can contribute to an improvement in osteoporosis prevention and treatment in general, and, even more importantly, to the individual's health. In this review, we therefore discuss the effects of both osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic medications on fracture risk and BMD. In addition, we discuss the underlying mechanisms of action.

Raloxifene in the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

As a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), raloxifene is used in healthy postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss and reduce fractures. However, the benefit of raloxifene is uncertain in the treatment of osteoporosis among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or those who require maintenance dialysis. We assessed the safety and efficacy of raloxifene in this particular population. Studies were selected from PubMed, Springer, CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies with control/placebo groups were included. Five studies were included with a total of 244 participants (121 patients in the raloxifene group and 123 patients in the placebo/control group). The median duration of treatment was 12 months. The incidence rate of side effects of raloxifene was 0/121 (0%). There was a significant improvement of lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) levels in the raloxifene group compared with the placebo group (MD: 33.88, 95% CI: 10.93, 56.84, p=0.004). There was no significant difference concerning the improvement of femoral neck BMD (MD: 8.42, 95% CI: -10.21, 27.04, p=0.38), intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) (MD: -12.62, 95% CI: -35.36, 10.13, p=0.28), calcium (MD: -0.08, 95% CI: -0.61, 0.44, p=0.76), phosphorus (MD: 0.18, 95% CI: -0.12, 0.48, p=0.23) or bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) (MD: -4.33, 95% CI: -14.44, 5.79, p=0.40). Raloxifene seems to be effective in improving the lumbar spine BMD in postmenopausal women with ESRD. More large RCTs are necessary to evaluate the long-term safety of raloxifene in uremic patients.

Management of bone fragility in type 2 diabetes: Perspective from an interdisciplinary expert panel

AIM

Bone fragility is increasingly recognized as a relevant complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and diabetic patients with fragility fractures have higher mortality rates than non diabetic individuals or diabetic patients without fractures. However, current diagnostic approaches for fracture risk stratification, such as bone mineral density measurement or the use of risk assessment algorithms, largely underestimate fracture risk in T2D patients. A multidisciplinary expert panel was established in order to in order to formulate clinical consensus recommendations on bone health assessment and management of fracture risk in patients with T2D.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The following key questions were addressed: a) which are the risk factors for bone fragility in T2D?, b) which diagnostic procedures can be currently used to stratify fracture risk in T2D patients?, c) which are the effects of antidiabetic treatments on bone?, and d) how to prevent and treat bone fragility in T2D patients? Based on the available data members of this panel suggest that the stratification of fracture risk in patients with diabetes should firstly rely on the presence of a previous fragility fracture and on the individual risk profile, with the inclusion of T2D-specific risk factors (namely T2D duration above 10 yrs, presence of chronic T2D complications, use of insulin or thiazolidinediones and persistent HbA1c levels above 8% for at least 1 year). Two independent diagnostic approaches were then suggested in the presence or the absence of a prevalent fragility fracture, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials in T2D patients at risk for fragility fractures are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of available antiresorptive and anabolic agents in this specific setting.

Meta-analysis of clinical fracture risk reduction of anti-osteoporosis drugs: direct and indirect comparisons and meta-regressions

OBJECTIVE

Anti-osteoporotic drug (AOD) trials have variabilities in duration and fracture risks. This study evaluated AOD's versus controls regarding reduction in relative rates (rr) and rate differences (rd) of vertebral and hip fractures and comparative costs.

METHODS

Primary randomized-controlled trials (RCT's) of AOD's in post-menopausal women with documentation of vertebral fracture rates (VFR) or hip fracture rates (HFR) were extracted from meta-analyses and PubMed through February 2021. Direct and indirect meta-analysis and meta-regression analyzed fracture reductions.

RESULTS

There were 24 RCT's of drug-versus-placebo (73,862 women) and 10 drug-versus-drug trials. Reduction in rr of VFR were significant for anti-resorptive (alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, denosumab, raloxifene) and anabolic (teriparatide, abaloparatide, romosozumab) drugs. Denosumab, teriparatide and abaloparatide were more effective in reducing VFR compared to oral bisphosphates (all p <0.05) but not to zoledronate. Reduction in HFR were significant for alendronate, denosumab and zoledronate (all p <0.05), without significant differences among drugs. Anabolic drugs did not show significant HFR reduction. Meta-regression of rd's allowed for calculation of costs per vertebral fracture prevented, which were estimated at >$100,000 for anabolic drugs and between $2,289-$28,947 for anti-resorptive drugs. Drug-versus-drug trials were underpowered to demonstrate changes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests goal-directed, cost-effective therapy relative to a patient's risk for vertebral and hip fractures. Anabolic drugs are better at preventing vertebral fractures compared to oral bisphosphonates. Anabolic drugs are not superior to zoledronate or denosumab, and at substantially higher cost. In comparing drugs which prevented hip fractures, there was no statistical benefit of any drug.

Critical review of bone health, fracture risk and management of bone fragility in diabetes mellitus

The risk of fracture is increased in both type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, in contrast to the former, patients with T2DM usually possess higher bone mineral density. Thus, there is a considerable difference in the pathophysiological basis of poor bone health between the two types of diabetes. Impaired bone strength due to poor bone microarchitecture and low bone turnover along with increased risk of fall are among the major factors behind elevated fracture risk. Moreover, some antidiabetic medications further enhance the fragility of the bone. On the other hand, antiosteoporosis medications can affect the glucose homeostasis in these patients. It is also difficult to predict the fracture risk in these patients because conventional tools such as bone mineral density and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool score assessment can underestimate the risk. Evidence-based recommendations for risk evaluation and management of poor bone health in diabetes are sparse in the literature. With the advancement in imaging technology, newer modalities are available to evaluate the bone quality and risk assessment in patients with diabetes. The purpose of this review is to explore the pathophysiology behind poor bone health in diabetic patients. Approach to the fracture risk evaluation in both T1DM and T2DM as well as the pragmatic use and efficacy of the available treatment options have been discussed in depth.

The Impact of Antiosteoporotic Drugs on Glucose Metabolism and Fracture Risk in Diabetes: Good or Bad News?

Osteoporosis and diabetes mellitus represent global health problems due to their high, and increasing with aging, prevalence in the general population. Osteoporosis can be successfully treated with both antiresorptive and anabolic drugs. While these drugs are clearly effective in reducing the risk of fracture in patients with postmenopausal and male osteoporosis, it is still unclear whether they may have the same efficacy in patients with diabetic osteopathy. Furthermore, as bone-derived cytokines (osteokines) are able to influence glucose metabolism, it is conceivable that antiosteoporotic drugs may have an effect on glycemic control through their modulation of bone turnover that affects the osteokines’ release. These aspects are addressed in this narrative review by means of an unrestricted computerized literature search in the PubMed database. Our findings indicate a balance between good and bad news. Active bone therapies and their modulation of bone turnover do not appear to play a clinically significant role in glucose metabolism in humans. Moreover, there are insufficient data to clarify whether there are any differences in the efficacy of antiosteoporotic drugs on fracture incidence between diabetic and nondiabetic patients with osteoporosis. Although more studies are required for stronger recommendations to be issued, bisphosphonates appear to be the first-line drug for treatment of osteoporosis in diabetic patients, while denosumab seems preferable for older patients, particularly for those with impaired renal function, and osteoanabolic agents should be reserved for patients with more severe forms of osteoporosis.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis coexisting with other metabolic diseases: Treatment considerations

In postmenopausal women, osteoporosis may coexist with other metabolic diseases, including, but not limited to, obesity, diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease (CVD). This association may lie beyond simple coincidence owing to high prevalence of all these diseases, especially in the aging population, as common pathogenetic mechanisms between them and osteoporosis may exist. In this context, anti-osteoporotic medications may affect the pathogenesis of some of these metabolic diseases; this is an important consideration when selecting the most appropriate medication for osteoporotic patients with coexistent metabolic diseases. Conversely, some current or emerging medications for metabolic diseases adversely affect bone metabolism and, if possible, should be avoided in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. The main aim of this review is to summarize the evidence on anti-osteoporotic treatment in postmenopausal women with concomitant metabolic diseases, i.e. obesity, diabetes, NAFLD, dyslipidemia and CVD. The secondary aim is to present data on the effect of current or emerging medication for metabolic diseases on bone metabolism of postmenopausal women. Deeper understanding of the underlying links between osteoporosis and metabolic diseases may have clinical implications. However, mechanistic studies are needed to elucidate the potential pathophysiological links, as well as clinical trials in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis coexisting with specific metabolic diseases; these may guide clinical practice in the future for the selection of the best anti-osteoporotic medication for each patient with specific metabolic diseases.

Pharmacological Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: a Level I Evidence Based - Expert Opinion

Objectives: Postmenopausal osteoporosis carries a high risk of fractures, which decrease quality of life and are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. The best pharmacological treatment options to manage and prevent osteoporotic fractures remain still unclear. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of the most commonly employed drugs in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Methods: Only RCTs comparing different drugs for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis were included. Data from 76 RCTs (205,011 patients) were collected. The mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 14.9 months. Results: Denosumab reported the lowest rate of non-vertebral fractures (LOR -1.57), Romosozumab the lowest rate of vertebral fractures (LOR 1.99), and Ibandronate the lowest rate of hip fractures (LOR0.18). Serious adverse events resulted in the lowest in the Raloxifene group (LOR 3.11), while those leading to study discontinuation were lowest in the Romosozumab cohort (LOR 2.65). Conclusions: Denosumab resulted in most effective, particularly in reducing the occurrence of non-vertebral fractures. Romosozumab and Ibandronate resulted best to prevent, respectively, vertebral fractures and hip fractures. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation were less frequent in the Romosozumab and Denosumab groups, while Raloxifene and Alendronate showed a lower incidence of serious adverse events overall. Level of evidence: I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Executive summary of clinical practice guide on fracture risk in lifestyle diseases

Accumulating evidence has shown that patients with lifestyle diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are at increased risk of osteoporotic fracture. Fractures deteriorate quality of life, activities of daily living, and mortality as well as a lifestyle disease. Therefore, preventing fracture is an important issue for those patients. Although the mechanism of the lifestyle diseases-induced bone fragility is still unclear, not only bone mineral density (BMD) reduction but also bone quality deterioration are involved in it. Because fracture predictive ability of BMD and FRAX^® is limited, especially for patients with lifestyle diseases, the optimal management strategy should be established. Thus, when the intervention of the lifestyle diseases-induced bone fragility is initiated, the deterioration of bone quality should be taken into account. We here review the association between lifestyle diseases and fracture risk and proposed an algorism of starting anti-osteoporosis drugs for patients with lifestyle diseases.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of alendronate versus raloxifene in women with osteoporosis

Alendronate and raloxifene are among the most popular anti-osteoporosis medications. However, there is a lack of head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies comparing the two treatments. We conducted a retrospective large-scale multicenter study encompassing over 300 million patients across nine databases encoded in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). The primary outcome was the incidence of osteoporotic hip fracture, while secondary outcomes were vertebral fracture, atypical femoral fracture (AFF), osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and esophageal cancer. We used propensity score trimming and stratification based on an expansive propensity score model with all pre-treatment patient characteritistcs. We accounted for unmeasured confounding using negative control outcomes to estimate and adjust for residual systematic bias in each data source. We identified 283,586 alendronate patients and 40,463 raloxifene patients. There were 7.48 hip fracture, 8.18 vertebral fracture, 1.14 AFF, 0.21 esophageal cancer and 0.09 ONJ events per 1,000 person-years in the alendronate cohort and 6.62, 7.36, 0.69, 0.22 and 0.06 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, in the raloxifene cohort. Alendronate and raloxifene have a similar hip fracture risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94–1.13), but alendronate users are more likely to have vertebral fractures (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.14). Alendronate has higher risk for AFF (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23–1.84) but similar risk for esophageal cancer (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53–1.70), and ONJ (HR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78–3.34). We demonstrated substantial control of measured confounding by propensity score adjustment, and minimal residual systematic bias through negative control experiments, lending credibility to our effect estimates. Raloxifene is as effective as alendronate and may remain an option in the prevention of osteoporotic 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.

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.

Management of osteoporosis in women with breast cancer

The screening, prevention and treatment of osteoporosis are similar in women with or without breast cancer. Breast cancer treatments, such as aromatase inhibitors, chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists all decrease estrogen levels, which in turn causes net bone resorption and bone loss. Bone loss over time will be of sufficient magnitude to cause some women to experience fractures. Thus, osteoporosis is an equation; the peak bone mass achieved by age 30 years minus the age-related and menopausal bone loss. Women should have their bone density measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry scans every 2 years. As clinically indicated, women should receive anti-osteoporosis drugs such as zoledronic acid, denosumab or oral bisphosphonates.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.

LIMITATIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Osteoporosis Therapeutics 2020

Numerous safe and efficient drug therapies are currently available to decrease risk of low trauma fractures in patients with osteoporosis including postmenopausal, male, and secondary osteoporosis. In this chapter, we give first an overview of the most important outcomes regarding fracture risk reduction, change in bone mineral density (BMD by DXA) and/or bone markers of the phase III clinical studies of well-established therapies (such as Bisphosphonates, Denosumab or Teriparatide) and also novel therapies (such as Romosozumab or Abaloparatide) and highlight their mechanisms of action at bone tissue/material level. The latter understanding is not only essential for the choice of drug, duration and discontinuation of treatment but also for the interpretation of the clinical outcomes (in particular of eventual changes in BMD) after drug administration. In the second part of this chapter, we focus on the management of different forms of osteoporosis and give a review of the respective current guidelines for treatment. Adverse effects of treatment such as atypical femoral fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw or influence of fracture healing are considered also in this context.

The Characteristics and Mortality of Osteoporosis, Osteomyelitis, or Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Diabetes Population: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus are prone to develop osteoporosis, osteomyelitis, or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Furthermore, the presence of these complications in those with diabetes may lead to higher mortality. The aim of our study was to assess characteristics and mortality of osteoporosis, osteomyelitis, or rheumatoid arthritis in individuals with diabetes.

METHODS

We analyzed osteoporosis, osteomyelitis, and RA deaths associated with diabetes from 1999-2017 using the CDC WONDER system (CDC WONDER; https://wonder.cdc.gov). We used ICD-10 codes to categorize the underlying and contributing causes of death. Crude mortality rates (CMR) and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 1,000,000 person-years were calculated.

RESULTS

The AAMR for osteoporosis in the population with diabetes was significantly higher in females (AAMR: 4.17, 95% CI: 4.10-4.24) than in males (AAMR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.16). Deaths due to osteoporosis increased gradually from 1999, peaked in 2003 (AAMR: 3.78, 95% CI: 3.55-4.00), and reached a nadir in 2016 (AAMR: 2.32, 95% CI: 2.15-2.48). The AAMR for RA associated with diabetes was slightly higher in females (AAMR: 4.04, 95% CI: 3.98-4.11) than in males (AAMR: 2.45, 95% CI: 2.39-2.51). The mortality rate due to RA increased slightly from 1999 (AAMR: 3.18, 95% CI: 2.97-3.39) to 2017 (AAMR: 3.20, 95% CI: 3.02-3.38). The AAMR for osteomyelitis associated with diabetes was higher in males (AAMR: 4.36, 95% CI: 4.28-4.44) than in females (AAMR: 2.31, 95% CI: 2.26-2.36). From 1999 to 2017, the AAMR from osteomyelitis in this population was 2.63 (95% CI: 2.44-2.82) per 1,000,000 person-years in 1999 and 4.25 (95% CI: 4.05-4.46) per 1,000,000 person-years in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an increase in the age-adjusted mortality rates of RA and osteomyelitis and a decrease of osteoporosis associated with diabetes from 1999 to 2017. We suggest that increased attention should therefore be given to these diseases in the population with diabetes, especially in efforts to develop preventative and treatment strategies.

Medication Use to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. The median age at diagnosis is 62 years, and an estimated 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer compared with women of other races.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed evidence on the accuracy of risk assessment methods to identify women who could benefit from risk-reducing medications for breast cancer, as well as evidence on the effectiveness, adverse effects, and subgroup variations of these medications. The USPSTF reviewed evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and diagnostic accuracy studies of risk stratification models in women without preexisting breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

FINDINGS

The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk assessment tools can predict the number of cases of breast cancer expected to develop in a population. However, these risk assessment tools perform modestly at best in discriminating between individual women who will or will not develop breast cancer. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors) provide at least a moderate benefit in reducing risk for invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. The USPSTF found that the benefits of taking tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors to reduce risk for breast cancer are no greater than small in women not at increased risk for the disease. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that tamoxifen and raloxifene and adequate evidence that aromatase inhibitors are associated with small to moderate harms. Overall, the USPSTF determined that the net benefit of taking medications to reduce risk of breast cancer is larger in women who have a greater risk for developing breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer to prescribe risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse medication effects. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the routine use of risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, in women who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women 35 years and older, including women with previous benign breast lesions on biopsy (such as atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ). This recommendation does not apply to women who have a current or previous diagnosis of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

Medication Use for the Risk Reduction of Primary Breast Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review on medications to reduce risk of primary (first diagnosis) invasive breast cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2019); manual review of reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies of breast cancer risk assessment methods; randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors for primary breast cancer prevention; studies of medication adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Investigators abstracted data on methods, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, outcome ascertainment, and follow-up. Results of individual trials were combined by using a profile likelihood random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Probability of breast cancer in individuals (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]); incidence of breast cancer, fractures, thromboembolic events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, endometrial cancer, and cataracts; and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies (82 articles [>5 million participants]) were included. Eighteen risk assessment methods in 25 studies reported low accuracy in predicting the probability of breast cancer in individuals (AUC, 0.55-0.65). In placebo-controlled trials, tamoxifen (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials [n = 28 421]), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials [n = 17 806]), and the aromatase inhibitors exemestane and anastrozole (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials [n = 8424]) were associated with a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer. Risk for invasive breast cancer was higher for raloxifene than tamoxifen in 1 trial after long-term follow-up (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]; n = 19 747). Raloxifene was associated with lower risk for vertebral fractures (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.73]; 2 trials [n = 16 929]) and tamoxifen was associated with lower risk for nonvertebral fractures (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.98]; 1 trial [n = 13 388]) compared with placebo. Tamoxifen and raloxifene were associated with increased thromboembolic events compared with placebo; tamoxifen was associated with more events than raloxifene. Tamoxifen was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer and cataracts compared with placebo. Symptomatic effects (eg, vasomotor, musculoskeletal) varied by medication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors were associated with lower risk of primary invasive breast cancer in women but also were associated with adverse effects that differed between medications. Risk stratification methods to identify patients with increased breast cancer risk demonstrated low accuracy.

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.

Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to formulate clinical practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from clinical trials and insights from clinical experience with pharmacologic therapies for osteoporosis were critically evaluated in formulating this guideline for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Patient preferences, data on adherence and persistence, and risks and benefits from the patient and provider perspectives were also considered in writing committee deliberations. A consensus by the Writing Committee members was achieved for four management principles: (i) The risk of future fractures in postmenopausal women should be determined using country-specific assessment tools to guide decision-making. (ii) Patient preferences should be incorporated into treatment planning. (iii) Nutritional and lifestyle interventions and fall prevention should accompany all pharmacologic regimens to reduce fracture risk. (iv) Multiple pharmacologic therapies are capable of reducing fracture rates in postmenopausal women at risk with acceptable risk-benefit and safety profiles.

Current and emerging osteoporosis pharmacotherapy for women: state of the art therapies for preventing bone loss

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacological options to address the imbalance between bone resorption and accrual in osteoporosis include anti-resorptive and osteoanabolic agents. Unique biologic pathways such as the Wnt/β-catenin pathway have been targeted in the quest for new emerging therapeutic strategies.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of existing pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis in women and explore state-of-the-art and emerging therapies to prevent bone loss, with an emphasis on the mechanism of action, indications and side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Bisphosphonates appear to be a reliable and cost-effective option, whereas denosumab has introduced a simpler dosing regimen and may achieve a linear increase in bone mineral density (BMD) with no plateau being observed, along with continuous anti-fracture efficacy. Abaloparatide, a parathyroid-hormone-related peptide (PTHrP)-analogue, approved by the FDA in April 2017, constitutes the first new anabolic osteoporosis drug in the US for nearly 15 years and has also proven its anti-fracture efficacy. Romosozumab, a sclerostin inhibitor, which induces bone formation and suppresses bone resorption, has also been developed and shown a significant reduction in fracture incidence; however, concerns have arisen with regard to increased cardiovascular risk.

Diagnosis and management of bone fragility in diabetes: an emerging challenge

Fragility fractures are increasingly recognized as a complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with fracture risk that increases with disease duration and poor glycemic control. Yet the identification and management of fracture risk in these patients remains challenging. This review explores the clinical characteristics of bone fragility in adults with diabetes and highlights recent studies that have evaluated bone mineral density (BMD), bone microstructure and material properties, biochemical markers, and fracture prediction algorithms (i.e., FRAX) in these patients. It further reviews the impact of diabetes drugs on bone as well as the efficacy of osteoporosis treatments in this population. We finally propose an algorithm for the identification and management of diabetic patients at increased fracture risk.

Lactobacillus helveticus (ATCC 27558) upregulates Runx2 and Bmp2 and modulates bone mineral density in ovariectomy-induced bone loss rats

Purpose

Osteoporosis is one of the major health concerns among the elderly population, especially in postmenopausal women. Many menopausal women over 50 years of age lose their bone density and suffer bone fractures. In addition, many mortality and morbidity cases among the elderly are related to hip fracture. This study aims to investigate the effect of Lactobacillus helveticus (L. helveticus) on bone health status among ovariectomized (OVX) bone loss-induced rats.

Methods

The rats were either OVX or sham OVX (sham), then were randomly assigned into three groups, G1: sham, G2: OVX and G3: OVX+L. helveticus (1 mL of 10⁸–10⁹ colony forming units). The supplementation was force-fed to the rats once a day for 16 weeks while control groups were force-fed with demineralized water.

Results

L. helveticus upregulated the expression of Runx2 and Bmp2, increased serum osteocalcin, bone volume/total volume and trabecular thickness, and decreased serum C-terminal telopeptide and total porosity percentage. It also altered bone microstructure, as a result increasing bone mineral density and bone strength.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that L. helveticus attenuates bone remodeling and consequently improves bone health in OVX rats by increasing bone formation along with bone resorption reduction. This study suggests a potential therapeutic effect of L. helveticus (ATCC 27558) on postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Efficacy of anti-osteoporotic medications in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Both type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been associated with bone fragility and increased fracture risk. However, little is known regarding the effect of anti-osteoporotic treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) and/or fracture risk in these patients. We aimed to systematically investigate the efficacy of anti-osteoporotic medications in patients with diabetes in comparison with non-diabetic subjects.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched (up to 31st October 2017).

RESULTS

Nine studies fulfilled the pre-defined inclusion criteria [patients with T2DM (n = 8) or either T1DM or T2DM (n = 1)]. Regarding fracture risk, five studies were identified. Alendronate demonstrated comparable vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in patients with and without diabetes (n = 2), whereas non-vertebral fracture risk was either the same (n = 1) or higher in diabetic patients (n = 1). Raloxifene also demonstrated comparable vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in both groups (n = 2), without any effect on non-vertebral fractures in either group. In one study, diabetic patients exposed to raloxifene demonstrated the same vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk with non-diabetic patients. Teriparatide (n = 1) demonstrated the same non-vertebral fracture rates in both patients with and without T2DM. Regarding BMD, equal increases in spine BMD were observed with alendronate (n = 4), risedronate (n = 1), and teriparatide (n = 1). With respect to hip BMD, similar increases were observed with teriparatide (n = 1), whereas data regarding alendronate were controversial (n = 3). No eligible study was found for zoledronic acid, ibandronate, strontium ranelate, denosumab, or bazedoxifene.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of diabetes does not alter anti-osteoporotic treatment response, regarding BMD increase and vertebral fracture risk reduction.

The bone remodelling cycle

The bone remodelling cycle replaces old and damaged bone and is a highly regulated, lifelong process essential for preserving bone integrity and maintaining mineral homeostasis. During the bone remodelling cycle, osteoclastic resorption is tightly coupled to osteoblastic bone formation. The remodelling cycle occurs within the basic multicellular unit and comprises five co-ordinated steps; activation, resorption, reversal, formation and termination. These steps occur simultaneously but asynchronously at multiple different locations within the skeleton. Study of rare human bone disease and animal models have helped to elucidate the cellular and molecular mechanisms that regulate the bone remodelling cycle. The key signalling pathways controlling osteoclastic bone resorption and osteoblastic bone formation are receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK)/RANK ligand/osteoprotegerin and canonical Wnt signalling. Cytokines, growth factors and prostaglandins act as paracrine regulators of the cycle, whereas endocrine regulators include parathyroid hormone, vitamin D, calcitonin, growth hormone, glucocorticoids, sex hormones, and thyroid hormone. Disruption of the bone remodelling cycle and any resulting imbalance between bone resorption and formation leads to metabolic bone disease, most commonly osteoporosis. The advances in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying bone remodelling have also provided targets for pharmacological interventions which include antiresorptive and anabolic therapies. This review will describe the remodelling process and its regulation, discuss osteoporosis and summarize the commonest pharmacological interventions used in its management.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and bone

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a rapidly growing public health problem. It is associated with an increased risk of fracture, particularly of the hip, despite normal or high bone mineral density. Longer duration of disease and poor glycaemic control are both associated with higher fracture risk. The factors underlying increased fracture risk have not been clearly established, but increased falls risk, obesity, sarcopenia and co-morbidities are likely to contribute. The basis for reduced bone strength despite higher bone mineral density remains to be fully elucidated. Bone turnover is reduced in individuals with T2DM, with evidence of impaired bone formation. Most studies indicate normal or superior trabecular bone structure although reduced lumbar spine trabecular bone score (TBS) has been reported. Deficits in cortical bone structure have been demonstrated in some, but not all, studies whilst reduced bone material strength index (BMSi), as assessed by microindentation, has been a consistent finding. Accumulation of advanced glycation end products in bone may also contribute to reduced bone strength. The use of FRAX in individuals with T2DM underestimates fracture probability. Clinical management should focus on falls prevention strategies, avoidance of known risk factors, maintenance of good glycaemic control and bone protective intervention in individuals at high risk of fracture. Dietary and surgical strategies to reduce weight have beneficial effects on diabetes but may have adverse effects on skeletal health. Future research priorities include better definition of the mechanisms underlying increased fracture risk in T2DM and optimal strategies for identifying and treating those at high risk.

Skeletal fragility in diabetes

Fracture risk is heightened in patients with both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Although bone mineral density by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is decreased in T1D, it is paradoxically increased with T2D. To predict fracture risk, the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) can be used in diabetes patients, albeit with refinement. Skeletal abnormalities in diabetes include alterations in microarchitecture in T1D and T2D as well as compromised impact microindentation in T2D. Changes in bone microvasculature, advanced glycation end product accumulation, and bone formation may underlie these findings. When fractures occur in T1D and T2D, consequences are worse than in nondiabetic patients with regard to both morbidity and mortality. With regard to treatment, antiresorptive osteoporosis therapies appear to be effective in the setting of diabetes.

Clinical aspects and management of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in patients with diabetes

Both diabetes and osteoporosis are assuming epidemic proportions throughout the world. Accumulating data suggest that both types 1 and 2 diabetes are associated with an increased risk of fragility fractures. This increased risk appears to be largely independent of bone mineral density (BMD) which is most often noted to be low in type 1 diabetes and normal or increased in type 2 diabetes. This review explores the clinical characteristics of bone fragility in patients with diabetes and highlights studies that have evaluated BMD and fracture prediction tools in these patients. It also briefly reviews the current management principles of osteoporosis in diabetes, with special emphasis on the impact of diabetes medications on bone health as well as explores the efficacy of currently available antiosteoporosis pharmacotherapy in the diabetic population.

Diabetes, bone and glucose-lowering agents: clinical outcomes

Older adults with diabetes are at higher risk of fracture and of complications resulting from a fracture. Hence, fracture risk reduction is an important goal in diabetes management. This review is one of a pair discussing the relationship between diabetes, bone and glucose-lowering agents; an accompanying review is provided in this issue of Diabetologia by Beata Lecka-Czernik (DOI 10.1007/s00125-017-4269-4 ). Specifically, this review discusses the challenges of accurate fracture risk assessment in diabetes. Standard tools for risk assessment can be used to predict fracture but clinicians need to be aware of the tendency for the bone mineral density T-score and the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) to underestimate risk in those with diabetes. Diabetes duration, complications and poor glycaemic control are useful clinical markers of increased fracture risk. Glucose-lowering agents may also affect fracture risk, independent of their effects on glycaemic control, as seen with the negative skeletal effects of the thiazolidinediones; in this review, the potential effects of glucose-lowering medications on fracture risk are discussed. Finally, the current understanding of effective fracture prevention in older adults with diabetes is reviewed.

The efficacy and safety of vertebral fracture prevention therapies in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment: Which therapies work best? a network meta-analysis

Objectives

Osteoporosis has become an increasing concern for older people as it may potentially lead to osteoporotic fractures. This study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ten therapies for post-menopausal women using network meta-analysis.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in several databases, including PubMed and Embase. A random-effects model was employed and results were assessed by the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Furthermore, with respect to each outcome, each intervention was ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value.

Results

With respect to preventing new vertebral fractures (NVF), all ten drugs outperformed placebo, and etidronate proved to be the most effective treatment (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.39). In addition, zoledronic acid and parathyroid hormone ranked higher compared with the other drugs. With respect to preventing clinical vertebral fractures (CVF), zoledronic acid proved to be the most effective drug (OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.92), with denosumab as a desirable second option (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96), when both were compared with placebo. As for adverse events (AE) and severe adverse events (SAE), no significant difference was observed. According to SUCRA, etidronate ranked first in preventing CVF; parathyroid hormone and zoledronic acid ranked highly in preventing NVF and CVF. Raloxifene was safe with a high rank in preventing AEs and SAEs though performed unsatisfactorily in efficacy.

Conclusions

This study suggests that, taking efficacy and safety into account, parathyroid hormone and zoledronic acid had the highest probability of satisfactory performance in preventing osteoporotic fractures.

Cite this article: G. Wang, L. Sui, P. Gai, G. Li, X. Qi, X. Jiang. The efficacy and safety of vertebral fracture prevention therapies in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment: Which therapies work best? a network meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:452–463. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2016-0292.R1.

Efficacy of Osteoporosis Therapies in Diabetic Patients

Diabetes is characterized by increased fracture risk and by reduced bone strength for a given density. Contributing factors may include lower bone turnover and accumulation of advanced glycation endproducts. There are concerns that the pharmacological therapies for osteoporosis, particularly anti-resorptive therapies that suppress bone turnover, may not be as effective in the setting of diabetes. This review considers clinical trials and observational studies that have assessed the efficacy of anti-resorptive and anabolic therapies in diabetic patients. Post hoc analyses of randomized trials indicate that raloxifene has similar efficacy for prevention of vertebral fractures in diabetic compared with non-diabetic patients. Evidence from randomized clinical trials is lacking for anti-fracture efficacy of other osteoporosis therapies in diabetes. However, observational studies suggest that bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fractures in diabetic patients. The great majority of diabetic patients in studies to date have been type 2, and efficacy of osteoporosis therapies in type 1 diabetic patients remains to be addressed. Further evaluation of the efficacy of osteoporosis therapies in the setting of diabetes is needed to provide optimal fracture prevention for this population.

Skeletal Metabolism, Fracture Risk, and Fracture Outcomes in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Fracture risk is significantly increased in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and individuals with diabetes experience worse fracture outcomes than normoglycemic individuals. Factors that increase fracture risk include lower bone mass in type 1 diabetes and compromised skeletal quality and strength despite preserved bone density in type 2 diabetes, as well as the effects of comorbidities such as diabetic macro- and microvascular complications. In this Perspective, we assess the developing scientific knowledge regarding the epidemiology and pathophysiology of skeletal fragility in patients with diabetes and the emerging data on the prediction, treatment, and outcomes of fractures in individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Non-adherence with bisphosphonates among patients with osteoporosis: impact on fracture risk and healthcare cost‏

Osteoporosis-related fractures at the spine and hip have a substantial impact on mortality, morbidity, and quality of life in older adults worldwide. Adherence to bisphosphonates is essential for effective treatment and fracture prevention. Nevertheless, numerous studies from various populations and study designs clearly indicated that adherence and persistence are poor with more than 50% of patients discontinuing therapy within one year. This is primarily explained by mild adverse effects, dosing regimens, and costs. Studies have also shown that good adherence is associated with reduced osteoporosis-related and non-related healthcare costs as soon as 2 years from therapy initiation. Nonetheless, we found only little improvement in adherence rates over the years. In light of the importance of medication adherence and the limited success of previous programs, other than reducing dosing frequency, new directions should be explored to engage patients and care givers in order to improve adherence and prevent fractures.

Effect of osteoporosis medications on fracture healing

Antiosteoporotic medications are often used to concurrently treat a patient's fragility fractures and underlying osteoporosis. This review evaluates the existing literature from animal and clinical models to determine these drugs' effects on fracture healing. The data suggest that these medications may enhance bone healing, yet more thorough prospective studies are warranted. Pharmacologic agents that influence bone remodeling are an essential component of osteoporosis management. Because many patients are first diagnosed with osteoporosis when presenting with a fragility fracture, it is critical to understand how osteoporotic medications influence fracture healing. Vitamin D and its analogs are essential for the mineralization of the callus and may also play a role in callus formation and remodeling that enhances biomechanical strength. In animal models, antiresorptive medications, including bisphosphonates, denosumab, calcitonin, estrogen, and raloxifene, do not impede endochondral fracture healing but may delay repair due to impaired remodeling. Although bisphosphonates and denosumab delay callus remodeling, they increase callus volume and result in unaltered biomechanical properties. Calcitonin increases cartilage formation and callus maturation, resulting in improved biomechanical properties. Parathyroid hormone, an anabolic agent, has demonstrated promise in animal models, resulting in accelerated healing with increased callus volume and density, more rapid remodeling to mature bone, and improved biomechanical properties. Clinical data with parathyroid hormone have demonstrated enhanced healing in distal radius and pelvic fractures as well as postoperatively following spine surgery. Strontium ranelate, which may have both antiresorptive and anabolic properties, affects fracture healing differently in normal and osteoporotic bone. While there is no effect in normal bone, in osteoporotic bone, strontium ranelate increases callus bone formation, maturity, and mineralization; forms greater and denser trabeculae; and improves biomechanical properties. Further clinical studies with these medications are needed to fully understand their effects on fracture healing in order to simultaneously treat fragility fractures and underlying osteoporosis.