Zoledronic Acid for the Prevention of Bone Loss in Postmenopausal Women With Low Bone Mass: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Fragility fractures result in significant morbidity.

Objective

To review evidence on osteoporosis screening to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through January 9, 2024; references, experts, and literature surveillance through July 31, 2024.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of screening; pharmacotherapy studies for primary osteoporosis; predictive and diagnostic accuracy studies.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and extracted data; when at least 2 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hip, clinical vertebral, major osteoporotic, and total fractures; mortality; harms; accuracy.

Results

Three RCTs and 3 systematic reviews reported benefits of screening in older, higher-risk women. Two RCTs used 2-stage screening: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool estimate with bone mineral density (BMD) testing if risk threshold exceeded. One RCT used BMD plus additional tests. Screening was associated with reduced hip (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) and major osteoporotic fracture (pooled RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; 3 RCTs; 42 009 participants) compared with usual care. Corresponding absolute risk differences were 5 to 6 fewer fractures per 1000 participants screened. The discriminative accuracy of risk assessment instruments to predict fracture or identify osteoporosis varied by instrument and fracture type; most had an area under the curve between 0.60 and 0.80 to predict major osteoporotic fracture, hip fracture, or both. Calibration outcomes were limited. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates (pooled RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45-1.00]; 6 RCTs; 12 055 participants) and denosumab (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97] from the largest RCT [7808 participants]) were associated with reduced hip fractures. Compared with placebo, no statistically significant associations were observed for adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening in higher-risk women 65 years or older was associated with a small absolute risk reduction in hip and major fractures compared with usual care. No evidence evaluated screening with BMD alone or screening in men or younger women. Risk assessment instruments, BMD alone, or both have poor to modest discrimination for predicting fracture. Osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab over several years was associated with fracture reductions and no meaningful increase in adverse events.

Integrative Management of Bone Deformities in Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A Case Report on Zoledronic Acid and Corrective Osteotomy

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a hereditary genetic condition characterized by brittle bones that are easily broken. Surgical intervention is necessary frequently to treat fractures and deformities in patients diagnosed with OI. In this case, we discuss a case of a nine-year-old male child diagnosed with OI. This boy was previously operated on one year back for a femur fracture with osteotomy and internal fixation with nails, followed by implant removal at a later stage almost one year later. This boy was brought to our hospital with convex deformities of femur and tibia. Upon evaluation and review of this boy's case, the decision was made to administer a zoledronic acid infusion cycle over three days to enhance bone strength. Following this pharmacological therapy, this patient was planned for corrective osteotomy and internal fixation of the femur. This case underscores the complexities of managing OI and also highlights the importance of the therapeutic role of bisphosphonates like zoledronic acid alongside surgical intervention to address these kinds of bony deformities and improve patient outcomes.

Cardiovascular safety of zoledronic acid in the treatment of primary osteoporosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is intimately linked to cardiovascular disease and it has been uncertain that zoledronic acid is not correlated with cardiovascular disease. We intended to assess the cardiovascular safety of zoledronic acid in the treatment of primary osteoporosis.

METHODS

We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with osteoporosis receiving zoledronic acid or a placebo. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP from the time of database creation to April 5, 2023. Two investigators extracted data independently on study characteristics, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias based on PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

As of April 5, 2023, our search identified 32,361 records, and after excluding these records, 9 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The overall risk ratio for cardiovascular events with zoledronic acid for primary osteoporosis compared with placebo was 1.15 (95 % CI 1.05-1.26, I2=12 %, P = 0.002), while the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events with zoledronic acid (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0. 89-1.18, I2=21 %, P = 0.71) was not significant, possibly due to atrial fibrillation (RR 1.21, 95 % CI 0.99-1.47, I2=0 %, P = 0.06) versus the increased relative risk of arrhythmia (RR 1.30, 95 % CI 1.11-1.52, I2=34 %, P = 0.001). Overall, the cardiovascular risk of zoledronic acid for the treatment of primary osteoporosis was not significant; however, the relative risk of elevated atrial fibrillation and arrhythmias remains to be further studied.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with primary osteoporosis, zoledronic acid may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation (P = 0.06) and arrhythmias (P = 0.001) compared with placebo, independent of the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, angina, and heart failure. However, the sample size of men with primary osteoporosis is small, and the cardiovascular risk of zoledronic acid in men with osteoporosis is uncertain.

Women's perspectives regarding osteoporosis, fracture risk, and pharmacologic treatment: a cross-sectional study

We assessed women's perspectives regarding early preventative therapy for osteoporosis. More than a third of early menopausal women were concerned about bone loss and future fractures, and approximately half were willing to take an intravenous or oral bisphosphonate around the time of menopause to preserve bone health.

PURPOSE

Bisphosphonate medications can prevent the substantial bone loss that occurs during early menopause, but little is known about whether women would accept bisphosphonate treatment at this time in their life, when imminent fracture risk is low. We assessed women's perspectives regarding bone loss, fracture risk, and preventative pharmacotherapy in early menopause.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, Canadian women aged ≥ 45 years were recruited via Facebook advertisement to complete an electronic survey. Primary outcome was the proportion of early menopausal respondents (≤ 5 years since final menstrual period) who were worried about bone loss and fractures. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of early menopausal women willing to accept pharmacologic intervention aimed at preventing either bone loss or future fractures. We compared responses between early menopausal women and older women (> 5 years since final menstrual period).

RESULTS

2033 women responded to the Facebook advertisement, 1195 eligible women (aged: 45 to 89 years) started the survey, and 966 completed it. Among early menopausal respondents (N = 98), 38 (42%) were worried about future fractures and 9 of 25 (36%) who had a prior bone mineral density scan were worried about their results. A total of 42 (47%) were willing to start medication to prevent fractures, and 48 (54%) would start medication to prevent bone loss. Responses were comparable between early menopausal women and older women.

CONCLUSION

Menopausal women are concerned about bone loss and fractures. Many women would consider early menopausal pharmacotherapy, with the goals of preserving bone health and lowering their risk of fractures.

Bisphosphonates Preserve Bone Mineral Density and Suppress Bone Turnover Markers in Early Menopausal Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone mass and may have already sustained fractures. Short or intermittent courses of bisphosphonate therapy, initiated around the time of menopause, might prevent excessive bone loss and lower long-term fracture risk. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effects of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers in early menopausal women (ie, perimenopausal or <5 years postmenopausal) over ≥12 months. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched in July 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random effect meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan v5.3. In total, 12 trials were included (n = 1722 women); five evaluated alendronate, three risedronate, three ibandronate, and one zoledronate. Four were at low risk of bias; eight raised some concerns. Fractures were infrequent in the three studies that reported them. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates improved BMD over 12 months (mean percentage difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]) at the spine (4.32%, 95% CI, 3.10%-5.54%, p < 0.0001, n = 8 studies), the femoral neck (2.56%, 95% CI, 1.85%-3.27%, p = 0.001, n = 6 studies), and the total hip (1.22%, 95% CI 0.16%-2.28%, p = 0.002, n = 4 studies). Over treatment durations of 24 to 72 months, bisphosphonates improved BMD at the spine (5.81%, 95% CI 4.71%-6.91%, p < 0.0001, n = 8 studies), femoral neck (3.89%, 95% CI 2.73%-5.05%, p = 0.0001, n = 5 studies) and total hip (4.09%, 95% CI 2.81%-5.37%, p < 0.0001, n = 4 studies). Bisphosphonates reduced urinary N-telopeptide (-52.2%, 95% CI -60.3% to -44.2%, p < 0.00001, n = 3 studies) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (-34.2%, 95% CI -42.6% to -25.8%, p < 0.00001, n = 4 studies) more than placebo at 12 months. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that bisphosphonates improve BMD and lower bone turnover markers in early menopause, warranting further investigation of these agents for osteoporosis prevention. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Intravenous zoledronate for postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis: a systematic review and metanalysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the evidence-based health program at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo.

METHODS

An electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases was performed until February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing zoledronate with placebo or other bisphosphonates were included. Standard methodological procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and the certainty of evidence for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Two authors assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on fractures, adverse events, bone turnover markers (BTM), and bone mineral density (BMD).

RESULTS

Twelve trials from 6,652 records were included: nine compared zoledronate with placebo, two trials compared zoledronate with alendronate, and one trial compared zoledronate with ibandronate. Zoledronate reduced the incidence of fractures in osteoporotic [three years: morphometric vertebral fractures (relative risk, RR = 0.30 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.24-0.38))] and osteopenic women [six years: morphometric vertebral fractures (RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.25-0.61))], increased incidence of post-dose symptoms [RR = 2.56 (95%CI: 1.80-3.65)], but not serious adverse events [RR = 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91-1.04)]. Zoledronate reduced BTM and increased BMD in osteoporotic and osteopenic women.

CONCLUSION

This review supports the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia for six years and osteoporosis for three years.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022309708, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

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

A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis

Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health.

PURPOSE

To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.

RESULTS

Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacologic therapies for prevention of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

There are many pharmaceutical interventions available to prevent osteoporotic vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women, but the efficacy and safety of these drugs are unknown. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of drugs in the prevention of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 15, 2020, including postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Network meta-analysis was conducted based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to report the results. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020201167. Main Outcomes were incidences of new vertebral fracture and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs (n = 104 580) evaluating vertebral fractures of sixteen kinds of pharmacologic therapies were included in the network meta-analysis. Abaloparatide (RR, 0.21; [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.51]), alendronate (RR, 0.55; [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.81]), calcitonin (RR, 0.44; [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.78]), denosumab (RR, 0.33; [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.61]), parathyroid hormone (PTH) (RR, 0.32; [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.97]), risedronate (RR, 0.65; [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.00]), romosozumab (RR, 0.31; [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.61]), strontium ranelate (RR, 0.62; [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.93]), teriparatide (RR, 0.27; [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.43]), and zoledronate (RR, 0.41; [95% CI, 0.93]) were associated with lower vertebral fracture risk compared to placebo. PTH was associated with more adverse event rates. For any two drug treatments, the RR of serious adverse events was not statistically significant. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and calcitonin may be slower to work because they have only been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fractures in long-term (>18 months) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of drugs are safe and effective in preventing osteoporotic vertebral fractures. HRT and calcitonin only reduced the risk of vertebral fractures during a follow-up of 21-72 months.

Effects of Bisphosphonates Treatments in Osteopenic Older Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims: To review the effects of bisphosphonates on bone density, fractures, and bone markers in osteopenic older women.

Methods: Relevant articles published before February 2022 were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. All randomized controlled trials that reported incident fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), bone markers, or adverse events with bisphosphonates in osteopenic older women were included. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The risk ratios (RRs) for fractures, net percent change in bone mineral density and differences in bone markers were calculated using a meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 11 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Bisphosphonates significantly increased the percent changes in the lumbar spine BMD (WMD, 5.60; 95% CI, 4.16–7.03; I² = 93.6%), hip BMD (WMD, 4.80; 95% CI, 2.93 to 6.66; I² = 97.1%), total body BMD (WMD, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.12–4.35; I² = 90.9%), femoral neck BMD (WMD, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.70–6.35; I² = 91.8%) and trochanter BMD (WMD, 5.22; 95% CI, 3.51–6.93; I² = 83.6%) when compared to placebo. Zoledronate was associated with a great treatment effect on fragility fracture (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50–0.79), clinical vertebral fracture (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22–0.76), and radiographic vertebral fracture (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.27–1.35) compared to placebo. Meanwhile, alendronate was also associated with beneficial effects on fragility fracture (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.15–1.07), clinical vertebral fracture (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.17–1.24), and radiographic vertebral fracture (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.38–1.09). In addition, the use of bisphosphonates reduced the concentration of procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP) and C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) over placebo by 15.79 (95% CI, −18.92 to −12.66; I² = 28.4%), −0.23 (95% CI, −0.35 to −0.10; I² = 91.3%), respectively. Although there was insufficient evidence to determine their safety, these bisphosphonates may have an effect on cancer, cardiac events, and mortality in osteopenic older women.

Conclusion: All bisphosphonates examined were associated with beneficial effects on fractures, BMD, and bone markers in women with osteopenia. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to clarify the safety of bisphosphonates in women with osteopenia.

Effects of E2/P4 oral capsules on bone turnover in women with vasomotor symptoms

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate bone turnover markers (BTM) in the REPLENISH trial (NCT01942668).

METHODS

REPLENISH evaluated oral estradiol/progesterone (E2/P4) for the treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) in postmenopausal women with a uterus. Eligible women for this analysis had ≥50 moderate to severe VMS/wk, were <5 years since last menstrual period, and had BTM measurements at baseline, and months 6 and 12. Percent changes for three BTM (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [BSAP], C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [CTX-1], and N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen [P1NP]) assessed by immunoassay methods were evaluated from baseline to months 6 and 12 for the 1 mg E2/100 mg P4, 0.5 mg E2/100 mg P4, and placebo groups.

RESULTS

A total of 157 women (40-61 y, 69% White) were analyzed. Mean baseline values ranged from 14.0 to 14.3 U/L for BSAP, 0.34 to 0.39 ng/mL for CTX-1, and 76.9 to 79.3 ng/mL for PINP. Mean differences in percent change from baseline for both E2/P4 doses versus placebo significantly decreased at months 6 and 12 and ranged from -8% to -16% for BSAP (all, P < 0.05), -30% to -41% for CTX-1 (all, P ≤ 0.001), and -14% to -29% for PINP (all, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

REPLENISH data provide support for a potential skeletal benefit of E2/P4 when it is used for the treatment of moderate to severe VMS. Further studies are warranted.

Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover 10 Years After a Single 5 mg Dose or Two 5-Yearly Lower Doses of Zoledronate in Osteopenic Older Women: An Open-Label Extension of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Intravenous zoledronate reduces fracture risk (5 mg at 18-month intervals) and prevents bone loss (doses of 1 to 5 mg for 3 to >5 years), but the duration of action of a single 5 mg dose and the effects of lower doses beyond 5 years are unknown. We report the second open-label extension (years 5 to 10) of a 2-year randomized, multidose, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial. A total of 116 older women who completed 5 years of participation either continued observation without further treatment (zoledronate 5 mg and placebo at baseline) or received repeat doses of 1 or 2.5 mg zoledronate (zoledronate 1 mg and zoledronate 2.5 mg at baseline, respectively). Outcomes were spine, hip, and total body bone mineral density (BMD) and serum markers of bone turnover. After a single 5 mg dose of zoledronate, mean BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip was maintained at or above baseline levels for 9 and 10 years, respectively. The mean level of the bone resorption marker β-C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (β-CTX) was at least 25% lower than that in the placebo group for 9 years. In women administered 5-yearly doses of 2.5 mg zoledronate, mean BMD at the total hip and lumbar spine was maintained at or above baseline levels for 9 and 10 years, respectively. Redosing with 1 or 2.5 mg zoledronate at 5 years reduced bone turnover markers for 3 to 4 years. BMD increased for 3 to 4 years after redosing with 1 mg zoledronate. In the group given 5-yearly 2.5 mg zoledronate, β-CTX was at least 20% lower than that in the placebo group for 10 years. Both a single baseline 5 mg dose of zoledronate and 5-yearly doses of 1 and 2.5 mg zoledronate prevented bone loss at hip and spine for 8 to 10 years in older postmenopausal women. Clinical trials to evaluate the effects on fracture risk of these very infrequent and lower doses of zoledronate are justified. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: the 2021 position statement of The North American Menopause Society

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence regarding osteoporosis screening, prevention, diagnosis, and management in the past decade and update the position statement published by The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) in 2010 regarding the management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women as new therapies and paradigms have become available.

DESIGN

NAMS enlisted a panel of clinician experts in the field of metabolic bone diseases and/or women's health to review and update the 2010 NAMS position statement and recommendations on the basis of new evidence and clinical judgement. The panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.

RESULTS

Osteoporosis, especially prevalent in older postmenopausal women, increases the risk of fractures that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Postmenopausal bone loss, related to estrogen deficiency, is the primary contributor to osteoporosis. Other important risk factors for postmenopausal osteoporosis include advanced age, genetics, smoking, thinness, and many diseases and drugs that impair bone health. An evaluation of these risk factors to identify candidates for osteoporosis screening and recommending nonpharmacologic measures such as good nutrition (especially adequate intake of protein, calcium, and vitamin D), regular physical activity, and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption are appropriate for all postmenopausal women. For women at high risk for osteoporosis, especially perimenopausal women with low bone density and other risk factors, estrogen or other therapies are available to prevent bone loss. For women with osteoporosis and/or other risk factors for fracture, including advanced age and previous fractures, the primary goal of therapy is to prevent new fractures. This is accomplished by combining nonpharmacologic measures, drugs to increase bone density and to improve bone strength, and strategies to reduce fall risk. If pharmacologic therapy is indicated, government-approved options include estrogen agonists/antagonists, bisphosphonates, RANK ligand inhibitors, parathyroid hormone-receptor agonists, and inhibitors of sclerostin.

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoporosis is a common disorder in postmenopausal women. Management of skeletal health in postmenopausal women involves assessing risk factors for fracture, reducing modifiable risk factors through dietary and lifestyle changes, and the use of pharmacologic therapy for patients at significant risk of osteoporosis or fracture. For women with osteoporosis, lifelong management is necessary. Treatment decisions occur continuously over the lifespan of a postmenopausal woman. Decisions must be individualized and should include the patient in the process of shared decision-making.

Effect of drugs on bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk with associated disability, morbidity and mortality. This Bayesian network meta-analysis compared the effects of current anti-osteoporosis drugs on bone mineral density.

Methods

The present systematic review and network meta-analysis follows the PRISMA extension statement to report systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions. The literature search was performed in June 2021. All randomised clinical trials that have investigated the effects of two or more drug treatments on BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. The network comparisons were performed through the STATA Software/MP routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method with standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for analysis.

Results

Data from 64 RCTs involving 82,732 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 29.7 ± 19.6 months. Denosumab resulted in a higher spine BMD (SMD −0.220; SE 3.379), followed by pamidronate (SMD −5.662; SE 2.635) and zoledronate (SMD −10.701; SE 2.871). Denosumab resulted in a higher hip BMD (SMD −0.256; SE 3.184), followed by alendronate (SMD −17.032; SE 3.191) and ibandronate (SMD −17.250; SE 2.264). Denosumab resulted in a higher femur BMD (SMD 0.097; SE 2.091), followed by alendronate (SMD −16.030; SE 1.702) and ibandronate (SMD −17.000; SE 1.679).

Conclusion

Denosumab results in higher spine BMD in selected women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab had the highest influence on hip and femur BMD.

Level of evidence

Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs

Effectiveness of bisphosphonates on bone mineral density in osteopenic postmenopausal women: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Various bisphosphonate agents have been proven to be effective in preventing bone loss and fracture in osteopenic postmenopausal women. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of various BPs on preventing the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) for postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were screened up to identify randomized controlled trails comparing effectiveness of BPs or placebo on the BMD of postmenopausal women with osteopenia. Network meta-analysis and standard pair-wise meta-analyses were performed. The main outcomes include the percentage changes of 6-, 12-, 24-, and 36-month BMD at lumbar, total hip and femoral neck, and frequencies of new fractures and severe adverse events.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were eligible, involving 11,540 participants. No significant difference was presented among the available interventions for the 6-month BMD at 3 different sites, but the magnitudes of differences among the treatment regimens became gradually increased along with the extending of follow-up periods. Daily aledronate of more than 5 mg provided the maximal percentage increase on BMD of femoral neck and lumbar spine, while zoledronate provided maximal change on BMD of total hip, at different follow-up periods. This network meta-analysis also demonstrated similar frequencies of new clinical fractures and severe adverse events among different interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

A ranking spectrum depicting the effectiveness on BMD percentage change following interventions with different bisphosphonate regimens was provided. Generally, regimens with zoledronate and aledronate were found to be the most effective interventions in the 3 sites at different end points.

Simulated effects of early menopausal bone mineral density preservation on long-term fracture risk: a feasibility study

Prevention of early menopausal bone loss may reduce the future burden of osteoporosis. In this modelling exercise, an osteoporosis prevention strategy involving 5-year infusions of zoledronic acid, beginning early in menopause, reduced long-term fracture risk and the proportion of aging women with femoral neck densitometric osteoporosis. This strategy warrants further evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

Preventing early menopausal bone loss may substantially reduce the future burden of osteoporosis. We modelled the effects of infrequent zoledronic acid infusions on long-term fracture risk.

METHODS

Data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) were used to determine the expected natural history of femoral neck areal bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk (using FRAX®) from ages 50-80 for women with no antiresorptive drug exposures. We modelled the effects of three infusions of zoledronic acid (at ages 50, 55, 60) on long-term fracture risk, assuming this intervention would preserve BMD until age 65 years, followed by losses mirroring early menopausal BMD loss.

RESULTS

At age 65, untreated women and zoledronic acid recipients had expected mean (SD) femoral neck T-scores of - 1.5(1.0) and - 0.8(1.0), 10-year major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) risks of 9.8%(5.0) and 8.0%(3.7) and hip fracture risks of 1.7%(2.4) and 0.8%(1.2), respectively. At age 80, untreated women and zoledronic acid recipients had expected femoral neck T-scores of - 1.9(0.9) and - 1.4(0.9), MOF risks of 17.9%(8.2) and 14.9%(6.4) and hip fracture risks of 6.3%(6.2) and 4.4%(4.5), respectively. The expected proportion of women with femoral neck T-score ≤ - 2.5 was 14.9% for untreated women and 3.8% for zoledronic acid recipients at age 65, increasing to 28.1% and 12.0%, respectively, at age 80. Numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent one case of densitometric osteoporosis were 9 at age 65 and 5 at age 80.

CONCLUSION

Infrequent infusions of zoledronic acid, initiated early in menopause, are expected to reduce long-term fracture risk and result in a substantial reduction in the proportion of women with densitometric osteoporosis after age 65.

Potential of biomarkers during pharmacological therapy setting for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review

Background

Biochemical markers of bone turnover (BTMs), such as the bone alkaline phosphatase (bALP), procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP), serum cross-linked C-telopeptides of type I collagen (bCTx), and urinary cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx), are used to manage therapy monitoring in osteoporotic patients. This systematic review analyzed the potential of these BMTs in predicting the clinical outcomes in terms of BMD, t-score, rate of fractures, and adverse events during the therapy setting in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Methods

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting data on biomarkers for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. Only articles reporting quantitative data on the level of biomarkers at baseline and on the outcomes of interest at the last follow-up were eligible.

Results

A total of 36,706 patients were retrieved. Greater values of bALP were associated with a greater rate of vertebral (P = 0.001) and non-vertebral fractures (P = 0.0001). Greater values of NTx at baseline were associated with a greater rate of adverse events at the last follow-up (P = 0.02). Greater values of CTx at baseline were associated with a greater rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation (P = 0.04), gastrointestinal adverse events (P = 0.0001), musculoskeletal adverse events (P = 0.04), and mortality (P = 0.04). Greater values of PINP at baseline were associated with greater rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (P = 0.02) at the last follow-up.

Conclusion

The present analysis supports the adoption of BMTs during pharmacological therapy setting of patients suffering from osteoporosis.

Level of evidence

I, systematic review of RCTs

Cardiovascular Safety Profile of Romosozumab: A Pharmacovigilance Analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

Background: Cardiovascular safety concerns for major cardiovascular events (MACE) were raised during the clinical trials of romosozumab. We aimed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety profile of romosozumab in a large pharmacovigilance database. Methods: All cases reported between January 2019 and December 2020 where romosozumab was reported were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The outcome of interest was MACE (myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiovascular death). A disproportionality analysis was conducted by estimating the reporting odds ratios (RORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Disproportionality analyses were stratified by sex and reporting region (US, Japan, other). Results: Of the 1995 eligible cases with romosozumab, the majority (N = 1188; 59.5%) originated from Japan. Overall, 206 suspected MACE reports were identified, of which the majority (n = 164; 13.8%) were from Japan, and 41 (5.2%) were from the United States (US). Among Japanese reports, patients were older and more frequently male than reports from the US. Similarly, cases with a reported MACE were older and had higher reports of cardioprotective drugs than those without cardiovascular events. Elevated reports for MACE (ROR 4.07, 95% CI: 2.39–6.93) was identified overall, which was primarily driven by the significant disproportionality measures in the Japanese reports. Conclusions: The current pharmacovigilance study identified a potential signal for elevated MACE, particularly in Japan. The results support the current safety warnings from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to avoid use in high-risk patients.

Summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines for osteoporosis

A summary of the draft federal clinical guidelines on osteoporosis developed by members of the Russian Association of  Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Traumatologists and Orthopedists of Russia, the Russian Association for Menopause and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics is presented. The recommendations were developed from the perspective of evidence-based medicine, in accordance with the requirements for compiling clinical recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Russia published in 2019. A significant place is given to screening of primary osteoporosis in adults, differential diagnosis with other metabolic diseases of the skeleton, modern methods of diagnosing osteoporosis, principles of prescribing pathogenetic treatment, features of sequential and combination therapy, disease prevention and rehabilitation. Clinical recommendations will be useful both to general practitioners and physicians, as well as to narrow specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic traumatologists, nephrologists, obstetrician-gynecologists and neurologists, since osteoporosis is a multifactorial and multidisciplinary disease.

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.

Establishment of a Disease-Drug Trial Model for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Zoledronic Acid Case Study

Costly and lengthy clinical trials hinder the development of safe and effective treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis. To reduce the expense associated with these trials, we established a mechanistic disease-drug trial model for postmenopausal osteoporosis that can predict phase 3 trial outcome based on short-term bone turnover marker data. To this end, we applied a previously developed model for tibolone to bisphosphonates using zoledronic acid as paradigm compound by (1) linking the mechanistic bone cell interaction model to bone turnover markers as well as bone mineral density in lumbar spine and total hip, (2) employing a mechanistic disease progression function, and (3) accounting for zoledronic acid's mechanism of action. Once developed, we fitted the model to clinical trial data of 581 postmenopausal women receiving (1) 5-mg zoledronic acid in year 1 and saline in year 2, (2) 5-mg zoledronic acid in year 1 and year 2, or (3) placebo (saline), calcium (500 mg), and vitamin D (400 IU). All biomarker data was fitted reasonably well, with no apparent bias or model misspecification. Age, years since menopause, and body mass index at baseline were identified as significant covariates. In the future, the model can be modified to explore the link between short-term biomarkers and fracture risk.

A single dose of zoledronate preserves bone mineral density for up to 2 years after a second course of romosozumab

This phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of transitioning to zoledronate following romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. A single dose of 5 mg zoledronate generally maintained the robust BMD gains accrued with romosozumab treatment and was well tolerated.

INTRODUCTION

Follow-on therapy with an antiresorptive agent is necessary to maintain the skeletal benefits of romosozumab therapy. We evaluated the use of zoledronate following romosozumab treatment.

METHODS

This phase 2, dose-finding study enrolled postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD). Subjects who received various romosozumab doses or placebo from months 0-24 were rerandomized to denosumab (60 mg SC Q6M) or placebo for 12 months, followed by open-label romosozumab (210 mg QM) for 12 months. At month 48, subjects who had received active treatment for 48 months were assigned to no further active treatment and all other subjects were assigned to zoledronate 5 mg IV. Efficacy (BMD, P1NP, and β-CTX) and safety were evaluated for 24 months, up to month 72.

RESULTS

A total of 141 subjects entered the month 48-72 period, with 51 in the no further active treatment group and 90 in the zoledronate group. In subjects receiving no further active treatment, lumbar spine (LS) BMD decreased by 10.8% from months 48-72 but remained 4.2% above the original baseline. In subjects receiving zoledronate, LS BMD was maintained (percentage changes: - 0.8% from months 48-72; 12.8% from months 0-72). Similar patterns were observed for proximal femur BMD in both groups. With no further active treatment, P1NP and β-CTX decreased but remained above baseline at month 72. Following zoledronate, P1NP and β-CTX levels initially decreased but approached baseline by month 72. No new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSION

A zoledronate follow-on regimen can maintain robust BMD gains achieved with romosozumab treatment.

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

Objectives

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

Differing Effects of Zoledronic Acid on Bone Microarchitecture and Bone Mineral Density in Men Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) given to men with prostate cancer causes rapid and severe sex steroid deficiency, leading to increased bone remodeling and accelerated bone loss. To examine the effects of a single dose of zoledronic acid on bone microarchitecture, we conducted a 2-year randomized placebo controlled trial in 76 men, mean age (interquartile range [IQR]) 67.8 years (63.8 to 73.9) with non-metastatic prostate cancer commencing adjuvant ADT; 39 were randomized to zoledronic acid and 37 to matching placebo. Bone microarchitecture was measured using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT). Using a mixed model, mean adjusted differences (MAD; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]) between the groups are reported as the treatment effect at several time points. Over 24 months, zoledronic acid showed no appreciable treatment effect on the primary outcomes for total volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD); radius (6.7 mg HA/cm³ [-2.0 to 15.4], p = 0.21) and tibia (1.9 mg HA/cm³ [-3.3 to 7.0], p = 0.87). Similarly, there were no between-group differences in other measures of microarchitecture, with the exception of a modest effect of zoledronic acid over placebo in total cortical vBMD at the radius over 12 months (17.3 mgHA/cm³ [5.1 to 29.5]). In contrast, zoledronic acid showed a treatment effect over 24 months on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at all sites, including lumbar spine (0.10 g/cm² [0.07 to 0.13]), p < 0.001), and total hip (0.04 g/cm² [0.03 to 0.05], p < 0.001). Bone remodeling markers were initially suppressed in the treatment group then increased but remained lower relative to placebo (MADs at 24 months CTX -176 ng/L [-275 to -76], p < 0.001; P1NP -18 mg/L [-32 to -5], p < 0.001). These findings suggest that a single dose of zoledronic acid over 2 years is ineffective in preventing the unbalanced bone remodeling and severe microstructural deterioration associated with ADT therapy. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Zoledronate

Zoledronate is the most potent and most long-acting bisphosphonate in clinical use, and is administered as an intravenous infusion. Its major uses are in osteoporosis, Paget's disease, and in myeloma and cancers to reduce adverse skeletal related events (SREs). In benign disease, it is a first- or second-line treatment for osteoporosis, achieving anti-fracture efficacy comparable to that of the RANKL blocker, denosumab, over 3 years, and it reduces fracture risk in osteopenic older women. It is the preferred treatment for Paget's disease, achieving higher rates of remissions which are much more prolonged than with any other agent. Some trials have suggested that it reduces mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer, but these findings are not consistent across all studies. It is nephrotoxic, so should not be given to those with significant renal impairment, and, like other potent anti-resorptive agents, can cause hypocalcemia in patients with severe vitamin D deficiency, which should be corrected before administration. Its most common adverse effect is the acute phase response, seen in 30-40% of patients after their first dose, and much less commonly subsequently. Clinical trials in osteoporosis have not demonstrated increases in osteonecrosis of the jaw or in atypical femoral fractures. Observational databases are currently inadequate to determine whether these problems are increased in zoledronate users. Now available as a generic, zoledronate is a cost-effective agent for fracture prevention and for management of Paget's disease, but wider provision of infusion facilities is important to increase patient access. There is a need to further explore its potential for reducing cancer, cardiovascular disease and mortality, since these effects could be substantially more important than its skeletal actions.

Therapeutic approach and management algorithms in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MONJ): recommendations of a multidisciplinary group of experts

BACKGROUND

The justification for this consensus is the absence of local protocols on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws (MONJ), for prevention, evaluation, and treatment, involving physicians and dentists, leading to suspension of antiresorptive treatments, despite their benefit in the prevention of fragility fractures (40-70%). These fractures cause disability and mortality (80% and 20-30%, respectively), as opposed to the low risk associated with MONJ in osteoporotic (0.01-0.03%) and oncological patients (1.3-1.8%).

PURPOSE

To provide management recommendations through algorithms that guide health professionals to prevent, diagnose, and treat MONJ in different clinical scenarios.

METHOD

A technical multidisciplinary team composed of specialists with extensive experience in osteoporosis or osteonecrosis of the jaw from Fundación Santa Fé (Bogotá, Colombia) and the Asociación Colombiana de Osteoporosis y Metabolismo Mineral was selected. Three rounds were carried out: definition of questions, answers using Delphi methodology, and the discussion of questions in order to have an agreement. The whole group participated in two phases, and the developer group in the total number of rounds. A literature review was conducted to obtain academic support to design questions with clinical relevance.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The consensus group generated definitions and recommendations useful for doctors and dentists, following clinical algorithms involving four scenarios: osteoporosis patient who requires dental procedures and has not received antiresorptives, osteoporosis patient who are under treatment with antiresorptives, cancer patients, and MONJ-instituted patients. The therapeutic approach in osteoporosis and cancer patients, in invasive dental procedures, must be relied on the risk-benefit treatment.

Effect of different hydration doses on renal function in patients with primary osteoporosis treated with zoledronic acid: A hospital-based retrospective cohort study

The objective was to investigate the association of different hydration doses and its effect on renal function in patients with primary osteoporosis treated with zoledronic acid.The subjects with primary osteoporosis treated with zoledronic acid at the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, China, from January 2015 to December 2018 were included in this study. The subjects were classified according to different hydration doses. Renal function indexes before and after treatment were collected and adverse reactions recorded to analyze the changes in renal function associated with different hydration doses.The choice of the hydration dose treated with zoledronic acid deserves attention. The lower hydration dose is, the greater impact on renal function can be caused.

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.

Zoledronate for the Prevention of Bone Loss in Women Discontinuing Denosumab Treatment. A Prospective 2-Year Clinical Trial

Cessation of denosumab treatment is associated with increases in bone turnover above baseline values and rapid bone loss. We investigated the efficacy of zoledronate to prevent this bone loss in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who were treated with denosumab (mean duration 2.2 years) and discontinued treatment after achieving osteopenia. Women were randomized to receive a single 5-mg infusion of zoledronate (ZOL) (n = 27) or two additional 60-mg injections of denosumab (Dmab) (n = 30). Both groups were followed for a total period of 24 months. At 24 months lumbar spine-bone mineral density (LS-BMD) was not different from baseline in the ZOL group, but decreased in the Dmab group by (mean ± SD) 4.82% ± 0.7% (p < 0.001) from the 12-month value; the difference in BMD changes between the two groups, the primary endpoint of the study, was statistically significant (p = 0.025). Results of femoral neck (FN)-BMD changes were similar. ZOL infusion was followed by small but significant increases in serum procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) during the first year and stabilization thereafter. In the Dmab group, bone turnover marker values did not change during the first 12 months but increased significantly at 15 months and in the majority of women these remained elevated at 24 months. Neither baseline nor 12-month bone turnover marker values were associated with BMD changes in either group of women. In the Dmab group, three patients sustained vertebral fractures (two patients multiple clinical, one patient morphometric) whereas one patient in the ZOL group sustained clinical vertebral fractures 12 months after the infusion. In conclusion, a single intravenous infusion of ZOL given 6 months after the last Dmab injection prevents bone loss for at least 2 years independently of the rate of bone turnover. Follow-up is recommended, because in a few patients ZOL treatment might not have the expected effect at 2 years. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Comparative effectiveness of alendronate and zoledronic acid on bone mass improvement in transfusion-dependent thalassemia patients

Thalassemia, as the most prevalent genetic blood disorder, has many associated comorbidities including low bone mass. We studied the comparative effectiveness of alendronate (AL) and zoledronic acid (ZOL) on bone mass improvement in transfusion-dependent thalassemia (TDT) patients a year after treatment. Three hundred seventy-five TDT patients with low bone mass were enrolled in this study. After a year of treatment with either AL or ZOL, a second bone mineral density (BMD) test was ordered to compare the effectiveness of the two aforementioned drugs. Body mass index (BMI), physical activity, sun exposure, and biochemical laboratory data were also considered as associated factors in this study. The BMD test of both groups was almost the same at the baseline and it increased comparably after a year of treatment with AL and ZOL. However, there was a significant difference in lumbar spine BMD delta Z score between both groups of female patients. ZOL was more effective in increasing the lumbar spine BMD of female patients. The choice of bisphosphonates therapy (oral versus parenteral) should be individually selected by considering patient's preference, compliance and the physician's decision. Given the longer administration interval, and TDT patients' compliance issue, it is justified to recommend ZOL as the drug of choice for patients suffering from low bone mass.

National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop: Research Gaps for Long-Term Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention

On 30 and 31 October 2018, the National Institutes of Health convened the Pathways to Prevention (P2P) Workshop: Appropriate Use of Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention to assess the available evidence on long-term (>3 years) use of drug therapies to prevent osteoporotic fractures and identify research gaps and needs for advancing the field. The workshop was cosponsored by the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (ODP), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and National Institute on Aging. A multidisciplinary working group developed the agenda, and an Evidence-based Practice Center prepared an evidence report through a contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to facilitate the discussion. During the 1.5-day workshop, invited experts discussed the body of evidence and attendees had the opportunity to comment during open discussions. After data from the evidence report, expert presentations, and public comments were weighed, an unbiased independent panel prepared a draft report that was posted on the ODP Web site for 5 weeks for public comment. This final report summarizes the panel's findings and recommendations. Current gaps in knowledge are highlighted, and a set of recommendations for new, strengthened research to better inform the long-term use of osteoporotic drug therapies is delineated.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

LIMITATION

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

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

Effects of Intravenous Zoledronate on Bone Turnover and Bone Density Persist for at Least 11 Years in HIV-Infected Men

Previously we reported the results of a 4-year extension of a 2-year randomized placebo-controlled trial showing that the antiresorptive effects of two annual 4-mg doses of zoledronate in HIV-infected men persisted for at least 5 years after the second dose. We set out to determine whether the effects on BMD and bone turnover persist beyond 10 years. We invited all participants in the original trial known to be alive and living in New Zealand to attend an additional visit approximately 12 years after trial entry and 11 years after their second dose of study medication. The outcome measures were BMD at the lumbar spine, proximal femur, and total body, and markers of bone turnover. Twenty-five of the 43 men originally enrolled in the trial attended the final visit, representing 25 of 31 (81%) participants alive and residing in New Zealand at the time. The average duration of follow-up was 12.4 years. At the final visit, BMD remained higher in the zoledronate group than the placebo group (lumbar spine 3.7%, 95% CI, 0.1 to 7.3; total hip 3.7%, 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.2; femoral neck 5.0%, 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.9; total body 2.4%, 95% CI, 0.7 to 4.0), and the between-group differences in BMD remained stable between 6 and 12 years. Serum CTx remained lower in the zoledronate group than the placebo group between 6 and 12 years and, at the final visit, was 45% lower (95% CI, 25 to 64) than the placebo group. P1NP was 26% (95% CI, 4 to 48) lower in the zoledronate group than the placebo group at the final visit. In summary, two annual 4-mg doses of zoledronate have effects on bone turnover and BMD in men that persist for at least 11 years after the second dose. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Fracture Prevention with Zoledronate in Older Women with Osteopenia

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Screening to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Osteoporotic fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence on screening and treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries (November 1, 2009, through October 1, 2016) and surveillance of the literature (through March 23, 2018); bibliographies from articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults 40 years and older; screening cohorts without prevalent low-trauma fractures or treatment cohorts with increased fracture risk; studies assessing screening, bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments, pharmacologic treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual, independent review of titles/abstracts and full-text articles; study quality rating; random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incident fractures and related morbidity and mortality, diagnostic and predictive accuracy, harms of screening or treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-eight fair- or good-quality articles were included. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 12 483) comparing screening with no screening reported fewer hip fractures (2.6% vs 3.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]) but no other statistically significant benefits or harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests to identify osteoporosis varied (area under the curve [AUC], 0.32-0.89). The pooled accuracy of clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis ranged from AUC of 0.65 to 0.76 in women and from 0.76 to 0.80 in men; the accuracy for predicting fractures was similar. For women, bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, and denosumab were associated with a lower risk of vertebral fractures (9 trials [n = 23 690]; relative risks [RRs] from 0.32-0.64). Bisphosphonates (8 RCTs [n = 16 438]; pooled RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]) and denosumab (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) were associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97]), but bisphosphonates did not have a statistically significant association (3 RCTs [n = 8988]; pooled RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.44-1.11]). Evidence was limited for men: zoledronic acid reduced the risk of radiographic vertebral fractures (1 RCT [n = 1199]; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.70]); no studies demonstrated reductions in clinical or hip fractures. Bisphosphonates were not consistently associated with reported harms other than deep vein thrombosis (raloxifene vs placebo; 3 RCTs [n = 5839]; RR, 2.14 [95% CI, 0.99-4.66]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In women, screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures may reduce hip fractures, and treatment reduced the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures; there was not consistent evidence of treatment harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis or predicting fractures varied from very poor to good.

NAMS 3rd Utian Translational Science Symposium, October 2016, Orlando, Florida A conversation about hormone therapy: is there an appropriate dose, route, and duration of use?

The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) held the 3rd Utian Translational Symposium on October 4, 2016, in Orlando, Florida, to answer questions about the benefits and risks of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal women. This report is a record of the proceedings of that symposium.The maxim about HT for the past 15 years since the publication of the initial results of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) has been to prescribe the "lowest dose for the shortest period of time." With new clinical trials, observational data, and further analysis of the WHI and the cumulative 13 years' follow-up, it was time to hold a conversation about the state of the evidence and recommendations for HT dose, route, and duration of use.The symposium brought together experts in the field of HT to speak on these topics, organized by session, after which working groups gathered to synthesize the presentations into areas of what still needs to be known and how to proceed with areas of needed research. After the presentations, there was consensus that postmenopausal women aged younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause onset without contraindications and who desire to take HT for relief of vasomotor symptoms or prevention of bone loss if at elevated risk can safely do so.The working groups raised the possibility that the use of "Big Data" (pharmacy and cancer databases) would allow answers that cannot be found in clinical trials. This could lead to more appropriate FDA labeling and patient package inserts reflecting the true risks associated with various types and formulations of HT, with differences among estrogen alone, estrogen with a progestogen, and estrogen plus a selective estrogen-receptor modulator for the younger women most likely to initiate these therapies for symptom relief. Differences were found for potential risk among estrogen alone, estrogen with synthetic progestins contrasted to progesterone, lower doses, nonoral doses, and low-dose vaginal estrogen.With all of the available routes and dosages, including vaginal estrogen alone for genitourinary symptoms, there are many options when considering the most appropriate type, dose, formulation, route of administration, and duration of use, taking into account the age of the woman at initiation of HT and the time from menopause.

Efficacy and Safety of Zoledronic Acid for Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

We conducted a meta-analysis based on eligible studies to assess the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for eligible studies that assessed the efficacy of zoledronic acid in the prevention of fractures among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The primary outcomes were new vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and hip fracture. Secondary outcomes were bone mineral density (BMD) and safety outcomes. A fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to pool the estimates according to the heterogeneity among the included studies. Eight randomized controlled trials, involving 13,335 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that treatment with zoledronic acid significantly reduced the incidences of nonvertebral fractures, vertebral fractures, and hip fractures, as compared with placebo. Zoledronic acid was also associated with significant improvement in BMD at lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter. However, the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the zoledronic acid group than that in the control group, and serious adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis indicated that zoledronic acid could significantly reduce the fracture risk and increase BMD in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Furthermore, it would not result in serious adverse events. Zoledronic acid could be used as an effective and well-tolerated treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Calcium supplementation in osteoporosis: useful or harmful?

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are important social and economic problems worldwide and are due to both the loss of bone mineral density and sarcopenia. Indeed, fragility fractures are associated with increased disability, morbidity and mortality. It is known that a normal calcium balance together with a normal vitamin D status is important for maintaining well-balanced bone metabolism, and for many years, calcium and vitamin D have been considered crucial in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. However, recently, the usefulness of calcium supplementation (alone or with concomitant vitamin D) has been questioned, since some studies reported only weak efficacy of these supplementations in reducing fragility fracture risk. On the other hand, besides the gastrointestinal side effects of calcium supplements and the risk of kidney stones related to use of co-administered calcium and vitamin D supplements, other recent data suggested potential adverse cardiovascular effects from calcium supplementation. This debate article is focused on the evidence regarding both the possible usefulness for bone health and the potential harmful effects of calcium and/or calcium with vitamin D supplementation.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax^® and Fosamax^® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel^® and Actonel Once a Week^®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva^®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta^®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A 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 benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX.

LIMITATIONS

We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Bone Loss After Denosumab: Only Partial Protection with Zoledronate

A case series of six women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had received continuous denosumab for 7 years and were then given a single infusion of zoledronate (5 mg) is reported. During denosumab treatment, bone mineral density (BMD) in the spine increased 18.5% (P = 0.006), and total hip BMD by 6.9% (P = 0.03). Post-zoledronate BMDs were measured 18-23 months after treatment, and there were significant declines at each site (P _spine = 0.043, P _hip = 0.005). Spine BMD remained significantly above the pre-denosumab baseline (+9.3%, P = 0.003), but hip BMD was not significantly different from baseline (-2.9%). At the time of post-zoledronate BMD measurements, serum PINP levels were between 39 and 60 μg/L (mean 52 μg/L), suggesting that the zoledronate treatment had not adequately inhibited bone turnover. It is concluded that this regimen of zoledronate administration is not adequate to preserve the BMD gains that result from long-term denosumab treatment.

Duration of antiresorptive activity of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia: a randomized, controlled multidose trial

BACKGROUND

Intravenous zoledronate 5 mg annually reduces fracture risk, and 5 mg every 2 years prevents bone loss, but the optimal dosing regimens for these indications are uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-year open-label extension of a 2-year randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Late postmenopausal women with osteopenia were assigned to receive a single baseline dose of 1 mg, 2.5 mg or 5 mg of zoledronate or placebo. The primary outcome was change in spine bone mineral density (BMD). Secondary outcomes were changes in hip BMD and serum markers of bone turnover.

RESULTS

The study involved 160 women. Zoledronate increased BMD and reduced markers of bone turnover in a dose-dependent manner. After 2 years, the 1-mg, 2.5-mg and 5-mg zoledronate doses increased spine BMD over placebo by 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 7.0%), 5.7% (95% CI 3.7% to 7.7%) and 5.7% (95% CI 3.7% to 7.6%), respectively; after 5 years, the respective increases were 2.0% (95% CI -1.1% to 5.0%), 2.2% (95% CI -1.0% to 5.4%) and 5.1% (95% CI 2.2% to 8.1%). After 2 years, the 1-mg, 2.5-mg and 5-mg zoledronate doses increased total hip BMD over placebo by 2.6% (95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), 4.1% (95% CI 2.9% to 5.4%) and 4.7% (95% CI 3.4% to 5.9%), respectively; after 5 years, the respective increases were 1.8% (95% CI -0.1% to 3.8%), 2.8% (95% CI 0.8% to 4.8%) and 5.4% (95% CI 3.5% to 7.3%). BMD remained above baseline values for 2-3 years in the 1-mg group, 3-4 years in the 2.5-mg group and at least 5 years in the 5-mg group.

INTERPRETATION

The antiresorptive activity of single zoledronate doses of 1-5 mg persist for at least 3 years in postmenopausal women with osteopenia. Clinical trials would be justified to evaluate the effects on fracture risk of less frequent or lower doses of zoledronate than are currently recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.anzctr.org.au, no. ACTRN12607000576426.

Clinical effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative efficacy of bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate and zoledronic acid) for the treatment of osteoporosis using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A network meta-analysis was used to determine the relative efficacy of treatments on four fracture outcomes (vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist) and percentage change in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Treatment effects were modelled using an exchangeable treatment effects model. Heterogeneity in treatment effects was explored by considering potential treatment effect modifiers using meta-regression. Where appropriate, inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was assessed using node-splitting.

RESULTS

46 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Twenty seven RCTs provided fracture data and 35 RCTs provided BMD data for analysis. Zoledronic acid was associated with the greatest treatment effect on vertebral fractures (HR 0.41, 95% CrI: 0.28, 0.56) and percentage change in BMD (3.21, 95%: CrI 2.52, 3.86) compared to placebo. The greatest treatment effect on non-vertebral and wrist fractures was given by risedronate (HR 0.72, 95%: CrI 0.53, 0.89 and HR 0.77, 95%: CrI 0.44, 1.24, respectively). For hip fractures the greatest treatment effect was given by alendronate (HR 0.78, 95% CrI: 0.44, 1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

All treatments examined were associated with beneficial effects on fractures and femoral neck BMD relative to placebo. For vertebral fractures and percentage change in femoral neck BMD the treatment effects were statistically significant for all treatments. Pairwise comparisons between treatments indicated that no active treatment was statistically significantly more effective than any other active treatment for fracture outcomes. There was some heterogeneity in treatment effects between studies suggesting differential treatment effects according to study characteristics; however, there was no evidence of differential treatment effects with respect to gender and age.

Intravenous zoledronate for osteoporosis: less might be more

Annual administration of 5 mg intravenous zoledronate is moderately effective in reducing fracture risk in older adults, decreasing the relative risk of clinical fracture by 33%. However, almost 10 years after its approval for use in clinical practice there remain very substantial uncertainties about the optimal treatment regimen, that is, the lowest dose and/or longest dosing interval that is efficacious. Several pieces of clinical research suggest that the current recommendation for annual administration of 5 mg zoledronate might represent overtreatment. Clinical trials to clarify the optimal use of zoledronate for reduction of fracture risk should be undertaken.

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

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

Should we prescribe calcium or vitamin D supplements to treat or prevent osteoporosis?

Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence to inform clinical practice. Meta-analyses of large RCTs of calcium and/or vitamin D supplements completed in the last 15 years provide strong evidence for clinical recommendations. These meta-analyses with data for > 50,000 older adults reported that calcium with or without vitamin D has only weak, inconsistent effects on fracture, and that vitamin D without calcium has no effect on fracture. Only one RCT of co-administered calcium and vitamin D in frail, institutionalized, elderly women with low dietary calcium intake and vitamin D levels showed significant reductions in fracture risk. These RCTs have also reported previously unrecognized adverse events of calcium supplements including kidney stones, myocardial infarction, hypercalcemia, and hospitalization with acute gastrointestinal symptoms. The small risk of these important adverse effects, together with the moderate risk of minor side-effects such as constipation, probably outweighs any benefits of calcium supplements on fracture. These data suggest the role for calcium and vitamin D supplements in osteoporosis management is very limited. Neither calcium nor vitamin D supplements should be recommended for fracture prevention in community-dwelling adults, although vitamin D should be considered for prevention of osteomalacia in at-risk individuals.

Diagnosis and management of osteonecrosis of the jaw: a systematic review and international consensus

This work provides a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2014 pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and offers recommendations for its management based on multidisciplinary international consensus. ONJ is associated with oncology-dose parenteral antiresorptive therapy of bisphosphonates (BP) and denosumab (Dmab). The incidence of ONJ is greatest in the oncology patient population (1% to 15%), where high doses of these medications are used at frequent intervals. In the osteoporosis patient population, the incidence of ONJ is estimated at 0.001% to 0.01%, marginally higher than the incidence in the general population (<0.001%). New insights into the pathophysiology of ONJ include antiresorptive effects of BPs and Dmab, effects of BPs on gamma delta T-cells and on monocyte and macrophage function, as well as the role of local bacterial infection, inflammation, and necrosis. Advances in imaging include the use of cone beam computerized tomography assessing cortical and cancellous architecture with lower radiation exposure, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scanning, and positron emission tomography, although plain films often suffice. Other risk factors for ONJ include glucocorticoid use, maxillary or mandibular bone surgery, poor oral hygiene, chronic inflammation, diabetes mellitus, ill-fitting dentures, as well as other drugs, including antiangiogenic agents. Prevention strategies for ONJ include elimination or stabilization of oral disease prior to initiation of antiresorptive agents, as well as maintenance of good oral hygiene. In those patients at high risk for the development of ONJ, including cancer patients receiving high-dose BP or Dmab therapy, consideration should be given to withholding antiresorptive therapy following extensive oral surgery until the surgical site heals with mature mucosal coverage. Management of ONJ is based on the stage of the disease, size of the lesions, and the presence of contributing drug therapy and comorbidity. Conservative therapy includes topical antibiotic oral rinses and systemic antibiotic therapy. Localized surgical debridement is indicated in advanced nonresponsive disease and has been successful. Early data have suggested enhanced osseous wound healing with teriparatide in those without contraindications for its use. Experimental therapy includes bone marrow stem cell intralesional transplantation, low-level laser therapy, local platelet-derived growth factor application, hyperbaric oxygen, and tissue grafting.

Prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

In the beginning, that is from the 1960's, when a link between menopause and osteoporosis was first identified; estrogen treatment was the standard for preventing bone loss, however there was no fracture data, even though it was thought to be effective. This continued until the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study in 2001 that published data on 6 years of treatment with hormone therapy that showed an increase in heart attacks and breast cancer. Even though the risks were small, 1 per 1500 users annually, patients were worried and there was a large drop off in estrogen use. In later analyses the WHI study showed that estrogen reduced fractures and actually prevented heart attacks in the 50-60 year age group. Estrogen alone appeared to be safer to use than estrogen+the progestin medroxyprogesterone acetate and actually reduced breast cancer. At the same time other drugs were being developed for bone that belong to the bisphosphonate group and the first generation of compounds showed moderate potency on bone resorption. The second and third generation compounds were much more potent and in a series of large trials were shown to reduce fractures. For the last 15 years the treatment of osteoporosis belonged to the bisphosphonate compounds, most of which reduce fracture rates by 50 percent. With the exception of gastrointestinal irritation the drugs are well tolerated and highly effective. The sophistication of the delivery systems now allow treatment that can be given daily, weekly, monthly and annually either orally or intravenously. Bone remodeling is a dynamic process that repairs microfractures and replaces old bone with new bone. In the last 10 years there has been a remarkable understanding of bone biology so that new therapies can be specifically designed on a biological basis. The realization that RANKL was the final cytokine involved in the resorption process and that marrow cells produced a natural antagonist called Osteoprotegerin (OPG) quickly led to two lines of therapy. First OPG was used as a therapy to block RANKL was initially successful but later antibodies against OPG developed and this line of treatment had to be discontinued. The next step was to develop a monoclonal antibody against RANKL and this proved to be highly effective in blocking bone resorption. It led to development of a drug Denosumab that successfully reduces fractures and is now one of the therapeutic options for osteoporosis treatment. On the anabolic side bone biology research showed that osteocytes produces sclerostin an inhibitor of the anabolic WNT signaling pathway. Recent development of a monoclonal antibody against sclerostin has shown remarkable anabolic activity in bone showing large increases in bone density and fracture trials are now underway. The newer treatments for osteoporosis are likely to be based on our understanding of bone biology and the design of new highly specific compounds with fewer side effects. This review summarizes the diagnosis of postmenopausal osteoporosis and various available non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapies available for its management. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Menopause'.

Osteopenia: debates and dilemmas

Whether or not to use pharmacologic agents for primary prevention of fracture among elderly men and women with osteopenia is debated by clinicians. In this review we provide an update to enable better understanding and characterization of this population, including the prevalence of osteopenia, transitioning from osteopenia to osteoporosis, and clinically applicable tools for fracture risk assessment. We also emphasize the very limited evidence of the benefits and risks of anti-osteoporotic agents for this population for primary fracture prevention, and the need for future studies to guide clinical practice.