Multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the effects of alendronate on bone density and fracture risk in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: results of the FOSIT study. Fosamax International Trial Study Group

Initiation of Bisphosphonates Prior to Total Joint Arthroplasty Does Not Lower Periprosthetic Fracture Risk

BACKGROUND

Many patients are diagnosed with osteoporosis shortly prior to scheduling total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to determine if initiation of bisphosphonates prior to TJA decreased the risks of periprosthetic fractures (PPFx).

METHODS

A national database was used to identify all patients diagnosed with osteoporosis prior to primary TJA. Patients who had osteoporosis without preoperative bisphosphonate use were designated as our control group. Patients on preoperative bisphosphonates were stratified based on duration and timing of bisphosphonate use: long-term preoperative users (initiation 3 to 5 years preoperatively), intermediate-term preoperative users (initiation 1 to 3 years preoperatively), and short-term preoperative users (initiation 0 to 1 year preoperatively). Rates of PPFx at 90-day and 2-year follow-up were compared between groups.

RESULTS

In patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty, there was no difference in PPFx rate between our control group and preoperative bisphosphonate users of all durations at 90-day (P = .12) and 2-year follow-up (P = .22). In patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty, there was no difference in PPFx rate between our control group and preoperative bisphosphonate users of all durations at 90-day (P = .76) and 2-year follow-up (P = .39).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing primary TJA, preoperative bisphosphonate users did not have a decreased PPFx rate compared to our control group at 90-day and 2-year follow-up. Our findings suggest that preoperative bisphosphonate use, regardless of the duration of treatment, does not confer protective benefits against PPFx in patients undergoing TJA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III.

Influence of age on the efficacy of pharmacologic treatments on fracture risk reduction and increases in BMD: RCT results from the FNIH-ASBMR-SABRE project

There is a common belief that antiosteoporosis medications are less effective in older adults. This study used data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether the anti-fracture efficacy of treatments and their effects on BMD differ in people ≥70 compared to those <70 yr. We used individual patient data from 23 RCTs of osteoporosis medications collected as part of the FNIH-ASBMR SABRE project. We assessed the following fractures: radiographic vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, all clinical, and all fractures. We used Cox proportional hazard regression to estimate treatment effect for clinical fracture outcomes, logistic regression for the radiographic vertebral fracture outcome, and linear regression to estimate treatment effect on 24-mo change in hip and spine BMD in each age subgroup. The analysis included 123 164 (99% female) participants; 43% being ≥70 yr. Treatment with anti-osteoporosis drugs significantly and similarly reduced fractures in both subgroups (eg, odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 and 0.51 for vertebral fractures in those below and above 70 yr, interaction P = .19; hazard ratio [HR] for all fractures: 0.72 vs 0.70, interaction P = .20). Results were similar when limited to bisphosphonate trials with the exception of hip fracture risk reduction which was somewhat greater in those <70 (HR = 0.44) vs ≥70 (HR = 0.79) yr (interaction P = .02). Allocation to anti-osteoporotic drugs resulted in significantly greater increases in hip and spine BMD at 24 mo in those ≥70 compared to those <70 yr. In summary, anti-osteoporotic medications similarly reduced the risk of fractures regardless of age, and the few small differences in fracture risk reduction by age were of uncertain clinical significance.

Study of Active Phytochemicals and Mechanisms of Cnidii Fructus in Treating Osteoporosis Based on HPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS and Network Pharmacology

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to clarify the anti-osteoporosis mechanism of Cnidii Fructus (CF) via network pharmacology and experimental verification.

METHODS

HPLC fingerprints combined with HPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS analysis confirmed common components (CCS) of CF. Then, network pharmacology was used to investigate the anti-OP mechanism of CF, including potential anti-OP phytochemicals, potential targets, and related signalling pathway. Molecular docking analysis was carried on investigating the protein-ligand interactions. Finally, in vitro experiments were performed to verify anti-OP mechanism of CF.

RESULTS

In this study, 17 compounds from CF were identified by HPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS and HPLC fingerprints and then were further screened key compounds and potential targets by PPI analysis, ingredient-target network and hub network. The key compounds were SCZ10 (Diosmin), SCZ16 (Pabulenol), SCZ6 (Osthenol), SCZ8 (Bergaptol) and SCZ4 (Xanthotoxol). The potential targets were SRC, MAPK1, PIK3CA, AKT1 and HSP90AA1. Molecular docking further analysis indicated that the five key compounds have a good binding affinity with related proteins. CCK8 assays, TRAP staining experiments, and ALP activity assays concluded that osthenol and bergaptol inhibited osteoclast formation and promoted osteoblast bone formation to improve osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

Based on network pharmacology and in vitro experiments analysis, this study revealed that CF possessed an anti-OP effect, and its potential therapeutic effect may be involved with osthenol and bergaptol from CF.

Follow-up Bone Mineral Density Testing: 2023 Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard method for measuring bone mineral density (BMD) which is most strongly associated with fracture risk. BMD is therefore the basis for the World Health Organization's densitometric definition of osteoporosis. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) promotes best densitometry practices and its official positions reflect critical review of current evidence by domain experts. This document reports new official positions regarding follow-up DXA examinations based on a systematic review of literature published through December 2022. Adoption of official positions requires consensus agreement from an expert panel following a modified RAND protocol. Unless explicitly altered by the new position statements, prior ISCD official positions remain in force. This update reflects increased consideration of the clinical context prompting repeat examination. Follow-up DXA should be performed with pre-defined objectives when the results would have an impact on patient management. Testing intervals should be individualized according to the patient's age, sex, fracture risk and treatment history. Incident fractures and therapeutic approach are key considerations. Appropriately ordered and interpreted follow-up DXA examinations support diagnostic and therapeutic decision making, thereby contributing to excellent clinical care. Future research should address the complementary roles of clinical findings, imaging and laboratory testing to guide management.

Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors.

DESIGN

Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events.

RESULTS

The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019128391.

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.

Twelve Months of Denosumab and/or Alendronate Is Associated With Improved Bone Fatigue Life, Microarchitecture, and Density in Ovariectomized Cynomolgus Monkeys

Prolonged use of antiresorptives such as the bisphosphonate alendronate (ALN) and the RANKL inhibitor denosumab (DMAb) are associated with rare cases of atypical femoral fracture (AFF). The etiology of AFF is unclear, but it has been hypothesized that potent osteoclast inhibitors may reduce bone fatigue resistance. The purpose of this study was to quantify the relationship between antiresorptive treatment and fatigue life (cycles to failure) in bone from ovariectomized cynomolgus monkeys. We analyzed humeral bone from 30 animals across five treatment groups. Animals were treated for 12 months with subcutaneous (sc) vehicle (VEH), sc DMAb (25 mg/kg/month), or intravenous (iv) ALN (50 μg/kg/month). Another group received 6 months VEH followed by 6 months DMAb (VEH-DMAb), and the final group received 6 months ALN followed by 6 months DMAb (ALN-DMAb). A total of 240 cortical beam samples were cyclically tested in four-point bending at 80, 100, 120, or 140 MPa peak stress. High-resolution imaging and density measurements were performed to evaluate bone microstructure and composition. Samples from the ALN (p = 0.014), ALN-DMAb (p = 0.008), and DMAb (p < 0.001) groups illustrated higher fatigue-life measurements than VEH. For example, at 140 MPa the VEH group demonstrated a median ± interquartile range (IQR) fatigue life of 1987 ± 10593 cycles, while animals in the ALN, ALN-DMAb, and DMAb groups survived 9850 ± 13648 (+395% versus VEH), 10493 ± 16796 (+428%), and 14495 ± 49299 (+629%) cycles, respectively. All antiresorptive treatment groups demonstrated lower porosity, smaller pore size, greater pore spacing, and lower number of canals versus VEH (p < 0.001). Antiresorptive treatment was also associated with greater apparent density, dry density, and ash density (p ≤ 0.03). We did not detect detrimental changes following antiresorptive treatments that would explain their association with AFF. In contrast, 12 months of treatment may have a protective effect against fatigue fractures. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in osteoporosis randomized-controlled trials and implications for nocebo-associated discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice

Dropout from placebo arms in randomized-controlled trials is a surrogate for nocebo responses, resulting from patients' negative expectations to treatment. Among 16,460 placebo-treated patients in oral anti-osteoporotic drug trials, nocebo dropouts were 8% on average, being higher in older patients. This implies that nocebo may contribute to the osteoporosis treatment gap in clinical practice.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is a common disease requiring long-term treatment. Despite the availability of effective anti-osteoporotic drugs, adherence to treatment is low. Nocebo, a behavior mostly related to the negative expectations to a certain treatment, decreases adherence and negatively affects treatment outcomes and health-related care costs in chronic diseases. Since in double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials any unfavorable outcome leading to discontinuation in placebo arms is considered as nocebo, we aimed to investigate the size of nocebo response in patients participating in osteoporosis trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms (nocebo dropouts) in all double-blind trials investigating anti-osteoporotic drugs published between January 1993 and March 2022. Only data on bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) were analyzed (Prospero registration number CRD42020212843).

RESULTS

Data from 44 trials were extracted. In 16,460 placebo-treated patients, the pooled nocebo-dropout was 8% both for bisphosphonates (average: 0.08; range 0.01-0.27; 95%CI 0.06-0.10) and SERMs (average: 0.08; range 0.03-0.15; 95%CI 0.05-0.13). Nocebo-dropouts were higher in bisphosphonate trials enrolling individuals ≥ 65 years (11%) (n = 18) compared to trials enrolling younger individuals (6%) (n = 18) (average: 0.11; 95%CI 0.08-0.13 vs. average: 0.06; 95%CI 0.05-0.08, respectively, p = 0.001). Participants' sex, dosing-intervals, publication year, or severity of osteoporosis had no impact on the nocebo-dropouts.

CONCLUSION

Almost 1 in 10 osteoporosis patients receiving placebo in trials of bisphosphonates and SERMs experiences AEs leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment-discontinuation in clinical practice. Efforts to identify and minimize nocebo, especially in older patients, are warranted.

Denosumab treatment is associated with decreased cortical porosity and increased bone density and strength at the proximal humerus of ovariectomized cynomolgus monkeys

Upper extremity fractures, including those at the humerus, are common among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab was shown to reduce humeral fractures in this population; however, no clinical or preclinical studies have quantified the effects of denosumab on humerus bone mineral density or bone microarchitecture changes. This study used micro-computed tomography (μCT) and computed tomography (CT), alongside image-based finite element (FE) models derived from both modalities, to quantify the effects of denosomab (DMAb) and alendronate (ALN) on humeral bone from acutely ovariectomized (OVX) cynomolgus monkeys. Animals were treated with 12 monthly injections of s.c. vehicle (VEH; n = 10), s.c. denosumab (DMAb; 25 mg/kg, n = 9), or i.v. alendronate (ALN; 50 μg/kg, n = 10). Two more groups received 6 months of VEH followed by 6 months of DMAb (VEH-DMAb; n = 7) or 6 months of ALN followed by 6 months of DMAb (ALN-DMAb; n = 9). After treatment, humeri were harvested and μCT was used to quantify tissue mineral density, trabecular morphology, and cortical porosity at the humeral head. Clinical CT imaging was also used to quantify trabecular and cortical bone mineral density (BMD) at the ultra-proximal, proximal, 1/5 proximal and midshaft of the bone. Finally, μCT-based FE models in compression, and CT-based FE models in compression, torsion, and bending, were developed to estimate differences in strength. Compared to VEH, groups that received DMAb at any time demonstrated lower cortical porosity and/or higher tissue mineral density via μCT; no effects on trabecular morphology were observed. FE estimated strength based on μCT was higher after 12-months DMAb (p = 0.020) and ALN-DMAb (p = 0.024) vs. VEH; respectively, FE predicted mean (SD) strength was 4649.88 (710.58) N, and 4621.10 (1050.16) N vs. 3309.4 (876.09) N. All antiresorptive treatments were associated with higher cortical BMD via CT at the 1/5 proximal and midshaft of the humerus; however, no differences in CT-based FE predicted strength were observed. Overall, these results help to explain the observed reductions in humeral fracture rate following DMAb treatment in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Novel formulations of oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of osteoporosis

Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of evidence; however, patient adherence to oral bisphosphonates remains poor in part due to complex dosing instructions and adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This problem has led to the development of novel oral bisphosphonate formulations. Buffered, effervescent alendronate is dissolved in water and so seeks to reduce upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, and gastro-resistant risedronate aims to reduce the complexity of dosing procedure (e.g. fasting prior to consumption) whilst still maintaining the efficacy of fracture risk reduction. Clinical trials and real-world data have been employed to demonstrate some benefits in terms of reduced upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, adherence, persistence and health economic outcomes. This report describes the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores where oral bisphosphonates sit in current clinical practice guidelines, review their risk-benefit profile and the consequences of poor adherence before exploring novel oral bisphosphonate formulations and their potential clinical and health economic impact. Further research is required but there are signs that these novel, oral bisphosphonate formulations may lead to improved tolerance of oral bisphosphonates and thus, improved adherence and fracture outcomes.

Baseline bone turnover marker levels can predict change in bone mineral density during antiresorptive treatment in osteoporotic patients: the Copenhagen bone turnover marker study

Anti-resorptive osteoporosis treatment might be more effective in patients with high bone turnover. In this registry study including clinical data, high pre-treatment bone turnover measured with biochemical markers was correlated with higher bone mineral density increases. Bone turnover markers may be useful tools to identify patients benefitting most from anti-resorptive treatment.

INTRODUCTION

In randomized, controlled trials of bisphosphonates, high pre-treatment levels of bone turnover markers (BTM) were associated with a larger increase in bone mineral density (BMD). The purpose of this study was to examine this correlation in a real-world setting.

METHODS

In this registry-based cohort study of osteoporosis patients (n = 158) receiving antiresorptive therapy, the association between pre-treatment levels of plasma C-telopeptide of type I Collagen (CTX) and/or N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP) and change in bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck upon treatment was examined. Patients were grouped according to their pre-treatment BTM levels, defined as values above and below the geometric mean for premenopausal women.

RESULTS

Pre-treatment CTX correlated with annual increase in total hip BMD, where patients with CTX above the geometric mean experienced a larger annual increase in BMD (p = 0.008) than patients with CTX below the geometric mean. The numerical pre-treatment level of CTX showed a similar correlation at all three skeletal sites (total hip (p = 0.03), femoral neck (p = 0.04), and lumbar spine (p = 0.0003)). A similar association was found for PINP where pre-treatment levels of PINP above the geometric mean correlated with a larger annual increase in BMD for total hip (p = 0.02) and lumbar spine (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Measurement of pre-treatment BTM levels predicts osteoporosis patients' response to antiresorptive treatment. Patients with high pre-treatment levels of CTX and/or PINP benefit more from antiresorptive treatment with larger increases in BMD than patients with lower pre-treatment levels.

Guideline No. 422g: Menopause and Osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

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

TARGET POPULATION

Perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

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

EVIDENCE

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

VALIDATION METHODS

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

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Time to Benefit of Bisphosphonate Therapy for the Prevention of Fractures Among Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

The clinical decision to initiate bisphosphonate therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis requires balancing shorter-term harms and burdens (eg, gastroesophageal irritation or severe musculoskeletal pain) with longer-term benefits in reducing potential fractures.

Objective

To assess the time to benefit (TTB) of bisphosphonate therapy for the prevention of nonvertebral and other fractures among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Data Sources

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified from systematic reviews commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (1 review), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1 review), the Cochrane Library (2 reviews), and the Endocrine Society (1 review).

Study Selection

Studies selected were RCTs involving postmenopausal women with a diagnosis of osteoporosis based on existing vertebral fractures or bone mineral density T scores of -2.5 or lower. The selection process was focused on studies of alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid because they are guideline-recommended first-line agents for reducing nonvertebral fractures. Studies were excluded if they did not focus on women with a primary diagnosis of osteoporosis, had no placebo arm, or had a lack of data on time to fracture.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Random-effects Weibull survival curves were fitted and Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the absolute risk reduction (ARR) and TTB for each study. These estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the time to 3 different ARR thresholds (0.002, 0.005, and 0.010) for the first nonvertebral fracture. Secondary outcomes included the time to 4 ARR thresholds (0.001, 0.002, 0.005, and 0.010) for hip fracture, any clinical fracture, and clinical vertebral fracture.

Results

Of 67 full-text articles identified, 10 RCTs comprising 23 384 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were included either as the original RCT or part of subsequently published pooled analyses. Among the studies, the number of participants ranged from 994 to 7765, with mean (SD) age ranging from 63 (7) years to 74 (3) years and follow-up duration ranging from 12 to 48 months. The pooled meta-analysis found that 12.4 months (95% CI, 6.3-18.4 months) were needed to avoid 1 nonvertebral fracture per 100 postmenopausal women receiving bisphosphonate therapy at an ARR of 0.010. To prevent 1 hip fracture, 200 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis would need to receive bisphosphonate therapy for 20.3 months (95% CI, 11.0-29.7 months) at an ARR of 0.005. In addition, 200 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis would need to receive bisphosphonate therapy for 12.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-17.8 months) to avoid 1 clinical vertebral fracture at an ARR of 0.005.

Conclusions and Relevance

This meta-analysis found that the TTB of bisphosphonate therapy was 12.4 months to prevent 1 nonvertebral fracture per 100 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. These results suggest that bisphosphonate therapy is most likely to benefit postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who have a life expectancy greater than 12.4 months.

Efficacy of Antiresorptive Treatment in Osteoporotic Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

To investigate concerns surrounding the benefits of antiresorptive drugs in older adults, a systematic review was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in the prevention of osteoporotic hip fractures in older adults.

DESIGN

a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

older adults ≥65 years with osteoporosis, with or without a previous fragility fracture. Studies with cancer-related and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis, participants <65 years and no reported hip fracture were not included.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched. The primary outcome was hip fracture, and subgroup analysis (≥75 years, with different drug types and secondary prevention) and sensitivity analysis was carried out using a GRADE evaluation. Secondary outcomes were any type of fractures, vertebral fracture, bone markers and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessment with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 12 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) qualified for this meta-analysis, with 36,196 participants. Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on the prevention of hip fracture (RR=0.70; 95%CI 0.60 to 0.81), but with a moderate GRADE quality of evidence and a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 186. For other outcomes, there is a statistically significant effect, but with a low to moderate quality of evidence. Antiresorptives showed no reduction in the risk of hip fracture in people ≥75 years. The results for different drug types, secondary prevention and sensitivity analysis are similar to the main analyses and have the same concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on preventing hip fracture but with a moderate quality (unclear/high risk of bias) and high NNT (186). This small benefit disappears in those ≥75 years, but increases in secondary prevention. More RCTs in very old osteoporotic adults are needed.

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.

A Prospective Open-Label Observational Study of a Buffered Soluble 70 mg Alendronate Effervescent Tablet on Upper Gastrointestinal Safety and Medication Errors: The GastroPASS Study

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are a main reason for discontinuing bisphosphonate treatment, an important therapeutic option for osteoporosis patients. Consequently, the development of novel formulations with improved tolerability is warranted. In this multicenter prospective, observational, postauthorization safety study conducted in Italy and Spain, postmenopausal women (PMW) with osteoporosis (naïve to bisphosphonates) were treated weekly with a buffered soluble alendronate 70 mg effervescent (ALN-EFF) tablet (Binosto®) and followed for 12 ± 3 months. Information was collected on adverse events (AEs), medication errors, persistence, and compliance using the Morisky-Green questionnaire. Patients (N = 1028) aged 67 ± 9 years (mean ± SD) received ALN-EFF weekly. The cumulative incidence of upper GI AEs (oesophageal toxicity, gastritis, gastric ulcers, and duodenitis) related to ALN-EFF (primary endpoint) was 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-11.6%), the vast majority being of mild intensity. The most frequently occurring upper GI AEs related to ALN-EFF were dyspepsia (2.7%), gastroesophageal reflux disease (2.4%), and nausea (2.2%). None of the relevant upper GI AEs listed in the primary endpoint and no serious AEs were reported. At least one medication error occurred in 29.9% (95% CI 27.1-32.8%) of patients. However, the majority of medication errors were associated with administration instructions applicable to any oral bisphosphonate and only seven medication errors were associated with the ALN-EFF formulation. ALN-EFF was discontinued in 209 of 1028 (20.3%) patients. The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were AEs related to ALN-EFF (46.9%) and patients' decision (42.6%). Compliance with ALN-EFF was high, reflected by a mean Morisky-Green score of 92.8 ± 18.6. PMW with osteoporosis treated with ALN-EFF in a real-world setting experienced few upper GI AEs. In addition, they had a low discontinuation and high compliance compared with other formulations, suggesting that ALN-EFF may increase patient satisfaction and therefore long-term adherence and efficacy. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Phosphonate Chelators for Medicinal Metal Ions

A family of phosphonate-bearing chelators was synthesized to study their potential in metal-based (radio)pharmaceuticals. Three ligands (H₆phospa, H₆dipedpa, H₆eppy; structures illustrated in manuscript) were fully characterized, including X-ray crystallographic structures of H₆phospa and H₆dipedpa. NMR spectroscopy techniques were used to confirm the complexation of each ligand with selected trivalent metal ions. These methods were particularly useful in discerning structural information for Sc³⁺ and La³⁺ complexes. Solution studies were conducted to evaluate the complex stability of 15 metal complexes. As a general trend, H₆phospa was noted to form the most stable complexes, and H₆eppy associated with the least stable complexes. Moreover, In³⁺ complexes were determined to be the most stable, and complexes with La³⁺ were the least stable, across all metals. Density functional theory (DFT) was employed to calculate structures of H₆phospa and H₆dipedpa complexes with La³⁺ and Sc³⁺. A comparison of experimental ¹H NMR spectra with calculated ¹H NMR spectra using DFT-optimized structures was used as a method of structure validation. It was noted that theoretical NMR spectra were very sensitive to a number of variables, such as ligand configuration, protonation state, and the number/orientation of explicit water molecules. In general, the inclusion of an explicit second shell of water molecules qualitatively improved the agreement between theoretical and experimental NMR spectra versus a polarizable continuum solvent model alone. Formation constants were also calculated from DFT results using potential-energy optimized structures. Strong dependence of molecular free energies on explicit water molecule number, water molecule configuration, and protonation state was observed, highlighting the need for dynamic data in accurate first-principles calculations of metal-ligand stability constants.

Treatment-Related Changes in Bone Turnover and Fracture Risk Reduction in Clinical Trials of Antiresorptive Drugs: Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained

Few analyses of antiresorptive (AR) treatment trials relate short-term changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs) to subsequent fracture reduction seeking to estimate the proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE) by BTMs. Pooling such information would be useful to assess new ARs or novel dosing regimens. In the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) Bone Quality project, we analyzed individual-level data from up to 62,000 participants enrolled in 12 bisphosphonate (BP) and four selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) placebo-controlled fracture endpoint trials. Using BTM results for two bone formation markers (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [bone ALP] and pro-collagen I N-propeptide [PINP]) and one bone resorption marker (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [CTX]) and incident fracture outcome data, we estimated the PTE using two different models. Separate analyses were performed for incident morphometric vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures over 1 to 5 years of follow-up. For vertebral fracture, the results showed that changes in all three BTMs at 6 months explained a large proportion of the treatment effect of ARs (57 to >100%), but not for and non-vertebral or hip fracture. We conclude that short-term AR treatment-related changes in bone ALP, PINP, and CTX account for a large proportion of the treatment effect for vertebral fracture. Change in BTMs is a useful surrogate marker to study the anti-fracture efficacy of new AR compounds or novel dosing regiments with approved AR drugs. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Synthesis and evaluation of andrographolide derivatives as potent anti-osteoporosis agents in vitro and in vivo

In this work, we found that 14-deoxy-11,12-didehydroandrographolide (2), a derivative of andrographolide (AP, 1), had greatly reduced cytotoxicity compared with AP and exhibited moderate anti-osteoclastogenesis activity. Thirty compounds were synthesized by introducing anti-osteoporosis chemotypes at C-19 of 2. Six of them exhibited stronger inhibition of osteoclastogenesis than AP. Of note, compound 12g displayed the most potent activity with IC₅₀ value of 0.35 μM. The expression levels of osteoclast-specific genes such as TRAcP, CTSK, NFATc1, and MMP-9 were also decreased by 12g treatment. Furthermore, Western blot and immunofluorescence analyses demonstrated that compound 12g inhibited osteoclast differentiation through downregulation of RANKL-induced NF-κB signaling pathway. In an ovariectomized (OVX) female mice model, compound 12g significantly ameliorated bone loss. Therefore, compound 12g exhibited promising in vivo efficacy and low toxicity, indicating its therapeutic potential for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Medication-related osteonecrosis and osteoradionecrosis of the jaws: Update and current management

Medication related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) and osteoradionecrosis of the jaws (ORNJ) are two different diseases of quite similar appearance. MRONJ is mainly due to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy and ORNJ to radiotherapy. The present work aimed at presenting and comparing the current knowledge on MRONJ and ORNJ. They both present as an exposure of necrotic bone and differ in some clinical or radiological characteristics, clinical course and mostly in treatment. They share similar risk factors. A tooth extraction is more frequently found as a triggering factor in MRONJ. The frequency of a maxillary localisation seems higher for MRONJ. On computed tomographic images, a periosteal reaction seems characteristic of MRONJ. More frequent pathological fractures seem to occur in ORNJ. It is mandatory, for ORNJ diagnosis, to exclude a residual or recurrent tumour using histological examination. Both MRONJ and ORNJ are challenging to treat and cannot be managed similarly. For both, it would still be worth to optimise awareness within the medical community, patients' oral hygiene and dental cares to improve their prevention and make their incidences decrease. Conservative therapy is more frequently achieved for MRONJ than ORNJ and surgical resection is more often performed for ORNJ. For both diseases, the last treatment possible in refractory cases is a surgical extensive resection with free flap reconstruction. A MRONJ classification is widely used today, whereas no consensus exists to date for ORNJ classification. We propose a classification that could play this role.

Genomic Medicine: Lessons Learned From Monogenic and Complex Bone Disorders

Current genetic studies of monogenic and complex bone diseases have broadened our understanding of disease pathophysiology, highlighting the need for medical interventions and treatments tailored to the characteristics of patients. As genomic research progresses, novel insights into the molecular mechanisms are starting to provide support to clinical decision-making; now offering ample opportunities for disease screening, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Drug targets holding mechanisms with genetic support are more likely to be successful. Therefore, implementing genetic information to the drug development process and a molecular redefinition of skeletal disease can help overcoming current shortcomings in pharmaceutical research, including failed attempts and appalling costs. This review summarizes the achievements of genetic studies in the bone field and their application to clinical care, illustrating the imminent advent of the genomic medicine era.

History of alendronate

Alendronate was synthesized in 1970s in a search for inhibitors of calcification. Istituto Gentili investigators identified it as a potent inhibitor of bone resorption and obtained a patent covering its use in the treatment of osteoporosis and other disorders of excessive bone resorption in the 1980s. Merck licensed alendronate in 1988 and its pharmaceutical chemists reformulated it as a sodium salt with good solubility in a tablet that reduced its potential for esophageal irritation. Clinical trials proved that it reduced bone turnover, increased BMD and reduced the risk of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Merck sponsored a large clinical trials that won FDA approval for treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and showed that it reduced the risk of spine and hip fractures. Its approval in the US in 1995 spurred sales of bone densitometers and BMD testing to screen for low bone mineral density and identify osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement was supported by medical society guidelines and reimbursement by Medicare and other insurers in the USA. A 70 mg weekly instead of 10 mg daily dose of alendronate produced the same effect on BMD and biochemical markers of bone remodelling with greater convenience and reduced potential for upper GI adverse events. Consequently, by 2006, about 30 million prescriptions for alendronate were written annually in the U.S. for about 15% of postmenopausal women in the U.S. Thereafter, publicity about rare but concerning atypical femoral fractures (AFF) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) along with the expiry of Merck's patent (in 2008) and cessation of their promotion of alendronate, and a decline in use of densitometry led to a steady slide in its use even among patients for whom the benefits of alendronate far outweigh its potential risks. Nevertheless, in 25 years since its regulatory approval, alendronate has undoubtedly prevented millions of fractures world-wide.

Treatment-related changes in bone mineral density as a surrogate biomarker for fracture risk reduction: meta-regression analyses of individual patient data from multiple randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The validation of bone mineral density (BMD) as a surrogate outcome for fracture would allow the size of future randomised controlled osteoporosis registration trials to be reduced. We aimed to determine the association between treatment-related changes in BMD, assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and fracture outcomes, including the proportion of treatment effect explained by BMD changes.

METHODS

We did a pooled analysis of individual patient data from multiple randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials. We included data from multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of osteoporosis medications that included women and men at increased osteoporotic fracture risk. Using individual patient data for each trial we calculated mean 24-month BMD percent change together with fracture reductions and did a meta-regression of the association between treatment-related differences in BMD changes (percentage difference, active minus placebo) and fracture risk reduction. We also used individual patient data to determine the proportion of anti-fracture treatment effect explained by BMD changes and the BMD change needed in future trials to ensure fracture reduction efficacy.

FINDINGS

Individual patient data from 91 779 participants of 23 randomised, placebo-controlled trials were included. The trials had 1-9 years of follow-up and included 12 trials of bisphosphonate, one of odanacatib, two of hormone therapy (one of conjugated equine oestrogen and one of conjugated equine oestrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate), three of PTH receptor agonists, one of denosumab, and four of selective oestrogen receptor modulator trials. The meta-regression revealed significant associations between treatment-related changes in hip, femoral neck, and spine BMD and reductions in vertebral (r2 0·73, p<0·0001; 0·59, p=0·0005; 0·61, p=0·0003), hip (0·41, p=0·014; 0·41, p=0·0074; 0·34, p=0·023) and non-vertebral fractures (0·53, p=0·0021; 0·65, p<0·0001; 0·51, p=0·0019). Minimum 24-month percentage changes in total hip BMD providing almost certain fracture reductions in future trials ranged from 1·42% to 3·18%, depending on fracture site. Hip BMD changes explained substantial proportions (44-67%) of treatment-related fracture risk reduction.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment-related BMD changes are strongly associated with fracture reductions across randomised trials of osteoporosis therapies with differing mechanisms of action. These analyses support BMD as a surrogate outcome for fracture outcomes in future randomised trials of new osteoporosis therapies and provide an important demonstration of the value of public access to individual patient data from multiple trials.

FUNDING

Foundation for National Institutes of Health.

Oral Treatment With Bisphosphonates of Osteoporosis Does Not Increase the Risk of Severe Gastrointestinal Side Effects: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are first-line therapy for osteoporosis. Adherence is usually low in chronic, asymptomatic diseases, but gastrointestinal (GI) side-effects can also contribute to low adherence in BP therapy and may necessitate a review by a gastroenterologist with or without gastroscopy.

AIMS

Our meta-analysis aims to determine the risk of severe GI adverse events due to oral BP therapy in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three databases up to September 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) detailing GI adverse events in adults with osteoporosis on BP compared to placebo. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for non-severe and severe adverse events indicating endoscopic procedure with the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using chi² and I² statistics.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs with 39,047 patients with 9,999 non-severe and 1,503 severe GI adverse events were included. The incidence of non-severe and severe adverse events ranged between 0.3-54.9 and 0-10.3%, respectively. There was no difference between BP and control groups in terms of the risk of non-severe or severe side effects: RR=1.05 (CI: 0.98-1.12), I² = 48.1%, and RR=1.01 (CI: 0.92-1.12), I² = 0.0%, respectively. Subgroup analysis of the most commonly used BP, once-weekly alendronate 70 mg, revealed an association between bisphosphonates and the risk of non-severe GI adverse events, RR=1.16 (CI: 1.00-1.36), I² = 40.7%, while the risk of severe GI side effects was not increased in this subgroup, RR=1.20 (CI: 0.83-1.74), I² = 0.0%.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that bisphosphonates do not increase the risk of severe GI adverse events. However, the marked variability of the screening for side effects in the included studies, and the fact that in most of the studies GI diseases were exclusion criteria limits the strenght of evidence of our results. The conclusions drawn from the meta-analysis are therefore restricted to selected populations, and the results must be interpreted with caution.

Hospitalized fracture rates amongst patients with chronic kidney disease in Australia using data linkage

BACKGROUND

Renal osteodystrophy leading to fractures in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with significant hospitalization, morbidity, mortality and health care costs. There is a paucity of data on fractures in the CKD population in Australia.

AIM

To describe the trends and impact of hospitalized fractures in an Australian population of non-dialysis CKD patients.

METHODS

Retrospective observational data derived using data linkage. Fracture rates, trends in hospital admissions, comorbidity burden and mortality were analysed in a non-dialysis CKD population between 2000 and 2010 in the Australian state of New South Wales. Hospitalized patients with CKD and fractures were compared with CKD patients without fracture.

RESULTS

A total of 149 839 hospitalized patients with CKD were included, of whom 9898 (6.6%) experienced one or more fractures. Patients with fracture were older, more likely to be female with a higher comorbidity burden than those without. Hospital admissions involving fracture were longer than non-fracture admissions (14.3 vs 5.9 days, P < .0001) and patients were less likely to be discharged home (28.3% vs 80.9%, P < .0001). The 12-month mortality rate was high at 41%.

CONCLUSION

Australian non-dialysis CKD patients with hospitalized fractures were older, had a greater burden of disease, and have similar rates of fracture and associated mortality compared to international CKD cohorts. Implications of fracture requiring hospitalization are considerable, with longer admissions, greater healthcare costs, lower likelihood of discharge home and significant mortality. As fracture prevention in the CKD population evolves, treatment algorithms should account for those at greatest risk.

Cross-calibration, Least Significant Change and Quality Assurance in Multiple Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry Scanner Environments: 2019 ISCD Official Position

In preparation for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference (PDC) 2019 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, a cross-calibration and precision task force was assembled and tasked to review the literature, summarize the findings, and generate positions to answer 4 related questions provided by the PDC Steering Committee, which expand upon the current ISCD official positions on these subjects. (1) How should a provider with multiple dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners of the same make and model calculate least significant change (LSC)? (2) How should a provider with multiple DXA systems with the same manufacturer but different models calculate LSC? (3) How should a provider with multiple DXA systems from different manufacturers and models calculate LSC? (4) Are there specific phantom procedures that one can use to provide trustworthy in vitro cross calibration for same models, different models, and different makes? Based on task force deliberations and the resulting systematic literature reviews, 3 new positions were developed to address these more complex scenarios not addressed by current official positions on single scanner cross calibration and LSC. These new positions provide appropriate guidance to large multiple DXA scanner providers wishing to offer patients flexibility and convenience, and clearly define good clinical practice requirements to that end.

Change in Bone Density and Reduction in Fracture Risk: A Meta-Regression of Published Trials

Meta-analyses conducted >15 years ago reported that improvements in bone mineral density (BMD) were associated with reduction in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in osteoporosis trials. Numerous studies have been conducted since then, incorporating new therapies with different mechanisms of action and enrolling many more subjects. To extend these prior analyses, we conducted a meta-regression of 38 placebo-controlled trials of 19 therapeutic agents to determine the association between improvements in BMD and reductions in fracture risk. We used a linear model to examine the relationship between mean percent difference in BMD change between treatment and placebo groups and the logarithm of the relative risk. We found that greater improvements in BMD were strongly associated with greater reductions in vertebral and hip fractures but not nonvertebral fractures. For vertebral fracture, the r² values for total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD change were 0.56, 0.54, and 0.63, respectively (p ≤ 0.0002). For a 2% or 6% improvement in total hip BMD, we might expect a 28% or 66% reduction, respectively, in vertebral fracture risk. For hip fracture, the r² values for total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD change were 0.48 (p = 0.01), 0.42 (p = 0.02), and 0.22 (ns), respectively. For a 2% or 6% improvement in total hip BMD, we might expect a 16% or 40% reduction in hip fracture risk. In conclusion, our results extend prior observations that larger improvements in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-based BMD are associated with greater reductions in fracture risk, particularly for vertebral and hip fractures. Although these results cannot be directly applied to predict the treatment benefit in an individual patient, they provide compelling evidence that improvements in BMD with osteoporosis therapies may be useful surrogate endpoints for fracture in trials of new therapeutic agents. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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

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

Bone mineralization and vascularization in bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: an experimental study in the rat

OBJECTIVES

Pathogenesis of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) is not fully explained. An antiangiogenic effect of bisphosphonates (BPs) or an altered bone quality have been advocated. The aims of the present study were to analyze alveolar mandibular vascularization and bone quality in rats with BRONJ.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into two groups: zoledronic acid (ZA), n = 27, and control (CTRL) n = 11. The ZA group received a weekly IV injection of ZA (100 μg/kg) during 10 weeks. The CTRL group received saline. After 6 weeks, extraction of the right mandibular molars was performed. Rats were sacrificed after 14 weeks. Microtomography characterized bone lesions and vascularization after injection of a radio-opaque material. Raman microspectroscopy evaluated bone mineralization.

RESULTS

Fifty-five percent of ZA rats presented bone exposure and signs of BRONJ. None sign was found at the left hemimandible in the ZA group and in the CTRL group. Vascular density appeared significantly increased in the right hemimandibles of the CTRL group compared to the left hemimandibles. Vascularization was reduced in the ZA group. A significantly increased of the mineral-to-amide ratio was found in the alveolar bone of ZA rats by Raman microspectroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

In a rat model of BRONJ, microtomography evidenced osteonecrosis in BRONJ. Raman spectroscopy showed an increased mineralization. Vascularization after tooth extraction was impaired by ZA.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Prolonged BP administration caused an increase in the mineralization and a quantitative reduction of the vascularization in the alveolar bone; both factors might be involved concomitantly in the BRONJ pathophysiology.

The diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis impedes fracture prevention in women at high risk for fracture: A registry-based cohort study

The diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis, a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤ -2.5, signals an increased risk for fracture. However, most fragility fractures arise among the majority of women with 'osteopenia' or 'normal' BMD. We hypothesized that a BMD T-score of -2.5, even if not intended as a treatment threshold, paradoxically may create disincentive to initiating treatment of women with osteopenia or normal BMD at high risk for fracture. From a population-based BMD registry covering the Province of Manitoba, Canada, we identified 3735 untreated women aged ≥ 50 years undergoing BMD screening in 2006-2015 found to qualify for Osteoporosis Canada guidelines-based treatment. The main outcome was prescription of an approved osteoporosis medications in the year after BMD testing ascertained from a population-based pharmacy database. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (OR, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for treatment initiation based on BMD, major fracture history (non-traumatic vertebral, hip or multiple fractures), age, and calendar year (to examine the impact of treatment guidelines published in 2010). Among these women, 50% (1853) initiated treatment: 71% with osteoporosis, 21% with osteopenia, and 5% with normal BMD with similar values in those with a prior major fracture (71%, 19%, 5%, respectively). Compared to women with osteoporosis, adjusted ORs for treatment of high risk women with osteopenia or normal BMD alone were 0.10 (95% CI 0.09-0.12) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), respectively, and no higher in women with a prior major fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84-1.19) or following introduction of treatment guidelines (p = 0.294). In summary, we found evidence that the diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis may serve as a disincentive to initiation of treatment in many women at high risk for incident fracture.

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.

Treatment-Related Changes in Bone Turnover and Fracture Risk Reduction in Clinical Trials of Anti-Resorptive Drugs: A Meta-Regression

Few pooled analyses of antiresorptive (AR) treatment trials relate short-term changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs) to subsequent fracture reduction. Such information would be useful to assess new ARs or novel dosing regimens. In the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) Bone Quality project, we analyzed individual-level data from 28,000 participants enrolled in 11 bisphosphonate (BP) and three selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) placebo-controlled fracture endpoint trials. Using BTM results for two bone formation markers (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [bone ALP] and pro-collagen I N-propeptide [PINP]) and two bone resorption markers (N-terminal and C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) and incident fracture outcome data, we performed a meta-regression relating the mean net effect of treatment on change in bone turnover (active minus placebo % difference after 3 to 12 months) to the log of study-wide fracture risk reduction, and used linear regression to plot the best fitting line. Separate analyses were performed for incident morphometric vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures over 1 to 4 years of follow-up. Change in bone ALP and PINP were available for over 16,000 and 10,000 participants, respectively. For vertebral fracture, the results showed a strong relationship between treatment-related bone ALP or PINP changes and vertebral fracture risk reduction (r²  = 0.82 [p < 0.001] and r²  = 0.75 [p = 0.011], respectively) Relationships were weaker and no longer statistically significant for nonvertebral (r²  = 0.33 [p = 0.053] and r²  = 0.53 [p = 0.065], respectively) and hip fracture (r²  = 0.17 [p = 0.24] and r²  = 0.43 [p = 0.11], respectively) outcomes. Analyses limited to BP trials gave similar results. For all fracture types, relationships were weaker and nonsignificant for bone resorption markers. We conclude that short-term AR treatment-related changes in bone ALP and PINP strongly predict vertebral fracture treatment efficacy, but not nonvertebral or hip fracture treatment efficacy. Change in bone formation markers might be useful to predict the anti-vertebral fracture efficacy of new AR compounds or novel dosing regiments with approved AR drugs. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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.

Romosozumab for the treatment of osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

Sclerostin, a glycoprotein produced primarily by osteocytes, blocks the canonical Wnt signaling bone formation pathway. Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody to sclerostin that binds to sclerostin, permitting the engagement of Wnt ligands with their co-receptors, resulting in an increase in bone formation and bone mineral density (BMD). Clinical studies with romosozumab have shown dramatic improvements in BMD at the spine and hip. Romosozumab is associated with improvement in bone strength through mechanisms that include increases in bone formation and, different from classical osteoanabolic agents, suppression of bone resorption. Areas covered: Herein, the authors highlight the available data on romosozumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. This includes the latest data on the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics as well as safety and tolerability data. Expert opinion: Monthly subcutaneous dosing of romosozumab reduces the risk of vertebral and clinical fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, with a favorable balance of benefits and risks. Romosozumab is a promising emerging anabolic agent with a novel mechanism of action that may expand the options for treating osteoporotic patients at high risk of fracture.

Bisphosphonate Use and the Risk of Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty in Osteoporotic Patients with Osteoarthritis: A Nationwide Cohort Study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The use of bisphosphonates has been reported to have potential beneficial effects on knee osteoarthritis, but existing studies have limitations. The purpose of this study was to examine the association of bisphosphonate use with the risk of undergoing total knee arthroplasty and with the consumption of pain medication among osteoporotic patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We identified patients who were newly diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis among a cohort of patients with osteoporosis from 2009 to 2012 in the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. We further categorized these patients into 2 groups: those who were treated with bisphosphonates (bisphosphonate users) and those who were not treated with any anti-osteoporosis drug (nonusers). Bisphosphonate treatment adherence was calculated by the medication possession ratio (MPR) as the proportion of days of bisphosphonate treatment within a fixed duration; an MPR of ≥80% was considered high adherence. The primary and secondary outcomes of interest were undergoing total knee arthroplasty and the use of pain medication, respectively. Analyses using Cox proportional hazard models with propensity-score adjustment were performed to estimate the association between bisphosphonate use and the risk of undergoing total knee arthroplasty. The incremental change in the mean accumulated defined daily doses of pain medications among both bisphosphonate users and nonusers was calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 16,276 bisphosphonate users and 123,791 nonusers of any anti-osteoporosis drug among the patients with osteoporosis who were newly diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Bisphosphonate use was significantly associated with a decreased risk of total knee arthroplasty (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.83; p < 0.001). In patients with a follow-up period of ≥24 months and an MPR of ≥80%, the effect size was significantly greater (adjusted HR, 0.66; p = 0.048). Over the 5 years of follow-up, we found a significantly greater decrease in the use of pain medication among bisphosphonate users than among nonusers (p < 0.001; Chow test).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, bisphosphonate use was associated with a significantly lower risk of total knee arthroplasty, especially in patients with high adherence and longer treatment duration. A lower consumption of pain medication was also found for bisphosphonate users among the patients with osteoporosis and osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Adherence With Bisphosphonates and Long-Term Risk of Hip Fractures: A Nested Case-Control Study Using Real-World Data

Background: Hip fracture is a major complication of osteoporosis. Bisphosphonate medication is the mainstay of treatment for osteoporosis. However, concerns have been raised regarding the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in reducing hip fracture risk after long-term use, particularly among patients with suboptimal adherence. Objective: To examine the association between adherence with bisphosphonate therapy and long-term risk of hip fracture. Methods: Included in the present nested case-control study were osteoporotic women (n = 14 357) who initiated bisphosphonate therapy in 2000-2010 and were retrospectively followed for incident hip fracture through November 2014. Within this cohort, each case of primary hip fractures was individually matched to 3 controls without a primary hip fracture. Proportion of follow-up days covered (PDC) with bisphosphonates was calculated from bisphosphonate purchases. Adherence was categorized into the following groups: purchase of 1 or 2 months’ supply (reference group), at least 3 months’ supply to PDC ≤20%, PDC >20% to ≤80%, PDC >80% to ≤100%. Results: Included in the analysis were 426 case-control groups with a mean age (SD) of 73.7 years (7.9). Compared with the reference group, PDC of 80% to 100% with bisphosphonates was associated with a significant reduction in hip fracture risk for patients with 8 to 15 years of follow-up (OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.18-0.87). Among patients with a follow-up of up to 3 years, OR was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.31-1.06). Conclusions: Adherence with bisphosphonates among osteoporotic patients is associated with lower risk of hip fracture, with no indication of diminished effectiveness with long-term use.

Effects of suppressed bone remodeling by minodronic acid and alendronate on bone mass, microdamage accumulation, collagen crosslinks and bone mechanical properties in the lumbar vertebra of ovariectomized cynomolgus monkeys

Collagen crosslinking is an important determinant of the quality of bone material. We have previously shown that suppressed bone turnover by high doses of minodronic acid and alendronate increases compressive strength of vertebra, but also increases microdamage accumulation, in monkey bone. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of these bisphosphonates on collagen crosslinks and intrinsic material properties, in addition to microdamage accumulation, in vertebral cancellous bone in ovariectomized cynomolgus monkeys. Sixty female monkeys aged 9-17years were divided into five groups: sham and ovariectomized groups were treated daily for 17months with lactose vehicle, and the other three groups were given minodronic acid daily at 0.015 or 0.15mg/kg or alendronate daily at 0.5mg/kg orally. After sacrifice, lumbar vertebrae were subjected to histomorphometry, microdamage measurement, analysis of collagen crosslinking and compressive mechanical tests. Minodronic acid caused dose-dependent suppression of increased bone remodeling due to ovariectomy, and low-dose minodronic acid suppressed remodeling same level as alendronate. However, low-dose minodronic acid did not change microdamage accumulation, collagen maturity and the pentosidine level, whereas high-dose minodronic acid and alendronate increased these parameters. Compressive ultimate load was increased following high-dose minodronic acid and alendronate, but no treatment altered the reduction in intrinsic material properties caused by ovariectomy. These findings suggest that deterioration of bone material and formation of pentosidine and microdamage induced by minodronic acid is less than that expected based on the extent of remodeling suppression, in comparison with alendronate, but this was not reflected in any significant change of mechanical properties.

Osteoporosis Assessment and Treatment in Older Patients who Have Sustained a Hip Fracture

Background and aims

Currently fracture sufferers are not being assessed or treated for osteoporosis. Osteoporosis guidelines differ in their secondary prevention recommendations, with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) advocating bone densitometry in all fracture patients and anti-resorptive treatment only if evidence-based criteria are confirmed, but the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal recommends treatment for all older females without this bone densitometry confirmation. We aimed to determine the rate of referral for bone densitometry, the numbers achieving SIGN criteria for anti-resorptive therapy, and the rate of osteoporosis treatment in patients with hip fracture

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients older than 65 years who had sustained a hip fracture in Tayside between April 2003 and July 2005 was performed

Results

Only 8.6% of hip fracture patients underwent bone densitometry, of which 90.6% of females older than 75 years met SIGN criteria for anti-resorptive treatment. 74.3% of all patients referred for bone densitometry were treated with an anti-resorptive agent, compared to only to 12.7% of the large majority group who were not assessed for osteoporosis

Conclusion

Osteoporosis investigation and therefore treatment remains sub-optimal in hip fracture patients. Almost all females, older than 75 years, with a hip fracture met evidence-based criteria for anti-resorptive treatment. NICE guidance, recommending anti-resorptive treatment without bone densitometry confirmation of reduced bone mineral density, should maybe be implemented for this specific group of patients in an attempt to increase osteoporosis treatment rates.

Factors associated with receiving anti-osteoporosis treatment among older persons with minimal trauma hip fracture presenting to an acute orthogeriatric service

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate factors that were associated with receiving anti-osteoporosis treatment (AOT) among patients with minimal trauma hip fracture admitted to an Australian tertiary trauma centre under the Acute Orthogeriatric Service (AOS) over a 6 month period.

DESIGN

Observational study using prospectively collected data.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical characteristics of 211 patients were extracted from the local hip fracture registry and electronic medical records. The outcome measure was receipt of AOT before separation from the AOS. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with treatment.

RESULTS

91 (45%) patients received AOT, including 51 (25.2%) treatment-naive patients. Factors significantly associated with receiving treatment included higher serum vitamin D level (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.23-1.70, p<0.001) and trochanteric vs. cervical fracture (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.30-5.49, p=0.007). Living in a residential aged care facility (RACF) prior to the index fracture (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.08-0.54, p=0.001) and higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.25-0.98, p=0.04) significantly lowered the likelihood of treatment. Age, gender, cognitive impairment, premorbid walking ability, previous fragility fracture and renal impairment did not correlate with treatment.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion (55%) of hip fracture patients did not receive AOT in hospital. The probability of receiving treatment appears to be significantly associated with serum vitamin D level, fracture type, place of residence and comorbidity burden.

Biochemical Markers of Bone Turnover and Fracture Prediction

Low bone mineral density is a strong risk factor for fractures in the older woman. Biochemical markers of bone turnover may predict fracture risk independently of bone mineral density. High levels of bone resorption markers are associated with increased risk of fracture in both retrospective and prospective studies, although the evidence for bone formation markers and fracture risk is equivocal. For example, the risk of fracture is increased up to two-fold in women with elevated levels of several markers of bone resorption. Prediction models have been developed to predict the 10–year risk of fracture using bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover and these could prove very useful in clinical practice.

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.

Outcomes of bisphosphonate therapy in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mineral and bone disorders that precede kidney transplantation are exacerbated in the post-transplant setting by tertiary hyperparathyroidism and immunosuppressive regimens. Bone mineral density (BMD) decreases following transplantation, leading to increased fracture risk. The effect of bisphosphonates on fracture is unknown. The aim of this study was to update estimates of change in BMD and fracture rates in bisphosphonate-treated kidney transplant recipients through meta-analysis. Studies comparing bisphosphonate therapy to standard of care were included if follow-up duration was more than 6 months. We performed random-effects meta-analysis to determine the effect of bisphosphonates on lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD and fracture rates. Bisphosphonates improved femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD compared with controls (0.055 g/cm(2) , 95% CI 0.012-0.099 and 0.053 g/cm(2) , 95% CI 0.032-0.074, respectively) without adversely affecting serum creatinine or calcium. This corresponded to an unweighted improvement in BMD of 6.0% and 7.4%, respectively. There was no difference in fracture incidence in the two groups. Bisphosphonate therapy in kidney transplant recipients is associated with a statistically significant improvement in BMD at the lumbar spine and femoral neck. There was no difference in fracture incidence. Bisphosphonates did not adversely affect allograft dysfunction or serum calcium levels.

Indirect comparison of teriparatide, denosumab, and oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy of teriparatide, denosumab, and oral bisphosphonates for reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

We searched the literature, via PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to screen citations from January 1996 to October 2014 for inclusion in this study. A mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework was performed by WinBUGS version 1.4.3 software. The proportions of women with vertebral fractures and women with nonvertebral fractures were analyzed.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis results indicated that all of the therapies-except etidronate-achieved a statistically significant reduction of fractures compared with placebo. Teriparatide and denosumab were more effective than alendronate and risedronate for reducing vertebral fracture (teriparatide vs alendronate: odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.03-2.98; teriparatide vs risedronate: OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.13-3.19; denosumab vs alendronate: OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.06-2.67; denosumab vs risedronate: OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.16-2.92). Teriparatide, denosumab, alendronate, and risedronate also reduced the risk of nonvertebral fracture compared with placebo. Results of subgroup analysis showed that denosumab (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.37-0.98), alendronate (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96), and risedronate (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.86) can reduce the risk of hip fracture and that risedronate (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.4-0.88) can also reduce the risk of upper-arm fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Teriparatide, denosumab, alendronate, and risedronate are effective in reducing the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Furthermore, denosumab, alendronate, and risedronate can reduce the risk of hip fracture, and risedronate can also reduce the risk of upper-arm fracture.