Fracture risk reduction during treatment with teriparatide is independent of pretreatment bone turnover

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.

Factors associated with bone response to teriparatide in young postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the factors associated with changes in vertebral bone mineral density during teriparatide treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single centre, longitudinal study involving 145 osteoporotic postmenopausal women treated with teriparatide. Clinical evaluation, bone mineral density (BMD) measurements assessment and laboratory analyses were performed at baseline then after 12 and 18 months of treatment. Bone non-response to treatment was defined as no significant increase in BMD at 18 months as compared to baseline.

RESULTS

Of the 145 women initially included, 109 completed the 18-month course of the treatment. 75% of them had a history of prior osteoporotic treatment. Baseline mean age was 60 ± 8 years. Mean baseline vertebral T-score was - 3.7 ± 0.7 and 83 (76%) women had suffered at least one vertebral fracture. At the end of treatment, 18 women (17%) were classified as non-responders. In the responder group (n = 91), vertebral BMD increased by 0.091 ± 0.04 g/cm2 (12.2 ± 5.3%). Clinical characteristics, baseline BMDs and the percentage of women previously treated with bisphosphonates as well as the duration of prior treatment did not significantly differ between the two groups of responders and non-responders. At baseline, non-responders had significant mean lower C-terminal fragment of type 1 collagen (CTX) values than responders (p < 0.01). Only baseline CTX values (r = 0.30 p < 0.01) were independently correlated to vertebral BMD changes during teriparatide treatment.

CONCLUSION

A minority of treated women had no vertebral densitometric gain after 18 months of teriparatide therapy. Low levels of baseline bone remodeling were the main factor associated with poor response to treatment.

Bone Turnover Markers: Basic Biology to Clinical Applications

Bone turnover markers (BTMs) are used widely, in both research and clinical practice. In the last 20 years, much experience has been gained in measurement and interpretation of these markers, which include commonly used bone formation markers bone alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin, and procollagen I N-propeptide; and commonly used resorption markers serum C-telopeptides of type I collagen, urinary N-telopeptides of type I collagen and tartrate resistant acid phosphatase type 5b. BTMs are usually measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay or automated immunoassay. Sources contributing to BTM variability include uncontrollable components (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) and controllable components, particularly relating to collection conditions (e.g., fasting/feeding state, and timing relative to circadian rhythms, menstrual cycling, and exercise). Pregnancy, season, drugs, and recent fracture(s) can also affect BTMs. BTMs correlate with other methods of assessing bone turnover, such as bone biopsies and radiotracer kinetics; and can usefully contribute to diagnosis and management of several diseases such as osteoporosis, osteomalacia, Paget's disease, fibrous dysplasia, hypophosphatasia, primary hyperparathyroidism, and chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder.

Prevalence of low bone formation in untreated patients with osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis treatment usually starts with an antiresorber and switches to an anabolic agent if it fails. It is known that suppressing bone resorption also results in reduced bone formation. In addition, patients with prior treatment with antiresorbers may have reduced response to subsequent anabolic treatment. This study determined the prevalence of low bone formation in untreated osteoporosis patients to identify patients who may not be optimally treated under the current paradigm.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of bone samples stored in the Kentucky Bone Registry. Included samples were from adult patients presenting for workup of osteoporosis. Exclusion criteria were other diseases or treatments affecting bone. Patients underwent iliac crest bone biopsies after tetracycline labeling for identification of bone formation.

RESULTS

107 patients met study criteria, 92 White and 5 Black women and 10 White men. Forty percent of patients (43/107) had low bone formation/bone surface (BFR/BS < 0.56 mm3/cm2/yr). Clinical and serum parameters did not differ between formation groups, except for type II diabetes, which was found exclusively in the low formation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting treatment of osteoporotic patients with an antiresorber in all patients appears not optimal for a significant portion.

Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no treatment or usual care for osteoporosis in people with chronic kidney disease stages 3-5D

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for osteoporosis and is more prevalent among people with CKD than among people who do not have CKD. Although several drugs have been used to effectively treat osteoporosis in the general population, it is unclear whether they are also effective and safe for people with CKD, who have altered systemic mineral and bone metabolism.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for osteoporosis in patients with CKD stages 3-5, and those undergoing dialysis (5D).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 January 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any anti-osteoporotic drugs with a placebo, no treatment or usual care in patients with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality using the risk of bias tool, and extracted data. The main outcomes were the incidence of fracture at any sites; mean change in the bone mineral density (BMD; measured using dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry (DXA)) of the femoral neck, total hip, lumbar spine, and distal radius; death from all causes; incidence of adverse events; and quality of life (QoL). Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies involving 9164 randomised participants with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D met the inclusion criteria; all participants were postmenopausal women. Five studies included patients with CKD stages 3-4, and two studies included patients with CKD stages 5 or 5D. Five pharmacological interventions were identified (abaloparatide, alendronate, denosumab, raloxifene, and teriparatide). All studies were judged to be at an overall high risk of bias. Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.69; low certainty evidence). Anti-osteoporotic drugs probably makes little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; moderate certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; moderate certainty evidence). We were unable to incorporate studies into the meta-analyses for BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine and total hip as they only reported the percentage change in the BMD in the intervention group. Among patients with severe CKD stages 5 or 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low (MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02). Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.04, low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the included studies. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.56; very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in low certainty evidence. Anti-osteoporotic drugs make little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture and adverse events in moderate certainty evidence. Among patients with CKD stages 5 and 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture and death because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine in low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Larger studies including men, paediatric patients or individuals with unstable CKD-mineral and bone disorder are required to assess the effect of each anti-osteoporotic drug at each stage of CKD.

Anabolic Agents for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: How Do You Choose?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman's life is unknown. We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40-50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.

Use of bone turnover markers in the management of osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Osteoporosis is a common public health problem that is often undertreated and underdiagnosed. The clinical management of osteoporosis is often reactionary to devastating fracture events. Bone turnover markers may improve the ease and rapidity at which osteoporosis is monitored and treated. Bone turnover markers are biochemical byproducts of bone formation or bone resorption. The clinical use of bone turnover markers is limited by significant preanalytical variability. Effective interpretation of bone turnover markers requires a detailed understanding of the variables that can affect their responses to osteoporosis treatment and monitoring.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progress is continuously being made on the standardization of bone turnover markers. The literature on the response of bone turnover markers to unique clinical situations is expanding. Data for evidence-based reference intervals for bone turnover markers has increased. Variables that affect the appropriate timing of lab draws like diurnal variation, postprandial status, exercise and alcohol use have been described. Studies examining the expected response of bone turnover markers to treatments of osteoporosis and other medications that affect bone health continue to increase.

SUMMARY

Bone turnover markers have clinical utility in the comprehensive evaluation of osteoporosis. When interpreted with caution and with a good understanding of their natural variability, bone turnover markers provide information that supplements osteoporosis management and provides useful clinical information about conditions that alter bone turnover.

Regulatory Perspectives in Pharmacometric Models of Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a disorder of the bones in which they are weakened to the extent that they become more prone to fracture. There are various forms of osteoporosis: some of them are induced by drugs, and others occur as a chronic progressive disorder as an individual gets older. As the median age of the population rises across the world, the chronic form of the bone disease is drawing attention as an important worldwide health issue. Developing new treatments for osteoporosis and comparing them with existing treatments are complicated processes due to current acceptance by regulatory authorities of bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk as clinical end points, which require clinical trials to be large, prolonged, and expensive to determine clinically significant impacts in BMD and fracture risk. Moreover, changes in BMD and fracture risk are not always correlated, with some clinical trials showing BMD improvement without a reduction in fractures. More recently, bone turnover markers specific to bone formation and resorption have been recognized that reflect bone physiology at a cellular level. These bone turnover markers change faster than BMD and fracture risk, and mathematically linking the biomarkers via a computational model to BMD and/or fracture risk may help in predicting BMD and fracture risk changes over time during the progression of a disease or when under treatment. Here, we discuss important concepts of bone physiology, osteoporosis, treatment options, mathematical modeling of osteoporosis, and the use of these models by the pharmaceutical industry and the Food and Drug Administration.

DIAGNOSIS OF ENDOCRINE DISEASE: Bone turnover markers: are they clinically useful?

Bone turnover markers (BTMs) are useful in clinical practice as they are inexpensive, and they have proven useful for treatment monitoring and identification of poor adherence. BTMs cannot be used in individual patients for identifying accelerated bone loss or an increase in fracture risk or in deciding on the optimal therapy. They are useful for monitoring both anti-resorptive and anabolic treatment. Response can be defined as a result that exceeds an absolute target, or by a change greater than the least significant change; if such a response is not present, then poor compliance or secondary osteoporosis are likely causes. A baseline BTM measurement is not always made; in that case, a value of BTM on anti-resorptive treatment that is low or low normal or above the reference interval for anabolic therapy may be taken to indicate a satisfactory response. We provide an approach to using these bone turnover markers in clinical practice by describing algorithms for anti-resorptive and anabolic therapy and describing the changes we observe in the clinical practice setting.

Use of bone turnover markers in postmenopausal osteoporosis

Bone turnover comprises two processes: the removal of old bone (resorption) and the laying down of new bone (formation). N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP) and C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-I) are markers of bone formation and resorption, respectively, that are recommended for clinical use. Bone turnover markers can be measured on several occasions in one individual with good precision. However, these markers are subject to several sources of variability, including feeding (resorption decreases) and recent fracture (all markers increase for several months). Bone turnover markers are not used for diagnosis of osteoporosis and do not improve prediction of bone loss or fracture within an individual. In untreated women, very high bone turnover marker concentrations suggest secondary causes of high bone turnover (eg, bone metastases or multiple myeloma). In people with osteoporosis, bone turnover markers might be useful to assess the response to anabolic and antiresorptive therapies, to assess compliance to therapy, or to indicate possible secondary osteoporosis. Much remains to be learnt about how bone turnover markers can be used to monitor the effect of stopping bisphosphonate therapy (eg, to identify a threshold above which restarting therapy should be considered). More studies are needed to investigate the use of bone turnover markers for assessment of the bone safety of new medications.

IGF-1 Receptor Expression on Circulating Osteoblast Progenitor Cells Predicts Tissue-Based Bone Formation Rate and Response to Teriparatide in Premenopausal Women With Idiopathic Osteoporosis

We have previously reported that premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis (IOP) have profound microarchitectural deficiencies and heterogeneous bone remodeling. Those with the lowest bone formation rate have higher baseline serum insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels and less robust response to teriparatide. Because IGF-1 stimulates bone formation and is critical for teriparatide action on osteoblasts, these findings suggest a state of IGF-1 resistance in some IOP women. To further investigate the hypothesis that osteoblast and IGF-1-related mechanisms mediate differential responsiveness to teriparatide in IOP, we studied circulating osteoblast progenitor (COP) cells and their IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) expression. In premenopausal women with IOP, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were obtained at baseline (n = 25) and over 24 months of teriparatide treatment (n = 11). Flow cytometry was used to identify and quantify COPs (non-hematopoetic lineage cells expressing osteocalcin and RUNX2) and to quantify IGF-1R expression levels. At baseline, both the percent of PBMCs that were COPs (%COP) and COP cell-surface IGF-1R expression correlated directly with several histomorphometric indices of bone formation in tetracycline-labeled transiliac biopsies. In treated subjects, both %COP and IGF-1R expression increased promptly after teriparatide, returning toward baseline by 18 months. Although neither baseline %COP nor increase in %COP after 3 months predicted the bone mineral density (BMD) response to teriparatide, the percent increase in IGF-1R expression on COPs at 3 months correlated directly with the BMD response to teriparatide. Additionally, lower IGF-1R expression after teriparatide was associated with higher body fat, suggesting links between teriparatide resistance, body composition, and the GH/IGF-1 axis. In conclusion, these assays may be useful to characterize bone remodeling noninvasively and may serve to predict early response to teriparatide and possibly other bone formation-stimulating medications. These new tools may also have utility in the mechanistic investigation of teriparatide resistance in premenopausal IOP and perhaps in other populations. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The management of osteoporosis in children

This article reviews the manifestations and risk factors associated with osteoporosis in childhood, the definition of osteoporosis and recommendations for monitoring and prevention. As well, this article discusses when a child should be considered a candidate for osteoporosis therapy, which agents should be prescribed, duration of therapy and side effects. There has been significant progress in our understanding of risk factors and the natural history of osteoporosis in children over the past number of years. This knowledge has fostered the development of logical approaches to the diagnosis, monitoring, and optimal timing of osteoporosis intervention in this setting. Current management strategies are predicated upon monitoring at-risk children to identify and then treat earlier rather than later signs of osteoporosis in those with limited potential for spontaneous recovery. On the other hand, trials addressing the prevention of the first-ever fracture are still needed for children who have both a high likelihood of developing fractures and less potential for recovery. This review focuses on the evidence that shapes the current approach to diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of osteoporosis in childhood, with emphasis on the key pediatric-specific biological principles that are pivotal to the overall approach and on the main questions with which clinicians struggle on a daily basis. The scope of this article is to review the manifestations of and risk factors for primary and secondary osteoporosis in children, to discuss the definition of pediatric osteoporosis, and to summarize recommendations for monitoring and prevention of bone fragility. As well, this article reviews when a child is a candidate for osteoporosis therapy, which agents and doses should be prescribed, the duration of therapy, how the response to therapy is adjudicated, and the short- and long-term side effects. With this information, the bone health clinician will be poised to diagnose osteoporosis in children and to identify when children need osteoporosis therapy and the clinical outcomes that gauge efficacy and safety of treatment.

Commentary: Concurrent administration of PTH and antiresorptives: Additive effects or DXA cosmetics

Osteoanabolic therapy with parathyroid hormone (PTH(1-84)) or the PTH analogues teriparatide (PTH(1-34), TPTD) and abaloparatide induces a positive remodeling balance and increases modeling and remodeling activity on bone surfaces. As the anabolic action of PTH is primarily remodeling based increased bone turnover maximizes bone accrual. Increased remodeling, however, also increases cortical porosity and reduces mineralization of newly formed bone, which may cause initial reductions in BMD, particularly at sites rich in cortical bone. Increased cortical porosity may also have negative consequences for bone strength. Consequently, an interest developed in concurrent therapies offsetting the potential early negative cortical bone effects developed, and several studies using varying concurrent combinations of TPTD or PTH(1-84) with various antiresorptive (anti-catabolic) agents (estrogen, SERMs, bisphosphonates and denosumab) have been published. This commentary addresses the discrepancy between changes in areal bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) in concurrent therapy studies leading to possible misinterpretations of the results. In studies of concurrent therapies increases in BMD are generally accompanied by decreases in biochemical markers of bone turnover. This includes Procollagen Type I N-Terminal Propetide (PINP), which has emerged as a reliable marker of bone formation during osteoanabolic therapy. We therefore want to submit, that the larger increases in BMD seen initially in patients on concurrent therapy mask the potential for later reduced osteoanabolic action of PTH. This notion is corroborated by: 1) the lesser impairment of bone anabolism seen with milder antiresorptive modalities like hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs); 2) the changes in BMD seen in extension studies where treatment naïve patients previously treated with PTH alone are crossed over to antiresorptive drugs. We therefore advise against a general use of concurrent therapy with PTH and antiresorptive agents, as it entails blunting of osteoanabolic action of PTH in the long run.

The use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in the clinical management of primary and secondary osteoporosis

The purpose of the present study was to examine of the current role of bone turnover markers (BTMs) in the management of osteoporosis. Perusal of the literature examines the available evidence for the utility of BTMs for decision to treat and for the monitoring of treatment for osteoporosis. There is no evidence for the use of BTMs for fracture risk calculation, decision to treat or for treatment selection. A very abnormal BTM value may be a clue to the presence of bone pathology other than uncomplicated osteoporosis. Whilst changes to BTMs following various osteoporosis treatments are well defined, their utility in monitoring individual patients has been less well established. Some fracture outcome-based data exist for the use of u-NTX target of <21 nmol BCE/mmol for antiresorptive therapy; the equivalent s-CTX level is ~250 ng/L. Suboptimal BTM response to treatment may indicate non-compliance or the presence of secondary causes of osteoporosis which may need addressing. Studies are needed to establish treatment targets based on fracture outcomes for commonly used BTMs for each established osteoporosis therapy.

FRAX and fracture prediction without bone mineral density

The major application of FRAX in osteoporosis is to direct pharmacological interventions to those at high risk of fracture. Whereas the efficacy of osteoporosis treatment, with the possible exception of alendronate, is largely independent of baseline bone mineral density (BMD), it remains a widely held perception that osteoporosis therapies are only effective in the presence of low BMD. Thus, the use of FRAX in the absence of BMD to identify individuals requiring therapy remains the subject of some debate and is the focus of this review. The clinical risk factors used in FRAX have high evidence-based validity to identify a risk responsive to intervention. The selection of high-risk individuals with FRAX, without knowledge of BMD, preferentially selects for low BMD and thus identifies a risk that is responsive to pharmacological intervention. The prediction of fractures with the use of clinical risk factors alone in FRAX is comparable to the use of BMD alone to predict fractures and is suitable, therefore, in the many countries where facilities for BMD testing are sparse. In countries where access to BMD is greater, FRAX can be used without BMD in the majority of cases and BMD tests reserved for those close to a probability-based intervention threshold. Thus concerns surrounding the use of FRAX in clinical practice without information on BMD are largely misplaced.

Efficacy and safety of currently marketed anti-osteoporosis medications

During the past 2 decades, many interventions were proven effective in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The objective of an anti-osteoporosis treatment is to reduce fracture rates, ideally at all skeletal sites (i.e. spine, hip, and other non-spine). The armamentarium against osteoporosis includes anti-resorptive agents (i.e. bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators and denosumab), bone-forming agents (i.e. peptides from the parathyroid hormone family) and one agent with a dual mechanism of action (i.e. strontium ranelate). All these medications combine antifracture efficacy with a reasonable benefit/risk profile. However, the choice of a particular chemical entity, in one individual patient is based on the knowledge and expertise of the physician. Prioritization of drugs should be based on the individual profile of the patient, the severity of osteoporosis and the specific contraindications, warnings and precautions of use of the various available medications.

Literature review: The effects of teriparatide therapy at the hip in patients with osteoporosis

Teriparatide is a skeletal anabolic treatment for patients with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. Because adequate clinical trials have not yet been conducted to assess the efficacy of teriparatide for reducing the risk of hip fracture, we review here the literature regarding how treatment with teriparatide affects the hip in patients with osteoporosis. Teriparatide increases cancellous bone volume, improves bone architecture, and - uniquely among osteoporosis treatments - increases cortical thickness and cortical porosity. By bone scan and positron emission tomography, teriparatide increases bone formation throughout the skeleton, including the hip. Consistent with these findings, studies using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative computed tomography for longitudinal assessment of changes at the hip have consistently shown increases in areal and volumetric bone mineral density, cortical thickness, and finite element-estimated hip strength in patients treated with teriparatide. Finally, in clinical fracture-outcome trials, treatment with teriparatide has been shown to reduce the risk of nonvertebral fracture, a composite endpoint that includes hip fracture. Taken together, this body of evidence suggests that teriparatide positively affects the hip in patients with osteoporosis.

Use of bone turnover markers in clinical practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the modalities and interest of the use of bone turnover markers (BTMs) in clinical practice for osteoporosis management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide and serum collagen type I crosslinked C-telopeptide are respectively the formation and resorption markers recommended to use as references for bone remodelling assessment in clinical studies.

SUMMARY

Biochemical BTMs reflect changes in bone metabolism. In clinical practice, many factors influencing BTMs, variability needs to be integrated during all of the dosage process. They include sample collection and storage conditions, patient's characteristics and lifestyle habits, recent fracture. The reference intervals are also affected by the type of automated assays used to assess BTMs. Appropriate references measured with the same assay method must be used for the optimum interpretation of results. BTMs have been extensively used as indicators in the diagnosis and monitoring of osteoporosis. However, their interest was mainly demonstrated to reflect changes in bone metabolism under antiosteoporotic treatments in clinical studies. Significant reductions in BTMs associated with fracture risk reduction needs to be determined in the management of osteoporosis. The standardization of BTMs, assays with international reference standards should provide conditions to state on the applications of BTMs in routine clinical practice.

Recommendations on the management of fragility fracture risk in women younger than 70 years

The risk for fragility fracture represents a problem of enormous magnitude. It is estimated that only a small fraction of women with this risk take the benefit of preventive measures. The relationship between estrogen and bone mass is well known as they are the other factors related to the risk for fracture. There are precise diagnostic methods, including a tool to diagnose the risk for fracture. Yet there continues to be an under-diagnosis, with the unrecoverable delay in instituting preventive measures. Women under the age of 70 years, being much more numerous than those older, and having risk factors, are a group in which it is essential to avoid that first fragility fracture. Today it is usual not to differentiate between the treatment and the prevention of osteoporosis since the common aim is to prevent fragility fractures. Included in this are women with osteoporosis or with low bone mass and increased risk for fracture, for whom risk factors play a primary role. There is clearly controversy over the type of treatment and its duration, especially given the possible adverse effects of long-term use. This justifies the concept of sequential treatment, even more so in women under the age of 70, since they presumably will need treatment for many years. Bone metabolism is age-dependent. In postmenopausal women under 70 years of age, the increase in bone resorption is clearly predominant, related to a sharp drop in estrogens. Thus a logical treatment is the prevention of fragility fractures by hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and, in asymptomatic women, selective estradiol receptor modulators (SERMs). Afterwards, there is a period of greater resorption, albeit less intense but continuous, when one could utilise anti-resorptive treatments such as bisphosphonates or denosumab or a dual agent like strontium ranelate. Bone formation treatment, such as parathyroid hormone (PTH), in women under 70 years will be uncommon. That is because it should be used in cases where the formation is greatly diminished and there is a high risk for fracture, something found in much older women.

Denosumab reduces the risk of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women, particularly in those with moderate to high fracture risk as assessed with FRAX

Denosumab has been shown to reduce the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. The aim of the current study was to determine whether the antifracture efficacy of denosumab was dependent on baseline fracture probability assessed by FRAX. The primary data of the phase 3 FREEDOM study of the effects of denosumab in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were used to compute country-specific probabilities using the FRAX tool (version 3.2). The outcome variable comprised all clinical osteoporotic fractures (including clinical vertebral fractures). Interactions between fracture probability and efficacy were explored by Poisson regression. At baseline, the median 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (with bone mineral density) was approximately 15% and for hip fracture was approximately 5% in both groups. In the simplest model adjusted for age and fracture probability, treatment with denosumab over 3 years was associated with a 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20% to 42%) decrease in clinical osteoporotic fractures. Denosumab reduced fracture risk to a greater extent in those at moderate to high risk. For example, at 10% probability, denosumab decreased fracture risk by 11% (p = 0.629), whereas at 30% probability (90th percentile of study population) the reduction was 50% (p = 0.001). The reduction in fracture was independent of prior fracture, parental history of hip fracture, or secondary causes of osteoporosis. A low body mass index (BMI) was associated with greater efficacy. Denosumab significantly decreased the risk of clinical osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Overall, the efficacy of denosumab was greater in those at moderate to high risk of fracture as assessed by FRAX.

The role of bone turnover markers in monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis

Bone metabolism is assessed using biochemical bone turnover markers (BTM). BTM reflect the metabolic effect of drugs on bone turnover, help to establish the lowest dose inducing the largest change in the BTM, predict treatment-related reduction in fracture risk, and are helpful in bridging studies. Changes in BTM during anti-osteoporotic therapy depend on the cellular mechanism of action of the drug, degree of change in bone turnover rate and route of administration. BTM help to establish the optimal dose of anti-osteoporotic drugs because treatment-related changes in BTM are more rapid compared with change in BMD. A greater decrease in BTM levels during the first year of tantiresorptive treatment is associated with greater antifracture efficacy over 3 years. According to preliminary data, measurement of BTM can improve persistence with anti-resorptive treatment. The use of BTM to monitor anti-osteoporotic therapy in "real life" is limited at this stage.

FRAX(®) with and without bone mineral density

The use of FRAX, particularly in the absence of BMD, has been the subject of some debate and is the focus of this review. The clinical risk factors used in FRAX have high validity as judged from an evidence-based assessment and identify a risk that is responsive to pharmaceutical intervention. Moreover, treatment effects, with the possible exception of alendronate, are not dependent on baseline BMD and strongly suggest that FRAX identifies high-risk patients who respond to pharmaceutical interventions. In addition, the selection of high-risk individuals with FRAX, without knowledge of BMD, preferentially selects for low BMD. The prediction of fractures with the use of clinical risk factors alone in FRAX is comparable to the use of BMD alone to predict fractures and is suitable, therefore, in the many countries where DXA facilities are sparse. In countries where access to BMD is greater, FRAX can be used without BMD in the majority of cases and BMD tests reserved for those close to a probability-based intervention threshold. Whereas the efficacy for agents to reduce fracture risk has not been tested prospectively in randomized controlled trials in patients selected on the basis of FRAX probabilities, there is compelling evidence that FRAX with or without the use of BMD provides a well-validated instrument for targeting patients most likely to benefit from an intervention.

Markers of bone turnover for the prediction of fracture risk and monitoring of osteoporosis treatment: a need for international reference standards

The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) recommend that a marker of bone formation (serum procollagen type I N propeptide, s-PINP) and a marker of bone resorption (serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, s-CTX) are used as reference analytes for bone turnover markers in clinical studies.

INTRODUCTION

Bone turnover markers (BTM) predict fracture risk, and treatment-induced changes in specific markers account for a substantial proportion of fracture risk reduction. The aims of this report were to determine their clinical potential in the prediction of fracture risk and for monitoring the treatment of osteoporosis and to set an appropriate research agenda.

METHODS

Evidence from prospective studies was gathered through literature review of the PUBMED database between the years 2000 and 2010 and the systematic review of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality up to 2001.

RESULTS

High levels of BTMs may predict fracture risk independently from bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. They have been used for this purpose in clinical practice for many years, but there is still a need for stronger evidence on which to base practice. BTMs provide pharmacodynamic information on the response to osteoporosis treatment, and as a result, they are widely used for monitoring treatment in the individual. However, their clinical value for monitoring is limited by inadequate appreciation of the sources of variability, by limited data for comparison of treatments using the same BTM and by inadequate quality control. IOF/IFCC recommend one bone formation marker (s-PINP) and one bone resorption marker (s-CTX) to be used as reference markers and measured by standardised assays in observational and intervention studies in order to compare the performance of alternatives and to enlarge the international experience of the application of markers to clinical medicine.

CONCLUSION

BTM hold promise in fracture risk prediction and for monitoring treatment. Uncertainties over their clinical use can be in part resolved by adopting international reference standards.

Impact of treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis (bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, strontium ranelate, and denosumab) on bone quality: a systematic review

The objective of this systematic review was to examine the influence of treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis (parathyroid hormone [PTH], bisphosphonates, strontium ranelate, and denosumab) on bone quality and discuss the clinical implications. Most bone-quality data for PTH is from teriparatide. Teriparatide results in a rapid increase in bone-formation markers, followed by increases in bone-resorption markers, opening an "anabolic window," a period of time when PTH is maximally anabolic. Teriparatide reverses the structural damage seen in osteoporosis and restores the structure of trabecular bone. It has a positive effect on cortical bone, and any early increases in cortical porosity appear to be offset by increases in cortical thickness and diameter. Bisphosphonates are antiresorptive agents which reduce bone turnover, improve trabecular microarchitecture, and mineralization. Concerns have been raised that the prolonged antiresorptive action of bisphosphonates may lead to failure to repair microdamage, resulting in microcracks and atypical fragility. Strontium ranelate is thought to have a mixed mode of action, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. Strontium ranelate improves cortical thickness, trabecular number, and connectivity, with no change in cortical porosity. Denosumab exerts rapid, marked, and sustained effects on bone resorption, resulting in falls in the markers of bone turnover. Evidence from bone-quality studies suggests that treatment-naive women, aged 60-65 years, with very low BMD T scores may benefit from PTH as primary therapy to improve bone substrate and build bone. Post-PTH treatment with bisphosphonates will maintain improvements in bone quality and reduce the risk of fracture.

The effect of teriparatide on serum Dickkopf-1 levels in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Parathyroid hormone increases the differentiation of osteoblast precursors through canonical wingless (Wnt) signalling, resulting in an osteoanabolic effect. We aimed to evaluate serum levels of the Wnt-inhibitor Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis and their changes with teriparatide (TPTD - human recombinant PTH 1-34).

DESIGN AND PATIENTS

A total of 31 postmenopausal Caucasian women with established osteoporosis (mean age 66.3 +/- 1.4 years) received daily injections of 20 microg TPTD for 18 months. Follow-up was continued for another 6 months after treatment discontinuation (total duration of treatment 24 months).

MEASUREMENTS

Serum samples for total calcium (Ca), intact PTH (iPTH), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTx) and Dkk-1 were obtained at baseline, and at 6, 18 and 24 months after TPTD initiation. Lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) was measured before and after 18 months of TPTD treatment. A total of 16 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were also analysed at baseline.

RESULTS

Serum Dkk-1 levels at baseline were significantly higher in osteoporotic women compared with that in controls (P < 0.002). Dkk-1 increased significantly during TPTD administration (P < 0.044) and decreased to baseline 6 months after TPTD discontinuation. Dkk-1 change was positively correlated to Ca (r = 0.530, P = 0.004) and negatively correlated to iPTH change (r = -0.398, P = 0.040). There was no correlation between Dkk-1 and BMD changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that Dkk-1 levels are increased in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. TPTD therapy results in further increase of Dkk-1 that may be compensative to TPTD-induced enhanced Wnt signalling.

Correlations between biochemical markers of bone turnover and bone density responses in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis treated with teriparatide or alendronate

The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to determine whether baseline concentrations or early changes in serum bone turnover markers were correlated with changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at 18 months in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) treated with teriparatide (n=80; 20 mug/day) or alendronate (n=77; 10 mg/day). Bone markers included type I collagen N-terminal propeptide (PINP), type I collagen C-terminal propeptide (PICP), bone alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP), and cross-linked C-telopeptide of type I collagen (Sbeta-CTX). The relationship between baseline and early changes in markers and the 18-month changes in lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) BMD was evaluated using Spearman correlation analysis. In the teriparatide group, increases in LS and FN BMD at 18 months were not significantly correlated with baseline marker concentrations (P>0.05) but were correlated with the increases in PINP at 1 and 6 months (P<0.05). In the alendronate group, the increase in FN BMD at 18 months was positively correlated with baseline marker concentrations (P<0.05) and negatively correlated with change in PINP and Sbeta-CTX at 1 and 6 months. In addition, in the alendronate group, the increase in LS BMD was negatively correlated with change in Sbeta-CTX at 1 month (P<0.05). Increases in BMD at the spine and hip were independent of baseline bone turnover in the teriparatide group, while increases in hip BMD were dependent on baseline bone turnover in the alendronate group. With both therapies, early changes in some bone turnover markers were correlated with 18-month gains in BMD in patients with GIO.

Successes achieved and challenges ahead in translating biomarkers into clinical applications

Biomarkers are important tools for identifying and stratifying diseases, predicting their progression and determining the effectiveness, safety, and doses of therapeutic interventions. This is important for common chronic diseases such as diabetic nephropathy, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis which affect large numbers of patients worldwide. This article summarizes the current knowledge of established and novel biomarkers for each of these diseases as presented at the 2008 AAPS/ACCP joint symposium "Success Achieved and Challenges Ahead in Translating Biomarkers into Clinical Applications," in Atlanta, Georgia. The advantages and disadvantages of various proteomic, metabolomic, genomic, and imaging biomarkers are discussed in relation to disease diagnosis and stratification, prognosis, drug development, and potential clinical applications. The use of biomarkers as a means to determine therapeutic interventions is also considered. In addition, we show that biomarkers may be useful for adapting therapies for individual needs by allowing the selection of patients who are most likely to respond or react adversely to a particular treatment. They may also be used to determine whether the development of a novel therapy is worth pursuing by informing crucial go/no go decisions around safety and efficacy. Indeed, regulatory bodies now suggest that effective integration of biomarkers into clinical drug development programs is likely to promote the development of novel therapeutics and more personalized medicine.

Teriparatide is safe and effectively increases bone biomarkers in institutionalized individuals with osteoporosis

Institutionalized adults with severe developmental disabilities have a high rate of minimal trauma and appendicular fracture. There is little information about osteoporosis treatment in this population. In this efficacy and safety study, men and women with severe developmental disabilities and osteoporosis received 20 mcg teriparatide subcutaneously daily for 18-24 months. Markers of bone formation [procollagen type 1 intact N-terminal propeptide (P1NP)] and resorption [C-telopeptide (CTx)] were measured at three-month intervals. Serum calcium was measured at two-week intervals for 12 weeks and thereafter at three-month intervals. Twenty-seven individuals received at least one injection. The incidence of hypercalcemia was 11.1% but was persistent and led to medication discontinuation in only one participant. Biomarkers of bone formation increased rapidly, doubling by three months. At 12 months, P1NP and CTx remained elevated from baseline; P1NP had risen from 66.95 +/- 83.71 microg/l (mean +/- SD) to 142.42 +/- 113.85 microg/l (P = 0.05), and CTx had increased from 0.377 +/- 0.253 to 1.016 +/- 1.048 ng/ml (P = 0.01). The majority of participants had an increase in P1NP of over 10 microg/l. In conclusion, teriparatide is safe and effective in developmentally disabled institutionalized adults. Serial calcium measurements are warranted, particularly during the first three months of therapy.

Vertebral anti-fracture efficacy of strontium ranelate according to pre-treatment bone turnover

Osteoporotic post-menopausal women patients in two randomised trials comparing the anti-fracture efficacy of strontium ranelate with placebo were separated into tertiles according to their baseline levels of biochemical markers of bone formation and resorption. The vertebral anti-fracture efficacy of strontium ranelate was shown to be independent of baseline bone turnover levels.

INTRODUCTION

Bone turnover (BTO) levels vary among women at risk of osteoporotic fracture. Strontium ranelate is an anti-osteoporotic treatment increasing bone formation and reducing bone resorption. It was hypothesised that its anti-fracture efficacy would be independent of baseline BTO levels.

METHODS

Post-menopausal women with osteoporosis from two pooled studies were stratified in tertiles according to baseline levels of two BTO markers: bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (b-ALP, n = 4995) and serum C-telopeptide cross-links (sCTX, n = 4891). Vertebral fracture risk was assessed over 3 years with strontium ranelate 2 g/day or placebo.

RESULTS

In the placebo group, relative risk of vertebral fractures increased with BTO tertiles by 32% and 24% for patients in the highest tertile for b-ALP and CTX, respectively, compared to those in the lowest tertile. In the strontium ranelate group, incidences of vertebral fracture did not differ significantly across BTO tertiles. Significant reductions in vertebral fractures with strontium ranelate were seen in all tertiles of both markers, with relative risk reductions of 31% to 47% relative to placebo. Risk reduction did not differ among tertiles (b-ALP: p = 0.513; sCTX: p = 0.290).

CONCLUSION

The vertebral anti-fracture efficacy of strontium ranelate was independent of baseline BTO levels. Strontium ranelate offers clinical benefits to women across a wide range of metabolic states.

Recent advances in the use of serological bone formation markers to monitor callus development and fracture healing

The failure of an osseous fracture to heal, or the development of a nonunion, is common; however, current diagnostic measures lack the capability of early and reliable detection of such events. Analyses of radiographic imaging and clinical examination, in combination, remain the gold standard for diagnosis; however, these methods are not reliable for early detection. Delayed diagnosis of a nonunion is costly from both the patient and treatment standpoints. In response, repeated efforts have been made to identify bone metabolic markers as diagnostic or prognostic tools for monitoring bone healing. Thus far, the evidence regarding a correlation between the kinetics of most bone metabolic markers and nonunion is very limited. With the aim of classifying the role of biological pathways of bone metabolism and of understanding bone conditions in the development of osteoporosis, advances have been made in our knowledge of the molecular basis of bone remodeling, fracture healing, and its failure. Procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide has been shown to be a reliable bone formation marker in osteoporosis therapy and its kinetics during fracture healing has been recently described. In this article, we suggest that procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide presents a good opportunity for early detection of nonunion. We also review the role and potential of serum PINP, as well as other markers, as indications of fracture healing.

Assessing fracture risk and effects of osteoporosis drugs: bone mineral density and beyond

Although there have been numerous advances in the assessment of bone strength and fracture risk, the majority of these techniques can only be performed in research laboratories, making them largely unavailable to practicing clinicians. Prospective epidemiologic studies have identified risk factors that can be assessed within the clinic and combined with bone mineral density to allow clinicians to better identify untreated individuals at heightened risk for fracture and to make informed treatment decisions based on 10-year absolute fracture risk. This article discusses the assessment of fracture risk in clinical practice, reviews currently and soon-available bone measurement tools, and details the impacts of osteoporosis therapies on fracture risk.

Bone markers in osteoporosis

Current biological markers of bone turnover have proven useful in improving fracture risk assessment and monitoring treatment efficacy in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Recent developments in the field of bone markers include 1) identification of new biochemical markers providing additional information on the complex pathways leading to bone fragility; 2) application of novel technologies such as proteomics for the discovery of novel markers; 3) automation and multiplexing for improving analytical performance and convenience; and 4) refinement of the clinical interpretation of markers. Currently, however, for the management of individual patients, their most established application is to monitor treatment efficacy and possibly to improve fracture risk assessment. The role of bone markers for improving adherence to therapy will need to be investigated in further studies. This brief review discusses these novel technological developments and the recent clinical data on the use of established and new markers in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Teriparatide: a review of its use in osteoporosis

Recombinant teriparatide (Forteo; Forsteo) is an anabolic (bone forming) agent. Studies have shown that subcutaneous teriparatide 20 microg/day is effective in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, men with idiopathic or hypogonadal osteoporosis and patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Teriparatide improves bone mineral density (BMD) and alters the levels of bone formation and resorption markers; histomorphometric studies showed teriparatide-induced effects on bone structure, strength and quality. Subcutaneous teriparatide 20 microg/day administered over a treatment period of 11-21 months was effective in reducing the risk of fractures in and in improving BMD in men with idiopathic or hypogonadal osteoporosis, women with postmenopausal osteoporosis and patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Furthermore, the beneficial effects of teriparatide on vertebral fracture prevention and BMD appear to persist following treatment cessation. Teriparatide is generally well tolerated and treatment compliance rates are favourable. However, current limitations on the length of treatment and the high acquisition cost mean that teriparatide is best reserved for the treatment of patients with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture, or for patients with osteoporosis who have unsatisfactory responses to or intolerance of other osteoporosis therapies.

Biochemical markers of bone turnover: potential use in the investigation and management of postmenopausal osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to analyse data on the use of biochemical bone turnover markers (BTM) in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

We carried out a comparative analysis of the most important papers concerning BTM in postmenopausal osteoporosis that have been published recently.

RESULTS

The BTM levels are influenced by several factors. They are moderately correlated with BMD and subsequent bone loss. Increased levels of bone resorption markers are associated with a higher risk of fracture. Changes in the BTM during the anti-osteoporotic treatment (including combination therapy) reflect the mechanisms of action of the drugs and help to establish their effective doses. Changes in the BTM during the anti-resorptive treatment are correlated with their anti-fracture efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Biological samples should be obtained in a standardised way. BTM cannot be used for prediction of the accelerated bone loss at the level of the individual. BTM help to detect postmenopausal women who are at high risk of fracture; however, adequate practical guidelines are lacking. BTM measurements taken during the anti-resorptive therapy help to identify non-compliers. They may improve adherence to the anti-resorptive therapy and the fall in the BTM levels that exceeds the predefined threshold improves patients' persistence with the treatment. There are no guidelines concerning the use of BTM in monitoring anti-osteoporotic therapy in postmenopausal women.

Bone-forming agents in the management of osteoporosis

Women often consult for the first time after osteoporosis has already become established. Medications have therefore been developed which can stimulate bone formation, with the ultimate goal of restoring bone quantity and quality and reducing spinal and peripheral fractures to a greater extent than can be obtained with inhibitors of bone resorption. Peptides of the parathyroid hormone family, when given intermittently, increase the number and activity of osteoblasts, leading to an increase in bone mass and in an improvement in skeletal architecture. Teriparatide (1-34 parathyroid hormone, PTH) reduces vertebral and non-vertebral fractures at a dose of 20 microg/day given in subcutaneous daily injections. 1-84 PTH reduces vertebral fractures, but results on non-vertebral fractures are lacking. Strontium ranelate, suggested to uncouple bone formation from bone resorption, reduces vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures in osteoporotic patients aged >74 years. Reduction of a vertebral fracture has also been shown in osteopenic patients. Long-term (5-year) data are available on vertebral, non-vertebral, major non-vertebral and hip fractures in osteoporotic patients. Combination/sequential treatments using inhibitors of bone resorption and bone-forming agents have been assessed in a variety of regimens. Benefits from the use of bone-forming agents appear to be largely independent of previous treatment with inhibitors of bone resorption. After treatment with an anabolic agent, the use of anti-resorptive medications maintains the benefit of the former treatment. Concomitant use of an inhibitor of bone resorption and a stimulator of bone formation has not, so far, showed any additional benefit compared with each medication given alone.

Biomarkers for osteoporosis management: utility in diagnosis, fracture risk prediction and therapy monitoring

Osteoporosis is a systemic disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, resulting in an increased risk of fracture. While the level of bone mass can be estimated by measuring bone mineral density (BMD) using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), its measurement does not capture all the risk factors for fracture. Quantitative changes in skeletal turnover can be assessed easily and non-invasively by the measurement of serum and urinary biochemical markers; the most sensitive markers include serum osteocalcin, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, the N-terminal propeptide of type I collagen for bone formation, and the crosslinked C- (CTX) and N- (NTX) telopeptides of type I collagen for bone resorption. Advances in our knowledge of bone matrix biochemistry, most notably of post-translational modifications in type I collagen, are likely to lead to the development of new biochemical markers that reflect changes in the material property of bone, an important determinant of bone strength. Among those, the measurement of the urinary ratio of native (alpha) to isomerized (beta) CTX - an index of bone matrix maturation - has been shown to be predictive of fracture risk independently of BMD and bone turnover. In postmenopausal osteoporosis, levels of bone resorption markers above the upper limit of the premenopausal range are associated with an increased risk of hip, vertebral, and nonvertebral fracture, independent of BMD. Therefore, the combined use of BMD measurement and biochemical markers is helpful in risk assessment, especially in those women who are not identified as at risk by BMD measurement alone. Levels of bone markers decrease rapidly with antiresorptive therapies, and the levels reached after 3-6 months of therapy have been shown to be more strongly associated with fracture outcome than changes in BMD. Preliminary studies indicate that monitoring changes of bone formation markers could also be useful to monitor anabolic therapies, including intermittent parathyroid hormone administration and, possibly, to improve adherence to treatment. Thus, repeated measurements of bone markers during therapy may help improve the management of osteoporosis in patients.

Utility of biochemical markers of bone turnover and bone mineral density in management of osteoporosis

Biochemical markers of bone turnover (bone-turnover markers) are released during bone formation or resorption and can be measured in blood and/or urine. The concentration of bone-turnover markers in serum or urine reflect bone remodeling activity and can potentially be used as surrogate markers of the rate of bone formation or bone resorption. While the diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on bone mineral density (BMD), the absolute fracture risk for a particular BMD measurement varies several fold depending on age and is also influenced by other clinical risk factors. The measurement of bone-turnover markers may be of additional value to BMD and clinical risk factors in fracture risk assessment by improving the sensitivity and specificity of prediction of future fractures. In clinical practice, bone-turnover markers may help make cost-effective treatment decisions in patients with borderline absolute risk. BMD changes following treatment cannot be detected with confidence for 12-24 months due to measurement imprecision. Bone-turnover markers, which show an early response following treatment, may be useful for monitoring therapy, identifying non-compliance and non-responders, and predicting early response to therapy. This review concludes by identifying the need for internationally agreed-upon standards for bone resorption and formation.

Role of biochemical markers of bone turnover as prognostic indicator of successful osteoporosis therapy

Most of the currently available anti-osteoporosis medications promptly and significantly influence the rate of bone turnover. Biochemical markers of bone turnover now provide a high sensitivity to change, allowing the detection of these bone turnover changes within a couple of weeks. Since the anti-fracture efficacy of inhibitors of bone resorption or stimulators of bone formation appears to be largely independent of baseline bone turnover, biochemical markers do not appear to play a significant role in the selection of one particular drug, for an individual patient. However, there are consistent data showing that short-term changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover may be significant predictors of future changes in bone mineral density or fracture reduction, hence suggesting that bone turnover markers play a significant role in the monitoring of anti-osteoporosis therapy.

The amino- and carboxyterminal cross-linked telopeptides of collagen type I, NTX-I and CTX-I: a comparative review

Bone diseases such as osteoporosis or bone metastases are a continuously growing problem in the ageing populations across the world. In recent years, great efforts have been made to develop specific and sensitive biochemical markers of bone turnover that could help in the assessment and monitoring of bone turnover. The amino- and carboxyterminal cross-linked telopeptides of type I collagen (NTX-I and CTX-I, respectively) are two widely used bone resorption markers that attracted great attention due to their relatively high sensitivity and specificity for the degradation of type I collagen, and their rapid adaptation to automated analyzers. However, the clinical performance of both markers differs significantly depending on the clinical situation. These differences have caused considerable confusion and uncertainty. If used correctly, both markers have great potential to improve the management of many bone diseases. We here review the biochemistry, analytical background and clinical performance of NTX-I and CTX-I, as documented in the accessible literature until March 2008.

Effects of previous antiresorptive therapy on the bone mineral density response to two years of teriparatide treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

EUROFORS was a 2-yr prospective, randomized trial of postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, designed to investigate various sequential treatments after teriparatide 20 microg/d for 1 yr. The present secondary analysis examined the effects of 2 yr of open-label teriparatide in women previously treated with antiresorptive drugs for at least 1 yr.

METHODS

A subgroup of 245 women with osteoporosis who had 2 yr of teriparatide treatment were stratified by previous predominant antiresorptive treatment into four groups: alendronate (n=107), risedronate (n=59), etidronate (n=30), and non-bisphosphonate (n=49). Bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and hip was determined after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and bone formation markers were measured after 1 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Significant increases in bone formation markers occurred in all groups after 1 month of teriparatide treatment. Lumbar spine BMD increased at all visits, whereas a transient decrease in hip BMD, which was subsequently reversed, was observed in all groups. BMD responses were similar in all previous antiresorptive groups. Previous etidronate users showed a higher increase at the spine but not at the hip BMD. Duration of previous antiresorptive therapy and lag time between stopping previous therapy and starting teriparatide did not affect the BMD response at any skeletal site. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar to those reported in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with teriparatide.

CONCLUSIONS

Teriparatide induces positive effects on BMD and markers of bone formation in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, regardless of previous long-term exposure to antiresorptive therapies.

Is a change in bone mineral density a sensitive and specific surrogate of anti-fracture efficacy?

Anti-resorptive agents perturb steady state remodeling; they suppress, but do not abolish, the birth rate of new basic multicellular units (BMUs). In doing so, remodeling goes to completion with bone formation in the many BMUs created before treatment but now with fewer resorption cavities appearing concurrently. As a result, cortical porosity and trabecular stress concentrators decrease reducing bone fragility. From this improved bone strength, steady state is re-established at a slower remodeling rate that again produces bone fragility but more slowly as fewer new BMUs, each with a less negative BMU balance, produce cortical thinning and porosity, trabecular thinning and loss of connectivity while bone fragility progresses rapidly in controls. Thus, the fracture risk reduction--the incidence of fractures in patients treated with an anti-resorptive agent relative to the incidence in controls--is the net effect of the slowing or partial reversal of fragility and then reduced progression of structural abnormalities in treated patients and continued structural decay in controls. Although some morphological features in treated patients and controls may be captured in the bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, many are not. The early increase in BMD is largely determined by the pre-treatment remodeling rate whereas the later and more modest BMD increase is a function of the degree of suppression of remodeling and secondary mineralization. When pre-treatment remodeling rate is low, the increase in BMD is small but the fracture risk reduction (relative to controls with comparable baseline characteristics) is no different to that in patients with high baseline remodeling (relative to their controls) and a greater BMD increase. Therefore, a small increase in BMD does not mean treatment has failed and a large increase in BMD is not indicative of a greater fracture risk reduction.