Incidence and prevalence of medication-induced osteoporosis: evidence-based review

Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor sertraline inhibits bone healing in a calvarial defect model

Bone wound healing is a highly dynamic and precisely controlled process through which damaged bone undergoes repair and complete regeneration. External factors can alter this process, leading to delayed or failed bone wound healing. The findings of recent studies suggest that the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can reduce bone mass, precipitate osteoporotic fractures and increase the rate of dental implant failure. With 10% of Americans prescribed antidepressants, the potential of SSRIs to impair bone healing may adversely affect millions of patients' ability to heal after sustaining trauma. Here, we investigate the effect of the SSRI sertraline on bone healing through pre-treatment with (10 mg·kg-1 sertraline in drinking water, n = 26) or without (control, n = 30) SSRI followed by the creation of a 5-mm calvarial defect. Animals were randomized into three surgical groups: (a) empty/sham, (b) implanted with a DermaMatrix scaffold soak-loaded with sterile PBS or (c) DermaMatrix soak-loaded with 542.5 ng BMP2. SSRI exposure continued until sacrifice in the exposed groups at 4 weeks after surgery. Sertraline exposure resulted in decreased bone healing with significant decreases in trabecular thickness, trabecular number and osteoclast dysfunction while significantly increasing mature collagen fiber formation. These findings indicate that sertraline exposure can impair bone wound healing through disruption of bone repair and regeneration while promoting or defaulting to scar formation within the defect site.

The silent thief: diagnosis and management of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis causes approximately 1.5 million fractures every year in the United States. Not only can these fractures be painful and disfiguring but they may reduce a person's ability to lead an active life as well. Osteoporosis affects every bone in the body, but the most common places where fractures occur are the back, hips, and wrists. Because osteoporosis thins bones, weakening them and making them more susceptible to fractures, practitioners must understand the risk factors and the diagnosis and management of this very common problem. This article, geared toward advanced practice nurses, presents a summary of the latest diagnostic tests and medication treatments available and approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the management of osteoporosis.

Falls, osteoporosis, and hip fractures

Osteoporosis and falls are distinct conditions that share the potential clinical endpoint of fracture. This article explores the associations between osteoporosis and falls by examining the epidemiology, risk factors, risk prevention, and treatments. It outlines the evidence on falls prevention, osteoporosis diagnosis, and fracture risk assessment. It includes several studies that challenge the common view on the use of fall prevention tools, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry testing, and postfracture bisphosphonate treatment. By understanding the evidence, it becomes clearer how to target populations at risk, interpret screening methods, and promote disease prevention and treatment.

[Secondary osteoporosis: pathogenesis, types, diagnostics and therapy]

Due to increasing knowledge on pathogenetic factors causing osteoporosis and increasingly more detailed investigations, the diagnosis of secondary osteoporosis is being made increasingly more often. A rational search for the underlying disease or the bone-damaging medication is indicated particularly in adolescents, premenopausal women, men and postmenopausal women with rapidly decreasing bone tissue. The early detection of the causative disease in the preclinical stage of osteoporosis and the current therapeutic options allow not only normalization of the bone structure and the risk of fracture but also targeted therapy of the cause of the osteoporosis. The focal point in the diagnostics of secondary osteoporosis is still dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurement together with the manifold imaging procedures in radiology and additional clinical, laboratory chemical and bioptic findings.

[Drug-induced osteopathies. Drugs, pathogenesis, forms, diagnosis, prevention and therapy]

A number of drugs can have "side effects" on bone metabolism and formation, causing bone atrophy, impaired mineralisation, as well as osteonecrosis. In both clinical and general practitioner settings, these forms of bone damage have been hitherto considered as adverse drug side effects and have received insufficient attention; moreover, they have not been the subject of patient information. Preventive measures are not instigated prior to initiation of medication and even after onset of bone damage, therapeutic strategies are poorly implemented. Even fracture healing with its complex, staged course can be both positively and negatively influenced by a number of drugs and these effects require monitoring. Recommendations regarding practical screening and therapy of drug-induced osteopathies are presented.

Effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapy in a community setting

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Clinical trials have shown the effectiveness of bisphosphonates, the most commonly prescribed treatments, in reducing fracture risk. The population-based effectiveness of bisphosphonates in clinical practice is uncertain.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used a matched design that compared time to clinical fracture in at-risk community women who initiated a bisphosphonate medication between 7/1/1996 and 6/30/2006 to those who did not. The study was conducted in an HMO in Oregon and Washington. Clinical electronic databases provided data. Eligible members were newly treated women aged > or = 55 years with either a BMD T-score of < or = -2.0 or a prior qualifying clinical fracture. They did not have contraindications for bisphosphonate therapy or a diagnosis associated with secondary osteoporosis (n=1829). They were matched to a similar comparison group (n=1829; total N=3658). The primary outcome was the first new incident fracture validated through chart review (closed clinical fracture of any bone except face, skull, finger, or toe or pathological fracture secondary to malignancy) during follow-up. An intention-to-treat analysis used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio of fracture for treated relative to comparison patients, adjusting for differences in potential confounders.

RESULTS

Treated and comparison patients were similar in mean age (72.0 years) and history of fracture (about 45%). The treated group had more women with T-scores of < or = -2.5 (67.3% vs. 54.7%) and a lower mean weight (146.6 lb vs. 151.8 lb). Only about 45% of treated patients had a bisphosphonate medication possession ratio (MPR) of > or = 0.80. During follow-up, 198 (10.8%) of patients in the treated group had incident fractures, vs. 179 (9.8%) of patients in the comparison group. After adjustments, patients in the treated group were 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.13) as likely to have an incident fracture as the comparison patients (p=0.388). The treatment effect remained non-significant after accounting for MPR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of a community cohort of post-menopausal women at risk, the fracture risk of patients who received bisphosphonates did not differ significantly from those who did not. An enhanced understanding of this lack of treatment effect is urgently needed.