186 resultados para Genetics of osteoporosis
Resumo:
A Strontium ranelate appears to influence more than alendronate distal tibia bone microstructure as assessed by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), and biomechanically relevant parameters as assessed by micro-finite element analysis (mu FEA), over 2 years, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women.Introduction Bone microstructure changes are a target in osteoporosis treatment to increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk.Methods Using HR-pQCT, we investigated the effects on distal tibia and radius microstructure of strontium ranelate (SrRan; 2 g/day) or alendronate (70 mg/week) for 2 years in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. This exploratory randomized, double-blind trial evaluated HR-pQCT and FEA parameters, areal bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers.Results In the intention-to-treat population (n = 83, age: 64 +/- 8 years; lumbar T-score: -2.8 +/- 0.8 [DXA]), distal tibia Cortical Thickness (CTh) and Density (DCort), and cancellous BV/TV increased by 6.3%, 1.4%, and 2.5%, respectively (all P < 0.005), with SrRan, but not with alendronate (0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.8%, NS) (P < 0.05 for all above between-group differences). Difference for CTh evaluated with a distance transformation method was close to significance (P = 0.06). The estimated failure load increased with SrRan (+2.1%, P < 0.005), not with alendronate (-0.6%, NS) (between-group difference, P < 0.01). Cortical stress was lower with SrRan (P < 0.05); both treatments decreased trabecular stress. At distal radius, there was no between-group difference other than DCort (P < 0.05). Bone turnover markers decreased with alendronate; bALP increased (+21%) and serum-CTX-I decreased (-1%) after 2 years of SrRan (between-group difference at each time point for both markers, P < 0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated.Conclusions Within the constraints of HR-pQCT method, and while a possible artefactual contribution of strontium cannot be quantified, SrRan appeared to influence distal tibia bone microstructure and FEA-determined biomechanical parameters more than alendronate. However, the magnitude of the differences is unclear and requires confirmation with another method.
Resumo:
The worldwide prevalence of smoking has been estimated at about 50% in men, and 10% in women, with larger variations among different populations studied. Smoking has been shown to affect many organ systems resulting in severe morbidity and increased mortality. In addition, smoking has been identified as a predictor of ten-year fracture risk in men and women, largely independent of an individual's bone mineral density. This finding has eventually lead to incorporation of this risk factor into FRAX®, an algorithm that has been developed to calculate an individual's ten-year fracture risk. However, only little, or conflicting data is available on a possible association between smoking dose, duration, length of time after cessation, type of tobacco and fracture risk, limiting this risk factor's applicability in the context of FRAX®.
Resumo:
The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX(®) Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX(®) in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX(®).
Resumo:
Narcolepsy is a neurological disorder characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. The hypocretin/orexin deficiency is likely to be the key to its pathophysiology in most of cases although the cause of human narcolepsy remains elusive. Acting on a specific genetic background, an autoimmune process targeting hypocretin neurons in response to yet unknown environmental factors is the most probable hypothesis in most cases of human narcolepsy with cataplexy. Although narcolepsy presents one of the tightest associations with a specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) (DQB1*0602), there is strong evidence that non-HLA genes also confer susceptibility. In addition to a point mutation in the prepro-hypocretin gene discovered in an atypical case, a few polymorphisms in monoaminergic and immune-related genes have been reported associated with narcolepsy. The treatment of narcolepsy has evolved significantly over the last few years. Available treatments include stimulants for hypersomnia with the quite recent widespread use of modafinil, antidepressants for cataplexy, and gamma-hydroxybutyrate for both symptoms. Recent pilot open trials with intravenous immunoglobulins appear an effective treatment of cataplexy if applied at early stages of narcolepsy. Finally, the discovery of hypocretin deficiency might open up new treatment perspectives.
Resumo:
FRAX(®) is a fracture risk assessment algorithm developed by the World Health Organization in cooperation with other medical organizations and societies. Using easily available clinical information and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), when available, FRAX(®) is used to predict the 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture. These values may be included in country specific guidelines to aid clinicians in determining when fracture risk is sufficiently high that the patient is likely to benefit from pharmacological therapy to reduce that risk. Since the introduction of FRAX(®) into clinical practice, many practical clinical questions have arisen regarding its use. To address such questions, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundations (IOF) assigned task forces to review the best available medical evidence and make recommendations for optimal use of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. Questions were identified and divided into three general categories. A task force was assigned to investigating the medical evidence in each category and developing clinically useful recommendations. The BMD Task Force addressed issues that included the potential use of skeletal sites other than the femoral neck, the use of technologies other than DXA, and the deletion or addition of clinical data for FRAX(®) input. The evidence and recommendations were presented to a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF FRAX(®) Position Development Conference, resulting in the development of ISCD-IOF Official Positions addressing FRAX(®)-related issues.
Resumo:
CONTEXT: The Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) extension is evaluating the long-term efficacy and safety of denosumab for up to 10 years. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to report results from the first 3 years of the extension, representing up to 6 years of denosumab exposure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a multicenter, international, open-label study of 4550 women. INTERVENTION: Women from the FREEDOM denosumab group received 3 more years of denosumab for a total of 6 years (long-term) and women from the FREEDOM placebo group received 3 years of denosumab (crossover). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bone turnover markers (BTMs), bone mineral density (BMD), fracture, and safety data are reported. RESULTS: Reductions in BTMs were maintained (long-term) or achieved rapidly (crossover) after denosumab administration. In the long-term group, BMD further increased for cumulative 6-year gains of 15.2% (lumbar spine) and 7.5% (total hip). During the first 3 years of denosumab treatment, the crossover group had significant gains in lumbar spine (9.4%) and total hip (4.8%) BMD, similar to the long-term group during the 3-year FREEDOM trial. In the long-term group, fracture incidences remained low and below the rates projected for a virtual placebo cohort. In the crossover group, 3-year incidences of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were similar to those of the FREEDOM denosumab group. Incidence rates of adverse events did not increase over time. Six participants had events of osteonecrosis of the jaw confirmed by adjudication. One participant had a fracture adjudicated as consistent with atypical femoral fracture. CONCLUSION: Denosumab treatment for 6 years remained well tolerated, maintained reduced bone turnover, and continued to increase BMD. Fracture incidence remained low.
Resumo:
The best indirect evidence that increased bone turnover contributes to fracture risk is the fact that most of the proven therapies for osteoporosis are inhibitors of bone turnover. The evidence base that we can use biochemical markers of bone turnover in the assessment of fracture risk is somewhat less convincing. This relates to natural variability in the markers, problems with the assays, disparity in the statistical analyses of relevant studies and the independence of their contribution to fracture risk. More research is clearly required to address these deficiencies before biochemical markers might contribute a useful independent risk factor for inclusion in FRAX(®).
Resumo:
The 3-year FREEDOM trial assessed the efficacy and safety of 60 mg denosumab every 6 months for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Participants who completed the FREEDOM trial were eligible to enter an extension to continue the evaluation of denosumab efficacy and safety for up to 10 years. For the extension results presented here, women from the FREEDOM denosumab group had 2 more years of denosumab treatment (long-term group) and those from the FREEDOM placebo group had 2 years of denosumab exposure (cross-over group). We report results for bone turnover markers (BTMs), bone mineral density (BMD), fracture rates, and safety. A total of 4550 women enrolled in the extension (2343 long-term; 2207 cross-over). Reductions in BTMs were maintained (long-term group) or occurred rapidly (cross-over group) following denosumab administration. In the long-term group, lumbar spine and total hip BMD increased further, resulting in 5-year gains of 13.7% and 7.0%, respectively. In the cross-over group, BMD increased at the lumbar spine (7.7%) and total hip (4.0%) during the 2-year denosumab treatment. Yearly fracture incidences for both groups were below rates observed in the FREEDOM placebo group and below rates projected for a "virtual untreated twin" cohort. Adverse events did not increase with long-term denosumab administration. Two adverse events in the cross-over group were adjudicated as consistent with osteonecrosis of the jaw. Five-year denosumab treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis maintained BTM reduction and increased BMD, and was associated with low fracture rates and a favorable risk/benefit profile.
Resumo:
Risk factors for fracture can be purely skeletal, e.g., bone mass, microarchitecture or geometry, or a combination of bone and falls risk related factors such as age and functional status. The remit of this Task Force was to review the evidence and consider if falls should be incorporated into the FRAX® model or, alternatively, to provide guidance to assist clinicians in clinical decision-making for patients with a falls history. It is clear that falls are a risk factor for fracture. Fracture probability may be underestimated by FRAX® in individuals with a history of frequent falls. The substantial evidence that various interventions are effective in reducing falls risk was reviewed. Targeting falls risk reduction strategies towards frail older people at high risk for indoor falls is appropriate. This Task Force believes that further fracture reduction requires measures to reduce falls risk in addition to bone directed therapy. Clinicians should recognize that patients with frequent falls are at higher fracture risk than currently estimated by FRAX® and include this in decision-making. However, quantitative adjustment of the FRAX® estimated risk based on falls history is not currently possible. In the long term, incorporation of falls as a risk factor in the FRAX® model would be ideal.
Resumo:
A workshop recently held at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL, Switzerland) was dedicated to understanding the genetic basis of adaptive change, taking stock of the different approaches developed in theoretical population genetics and landscape genomics and bringing together knowledge accumulated in both research fields. Indeed, an important challenge in theoretical population genetics is to incorporate effects of demographic history and population structure. But important design problems (e.g. focus on populations as units, focus on hard selective sweeps, no hypothesis-based framework in the design of the statistical tests) reduce their capability of detecting adaptive genetic variation. In parallel, landscape genomics offers a solution to several of these problems and provides a number of advantages (e.g. fast computation, landscape heterogeneity integration). But the approach makes several implicit assumptions that should be carefully considered (e.g. selection has had enough time to create a functional relationship between the allele distribution and the environmental variable, or this functional relationship is assumed to be constant). To address the respective strengths and weaknesses mentioned above, the workshop brought together a panel of experts from both disciplines to present their work and discuss the relevance of combining these approaches, possibly resulting in a joint software solution in the future.
Resumo:
The 2010 Position Development Conference addressed four questions related to the impact of previous fractures on 10-year fracture risk as calculated by FRAX(®). To address these questions, PubMed was searched on the keywords "fracture, epidemiology, osteoporosis." Titles of retrieved articles were reviewed for an indication that risk for future fracture was discussed. Abstracts of these articles were reviewed for an indication that one or more of the questions listed above was discussed. For those that did, the articles were reviewed in greater detail to extract the findings and to find additional past work and citing works that also bore on the questions. The official positions and the supporting literature review are presented here. FRAX(®) underestimates fracture probability in persons with a history of multiple fractures (good, A, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with prevalent severe vertebral fractures (good, A, W). While there is evidence that hip, vertebral, and humeral fractures appear to confer greater risk of subsequent fracture than fractures at other sites, quantification of this incremental risk in FRAX(®) is not possible (fair, B, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with a parental history of non-hip fragility fracture (fair, B, W). Limitations of the methodology include performance by a single reviewer, preliminary review of the literature being confined to titles, and secondary review being limited to abstracts. Limitations of the evidence base include publication bias, overrepresentation of persons of European descent in the published studies, and technical differences in the methods used to identify prevalent and incident fractures. Emerging topics for future research include fracture epidemiology in non-European populations and men, the impact of fractures in family members other than parents, and the genetic contribution to fracture risk.
Resumo:
Tools to predict fracture risk are useful for selecting patients for pharmacological therapy in order to reduce fracture risk and redirect limited healthcare resources to those who are most likely to benefit. FRAX® is a World Health Organization fracture risk assessment algorithm for estimating the 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture. Effective application of FRAX® in clinical practice requires a thorough understanding of its limitations as well as its utility. For some patients, FRAX® may underestimate or overestimate fracture risk. In order to address some of the common issues encountered with the use of FRAX® for individual patients, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assigned task forces to review the medical evidence and make recommendations for optimal use of FRAX® in clinical practice. Among the issues addressed were the use of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at skeletal sites other than the femoral neck, the use of technologies other than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, the use of FRAX® without BMD input, the use of FRAX® to monitor treatment, and the addition of the rate of bone loss as a clinical risk factor for FRAX®. The evidence and recommendations were presented to a panel of experts at the Joint ISCD-IOF FRAX® Position Development Conference, resulting in the development of Joint ISCD-IOF Official Positions addressing FRAX®-related issues.