Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding rheumatoid arthritis from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Rheumatoid arthritis is the only secondary cause of osteoporosis that is considered independent of bone density in the FRAX(®) algorithm. Although input for rheumatoid arthritis in FRAX(®) is a dichotomous variable, intuitively, one would expect that more severe or active disease would be associated with a greater risk for fracture. We reviewed the literature to determine if specific disease parameters or medication use could be used to better characterize fracture risk in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Although many studies document a correlation between various parameters of disease activity or severity and decreased bone density, fewer have associated these variables with fracture risk. We reviewed these studies in detail and concluded that disability measures such as HAQ (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and functional class do correlate with clinical fractures but not morphometric vertebral fractures. One large study found a strong correlation with duration of disease and fracture risk but additional studies are needed to confirm this. There was little evidence to correlate other measures of disease such as DAS (disease activity score), VAS (visual analogue scale), acute phase reactants, use of non-glucocorticoid medications and increased fracture risk. We concluded that FRAX(®) calculations may underestimate fracture probability in patients with impaired functional status from rheumatoid arthritis but that this could not be quantified at this time. At this time, other disease measures cannot be used for fracture prediction. However only a few, mostly small studies addressed other disease parameters and further research is needed. Additional questions for future research are suggested.

Changes in Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity in Hypertensive Postmenopausal Women: Comparison Between a Calcium Channel Blocker vs Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Regimen.

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:773-778. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Postmenopausal women are at greater risk for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive therapy may help alleviate arterial stiffness that represents a potential modifiable risk factor of hypertension. This randomized controlled study investigated the difference between an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in reducing arterial stiffness. Overall, 125 postmenopausal hypertensive women (age, 61.4±6 years; systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], 158±11/92±9 mm Hg) were randomized to valsartan 320 mg±hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (n=63) or amlodipine 10 mg±HCTZ (n=62). The primary outcome was carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Both treatments lowered peripheral blood pressure (BP) (-22.9/-10.9 mm Hg for valsartan and -25.2/-11.7 mm Hg for amlodipine, P=not significant) and central BP (-15.7/-7.6 mm Hg for valsartan and -19.2/-10.3 mm Hg for amlodipine, P<.05 for central DBP). Both treatments similarly reduced the carotid-femoral PWV (-1.9 vs -1.7 m/s; P=not significant). Amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral edema compared with the valsartan group (77% vs 14%, P<.001). BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness as assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV to a similar degree after 38 weeks of treatment despite differences in central BP lowering, suggesting that the effect of valsartan on PWV is mediated through nonhemodynamic effects.

Design, conduct, and analyses of Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase-III study comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with receptor-positive, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors provide superior disease control when compared with tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. PURPOSE: To present the design, history, and analytic challenges of the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial: an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase-III study comparing the aromatase inhibitor letrozole with tamoxifen in this clinical setting. METHODS: From 1998-2003, BIG 1-98 enrolled 8028 women to receive monotherapy with either tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years, or sequential therapy of 2 years of one agent followed by 3 years of the other. Randomization to one of four treatment groups permitted two complementary analyses to be conducted several years apart. The first, reported in 2005, provided a head-to-head comparison of letrozole versus tamoxifen. Statistical power was increased by an enriched design, which included patients who were assigned sequential treatments until the time of the treatment switch. The second, reported in late 2008, used a conditional landmark approach to test the hypothesis that switching endocrine agents at approximately 2 years from randomization for patients who are disease-free is superior to continuing with the original agent. RESULTS: The 2005 analysis showed the superiority of letrozole compared with tamoxifen. The patients who were assigned tamoxifen alone were unblinded and offered the opportunity to switch to letrozole. Results from other trials increased the clinical relevance about whether or not to start treatment with letrozole or tamoxifen, and analysis plans were expanded to evaluate sequential versus single-agent strategies from randomization. LIMITATIONS: Due to the unblinding of patients assigned tamoxifen alone, analysis of updated data will require ascertainment of the influence of selective crossover from tamoxifen to letrozole. CONCLUSIONS: BIG 1-98 is an example of an enriched design, involving complementary analyses addressing different questions several years apart, and subject to evolving analytic plans influenced by new data that emerge over time.

A multicentre, retrospective case-control study assessing the role of trabecular bone score (TBS) in menopausal Caucasian women with low areal bone mineral density (BMDa): Analysing the odds of vertebral fracture.

INTRODUCTION: The trabecular bone score (TBS) is a new parameter that is determined from grey level analysis of DXA images. It relies on the mean thickness and volume fraction of trabecular bone microarchitecture. This was a preliminary case-control study to evaluate the potential diagnostic value of TBS, both alone and combined with bone mineral density (BMDa), in the assessment of vertebral fracture. METHODS: Out of a subject pool of 441 Caucasian, postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 80 years, we identified 42 women with osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures, and compared them with 126 age-matched women without any fractures (1 case: 3 controls). Primary outcomes were BMDa and TBS. Inter-group comparisons were undertaken using Student's t-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests for parametric and non-parametric data, respectively. Odds ratios for vertebral fracture were calculated for each incremental one standard deviation decrease in BMDa and TBS, and areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) calculated and sensitivity analysis were conducted to compare BMDa alone, TBS alone, and the combination of BMDa and TBS. Subgroup analyses were performed specifically for women with osteopenia, and for women with T-score-defined osteoporosis. RESULTS: Across all subjects (n=42, 126) weight and body mass index were greater and BMDa and TBS both less in women with fractures. The odds of vertebral fracture were 3.20 (95% CI, 2.01-5.08) for each incremental decrease in TBS, 1.95 (1.34-2.84) for BMDa, and 3.62 (2.32-5.65) for BMDa + TBS combined. The AUC was greater for TBS than for BMDa (0.746 vs. 0.662, p=0.011). At iso-specificity (61.9%) or iso-sensitivity (61.9%) for both BMDa and TBS, TBS + BMDa sensitivity or specificity was 19.1% or 16.7% greater than for either BMDa or TBS alone. Among subjects with osteoporosis (n=11, 40) both BMDa (p=0.0008) and TBS (p=0.0001) were lower in subjects with fractures, and both OR and AUC (p=0.013) for BMDa + TBS were greater than for BMDa alone (OR=4.04 [2.35-6.92] vs. 2.43 [1.49-3.95]; AUC=0.835 [0.755-0.897] vs. 0.718 [0.627-0.797], p=0.013). Among subjects with osteopenia, TBS was lower in women with fractures (p=0.0296), but BMDa was not (p=0.75). Similarly, the OR for TBS was statistically greater than 1.00 (2.82, 1.27-6.26), but not for BMDa (1.12, 0.56-2.22), as was the AUC (p=0.035), but there was no statistical difference in specificity (p=0.357) or sensitivity (p=0.678). CONCLUSIONS: The trabecular bone score warrants further study as to whether it has any clinical application in osteoporosis detection and the evaluation of fracture risk.

Faut-il traiter l'osteoporose liee a la thalassemie majeure: deux cas cliniques [Should we treat thalassemia-induced osteoporosis: two case reports].

We report two cases of beta-thalassemia-induced osteoporosis. A man and a woman presented an osteoporosis at the densitometry and were treated with bisphoshonate iv. All the studies analysed the efficacity of bisphosphonate, in particular zoledronate seems to be effective. Concerning the pathogenesis, the RANK-RANK-Ligand and OPG play a major role in bone-resorption and seem to be the principal implicated mechanism for the development of osteoporosis in BTM. At the moment there is no study evaluating the efficacity of denosumab in the BTM.

Quantitative ultrasound in the management of osteoporosis: the 2007 ISCD Official Positions

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is commonly used in the care of patients for diagnostic classification of osteoporosis, low bone mass (osteopenia), or normal bone density; assessment of fracture risk; and monitoring changes in bone density over time. The development of other technologies for the evaluation of skeletal health has been associated with uncertainties regarding their applications in clinical practice. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS), a technology for measuring properties of bone at peripheral skeletal sites, is more portable and less expensive than DXA, without the use of ionizing radiation. The proliferation of QUS devices that are technologically diverse, measuring and reporting variable bone parameters in different ways, examining different skeletal sites, and having differing levels of validating data for association with DXA-measured bone density and fracture risk, has created many challenges in applying QUS for use in clinical practice. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) 2007 Position Development Conference (PDC) addressed clinical applications of QUS for fracture risk assessment, diagnosis of osteoporosis, treatment initiation, monitoring of treatment, and quality assurance/quality control. The ISCD Official Positions on QUS resulting from this PDC, the rationale for their establishment, and recommendations for further study are presented here.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding biochemical markers from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

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(®).

Intravenous pamidronate as treatment for osteoporosis after heart transplantation: a prospective study.

Fractures due to osteoporosis are one of the major complications after heart transplantation, occurring mostly during the first 6 months after the graft, with an incidence ranging from 18% to 50% for vertebral fractures. Bone mineral density (BMD) decreases dramatically following the graft, at trabecular sites as well as cortical sites. This is explained by the relatively high doses of glucocorticoids used during the months following the graft, and by a long-term increase of bone turnover which is probably due to cyclosporine. There is some evidence for a beneficial effect on BMD of antiresorptive treatments after heart transplantation. The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the effect on BMD of a 3-year treatment of quarterly infusions of 60 mg of pamidronate, combined with 1 g calcium and 1000 U vitamin D per day, in osteoporotic heart transplant recipients, and that of a treatment with calcium and vitamin D in heart transplant recipients with no osteoporosis. BMD of the lumbar spine and the femoral neck was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in all patients every 6 months for 2 years and after 3 years. Seventeen patients, (1 woman, 16 men) aged 46+/-4 years (mean +/- SEM) received only calcium and vitamin D. A significant decrease in BMD was observed after 6 months following the graft, at the lumbar spine (- 6.6%) as well as at the femoral neck (-7.8%). After 2 years, BMD tended to recover at the lumbar spine, whereas the loss persisted after 3 years at the femoral neck. Eleven patients (1 woman and 10 men) aged 46+/-4 years (mean +/- SEM) started treatment with pamidronate on average 6 months after the graft, because they had osteoporosis of the lumbar spine and/or femoral neck (BMD T-score below -2.5 SD). Over the whole treatment period, a continuous increase in BMD at the lumbar spine was noticed, reaching 18.3% after 3 years (14.3% compared with the BMD at the time of the graft). BMD at the femoral neck was lowered in the first year by -3.4%, but recovered totally after 3 years of treatment. In conclusion, a 3-year study of treatment with pamidronate given every 3 months to patients with existing osteoporosis led to a significant increase in lumbar spine BMD and prevented loss at the femoral neck. However, since some of these patients were treated up to 14 months after the transplant, they may already have passed through the phase of most rapid bone loss. In patients who were not osteoporotic at baseline, treatment with calcium and vitamin D alone was not able to prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs immediately after transplantation.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding falls and frailty: can falls and frailty be used in FRAX®? From Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

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.

Circulating sex hormones and breast cancer risk factors in postmenopausal women: reanalysis of 13 studies.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer risk for postmenopausal women is positively associated with circulating concentrations of oestrogens and androgens, but the determinants of these hormones are not well understood. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses of breast cancer risk factors and circulating hormone concentrations in more than 6000 postmenopausal women controls in 13 prospective studies. RESULTS: Concentrations of all hormones were lower in older than younger women, with the largest difference for dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS), whereas sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) was higher in the older women. Androgens were lower in women with bilateral ovariectomy than in naturally postmenopausal women, with the largest difference for free testosterone. All hormones were higher in obese than lean women, with the largest difference for free oestradiol, whereas SHBG was lower in obese women. Smokers of 15+ cigarettes per day had higher levels of all hormones than non-smokers, with the largest difference for testosterone. Drinkers of 20+ g alcohol per day had higher levels of all hormones, but lower SHBG, than non-drinkers, with the largest difference for DHEAS. Hormone concentrations were not strongly related to age at menarche, parity, age at first full-term pregnancy or family history of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Sex hormone concentrations were strongly associated with several established or suspected risk factors for breast cancer, and may mediate the effects of these factors on breast cancer risk.

Effect of once-yearly zoledronic acid five milligrams on fracture risk and change in femoral neck bone mineral density.

CONTEXT: In the Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly - Pivotal Fracture Trial (HORIZON-PFT), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 5 mg significantly reduced fracture risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify factors associated with greater efficacy during ZOL 5 mg treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We conducted a subgroup analysis (preplanned and post hoc) of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 36-month trial in 7765 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Intervention: A single infusion of ZOL 5 mg or placebo was administered at baseline, 12, and 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoints were new vertebral fracture and hip fracture. Secondary endpoints were nonvertebral fracture and change in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Baseline risk factor subgroups were age, BMD T-score and vertebral fracture status, total hip BMD, race, weight, geographical region, smoking, height loss, history of falls, physical activity, prior bisphosphonates, creatinine clearance, body mass index, and concomitant osteoporosis medications. RESULTS: Greater ZOL induced effects on vertebral fracture risk were seen with younger age (treatment-by-subgroup interaction, P = 0.05), normal creatinine clearance (P = 0.04), and body mass index >or= 25 kg/m(2) (P = 0.02). There were no significant treatment-factor interactions for hip or nonvertebral fracture or for change in BMD. CONCLUSIONS: ZOL appeared more effective in preventing vertebral fracture in younger women, overweight/obese women, and women with normal renal function. ZOL had similar effects irrespective of fracture risk factors or femoral neck BMD.

Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: results from Breast International Group Trial 1-98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of Ki-67 labeling index (LI) in a trial comparing letrozole (Let) with tamoxifen (Tam) as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast International Group (BIG) trial 1-98 randomly assigned 8,010 patients to four treatment arms comparing Let and Tam with sequences of each agent. Of 4,922 patients randomly assigned to receive 5 years of monotherapy with either agent, 2,685 had primary tumor material available for central pathology assessment of Ki-67 LI by immunohistochemistry and had tumors confirmed to express estrogen receptors after central review. The prognostic and predictive value of centrally measured Ki-67 LI on disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed among these patients using proportional hazards modeling, with Ki-67 LI values dichotomized at the median value of 11%. RESULTS: Higher values of Ki-67 LI were associated with adverse prognostic factors and with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR; high:low] = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.3). The magnitude of the treatment benefit for Let versus Tam was greater among patients with high tumor Ki-67 LI (HR [Let:Tam] = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.72) than among patients with low tumor Ki-67 LI (HR [Let:Tam] = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.15; interaction P = .09). CONCLUSION: Ki-67 LI is confirmed as a prognostic factor in this study. High Ki-67 LI levels may identify a patient group that particularly benefits from initial Let adjuvant therapy.

The clinical use of quantitative ultrasound (QUS) in the detection and management of osteoporosis

For the detection and management of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related fractures, quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is emerging as a relatively low-cost and readily accessible alternative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) in certain circumstances. The following is a brief, but thorough review of the existing literature with respect to the use of QUS in 6 settings: 1) assessing fragility fracture risk; 2) diagnosing osteoporosis; 3) initiating osteoporosis treatment; 4) monitoring osteoporosis treatment; 5) osteoporosis case finding; and 6) quality assurance and control. Many QUS devices exist that are quite different with respect to the parameters they measure and the strength of empirical evidence supporting their use. In general, heel QUS appears to be most tested and most effective. Overall, some, but not all, heel QUS devices are effective assessing fracture risk in some, but not all, populations, the evidence being strongest for Caucasian females over 55 years old. Otherwise, the evidence is fair with respect to certain devices allowing for the accurate diagnosis of likelihood of osteoporosis, and generally fair to poor in terms of QUS use when initiating or monitoring osteoporosis treatment. A reasonable protocol is proposed herein for case-finding purposes, which relies on a combined assessment of clinical risk factors (CR.F) and heel QUS. Finally, several recommendations are made for quality assurance and control.

TBS (Trabecular Bone Score) is More Sensitive Than BMD to Diabetes-Related Fracture Risk

Background:Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with increased fracture risk but paradoxically greater BMD. TBS (trabecular bone score), a novel grey-level texture measurement extracted from DXA images, correlates with 3D parameters of bone micro-architecture. We evaluated the ability of lumbar spine (LS) TBS to account for the increased fracture risk in diabetes. Methods:29,407 women ≥50 years at the time of baseline hip and spine DXA were identified from a database containing all clinical BMD results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. 2,356 of the women satisfied a well-validated definition for diabetes, the vast majority of whom (>90%) would have T2D. LS L14 TBS was derived for each spine DXA examination blinded to clinical parameters and outcomes. Health service records were assessed for incident non-traumatic major osteoporotic fracture codes (mean follow-up 4.7 years). Results:In linear regression adjusted for FRAX risk factors (age,BMI, glucocorticoids, prior major fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, COPD as a smoking proxy, alcohol abuse) and osteoporosis therapy, diabetes was associated with higher BMD for LS, femoral neck and total hip but lower LS TBS (all p<0.001). Similar results were seen after excluding obese subjects withBMI>30. In logistic regression (Figure), the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a skeletal measurement in the lowest vs highest tertile was less than 1 for all BMD measurements but increased for LS TBS (adjusted OR 2.61, 95%CI 2.30-2.97). Major osteoporotic fractures were identified in 175 (7.4%) with and 1,493 (5.5%) without diabetes (p < 0.001). LS TBS predicted fractures in those with diabetes (adjusted HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.10-1.46) and without diabetes (HR 1.31, 95%CI 1.24-1.38). LS TBS was an independent predictor of fracture (p<0.05) when further adjusted for BMD (LS, femoral neck or total hip). The explanatory effect of diabetes in the fracture prediction model was greatly reduced when LS TBS was added to the model (indicating that TBS captured a large portion of the diabetes-associated risk), but was paradoxically increased from adding any of the BMD measurements. Conclusions:Lumbar spine TBS is sensitive to skeletal deterioration in postmenopausal women with diabetes, whereas BMD is paradoxically greater. LS TBS predicts osteoporotic fractures in those with diabetes, and captures a large portion of the diabetes-associated fracture risk. Combining LS TBS with BMD incrementally improves fracture prediction.

Interpreting Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early breast cancer.

The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study is a four-arm trial comparing 5 years of monotherapy with tamoxifen or with letrozole or with sequences of 2 years of one followed by 3 years of the other for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early invasive breast cancer. From 1998 to 2003, BIG -98 enrolled 8,010 women. The enhanced design f the trial enabled two complementary analyses of efficacy and safety. Collection of tumor specimens further enabled treatment comparisons based on tumor biology. Reports of BIG 1-98 should be interpreted in relation to each individual patient as she weighs the costs and benefits of available treatments. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT00004205.