Fracture risk and zoledronic acid therapy in men with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Fractures in men are a major health issue, and data on the antifracture efficacy of therapies for osteoporosis in men are limited. We studied the effect of zoledronic acid on fracture risk among men with osteoporosis. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1199 men with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis who were 50 to 85 years of age to receive an intravenous infusion of zoledronic acid (5 mg) or placebo at baseline and at 12 months. Participants received daily calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with one or more new morphometric vertebral fractures over a period of 24 months. RESULTS: The rate of any new morphometric vertebral fracture was 1.6% in the zoledronic acid group and 4.9% in the placebo group over the 24-month period, representing a 67% risk reduction with zoledronic acid (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.70; P=0.002). As compared with men who received placebo, men who received zoledronic acid had fewer moderate-to-severe vertebral fractures (P=0.03) and less height loss (P=0.002). Fewer participants who received zoledronic acid had clinical vertebral or nonvertebral fractures, although this difference did not reach significance because of the small number of fractures. Bone mineral density was higher and bone-turnover markers were lower in the men who received zoledronic acid (P<0.05 for both comparisons). Results were similar in men with low serum levels of total testosterone. The zoledronic acid and placebo groups did not differ significantly with respect to the incidence of death (2.6% and 2.9%, respectively) or serious adverse events (25.3% and 25.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk of vertebral fracture among men with osteoporosis. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00439647.).

IVA in addition to BMD can change the osteoporosis management in 25% of clinical routine patients

Introduction Vertebral fracture is one of the major osteoporoticfractures which are unfortunately very often undetected. In addition,it is well known that prevalent vertebral fracture increases dramaticallythe risk of future additional fracture. Instant Vertebral Assessment(IVA) has been introduced in DXA device a couple of years ago toease the detection of such fracture when routine DXA are performed.To correctly use such tool, ISCD provided clinical recommendationon when and how to use it. The aim of our study was to evaluate theISCD guidelines in clinical routine patients and see how often itmay change of patient management.Methods During two months (March and April 2010), a medicalquestionnaire was systematically given to our clinical routine patientto check the validity of ISCD IVA recommendations in our population.In addition, all women had BMD measurement at AP spine,femur and 1/3 radius using a Discovery A System (Hologic, Waltham,USA). When appropriate, IVA measurement had been performedon the same DXA system and had been centrally evaluated by twotrained doctors for fracture status according to the semi-quantitativemethod of Genant. The reading had been performed when possiblebetween L5 and T4.Results Out of 210 women seen in the consultation, 109 (52 %)of them (mean age 68.2 ± 11.5 years) fulfilled the necessary criteriato have an IVA measurement. Out of these 109 women, 43 (incidence39.4 %) had osteoporosis at one of the three skeletal sitesand 31 (incidence 28.4 %) had at least one vertebral fracture. 14.7 %of women had both osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fractureclassifying them as "severe osteoporosis" while 46.8 % did not haveosteoporosis and no vertebral fracture. 24.8 % of the women hadosteoporosis but no vertebral fracture while 13.8 % of women didhave osteoporosis but vertebral fracture (clinical osteoporosis).Conclusions In 52 % of our patients, IVA was needed accordingto ISCD criteria. In half of them the IVA test influenced of patientmanagement either may changing the type of treatment of simplyby classifying patient as "clinical osteoporosis". IVA appears to bean important tool in clinical routine but unfortunately is not yetvery often use in most of the centers.

Estudio genetico de la osteoporosis: heredabilidad de las propiedades densitométricas, estructurales y de resistencia ósea y distribución fenotípica familiar.

La base genética de la osteoporosis primaria es compleja. Involucra a múltiples genes y factores ambientales que actúan de manera conjunta para determinar el riesgo. Actualmente disponemos de exploraciones genómicas, como el estudio de miRNA, que facilitan la identificación de los determinantes genéticos de las enfermedades poligénicas complejas. Presentamos un estudio prospectivo realizado en familias con genealogia extensa para estudiar e identificar la heredabilidad de las propiedades densitométricas, estructurales y de resistencia ósea con el fin de profundizar en el conocimiento de las bases genéticas de la osteoporosis.

Truncating mutations in the last exon of NOTCH2 cause a rare skeletal disorder with osteoporosis.

Hajdu-Cheney syndrome is a rare autosomal dominant skeletal disorder with facial anomalies, osteoporosis and acro-osteolysis. We sequenced the exomes of six unrelated individuals with this syndrome and identified heterozygous nonsense and frameshift mutations in NOTCH2 in five of them. All mutations cluster to the last coding exon of the gene, suggesting that the mutant mRNA products escape nonsense-mediated decay and that the resulting truncated NOTCH2 proteins act in a gain-of-function manner.

Strontium ranelate and alendronate have differing effects on distal tibia bone microstructure in women with osteoporosis.

The structural basis of the antifracture efficacy of strontium ranelate and alendronate is incompletely understood. We compared the effects of strontium ranelate and alendronate on distal tibia microstructure over 2 years using HR-pQCT. In this pre-planned, interim, intention-to-treat analysis at 12 months, 88 osteoporotic postmenopausal women (mean age 63.7 +/- 7.4) were randomized to strontium ranelate 2 g/day or alendronate 70 mg/week in a double-placebo design. Primary endpoints were changes in microstructure. Secondary endpoints included lumbar and hip areal bone mineral density (aBMD), and bone turnover markers. This trial is registered with http://www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN82719233. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Treatment with strontium ranelate was associated with increases in mean cortical thickness (CTh, 5.3%), cortical area (4.9%) and trabecular density (2.1%) (all P < 0.001, except cortical area P = 0.013). No significant changes were observed with alendronate. Between-group differences in favor of strontium ranelate were observed for CTh, cortical area, BV/TV and trabecular density (P = 0.045, 0.041, 0.048 and 0.035, respectively). aBMD increased to a similar extent with strontium ranelate and alendronate at the spine (5.7% versus 5.1%, respectively) and total hip (3.3% versus 2.2%, respectively). No significant changes were observed in remodeling markers with strontium ranelate, while suppression was observed with alendronate. Within the methodological constraints of HR-pQCT through its possible sensitivity to X-ray attenuation of different minerals, strontium ranelate had greater effects than alendronate on distal tibia cortical thickness and trabecular volumetric density.

Five-Year Denosumab Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: Results from the first two Years of the Freedom Trial Extension

Objectives : The FREEDOM trial1 open-label extension is designed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of denosumab for up to 10 years. We report the results from the first 2 years of the extension, representing up to 5 years of denosumab exposure.Materials/Methods : Postmenopausal women enrolled in the extension previously completed FREEDOM. During the extension, all women receive denosumab (60 mg) every 6 months and calcium and vitamin D daily. For the FREEDOM denosumab group, the data reflect 5 years of denosumab treatment (long-term group). For the FREEDOM placebo group, the data reflect 2 years of denosumab treatment (de novo group). P-values are descriptive.Results : There were 4550 (70.2%) FREEDOM women enrolled in the extension (2343 long-term; 2207 de novo). During the 4th and 5th years of denosumab treatment, the long-term group had further 1.9% and 1.7% increases in lumbar spine BMD and further 0.7% and 0.6% increases in total hip BMD (all P<0.0001 compared with extension baseline). Total BMD increases with 5-year denosumab treatment were 13.7% (lumbar spine) and 7.0% (total hip). In the de novo group, BMD increased during the first 2 years of denosumab treatment by 7.9% (lumbar spine) and 4.1% (total hip) (all P<0.0001 compared with extension baseline). After denosumab administration, serum CTX was rapidly and maximally reduced in both groups with the characteristic attenuation observed at the end of the dosing interval, as previously reported.2 Incidences of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were low and below rates observed in the FREEDOM placebo group. Adverse event reports were similar for both groups: in the long-term group, 83.4% reported AEs and 18.9% were serious. In the de novo group, the percentages were 82.8% and 19.4%, respectively. In FREEDOM, the respective percentages were 92.8% and 25.8% in the denosumab group and 93.1% and 25.1% in the placebo group. Two subjects in the de novo group had AEs adjudicated to ONJ which healed without further complications ; one resolved within the 6-month dosing interval and denosumab was continued. There were no atypical femoral fractures.Conclusions : Denosumab treatment for 5 years was well-tolerated and continued to significantly reduce CTX and significantly increase BMD. Reference: 1)Cummings;NEJM;2009;361:756, 2)Eastell;JBMR;2010; doi-10.1002/jbmr.251 Disclosure of Interest: This study was funded by Amgen; S Papapoulos: Consulting fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, GSK, and Wyeth; R Chapurlat: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Merck, Novartis, sanofi-aventis, Roche, Servier, and Warner Chilcott;ML Brandi: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lily, GSK, MSD, NPS, Nycomed, Roche, Servier, and Stroder; JP Brown: Research grants and/or consulting or speaking fees from Abott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Merck, and Warner Chilcott; E Czerwinski: Research grants from Amgen, Astrazeneca, Danone Research, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SantoSolve AS, and Servier; N Daizadeh, A Grauer, C Libanati: Employed by Amgen and own Amgen stocks or stock options; M-A Krieg, D Mellstrom, H Resch: None; S Radominski: Research grants from Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Aventis; Z Man: Lecture fees and/or consulting fees from Merck, Novartis, Roche, and sanofi-aventis. Novartis steering committee member; JA Roman: Research grants from Roche; J-Y Reginster: Research grants, consulting fees, and/or lecture fees from Amgen, Analis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ebewee Pharma, Genevrier, GSK, IBSA, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dhome, Negma, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Nycomed, NPS, Roche, Rottapharm, Servier, Teijin, Teva, Theramex, UCB, Wyeth, and Zodiac; C Roux: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, MSD, Novartis, Servier, and Roche; SR Cummings: Research grants and/or consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Merck; HG Bone: Research grants and/or consulting or speaking fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Nordic Bioscience, Novartis, Takeda, and Zelos

FRAX® International Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) in conjunction with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX® usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX® International Task Force was to review and synthesize data regarding geographic and race/ethnic variability in hip fractures, non-hip osteoporotic fractures, and make recommendations about the use of FRAX® in ethnic groups and countries without a FRAX® calculator. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the International Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

Utilité clinique des ultrasons osseux quantitatifs dans le dépistage de l'ostéoporose [Clinical utility of quantitative bone ultrasonography in the staging of osteoporosis]

Osteoporosis is well recognized as a public health problem in industrialized countries. Because of the efficiency of new treatments to decrease fracture risk, it is of a major interest to detect the patients who should benefit from such treatments. A diagnosis of osteoporosis is necessary before to start a specific treatment. This diagnosis is based on the measurement of the skeleton (hip and spine) with dual X-ray absorptiometry, using diagnostic criteria established by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In Switzerland, indications for bone densitometry are limited to precise situations. This technique cannot be applied for screening. For this purpose, peripheral measurements and particularly quantitative ultrasounds of bone seem to be promising. Indeed, several prospective studies clearly showed their predictive power for hip fracture risk in women aged more than 65 years. In order to facilitate the clinical use of bone ultrasounds, thresholds of risk of fracture and osteoporosis of the hip will be shortly published. This will integrate bone ultrasound in a global concept including bone densitometry and its indications, but also other risk factors for osteoporosis recognized by the Swiss association against osteoporosis (ASCO).

Les indications au traitement de l'ostéoporose [Treatment indications for osteoporosis]

The aim of this review is to better identify for which women with osteoporosis the treatment is efficient, without taking into account the bone mineral density only. The age, previous fractures, the severity of vertebral deformity identify women at high risk for subsequent fracture. The development of assessment tools for predicting fracture risk, the use of the NNT (number needed to treat), and economical analyses are particularly helpful. The number of patients needed to treat to prevent one patient having the target event expresses the magnitude of a treatment effect in a clinically useful way. Economical analyses take into account the health care resources needed to get these benefits. We analysed the NNT and the cost of the treatments which significantly reduced the risk of fracture.

The effect of treatment with calcitonin on vertebral fracture rate in osteoporosis.

The efficacy of treatments for osteoporosis does not become evident when evaluated by fracture incidence (FI). Vertebral FI decreased in all controlled studies on calcitonin, but not significantly. Small sample sizes and short periods of treatment may have masked a possible therapeutic benefit, but longer, controlled studies with sodium fluoride or etidronate in larger groups of patients also failed to show a decrease in FI. The present analysis of nine published, therapeutic studies which indicate the FI per year and the initial prevalence of vertebral fractures, examines the question of whether the initial prevalence of fractures has an effect on the subsequent incidence of new fractures and whether the therapeutic effects have to be evaluated as a function of the initial prevalence of fractures. Bearing in mind the differences in roentgenological evaluation and in the size and quality of the various studies, the analysis revealed (1) that in the control groups there was a higher FI in patients with more than three vertebral fractures at baseline (estimated odds ratio (OR) = 49, p = 0.011); (2) that a similar trend, although not statistically significant, was observed in treated patients; (3) that the groups of control patients treated for more than 1 year showed in general an increase in FI beyond the first year and that the reverse was true in treated patients. In conclusion, failure to allow for the initial prevalence of vertebral fractures at the individual level in therapeutic trials of calcitonin to treat osteoporosis and prevent new fractures might have contributed to the absence of a demonstrable benefit of the treatment in those studies.

Facteurs de risque fracturaire, nouveaux traitements: comment evolue la prise en charge de l'ostéoporose de la personne agée [Fracture risk, new treatments: how does the management of the osteoporosis of elderly change?]

Osteoporosis of elderly is a growing medical, economic and health-care problem. It is due to the increase of the life expectancy and the number of osteoporotic fractures. With the new Swiss-specific tool FRAX and the development of inpatients fracture trajectory, we can better identify patients with high risk of fracture. An appropriate treatment can be proposed more quickly. The follow-up of bone markers increases the treatment efficiency. With a better identification, treatment and follow-up of osteoporosis of elderly patients, we can ameliorate the patient's quality of life and decrease the number of osteoporotic fractures with a good cost-effectiveness ratio.

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

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following: The Task Force members conducted appropriate literature reviews and developed preliminary statements that were discussed and graded by a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF joint conference. The statements approved by the panel of experts are discussed in the current paper.

Comparative effects of teriparatide and ibandronate on spine bone mineral density (BMD) and microarchitecture (TBS) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a 2-year open-label study.

Treatment effects over 2 years of teriparatide vs. ibandronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were compared using lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS). Teriparatide induced larger increases in BMD and TBS compared to ibandronate, suggesting a more pronounced effect on bone microarchitecture of the bone anabolic drug. INTRODUCTION: The trabecular bone score (TBS) is an index of bone microarchitecture, independent of bone mineral density (BMD), calculated from anteroposterior spine dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. The potential role of TBS for monitoring treatment response with bone-active substances is not established. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of recombinant human 1-34 parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) and the bisphosphonate ibandronate (IBN), on lumbar spine (LS) BMD and TBS in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: Two patient groups with matched age, body mass index (BMI), and baseline LS BMD, treated with either daily subcutaneous teriparatide (N = 65) or quarterly intravenous IBN (N = 122) during 2 years and with available LS BMD measurements at baseline and 2 years after treatment initiation were compared. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics (overall mean ± SD) were similar between groups in terms of age 67.9 ± 7.4 years, body mass index 23.8 ± 3.8 kg/m(2), BMD L1-L4 0.741 ± 0.100 g/cm(2), and TBS 1.208 ± 0.100. Over 24 months, teriparatide induced a significantly larger increase in LS BMD and TBS than IBN (+7.6 % ± 6.3 vs. +2.9 % ± 3.3 and +4.3 % ± 6.6 vs. +0.3 % ± 4.1, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both). LS BMD and TBS were only weakly correlated at baseline (r (2) = 0.04) with no correlation between the changes in BMD and TBS over 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, a 2-year treatment with teriparatide led to a significantly larger increase in LS BMD and TBS than IBN, suggesting that teriparatide had more pronounced effects on bone microarchitecture than IBN.