Search

Osteoporosis is a chronic condition that reflects reduced bone strength and an associated increased risk for fracture. As a chronic condition, osteoporosis generally requires sustained medical intervention(s) to limit the risks for additional bone loss, compromise of skeletal integrity, and fracture occurrence. Further complicating this issue is the fact that the abrupt cessation of some therapies can be associated with an increased risk for harm. It is in this context that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented disruption to the provision of health care globally, including near universal requirements for social distancing. In this Perspective, we provide evidence, where available, regarding the general care of patients with osteoporosis in the COVID-19 era and provide clinical recommendations based primarily on expert opinion when data are absent. Particular emphasis is placed on the transition from parenteral osteoporosis therapies. It is hoped that these recommendations can be used to safely guide care for patients with osteoporosis until a return to routine clinical care standards is available. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Cell-based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell-based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web-based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell-based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell-based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell-based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state-of-the art in cell-based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell-based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 38:485-502, 2020.

Cell-based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell-based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web-based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell-based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell-based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell-based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state-of-the art in cell-based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell-based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are the most commonly used medications for osteoporosis. This ASBMR report provides guidance on BP therapy duration with a risk-benefit perspective. Two trials provided evidence for long-term BP use. In the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (FLEX), postmenopausal women receiving alendronate for 10 years had fewer clinical vertebral fractures than those switched to placebo after 5 years. In the HORIZON extension, women who received 6 annual infusions of zoledronic acid had fewer morphometric vertebral fractures compared with those switched to placebo after 3 years. Low hip T-score, between -2 and -2.5 in FLEX and below -2.5 in HORIZON extension, predicted a beneficial response to continued therapy. Hence, the Task Force suggests that after 5 years of oral BP or 3 years of intravenous BP, reassessment of risk should be considered. In women at high risk, for example, older women, those with a low hip T-score or high fracture risk score, those with previous major osteoporotic fracture, or who fracture on therapy, continuation of treatment for up to 10 years (oral) or 6 years (intravenous), with periodic evaluation, should be considered. The risk of atypical femoral fracture, but not osteonecrosis of the jaw, clearly increases with BP therapy duration, but such rare events are outweighed by vertebral fracture risk reduction in high-risk patients. For women not at high fracture risk after 3 to 5 years of BP treatment, a drug holiday of 2 to 3 years can be considered. The suggested approach for long-term BP use is based on limited evidence, only for vertebral fracture reduction, in mostly white postmenopausal women, and does not replace the need for clinical judgment. It may be applicable to men and patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, with some adaptations. It is unlikely that future trials will provide data for formulating definitive recommendations. © 2015 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Author(s): Joshua N Farr [1]; Ming Xu [1]; Megan M Weivoda [1]; David G Monroe [1]; Daniel G Fraser [1]; Jennifer L Onken [1]; Brittany A Negley [1]; Jad G [...]

Hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) is a common metabolic complication of advanced malignancies with a prevalence varying from 2-30%, depending on cancer type and disease stage. HCM is associated with impaired quality of life, increased risk of hospitalisation and limited survival. Evidence-based guidelines for management of HCM have been lacking to date, despite its prevalence and detrimental impact. This concise guidance highlights key recommendations from the recent Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Treatment of Hypercalcaemia of Malignancy in Adults, published in December 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis was commissioned to support the guideline development process. Key suggestions include the use of denosumab in preference to intravenous bisphosphonates as first-line treatment for HCM and the use of denosumab in cases of recurrent or refractory HCM in patients previously treated with intravenous bisphosphonates. The guideline also identifies priority areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM) is the most common metabolic complication of malignancies, but its incidence may be declining due to potent chemotherapeutic agents. The high mortality associated with HCM has declined markedly due to the introduction of increasingly effective chemotherapeutic drugs. Despite the widespread availability of efficacious medications to treat HCM, evidence-based recommendations to manage this debilitating condition are lacking. Objective: To develop guidelines for the treatment of adults with HCM. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, together with experts in systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 8 clinical questions related to the treatment of HCM in adult patients. The systematic reviews (SRs) queried electronic databases for studies relevant to the selected questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. An independent SR was conducted in parallel to assess patients' and physicians' values and preferences, costs, resources needed, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and other domains relevant to the Evidence-to-Decision framework as well as to enable judgements and recommendations. Results: The panel recommends (strong recommendation) in adults with HCM treatment with denosumab (Dmab) or an intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate (BP). The following recommendations were based on low certainty of the evidence. The panel suggests (conditional recommendation) (1) in adults with HCM, the use of Dmab rather than an IV BP; (2) in adults with severe HCM, a combination of calcitonin and an IV BP or Dmab therapy as initial treatment; and (3) in adults with refractory/recurrent HCM despite treatment with BP, the use of Dmab. The panel suggests (conditional recommendation) the addition of an IV BP or Dmab in adult patients with hypercalcemia due to tumors associated with high calcitriol levels who are already receiving glucocorticoid therapy but continue to have severe or symptomatic HCM. The panel suggests (conditional recommendation) in adult patients with hypercalcemia due to parathyroid carcinoma, treatment with either a calcimimetic or an antiresorptive (IV BP or Dmab). The panel judges the treatments as probably accessible and feasible for most recommendations but noted variability in costs, resources required, and their impact on equity. Conclusions: The panel's recommendations are based on currently available evidence considering the most important outcomes in HCM to patients and key stakeholders. Treatment of the primary malignancy is instrumental for controlling hypercalcemia and preventing its recurrence. The recommendations provide a framework for the medical management of adults with HCM and incorporate important decisional and contextual factors. The guidelines underscore current knowledge gaps that can be used to establish future research agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrating shared decision making between patients and physicians and incorporating their values and preferences in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is of critical importance to optimize CPG implementation and treatment adherence. This applies to many debilitating diseases, including hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM). Objective: Evaluate patient and physician values, preferences, and attitudes to better inform CPGs to treat HCM in adults. Methods: We followed a mixed-methods approach. We conducted a systematic review using 5 databases to identify studies reporting on patient and physician values, costs and resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity regarding HCM treatment. We also gathered data from different countries on the cost of multiple treatment modalities. We collected data on outcome prioritization from the CPG Working Group. Similarly, we collected data from patients with HCM regarding outcome prioritization and administered a questionnaire to evaluate their attitudes and perceptions toward treatment as well as treatment acceptability and feasibility. Results: In the systematic review, we included 2 cross-sectional surveys conducted on the same population of physicians who agreed that treating HCM alleviates symptoms and improves quality of life; however, harms and benefits should be thoroughly considered when deciding on the duration of treatment. We also included 2 studies on cost showing that intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate is more cost-effective than a combination of IV bisphosphonate and calcitonin and administration of IV zoledronic acid at home is more cost-effective than other IV bisphosphonates. The cost of zoledronic acid, denosumab, and cinacalcet varied widely among countries and types (brand vs generic). Both the CPG Working Group and patients with HCM agreed that the most important outcomes when deciding on treatment were survival and resolution of HCM, but there was some variability in the ratings for other outcomes. Conclusion: Using mixed methods, CPG developers can obtain meaningful information regarding evidence to decision criteria. In the case of HCM CPGs, this approach has provided the required contextual information and supported the development of evidence-based recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Hypercalcemia is a common complication of malignancy that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Objective: To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy in adults. Methods: We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 8 clinical questions prioritized by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess certainty of evidence. Results: We reviewed 1949 citations, from which we included 21 studies. The risk of bias for most of the included studies was moderate. A higher proportion of patients who received bisphosphonate achieved resolution of hypercalcemia when compared to placebo. The incidence rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group. Comparing denosumab to bisphosphonate, there was no significant difference in the rate of patients who achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Two-thirds of patients with refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy who received denosumab following bisphosphonate therapy achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Addition of calcitonin to bisphosphonate therapy did not affect the resolution of hypercalcemia, time to normocalcemia, or hypocalcemia. Only indirect evidence was available to address questions on the management of hypercalcemia in tumors associated with high calcitriol levels, refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy following the use of bisphosphonates, and the use of calcimimetics in the treatment of hypercalcemia associated with parathyroid carcinoma. The certainty of the evidence to address all 8 clinical questions was low to very low. Conclusion: The evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of treatments of hypercalcemia of malignancy. Additional information about patients' values and preferences, and other important decisional and contextual factors is needed to facilitate the development of clinical recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]