Search

Our study investigates vertebral fractures in individuals with distal radius fractures. Among 512 patients, 41.21% had vertebral fractures, predominantly in the lumbar spine. These findings highlight the importance of screening for vertebral fractures in this population, informing early intervention strategies to mitigate risks associated with osteoporosis., Purpose: This study's main goal was to look into the frequency, location, kind, and severity of asymptomatic vertebral fragility fractures (VFF) in people who had fractures of the fragility of the distal radius. Although VFF is frequently misdiagnosed, it is linked to higher mortality, morbidity, and hip fracture risk. The study also attempted to investigate the relationship between VFF and certain demographic and lifestyle factors, as well as FRAX data, in this patient population., Methods: Between January, 2021, and January, 2022, individuals with low-energy distal radial fractures who presented to the emergency room of tertiary care hospital of Karachi, Pakistan, were the subject of a cross-sectional study and were 45 years of age or older except those who fitted the exclusion criteria (n = 208). The thoracic and/or lumbar spine was imaged using radiology, and information on demographics, way of life, and FRAX (Fracture Risk Assessment Tool) was gathered. Using the Genant semiquantitative approach, an impartial and blinded orthopaedist identified VF in the images and determined their severity. SPSS version 20 was used to analyse the data., Results: Two hundred eleven (41.21%) of them were found to have radiographic VFF and only 12 (2.34%) of the 512 patients who were tested were getting osteoporotic therapy. The thoracic spine (32.7%), followed by the lumbar spine (43.12%), was the area most frequently afflicted. In 24.17% of the patients, multiple fractures of the thoracolumbar spine were found. The wedge form (54.5%), followed by biconcave (30.81%) and crush (14.7%), was the most prevalent VFF type. The majority of detected VFF were rated as having a 25-40% height loss (64.9%) then severe (> 40%) fractures (35.1%), according to the Genant grading method. Notably, there were no variations in smoking, drinking, BMI, or FRAX score between patients with and without VFF that were statistically significant., Conclusion: Based on our study's findings, it is clear that osteoporotic vertebral fragility fractures occur in almost half of individuals with distal radius fractures. The lumbar spine is notably the most affected region, predominantly with wedge fractures. Given the high prevalence of asymptomatic vertebral fragility fractures (VFF), proactive measures are necessary to mitigate associated risks. Prioritising comprehensive fall risk assessments for these patients and interventions to enhance bone mineral density and strength are crucial. Early identification of asymptomatic VFF enables timely intervention, optimising patient care and minimising the risk of complications in this vulnerable population., (© 2024. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.)

There is a strong association between total hip bone mineral density (THBMD) changes after 24 mo of treatment and reduced fracture risk. We examined whether changes in THBMD after 12 and 18 mo of treatment are also associated with fracture risk reduction. We used individual patient data (n = 122 235 participants) from 22 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of osteoporosis medications. We calculated the difference in mean percent change in THBMD (active-placebo) at 12, 18, and 24 mo using data available for each trial. We determined the treatment-related fracture reductions for the entire follow-up period, using logistic regression for radiologic vertebral fractures and Cox regression for hip, non-vertebral, "all" (combination of non-vertebral, clinical vertebral, and radiologic vertebral) fractures and all clinical fractures (combination of non-vertebral and clinical vertebral). We performed meta-regression to estimate the study-level association (r2 and 95% confidence interval) between treatment-related differences in THBMD changes for each BMD measurement interval and fracture risk reduction. The meta-regression revealed that for vertebral fractures, the r2 (95% confidence interval) was 0.59 (0.19, 0.75), 0.69 (0.32, 0.82), and 0.73 (0.33, 0.84) for 12, 18, and 24 mo, respectively. Similar patterns were observed for hip: r2 = 0.27 (0.00, 0.54), 0.39 (0.02, 0.63), and 0.41 (0.02, 0.65); non-vertebral: r2 = 0.27 (0.01, 0.52), 0.49 (0.10, 0.69), and 0.53 (0.11, 0.72); all fractures: r2 = 0.44 (0.10, 0.64), 0.63 (0.24, 0.77), and 0.66 (0.25, 0.80); and all clinical fractures: r2 = 0.46 (0.11, 0.65), 0.64 (0.26, 0.78), and 0.71 (0.32, 0.83), for 12-, 18-, and 24-mo changes in THBMD, respectively. These findings demonstrate that treatment-related THBMD changes at 12, 18, and 24 mo are associated with fracture risk reductions across trials. We conclude that BMD measurement intervals as short as 12 mo could be used to assess fracture efficacy, but the association is stronger with longer BMD measurement intervals., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Background: After denosumab (Dmab) discontinuation C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) levels increase, bone mineral density (BMD) decreases and multiple vertebral fractures (FX) may occur with relevant impacts on women's health. A sequential therapy with bisphosphonates is recommended, and the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS) proposed repeated zoledronate (ZOL) administrations in patients with persistently high CTX levels, although the efficacy of this schedule is unknown. In this retrospective study, we describe BMD changes and FX rate in 52 patients managed according to the ECTS recommendations., Methods: We measured CTX levels and administered ZOL after 1 month from Dmab withdrawal (t0). After 6 months (t1), we administered a second ZOL infusion, if CTX levels were ≥280 ng/L. BMD changes and FX rate were assessed on average after 17 months from Dmab withdrawal., Results: Seventy-five percent of patients repeated ZOL infusion. In this group, spine BMD declined significantly (-5.5 ± 5.6%), while it remained stable in the group with CTX levels <280 ng/L (-0.1 ± 5.5%, P = 0.008). All fractured patients (9.6%) had received >5 Dmab injections and 2 ZOL infusions. The BMD worsening after Dmab withdrawal was associated with CTX t1 [odds ratio (OR) 2.9, interquartile range (IQR) 1.3-6.6, P = .009] and spine BMD gain during Dmab therapy corrected for the number of Dmab injections (OR 3.0, IQR 1.2-7.2, P = .014). A CTX level at t1 > 212 ng/L had 100% sensitivity in predicting the BMD loss., Conclusion: In patients with uncontrolled CTX levels after Dmab withdrawal, 2 ZOL infusions 6 months apart do not prevent BMD loss and FX., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Background and Objectives: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are prevalent among the elderly, often leading to significant pain, morbidity, and mortality. Effective management of underlying osteoporosis is essential to prevent subsequent fractures. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of teriparatide and denosumab treatments in patients with OVCFs to determine their relative effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 78 patients diagnosed with an acute thoracolumbar OVCF who received either teriparatide (35 patients) or denosumab (43 patients) within three months of a fracture. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and EQ-5D quality of life scores at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) and radiographic outcomes were evaluated initially and at 12 months post-treatment. Results: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores over 12 months. No significant differences were observed between the teriparatide and denosumab groups in terms of clinical outcomes or radiographic measurements at any time point. Fracture union and BMD improvements were similarly observed in both groups. The teriparatide group had a lower baseline BMD, but this did not affect the overall outcomes. Conclusions: Both teriparatide and denosumab are effective in improving clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with OVCFs. Despite concerns about denosumab's potential to hinder fracture healing, our study found no significant differences between the two treatments. These findings support the use of denosumab for early treatment of OVCFs to prevent subsequent fractures without compromising fracture healing. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Background: Bone health management in premenopausal women with breast cancer (BC) under hormone-deprivation therapies (HDTs) is often challenging, and the effectiveness of bone-active drugs is still unknown., Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 306 premenopausal women with early BC undergoing HDTs. Bone mineral density (BMD) and morphometric vertebral fractures (VFs) were assessed 12 months after HDT initiation and then after at least 24 months., Results: After initial assessment, bone-active drugs were prescribed in 77.5% of women (151 denosumab 60 mg/6 months, 86 bisphosphonates). After 47.0 ± 20.1 months, new VFs were found in 16 women (5.2%). Vertebral fracture risk was significantly associated with obesity (odds ratio [OR] 3.87, P = .028), family history of hip fractures or VFs (OR 3.21, P = .040], chemotherapy-induced menopause (OR 6.48, P < .001), preexisting VFs (OR 25.36, P < .001), baseline T-score less than or equal to -2.5 standard deviation (SD) at any skeletal site (OR 4.14, P = .036), and changes at lumbar and total hip BMD (OR 0.94, P = .038 and OR 0.88, P < .001, respectively). New VFs occurred more frequently in women untreated compared to those treated with bone-active drugs (14/69, 20.8% vs 2/237, 0.8%; P < .001) and the anti-fracture effectiveness remained significant after correction for BMI (OR 0.03; P < .001), family history of fractures (OR 0.03; P < .001), chemotherapy-induced menopause (OR 0.04; P < .001), and preexisting VFs (OR 0.01; P < .001)., Conclusions: Premenopausal women under HDTs are at high risk of VFs in relationship with high BMI, densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis, preexisting VFs, and family history of osteoporotic fractures. Vertebral fractures in this setting might be effectively prevented by bisphosphonates or denosumab., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: R.P. received consultancy fees from Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Eisai, and Accord, outside the submitted work. A.P. reports lecture fees from Amgen, Theramex, and UCB, outside the submitted work. A.N. reports lecture fees from Theramex, outside the submitted work. G.T. reports lectures fees from Theramex and Abiogen, outside the submitted work. R.T. received research grants from Pfizer, consultancy fees from MSD, and lecture fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Genomic Health outside the submitted work. A.Z. received consultancy fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly & Co., AstraZeneca, and Genomic Health outside the submitted work. L.C. received consultancy fees from UCB and lecture fees from Abiogen Pharma and Bruno Farmaceutici, outside the submitted work. A.C. Bossi reports research grants from Bayer SA, Lilly Italia SpA, MSD USA, and Novo Nordisk Italia SpA and personal fees from Sanofi Italia SpA, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia SpA, and AstraZeneca Italia SpA, outside the submitted work. A.L. received grants from Pfizer and lecture fees from Recordati, outside the submitted work. A.B. reports receiving grants and personal fees from Janssen Cilag, grants and personal fees from Astellas, and personal fees from Bayer outside the submitted work. G.M. received consultancy fees and preceptorship from Amgen–UCB and Sanofi and lectures fees from Theramex and Recordati. The other authors have nothing to declare., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Endocrinology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To evaluate the anti-fracture effect and adverse effects of teriparatide versus bisphosphonate on postmenopausal osteoporosis. This study will provide evidence-based practice for the clinical selection of more effective and safer drugs for these patients., Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to July 2022. The keywords included "fracture"; "teriparatide", "bisphosphonate", "postmenopausal women", and "osteoporosis". Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teriparatide versus bisphosphonates on the risk of fracture and adverse effects in postmenopausal osteoporosis were included in the analysis., Results: Finally, 3376 participants were recruited in all 5 RCTs. The results revealed that teriparatide could decrease the rate of clinical vertebral fracture (OR=1.97, 95% CI=1.43-2.73, I2 = 0%, P < .0001) and new vertebral fractures (OR=2.44, 95% CI=1.70-3.50, I2 = 0%, P < .00001) compared with bisphosphonate. AE results refer to the type and frequency of adverse effects related to drug treatment. The rate of treatment discontinuous due to AEs (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.48-0.83, I2 = 44%, P = .0009) with teriparatide was significantly greater than that with bisphosphonate. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events to death (OR=0.59, 95% CI=0.30-1.18, I2 = 0%, P = .13). The proportion of patients reporting adverse events in the teriparatide versus bisphosphonate groups was consistent across subgroups, except for the rate of dizziness (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.31-0.90, I2 = 49%, P = .02)., Conclusions: Among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, clinical vertebral fractures and new vertebral fractures decreased more in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving bisphosphonate. Although there were no differences in adverse events across subgroups, patients receiving teriparatide had a higher rate of dizziness than those receiving bisphosphonate.The results of this work will provide a reference for clinicians to select appropriate anti-osteoporosis drugs by comprehensively considering individual differences such as fracture risk and dizziness tolerance.

Objective: To investigate the use of anti-osteoporotic agents and refracture incidence in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) following percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) and to evaluate the real-world treatment of patients using denosumab following PVA. This study aims to provide spine surgeons with empirical insights derived from real-world scenarios to enhance the management of bone health in OVCF patients., Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on data from the MarketScan and Optum databases from the USA. Female patients aged 55-90 years who underwent PVA for OVCF between January 2013 and March 2020 were included and followed up from the day after surgery. Patients who received at least one dose of denosumab were included in the denosumab cohort and were further divided into the on-treatment and off-treatment groups according to whether they received a second dose of denosumab, with follow-up beginning on the index day (225 days after the first denosumab dose). In this study, the off-treatment group was considered as the control group. Refracture incidence after PVA, the proportion of patients using anti-osteoporotic agents in the total study population, and refracture incidence after the index day in the denosumab cohort were analyzed., Results: A total of 13,451 and 21,420 patients from the MarketScan and Optum databases, respectively, were included. In the denosumab cohort, the cumulative incidence of clinical osteoporotic fractures within 3 years after the index day was significantly lower in the on-treatment group than in the off-treatment group (MarketScan database: 23.0% vs 39.0%, p = 0.002; Optum database: 28.2% vs 40.0%, p = 0.023). The cumulative incidence of clinical vertebral fractures was also lower in the on-treatment group than in the off-treatment group, with a significant difference in the MarketScan database (14.4% vs 25.5%, p = 0.002) and a numerical difference was found in the Optum database (20.2% vs 27.5%, p = 0.084).The proportion of patients using anti-osteoporotic agents was low at 6 months postoperatively, with only approximately 7% using denosumab and 13%-15% taking oral bisphosphonates., Conclusion: Postmenopausal women have a high refracture rate and a low proportion of anti-osteoporotic drug use after PVA. Continued denosumab treatment after PVA is associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic and clinical vertebral fractures. Therefore, denosumab may be a treatment option for patients with osteoporosis after PVA., (© 2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Denosumab rebound-associated fractures occur in approximately 1 out of 14 patients who discontinue denosumab therapy without sequential antiresorptive therapy. They occur due to excessive bone resorption after missed or delayed denosumab doses. The fractures are multiple and quality of life altering. This phenomenon occurs in all patient populations that use prolonged denosumab therapy. Average delay in denosumab dosing beyond 7 months or discontinuation of denosumab without sequential therapy is associated with increased mortality in retrospective studies. Multiple medication regimens used after the end of denosumab therapy have been shown to substantially reduce the risk of rebound vertebral fractures., Competing Interests: Disclosure The author has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

While biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are considered beneficial for preventing osteoporosis and bone fracture, it is unclear whether bone loss is involved in the development of vertebral fracture, and few reports have examined the factors related to vertebral fracture in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using bDMARDs. This study aims to identify factors influencing vertebral fracture in RA patients treated with bDMARDs. We retrospectively examined the records of 129 RA patients treated with bDMARDs for over 5 years. The lumbar spine and femoral bone mineral density, Disease Activity Score-28-C-Reactive Protein (DAS28-CRP) value, Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score were evaluated. The frequency of new vertebral fracture during the study and their risk factors were investigated. A comparison between the fracture group and the nonfracture group was performed. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis to detect risk factors for new vertebral fracture. The number of patients with new vertebral fracture during follow-up was 15 (11.6%) of the 129 patients in the study. Age and mHAQ score were significantly higher and lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density were significantly lower in the fracture group than the nonfracture group. The risk factors for new vertebral fracture during the disease course were older age and higher mHAQ score indicating no remission over the 5 years of follow-up. In this study, there was no significant difference in disease indices such as the DAS28-CRP value and the SDAI between the fracture and nonfracture groups, suggesting an effective control of RA with bDMARDs. However, age and the mHAQ score, an index of RA dysfunction, were significantly higher in the fracture group. These results suggest that improving functional impairment may be important to prevent vertebral fracture in patients using bDMARDs., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Post hoc analysis of FRAME and ARCH revealed that on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 were less common in women initially treated with romosozumab versus placebo or alendronate. Recurrent fracture risk was also lower in romosozumab‑treated patients, and there were no fracture‑related complications. Results support continuing romosozumab treatment post‑fracture., Purpose: Post hoc analysis evaluating efficacy and safety of romosozumab, administered in the immediate post‑fracture period, in the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials., Methods: In FRAME (NCT01575834) and ARCH (NCT01631214), postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to romosozumab 210 mg monthly or comparator (FRAME, placebo; ARCH, alendronate 70 mg weekly) for 12 months, followed by antiresorptive therapy (FRAME, denosumab; ARCH, alendronate). In patients who experienced on-study nonvertebral or new/worsening vertebral fracture by Month 12, we report the following: fracture and treatment‑emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence through 36 months, bone mineral density changes (BMD), and romosozumab timing. Due to the sample sizes employed, meaningful statistical comparisons between treatments were not possible., Results: Incidence of on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 was numerically lower in romosozumab- versus comparator-treated patients (FRAME, 1.6% and 0.5% versus 2.1% and 1.6%; ARCH, 3.4% and 3.3% versus 4.6% and 4.9%, respectively). In those who experienced on-study nonvertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent nonvertebral and subsequent vertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower in patients initially treated with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 3.6% [2/56] and 1.8% [1/56] versus 9.2% [7/76] and 3.9% [3/76]; ARCH, 10.0% [7/70] and 5.7% [4/70] versus 12.6% [12/95] and 8.4% [8/95], respectively). Among those with on-study vertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent vertebral and subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 0.0% [0/17] and 0.0% [0/17] versus 11.9% [7/59] and 8.5% [5/59]; ARCH, 9.0% [6/67] and 7.5% [5/67] versus 15.0% [15/100] and 16.0% [16/100], respectively). In patients with fracture by Month 12, no fracture‑related complications were reported in romosozumab-treated patients. BMD gains were numerically greater with romosozumab than comparators., Conclusion: Data suggest support for the efficacy and safety of continuing romosozumab treatment following fracture., Trial Registrations: NCT01575834; NCT01631214., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether bone mineral density (BMD) ≥ -2.5 SD could be used as the treat-to-target (T2T) goal when treating osteoporosis with teriparatide (TPTD) and alendronate (ALN), and to investigate the relationship with incident vertebral fracture by re-analyzing data from a randomized, controlled trial (JOINT-05) involving postmenopausal Japanese women at high fracture risk., Materials and Methods: Participants received sequential therapy with once-weekly TPTD for 72 weeks, followed by ALN for 48 weeks (TPTD-ALN group) or ALN monotherapy for 120 weeks (ALN group). BMDs were measured at the lumbar spine (L2-4), total hip, and femoral neck at 0, 24, 48, 72, and 120 weeks by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The T2T goal was BMD ≥ -2.5 SD, and the endpoint was the proportion of participants with baseline BMD < -2.5 SD in three measurement sites achieving BMD ≥ -2.5 SD., Results: A total of 559 participants were selected. BMD ≥ -2.5 SD at 120 weeks in the L2-4, total hip, and femoral neck sites was achieved in 20.5%, 23.1%, and 5.9%, respectively, in the TPTD-ALN group and 22.2%, 11.7%, and 7.3%, respectively, in the ALN group. Incident vertebral fractures occurred in areas of both lower and high BMD., Conclusion: During the 1.5-year treatment period, more than 20% of participants achieved BMD ≥ -2.5 SD as a T2T goal at L2-4. Since the achievement level differed depending on the BMD measurement site, the appropriate site should be selected according to the baseline BMD level., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Many studies sought to demonstrate the association between smoking and fracture risk. However, the correlation between smoking and fractures remains controversial. This study aimed to examine the impact of smoking and smoking cessation on the occurrence of fractures using prospective nationwide cohort data. We enrolled those who underwent a National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) health checkup in 2009-2010 who had a previous health checkup 4-year prior (2005-2006). The study population of 4,028,559 subjects was classified into three groups (non-smoker, smoking cessation, current smoker). The study population was also analyzed according to fracture type (all fractures, vertebral fracture, hip fracture). Lastly, the smoking cessation group and current smoker group were divided into four subgroups based on a lifetime smoking amount cut-off of 20 pack-years (PY). Multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of fracture were examined through a Cox proportional hazards model. After multivariable adjustment, non-smokers showed the lowest risk of fracture (HR = 0.818, CI 0.807-0.828, p < 0.0001) and smoking cessation significantly lowered the risk of fracture (HR 0.938, 95% CI 0.917-0.959, p < 0.0001) compared to current smokers. Regardless of 20PY, all smoking cessation subgroups showed significantly less risk of fractures than current smokers with ≥ 20PYs. Smoking increases the risk of fracture, and smoking cessation lowers the risk of fracture., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high)., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study., Main Results: Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies., Authors' Conclusions: This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose: The aging of the population increases the incidence of postmenopausal osteoporosis, which threatens the health of elderly women. Abaloparatide is a synthetic peptide analogue of the human parathyroid hormone-related protein that has recently been approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Its efficacy and safety have not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, studies on the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide could be of assistance in the clinical medication of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of abaloparatide in postmenopausal osteoporosis., Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched from inception to July 6, 2023, for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently conducted the study screening, quality assessment (based on the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool recommended in the Cochrane handbook), and data extraction. Outcome measures included bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover and metabolic markers, incidence of fractures, and adverse events. Data analyses were processed by using Stata SE15., Findings: Ultimately, 8 randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 3705 postmenopausal women, were included. Meta-analysis showed that abaloparatide administration significantly increased the BMD of the lumbar vertebrae (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.28 [95% CI, 0.81-1.76); I 2 = 78.5%]), femoral neck (SMD, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.17-1.23; I 2 = 75.7%]), and hip bone (SMD, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.53-1.20; I 2 = 60.4%]) in postmenopausal women compared with the control group. Type I procollagen N-terminal propeptide, a bone formation marker, was also elevated after abaloparatide administration. The incidence of vertebral fracture was lower in the abaloparatide group than in the control group (risk ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26; I 2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the abaloparatide and the placebo groups (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06; I 2 = 0%)., Implications: Abaloparatide has a protective effect on women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. It could reduce their risk for vertebral fracture; increase their BMD of the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and hip; and alleviate symptoms and complications of postmenopausal osteoporosis with considerable safety. Limitations of this study include not searching the gray literature and not performing a subgroup analysis. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42022370944., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None declared., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain., Purpose: Approximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care., Methods: The study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen's kappa., Results: This study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively., Conclusions: This article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study., Trial Registration: ISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Osteoporosis poses a significant health concern, especially for individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD disrupts mineral and bone metabolism, heightening the risk of fractures and complicating the management of osteoporosis. While anti-osteoporotic interventions aim to address bone health in CKD patients, ongoing research is essential to understand the comparative efficacy and safety of these medications, particularly in different CKD stages, notably in stages 4 and 5., Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of osteoporosis interventions in CKD up to June 15, 2024. The analysis utilized the pooled odds ratio (OR) along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), employing Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3.0. To assess heterogeneity in the results of individual studies, we used Cochran's Q statistic and the I2 statistic., Results: We analyzed 12 randomized controlled trials involving 31,027 participants, revealing a significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures with anti-osteoporotic agents (teriparatide, denosumab, romosozumab, raloxifene) compared to placebo (pooled OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.22-0.36]). Stratification by CKD stages showed a lower risk in Stages 1-3 but no significant reduction in stages 4 and 5. Teriparatide, denosumab, and romosozumab were effective in lowering fracture risk, whereas Raloxifene showed no significant effect. The lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD showed no significant differences between anti-osteoporotic agents (denosumab, raloxifene, risedronate, alendronate, teriparatide) and placebo. However, romosozumab demonstrated a significantly greater BMD change in all kidney function categories. No reported side effects were observed in CKD stages 1-5 across the trials., Conclusions: Our meta-analysis highlights the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic agents in lowering vertebral fracture risk in CKD patients, particularly in stages 1-3. However, this benefit is not apparent in stages 4 and 5, necessitating further research. Despite the absence of reported side effects in CKD patients, clinicians should carefully assess the suitability of these medications, considering individual risks and benefits., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Context: Skeletal fragility is observed in 30% to 60% of acromegaly patients, representing an emerging complication of the disease that increases disability. Despite several studies having investigated the clinical and hormonal prognostic factors for the occurrence of vertebral fractures (VFs) in acromegaly, very few data are available on their prevention/treatment including the effect of vitamin D (VD) supplementation, which has been reported to have a fracture-protective effect in several studies in patients with osteoporosis., Objective: We aimed to investigate the role of cholecalciferol (D3) supplementation in the prevention of incident VFs (i-VFs) in acromegaly., Methods: A longitudinal, retrospective and multicenter study was performed on 61 acromegaly patients treated and untreated with D3 supplementation., Results: Twenty-six patients were treated with D3 supplementation according to clinical guidelines. The median D3 weekly dosage was 8500 IU (interquartile range [IQR]: 3900). The median duration of D3 supplementation was 94 months (IQR: 38). At last follow-up, i-VFs were diagnosed in 14 patients (23%). I-VFs were less prevalent in patients on D3 supplementation (14.3% of cases) compared to patients not treated with D3 (85.7%; P = .02). The final level of serum V25OH-D was significantly lower in patients who developed i-VFs (28.6 ng/mL, IQR: 4.1) compared to patients who did not develop i-VFs (34.2 ng/mL, IQR: 9.6; P = .05). The logistic regression confirmed the protective role of D3 supplementation on the occurrence of i-VFs (odds ratio: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.79; P = .01)., Conclusion: It is likely that D3 supplementation could lead to a reduction in i-VFs in acromegaly., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Background: Vertebral compression fractures are common in elderly people and most are due to osteoporosis. Osteoporosis treatment is effective for secondary prophylaxis, so initiation is recommended. Despite the clear benefits, the rate of initiation of osteoporosis treatment is very low. It is reported to be due to several factors including insufficient systems-based approaches for hospitals and post-acute care. Hospitalists, who are physicians dedicated to the treatment of patients in hospital and whose activity is generalist rather than specialized, are reported to be associated with higher-quality inpatient care because of, among other things, closer adherence to guidelines. Co-management by hospitalists for patients with vertebral compression fractures has potential benefits towards improving the outcomes. We compared the rate of initiation of osteoporosis treatment for patients with vertebral compression fractures between conventional orthopedic surgeon-led care (conventional group) and hospitalist co-management care (co-management group)., Methods: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study to evaluate the rate of initiation of osteoporosis treatment and reasons for non-initiation of osteoporosis treatment. Other clinical indicators were also evaluated, including length of hospital stay, preventable complications during hospitalization, and rate of 30-day readmission., Results: We identified 55 patients in the conventional group and 93 patients in the co-management group. The rate of initiation of osteoporosis treatment was higher in the co-management group (45.2% vs. 3.6%, OR 21.5; 95%CI 5.12-192.0; P < 0.01). Most of the patients with non-initiation in the co-management group had reasons for it described in the medical records, but in the conventional group the reasons were unknown. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay, preventable complications during hospitalization, or 30-day readmission between the groups., Conclusions: Hospitalist co-management of patients with vertebral compression fractures showed significantly higher rate of initiation of osteoporosis treatment than conventional orthopedic surgeon-led care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Previous studies have revealed the protective effects of statins on bone but the association of statins use with osteoporosis-related measurement has shown controversial results. In this study, we found an age, dose andduration-dependent osteoprotective effect of statins in general older population., Purpose: Previous studies have revealed the protective effects of statins on bone but the association of statins use with osteoporotic fractures has shown controversial results., Methods: In this study with Korean National Health Insurance Service-Senior cohort database, a total of 365,656 elderly without previous history of osteoporosis and who were started on statin since January 1 2004 were included and observed until December 31 2012. Hazard rations (HR) for major osteoporotic fractures were calculated using the weighted Cox proportional hazards model with inverse-probability of treatment weighting method., Results: During 6.27 years of follow-up period, 54,959 osteoporotic fractures occurred and the majority of fractures (69.5%) were vertebral fractures. Compared with non-users, statin use was associated with a decreased risk of all outcomes with adjusted HR (95% CI) of 0.77 (0.72-0.83; P < 0.001) for major osteoporotic fractures, 0.49 (0.38-0.62; P < 0.001) for hip fractures, and 0.70 (0.64-0.77; P < 0.001) for vertebral fractures. When outcomes were examined separately by sex, the results were broadly comparable in terms of patterns of risk reduction by statin use. The patients with statin initiated at age ≥ 80 years had the highest risk reduction for most outcomes relative to non-users. Higher cumulative dose of statin was negatively associated with the osteoporotic fracture risk; 0.97 (0.91-1.02) for 30-364 cumulative daily defined dose (cDDD), 0.45 (0.40-0.51) for 365-1,094 cDDD, and 0.22 (0.15-0.33) for ≥ 1,095 cDDD., Conclusions: Our results showed that statin use was associated with significant reduction in the risk of osteoporotic fractures in general older population., (© 2023. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.)

The use of corticosteroids is common in our clinical practice. Cortico-induced osteoporosis should be taken into consideration when using a dosage higher than 7.5 mg/d of prednisone or equivalent for a minimum of 3 months. We describe the case of a 69-year-old female patient who received long-term corticosteroid treatment for low back pain and developed secondary vertebral compression fractures. This case illustrates the importance of assessing fracture risk when prescribing corticosteroids, in order to offer preventive measures and introduce (in subjects with high risk) prophylactic treatments aiming to reduce the risk of irreversible consequences.

Since 2018, the present S3 guideline Prophylaxis, Diagnosis and Therapy of Osteoporosis (AWMF 183-001) has been updated following a previous update of the underlying PICO questions (Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome questions) for a systematic literature search. The focus of the guideline update, in addition to updating the evidence supporting literature along with recommendations, was the development of a risk calculator for vertebral fractures and femoral neck fractures. This is essential for managing risk assessment because of the multitude of risk factors that contribute to fracture risk. This article considers the development of the guideline update methodologically and substantively, the latter by reflecting on the core themes of the guideline update., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Objective: Recompression of augmented vertebrae (RCAV) is often seen after percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP), especially at the thoracolumbar junction. The authors aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model (nomogram) for RCAV and to evaluate the efficacy of a modified puncture technique for RCAV prevention after PKP for thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs)., Methods: Patients who underwent PKP for single thoracolumbar OVFs (T10-L2) between January 2016 and October 2020 were reviewed and followed up for at least 2 years. All patients were randomly divided into a training group (70%) and a validation group (30%). Relevant potential data affecting recompression were collected. Predictors were screened by using binary logistic regression analysis to construct the nomogram. Calibration and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the consistency of the prediction models. Finally, the efficacy of the modified puncture technique for prevention of RCAV in OVF patients with a preoperative intravertebral cleft (IVC) was further demonstrated through binary logistic regression analysis., Results: Overall, 394 patients were included and 116 of them (29.4%) sustained RCAV. The independent risk factors included decreased bone mineral density, lower level of serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D3, larger C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), preoperative IVC, and solid-lump cement distribution. The area under the curve (AUC) of the prediction model was 0.824 in the training group and 0.875 in the validation group patients. The calibration curve indicated the predictive power of this nomogram, with the preoperative IVC having the highest prediction accuracy (AUC 0.705). The modified puncture technique significantly reduced the incidence of RCAV by enhancing bone cement distribution into a sufficiently diffused distribution in OVF patients with preoperative IVC., Conclusions: The nomogram prediction model had satisfactory accuracy and clinical utility for identification of patients at low and high risk of postoperative RCAV. Patients at high risk of postoperative RCAV might benefit from the target puncture technique and vitamin D supplementation as well as effective antiosteoporotic therapies.

Objective: Intervertebral discs act as shock absorbers, thereby helping to reduce the risk of vertebral body fractures. Previous studies have shown that estrogen loss following menopause is associated with disc height reduction whereas treatment with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) helps to maintain disc height. This study reports the effect of HRT on disc height from a post hoc analysis of a prospective randomized clinical trial of the effect of HRT on bone density., Methods: A total of 355 healthy postmenopausal women aged (mean ± standard deviation) 55.4 ± 4.8 years were randomized to HRT with oral 1 mg or 2 mg estradiol plus dydrogesterone or placebo. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements (Lunar DPX) were obtained at baseline and following 2 years of treatment. Intervertebral disc height was measured in discs between T12 and L3 using the bone densitometer ruler., Results: Compared with baseline, treatment with HRT resulted in a significant increase in total disc height with 1 mg estradiol (0.16 ± 0.65 cm, p  = 0.015) and with 2 mg estradiol (0.21 ± 0.86 cm, p  = 0.006) whilst there was no significant increase with placebo (0.13 ± 0.65 cm, p  = 0.096). Between-group differences were not statistically significant., Conclusions: These results are consistent with previous findings of a beneficial effect of estrogen on discs. This may be in part responsible for the anti-fracture efficacy of HRT on vertebral fractures.

Osteoporosis is a common consequence of long-term oral glucocorticoid therapy and the resulting fractures cause significant morbidity. Bone loss occurs rapidly after initiation of glucocorticoid therapy; the accompanying increase in risk of fracture is dose-dependent and occurs within a few months of starting therapy. The adverse effects of glucocorticoids on bone are mediated by inhibition of bone formation accompanied by an early but transient increase in bone resorption, due both to direct and indirect effects on bone remodelling. Fracture risk assessment should be performed as soon as possible after long-term glucocorticoid therapy (≥3 months) is initiated. FRAX can be adjusted for the dose of prednisolone but does not currently take fracture site, recency, or number into account and therefore may underestimate fracture risk, particularly in individuals with morphometric vertebral fractures. Vertebral fracture assessment should therefore be regarded as a routine part of fracture risk estimation in individuals receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy. Bone protective therapy should be started promptly in individuals at high-risk, together with calcium and vitamin D supplements. Bisphosphonates are generally regarded as first-line options on the grounds of their low cost, but anabolic therapy should be considered as an alternative first-line option in very high-risk individuals., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of (ESE) European Society of Endocrinology.)

Background: Percutaneous vertebroplasty was the most common strategy for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. However, refracture after vertebroplasty also occurred and bone mineral density (BMD) was one of the main factors associated with refracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty., Aims: To investigate the efficacy of a short-sequential treatment of teriparatide followed by alendronate on prevention of refracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic patients, and compare it with the therapy of alendronate alone., Methods: From January 2018 to January 2020, we recruited 165 female osteoporosis patients after percutaneous vertebroplasty who were assigned into sequential treatment of teriparatide followed by alendronate group (TPTD + ALN group) and alendronate alone group (ALN group). The vertebral fracture occurred during this process was also recorded in both the groups. A total of 105 participants completed the 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, BMD and serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP) and C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) were compared between the two groups during 1-year follow-up., Results: The 105 patients were finally included, with 59 in ALN group and 46 in TPTD + ALN group. During 1-year follow-up, the vertebral refracture rate in TPTD + ALN group was much lower than that in ALN group (2.2% vs. 13.6%, p < 0.05). At 12 months, the BMDs at lumbar in TPTD + ALN group were significantly elevated when compared to the ALN group (0.65 ± 0.10 vs. 0.57 ± 0.07, p < 0.001)., Discussion and Conclusion: A short-sequential administration of teriparatide followed by alendronate was more effective in elevating the BMD and decreasing the refracture rate at 12-month follow-up, compared to the counterpart with alendronate alone., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States., Purpose: To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures., Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022., Study Selection: Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies ( n ≥1000) for harms., Data Extraction: Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE)., Data Synthesis: We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE)., Limitation: Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years., Conclusion: Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare., Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).

This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in cancer patients with osteoporosis. This is the first SR to assess treating osteoporotic cancer patients with denosumab., Purpose: This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (bazedoxifene, raloxifene) and placebo for the treatment of osteoporosis in hormone-sensitive cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy (men with prostate cancer [MPC] on hormone ablation therapy [HAT], and women with breast cancer [WBC] on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy [AAIT])., Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted in three biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Frequentist network meta-analyses and/or pairwise meta-analyses were performed on predetermined outcomes (i.e., vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, treatment-related adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], withdrawal due to treatment-related AEs)., Results: A total of 14 RCTs (15 publications) were included. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab, zoledronate, and alendronate improved BMD at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) in MPC on HAT, relative to placebo. Denosumab, ibandronate and risedronate improved BMD at the LS and total hip (TH) in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Denosumab and risedronate improved trochanteric (TRO) BMD in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab improved FN BMD in WBC on AAIT., Conclusion: In MPC on HAT, denosumab (relative to placebo) was effective at preventing vertebral fractures and improving BMD at the FN and LS. Moreover, in WBC on AAIT, denosumab (relative to placebo) improved BMD at the FN, LS, TH, and TRO, as well as prevent vertebral fracture., (© 2023. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.)

Background: Osteoporotic vertebral fractures may predict the future occurrence of fractures and increase mortality. Treating underlying osteoporosis may prevent second fractures. However, whether anti-osteoporotic treatment can reduce the mortality rate is not clear. The aim of this population study was to identify the degree of decreased mortality following the use of anti-osteoporotic medication after vertebral fractures., Methods: We identified patients who had newly diagnosed osteoporosis and vertebral fractures from 2009 to 2019 using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). We used national death registration data to determine the overall mortality rate., Results: There were 59,926 patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures included in this study. After excluding patients with short-term mortality, patients who had previously received anti-osteoporotic medications had a lower refracture rate as well as a lower mortality risk (hazard ratio (HR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-0.88). Patients receiving treatment for more than 3 years had a much lower mortality risk (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.50-0.57). Patients who used oral bisphosphonates (alendronate and risedronate, HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.90-1.00), intravenous zoledronic acid (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.93), and subcutaneous denosumab injections (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.77) had lower mortality rates than patients without further treatment after vertebral fractures., Conclusion: In addition to fracture prevention, anti-osteoporotic treatments for patients with vertebral fractures were associated with a reduction in mortality. A longer duration of treatment and the use of long-acting drugs was also associated with lower mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (Copyright © 2023 Formosan Medical Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Early initiation of anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) is recommended for patients on long-term glucocorticoid (GC) therapy. This study aimed to clarify the real-world effectiveness of AOMs against incident hip and vertebral fractures in patients undergoing GC therapy using the nationwide health insurance claims database of Japan (NDBJ)., Methods: Patients aged ≥50 years who were prescribed GC (≥5 mg/day prednisolone or equivalent) for ≥90 days and who were followed up regarding AOM prescription and hip and clinical vertebral fracture incidences for the subsequent 1080 days between 2012 and 2018 were selected from NDBJ. Associations of AOMs prescribed within 90 days since GC therapy initiation with hip or vertebral fracture risk were evaluated by Cox proportional hazards regression using propensity score inverse probability weighting (IPW) for receiving any AOM or individual AOMs., Results: In total, 96,475 women and 98,385 men were included in the analysis; 38.0 % of women and 27.6 % of men received AOMs. Patients who received any AOM and those who received bisphosphonates or denosumab had a significantly lower risk of hip and clinical vertebral fractures than those who received no AOM in both sexes after propensity score IPW. Teriparatide was associated with an increased risk of both fractures in women and an increased risk of clinical vertebral fractures in men. Selection biases such as confounding by indication might have caused an underestimation of AOMs' protective effects., Conclusions: Bisphosphonates and denosumab were associated with a lower fracture incidence in patients on long-term GC therapy in real-world settings., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Nobukazu Okimoto has received consulting fees from Asahi-Kasei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Teijin Pharma Ltd., and payments for lectures, including speakers' bureau fees, from Asahi-Kasei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Amgen K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Daiichi-Sankyo Co. Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan., and Teijin Pharma Ltd.. Shinichi Nakatoh has received payments for lectures, including speakers' bureau fees, from Asahi-Kasei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Amgen K. K., and Astellas Pharma Inc.. Shigeyuki Ishii has received honorarium from Teijin Pharma Ltd., and has written manuscripts for Asahi Kasei Pharma Ltd.. Masayuki Iki, Kenji Fujimori, Junko Tamaki, Kuniyasu Kamiya, and Sumito Ogawa declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this randomized, controlled trial, sequential therapy with once-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide for 72 weeks, followed by alendronate for 48 weeks resulted in a significantly lower incidence of morphometric vertebral fracture than monotherapy with alendronate for 120 weeks in women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture., Purpose: To determine whether the anti-fracture efficacy of sequential therapy with teriparatide, followed by alendronate is superior to that of monotherapy with alendronate, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial was performed., Methods: Japanese women aged at least 75 years were eligible for the study, if they had primary osteoporosis and if they were at high risk of fracture. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the sequential therapy (once-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide 56.5 μg for 72 weeks, followed by alendronate for 48 weeks) or monotherapy with alendronate for 120 weeks. The primary endpoint in the final analysis was the incidence of morphometric vertebral fracture during the 120-week follow-up period., Results: Between October 2014 and June 2020, 505 patients in the sequential therapy group and 506 in the monotherapy group were enrolled. Of these, 489 and 496, respectively, were included in the main analysis. The incidence of morphometric vertebral fracture during the 120-week follow-up period in the sequential therapy group (64 per 627.5 person-years, annual incidence rate 0.1020) was significantly lower than that in the monotherapy group (126 per 844.2 person-years, annual incidence rate 0.1492), with a rate ratio of 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.88, P < 0.01). After 72 weeks, no patient had a severe adverse event that was considered related to the study drug., Conclusion: Once-weekly injection of teriparatide, followed by alendronate resulted in a significantly lower incidence of morphometric vertebral fracture than alendronate monotherapy in women with osteoporosis who were at high risk of fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER, DATE OF REGISTRATION: jRCTs031180235 and UMIN000015573, March 12, 2019., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Kidney transplant patients bear a higher risk of bone disease. The monoclonal antibody Denosumab (Den), by binding RANKL, reduces osteoclastic activity and increases mineral density (BMD), thus limiting the risk of bone fractures. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of Den in kidney transplant patients who developed bone fractures. Methods: Thirteen kidney transplant recipients (aged from 50 to 79 years 7M and 6F, with an average 9,9 years follow up after transplantation, and nearly normal renal function (GFR 62±15 ml/min/1.73m2), who developed low-energy vertebral fractures (21 dorsal and 1 lumbar) after transplantation, had been evaluated for 2 years with Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and morphometric absorptiometry (MXA) while receiving Den (four 60-mg doses). Data for vertebral heights and posterior-anterior height ratios (P/A), and BMD values for vertebral, femoral, and radius were obtained. The immunosuppressive regimen consisted of CNI and MMF, and 8 out of 13 were taking prednisone. A fixed dose of 450.000 UI-year of cholecalciferol was prescribed to all patients. Whole-PTH, 25-OHD3, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were also evaluated. Results: After 2 years of Den treatment, we observed a significative increase in vertebral T-score (from -2.12±0.35 to -1.67±0.35; p < 0.02), while T score of femoral neck and radius did not show significative variation (-1.86±0.21 versus -1.84±0.23 and -3.04±0.42 versus -3.19±0.45, respectively). We found a lower incidence of fracture/patient-year pre and post Den 0.17 [95 CI 0.11-0.24] vs 0.07 [95% CI 0.02-0.3] respectively. No significative variations were observed in whole-PTH (89.31±19.9 pg/ml versus 68.38±9.8 pg/ml), 25OHD3 (24.02±2.75ug/L versus 26.67±2.29 ug/L) and alkaline phosphatase (78.46±12.73UI/L versus 56.77±7.14UI/L). No adverse events were registered. Conclusions: Treatment with Den improve BMD in vertebral bone and possibly reduces the risk of low-energy vertebral fractures in kidney transplant patients., (Copyright by Società Italiana di Nefrologia SIN, Rome, Italy.)

Background Context: Prophylactic vertebroplasty (VP) is performed at the upper level of instrumentation during spinal fusion to reduce the risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), proximal junctional fracture (PJFx), and proximal junctional failure (PJF). This study investigated the effect of VP on patient outcomes after spinal fusion., Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic VP on the incidence of PJK in patients with spinal fusion., Study Design/setting: Level III, systematic review without meta-analysis., Patient Sample: Adult patients undergoing spinal fusion with VP., Methods: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase. Included studies were published in English between January 1, 2001, and May 27, 2021, and reported primary data on adult patients undergoing spinal fusion with VP. Studies were excluded for insufficient surgical details; treatment for vertebral compression fracture; and case series and/or reports with <5 patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. The primary outcome of interest was PJK. Other outcomes included PJFx, PJF, and adverse events (eg, cement extravasation). Data were expressed as descriptive statistics., Results: Eight studies with 685 total patients (VP: 293 [42.8%]; No VP: 392 (57.2%)) were included. Five studies were comparative and three were single-arm. PJK incidence was reported in five studies (three comparatives, two single-arm) and ranged from 7.9% to 46.4%; incidence was lower in patients with VP in two of three (66.7%) comparative studies, and equal in one of three (33.3%). PJFx was reported in five studies (four comparatives, one single-arm) and ranged from 0.0% to 39.3%; incidence was lower in the VP group in two of four (50.0%) comparative studies, equal in one of four (25.0%), and higher in one of four (25.0%). PJF was reported in five studies (three comparatives, two single-arm) and ranged from 0.0% to 39.3%; incidence was lower in the VP group in two of three (66.7%) comparative studies and equal in one of three (33.3%). Cement extravasation was reported by four studies and ranged from 0% (0/36) to 48.3% (57/118) in patients with prophylactic VP., Conclusions: Evidence on whether prophylactic VP decreases the incidence of PJK, PJFx, and PJF after spinal fusion is inconclusive and conflicting. Additionally, the risk of cement extravasation following prophylactic VP could not be evaluated due to insufficient evidence. Further research is needed to determine whether VP has a significant impact on patient outcomes and risks., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bone-active drugs are recommended to protect the skeleton from detrimental actions of aromatase inhibitors (AIs). However, most of literature data are focused on bone mineral density (BMD), whereas data on fractures are scant. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the real-life effectiveness of denosumab, oral bisphosphonates (BPs) and intravenous zoledronate on risk of vertebral fractures (VFs) induced by AIs. 567 consecutive women (median age 62 years, range 28-83) with early breast cancer undergoing treatment with AIs were evaluated for morphometric VFs and BMD at baseline and after 18-24 months of follow-up. After enrollment, 268 women (47.3%) started denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months, 115 (20.3%) BPs (59 with oral BPs and, 56 with intravenous zoledronate 5 mg/12 months), whereas 184 women (32.5%) were not treated with bone-active drugs for several reasons. During follow-up, 54 women (9.5%) developed incident VFs in association with age of subjects (P &lt; 0.001), baseline FRAX scores for major fractures (P &lt; 0.001) and hip fractures (P = 0.003), pre-existing VFs (P &lt; 0.001), change in BMD at lumbar spine (P = 0.015), femoral neck (P = 0.003) and total hip (P &lt; 0.001). Risk of VFs was higher in subjects who were untreated as compared to those treated with bone-active drugs (32/184 vs. 22/383; P &lt; 0.001). Specifically, fracture risk was significantly decreased by denosumab [odds ratio (OR) 0.22; P &lt; 0.001] and zoledronate (OR 0.27; P = 0.035), but not by oral BPs (P = 0.317). These data suggest that in real-world clinical practice, denosumab and zoledronate can reduce AI-related risk of VFs after only 24 months of treatment., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The efficacy of the prevention of vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis by treatment with denosumab is debated. This study aimed to update the comparative effectiveness of denosumab and bisphosphonates for preventing vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials that enrolled men with osteoporosis. Fixed-effects network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the risk of vertebral fractures, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confident interval (CI) values were calculated., Results: Sixteen studies were included, and the identified bisphosphonates were risedronate, alendronate, zoledronic acid, and ibandronate. Compared with placebo or control, a significant reduction in vertebral fractures was observed for denosumab (RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.13 0.68), risedronate (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.19 0.77), and zoledronic acid (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.21 0.98). According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), denosumab was the most effective one among the included agents for the risk reduction of vertebral fracture. However, compared with each bisphosphonate, the RR values of denosumab were not significant [RR 0.78 (95%CI 0.25 2.43) vs. risedronate, RR 0.55 (95%CI 0.18 1.75) vs. alendronate, RR 0.66 (95%CI 0.19 2.32) vs. zoledronic acid and RR 1.12 (95%CI 0.08 14.83) vs. ibandronate]., Conclusion: Denosumab effectively reduced the risk of vertebral fractures in men with osteoporosis, and this effect was comparable to that of bisphosphonates.

Steroids affect bone health causing osteoporosis and fractures. The study aims to compare dual-release hydrocortisone (DR-HC) and conventional steroids on bone metabolism in patients with primary adrenal insufficiency (PAI). Thirty-five patients with PAI on conventional steroids (group A) and 35 patients switched to DR-HC (group B), consecutively referred at our hospital, were evaluated at baseline and after 18, 36 and 60 months of treatment. After 60 months of follow-up, patients in group A had a significant increase in body mass index (p = 0.004) and waist circumference (WC) (p = 0.026) and a significant decrease in osteocalcin (p = 0.002), bone alkaline phosphatase (p = 0.029), lumbar spine bone mass density (BMD) T and Z scores (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) and vertebral fractures rate (p = 0.021) than baseline. By contrast, patients in group B had a significant decrease in WC (p = 0.047) and increase in bone alkaline phosphatase (p = 0.019), lumbar spine BMD T score (p = 0.032), femoral neck BMD T and Z scores (p = 0.023 and p = 0.036, respectively) than baseline. Long-term conventional steroid replacement therapy is associated with a decrease in BMD, notably at lumbar spine, and increase in vertebral fractures rate. By contrast, DR-HC treatment is associated with improvement of BMD., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Previous studies have shown that the posterior elements/facet joints provide strength to the overall functional spine unit (FSU) by taking 3-25% of vertical compressive load off the intervertebral disc (IVD). However, little is known regarding whether this offloading has a protective effect against endplate fracture. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate if the posterior elements provide a protective role to the endplate in porcine cervical spines under fracture-inducing conditions. Twenty-two cervical porcine FSUs (C5/6 level) were randomized into two groups: 1) a control group which had their posterior elements left intact (n = 11); 2) an experimental group which had the posterior elements removed (n = 11). Each FSU underwent a previously reported rapid IVD pressurization protocol in order to create endplate fractures. Briefly, hydraulic fluid was rapidly injected into the IVD via a standard inflation needle inserted through the anterior annulus which was connected to a hydraulic pump and pressure transducer. Post pressurization, each FSU was dissected to determine the presence and size of endplate fracture. Peak pressurization and rate of pressurization were not found to differ between intact and cut specimens (p = 0.313 and 0.101, respectively). In contrast, significantly, more cut FSUs sustained an endplate fracture (11/11) compared to intact FSUs (5/11); p = 0.012. Further, cut FSUs resulted in a fracture area 1.91 times greater in size compared to the fractures seen in the intact FSUs (p = 0.011). Therefore, posterior elements appear to decrease the risk and severity of endplate fracture., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To verify the efficacy and safety of daily oral minodronate in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis. Methods: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 262 postmenopausal women were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive daily oral minodronate 1 mg with supplements of 500 mg calcium and 200 U vitamin D 3 ( n =130) or placebo ( n =132) with daily supplements of 500 mg calcium and 200 U vitamin D 3 , for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the average bone mineral density (BMD) change in the lumbar vertebrae 48 weeks post-treatment. Secondary outcome measures was the incidence of vertebral fractures. Safety assessments included the rate of adverse events. Results: At the end of 48 weeks treatment, the average BMD change rate from baseline were: full analysis set results: (3.52±4.82)% in the minodronate group and (2.00±5.74)% in the placebo group; per-protocol set results: (3.99±5.05)% in the minodronate group and (2.07±6.20)% in the placebo group; the differences were all significant (all P <0.05). Vertebral fracture occured in 3 patients (2.3%, 3/132) in the placebo group, and 1 case (0.8%, 1/130) in the minodronate group ( P >0.05). The incidence of adverse events was 71.5% (93/130) in the minodronate group and 78.0% (103/132) in the placebo group ( P >0.05). Conclusion: Minodronate is effective and safe in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis without severe side effects.

Background: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003., Objectives: We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively., Search Methods: With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs., Main Results: Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty)., Authors' Conclusions: This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To study the effectiveness of a new spinal protection device for preventing and treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) by finite element analysis (FEA)., Methods: One healthy volunteer and one patient with 1-segment lumbar vertebral compression fractures were included in this experimental study. The DICOM files of two different lumbar spiral computed tomography (CT) scans were converted into STL files, and 3D finite element models of the lumbar spine were generated for normal and L1 vertebral fracture spines. A new type of spinal protection device was applied to reduce the stress on the anterior vertebral edge and direct the center of gravity posteriorly. The stress distribution characteristics of different finite element models of the lumbar spine were analyzed, revealing the characteristics of the stress distributed along the spine under the action of the new spinal protection device., Results: Under normal conditions, the stress was mainly distributed in the middle and posterior columns of the spine. When the anterior border of the L1 vertebral body was fractured and collapsed, the stress distribution shifted toward the anterior column due to the center of gravity being directed forward. According to finite element analysis of the spine with the new protection device, the stress in the middle and posterior columns tended to increase, and that in the anterior column decreased. After the new type of spinal fixation device was applied, the stress at the L1 and L2 vertebral endplates decreased to a certain extent, especially that at the L1 vertebral body. The maximum stress on the L1 vertebral body decreased by 20% after the auxiliary device was applied., Conclusions: According to the FEA results, the new spinal protection device can effectively prevent and treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs), and can alter the stress distribution in the spine and reduce the stress in the anterior column of the vertebral body, especially in vertebral compression fractures., (© 2022 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Vertebral fractures (VFs) are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture, and their prevalence and severity are key risk factors for future fragility fractures. Here, we assess the treatment effect of romosozumab on the incidence of new on-study VFs according to Genant severity grades (mild, moderate, and severe). Data are reported from two phase 3 clinical studies for patients who received romosozumab versus placebo through 12 months, followed by denosumab through 24 months (FRAME: NCT01575834), and for patients who received romosozumab through 12 months, followed by alendronate through 24 months, versus alendronate only through 24 months (ARCH: NCT01631214). The treatment effect of romosozumab is reported for all included patients, and for patients with prevalent and severe baseline VFs. The incidence of new moderate-or-severe VFs was reduced through 12 months for patients treated with romosozumab versus placebo (FRAME; 0.25% versus 1.42%, respectively; p < 0.001) or alendronate (ARCH; 2.78% versus 4.00%, respectively; p = 0.042). Furthermore, the treatment effect of romosozumab on the incidence of new VFs across moderate and severe severity grades was independent of baseline VF prevalence or severity; through 12 months, consistent reductions in new moderate-or-severe VFs were observed regardless of prevalent (FRAME; p = 0.18) or severe (ARCH; p = 0.52) VFs at baseline. Reductions in the incidence of new moderate and severe VFs were sustained through 24 months, after transition from romosozumab to denosumab or alendronate, independent of baseline VF prevalence or severity; no significant interactions were observed between the incidence of new moderate-or-severe VFs and the presence of prevalent (FRAME; p = 0.81) or severe (ARCH; p = 0.99) VFs at baseline. With increasing recommendations for initial treatment with bone-forming agents for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, these analyses will help to inform treatment decisions for patients at very high risk of VF., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Asian and Latin America Fracture Observational Study (ALAFOS) is a prospective, observational, single-arm study conducted in 20 countries across Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. ALAFOS evaluated new clinical vertebral and non-vertebral fragility fractures in relation to time on teriparatide, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in real-life clinical practice. Clinical fragility fractures, back pain, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were recorded in 6-month intervals for ≤ 24 months during teriparatide treatment and up to 12-months post-treatment. Data were analysed with piecewise exponential regression with inverse probability weighting for time to event outcomes and mixed-model repeated measures for back pain and HRQoL. 3054 postmenopausal women started teriparatide and attended ≥ one follow-up visit (mean [SD] age 72.5 [10.4] years). The median (95% CI) time to treatment discontinuation was 22.0 months (21.2, 22.8). During the treatment period, 111 patients (3.6%) sustained 126 clinical fractures (2.98 fractures/100 patient-years). Rates of new clinical fragility fractures were significantly decreased during the > 6-12, > 12-18, and > 18-24-month periods, as compared with the first 6 months of treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57; 95% CI 0.37, 0.88; p = 0.012; HR 0.35; 95% CI 0.19, 0.62; p < 0.001; HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23, 0.83; p = 0.011; respectively). Patients also reported an improvement in back pain and HRQoL (p < 0.001). These results provide data on the real-world effectiveness of teriparatide in the ALAFOS regions and are consistent with other studies showing reduction of fractures after 6 months of teriparatide treatment. These results should be interpreted in the context of the noncontrolled design of this observational study., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Importance: The clinical decision to initiate bisphosphonate therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis requires balancing shorter-term harms and burdens (eg, gastroesophageal irritation or severe musculoskeletal pain) with longer-term benefits in reducing potential fractures., Objective: To assess the time to benefit (TTB) of bisphosphonate therapy for the prevention of nonvertebral and other fractures among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis., Data Sources: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified from systematic reviews commissioned by the US Preventive Services Task Force (1 review), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1 review), the Cochrane Library (2 reviews), and the Endocrine Society (1 review)., Study Selection: Studies selected were RCTs involving postmenopausal women with a diagnosis of osteoporosis based on existing vertebral fractures or bone mineral density T scores of -2.5 or lower. The selection process was focused on studies of alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid because they are guideline-recommended first-line agents for reducing nonvertebral fractures. Studies were excluded if they did not focus on women with a primary diagnosis of osteoporosis, had no placebo arm, or had a lack of data on time to fracture., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects Weibull survival curves were fitted and Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to estimate the absolute risk reduction (ARR) and TTB for each study. These estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the time to 3 different ARR thresholds (0.002, 0.005, and 0.010) for the first nonvertebral fracture. Secondary outcomes included the time to 4 ARR thresholds (0.001, 0.002, 0.005, and 0.010) for hip fracture, any clinical fracture, and clinical vertebral fracture., Results: Of 67 full-text articles identified, 10 RCTs comprising 23 384 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were included either as the original RCT or part of subsequently published pooled analyses. Among the studies, the number of participants ranged from 994 to 7765, with mean (SD) age ranging from 63 (7) years to 74 (3) years and follow-up duration ranging from 12 to 48 months. The pooled meta-analysis found that 12.4 months (95% CI, 6.3-18.4 months) were needed to avoid 1 nonvertebral fracture per 100 postmenopausal women receiving bisphosphonate therapy at an ARR of 0.010. To prevent 1 hip fracture, 200 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis would need to receive bisphosphonate therapy for 20.3 months (95% CI, 11.0-29.7 months) at an ARR of 0.005. In addition, 200 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis would need to receive bisphosphonate therapy for 12.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-17.8 months) to avoid 1 clinical vertebral fracture at an ARR of 0.005., Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found that the TTB of bisphosphonate therapy was 12.4 months to prevent 1 nonvertebral fracture per 100 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. These results suggest that bisphosphonate therapy is most likely to benefit postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who have a life expectancy greater than 12.4 months.

Background: To compare the risks of major osteoporotic, vertebral, and non-vertebral fractures between patients who discontinued anti-osteoporosis medications., Methods: We conducted a comparative effectiveness study with a nationwide population-based cohort study design. Patients aged ≥50 years admitted between 2012 and 2015 for incident hip fractures and receiving denosumab or bisphosphonates with sufficient compliance for at least 1 year were included. Patients were categorized into persistent or non-persistent denosumab or bisphosphonates users based on their subsequent use pattern. The main outcomes were subsequent hospitalizations for a major osteoporotic, vertebral or non-vertebral fracture. Multivariate, time-varying Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the risk of major outcomes., Results: Compared with persistent denosumab users, non-persistent denosumab users had a significantly higher risk of major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-2.14), vertebral fractures (HR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.46-3.24) and death (HR = 3.57; 95%CI, 2.63-4.84). However, the increased risk of fracture was not found in both persistent and non-persistent bisphosphonates users. Noteworthy, the increased risk of vertebral fractures in non-persistent denosumab users was more pronounced within 1 year post-discontinuation (HR = 2.90; 95% CI, 1.77-4.74) and among patients who discontinued from 2-year denosumab therapy (HR = 3.58; 95% CI, 1.74-7.40)., Discussion: Discontinuation of denosumab resulted in an increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures, especially vertebral fractures. The increased risk tends to reveal within 1 year post-discontinuation and be greater after a longer treatment duration. Notably, only fracture with hospitalization was identified as our research outcome, the real risk of osteoporotic fracture post discontinuation is believed to be higher, especially for vertebral fracture., (© 2021 The Association for the Publication of the Journal of Internal Medicine.)

In this randomized, controlled trial, treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide for 72 weeks was found to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures compared with alendronate in women with primary osteoporosis who were at high risk of fracture., Introduction: To determine whether the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide is superior to that of alendronate, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial was performed., Methods: Japanese women aged at least 75 years were eligible for the study if they had primary osteoporosis and were at high risk of fracture. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sequential therapy (once-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide 56.5 μg for 72 weeks followed by alendronate for 48 weeks) or monotherapy with alendronate for 120 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures at 72 weeks (at the end of teriparatide treatment)., Results: Between October 2014 and December 2017, 1011 patients (505 in the teriparatide group and 506 in the alendronate group) were enrolled. Of these, 778 patients (351 and 427, respectively) were included in the primary analysis. The incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in the teriparatide group (56 per 419.9 person-years, annual incidence rate 0.1334) than in the alendronate group (96 per 553.6 person-years, annual incidence rate 0.1734), with a rate ratio of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.99, P = 0.04). In both groups, adverse events were most frequently reported in the following system organ classes: infections and infestations, gastrointestinal disorders, and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders., Conclusion: Once-weekly subcutaneous injection of teriparatide significantly reduced the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures compared with alendronate in women with primary osteoporosis who were at high risk of fracture., Trial Registration: jRCTs031180235 and UMIN000015573, March 12, 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: In order to prevent the recurrent fracture after vertebral augmentation, the concept of prophylactic vertebral augmentation has been proposed, but its efficacy is still controversial. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic vertebral augmentation for prevention of refracture in osteoporotic vertebral fracture patients., Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases for relevant studies published until February 2021. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and retrospective controlled trials comparing prophylactic group versus nonprophylactic group was conducted. The primary outcome was the incidence of new vertebral compression fracture (VCF), and secondary outcomes were incidence of adjacent vertebral fracture (AVF) and remote vertebral fracture (RVF)., Results: A total of 6 studies encompassing 618 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of new VCF was reported in all six studies, and the result showed no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.509; 95% CI: 0.184-1.409). Four studies provided data on the incidence of AVF, and it was revealed that there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.689; 95% CI: 0.109-4.371). In view of the incidence of RVF, prophylactic group also did not differ significantly compared with nonprophylactic group (OR: 0.535; 95% CI: 0.167-1.709)., Conclusions: The current evidence suggested that prophylactic vertebral augmentation might not be appropriate to diminish the risk of new VCF. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the mechanism of refracture and explore other preventive regimens to reduce the risk., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Hypercortisolism has detrimental effects on bone metabolism with the consequences of bone loss and bone fractures. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of vertebral fragility fractures and to determine the factors associated with Cushing's syndrome (CS)., Methods: A total of 135 patients diagnosed with Cushing's syndrome [108 patients with Cushing's disease and 27 patients with adrenocortical adenoma] and 107 healthy controls were included in this cross-sectional study. The available clinical, laboratory, and radiologic data of patients with CS were recorded, retrospectively. Lateral vertebral radiograms were evaluated for vertebral fragility fractures according to Genant's semi-quantitative method. Bone mineral density (BMD) was determined using a Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)., Results: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFs) were observed in 75.3% (n = 61) of the patients. The median number of VFs was six (min-max: 2-12). All patients with vertebral fractures had thoracic VF, and 50.7% of the patients had lumbar fragility fractures. Thirty-three (40.7%) patients with vertebral fractures had normal bone densitometry values. Osteoporosis and osteopenia were observed in 16.2% and 40.7% of the patients, respectively. The duration of active disease, the presence of ACTH-secreting pituitary adenoma, and 24-h urinary cortisol did not influence the presence of vertebral fractures. Vertebral fractures were independently associated with age, FSH, LH levels, and lumbar BMD (R 2  = 68.18%, p = 0.028). The femoral neck BMD (but not lumbar BMD) was independently associated with age, BMI, and PTH levels (R 2  = 48.48%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Vertebral fracture frequency was higher in CS patients. Most of the patients with vertebral fractures had multiple fractures. Although low lumbar BMD was associated with VF, patients with CS with normal bone densitometry could experience VF. Vertebral radiograph evaluations as a part of routine evaluation for silent vertebral fractures may help to prevent further fractures in patients with CS., (© 2021. Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE).)

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for osteoporosis and is more prevalent among people with CKD than among people who do not have CKD. Although several drugs have been used to effectively treat osteoporosis in the general population, it is unclear whether they are also effective and safe for people with CKD, who have altered systemic mineral and bone metabolism., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for osteoporosis in patients with CKD stages 3-5, and those undergoing dialysis (5D)., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 January 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing any anti-osteoporotic drugs with a placebo, no treatment or usual care in patients with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality using the risk of bias tool, and extracted data. The main outcomes were the incidence of fracture at any sites; mean change in the bone mineral density (BMD; measured using dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry (DXA)) of the femoral neck, total hip, lumbar spine, and distal radius; death from all causes; incidence of adverse events; and quality of life (QoL). Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Main Results: Seven studies involving 9164 randomised participants with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D met the inclusion criteria; all participants were postmenopausal women. Five studies included patients with CKD stages 3-4, and two studies included patients with CKD stages 5 or 5D. Five pharmacological interventions were identified (abaloparatide, alendronate, denosumab, raloxifene, and teriparatide). All studies were judged to be at an overall high risk of bias. Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.69; low certainty evidence). Anti-osteoporotic drugs probably makes little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; moderate certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; moderate certainty evidence). We were unable to incorporate studies into the meta-analyses for BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine and total hip as they only reported the percentage change in the BMD in the intervention group. Among patients with severe CKD stages 5 or 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low (MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02). Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.04, low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the included studies. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.56; very low certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in low certainty evidence. Anti-osteoporotic drugs make little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture and adverse events in moderate certainty evidence. Among patients with CKD stages 5 and 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture and death because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine in low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Larger studies including men, paediatric patients or individuals with unstable CKD-mineral and bone disorder are required to assess the effect of each anti-osteoporotic drug at each stage of CKD., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

This study investigated the efficacy of annual zoledronic acid (ZOL) administration against previously treated recompression vertebral fractures (RVF) and new vertebral fractures (NVF) in initial percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) over a 3-year follow-up period., Introduction: Although PKP achieves a satisfactory outcome, previously treated RVF and NVF can limit its effectiveness. The annual infusion of ZOL over 3 years can improve fracture protection, particularly in the vertebrae. We hypothesized that ZOL can reduce the incidence of RVFs and/or NVFs, and improve the clinical outcomes of PKP., Methods: This was a placebo-controlled, double-blind prospective trial of 154 PKP patients (mean age: 70 years) with OVCFs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single infusion of ZOL (5 mg) or placebo (78 ZOL vs. 76 placebo) at 1 week, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery. Patients were followed-up for 36 months., Results: ZOL treatment lowered the risk of RVF by ~ 65% over the 36-month period when compared to placebo controls (6.41% in ZOL vs. 18.42% in placebo groups; relative risk, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.92). ZOL also reduced the risk of NVF by ~ 73% (3.85% in ZOL vs. 14.47% in placebo groups; relative risk, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.92). ZOL also significantly reduced the vertebral height lost rate (HLR) at 12, 24, and 36 months. ZOL also improved the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and bone mineral density (BMD)., Conclusion: Annual ZOL administration significantly lowers the risk of RVFs and NVFs, improving the clinical outcome of initial PKP in patients with OVCFs over a 3-year follow-up period., Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000029307.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate whether bone mineral density (BMD) as measured in planning computed tomographies (CTs) by a new method is a risk factor for pelvic insufficiency fractures (PIF) after radio(chemo)therapy (R(C)T) for cervical cancer., Methods: 62 patients with cervical cancer who received definitive or adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed. The PIF were detected on follow-up magntic resonance imaging (MRI). The MRI of the PIF patients was registered to the planning CT and the PIF contoured. On the contralateral side of the fracture, a mirrored structure of the fracture was generated (mPIF). For the whole sacral bone, three lumbar vertebrae, the first and second sacral vertebrae, and the PIF, we analyzed the BMD (mg/cm 3 ), V50Gy, Dmean, and Dmax., Results: Out of 62 patients, 6 (9.7%) had a fracture. Two out of the 6 patients had a bilateral fracture with only one of them being symptomatic. PIF patients showed a significantly lower BMD in the sacral and the lumbar vertebrae (p < 0.05). The BMD of the contoured PIF, however, when comparing to the mPIF, did not reach significance (p < 0.49). The difference of the V50Gy of the sacrum in the PIF group compared to the other (OTH) patients, i.e. those without PIF, did not reach significance., Conclusion: The dose does not seem to have a relevant impact on the incidence of PIF in our patients. One of the predisposing factors for developing PIF after radiotherapy seems to be the low BMD. We presented an easy method to assess the BMD in planning CTs.