Asia-pacific consensus on osteoporotic fracture prevention in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis but no fragility fractures.

Postmenopausal women are at significant risk for osteoporotic fractures due to their rapid bone loss. Half of all postmenopausal women will get an osteoporosis-related fracture over their lifetime, with 25% developing a spine deformity and 15% developing a hip fracture. By 2050, more than half of all osteoporotic fractures will occur in Asia, with postmenopausal women being the most susceptible. Early management can halt or even reverse the progression of osteoporosis. Consequently, on October 31, 2020, the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association hosted the Asia-Pacific (AP) Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention (POFP) consensus meeting, which was supported by the Asian Federation of Osteoporosis Societies (AFOS) and the Asia Pacific Osteoporosis Foundation (APOF). International and domestic experts developed ten applicable statements for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis but no fragility fractures in the AP region. The experts advocated, for example, that postmenopausal women with a high fracture risk be reimbursed for pharmaceutical therapy to prevent osteoporotic fractures. More clinical experience and data are required to modify intervention tactics.

The role of osteoanabolic agents in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

Reducing fracture risk is the objective of osteoporosis treatment. Bone-forming osteoporosis drugs increase bone mass, restore bone microarchitecture, and reduce fracture risk more effectively than oral bisphosphonates, providing strong justification for the use of these agents as the initial therapy or after anti-remodeling agents in patients at very high risk of fracture. At the end of a 12-to-24-month course of osteoanabolic therapy, transitioning to a potent anti-remodeling agent maintains and enhances the treatment benefit. This review describes the clinical applications of osteoanabolic therapy for osteoporosis.

A retrospective observational study of osteoporosis management after a fragility fracture in primary care.

In many countries, osteoporosis is predominantly managed by primary care physicians; however, management after a fragility fracture has not been widely investigated. We describe osteoporosis care gaps in a real-world patient cohort. Our findings help inform initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to effective management of patients after fragility fracture. PURPOSE: A fragility fracture is a major risk factor for subsequent fracture in adults aged ≥ 50 years. This retrospective observational study aimed to characterize post-fracture management in Canadian primary care. METHODS: A total of 778 patients with an index fragility fracture (low-trauma, excluding small bones) occurring between 2014 and 2016 were identified from medical records at 76 primary care centers in Canada, with follow-up until January 2018. RESULTS: Of 778 patients (80.5% female, median age [IQR] 73 [64-80]), 215 were on osteoporosis treatment and 269 had osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index fracture. The median follow-up was 363 (IQR 91-808) days. Of patients not on osteoporosis treatment at their index fracture, 60.2% (n = 339/563) remained untreated after their index fracture and 62.2% (n = 23/37) continued untreated after their subsequent fracture. After their index fracture, fracture risk assessment (FRAX or CAROC) was not performed in 83.2% (n = 647/778) of patients, and 59.9% (n = 466/778) of patients did not receive bone mineral density testing. Of patients without osteoporosis diagnosis recorded prior to their index date, 61.3% (n = 300/489) remained undiagnosed after their index fracture. At least one subsequent fracture occurred in 11.5% (n = 86/778) of patients. CONCLUSION: In the primary care setting, fragility fracture infrequently resulted in osteoporosis treatment or fracture risk assessment, even after multiple fragility fractures. These results suggest a fragility fracture is not recognized as a major risk factor for subsequent fracture and its occurrence does not prompt primary care physicians to intervene. These data urge initiatives to identify and overcome obstacles to primary care physicians' effective management of patients after fragility fractures.

Romosozumab and antiresorptive treatment: the importance of treatment sequence.

To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence. INTRODUCTION: Teriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively). METHODS: We evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available). RESULTS: With 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab). CONCLUSION: In this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence.

Denosumab in the Treatment of Osteoporosis: 10 Years Later: A Narrative Review.

The fully human monoclonal antibody denosumab was approved for treatment of osteoporosis in 2010 on the basis of its potent antiresorptive activity, which produces clinically meaningful increases in bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk at key skeletal sites. At that time, questions remained regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of this receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) inhibitor; and with clinical experience, new questions have arisen regarding its optimal use. Here, we examine these questions through the lens of data from the FREEDOM trial program and other studies to determine where denosumab fits in the osteoporosis treatment landscape. Clinical consensus and evidentiary support have grown for denosumab as a highly effective anti-osteoporosis therapy for patients at high risk of fracture. In the 10-year FREEDOM Extension study, denosumab treatment produced progressive incremental increases in BMD, sustained low rates of vertebral fracture, and further reduction in nonvertebral fracture risk without increased risk of infection, cancer, or immunogenicity. There was no evidence that suppression of bone turnover or mineralization was excessive, and rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fracture (AFF) were very low. It is now recognized, however, that transitioning to another anti-osteoporosis therapy after denosumab discontinuation is essential to mitigate a transient rebound of bone turnover causing rapid BMD loss and increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures (MVFs). Taken together, the available data show that denosumab has a favorable benefit/risk profile and is a versatile agent for preventing osteoporotic fractures in the short and long term. Video abstract: Denosumab in the Treatment of Osteoporosis-10 Years Later (MP4 62727 KB).

The association between trunk muscle endurance, balance and falls self-efficacy in women with osteoporotic vertebral fractures: an exploratory analysis from a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Trunk muscle endurance may be associated with balance and falls self-efficacy for people with osteoporosis. However, all previous studies have examined trunk muscle strength rather than endurance. PURPOSE: To explore the relationships between trunk muscle endurance and standing balance and falls self-efficacy for women with vertebral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an exploratory, secondary analysis of baseline data of a pilot randomized controlled trial in Ontario, Canada. Thirty-one women with osteoporosis, aged 65 years or older, with at least one vertebral fracture were included. The associations between balance (Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation) and trunk muscle endurance (Timed Loaded Standing Test) and falls self-efficacy (Falls Efficacy Scale International) and trunk muscle endurance were tested via Spearman rank order correlation with Fisher's z transformations. RESULTS: Trunk muscle endurance was correlated with better balance performance on the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation [Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.85; p < 0.001], but not with falls self efficacy (Spearman correlation coefficient; -0.22; 95% confidence interval: -0.53 to 0.14; p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Trunk muscle endurance was moderately associated with better standing balance performance but not falls self-efficacy, highlighting the importance of trunk muscle endurance for standing balance for older adults with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures.Implications for RehabilitationOlder adults with osteoporosis and vertebral fractures who have better trunk muscle endurance may also have better standing balance.There was no association between trunk muscle endurance and how confident a person is that they will not fall while completing various activities of daily living.Trunk muscle endurance training could be included as part of a standing balance rehabilitation program for this population.

Distribution of Prevalent and Incident Vertebral Fractures and Their Association with Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women in the Teriparatide Versus Risedronate VERO Clinical Trial.

Vertebral fractures (VFx) occur most frequently in the mid-thoracic and thoraco-lumbar regions, which experience the highest mechanical loading along the spine. The prevalence and incidence of VFx by their location and severity, and their relationship with bone mineral density (BMD), are seldom reported in randomized clinical trial cohorts. The VERO trial randomized 1360 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe VFx to receive either teriparatide or risedronate for up to 24 months. In this post hoc analysis, we describe the centrally read distribution and severity of prevalent and incident VFx, and the association of their location with the baseline BMD. At baseline, 21.4% of all evaluable vertebral bodies had a prevalent VFx; most commonly at L1, T12, L2 and T11 (38.5%, 37.4%, 25.3% and 23.5% of patients, respectively). Patients with prevalent VFx only at T12/L1 showed a higher baseline BMD compared to patients with VFx at other levels. At month 24, 100 patients had 126 incident VFx (teriparatide: 35; risedronate: 91). The most frequent incident VFx occurred at T12 (n = 17, 1.6% of patients), followed by L1 and T11 (n = 14, 1.3% both). The frequency of incident VFx was lower at all vertebral levels in patients given teriparatide. These results confirm prior reports that VFx occurs more frequently at mid-thoracic and thoraco-lumbar regions of the spine. Patients with these VFx locations have higher BMD than those who fracture at other sites, suggesting a role for mechanical stress in the etiology of VFx. Teriparatide is superior to risedronate in the prevention of VFx at these common fracture locations.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110.

Favorable skeletal benefit/risk of long-term denosumab therapy: A virtual-twin analysis of fractures prevented relative to skeletal safety events observed.

Antiresorptive therapies reduce fracture risk; however, long-term bone turnover inhibition may raise concerns about rare, but serious, skeletal adverse events-atypical femoral fracture (AFF) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, has demonstrated sustained low vertebral and nonvertebral fracture rates with low skeletal adverse event rates in the 3-year FREEDOM trial and its 7-year Extension (in which all subjects received open-label denosumab). In this analysis, we aimed to estimate fractures prevented relative to skeletal adverse events observed with 10 years of denosumab therapy. We modeled a hypothetical placebo group using the virtual-twin method, thereby allowing calculation of fractures prevented with denosumab treatment (relative to the virtual-placebo group) in the context of AFF or ONJ events observed in the long-term denosumab group. Estimated virtual-placebo and observed long-term denosumab exposure-adjusted fracture rates per 100,000 subject-years were calculated for fractures classified as clinical (3180 and 1777, respectively), major osteoporotic (2699 and 1525), vertebral (1879 and 901), and nonvertebral (2924 and 1528), and compared with observed AFF and ONJ in the long-term denosumab group (5 and 35 per 100,000 subject-years, respectively). The skeletal benefit/risk ratio (fractures prevented per adverse event observed) for clinical fractures was 281 (AFF) and 40 (ONJ). Based on this model, denosumab treatment for up to 10 years has a favorable skeletal benefit/risk profile when comparing fractures prevented per skeletal adverse event observed. Clinical trial registration: NCT00089791, NCT00523341.

The Effects of Home Exercise in Older Women With Vertebral Fractures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Regular exercise is advocated in osteoporosis guidelines to prevent fractures. Few studies have evaluated the effect of exercise on functional performance, posture, and other outcomes that are important to patients after vertebral fractures. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study will explore the effect of home exercise versus control on functional performance, posture, and patient-reported outcome measures. DESIGN: This study was a parallel 2-arm pilot feasibility trial with 1:1 randomization to exercise or attentional control groups. SETTING: This study took place in 5 Canadian and 2 Australian academic or community hospitals/centers. PARTICIPANTS: This study included 141 women ≥65 years of age with radiographically confirmed vertebral fractures. INTERVENTION: A physical therapist delivered exercise and behavioral counseling in 6 home visits over 8 months and monthly calls. Participants were to exercise ≥3 times weekly. Controls received equal attention. MEASUREMENTS: Functional performance, posture, quality of life, pain, and behavior-change outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 6 (questionnaires only) and 12 months. Adherence to exercise was assessed by calendar diary. All t tests examined between-group mean differences (MD) in change from baseline in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. RESULTS: There was a small effect of exercise on 5 times sit-to-stand test versus control (MD = -1.58 [95% CI = -3.09 to -0.07], intention-to-treat; MD = -1.49 [95% CI = -3.12 to 0.16], per-protocol). There were no other major or statistically significant MDs for any other measured outcomes after follow-up. Adherence declined over time. LIMITATIONS: Treatment effects on variables may have been underestimated due to multiple comparisons and underpowered analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory estimate of the effect of exercise on functional leg muscle strength was consistent in direction and magnitude with other trials in individuals with vertebral fractures. Declining adherence to home exercise suggests that strategies to enhance long-term adherence might be important in future confirmatory trials.

Psychotropic medications and proton pump inhibitors and the risk of fractures in the teriparatide versus risedronate VERO clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: VERO is a fracture endpoint study in women with established osteoporosis that showed reduction in the risks of new vertebral fractures (VFx) and clinical fractures in women randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. Patients on psychotropic drugs (hypnotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants [selective serotonin- and norepinephrine-reuptake inhibitors: SSRIs and SNRIs]) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be at a higher risk of fractures. We studied the association of exposure to these medications with the risk of fractures in the VERO study cohort, including an assessment of their potential interactions with the assigned clinical trial drugs. METHODS: A total of 1360 postmenopausal women with at least 2 moderate or 1 severe VFx and bone mineral density T-score ≤-1.50 were randomized to subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20µg) or oral weekly risedronate (35mg) in a double-blind, double-dummy, 2-year trial. In thispost-hoc analysis, multivariable log-binomial and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (RR) or hazard ratios (HR) for the exposure to these concomitant medications with the occurrence of incident fractures. We also assessed treatment effect modifications on anti-fracture efficacy driven by the use of these medications. RESULTS: There were 406 (29.9 %), 347 (25.5 %) and 176 (12.9 %) subjects taking PPIs, benzodiazepines/hypnotics, and SSRIs/SNRIs during the study, respectively. For all fracture endpoints, the greater risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ within the categories of psychotropic drugs and PPIs. Multivariable analysis showed that the risk of pooled new and worsened VFx was higher in PPI users than in non-PPI users (RR: 1.57; p=0.032), regardless of the study treatment. Benzodiazepine/hypnotic drug users showed an increased risk of clinical fractures (HR: 1.71; p=0.026) and non-vertebral fragility fractures (NVFFx, HR: 1.89; p=0.017), regardless of the study treatment. Increases in the risk of clinical fractures (HR: 1.93; p=0.018) and NVFFx (HR: 2.16; p=0.011) were also observed in SSRI/SNRI users, regardless of the study treatment. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the superior anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate was consistent regardless of psychotropic or PPI drugs use. Patients taking psychotropic drugs and PPIs showed a higher risk for NVFFx and VFx respectively, compared to those not on these medications.

Repeating Measurement of Bone Mineral Density when Monitoring with Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry: 2019 ISCD Official Position.

Bone mineral density (BMD) can be measured at multiple skeletal sites using various technologies to aid clinical decision-making in bone and mineral disorders. BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) has a critical role in predicting risk of fracture, diagnosis of osteoporosis, and monitoring patients. In clinical practice, DXA remains the most available and best validated tool for monitoring patients. A quality baseline DXA scan is essential for comparison with all subsequent scans. Monitoring patients with serial measurements requires technical expertise and knowledge of the least significant change in order to determine when follow-up scans should be repeated. Prior ISCD Official Positions have clarified how and when repeat DXA is useful as well as the interpretation of results. The 2019 ISCD Official Positions considered new evidence and clarifies if and when BMD should be repeated. There is good evidence showing that repeat BMD measurement can identify people who experience bone loss, which is an independent predictor of fracture risk. There is good evidence showing that the reduction in spine and hip fractures with osteoporosis medication is proportional to the change in BMD with treatment. There is evidence that measuring BMD is useful following discontinuation of osteoporosis treatment. There is less documentation addressing the effectiveness of monitoring BMD to improve medication adherence, whether monitoring of BMD reduces the risk of fracture, or effectively discriminates patients who should and should not recommence treatment following an interruption of medication. Further research is needed in all of these areas.

Are osteoporotic vertebral fractures or forward head posture associated with performance-based measures of balance and mobility?

The main objective of this study was to explore whether vertebral fracture characteristics or posture is independently associated with physical performance. Posture was significantly associated with physical performance but fracture characteristics were not, suggesting posture should be the focus of physical performance variance. PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to explore whether vertebral fracture characteristics (number, severity, location) or occiput-to-wall distance (OWD) is independently associated with physical performance. METHODS: This was a secondary data analysis using baseline data from a randomized controlled trial, of community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older with a suspected vertebral fragility fracture. Lateral thoracic and lumbar spine radiographs were used to determine the number, location, and severity of fracture. The dependent variables were timed up and go (TUG), five times sit-to-stand, four-meter walk, and step test. The independent variables were number, severity, location of fracture, and OWD. Pain during movement and age were covariates. Multivariable regression analyses determined the association between each of the dependent and independent variables. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 158) mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 75.9 (6.5) years. They had a mean (SD) BMI, OWD, and number of fractures of 26.7 (5.3) kg/m2, 5.7 (4.6) cm, and 2.2 (1.8), respectively. OWD was independently associated with TUG (estimated coefficient [B] = 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16, 0.42), five times sit-to-stand (B = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.12, 0.55), four-meter walk (B = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.13), and step test (B = - 0.36, 95% CI = - 0.50, - 0.23) in the unadjusted model. OWD was independently associated with TUG (B = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.12, 0.38), five times sit-to-stand (B = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.07, 0.50), four-meter walk (B = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.12), and step test (B = - 0.22, 95% CI = - 0.47, - 0.19) in the adjusted model. CONCLUSION: OWD was significantly associated with physical performance but fracture characteristics were not. These analyses were exploratory and require replication in future studies.

Western Osteoporosis Alliance Clinical Practice Series: Treat-to-Target for Osteoporosis.

Patients often start treatment to reduce fracture risk because of a bone mineral density T-score consistent with osteoporosis (≤ -2.5). Others with a T-score above -2.5 may be treated when there is a history of fragility fracture or when a fracture risk algorithm categorizes them as having a high risk for fracture. It is common to initiate therapy with a generic oral bisphosphonate, unless contraindicated, and continue therapy if the patient is responding as assessed by stability or an increase in bone mineral density. However, some patients may respond well to an oral bisphosphonate, yet remain with an unacceptably high risk for fracture. Recognition of this occurrence has led to the development of an alternative strategy: treat-to-target. This involves identifying a biological marker (treatment target) that represents an acceptable fracture risk and then initiating treatment with an agent likely to reach this target. If the patient is on a path to reaching the target with initial therapy, treatment is continued. If it appears the target will not be reached with initial therapy, treatment is changed to an agent more likely to achieve the goal.

Further Nonvertebral Fracture Reduction Beyond 3 Years for Up to 10 Years of Denosumab Treatment.

CONTEXT: Evidence for further nonvertebral fracture (NVF) reductions with long-term antiresorptive therapy in osteoporosis is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate NVF risk reduction in subjects receiving ≤10 years of denosumab treatment. DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-year Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial (NCT00089791) and its open-label 7-year extension (NCT00523341). SETTING: One hundred seventy-two study centers worldwide. PATIENTS: Women 60 to 90 years, lumbar spine or total hip bone mineral density T-scores <-2.5 (≥-4.0 at both). INTERVENTIONS: Subjects randomly assigned 1:1 denosumab 60 mg SC Q6M (long-term) or placebo (crossover) in FREEDOM; eligible subjects could enroll in the extension to receive denosumab 60 mg SC Q6M. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NVF Exposure-adjusted subject incidence (per 100 subject-years) during denosumab treatment years 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 (all subjects) and years 4 to 10 (long-term only), and rate ratios (RRs) for years 4 to 7 or 4 to 10 vs 1 to 3. RESULTS: Among 4074 subjects (2343 long-term, 1731 crossover), NVF rates (95% CI) in all subjects were 2.15 (1.90 to 2.43) during years 1 to 3 and 1.53 (1.34 to 1.75) during years 4 to 7 of denosumab treatment [RR (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.61 to 0.86); P < 0.001]; in long-term only were 1.98 (1.67 to 2.34) during years 1 to 3 and 1.44 (1.24 to 1.66) during years 4 to 10 [RR = 0.74 (0.60 to 0.93); P = 0.008]. combined osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture rate was 0.06. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term denosumab treatment, >3 and ≤10 years, was associated with further reductions in NVF rates compared with the first 3 years.

Exploring the association between number, severity, location of fracture, and occiput-to-wall distance.

This study of women with a suspected vertebral fracture determined the association between vertebral fracture characteristics and posture. The number of fractures was associated with posture. Severity of fracture was associated with posture when adjusting for pain. Fracture characteristics explain some variability in posture in women with a suspected vertebral fracture. PURPOSE: Osteoporotic vertebral fractures are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. An accumulation of vertebral fractures may lead to forward head posture, which has been independently associated with mortality. It is unclear how fracture characteristics, including the number, severity, and location of fracture, contribute to occiput-to-wall distance (OWD). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional secondary data analysis using baseline data from a randomized controlled trial, in community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older with a suspected vertebral fragility fracture. Lateral thoracic and lumbar spine radiographs were used to determine the number, location, and severity of fracture. Occiput-to-wall distance (OWD) was used to assess forward head posture. Pain during movement (0-10 scale) and age were considered as confounding variables. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate relationships between fracture variables and OWD. RESULTS: Participants (n = 158) were of mean age 75.9 (SD 6.5) years with a mean (SD) BMI = 26.7 (5.3) kg/m2, OWD = 5.7 (4.6) cm, and number of fractures = 2.4 (2.4). In unadjusted analyses, the number of fractures (B = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.04, 1.59) was associated with OWD. When adjusting for pain, severity of fractures (B = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.001, 2.15) was independently associated with OWD. Location was not associated with OWD in any of the models. CONCLUSIONS: The number of fractures was significantly associated with OWD in the unadjusted model, explaining more of the variability in OWD than other fracture characteristics. Severity of fracture was associated with OWD in the adjusted model. However, pain may confound the relationship between OWD and fracture characteristics.

Serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and the risk of fractures in the teriparatide versus risedronate VERO clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Using data from the 2-year, randomized, double-dummy VERO trial, we examined the changes in 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations over time, and whether the fracture risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate varies by baseline 25(OH)D sufficiency category. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis received subcutaneous daily teriparatide 20 µg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg, with concomitant 500-1000 mg of elemental calcium and 400-800 IU/day of vitamin D supplements. Fracture endpoints were analyzed by predefined subgroups of 25(OH)D insufficient and sufficient patients. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on fractures was investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: At baseline, mean serum 25(OH)D was 31.9 ng/mL in the teriparatide group and 31.5 ng/mL in the risedronate group, and 16.8% and 17.9% of patients, respectively, were 25(OH)D insufficient. At month 6, the mean serum 25(OH)D concentration decreased in teriparatide-treated patients to 24.5 ng/mL (by approximately 23%) but remained relatively constant in risedronate-treated patients (32.2 ng/mL) (p < 0.001). Proportions of 25(OH)D insufficient patients at month 6 were 26.7% and 5.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate for any of the fracture endpoints did not significantly differ between subgroups by 25(OH)D sufficiency status at baseline, with nonsignificant (p > 0.1) treatment-by-25(OH)D interactions in all fracture analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Serum 25(OH)D concentration decreases during teriparatide treatment. Fracture risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ between the two groups of patients defined by baseline 25(OH)D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Score Distributions of the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) in Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Vertebral Fracture.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) in community-dwelling women 65 years and older with vertebral fracture and to describe score distributions and potential ceiling and floor effects. METHODS: This was a secondary data analysis of baseline data from the Build Better Bones with Exercise randomized controlled trial using the BOOMER. A total of 141 women with osteoporosis and radiographically confirmed vertebral fracture were included. Concurrent validity and internal consistency were assessed in comparison to the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Normality and ceiling/floor effects of total BOOMER scores and component test items were also assessed. Exploratory analyses of assistive aid use and falls history were performed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Tests for concurrent validity demonstrated moderate correlation between total BOOMER and SPPB scores. The BOOMER component tests showed modest internal consistency. Substantial ceiling effect and nonnormal score distributions were present among overall sample and those not using assistive aids for total BOOMER scores, although scores were normally distributed for those using assistive aids. The static standing with eyes closed test demonstrated the greatest ceiling effects of the component tests, with 92% of participants achieving a maximal score. CONCLUSIONS: While the BOOMER compares well with the SPPB in community-dwelling women with vertebral fractures, researchers or clinicians considering using the BOOMER in similar or higher-functioning populations should be aware of the potential for ceiling effects.

Effects of teriparatide on hip and upper limb fractures in patients with osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with teriparatide, the number of patients with incident hip fractures was small and insufficiently powered to show statistically significant differences between groups. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of teriparatide in the reduction of hip and upper limb fractures in women and men with osteoporosis. A comprehensive search of databases until 22 November 2017 was conducted for RCTs of at least 6-month duration that reported non-spine fractures (hip, humerus, forearm, wrist), either as an efficacy or safety endpoint. Only RCTs that included patients with the approved treatment indications and dose for use of teriparatide were included; trials with off-label use of teriparatide were excluded. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Statistical procedures included Peto's method and Mantel-Haenszel with empirical correction, as most of the RCTs reported zero events in at least one of the treatment arms. Study results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Publication bias and heterogeneity were evaluated with standard statistical tests. Twenty-three RCTs were included, 19 with an active-controlled arm (representing 64.9% of the patients included in the control group) and 11 double-blind, representing data on 8644 subjects, 3893 of them treated with teriparatide. Mean age (SD) was 67.0 (4.5) years, median treatment duration 18 months (range: 6 to 24 months). A total of 34 incident hip, 31 humerus, 31 forearm, and 62 wrist fractures were included. Meta-analysis results showed an OR (95% CI) for hip fractures of 0.44 (0.22-0.87; p = 0.019) in patients treated with teriparatide compared with controls. The effects on the risk of humerus [1.02 (0.50-2.08)], forearm [0.53 (0.26-1.08)] and wrist fractures [1.21 (0.72-2.04)] were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). This meta-analysis provides evidence of efficacy of teriparatide in reducing hip fractures by 56% in patients with osteoporosis.