Understanding and communicating the benefits and risks of denosumab, raloxifene, and teriparatide for the treatment of osteoporosis.

The number needed to treat is a valuable metric to determine the benefit of therapy, but it must be viewed against the respective number needed to harm. Denosumab and teriparatide (TPTD) have proven antifracture efficacy at vertebral and nonvertebral sites, whereas raloxifene has proven antifracture efficacy at the spine only. Denosumab use has been associated with a small, yet statistically significant, increased incidence of eczema and serious cellulitis. Raloxifene use has been associated with statistically significant increases in the risk of venous thromboembolism and possibly deadly stroke, although not an increase in total strokes. No significant, nontransient adverse events have been reported with TPTD use. When used for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, denosumab, raloxifene, and TPTD all generally have favorable risk-to-benefit profiles, but therapy-specific contraindications necessitate thoughtful consideration of all available clinical information and individualization of treatment decisions.

Assessing fracture risk and effects of osteoporosis drugs: bone mineral density and beyond.

Although there have been numerous advances in the assessment of bone strength and fracture risk, the majority of these techniques can only be performed in research laboratories, making them largely unavailable to practicing clinicians. Prospective epidemiologic studies have identified risk factors that can be assessed within the clinic and combined with bone mineral density to allow clinicians to better identify untreated individuals at heightened risk for fracture and to make informed treatment decisions based on 10-year absolute fracture risk. This article discusses the assessment of fracture risk in clinical practice, reviews currently and soon-available bone measurement tools, and details the impacts of osteoporosis therapies on fracture risk.

Duloxetine compared with placebo for the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence.

AIMS: Evaluate duloxetine in the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 588 women, 19-85 years old with >or=4 incontinence episodes/week were randomly assigned to duloxetine 80 mg/day (N = 300) or placebo (N = 288). Patients were classified into three symptom subgroups: stress or urge predominant MUI (SPMUI or UPMUI) or balanced MUI (BMUI) based on their responses to the validated Stress/Urge Incontinence Questionnaire. Half the population was randomly assigned to have urodynamics; SPMUI, UPMUI, and BMUI condition diagnoses were based on signs, symptoms, and urodynamic observations. The primary outcome measure was the change in incontinence episode frequency (IEF). Secondary outcome measures included the Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) scores, the ICI Quality of Life (ICIQ-SF) score, and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) rating. RESULTS: At baseline, women with SPMUI averaged 15.9 IEF/week (61% stress), those with UPMUI averaged 13.2 (70% urge), and those with BMUI averaged 16.5 (52% urge). Overall IEF decreases were significantly greater with duloxetine than placebo (median percent reduction 60% vs. 47%, P < 0.001); both UUI and SUI episodes were significantly decreased with duloxetine (median SUI IEF reduction 59% vs. 43%, P = 0.001; UUI IEF reduction 58% vs. 40%, P < 0.001). Duloxetine IEF decreases were significantly greater for patients with SPMUI conditions and symptoms and for those with UPMUI conditions but not symptoms. Significant benefits were also demonstrated with duloxetine for improvements in I-QOL total score (11.5 points vs. 8.1 points, P = 0.002), all three I-QOL subscale scores, and for the ICIQ-SF score (-2.6 vs. -1.7, P = 0.002) as well as for PGI-I ratings (much/very much better 44.2% vs. 27.3%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Duloxetine demonstrated significant efficacy in this population of women with MUI.