Bone mineral density in haemophilia - a multicentre study evaluating the impact of different replacement regimens.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate if prophylactic treatment in severe haemophilia impact on bone mineral densisty (BMD) in adults with haemophilia A/B. METHODS: Subjects with haemophilia (n = 120) underwent bone-density measurement and clinical data was collected. BMD in subjects with severe haemophilia on high-dose prophylaxis (n = 41) was compared to BMD in subjects with mild haemophilia (n = 33) and to severe haemophilia treated with intermediate-dose prophylaxis (n = 32) or on-demand replacement therapy (n = 14). RESULTS: Subjects with severe haemophilia on high-dose prophylaxis showed BMD at total hip comparable to subjects with mild haemophilia (median BMD 955.8 and 977.4 mg/cm2 (P = .17), respectively). No difference in BMD was found related to type of prophylactic regimen (median BMD 955.8 and 942.4 mg/cm2 , in high-dose and intermediate dose groups, respectively; P = .70). Subjects with severe disease treated on-demand had significantly lower BMD compared to subjects on a high-dose prophylactic regimen (median BMD 771.8 and 955.8 mg/cm2 (P = .001), respectively). BMD decreased significantly with age, regardless of severity of haemophilia disease. In a multivariate analysis, adjusted for disease status and age, type of prophylactic regimen was not significantly associated with osteoporosis development. CONCLUSION: We show that BMD differs in persons with severe haemophilia on propylaxis as compared to those treated on-demand, but that type of prophylactic regimen does not reflect on BMD. The difference between treatment groups was mainly explained by an age difference between groups. However, patients on prophylaxis displayed a high degree of normal BMD not far from mild haemophilia at comparative age.

Secondary Fracture Prevention: Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition.

Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fractureamong people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, andsubcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficaciousandcanreduce risk of future fracture.Patientsneededucation,however, about thebenefitsandrisks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive butmay be beneficial for selected patients at high risk.Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the risk for second fractures is highest in the earlypost-fractureperiod,prompt treatment is recommended.Adequate dietary or supplemental vitaminDand calciumintake shouldbe assured. Individuals beingtreatedfor osteoporosis shouldbe reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, includingvia patienteducationabout osteoporosisandfracturesandmonitoringfor adverse treatment effects.Patients shouldbestronglyencouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol inmoderation atmost, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease).

Secondary Fracture Prevention: Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition.

Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fracture among people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, and subcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficacious and can reduce risk of future fracture. Patients need education, however, about the benefits and risks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive but may be beneficial for selected patients at high risk. Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the risk for second fractures is highest in the early post-fracture period, prompt treatment is recommended. Adequate dietary or supplemental vitamin D and calcium intake should be assured. Individuals being treated for osteoporosis should be reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, including via patient education about osteoporosis and fractures and monitoring for adverse treatment effects. Patients should be strongly encouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol in moderation at most, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease). © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Vitamin D Intervention and Bone: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Fair- and Dark-skinned Children at Northern Latitudes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate vitamin D status and effects of vitamin D intervention on bone mineral density (BMD) and content (BMC) in children with fair and dark skin in Sweden during winter. METHODS: In a 2-center prospective double-blinded randomized intervention study 5- to 7-year-old children (n = 206) with fair and dark skin in Sweden (55°N-63°N) received daily vitamin D supplements of 25 µg, 10 µg, or placebo (2 µg) during 3 winter months. We measured BMD and BMC for total body (TB), total body less head (TBLH), femoral neck (FN), and spine at baseline and 4 months later. Intake of vitamin D and calcium, serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (S-25[OH]D), and related parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Despite lower S-25(OH)D in dark than fair-skinned children, BMD of TB (P = 0.012) and TBLH (P = 0.002) and BMC of TBLH (P = 0.04) were higher at baseline and follow-up in those with dark skin. Delta (Δ) BMD and BMC of TB and TBLH did not differ between intervention and placebo groups, but FN-BMC increased more among dark-skinned children in the 25 µg (P = 0.038) and 10 µg (P = 0.027) groups compared to placebo. We found no associations between Δ S-25(OH)D, P-parathyroid hormone, P-alkaline phosphatase, and Δ BMD and BMC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BMD and BMC remained higher in dark- than fair-skinned children despite lower vitamin D status. Even though no difference in general was found in BMD or BMC after vitamin D intervention, the increase in FN-BMC in dark-skinned children may suggest an influence on bone in those with initially insufficient vitamin D status.