Recommendations for the optimal use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis.

Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Race-specific FRAX models are evidence-based and support equitable care: a response to the ASBMR Task Force report on Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk.

Task Force on 'Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk' commissioned by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) Professional Practice Committee has recommended that FRAX® models in the US do not include adjustment for race and ethnicity. This position paper finds that an agnostic model would unfairly discriminate against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities and recommends the retention of ethnic and race-specific FRAX models for the US, preferably with updated data on fracture and death hazards. In contrast, the use of intervention thresholds based on a fixed bone mineral density unfairly discriminates against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities in the US. This position of the Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) is endorsed both by the IOF and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

Predictive value of sarcopenia components for all-cause mortality: findings from population-based cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Low grip strength and gait speed are associated with mortality. However, investigation of the additional mortality risk explained by these measures, over and above other factors, is limited. AIM: We examined whether grip strength and gait speed improve discriminative capacity for mortality over and above more readily obtainable clinical risk factors. METHODS: Participants from the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study, Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study, and the Hertfordshire Cohort Study were analysed. Appendicular lean mass (ALM) was ascertained using DXA; muscle strength by grip dynamometry; and usual gait speed over 2.4-6 m. Verified deaths were recorded. Associations between sarcopenia components and mortality were examined using Cox regression with cohort as a random effect; discriminative capacity was assessed using Harrell's Concordance Index (C-index). RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of participants (n = 8362) was 73.8(5.1) years; 5231(62.6%) died during a median follow-up time of 13.3 years. Grip strength (hazard ratio (95% CI) per SD decrease: 1.14 (1.10,1.19)) and gait speed (1.21 (1.17,1.26)), but not ALM index (1.01 (0.95,1.06)), were associated with mortality in mutually-adjusted models after accounting for age, sex, BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, ethnicity, education, history of fractures and falls, femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), self-rated health, cognitive function and number of comorbidities. However, a model containing only age and sex as exposures gave a C-index (95% CI) of 0.65(0.64,0.66), which only increased to 0.67(0.67,0.68) after inclusion of grip strength and gait speed. CONCLUSIONS: Grip strength and gait speed may generate only modest adjunctive risk information for mortality compared with other more readily obtainable risk factors.

Bone health, cardiovascular disease, and imaging outcomes in UK Biobank: a causal analysis.

This study examined the association of estimated heel bone mineral density (eBMD, derived from quantitative ultrasound) with: (1) prevalent and incident cardiovascular diseases (CVDs: ischemic heart disease (IHD), myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), arrhythmia), (2) mortality (all-cause, CVD, IHD), and (3) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) measures of left ventricular and atrial structure and function and aortic distensibility, in the UK Biobank. Clinical outcomes were ascertained using health record linkage over 12.3 yr of prospective follow-up. Two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) was conducted to assess causal associations between BMD and CMR metrics using genetic instrumental variables identified from published genome-wide association studies. The analysis included 485 257 participants (55% women, mean age 56.5 ± 8.1 yr). Higher heel eBMD was associated with lower odds of all prevalent CVDs considered. The greatest magnitude of effect was seen in association with HF and NICM, where 1-SD increase in eBMD was associated with 15% lower odds of HF and 16% lower odds of NICM. Association between eBMD and incident IHD and MI was non-significant; the strongest relationship was with incident HF (SHR: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.89-0.92]). Higher eBMD was associated with a decreased risk in all-cause, CVD, and IHD mortality, in the fully adjusted model. Higher eBMD was associated with greater aortic distensibility; associations with other CMR metrics were null. Higher heel eBMD is linked to reduced risk of a range of prevalent and incident CVD and mortality outcomes. Although observational analyses suggest associations between higher eBMD and greater aortic compliance, MR analysis did not support a causal relationship between genetically predicted BMD and CMR phenotypes. These findings support the notion that bone-cardiovascular associations reflect shared risk factors/mechanisms rather than direct causal pathways.