Understanding and Managing Corticosteroid-Induced Osteoporosis.

Glucocorticoids are effective immunosuppressants used in a wide variety of diseases. Their use results in secondary osteoporosis in about 30-50% of chronic glucocorticoid users. Glucocorticoids cause a rapid decline in bone strength within the first 3-6 months mostly due to increased bone resorption by osteoclasts. This is followed by a more gradual loss of bone partly due to decreased osteoblastogenesis and osteoblast and osteocyte apoptosis. The loss of bone strength induced by glucocorticoids is not fully captured by bone mineral density measurements. Other tools such as the trabecular bone score and advanced imaging techniques give insight into bone quality; however, these are not used widely in clinical practice. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis should be seen as a widely preventable disease. Currently, only about 15% of chronic glucocorticoid users are receiving optimal care. Glucocorticoids should be prescribed at the lowest dose and shortest duration. All patients should be counselled on lifestyle measures to maintain bone strength including nutrition and weight-bearing exercise. Pharmacological therapy should be considered for all patients at moderate to high risk of fracture as there is evidence for the prevention of bone loss and fractures with a favourable safety profile. Oral bisphosphonates are the current mainstay of therapy, whereas osteoanabolic agents may be considered for those at highest risk of fracture.

Romosozumab in the treatment of osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a disease characterized by weakening of the bone architecture, which leads to an increased risk of fracture. There has been interest in the development of osteoanabolic agents that can increase bone mass and reverse the deteriorating architecture of osteoporotic bone. Romosozumab is a new agent for osteoporosis that both promotes bone formation and inhibits bone resorption. It is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activity of sclerostin, which allows the Wnt pathway to promote osteoblastogenesis and inhibit the activity of bone-resorbing osteoclasts. In clinical trials, it has proven to be superior to other agents in terms of increasing bone mineral density and reducing the incidence of fractures. This review will highlight the pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety profile of romosozumab and suggest where this medication may fit within our current management of osteoporosis.

Evaluation of the Fracture Liaison Service within the Canadian Healthcare Setting.

Previous studies evaluating fracture liaison service (FLS) programs have found them to be cost-effective, efficient, and reduce the risk of fracture. However, few studies have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of these programs. We compared the patient populations of those referred for osteoporosis management by FLS to those referred by primary care physicians (PCP), within the Canadian healthcare system in the province of Ontario. Specifically, we investigated if a referral from FLS is similarly effective as PCP at identifying patients at risk for future osteoporotic fractures and if osteoporosis therapies have been previously initiated. A retrospective chart review of patients assessed by a single Ontario rheumatology practice affiliated with FLS between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, was performed identifying two groups: those referred by FLS within Hamilton and those referred by their PCP for osteoporosis management. Fracture risk of each patient was determined using FRAX. A total of 573 patients (n = 225 (FLS group) and n = 227 (PCP group)) were evaluated. Between the FLS and PCP groups, there were no significant differences in the absolute 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic fracture (15.6% (SD = 10.2) vs 15.3% (SD = 10.3)) and 10-year risk of hip fracture (4.7% (SD = 8.3) vs 4.7% (SD = 6.8)), respectively. 10.7% of patients referred by FLS and 40.5% of patients referred by their PCP were on osteoporosis medication prior to fracture. Our study suggests that referral from FLS is similarly effective as PCP at identifying patients at risk for future osteoporotic fractures, and clinically effective at identifying the care gap with the previous use of targeted osteoporosis therapies from referral from PCP being low and much lower in those referred by FLS. Interventional programs such as FLS can help close the treatment gap by providing appropriate care to patients that were not previously identified to be at risk for fracture by their primary care physician and initiate proper medical management.

Effect of Concomitant Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Methotrexate Administration Route on Biologic Treatment Durability in Rheumatoid Arthritis: OBRI Cohort Results.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have suggested that concurrent conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy enhances the efficacy of biologic DMARD (bDMARD). Here, we assessed the effect of concomitant csDMARD use and methotrexate (MTX) route of administration on time to bDMARD discontinuation in a large Canadian (Ontario), observational, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cohort. METHODS: Patients from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) who initiated bDMARD therapy and had ≥ 1 followup assessment were included. The effect of concomitant csDMARD use (primary analysis) and MTX route of administration (secondary analysis) on bDMARD discontinuation owing to (1) any reason, (2) ineffectiveness, (3) adverse events (AE), and (4) both (2) and (3), were assessed with multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: Among the 814 patients included, 153 (18.8%) received bDMARD monotherapy and 661 (81.2%) combination csDMARD/bDMARD therapy. Over a mean followup of 1.9 years, bDMARD were discontinued in 38.7% of patients. In multivariate analysis, there was a nonsignificant trend toward lower discontinuation for the csDMARD/bDMARD group compared to bDMARD monotherapy for any reason (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.05) and owing to ineffectiveness/AE (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.06). Further, patients taking combination therapy had significantly lower risk of bDMARD discontinuation due to AE (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.76). In the secondary analysis, no statistical association between MTX dose or route of administration and bDMARD durability was observed. CONCLUSION: Concomitant csDMARD use was associated with a significantly lower hazard for bDMARD discontinuation due to AE among patients with RA followed in routine clinical practice in Ontario, Canada. Neither MTX route of administration nor dose were significant predictors of bDMARD durability.

Occurrence of Serious Infection in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Biologics and Denosumab Observed in a Clinical Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies combining biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have shown an increased risk of infection. However, the risk of infection with concurrent use of denosumab, a biologic agent for the treatment of osteoporosis, and a bDMARD remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the incidence of serious and opportunistic infections in patients treated concurrently with denosumab and a bDMARD and patients treated with a bDMARD alone. METHODS: A chart review of patients with RA from 2 Canadian rheumatology practices between July 1, 2010, and July 31, 2014, identified 2 groups of patients: those taking denosumab and a bDMARD concurrently (concurrent group) and those taking only a bDMARD (biologic-alone group). Patients were followed from the time of initiation of denosumab, or a matched index date for the biologic-alone group, to the end of the study or loss to followup. Instances of serious or opportunistic infections were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients (n = 102 for the concurrent group and n = 206 for the biologic-alone group) were evaluated. Within the concurrent group, 3 serious infection events occurred. Within the biologic-alone group, 4 serious infection events and 1 opportunistic infection event occurred. In both groups, all patients with serious or opportunistic infection recovered, and there were no instances of death during the study period. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a low occurrence of serious and opportunistic infections in patients with RA taking bDMARD, including patients with concurrent denosumab use.

Corrigendum to "The Current Practice of Screening, Prevention, and Treatment of Androgen-Deprivation-Therapy Induced Osteoporosis in Patients with Prostate Cancer".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2012/958596.].

The Effects of Noncompliance to Prolia (Denosumab) on the Changes in Bone Mineral Density: A Retrospective Review.

Although denosumab (Prolia) has been shown to be a safe and efficacious therapy for osteoporotic patients in numerous clinical trials, few studies have determined its effectiveness in real world clinical practice. A retrospective review of patients prescribed Prolia assessing the impact that noncompliance from the regular dosing regimen of six months for denosumab has on bone mineral density (BMD) was performed. 924 patient records were reviewed between August 2012 and September 2013 with 436 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. Patients were divided into three groups: subsequent injection of denosumab (1) less than five months, (2) between five and seven months, and (3) more than seven months after their initial subcutaneous injection. A multivariable regression analysis was conducted comparing the differences among the three prespecified groups in BMD change (g/cm(2)) after one year of denosumab therapy at both the lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN). The differences in LS and FN BMD have shown that the relationship between the timing of drug administration in these three groups and change in BMD over 1 year was not clinically or statistically significant (p > 0.05). A follow-up study with a larger sample size and longer follow-up duration is required to further characterize this relationship.

The relationship between long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy and skeletal frailty.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a commonly prescribed class of medications. Their use has been associated with an increased rate of fractures, most notably hip fractures. However, there does not seem to be a clear association between PPI use and bone mineral density measurements, assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry. The mechanism by which PPI use increases the risk of fractures remains unclear. This review will summarize the current evidence on this topic.

The Tissue-Selective Estrogen Complex: A Review of Current Evidence.

The tissue-selective estrogen complex (TSEC) has recently entered the market for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, and is particularly targeted to women with significant vasomotor symptoms. This review appraises the evidence behind the only approved TSEC to-date, a combination of bazedoxifene and conjugated estrogens, with regards to its efficacy and relevant safety concerns. The majority of evidence that has led to its approval is derived from the SMART study. This large phase III trial with several substudies was aimed at discerning the effects of the TSEC on various estrogen-responsive tissues in comparison to raloxifene and placebo. Overall, the evidence thus far suggests a superior improvement in lumbar bone mineral density of 1.01% ± 0.28% as well as decrease in the frequency of hot flushes. Regarding safety concerns, endometrial thickness did not change over the treatment course, and investigators also identified a modest reduction in breast density. While there was no difference in rates of venous thromboembolism between treatment and placebo groups in a 2-year follow-up period, the effects of the drug on coagulation profiles are similar to those seen with hormone replacement therapy. Thus, the drug's effects on venous thromboembolism risk over a longer treatment course remain unclear. In conclusion, the actual efficacy of the TSEC for postmenopausal osteoporosis remains as yet undefined, given the lack of fracture prevention data. The evidence thus far does seem to suggest a beneficial effect on vasomotor symptoms and a generally favorable side effect profile. However, it should be noted that only one study has addressed this question thus far, and so the repeatability of the findings is still in question.

The current practice of screening, prevention, and treatment of androgen-deprivation-therapy induced osteoporosis in patients with prostate cancer.

Introduction. ADT is used in the management of locally advanced and metastatic disease. The detrimental effect of ADT on bone density is well documented. This study assesses care gaps in screening, prevention and treatment of osteoporosis among prostate cancer patients. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer on ADT. Charts from a tertiary oncology center were assessed for utilization of DXA scan, prescription of calcium, vitamin D, calcitonin and bisphosphonates.Bivariate analysis was used to determine the effect of patient characteristics and likelihood for osteoporosis screening. Results. 149 charts were reviewed, with 3-year mean follow-up. 58.8% of men received a baseline DXA, of which 20.3% had a repeat DXA within their follow-up periods.In all, 28% were appropriately screened and managed for osteoporosis (received repeat DXA, bisphosphonate). In bivariate analysis, the number of ADT injections which correlate with the duration of androgen suppression was significantly associated with the number of DXA scans. Conclusions. Our study found a care gap in the screening, prevention, and treatment of osteoporosis in this population. Patients receiving the most ADT injections were more likely to be screened. Our results suggest healthcare providers treating prostate cancer are insufficiently screening and treating this susceptible population. We suggest baseline measurement of BMD at the initiation of ADT with periodic reassessment during therapy.

Role of teriparatide in treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Glucocorticoids are commonly used in various fields within medicine. One of their most common and clinically significant side effects is glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). GIOP is a disease leading to progressive decreases in bone mineral density, decreased bone strength, and increased risk of skeletal fractures. GIOP has a significant impact on the morbidity and health-related quality of life of the patients it affects. Glucocorticoids have deleterious effects on bone through promoting osteoblast apoptosis and inhibiting osteoblastogenesis. Teriparatide exerts anabolic effects on bone, so it is understandable why teriparatide is thought to be a rational treatment option. Clinical studies have indicated teriparatide is efficacious in the treatment of GIOP to improve bone mineral density values at the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Some evidence also suggests teriparatide may reduce rates of vertebral fractures in GIOP patients. Overall, this review of the current clinical evidence suggests teriparatide may be an efficacious and promising agent in the treatment of GIOP.

What are the beliefs, attitudes and practices of front-line staff in long-term care (LTC) facilities related to osteoporosis awareness, management and fracture prevention?

BACKGROUND: Compared to the general elderly population, those institutionalized in LTC facilities have the highest prevalence of osteoporosis and subsequently have higher incidences of vertebral and hip fractures. The goal of this study is to determine how well nurses at LTC facilities are educated to properly administer bisphosphonates. A secondary question assessed was the nurse's and PSW's attitudes and beliefs regarding the role and benefits of vitamin D for LTC patients. METHODS: Eight LTC facilities in Hamilton were surveyed, and all nurses were offered a survey. A total 57 registered nurses were surveyed. A 21 item questionnaire was developed to assess existing management practices and specific osteoporosis knowledge areas. RESULTS: The questionnaire assessed the nurse's and personal support worker's (PSWs) education on how to properly administer bisphosphonates by having them select all applicable responses from a list of options. These options included administering the drug before, after or with meals, given with or separate from other medications, given with juice, given with or without water, given with the patient sitting up, or finally given with the patient supine. Only 52% of the nurses and 8.7% of PSWs administered the drug properly, where they selected the options: (given before meals, given with water, given separate from all other medications, and given in a sitting up position). If at least one incorrect option was selected, then it was scored as an inappropriate administration. Bisphosphonates were given before meals by 85% of nurses, given with water by 90%, given separately from other medication by 71%, and was administered in an upright position by 79%. Only 52% of the nurses and 8.7% of PSWs surveyed were administering the drug properly. Regarding the secondary question, of the 57 nurses surveyed, 68% strongly felt their patients should be prescribed vitamin D supplements. Of the 124 PSWs who completed the survey, 44.4% strongly felt their patients should be prescribed vitamin D supplementation. CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates are quite effective in increasing the bone mineral density of LTC patients, and may reduce fracture rates, but it is only effective if properly administered. In our study, proper administration of bisphosphonate therapy was less than optimal. In summary, although the education of health providers has improved since the mid-1990's, this area still requires further attention and the subject of future quality assurance research.

Improvement in health-related quality of life in osteoporosis patients treated with teriparatide.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with osteoporosis and recent vertebral fractures suffer from pain and impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL). To determine whether patients with osteoporosis treated with teriparatide experienced improvement in HRQL and pain symptoms after several months of therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively studied a sample of osteoporosis patients treated with teriparatide in a Canadian rheumatology practice. We included patients that received teriparatide therapy with baseline and follow-up Mini-Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ) data. Follow-up data was measured at three or six months. We used a paired Student's t-test to compare baseline and follow-up measurements for each of the questionnaire's ten questions (five domains). Statistical analysis was also repeated to only include patients who suffered a prior vertebral fracture. RESULTS: 57 patients were included in the study, including 47 women. The mean age was 63.8 years (standard deviation 12.1 years). About sixty five percent (37/57) had previously sustained one or more osteoporotic fractures and about 38.6% (22/57) had suffered a prior vertebral fracture. About 44% (25/57) of individuals were taking one or more types of pain medications regularly prior to starting therapy. At follow-up, significant improvements were observed in the OQLQ domains of pain symptoms. This was seen when all patients on teriparatide were included, and also when only patients with prior vertebral fractures were included. There was also an improvement in emotional functioning, relating to fear of falling at 3 months follow-up (p = 0.019). Respondents also reported improvement in the domain of activities of daily living, relating to vacuuming at 6 months follow-up (p = 0.036), and an improvement in the leisure domain, relating to ease of traveling in the prior vertebral fracture population at 3 months follow-up (p = 0.012). However, there was no significant improvement observed in the domains of physical functioning. Participants also reported a decrease in need for pain medications, with 26% (15/57) requiring analgesics at the time of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Teriparatide use may be associated with improvements in HRQL in osteoporosis patients, in particular alleviation of pain symptoms. These results were especially evident in patients with a history of vertebral fractures. These findings should be confirmed in larger prospective studies with a suitable control group.