Antiresorptive Versus Anabolic Therapy in Managing Osteoporosis in People with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

Diabetes is characterized by hyperglycemia, but the two main types, type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), have distinct pathophysiology and epidemiological profiles. Individuals with T1D and T2D have an increased risk of fractures, particularly of the hip, upper arm, ankle, and nonvertebral sites. The risk of fractures is higher in T1D compared to T2D. The diagnosis of osteoporosis in individuals with T1D and T2D follows similar criteria as in the general population, but treatment thresholds may differ. Antiresorptive therapies, the first-line treatment for osteoporosis, are effective in individuals with T2D. Observational studies and post hoc analyses of previous trials have indicated that antiresorptive drugs, such as bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators, are equally effective in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) in individuals with and without T2D. Denosumab has shown similar effects on vertebral fracture risk but increases the risk of nonvertebral fractures. Considering the low bone turnover observed in T1D and T2D, anabolic therapies, which promote bone formation and resorption, have emerged as a potential treatment option for bone fragility in this population. Data from observational studies and post hoc analyses of previous trials also showed similar results in increasing BMD and reducing the risk of fractures in people with or without T2D. However, no evidence suggests that anabolic therapy has greater efficacy than antiresorptive drugs. In conclusion, there is an increased risk of fractures in T1D and T2D. Reductions in BMD cannot solely explain the relationship between T1D and T2D and fractures. Bone microarchitecture and other factors play a role. Antiresorptive and anabolic therapies have shown efficacy in reducing fracture risk in individuals with T2D, but the evidence is more robust for antiresorptive drugs. Evidence in T1D is scant. Further research is needed to fully understand the underlying mechanisms and optimize management strategies for bone fragility in T1D and T2D. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Genome-wide association study of osteonecrosis of the jaw in Danish patients receiving antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis: A case-control study.

Background: Prior studies of the pharmacogenomics of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) have had various methodological limitations, including using candidate gene selection as their sole strategy, a small number of ONJ cases, or a study population based on an oncology setting. Objectives: The aim of our case-control study was to evaluate previously reported associations between genetic factors and ONJ, which were based on either genome-wide association studies (GWAS) or candidate gene approaches. Furthermore, we aimed to identify genetic risk factors for ONJ by using GWAS to determine single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with statistically significant differences in frequency between ONJ patients and osteoporosis controls. Methods: Patients with medically confirmed ONJ and who were registered in the Scandinavian Cohort of ONJ patients were included. Controls from the general population were matched on age (±5 years), sex, and cumulative antiresorptive drug exposure. The ONJ diagnosis date for cases corresponded to the index date for matched controls. DNA isolation, genotyping, and data analyses were performed by Q2/EA Genomics using standard protocols and best practices. Blood or tissue samples for 55 ONJ cases and 125 controls were collected. Due to the low quality of the tissue samples, final analyses were based on blood samples of 40 ONJ cases and 124 controls. Results: We detected no significant genome-wide associations. Of the 43 SNPs with ONJ association in prior studies, none were replicated in our study. Conclusions: Even though our study sample is the largest to date, we had limited statistical power for GWAS but adequate power for replication analyses. Our study provides no evidence for any genetic predisposition to ONJ. Future studies could increase their statistical power by combining ONJ GWAS datasets and by performing a meta-analysis or pursuing a sequencing strategy in order to identify rare variants.

Surgical treatment of 61 consecutive patients with maxillary stage 3 medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws using a pedicled buccal fat pad.

PURPOSE: Buccal fat pad (BFP) is used for the closure of large oroantral defects caused by surgical removal of the necrotic bone in patients with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). This study aimed to evaluate the use of BFP for the closure of maxillary sinus defects in stage 3 MRONJ patients. METHODS: This study recruited 61patients with large oroantral defects caused by MRONJ, including 49 patients with cancer and 12 patients with osteoporosis. Lesions were evaluated clinically and radiographically. RESULTS: Among the 61 patients, 51 (83.6%) healed uneventfully, and 5 patients (8.2%) had local dehiscence and exposed bone; these 56 patients (91.8%) all healed after first or second operation. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status was associated with being non-cured and might be an indicator for the healing process. All patients experienced a significant increase in body weight postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggest that block resection with removal of the necrotic bone combined with radical sinusotomy and closure of the defect with BFP is a reliable method to cure MRONJ lesions with a high success rate, and successful operation and prosthetic rehabilitation may improve body weight and the quality of life. The study was approved by the appropriate ethical approval for the Copenhagen ONJ Cohort (protocol no. H-6-2013-010) November 20, 2013.

Real-world patient-reported outcomes of breast cancer or prostate cancer patients receiving antiresorptive therapy for bone metastases: Final results of the PROBone registry study.

Background: In breast cancer and prostate cancer patients, bone metastases (BM) present the main cause of morbidity and often cause debilitating pain, impaired functioning and subsequent deterioration of quality of life (QoL). The management of BM is still challenging. Maintenance or improvement in QoL is the main goal of treatment. Antiresorptive treatment, such as denosumab and bisphosphonates, can help to reduce the frequency of skeletal complications, to control bone pain and potentially to improve QoL. The optimal time point for initiation of antiresorptive therapy is still discussed controversially. In patients with BM, bone pain can be used as a surrogate measure of QoL. However, limited data exist on health-related QoL in patients with BM under antiresorptive treatment. The PROBone registry study evaluated complaints and limitations caused by BM of breast and prostate cancer patients using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in real-world in Germany. Methods: Between 2014 and 2019, 500 patients with histological confirmation of advanced breast or prostate cancer, diagnosed with BM at start of their first antiresorptive therapy were prospectively enrolled in 65 outpatient-centers specialized in medical oncology across Germany. Changes of QoL were assessed monthly from baseline until a maximum of 12 months using the validated pain score Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Quality of Life Measurement in patients with bone pain (FACT-BP) supplemented by questions on general pain and on the impact of time spent for treatment of illness on patients' daily activities. Statistical analysis was performed descriptively by relative and absolute frequencies. Results: In total, 486 patients were eligible for final analysis, of these 310 were diagnosed with breast cancer and 176 with prostate cancer. Median age was 67 years for breast cancer and 76 years for prostate cancer patients. 79.7% of breast cancer and 59.7% of prostate patients started antiresorptive treatment within 3 months after diagnosis of BM. More than 75% of patients suffered from bone pain at study inclusion. In total 52% of breast cancer patients and 47.9% of prostate cancer patients reported to take pain medication during the observation period. In breast and prostate cancer patients an initial pain reduction after start of BTA was observed: General pain and bone pain levels as well as the median FACT-BP score showed a constant improvement over the first months and maintained stable at a constant level afterwards. Subgroup analysis showed that patients without pain at baseline reported distinctly better FACT-BP scores throughout the whole observation period than patients with pain at baseline. Looking at time-stress (M)-scores, younger breast cancer patients (<65 years) showed highest burden especially during the first months of treatment. Conclusions: Our results indicate overall good adherence to current guideline recommendation, with most breast and prostate cancer patients starting antiresorptive therapy within the first 3 months after diagnosis of BM. This point gains even more importance as our data support current recommendations by ESMO guidelines as well as by German evidence-based S3-guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of breast and prostate cancer to initiate bone-targeted agents (BTA) as soon as BM are diagnosed, to keep pain levels at the lowest level possible, to minimize the debilitating effects of metastatic bone pain and maintain a good QoL. Bone pain management by an early use of BTA following BM diagnosis might improve patient care.

[Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis-Focus treatment (part 2)]. / Glukokortikoid-induzierte Osteoporose ­ Fokus Therapie (Teil 2).

The following substances are approved for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: the oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate, the intravenous bisphosphonate zoledronate, the RANKL antibody denosumab as antiresorptive substances and teriparatide as osteoanabolic substance. In comparison to placebo a reduction of vertebral fractures is proven for all mentioned substances. Thereby, teriparatide is more effective than alendronate and risedronate with respect to the reduction of vertebral fractures. The severity of osteoporosis, especially the presence of osteoporotic fractures, the approach of treatment (preventive or curative) and contraindications are factors that are important for the differentiated application of the mentioned substances. Furthermore, it must be noted that the effect of osteoanabolic treatment must be stabilized by a subsequent antiresorptive treatment and that after termination of antiresorptive treatment with denosumab a temporary bisphosphonate treatment is required to prevent a rebound phenomenon.

Differentiating the causes of adynamic bone in advanced chronic kidney disease informs osteoporosis treatment.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased fracture risk because of impaired bone quality and quantity. Low bone mineral density predicts fracture risk in all CKD stages, including advanced CKD (CKD G4-5D). Pharmacological therapy improves bone mineral density and reduces fracture risk in moderate CKD. Its efficacy in advanced CKD remains to be determined, although pilot studies suggest a positive effect on bone mineral density. Currently, antiresorptive agents are the most commonly prescribed drugs for the prevention and therapy of osteoporosis. Their use in advanced CKD has been limited by the lack of large clinical trials and fear of causing kidney dysfunction and adynamic bone disease. In recent decades, adynamic bone disease has evolved as the most predominant form of renal osteodystrophy, commonly associated with poor outcomes, including premature mortality and progression of vascular calcification. Evolving evidence indicates that reduction of bone turnover by parathyroidectomy or pharmacological therapies, such as calcimimetics and antiresorptive agents, are not associated with premature mortality or accelerated vascular calcification in CKD. In contrast, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, malnutrition, and diabetes can induce low bone turnover and associate with poor prognosis. Thus, the conditions causing suppression of bone turnover rather than the low bone turnover per se may account for the perceived association with outcomes. Anabolic treatment, in contrast, has been suggested to improve turnover and bone mass in patients with advanced CKD and low bone turnover; however, uncertainty about safety even exceeds that of antiresorptive agents. Here, we critically review the pathophysiological concept of adynamic bone disease and discuss the effect of low bone turnover on the safety and efficacy of anti-osteoporosis pharmacotherapy in advanced CKD.

Choosing the Right Partner for Medication Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: What Central European Dentists Know.

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a side effect of antiresorptive drugs. In this online survey, the awareness and knowledge of dentists regarding MRONJ was evaluated, and potential implications for oncologists are discussed. Questionnaires were emailed to dentists from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and South Tyrol to evaluate disease-related knowledge and management. In addition to the overall score, a separate score was calculated for knowledge (maximum score: 15 points) and management (maximum score: 6 points) questions, and 1197 valid replies with completed questionnaires were received. The mean overall score was 10.45 ± 3.97 points, the mean knowledge score was 7.68 ± 3.05 points, and the mean management score was 2.76 ± 1.77 points. Factors influencing the outcome of the overall score were age, specialization, continuous professional education, and the number of dental screening exams in patients before antiresorptive therapy. Due to the considerable lack of knowledge regarding MRONJ among dentists, MRONJ patients and subjects at risk should be guided towards specialists for dental screening, treatment, and follow-up. This is important from an oncologic point of view to avoid any delay for treatment start of antiresorptives, and to reveal a potentially emerging osteonecrosis at an early stage, thus, avoiding the need for interruption or even cancellation of antiresorptive therapy.

Osteoporosis Therapeutics 2020.

Numerous safe and efficient drug therapies are currently available to decrease risk of low trauma fractures in patients with osteoporosis including postmenopausal, male, and secondary osteoporosis. In this chapter, we give first an overview of the most important outcomes regarding fracture risk reduction, change in bone mineral density (BMD by DXA) and/or bone markers of the phase III clinical studies of well-established therapies (such as Bisphosphonates, Denosumab or Teriparatide) and also novel therapies (such as Romosozumab or Abaloparatide) and highlight their mechanisms of action at bone tissue/material level. The latter understanding is not only essential for the choice of drug, duration and discontinuation of treatment but also for the interpretation of the clinical outcomes (in particular of eventual changes in BMD) after drug administration. In the second part of this chapter, we focus on the management of different forms of osteoporosis and give a review of the respective current guidelines for treatment. Adverse effects of treatment such as atypical femoral fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw or influence of fracture healing are considered also in this context.

Bone Metastases in Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma: High Morbidity and Poor Prognosis Associated With Osteolytic Morphology.

CONTEXT: The clinical relevance of bone metastases (BM) in advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is poorly described. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this work are to describe the prevalence of BM, frequency of skeletal related events (SREs), and impact of BM morphology and SREs on prognosis, and to assess the role of antiresorptive treatment (ART). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. SETTING: This study was conducted at 4 German referral centers. PATIENTS: A total of 1060 MTC patients were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Main outcome measures include descriptive statistics, overall survival (OS) by the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk factors by Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: A total of 120 of 416 patients (29%) with metastatic MTC had BM, of which 97% had concurrent nonosseous metastases. BM occurred 2.1 years (median, range -0.1 to 20.6 years) after initial diagnosis, were multifocal in 79%, and were located preferentially in the spine (86%) and pelvis (60%). BM morphology was osteolytic in 32%, osteoblastic in 25%, and mixed in 22% of cases (unknown: 21%). Within a median observation period of 26.6 months (range, 0-188 months) after BM diagnosis, 47% of patients experienced one or more SREs (bone radiation 50%, pathological fractures 32%), of which 42% occurred in osteolytic and 17% in osteoblastic BM (P = .047). Presence of osteolytic metastases (hazard ratio 3.85, 95% CI 1.52-9.77, P = .005) but not occurrence of SREs was associated with impaired OS. Among the 36 patients who received ART (no ART: n = 71), SREs were significantly less frequent than in untreated patients (P = .04). CONCLUSION: BM are common in metastatic MTC and most often with an osteolytic morphology and an unfavorable prognosis. The majority of SREs occur in osteolytic metastases and may be prevented by ART.

Treating osteoporosis to prevent fractures: current concepts and future developments.

Antiresorptive drugs, such as the bisphosphonates and the RANKL inhibitor denosumab, are currently the most widely used osteoporosis medications. These drugs increase bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce the risk of vertebral (by 40-70%), nonvertebral (by 25-40%) and hip fractures (by 40-53%) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Due to the risk of rare side-effects, the use of bisphosphonates has been limited to up to 10 years with oral bisphosphonates and 6 years with intravenous zoledronic acid. Despite their well-proven efficacy and safety, few women at high risk of fracture are started on treatment. Case finding strategies, such as fracture risk-based screening in primary care using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) and Fracture Liaison Services, have proved effective in increasing treatment rates and reducing fracture rates. Recently, anabolic therapy with teriparatide was demonstrated to be superior to the bisphosphonate risedronate in preventing vertebral and clinical fractures in postmenopausal women with vertebral fracture. Treatment with the sclerostin antibody romosozumab increases BMD more profoundly and rapidly than alendronate and is also superior to alendronate in reducing the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fracture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. For patients with severe osteoporosis and high fracture risk, bisphosphonates alone are unlikely to be able to provide long-term protection against fracture and restore BMD. For those patients, sequential treatment, starting with a bone-building drug (e.g. teriparatide), followed by an antiresorptive, will likely provide better long-term fracture prevention and should be the golden standard of future osteoporosis treatment.

Denosumab as a potential treatment alternative for patients suffering from diffuse sclerosing osteomyelitis of the mandible-A rapid communication.

PURPOSE: Diffuse sclerosing osteomyelitis (DSO) is a rare disease of the jaw bone. Its treatment is challenging. Different medical and surgical treatment protocols have been proposed; however, none of these treatment protocols produce reliable results. Recently, ibandronate administration has been attempted as a treatment alternative in acute cases of DSO. Due to the similar antiresorptive effect, we sought to explore the application of the human monoclonal antibody to the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), denosumab, in the treatment of DSO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One female patient with histologically verified DSO received subcutaneous injections of denosumab (Prolia® 60 mg). The further course of the disease was followed clinically and by radiography and scintigraphy. RESULTS: In this case, the use of denosumab displayed promising results in aiding pain relief and reducing inflammatory activity. CONCLUSION: We suggest that antiresorptive treatment with denosumab can be considered as an alternative treatment for patients suffering from DSO. However further studies, with respect to clarifying the mechanisms of action and defining the necessary medication dose as well as application intervals, have to be conducted.

PHARMACOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF OSTEOPOROSIS

Osteoporosis is a common problem encountered inprimary care. Mortality and long-term morbidity isassociated with almost all types of symptomaticosteoporotic fractures. Local data suggests thatosteoporosis remains undiagnosed and undertreated.Primary care physicians play a central role in closing thegap for osteoporosis treatment with the opportunity todiagnose, investigate, and treat these patients effectively.In this article, we explore different pharmacologicaloptions in the treatment of osteoporosis, including therole of calcium and vitamin D, antiresorptive agents,hormonal therapy, and anabolic treatment options.

Factors associated with receiving anti-osteoporosis treatment among older persons with minimal trauma hip fracture presenting to an acute orthogeriatric service.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate factors that were associated with receiving anti-osteoporosis treatment (AOT) among patients with minimal trauma hip fracture admitted to an Australian tertiary trauma centre under the Acute Orthogeriatric Service (AOS) over a 6 month period. DESIGN: Observational study using prospectively collected data. METHODS: Demographic and clinical characteristics of 211 patients were extracted from the local hip fracture registry and electronic medical records. The outcome measure was receipt of AOT before separation from the AOS. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with treatment. RESULTS: 91 (45%) patients received AOT, including 51 (25.2%) treatment-naive patients. Factors significantly associated with receiving treatment included higher serum vitamin D level (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.23-1.70, p<0.001) and trochanteric vs. cervical fracture (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.30-5.49, p=0.007). Living in a residential aged care facility (RACF) prior to the index fracture (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.08-0.54, p=0.001) and higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.25-0.98, p=0.04) significantly lowered the likelihood of treatment. Age, gender, cognitive impairment, premorbid walking ability, previous fragility fracture and renal impairment did not correlate with treatment. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion (55%) of hip fracture patients did not receive AOT in hospital. The probability of receiving treatment appears to be significantly associated with serum vitamin D level, fracture type, place of residence and comorbidity burden.

[Therapeutic holidays in osteoporosis: Long-term strategy of treatment with bisphosphonates]. / Vacaciones terapéuticas en osteoporosis: estrategia en el tratamiento a largo plazo con bifosfonatos.

Oral bisphosphonates (BF) are drugs widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis and placed as first-line treatment for osteoporosis in most clinical guidelines. BF are effective drugs that reduce the incidence of fractures and even reduce mortality. Because of their great affinity for bone, BF have shown that even when they are discontinued still offer a latent protective effect on bone mineral density, maintaining their anti-fracture effect. However, prolonged use for years has been linked to the gradual emergence of complications such as osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femur fractures, which have raised questions as when to hold and when to make a final or temporary break, recognized as periods of rest or "therapeutic holidays" of these drugs. Thus, in patients treated with BF for a period of 3-5 years with a low risk of fracture, the drug should be discontinued and restarted when there is an indication for treatment. In contrast, in patients with moderate risk, therapeutic holidays are advised, while reassessing after 2-3 years for restarting purposes. Finally, in patients with high risk of fracture, treatment with BF should not be withdrawn.

[Comparison of FRAX Score without bone mineral density determination and the criteria proposed by the Argentine Osteoporosis Society for the use of antiresorptive therapy in postmenopausal women]. / Comparación entre score de frax sin densidad mineral ósea y los criterios propuestos por la Sociedad Argentina de Osteoporosis para el uso de tratamiento antirresortivo en mujeres postmenopáusicas.

To identify patients at high risk of fracture using clinical risk factors could reduce health costs arising from the realization of a bone densitometry. The aim of this study was to compare the FRAX score without bone mineral density (BMD) with the criteria proposed by the Argentine Society of Osteoporosis (SAO) to consider starting antiresorptive treatment. We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study where 330 postmenopausal women between 40 and 90 years of age were included. The number of treatments given if the FRAX tool without BMD had been followed was compared with the number of treatments indicated using the SAO criteria. Using the SAO criteria, 85 (25.8%) patients would initiate antiresorptive treatment compared with 15 (4.5%) using the FRAX without BMD (p = 0.0019). Among the 67 patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis by BMD determination, all of them (100%) would have received treatment by using the SAO criteria compared with 10 (15%) using the FRAX score (p = 0.011). The use of FRAX without BMD significantly underestimates the number of patients who should receive antiresorptive treatment. In patients diagnosed with osteoporosis by BMD, the FRAX score underestimates the number of patients to be treated.

Comparación entre score de frax sin densidad mineral ósea y los criterios propuestos por la sociedad Argentina de osteoporosis para el uso de tratamiento antirresortivo en mujeres postmenopáusicas

Identificar pacientes con alto riesgo de fractura utilizando factores de riesgo clínicos podría reducir los gastos en salud derivados de la realización de una densitometría ósea. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el score de FRAX sin determinación de densidad mineral ósea (DMO) con los criterios propuestos por la Sociedad Argentina de Osteoporosis (SAO), para considerar el inicio de tratamiento antirresortivo. Realizamos un estudio observacional, transversal. Se incluyeron 330 mujeres postmenopáusicas entre 40 y 90 años de edad. Se determinó la cantidad de tratamientos indicados según se utilice la herramienta FRAX sin DMO, o los criterios de la SAO. Utilizando los criterios de la SAO, 85 (25.8%) pacientes recibirían tratamiento, mientras que si se utilizara la herramienta FRAX sin DMO, lo harían 15 (4.5%) pacientes (p = 0.0019). De los 67 pacientes con diagnóstico de osteoporosis por densitometría ósea, todas recibirían tratamiento utilizando los criterios de la SAO y solo 10 (15%) lo harían si utilizáramos el score de FRAX sin DMO (p = 0.011). La utilización del score de FRAX sin DMO reduce en forma significativa la cantidad de pacientes tratables en comparación con los criterios actuales de la SAO. En pacientes con diagnóstico de osteoporosis por DMO, el score de FRAX subestima los pacientes a tratar.

To identify patients at high risk of fracture using clinical risk factors could reduce health costs arising from the realization of a bone densitometry. The aim of this study was to compare the FRAX score without bone mineral density (BMD) with the criteria proposed by the Argentine Society of Osteoporosis (SAO) to consider starting antiresorptive treatment. We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study where 330 postmenopausal women between 40 and 90 years of age were included. The number of treatments given if the FRAX tool without BMD had been followed was compared with the number of treatments indicated using the SAO criteria. Using the SAO criteria, 85 (25.8%) patients would initiate antiresorptive treatment compared with 15 (4.5%) using the FRAX without BMD (p = 0.0019). Among the 67 patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis by BMD determination, all of them (100%) would have received treatment by using the SAO criteria compared with 10 (15%) using the FRAX score (p = 0.011). The use of FRAX without BMD significantly underestimates the number of patients who should receive antiresorptive treatment. In patients diagnosed with osteoporosis by BMD, the FRAX score underestimates the number of patients to be treated.

Comparación entre score de frax sin densidad mineral ósea y los criterios propuestos por la sociedad Argentina de osteoporosis para el uso de tratamiento antirresortivo en mujeres postmenopáusicas

Identificar pacientes con alto riesgo de fractura utilizando factores de riesgo clínicos podría reducir los gastos en salud derivados de la realización de una densitometría ósea. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el score de FRAX sin determinación de densidad mineral ósea (DMO) con los criterios propuestos por la Sociedad Argentina de Osteoporosis (SAO), para considerar el inicio de tratamiento antirresortivo. Realizamos un estudio observacional, transversal. Se incluyeron 330 mujeres postmenopáusicas entre 40 y 90 años de edad. Se determinó la cantidad de tratamientos indicados según se utilice la herramienta FRAX sin DMO, o los criterios de la SAO. Utilizando los criterios de la SAO, 85 (25.8%) pacientes recibirían tratamiento, mientras que si se utilizara la herramienta FRAX sin DMO, lo harían 15 (4.5%) pacientes (p = 0.0019). De los 67 pacientes con diagnóstico de osteoporosis por densitometría ósea, todas recibirían tratamiento utilizando los criterios de la SAO y solo 10 (15%) lo harían si utilizáramos el score de FRAX sin DMO (p = 0.011). La utilización del score de FRAX sin DMO reduce en forma significativa la cantidad de pacientes tratables en comparación con los criterios actuales de la SAO. En pacientes con diagnóstico de osteoporosis por DMO, el score de FRAX subestima los pacientes a tratar.(AU)

To identify patients at high risk of fracture using clinical risk factors could reduce health costs arising from the realization of a bone densitometry. The aim of this study was to compare the FRAX score without bone mineral density (BMD) with the criteria proposed by the Argentine Society of Osteoporosis (SAO) to consider starting antiresorptive treatment. We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study where 330 postmenopausal women between 40 and 90 years of age were included. The number of treatments given if the FRAX tool without BMD had been followed was compared with the number of treatments indicated using the SAO criteria. Using the SAO criteria, 85 (25.8%) patients would initiate antiresorptive treatment compared with 15 (4.5%) using the FRAX without BMD (p = 0.0019). Among the 67 patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis by BMD determination, all of them (100%) would have received treatment by using the SAO criteria compared with 10 (15%) using the FRAX score (p = 0.011). The use of FRAX without BMD significantly underestimates the number of patients who should receive antiresorptive treatment. In patients diagnosed with osteoporosis by BMD, the FRAX score underestimates the number of patients to be treated.(AU)

Diagnosis and treatment of Paget's disease of bone: a mini-review / Diagnóstico e tratamento da doença de Paget dos ossos: uma minirrevisão

Paget's disease of bone (PDB) is a chronic progressive disorder of bone metabolism that may go undetected for many years, and endocrinologists should be alert to its clinical signs and promptly diagnose and treat PDB before it results in irreversible complications, such as deformity, fracture or neurological sequelae. Most commonly, PDB is suspected upon the incidental finding of elevated serum alkaline phosphatase levels or a radiographic abnormality in an otherwise healthy individual above 55 years of age. Some of these individuals may have symptoms such as bone pain or enlargement with increased warmth. In general, a basic laboratory evaluation of bone metabolism, plain radiographies of affected bones and bone scintigraphy are sufficient to corroborate the diagnosis. Antiresorptive therapy with bisphosphonates is the mainstay of treatment of symptomatic PDB, and intravenous zoledronic acid has emerged as an effective and safe treatment option, leading to sustained remission and improved quality of life. It is extremely important, though, to ensure calcium and vitamin D sufficiency before and during treatment in order to prevent hypocalcemia. The benefit of treating all asymptomatic patients is not clear, but treatment is warranted if the pagetic lesion is located in a site where progression to fracture, deformity, or compression would significantly impair the patient quality of life. This mini-review focuses on important aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of PDB.

A doença de Paget dos ossos (PDB) é uma doença progressiva e crônica do metabolismo ósseo que pode passar despercebida por muitos anos. Os endocrinologistas devem ficar alertas aos seus sinais clínicos e diagnosticar e tratar a PDB imediatamente, antes que ela gere complicações irreversíveis, como deformidade, fratura ou sequelas neurológicas. Mais comumente, suspeita-se da PBD após o achado incidental de níveis elevados de fosfatase alcalina no soro, ou anormalidades radiográficas em indivíduos aparentemente saudáveis com mais de 55 anos de idade. Alguns desses indivíduos podem apresentar sintomas, como a dor ou aumento ósseo com temperatura aumentada. Em geral, a avaliação laboratorial básica de metabolismo ósseo, radiografias simples dos ossos afetados e cintilografia óssea são suficientes para corroborar o diagnóstico. O tratamento antirreabsortivo com bifosfonatos é o principal tratamento da PDB sintomática, e o ácido zoledrônico intravenoso passou a ser uma opção de tratamento segura e eficiente, levando à manutenção da remissão e à melhora da qualidade de vida. É extremamente importante, entretanto, garantir níveis adequados de cálcio e vitamina D antes e durante o tratamento para se evitar a hipocalcemia. O benefício de se tratar todos os pacientes assintomáticos não está claro, mas o tratamento é recomendado se a localização da lesão pagética sugerir progressão para fratura, deformidade ou compressão que comprometam a qualidade de vida. Esta minirrevisão concentra-se em importantes aspectos do diagnóstico e tratamento da PDB.