Explore the vast range of titles available.

SummaryVertebral fractures are independent risk factors for vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Since vertebral fractures are often missed, the relatively new introduction of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) for imaging of the lateral spine during DXA-measurement of the spine and hips may contribute to detect vertebral fractures. We advocate performing a VFA in all patients with a recent fracture visiting a fracture liaison service (FLS). Fracture liaison services (FLS) are important service models for delivering secondary fracture prevention for older adults presenting with a fragility fracture. While commonly age, clinical risk factors (including fracture site and number of prior fracture) and BMD play a crucial role in determining fracture risk and indications for treatment with antiosteoporosis medications, prevalent vertebral fractures usually remain undetected. However, vertebral fractures are important independent risk factors for future vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. A development of the DXA technology, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), allows for assessment of the lateral spine during the regular DXA bone mineral density measurement of the lumbar spine and hips. Recent approaches to the stratification of antiosteoporosis medication type according to baseline fracture risk, and differences by age in the indication for treatment by prior fracture mean that additional information from VFA may influence initiation and type of treatment. Furthermore, knowledge of baseline vertebral fractures allows reliable definition of incident vertebral fracture events during treatment, which may modify the approach to therapy. In this manuscript, we will discuss the epidemiology and clinical significance of vertebral fractures, the different methods of detecting vertebral fractures, and the rationale for, and implications of, use of VFA routinely in FLS.Summary points• Vertebral fracture assessment is a tool available on modern DXA instruments and has proven ability to detect vertebral fractures, the majority of which occur without a fall and without the signs and symptoms of an acute fracture.• Most osteoporosis guidelines internationally suggest that treatment with antiosteoporosis medications should be considered for older individuals (e.g., 65 years +) with a recent low trauma fracture without the need for DXA.• Younger individuals postfracture may be risk-assessed on the basis of FRAX® probability including DXA and associated treatment thresholds.• Future fracture risk is markedly influenced by both site, number, severity, and recency of prior fracture; awareness of baseline vertebral fractures facilitates definition of true incident vertebral fracture events occurring during antiosteoporosis treatment.• Detection of previously clinically silent vertebral fractures, defining site of prior fracture, might alter treatment decisions in younger or older FLS patients, consistent with recent IOF-ESCEO guidance on baseline-risk-stratified therapy, and provides a reliable baseline from which to define new, potentially therapy-altering, vertebral fracture events.

The therapeutic armamentarium for rheumatoid arthritis has increased substantially over the last 20 years. Historically antirheumatic treatment was started late in the disease course and frequently included prolonged high-dose glucocorticoid treatment which was associated with accelerated generalised bone loss and increased vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk. Newer biologic and targeted synthetic treatments and a combination of conventional synthetic DMARDs prevent accelerated systemic bone loss and may even allow repair of cortical bone erosions. Emerging data also gives new insight on the impact of long-term conventional synthetic DMARDs on bone health and fracture risk and highlights the need for ongoing studies for better understanding of “established therapeutics”. An interesting new antirheumatic treatment effect is the potential of erosion repair with the use of biologic DMARDs and janus kinase inhibitors. Although several newer anti-rheumatic drugs seem to have favorable effects on bone mineral density in RA patients, these effects are modest and do not seem to influence the fracture risk thus far. We summarize recent developments and findings of the impact of anti-rheumatic treatments on localized and systemic bone integrity and health.

Systemic osteoporosis and increased fracture rates have been described in chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, inflammatory bowel diseases, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Most of these patients receive glucocorticoids, which have their own deleterious effects on bone. However, the other main determinant of bone fragility is the inflammation itself, as shown by the interactions between the inflammatory mediators, the actors of the immune system, and the bone remodelling. The inflammatory disease activity is thus on top of the other well-known osteoporotic risk factors in these patients. Optimal control of inflammation is part of the prevention of osteoporosis, and potent anti-inflammatory drugs have positive effects on surrogate markers of bone fragility. More data are needed to assess the anti-fracture efficacy of a tight control of inflammation in patients with a chronic inflammatory disorder. This review aimed at presenting different clinical aspects of inflammatory diseases which illustrate the relationships between inflammation and bone fragility.

IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic autoimmune disease of unknown cause, characterized by a chronic, symmetric, and progressive inflammatory polyarthritis. One of the most deleterious effects induced by the chronic inflammation of RA is bone loss. During the last 15 years, the better knowledge of the cytokine network involved in RA allowed the development of potent inhibitors of the inflammatory process classified as biological DMARDs. These new drugs are very effective in the inhibition of inflammation, but there are only few studies regarding their role in bone protection. The principal aim of this review was to show the evidence of the principal biologic therapies and bone loss in RA, focusing on their effects on bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, and fragility fractures.MethodsUsing the PICOST methodology, two coauthors (PC, LM-S) conducted the search using the following MESH terms: rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, clinical trials, TNF- antagonists, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, golimumab, IL-6 antagonists, IL-1 antagonists, abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, bone mineral density, bone markers, and fractures. The search was conducted electronically and manually from the following databases: Medline and Science Direct. The search period included articles from 2003 to 2015. The selection included only original adult human research written in English. Titles were retrieved and the same two authors independently selected the relevant studies for a full text. The retrieved selected studies were also reviewed completing the search for relevant articles. The first search included 904 titles from which 253 titles were selected. The agreement on the selection among researchers resulted in a Kappa statistic of 0.95 (p < 0.000). Only 248 abstracts evaluated were included in the acronym PICOST. The final selection included only 28 studies, derived from the systematic search. Additionally, a manual search in the bibliography of the selected articles was made and included into the text and into the section of “small molecules of new agents.”ConclusionTreatment with biologic drugs is associated with the decrease in bone loss. Studies with anti-TNF blocking agents show preservation or increase in spine and hip BMD and also a better profile of bone markers. Most of these studies were performed with infliximab. Only three epidemiological studies analyzed the effect on fractures after anti-TNF blocking agent’s treatment. IL-6 blocking agents also showed improvement in localized bone loss not seen with anti-TNF agents. There are a few studies with rituximab and abatacept. Although several studies reported favorable actions of biologic therapies on bone protection, there are still unmet needs for studies regarding their actions on the risk of bone fractures.

SummaryTransitioning postmenopausal women with osteoporosis from a bisphosphonate to denosumab appears to be safe and more effective at improving BMD than continuing treatment with a bisphosphonate.IntroductionWe conducted a patient-level pooled analysis of four studies to estimate the efficacy and safety of transitioning to denosumab vs. continuing bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women who previously received oral bisphosphonates.MethodsPatients received 60 mg denosumab once every 6 months or a bisphosphonate (oral alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, or intravenous zoledronic acid). Endpoints were change from baseline in lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius BMD at month 12, change from baseline in serum CTX-1 and P1NP, and incidence of adverse events.ResultsA total of 2850 randomized patients (1424 bisphosphonate:1426 denosumab) were included in the analysis. Percentage change in BMD was significantly greater (p < 0.001) for denosumab vs. bisphosphonate at each skeletal site; differences in BMD changes ranged from 0.6 to 2.0%. Percentage decrease in serum CTX-1 and P1NP was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) for denosumab vs. bisphosphonate at months 1, 6, and 12; in the denosumab group only, percentage change in serum CTX-1 at month 1 was significantly correlated with percentage change in lumbar spine and total hip BMD at month 12. The incidences of adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Three patients (one bisphosphonate and two denosumab) had atypical femoral fractures, all from the denosumab vs. zoledronic acid study.ConclusionPostmenopausal women can safely transition from a bisphosphonate to denosumab, which is more effective at improving BMD than continuing with a bisphosphonate.Clinical trials registrationNCT00377819, NCT00919711, NCT00936897, NCT01732770.

Objectives:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased cardiovascular risk, but the magnitude of this risk is not known precisely. A study was undertaken to investigate the associations between RA and type 2 diabetes (DM2), a well-established cardiovascular risk factor, on the one hand, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) on the other.Methods:The prevalence of CVD (coronary, cerebral and peripheral arterial disease) was determined in 353 randomly selected outpatients with RA (diagnosed between 1989 and 2001, aged 50–75 years; the CARRÉ study) and in participants of a population-based cohort study on diabetes and CVD (the Hoorn study). Patients with RA with normal fasting glucose levels from the CARRÉ study (RA, n = 294) were compared with individuals from the Hoorn study with normal glucose metabolism (non-diabetic, n = 258) and individuals with DM2 (DM2, n = 194).Results:The prevalence of CVD was 5.0% (95% CI 2.3% to 7.7%) in the non-diabetic group, 12.4% (95% CI 7.5% to 17.3%) in the DM2 group and 12.9% (95% CI 8.8% to 17.0%) in those with RA. With non-diabetic individuals as the reference category, the age- and gender-adjusted prevalence odds ratio (OR) for CVD was 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) for individuals with DM2 and 3.1 (95% CI 1.6 to 6.1) for those with RA. There was an attenuation of the prevalences after adjustment for conventional cardiovascular risk factors (OR 2.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 4.5) and 2.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.9), respectively).Conclusions:The prevalence of CVD in RA is increased to an extent that is at least comparable to that of DM2. This should have implications for primary cardiovascular prevention strategies in RA.

SummaryThe International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) Capture the Fracture® Campaign with the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) and National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) has developed eleven patient-level key performance indicators (KPIs) for fracture liaison services (FLSs) to guide quality improvement.IntroductionFracture Liaison Services (FLSs) are recommended worldwide to reduce fracture risk after a sentinel fracture. Given not every FLS is automatically effective, the IOF Capture the Fracture working group has developed and implemented the Best Practice Framework to assess the organisational components of an FLS. We have now developed a complimentary KPI set that extends this assessment of performance to the patient level.MethodsThe Capture the Fracture working group in collaboration with the Fragility Fracture Network Secondary Fragility Fracture Special Interest Group and National Osteoporosis Foundation adapted existing metrics from the UK-based Fracture Liaison Service Database Audit to develop a patient-level KPI set for FLSs.ResultsEleven KPIs were selected. The proportion of patients: with non-spinal fractures; with spine fractures (detected clinically and radiologically); assessed for fracture risk within 12 weeks of sentinel fracture; having DXA assessment within 12 weeks of sentinel fracture; having falls risk assessment; recommended anti-osteoporosis medication; commenced of strength and balance exercise intervention within 16 weeks of sentinel fracture; monitored within 16 weeks of sentinel fracture; started anti-osteoporosis medication within 16 weeks of sentinel fracture; prescribed anti-osteoporosis medication 52 weeks after sentinel fracture. The final KPI measures data completeness for each of the other KPIs. For these indicators, levels of achievement were set at the < 50%, 50–80% and > 80% levels except for treatment recommendation where a level of 50% was used.ConclusionThis KPI set compliments the existing Best Practice Framework to support FLSs to examine their own performance using patient-level data. By using this KPI set for local quality improvement cycles, FLSs will be able to efficiently realise the full potential of secondary fracture prevention and improved clinical outcomes for their local populations.

The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) have recognised the importance of optimal acute care for the patients aged 50 years and over with a recent fragility fracture and the prevention of subsequent fractures in high-risk patients, which can be facilitated by close collaboration between orthopaedic surgeons and rheumatologists or other metabolic bone experts. Therefore, the aim was to establish for the first time collaborative recommendations for these patients. According to the EULAR standard operating procedures for the elaboration and implementation of evidence-based recommendations, 7 rheumatologists, a geriatrician and 10 orthopaedic surgeons met twice under the leadership of 2 convenors, a senior advisor, a clinical epidemiologist and 3 research fellows. After defining the content and procedures of the task force, 10 research questions were formulated, a comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed and the results were presented to the entire committee. 10 recommendations were formulated based on evidence from the literature and after discussion and consensus building in the group. The recommendations included appropriate medical and surgical perioperative care, which requires, especially in the elderly, a multidisciplinary approach including orthogeriatric care. A coordinator should setup a process for the systematic investigations for future fracture risk in all elderly patients with a recent fracture. High-risk patients should have appropriate non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment to decrease the risk of subsequent fracture.

Summary Antiresorptive medications do not negatively affect fracture healing in humans. Teriparatide may decrease time to fracture healing. Romosozumab has not shown a beneficial effect on human fracture healing. Background Fracture healing is a complex process. Uncertainty exists over the influence of osteoporosis and the medications used to treat it on fracture healing. Methods Narrative review authored by the members of the Fracture Working Group of the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), on behalf of the IOF and the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie (SICOT). Results Fracture healing is a multistep process. Most fractures heal through a combination of intramembranous and endochondral ossification. Radiographic imaging is important for evaluating fracture healing and for detecting delayed or non-union. The presence of callus formation, bridging trabeculae, and a decrease in the size of the fracture line over time are indicative of healing. Imaging must be combined with clinical parameters and patient-reported outcomes. Animal data support a negative effect of osteoporosis on fracture healing; however, clinical data do not appear to corroborate with this. Evidence does not support a delay in the initiation of antiresorptive therapy following acute fragility fractures. There is no reason for suspension of osteoporosis medication at the time of fracture if the person is already on treatment. Teriparatide treatment may shorten fracture healing time at certain sites such as distal radius; however, it does not prevent non-union or influence union rate. The positive effect on fracture healing that romosozumab has demonstrated in animals has not been observed in humans. Conclusion Overall, there appears to be no deleterious effect of osteoporosis medications on fracture healing. The benefit of treating osteoporosis and the urgent necessity to mitigate imminent refracture risk after a fracture should be given prime consideration. It is imperative that new radiological and biological markers of fracture healing be identified. It is also important to synthesize clinical and basic science methodologies to assess fracture healing, so that a convergence of the two frameworks can be achieved.