Explore the vast range of titles available.

SummaryGuidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis.IntroductionThe International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.MethodsSystematic reviews were updated.ResultsThe following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment.ConclusionsA platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

Osteoporosis is the most prevalent metabolic bone disease that affects half the women in the sixth and seventh decade of life. Osteoporosis is characterized by uncoupled bone resorption that leads to low bone mass, compromised microarchitecture and structural deterioration that increases the likelihood of fracture with minimal trauma, known as fragility fractures. Several factors contribute to osteoporosis in men and women. In women, menopause – the cessation of ovarian function, is one of the leading causes of primary osteoporosis. Over the past three decades there has been growing appreciation that the adaptive immune system plays a fundamental role in the development of postmenopausal osteoporosis, both in humans and in mouse models. In this review, we highlight recent data on the interactions between T cells and the skeletal system in the context of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Finally, we review recent studies on the interventions to ameliorate osteoporosis.

Background Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk with associated disability, morbidity and mortality. This Bayesian network meta-analysis compared the effects of current anti-osteoporosis drugs on bone mineral density. Methods The present systematic review and network meta-analysis follows the PRISMA extension statement to report systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions. The literature search was performed in June 2021. All randomised clinical trials that have investigated the effects of two or more drug treatments on BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. The network comparisons were performed through the STATA Software/MP routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method with standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for analysis. Results Data from 64 RCTs involving 82,732 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 29.7 ± 19.6 months. Denosumab resulted in a higher spine BMD (SMD −0.220; SE 3.379), followed by pamidronate (SMD −5.662; SE 2.635) and zoledronate (SMD −10.701; SE 2.871). Denosumab resulted in a higher hip BMD (SMD −0.256; SE 3.184), followed by alendronate (SMD −17.032; SE 3.191) and ibandronate (SMD −17.250; SE 2.264). Denosumab resulted in a higher femur BMD (SMD 0.097; SE 2.091), followed by alendronate (SMD −16.030; SE 1.702) and ibandronate (SMD −17.000; SE 1.679). Conclusion Denosumab results in higher spine BMD in selected women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab had the highest influence on hip and femur BMD. Level of evidence Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs

No clinical trials have compared osteoporosis drugs with incident fractures as the primary outcome. We compared the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide with risedronate in patients with severe osteoporosis. In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, we enrolled post-menopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a bone mineral density T score of less than or equal to −1·50. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 μg of teriparatide once daily plus oral weekly placebo or 35 mg of oral risedronate once weekly plus daily injections of placebo for 24 months. The primary outcome was new radiographic vertebral fractures. Secondary, gated outcomes included new and worsened radiographic vertebral fractures, clinical fractures (a composite of non-vertebral and symptomatic vertebral), and non-vertebral fractures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01709110) and EudraCT (2012-000123-41). We enrolled 680 patients in each group. At 24 months, new vertebral fractures occurred in 28 (5·4%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group and 64 (12·0%) of 680 patients in the risedronate group (risk ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·29–0·68; p<0·0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4·8%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group compared with 61 (9·8%) of 680 in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·32–0·74; p=0·0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 (4·0%) patients in the teriparatide group and 38 (6·1%) in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·39–1·10; p=0·10). Among post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures is significantly lower in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving risedronate. Lilly.

SummaryGuidance is provided in an international setting on the assessment and specific treatment of postmenopausal women at low, high and very high risk of fragility fractures.IntroductionThe International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2019. This manuscript seeks to apply this in an international setting, taking additional account of further categorisation of increased risk of fracture, which may inform choice of therapeutic approach.MethodsClinical perspective and updated literature search.ResultsThe following areas are reviewed: categorisation of fracture risk and general pharmacological management of osteoporosis.ConclusionsA platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use to characterise fracture risk and direct interventions.

Summary Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk of fractures due to osteoporosis. Introduction The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2008. This manuscript updates these in a European setting. Methods Systematic literature reviews. Results The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk, general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis, monitoring of treatment, assessment of fracture risk, case finding strategies, investigation of patients and health economics of treatment. Conclusions A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

The development of these guidelines is sponsored by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. The Executive Summary of this 2020 updated guideline contains 52 recommendations: 21 Grade A (40%), 24 Grade B (46%), 7 Grade C (14%), and no Grade D (0%). These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world care of patients. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for the Executive Summary recommendations. This update contains 368 citations: 123 (33.5%) evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 132 (36%) EL 2 (intermediate), 20 (5.5%) EL 3 (weak), and 93 (25%) EL 4 (lowest). New or updated topics in this CPG include: clarification of the diagnosis of osteoporosis, stratification of the patient according to high-risk and very-high -risk features, a new dual-action therapy option, and transitions from therapeutic options. This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. (Endocr Pract. 2020;26 (Suppl 1):1-44)

Osteoporosis is the most common metabolic bone disease in the USA and the world. It is a subclinical condition until complicated by fracture(s). These fractures place an enormous medical and personal burden on individuals who suffer from them and take a significant economic toll. Any new fracture in an adult aged 50 years or older signifies imminent elevated risk for subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following the initial fracture. What a patient perceives as an unfortunate accident may be seen as a sentinel event indicative of bone fragility and increased future fracture risk even when the result of considerable trauma. Clinical or subclinical vertebral fractures, the most common type of osteoporotic fractures, are associated with a 5-fold increased risk for additional vertebral fractures and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for fractures at other sites. Untreated osteoporosis can lead to a vicious cycle of recurrent fracture(s), often resulting in disability and premature death. In appropriate patients, treatment with effective antifracture medication prevents fractures and improves outcomes. Primary care providers and medical specialists are critical gatekeepers who can identify fractures and initiate proven osteoporosis interventions. Osteoporosis detection, diagnosis, and treatment should be routine practice in all adult healthcare settings. The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation (BHOF) – formerly the National Osteoporosis Foundation – first published the Clinician’s Guide in 1999 to provide accurate information on osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Since that time, significant improvements have been made in diagnostic technologies and treatments for osteoporosis. Despite these advances, a disturbing gap persists in patient care. At-risk patients are often not screened to establish fracture probability and not educated about fracture prevention. Most concerning, the majority of highest risk women and men who have a fracture(s) are not diagnosed and do not receive effective, FDA-approved therapies. Even those prescribed appropriate therapy are unlikely to take the medication as prescribed. The Clinician’s Guide offers concise recommendations regarding prevention, risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and older. It includes indications for bone densitometry as well as fracture risk thresholds for pharmacologic intervention. Current medications build bone and/or decrease bone breakdown and dramatically reduce incident fractures. All antifracture therapeutics treat but do not cure the disease. Skeletal deterioration resumes sooner or later when a medication is discontinued—sooner for nonbisphosphonates and later for bisphosphonates. Even if normal BMD is achieved, osteoporosis and elevated risk for fracture are still present. The diagnosis of osteoporosis persists even if subsequent DXA T-scores are above − 2.5. Ongoing monitoring and strategic interventions will be necessary if fractures are to be avoided. In addition to pharmacotherapy, adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, avoidance of smoking and excessive alcohol intake, weight-bearing and resistance-training exercise, and fall prevention are included in the fracture prevention armamentarium. Where possible, recommendations in this guide are based on evidence from RCTs; however, relevant published data and guidance from expert clinical experience provides the basis for recommendations in those areas where RCT evidence is currently deficient or not applicable to the many osteoporosis patients not considered for RCT participation due to age and morbidity.

Approximately 50% of women experience at least one bone fracture postmenopause. Current screening approaches target anti-fracture interventions to women aged >60 years who satisfy clinical risk and bone mineral density criteria for osteoporosis. Intervention is only recommended in 7–25% of those women screened currently, well short of the 50% who experience fractures. Large screening trials have not shown clinically significant decreases in the total fracture numbers. By contrast, six large clinical trials of anti-resorptive therapies (for example, bisphosphonates) have demonstrated substantial decreases in the number of fractures in women not identified as being at high risk of fracture. This finding suggests that broader use of generic bisphosphonates in women selected by age or fracture risk would result in a reduction in total fracture numbers, a strategy likely to be cost-effective. The utility of the current bone density definition of osteoporosis, which neither corresponds with who suffers fractures nor defines who should be treated, requires reappraisal.Osteoporosis interventions are currently recommended in a small proportion of postmenopausal women, of whom ~50% will experience bone fracture. This Perspectives proposes that broader use of generic bisphosphonates would result in reductions in total fracture numbers and suggests that the current bone density definition of osteoporosis requires reappraisal.

Purpose Postmenopausal osteoporosis has become a global trend, which seriously affects women’s quality of life. However, the differences remain unclear in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among postmenopausal women with normal bone mineral density, osteoporosis, and osteoporotic fractures. The aim of this study was to assess health-related quality of life in women with three different bone states. Methods Databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were based on the search terms, and the search time was set from the inception of each database to January 2022. A study was included if the researchers used a validated quality of life questionnaire to investigate the quality of life of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures. The random-effect model was used for meta-analysis, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was calculated. Results Thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were systematically reviewed, involving 2897 postmenopausal women, and 12 of them were included in the meta-analysis. Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis had worse overall HRQoL and different HRQoL dimensions compared with postmenopausal women with normal bone density. Compared with postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, postmenopausal women with osteoporotic fractures had worse overall HRQoL and individual dimensions of HRQoL, especially physical component summary (SMD = − 0.61, 95% CI, − 0.98 to − 0.24). Bone mineral density was positively associated with HRQoL, while fragility fracture severity was negatively associated with HRQoL. Conclusions Postmenopausal osteoporosis and fragility fractures reduce HRQoL to varying degrees in women. More research should be done to reduce the incidence of the disease.