Osteoporotic Therapy Research Articles

Osteoporosi nei pazienti con diabete mellito

Summary Introduction Diabetes mellitus (DM) and osteoporotic fractures are major causes of mortality and morbidity in older subjects. Recent reports have revealed close association between fracture risk and DM types 1 and 2 (DM1 and DM2, respectively). Aim of this review is to highlight the importance of these diseases in the elderly and examine certain etiopathogenetic aspects of DM-associated osteoporosis, which could be useful in management of diabetic patients. Materials and methods We searched the Embase and PubMed databases using diabetes, osteoporosis, and bone mineral density (BMD) as search terms and 1989-2009 as publication dates. Discussion The risk of fractures seems to be increased in both types of DM although DM2 seems to be associated with normal-high BMDs compared with the normal population. This apparent paradox could reflect greater bone frailty in diabetic patients that are unrelated to adipose tissue, hyperinsulinemia, deposition of advanced glycosylation end products in collagen, reduced serum IGF-1 levels, hypercalciuria, renal failure, microangiopathy, and/or inflammation. Diabetic patients’ propensity to fall and multiple comorbidities might also explain their higher fracture rates. The effects of drugs that inhibit bone resorption in diabetic patients are probably similar to those obtained in nondiabetics although there is little information on this issue. In general, effective treatment of diabetes has positive effects on bone metabolism. Metformin acts directly on bone tissue, reducing AGE accumulation, and insulin has direct effects on osteoclast activity. In contrast, the thiazolidinediones seem to have negative effects since they orient mesenchymal progenitor cell differentiation toward adipose rather than bone tissue. Incretin therapy is a newer approach that appears to modify interactions between nutrition and bone turnover (e.g., postprandial suppression of bone resorption). Conclusions Better understanding of how diabetes and its treatment influence bone tissue could lead to more effective strategies for preventing fractures in diabetic patients. More investigation is needed to determine whether conventional osteoporotic therapy is fully effective in patients with DM.

Fracture risk prediction using BMD and clinical risk factors in early postmenopausal women: Sensitivity of the WHO FRAX tool

The aim of this prospective study was (1) to identify significant and independent clinical risk factors (CRFs) for major osteoporotic (OP) fracture among peri- and early postmenopausal women, (2) to assess, in this population, the discriminatory capacity of FRAX and bone mineral density (BMD) for the identification of women at high risk of fracture, and (3) to assess whether adding risk factors to either FRAX or BMD would improve discriminatory capacity. The study population included 2651 peri- and early postmenopausal women [mean age (+/- SD): 54 +/- 4 years] with a mean follow-up period of 13.4 years (+/-1.4 years). At baseline, a large set of CRFs was recorded, and vertebral BMD was measured (Lunar, DPX) in all women. Femoral neck BMD also was measured in 1399 women in addition to spine BMD. Women with current or past OP treatment for more than 3 months at baseline (n = 454) were excluded from the analyses. Over the follow-up period, 415 women sustained a first low-energy fracture, including 145 major OP fractures (108 wrist, 44 spine, 20 proximal humerus, and 13 hip). In Cox multivariate regression models, only 3 CRFs were significant predictors of a major OP fracture independent of BMD and age: a personal history of fracture, three or more pregnancies, and current postmenopausal hormone therapy. In the subsample of women who had a hip BMD measurement and who were not receiving OP therapy (including hormone-replacement therapy) at baseline, mean FRAX value was 3.8% (+/-2.4%). The overall discriminative value for fracture, as measured by the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), was equal to 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.69] and 0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.73), respectively, for FRAX and hip BMD. Sensitivity of both tools was low (ie, around 50% for 30% of the women classified as the highest risk). Adding parity to the predictive model including FRAX or using a simple risk score based on the best predictive model in our population did not significantly improve the discriminatory capacity over BMD alone. Only a limited number of clinical risk factors were found associated with the risk of major OP fracture in peri- and early postmenopausal women. In this population, the FRAX tool, like other risk scores combining CRFs to either BMD or FRAX, had a poor sensitivity for fracture prediction and did not significantly improve the discriminatory value of hip BMD alone.

Bridging the Osteoporosis Quality Chasm

Bridging the Osteoporosis Quality Chasm

G.P.10 01 Quantitative ultrasound measurements of bone density DMD and SMA patients

Osteoporosis is characterized by loss of both bone mass and microarchitectural integrity, resulting in an increased risk of fractures with associated morbidity and mortality. Bone mass in the elderly is related to the rate of involutional bone loss and mainly to the peak bone mass reached in childhood and adolescence. The peak bone mass appears as being the key issue problem in prophylactic strategy of osteoporotic therapy. Reduced bone density is now well recognized in children and adolescents affected by Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) even before motor impairment is clinically relevant; only one study has been performed so far about Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) patients as far as we know, surprisingly a normal bone density nevertheless an even more severe motor impairment.

Comparison of Intravenous Pamidronate to Standard Therapy for Osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates are potent therapies for osteoporosis, but some patients cannot tolerate oral forms. Our study sought to examine the effectiveness and safety of intravenous pamidronate as an alternate osteoporotic therapy in these patients. We conducted a retrospective study of 26 patients treated with intermittent, intravenous pamidronate (30 mg every 3 months) and 52 matched controls treated with standard therapy, all with osteoporosis. Primary outcome was response to therapy, defined as either stabilization or increase in bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes were patient safety and tolerability. At an average of 16.1 months of follow up, 64% of pamidronate-treated patients responded to therapy at the lumbar spine, 65% at the femoral neck, and 63% at the trochanter. These response rates were not significantly different than those of the standard care group in which 69% were receiving oral bisphosphonates. Adverse events were uncommon and included mild, diffuse myalgias and flu-like symptoms. Intravenous pamidronate is a well-tolerated osteoporosis therapy that has an effect on bone density comparable to standard therapy in patients unable to take oral bisphosphonates.