Secular trends in hip fractures worldwide: opposing trends East versus West.

Despite wide variations in hip rates fractures worldwide, reasons for such differences are not clear. Furthermore, secular trends in the age-specific hip fracture rates are changing the world map of this devastating disease, with the highest rise projected to occur in developing countries. The aim of our investigation is to systematically characterize secular trends in hip fractures worldwide, examine new data for various ethnic groups in the United States, evidence for divergent temporal patterns, and investigate potential contributing factors for the observed change in their epidemiology. All studies retrieved through a complex Medline Ovid search between 1966 and 2013 were examined. For each selected study, we calculated the percent annual change in age-standardized hip fracture rates de-novo. Although occurring at different time points, trend breaks in hip fracture incidence occurred in most Western countries and Oceania. After a steep rise in age-adjusted rates in these regions, a decrease became evident sometimes between the mid-seventies and nineties, depending on the country. Conversely, the data is scarce in Asia and South America, with evidence for a continuous rise in hip fracture rates, with the exception of Hong-Kong and Taiwan that seem to follow Western trends. The etiologies of these secular patterns in both the developed and the developing countries have not been fully elucidated, but the impact of urbanization is at least one plausible explanation. Data presented here show close parallels between rising rates of urbanization and hip fractures across disparate geographic locations and cultures. Once the proportion of the urban population stabilized, hip fracture rates also stabilize or begin to decrease perhaps due to the influence of other factors such as birth cohort effects, changes in bone mineral density and BMI, osteoporosis medication use and/or lifestyle interventions such as smoking cessation, improvement in nutritional status and fall prevention.

Joint Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®). Executive Summary of the 2010 Position Development Conference on Interpretation and use of FRAX® in clinical practice.

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX(®) Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX(®) in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX(®).

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding international differences from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following: The Task Force members conducted appropriate literature reviews and developed preliminary statements that were discussed and graded by a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF joint conference. The statements approved by the panel of experts are discussed in the current paper.

FRAX® International Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) in conjunction with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX® usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX® International Task Force was to review and synthesize data regarding geographic and race/ethnic variability in hip fractures, non-hip osteoporotic fractures, and make recommendations about the use of FRAX® in ethnic groups and countries without a FRAX® calculator. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the International Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

Early responsiveness of women with osteoporosis to teriparatide after therapy with alendronate or risedronate.

BACKGROUND: Anabolic responsiveness to teriparatide can be blunted or delayed in patients previously treated with alendronate. The extent of this effect is different for other antiresorptives. This study evaluated the early anabolic effects of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis previously treated with alendronate or risedronate. METHODS: Patients treated for at least 24 months with alendronate or risedronate discontinued their bisphosphonate and received teriparatide for 12 months. The primary endpoint was a comparison of changes from baseline in N-terminal propeptide of type 1 collagen after 3 months between prior bisphosphonate groups. We also examined changes in other bone turnover markers, bone mineral density (BMD), and relationships between early changes in bone turnover markers and 12-month areal and volumetric BMD. RESULTS: In the prior risedronate group, the N-terminal propeptide of type 1 collagen increase was significantly greater after 3 months of teriparatide than in the prior alendronate group (mean +/- se, 86.0 +/- 5.6 vs. 61.2 +/- 5.3 ng/ml, respectively; P < 0.001). Findings were similar for the other bone turnover markers. The changes in areal BMD and trabecular spine volumetric BMD were also greater in the prior risedronate group (P < 0.05). Early changes in bone turnover markers correlated with changes in trabecular spine volumetric BMD at 12 months (Spearman r = 0.45). Teriparatide was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This nonrandomized but prospective study suggests that there may be differences in anabolic responsiveness to teriparatide as a function of the type of prior bisphosphonate exposure.

Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Santa Fe Bone Symposium, August 3-4, 2007.

The Eighth Annual Santa Fe Bone Symposium convened August 3-4, 2007, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, immediately preceded by the Research Symposium in Metabolic Bone Disease and Osteoporosis Update for Endocrine Fellows, and followed by the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) Bone Densitometry Course. The symposium faculty consists of internationally recognized experts in osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease who presented state-of-the-art research data and late-breaking developments in the fields of osteoporosis, metabolic bone disease, and assessment of skeletal health. The presentations and numerous interactive discussions that followed focused on applying what is known from clinical trials, knowledge of bone pathophysiology, and the mechanisms of action of therapeutic interventions, to making real-world patient management decisions. Topics included an update on reimbursement issues for bone density testing in the United States, a report on the 2007 ISCD Pediatric and Adult Position Development Conferences, present and future therapeutic concepts, new paradigms for fracture risk assessment and intervention thresholds, evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis, nonvertebral fracture risk reduction-medical evidence and clinical practice, epidemiological insights into the prevention of osteoporotic fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw facts and fictions, and osteomalacia. Presented here are short essays based on the key clinical presentations of the 2007 Santa Fe Bone Symposium.

Precision assessment and radiation safety for dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: position paper of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry.

Measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is used to diagnose osteoporosis, assess the risk of fracture, and monitor changes in BMD over time. Because biological changes in BMD are usually small in proportion to the error inherent in the test itself, interpretation of serial BMD tests depends on knowledge of the smallest change in BMD that is beyond the range of error. This value, called the least significant change (LSC), varies according to the instrument used, the patient population being tested, the measurement site, the skill of the technologist at positioning the patient and analyzing the test, and the confidence interval used in the calculation. The precision and LSC values provided by the manufacturer cannot be applied to clinical bone densitometry centers because of the differences in the patients being tested and the technologist performing the test. Because harmful errors in clinical management may occur from incorrectly interpreting serial BMD tests, it is recommended that every DXA technologist conduct a precision assessment and calculate the LSC for each measurement site and DXA instrument used. Precision assessment provides direct benefit to patients by allowing clinicians to make clinical decisions based on genuine change or stability of BMD. The patient-care benefits of precision assessment outweigh the risk of exposure to trivial doses of ionizing radiation.

Daily and cyclic parathyroid hormone in women receiving alendronate.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether patients with osteoporosis treated with long-term alendronate have a response to parathyroid hormone treatment and whether short, three-month cycles of parathyroid hormone therapy could be as effective as daily administration. METHODS: We randomly assigned 126 women with osteoporosis who had been taking alendronate for at least 1 year to continued alendronate plus parathyroid hormone (1-34) subcutaneously daily, continued alendronate plus parathyroid hormone (1-34) subcutaneously daily for three 3-month cycles alternating with 3-month periods without parathyroid hormone, or alendronate alone for 15 months. RESULTS: In both parathyroid hormone groups, bone formation indexes rose swiftly. Among the women who were receiving cyclic parathyroid hormone, bone formation declined during cycles without parathyroid hormone and increased again during cycles with parathyroid hormone. Bone resorption increased in both parathyroid hormone groups but increased progressively more in the daily-treatment group than in the cyclic-therapy group. Spinal bone mineral density rose 6.1 percent in the daily-treatment group and 5.4 percent in the cyclic-therapy group (P<0.001 for each parathyroid hormone group as compared with the alendronate group and no significant difference between parathyroid hormone groups). One woman in the daily-treatment group, two in the cyclic-therapy group, and four in the alendronate group had new or worsening vertebral deformities. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a regimen of three-month cycles of parathyroid hormone alternating with three-month cycles without parathyroid hormone causes the early phase of action of parathyroid hormone (characterized by pure stimulation of bone formation) to be dissociated from the later phase (activation of bone remodeling). The early phase may be more important to the increase in spinal bone mineral density. In patients with persistent osteoporosis after prior alendronate treatment, both daily treatment and cyclic treatment with parathyroid hormone increase spinal bone mineral density.

Monthly oral ibandronate therapy in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 1-year results from the MOBILE study.

UNLABELLED: Once-monthly (50/50, 100, and 150 mg) and daily (2.5 mg; 3-year vertebral fracture risk reduction: 52%) oral ibandronate regimens were compared in 1609 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. At least equivalent efficacy and similar safety and tolerability were shown after 1 year. INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal adherence to daily and weekly oral bisphosphonates can potentially compromise therapeutic outcomes in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Although yet to be prospectively shown in osteoporosis, evidence from randomized clinical trials in several other chronic conditions shows that reducing dosing frequency enhances therapeutic adherence. Ibandronate is a new and potent bisphosphonate with antifracture efficacy proven for daily administration and also intermittent administration with a dose-free interval of >2 months. This report presents comparative data on the efficacy and safety of monthly and daily oral ibandronate regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MOBILE is a 2-year, randomized, double-blind, phase III, noninferiority trial. A total of 1609 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were assigned to one of four oral ibandronate regimens: 2.5 mg daily, 50 mg/50 mg monthly (single doses, consecutive days), 100 mg monthly, or 150 mg monthly. RESULTS: After 1 year, lumbar spine BMD increased by 3.9%, 4.3%, 4.1%, and 4.9% in the 2.5, 50 /50, 100, and 150 mg arms, respectively. All monthly regimens were proven noninferior, and the 150 mg regimen superior, to the daily regimen. All monthly regimens produced similar hip BMD gains, which were larger than those with the daily regimen. All regimens similarly decreased serum levels of C-telopeptide, a biochemical marker of bone resorption. Compared with the daily regimen, a significantly larger proportion of women receiving the 100 and 150 mg monthly regimens achieved predefined threshold levels for percent change from baseline in lumbar spine (6%) or total hip BMD (3%). All regimens were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly ibandronate is at least as effective and well tolerated as the currently approved daily ibandronate regimen in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and raloxifene 60 mg daily in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly (OW) alendronate (ALN) 70 mg and raloxifene (RLX) 60 mg daily in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. DESIGN: This 12-month, randomized, double-blind study enrolled 456 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (223 ALN, 233 RLX) at 52 sites in the United States. Efficacy measurements included lumbar spine (LS), total hip, and trochanter bone mineral density (BMD) at 6 and 12 months, biochemical markers of bone turnover, and percent of women who maintained or gained BMD in response to treatment. The primary endpoint was percent change from baseline in LS BMD at 12 months. Adverse experiences were recorded to assess treatment safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Over 12 months, OW ALN produced a significantly greater increase in LS BMD (4.4%, P < 0.001) than RLX (1.9%). The percentage of women with > or = 0% increase in LS BMD (ALN, 94%; RLX, 75%; P < 0.001) and > or =3% increase in LS BMD (ALN, 66%; RLX, 38%; P < 0.001) were significantly greater with ALN than RLX. Total hip and trochanter BMD increases were also significantly greater (P < or =0.001) with ALN. Greater (P < 0.001) reductions in N-telopeptide of type I collagen and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase were achieved with ALN compared with RLX at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences in the incidence of upper gastrointestinal or vasomotor adverse experiences were seen. CONCLUSION: ALN 70 mg OW produced significantly greater increases in spine and hip BMD and greater reductions in markers of bone turnover than RLX over 12 months. A greater percentage of women maintained or gained BMD on ALN than RLX. Both medications had similar safety and tolerability profiles.

Therapeutic equivalence of alendronate 35 milligrams once weekly and 5 milligrams daily in the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alendronate 35 mg once weekly compared with alendronate 5 mg daily in the prevention of osteoporosis. METHODS: We compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with alendronate 35 mg once weekly (n = 362) and alendronate 5 mg daily (n = 361) in a 1-year, double-blind, multicenter study of postmenopausal women (6 months or greater), aged 40-70 years, with lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density T-scores between -2.5 and 1. The primary efficacy end point was the comparability of lumbar spine bone mineral density increases, defined by strict prespecified criteria. RESULTS: Mean increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density at 12 months were equivalent (difference between the alendronate 35-mg once-weekly group and the alendronate 5-mg daily group [90% confidence interval] at month 12 was -0.3% [-0.6, 0.1], well within the prespecified bounds of +/-1.0%). Bone mineral density increases at other skeletal sites and effects on bone turnover were also virtually identical for the two dosing regimens. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated, and the larger weekly unit dose was not associated with an increased frequency of upper gastrointestinal events. CONCLUSION: Alendronate 35 mg once weekly is therapeutically equivalent to alendronate 5 mg daily and provides patients with greater dosing convenience, in addition to the proven efficacy of alendronate and good tolerability.

Yield of laboratory testing to identify secondary contributors to osteoporosis in otherwise healthy women.

Our purpose in this study was to determine the prevalence of undetected disorders of bone and mineral metabolism in women with osteoporosis and to identify the most useful and cost-efficient screening tests to detect these disorders. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 664 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Program at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York between January 1992 and June 1996. Women without a history of diseases or medications known to adversely affect bone who completed extensive laboratory testing including complete blood count, chemistry profile, 24-h urinary calcium, 25(OH)vitamin D, and PTH were included. Among 173 women who met the inclusion criteria for the study, previously undiagnosed disorders of bone and mineral metabolism were identified in 55 women (32%). Disorders of calcium metabolism and hyperparathyroidism were the most frequent diagnoses. A testing strategy involving measurement of 24-h urine calcium, serum calcium, and serum PTH for all women and serum TSH among women on thyroid replacement therapy would have been sufficient to diagnose 47 of these 55 women (85%) at an estimated cost of $75 per patient screened. Previously undiagnosed disorders affecting the skeleton are common in otherwise healthy women with low bone density. A simple testing strategy is likely to identify most such disorders.