ABSTRACT
Vertebral augmentation is among the current standards of care to reduce pain in patients with vertebral fractures (VF), yet a lack of consensus regarding efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty raises questions on what basis clinicians should choose one therapy over another. Given the lack of consensus in the field, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) leadership charged this Task Force to address key questions on the efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation and other nonpharmacological approaches for the treatment of pain after VF. This report details the findings and recommendations of this Task Force. For patients with acutely painful VF, percutaneous vertebroplasty provides no demonstrable clinically significant benefit over placebo. Results did not differ according to duration of pain. There is also insufficient evidence to support kyphoplasty over nonsurgical management, percutaneous vertebroplasty, vertebral body stenting, or KIVA®. There is limited evidence to determine the risk of incident VF or serious adverse effects (AE) related to either percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. No recommendation can be made about harms, but they cannot be excluded. For patients with painful VF, it is unclear whether spinal bracing improves physical function, disability, or quality of life. Exercise may improve mobility and may reduce pain and fear of falling but does not reduce falls or fractures in individuals with VF. General and intervention-specific research recommendations stress the need to reduce study bias and address methodological flaws in study design and data collection. This includes the need for larger sample sizes, inclusion of a placebo control, more data on serious AE, and more research on nonpharmacologic interventions. Routine use of vertebral augmentation is not supported by current evidence. When it is offered, patients should be fully informed about the evidence. Anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures by 40-70%. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Subject(s)
Back Pain/surgery , Fractures, Compression/surgery , Kyphoplasty , Osteoporotic Fractures/surgery , Spinal Fractures/surgery , Vertebroplasty , Advisory Committees , Back Pain/pathology , Back Pain/physiopathology , Female , Fractures, Compression/pathology , Fractures, Compression/physiopathology , Humans , Male , Osteoporotic Fractures/pathology , Osteoporotic Fractures/physiopathology , Quality of Life , Spinal Fractures/pathology , Spinal Fractures/physiopathology , Spine/pathology , Spine/physiopathology , Spine/surgeryABSTRACT
Much knowledge has accrued since the 2001 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines were published to assist clinicians in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). Therefore, the ACR undertook a comprehensive effort to review the literature and update the GIO guidelines [Grossman JM, Gordon R, Ranganath VK, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2010 recommendations for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:1515-1526]. Herein, we review the new guidelines for JBMR readers, highlighting the changes introduced by the 2010 publication. We discuss several patient scenarios for which the new treatment guidelines do not apply, or for which our committee interprets existing literature differently and suggests an alternative approach.
