Abstract
Osteoporosis and the resulting fragility fractures are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the ageing population. The past few decades have seen major advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and management of the disease, and a range of effective treatments is available to reduce fractures. Comparator studies between anti-resorptive and anabolic drugs have established the superiority of the latter in terms of fracture reduction and led to recommendations that anabolic therapy should be the first-line option in very high-risk individuals. Because osteoporosis generally requires very long-term treatment, sequential therapy with different drugs may be required and is currently the focus of much investigation. At present, treatment rates are low even in the highest risk individuals, and there are ongoing global initiatives to broaden the availability of models of care such as Fracture Liaison Services, which have been demonstrated to result in improved outcomes.
The present invited review was completed and submitted to the publisher on 27-Dec-19.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Osteoporosis
- Fracture
- Bisphosphonates
- Denosumab
- Teriparatide
- Abaloparatide
- Romosozumab
- Screening
- Under-treatment
1 Introduction
The past two decades have seen substantial advances in the availability of pharmacological options to reduce the risk of fragility fractures in the older population. These treatments vary in their mechanism of action, their efficacy and their safety profile and offer the opportunity to provide a personalized approach to the management of individuals at increased risk of fracture [1]. This chapter reviews the available therapeutic options and the evidence that supports their use in clinical practice. While much progress has been made, challenges remain, including low treatment rates in high-risk individuals, poor treatment adherence, and uncertainties about the optimal duration of therapy.
2 Overview of Existing Treatments
2.1 Anti-Resorptive Agents
2.1.1 Bisphosphonates
The bisphosphonates are the most widely used pharmacological intervention worldwide, and in nearly all guidelines are considered the first-line treatment option to reduce fracture risk, a recommendation based mainly on their low cost and superior cost-effectiveness when compared to other treatments. A variety of dosing regimens is available: alendronate and risedronate are given orally and are most frequently administered once weekly, ibandronate can be given by mouth once monthly or by intravenous injection once every 3 months, and zoledronate is given as a short intravenous infusion once yearly. Alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronate have all been shown to reduce vertebral, non-vertebral, and hip fractures in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis, whereas for ibandronate, evidence for reduction in non-vertebral and hip fractures is lacking [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Gastrointestinal effects are common with oral bisphosphonates, and acute phase reaction occurs in approximately one-third of patients receiving their first infusion or injection of intravenous bisphosphonate. Osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures occur very rarely with oral or intravenous bisphosphonates at the doses used to treat osteoporosis.
All of the pivotal clinical trials of bisphosphonates were conducted in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. However, the majority of fractures occur in individuals with osteopenia, not osteoporosis, and there has been some uncertainty as to whether evidence of efficacy can be extrapolated to the osteopenic population. A recent prospective randomized study of the effects of zoledronate in post-menopausal women with osteopenia indicates that, at least for this bisphosphonate, significant reductions in vertebral, non-vertebral, and clinical fractures can be achieved during a follow-up period of 6 years [9]. It should be noted that in this study, zoledronate, 5 mg, was given at 18 months intervals.
As a result of their unique pharmacokinetic properties, beneficial effects on BMD persist for some time following withdrawal of therapy; there are differences between bisphosphonates in the longevity of persistence, although how these translate into fracture reduction is not well established. After cessation of alendronate, ibandronate, or risedronate therapy, bone loss recommences after 1–3 years, whereas BMD is maintained for longer periods after withdrawal of zoledronate [10, 11]. Two recent studies have provided evidence for sustained effects of zoledronate on BMD beyond the 3 years noted in the HORIZON extension study [12, 13]. In a 3-year open-label extension of a multidose randomized controlled trial in osteopenic post-menopausal women, increased BMD was maintained over 5 years following a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg zoledronate, while in HIV-positive men, BMD remained elevated for up to 12 years following two annual doses of 4 mg.
Given the greater potency of zoledronate, its low dosing frequency and prolonged action, a case can be made for greater use of this drug as a first-line option in individuals at increased risk of fracture. Adherence to zoledronate, although not optimal, is better than that seen with oral bisphosphonates [14]. Furthermore, the results of the study by Reid et al. suggest that there may be a benefit in treating older women (age > 75 years) at a lower level of fracture risk than that usually required for treatment in guidelines [15]. Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that dosing frequencies of longer than one year may be effective, although this is based almost exclusively on BMD changes.
2.1.2 Denosumab
Denosumab was the first biologic to be approved for the prevention of fracture. It is a potent anti-resorptive that acts by inhibiting RANKL and has been shown to reduce the risk of hip, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis [16]. Prolonged treatment, for up to 10 years, results in continued increases in BMD in the spine and hip, and although placebo control data for fracture only extend to 3 years of treatment, fracture incidence with long-term treatment is consistent with continued anti-fracture efficacy [17]. It is administered as a subcutaneous injection once every 6 months. The safety profile is generally good; in the extension of the phase 3 study, atypical femoral fractures occurred in only 2 women during the 10-year period, and osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in 13 women, with a possible association between risk and duration of therapy [18].
In most national guidelines, denosumab is regarded as a second-line option on the basis of its higher cost when compared to bisphosphonates. There have been no direct head-to-head comparator studies of denosumab versus bisphosphonates with fracture outcomes. Rapid reversal of its effects on biochemical markers of bone turnover and BMD are seen after cessation of therapy, and increased risk of vertebral fractures, sometimes multiple has been reported [19]. It is therefore essential that if treatment is stopped, alternative anti-resorptive therapy is considered. This is discussed in more detail later in this chapter in the section on sequential therapy.
2.1.3 Selective Oestrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMS)
Raloxifene and bazedoxifene are anti-resorptive agents that have been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral but not non-vertebral fractures [20, 21]. They are administered orally once daily and are generally regarded as second-line options because of the lack of proven efficacy against non-vertebral and hip fractures. Raloxifene reduces the risk of breast cancer and may therefore be preferred in women with risk factors for this disease who are also at increased risk of fracture. However, it can cause vasomotor and other menopausal symptoms and is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. In addition, an increased risk of death from stroke was reported in the MORE study [22]. Because of its limited spectrum of anti-fracture efficacy, its use is mainly restricted to the treatment of post-menopausal women at increased risk of vertebral fracture who are intolerant to other anti-osteoporosis medications.
Bazedoxifene, in a combined formulation with conjugated equine oestrogens, has similar effects on BMD to those of raloxifene but is also effective in relieving menopausal symptoms. Although no fracture data are available for this combined preparation, reductions in vertebral fracture were demonstrated with bazedoxifene alone. Other than its effects on menopausal symptoms, its safety profile is generally similar to that of raloxifene.
2.1.4 Hormone Replacement Therapy
A range of oral and transdermal formulations of unopposed oestrogen or combined oestrogen and progestogen are approved for the prevention of osteoporosis. Because of the adverse risk/benefit profile of long-term hormone replacement therapy in older post-menopausal women, most guidelines recommend that the use of hormone replacement therapy to prevent fractures should be limited to early post-menopausal women (age < 60 years) who also have troublesome menopausal symptoms [23]. Oestrogen and progestogen combinations are associated with increased risk of breast cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism; the safety profile of unopposed oestrogen differs in that the risks of breast cancer and coronary heart disease are not increased, although there is an increase in the risk of endometrial hyperplasia/neoplasia in non-hysterectomized women.
2.2 Anabolic Agents
2.2.1 Teriparatide and Abaloparatide
Teriparatide (human recombinant PTH 1–34) has been shown to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis [24]. Abaloparatide, an analogue of the 1–34 fragment of PTHrP, also reduces vertebral and clinical fractures in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis [25]. There is no direct evidence that either teriparatide or abaloparatide reduces hip fractures.
Transient decreases in hip BMD in the first 12–18 months of teriparatide treatment have been reported, although longer-term studies show increases in hip BMD and maintenance of or increase in hip bone strength [26,27,28]. An increase in cortical thickness in the hip, particularly in areas loaded during walking, has also been reported after 18–24 months of treatment with teriparatide [29]. Because of the early adverse effects on cortical bone BMD and structure noted in some studies, it may be advisable to combine teriparatide with an anti-resorptive drug for the first year or so of treatment in individuals at high risk of hip fracture. In the phase 3 study of abaloparatide, BMD increases in the spine and hip were significantly greater with abaloparatide when compared with teriparatide, although this did not translate into a significantly greater reduction in vertebral or non-vertebral fracture reduction [25]. Side effects of teriparatide and abaloparatide include hypercalcaemia and postural hypotension. Both are administered by daily subcutaneous injection.
The duration of teriparatide and abaloparatide is restricted by regulatory agencies to 18–24 months. Withdrawal of either drug is followed by bone loss, and subsequent anti-resorptive therapy is required to maintain BMD at or above its post-treatment level. In the ACTIVE Extend study, significant reductions in vertebral and non-vertebral fractures were seen when 18 months of treatment with abaloparatide was followed by 24 months of alendronate when compared to the placebo/alendronate group [30].
In the VERO study, a comparator study powered for fracture outcomes, teriparatide was shown to be significantly more effective than risedronate 35 mg once weekly in reducing vertebral and all clinical fractures [31]. The higher cost of teriparatide compared to anti-resorptive has limited its use in many countries, although this may change as cheaper biosimilars become available. In addition, the demonstration of its superiority to risedronate in reducing fractures has led to recommendations that anabolic therapy should be considered as a first-line treatment option for individuals at high risk of fracture.
2.2.2 Romosozumab
Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin and has both anabolic and anti-resorptive effects. In post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis vertebral and clinical fractures were significantly reduced compared to placebo after one year of treatment [32]. Subsequent treatment with denosumab for 24 months in both groups resulted in a significantly greater reduction in vertebral, non-vertebral, and clinical fractures in the group who had been treated with romosozumab for the first year [33]. Romosozumab is given once monthly by subcutaneous injection. Injection-site reactions may occur, and osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures have been very rarely reported. It may also be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease [34]. This increase in risk was not seen in placebo-controlled studies, and might reflect a protective effect of alendronate rather than an adverse effect of romosozumab; nevertheless, the FDA approval includes a boxed warning stating that romosozumab may increase the risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular death and should not be used in patients who have had a heart attack or stroke within the previous year.
The effects of romosozumab on biochemical markers of bone turnover are transient, with the return to baseline values within 1 year, although BMD continues to increase over 2 years of treatment. Following the withdrawal of treatment, bone turnover increases, and bone loss occurs. The duration of romosozumab therapy is limited to 12 months, and following its cessation anti-resorptive therapy should be given to maintain beneficial effects.
In a comparator study, in which 1 year of treatment with romosozumab followed by 1 year of alendronate was compared with 24 months alendronate therapy (ARCH), significantly greater reduction in vertebral, non-vertebral, and hip fractures at 24 months was shown in the former group [35]. A significant reduction in vertebral fracture was also observed at 12 months in the romosozumab treated women when compared to those treated with alendronate.
3 Duration of Therapy
Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder that often requires life-long treatment. Pivotal clinical trials rarely extend beyond 3 years, and extension studies, although valuable in some respects, suffer from decreasing sample sizes and inevitable sources of bias. Robust evidence for anti-fracture efficacy beyond 3–5 years at most is therefore lacking, and long-term safety data are largely reliant on observational studies.
The concept of drug holidays applies only to the bisphosphonates and is based on the rationale that treatment effects persist for some time following withdrawal of therapy, and also that the risk of rare but serious side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures might be reduced by such an approach. For all other pharmacological interventions, bone loss in the first 6–12 months occurs after cessation of therapy and maintenance of beneficial effects requires sequential treatment with an alternative agent, as discussed below.
Most guidelines recommend that the need for continued treatment is assessed after 5 or 3 years of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates, respectively, based on limited evidence from extension studies [10, 11]. Post hoc analyses indicate that women with a low hip BMD T-score, prevalent vertebral fracture, or incident fracture during therapy are most likely to benefit from the continuation of treatment [36, 37]. In addition, a previous history of hip or vertebral fracture, older age and current glucocorticoid therapy are widely regarded as indications for continued treatment. In other individuals, fracture risk can be assessed 2–3 years after the withdrawal of treatment to evaluate whether therapy should be restarted. At present, there is no evidence to guide decisions about the continuation of treatment after 10 years of therapy.
4 Sequential Therapy
Generally, the sequence of anti-resorptive followed by anti-resorptive, or anabolic followed by anti-resorptive is recommended, since blunting of the response to teriparatide has been reported in people previously treated with bisphosphonates [38, 39] and transition from denosumab to teriparatide is accompanied by increased bone turnover and bone loss at the hip and spine [40]. However, transitioning from bisphosphonates to romosozumab is associated with gains in both spine and hip BMD, albeit smaller than those seen in bisphosphonate naïve patients, and gains in estimated hip bone strength [41].
The timing and choice of agent following the withdrawal of denosumab therapy is currently an active topic of investigation. A recent study indicates that a single infusion of zoledronate 5 mg, 6 months following denosumab withdrawal, maintains BMD for 1–2 years, [42], but this finding has not been universal, and further studies are needed.
5 Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is the most common secondary cause of fragility fractures. Defining characteristics are the rapidity with which bone loss and increased fracture risk occur following initiation of therapy and the predilection for vertebral fractures [43, 44]. Adverse skeletal effects are seen most commonly with continuous oral glucocorticoid therapy and are dose related. The increase in fracture rate is seen within 3–6 months of starting therapy but declines with a longer duration or discontinuation of glucocorticoids [45, 46].
The speed of onset of adverse effects on bone has important implications for management. Fracture risk assessment should be performed as soon as possible after initiation of glucocorticoid therapy, and bone protective therapy should be started promptly in individuals with increased fracture risk. Bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide are widely approved in glucocorticoid-treated individuals at increased risk of fracture; although bisphosphonates are generally regarded as the first-line option on the grounds of cost-effectiveness, teriparatide has been demonstrated to be superior to alendronate in its effects on BMD and vertebral fracture and should be considered as the preferred option in individuals at very high risk [47].
6 Osteoporosis in Men
Treatment options for osteoporosis in men are similar to those in women and are based on BMD bridging studies in which similar BMD changes are seen to those associated with fracture reduction in post-menopausal women. Approved options include alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, denosumab, and teriparatide. Selective oestrogen receptor modulators and ibandronate are not approved for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.
7 Positioning of Treatments
The range of therapeutic options currently available, with their different mechanisms of action and varying spectrum of anti-fracture efficacy, offers the opportunity to personalize treatment according to individual profiles of disease severity, risk of adverse effects, and patient preference. Cost-effectiveness is an important underlying consideration that has to embrace the comparative efficacy of interventions, their adverse effects and adherence. In addition, the rapidity of action is a particularly relevant issue in individuals at high imminent fracture risk [48].
7.1 Comparative Efficacy
An important consideration in making treatment decisions is the spectrum of anti-fracture efficacy, i.e. whether fracture reduction has been demonstrated at vertebral and non-vertebral sites, including the hip (Table 1). All available interventions reduce vertebral fracture risk, whereas not all have been shown to reduce non-vertebral and/or hip fracture. Interventions with a broad spectrum of efficacy are generally preferred, although, for people at high risk of vertebral fracture, anabolic therapies may be the first-line option because of their greater efficacy (see below). Of the three anabolic therapies, only romosozumab has been shown to reduce hip fracture and hence may be preferred in patients at high risk of vertebral fracture who also have low hip BMD.
Head-to-head comparisons with fracture outcomes are not available for anti-resorptive drugs. However, based on BMD outcomes, superiority has been demonstrated for zoledronate over risedronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and for zoledronate over alendronate in patients with solid organ transplantation [49, 50]. Currently, alendronate, and to a lesser extent risedronate, are the most commonly used bisphosphonates, but given its prolonged duration of action, better treatment adherence and likely greater potency, a case can be made for wider use of zoledronate.
The VERO and ARCH studies have established that, in people with severe osteoporosis, anabolic therapy is superior to oral bisphosphonate therapy in reducing fracture [31, 35]. An important caveat to this is that anabolics have not been compared to the most potent anti-resorptives, namely denosumab and zoledronate. Nevertheless, on the basis of current evidence, anabolic therapy should be considered for initial therapy in individuals at very high risk of fracture. Although more expensive than anti-resorptive drugs, anabolic therapy is restricted to 1 year for romosozumab and 18–24 months for abaloparatide and teriparatide and is then followed by less costly anti-resorptive drugs. Health economic analyses to establish the cost-effectiveness of these regimens are currently in progress.
Comparative data on different anabolic therapies exist, although mainly for non-fracture outcomes. In the ACTIVE study, abaloparatide therapy resulted in significantly greater increases in hip and spine BMD compared to teriparatide and a significantly greater reduction in major osteoporotic fractures (a pre-specified secondary end-point), although not in vertebral, non-vertebral, or clinical fractures [25]. In the Phase 2 study of romosozumab, BMD increases at the hip and spine were significantly greater for romosozumab than teriparatide. In addition, using QCT and finite element analysis, changes in volumetric BMD and bone strength were shown to be significantly greater with romosozumab, this difference being particularly marked in the hip [51, 52]. Taken together with the available data on anti-fracture efficacy, these findings suggest that in individuals at very high risk of hip fracture, romosozumab may be the preferred anabolic option.
7.2 Comparative Safety
All drugs have adverse effects, the absolute risk of which may be influenced by individual patient characteristics. For example ongoing significant dental disease is an important risk factor for ONJ, and hence bisphosphonates and denosumab should generally be avoided in this situation. Similarly, HRT should be avoided in people at increased risk of breast cancer and both HRT and SERMs in people with a history of or predisposition to stroke or thromboembolism. Because of the possible increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease associated with romosozumab, this drug should not be used in people with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke.
Atypical femoral fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw are well documented rare but serious adverse effects of bisphosphonates and denosumab [53, 54]. However, in the doses used to treat osteoporosis, there is no evidence that the risk of these events varies between different bisphosphonates, and there are no data directly comparing denosumab and the bisphosphonates with respect to their incidence. Gastrointestinal side effects, particularly dyspepsia and oesophagitis, are common with oral bisphosphonates but can be mitigated to some extent by ensuring compliance with the dosing instructions and avoiding their use in people with the gastro-oesophageal disease. Acute phase reaction occurs in approximately one-third of individuals receiving their first dose of intravenous bisphosphonate but can be prevented or reduced by concomitant administration of paracetamol and occurs only very rarely with subsequent infusions.
The anabolic drugs are generally well tolerated, although the need for daily subcutaneous injection is a barrier to treatment in some individuals. Teriparatide and abaloparatide therapy are associated with a small increase in the risk of hypercalcaemia, which appears to be higher for the former drug at the approved doses for osteoporosis [25]. Direct comparison between anabolics and anti-resorptives of adverse events in VERO and ARCH did not reveal any significant difference in the overall frequency of adverse effects, although slightly more serious cardiovascular events were noted for romosozumab compared to alendronate [35].
7.3 Patient Preference
Where contraindications to specific treatments are absent, patient perceptions and fears with regard to possible side effects should be taken into account as these may affect adherence to therapy. As is the case with many chronic diseases, pharmacological intervention does not lead to symptomatic improvement and may cause side effects, whereas the benefit of not having a fracture can be hard to appreciate. The media has been active in drawing attention to possible side effects of bisphosphonates in particular and has often presented an unbalanced view about the benefits and risks of treatment [55, 56]. This has not only deterred patients from taking these drugs but has also made some healthcare professionals reluctant to prescribe them. It is therefore important that physicians and other health care professionals give adequate time to discussing the pros and cons of various treatments and pay heed to patient preferences.
8 Under-Treatment of Osteoporosis: Strategies to Improve Real World Effectiveness
In spite of their high incidence and substantial morbidity and mortality, fragility fractures are under-diagnosed and under-treated [57, 58]. This treatment gap exists despite the significant advances that have been made in fracture risk assessment and in the development of cost-effective pharmacological interventions. Low treatment rates have been identified even in very high-risk patients. In a recent study from the USA in people, mean age 80 years, who had recently sustained an incident hip fracture, the osteoporosis medication rate declined from 9.8% in 2004 to 3.3% in 2015 [59]. A recent report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation also highlights the neglect of such patients: only 9% of the two million people in the Medicare population who sustained an osteoporotic fracture in 2015 underwent bone density testing within the first 6 months after the fracture, and 6.5% sustained a further fracture [60].
These low treatment rates reflect a number of likely barriers to treatment. In particular, concerns about rare but serious side effects such as atypical femoral fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw can make patients and healthcare professionals reluctant to undertake treatment, in spite of the well-documented benefit/risk balance of treating people at high risk of fracture. Care of people with a fracture is often fragmented, highlighting the need for better communication between all the agencies involved. In addition, healthcare professionals managing the disease come from a wide range of specialties and may lack the expertise to provide optimal care [61].
Although under-treatment of osteoporosis is a global phenomenon, higher treatment rates than in the USA have been reported from other parts of the world, and there are substantial variations both between and within individual countries. In the UK, treatment rates have increased and by 2013 had reached around 50% in older people with primary hip fracture [62]. These variations can be explained in part by the different models of care provided for individuals with incident fragility fracture. In particular, approaches such as Fracture Liaison Services that deliver multidisciplinary and integrated management have been shown to increase treatment rates, improve adherence to therapy and reduce subsequent fracture risk in a cost-effective manner [63,64,65]. Initiatives to increase the provision of Fracture Liaison Services are ongoing; these have been largely successful in many parts of the world, although less so in others [66, 67]. In particular, in the USA the proportion of the population currently served by these services is low, and strategies to improve coverage are currently being pursued.
In addition to addressing the under-treatment of high-risk individuals, the issue of more proactive screening programmes has been revisited in the light of several studies that have investigated the potential benefits of population-based screening. A trial in the UK (SCOOP) in women aged 70–85 years was conducted in a primary care setting with follow-up of 5 years [68]. When compared to standard clinical care, the use of FRAX, with femoral neck BMD in women at intermediate or high risk, resulted in a significant decrease in hip fractures, although not in the primary outcome of all clinical fractures [69]. Another study, from Denmark in women aged 65–80 years, compared a two-step strategy (FRAX, followed by FRAX with BMD in those at increased fracture risk) with usual care and found no overall reduction in fractures, although a significant reduction was seen in women who complied with BMD measurement [70]. Finally, in the SALT osteoporosis study from Denmark, screening using FRAX, BMD, and vertebral fracture assessment did not result in overall fracture reduction, although post hoc analysis suggested a reduction in hip and major osteoporotic fractures in women with a recent history of fracture [71]. Current evidence is therefore, somewhat equivocal regarding the benefits of population-based screening but suggests that there may be some value, particularly for hip fracture prevention [72].
9 Future Prospects
The advances that have occurred in the assessment of fracture risk, together with the development of treatment options with a broad range of mechanisms, provide the potential substantially to reduce the burden of fractures in older people. The immediate challenge for the future is better implementation of strategies that have been shown to be successful, for example treatment of high-risk individuals within integrated models of care such as Fracture Liaison Services. In addition, the effectiveness of earlier identification and management of people at increased risk of the fracture using population-based screening programmes merits further investigation.
The development of new treatments for osteoporosis takes many years and is very costly, mainly due to the need for fracture reduction as the primary outcome. This, together with the recent failure of several interventions at late stages of their development, has reduced the motivation for commercial companies to embark on the long journey required to produce a successful drug. The search for a surrogate marker of fracture reduction, acceptable to regulatory agencies, is therefore key for the future of osteoporosis treatment and is currently being pursued [73].
The paradigm of treatment for osteoporosis is changing with the availability of bone anabolic agents, recognition of the high imminent fracture risk following a recent fracture, and acknowledgement that very long-term treatment is required in the majority of people embarking on therapy. In the very high-risk, initial anabolic therapy followed by anti-resorptive drugs is the preferred approach and is likely to prove cost-effective when appropriately targeted. For others who require treatment, long-term treatment with anti-resorptives is appropriate, tailored according to patient preference and safety considerations specific to the individual. Finally, in view of its long duration of action and the poor adherence to oral bisphosphonate therapy, the wider use of zoledronate merits further consideration.
References
Compston JE, McClung MR, Leslie WD. Osteoporosis. Lancet. 2019 Jan 26;393(10169):364–76.
Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, et al. Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet. 1996;348:1535–41.
Delmas PD, Recker RR, Chesnut CH 3rd, et al. Daily and intermittent oral Ibandronate normalize bone turnover and provide significant reduction in vertebral fracture risk: results from the BONE study. Osteoporos Int. 2004;5:792–8.
Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, et al. Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral efficacy with Risedronate therapy (VERT) study group.PG. JAMA. 1999;282:1344–52.
Reginster J, Minne HW, Sorensen OH, et al. Randomized trial of the effects of risedronate on vertebral fractures in women with established postmenopausal osteoporosis. Vertebral efficacy with Risedronate therapy (VERT) study group. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:83–91.
McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD, et al. Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:333–40.
Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R, et al. Once yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1809–22.
Lyles KW, Colón-Emeric CS, Magaziner JS, et al. Zoledronic acid in reducing clinical fracture and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1799–809.
Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, et al. Fracture Prevention with Zoledronate in Older Women with Osteopenia. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 20;379(25):2407–16.
Compston J, Cooper A, Cooper C, et al. UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Arch Osteoporos. 2017 Dec;12(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0324-5.
Adler RA, El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Bauer DC, et al. Managing osteoporosis in patients on long-term bisphosphonate treatment: Report of a Task Force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:16–35.
Grey A, Bolland MJ, Horne A, Mihov B, Gamble G, Reid IR. Duration of antiresorptive activity of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia: a randomized, controlled multidose trial. CMAJ. 2017 Sep 11;189(36):E1130–6.
Bolland MJ, Horne AM, Briggs SE, et al. Effects of Intravenous Zoledronate on Bone Turnover and Bone Density Persist for at Least 11 Years in HIV-Infected Men. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Jul;34(7):1248–53.
Durden E, Pinto L, Lopez-Gonzalez L, Juneau P, Barron R. Two-year persistence and compliance with osteoporosis therapies among postmenopausal women in a commercially insured population in the United States. Arch Osteoporos. 2017 Dec;12(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-017-0316-5.
Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, et al. Anti-fracture efficacy of zoledronate in subgroups of osteopenic postmenopausal women: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. J Intern Med. 2019 Aug;286(2):221–9.
Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(8):756–65.
Bone HG, Wagman RB, Brandi ML, et al. 10 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the phase 3 randomised FREEDOM trial and open-label extension. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5:513–23.
Compston J. Safety of long-term denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Jul;5(7):485–7.
Cummings SR, Ferrari S, Eastell R, et al. Vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab: a post hoc analysis of the randomized placebo-controlled FREEDOM trial and its extension. J Bone Miner Res. 2018 Feb;33(2):190–8.
Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, et al. Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple outcomes of Raloxifene evaluation (MORE) investigators. JAMA. 1999;282:637–45.
Silverman SL, Christiansen C, Genant HK, et al. Efficacy of bazedoxifene in reducing new vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from a 3-year, randomized, placebo-, and active-controlled clinical trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2008 Dec;23(12):1923–34.
Barrett-Connor E, Mosca L, Collins P, et al. Raloxifene use for the heart (RUTH) trial investigators. Effects of raloxifene on cardiovascular events and breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 13;355(2):125–37.
Cobin RH, Goodman NF. AACE reproductive endocrinology scientific committee. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Position Statement on Menopause-2017 Update. Endocr Pract. 2017 Jul;23(7):869–80.
Neer RM, Arnaud CD, Zanchetta JR, et al. Effect of parathyroid hormone (1-34) on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1434–41.
Miller PD, Hattersley G, Riis BJ, et al. Effect of abaloparatide vs placebo on new vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:722–33.
Borggrefe J, Graeff C, Nickelsen TN, Marin F, Glüer CC. Quantitative computed tomographic assessment of the effects of 24 months of teriparatide treatment on 3D femoral neck bone distribution, geometry, and bone strength: results from the EUROFORS study. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25(3):472–81.
Keaveny TM, Hoffmann PF, Singh M, et al. Femoral bone strength and its relation to cortical and trabecular changes after treatment with PTH, alendronate, and their combination as assessed by finite element analysis of quantitative CT scans. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23(12):1974–82.
Ma YL, Zeng QQ, Chiang AY, et al. Effects of teriparatide on cortical histomorphometric variables in postmenopausal women with or without prior alendronate treatment. Bone. 2014 Feb;59:139–47.
Whitmarsh T, Treece GM, Gee AH, Poole KE. The Effects on the Femoral Cortex of a 24 Month Treatment Compared to an 18 Month Treatment with Teriparatide: A Multi-Trial Retrospective Analysis. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 9;11(2):e0147722.
Bone HG, Cosman F, Miller PD, et al. ACTIVExtend: 24 Months of Alendronate After 18 Months of Abaloparatide or Placebo for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Aug 1;103(8):2949–57.
Kendler DL, Marin F, Zerbini CAF et al. Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017 pii: S0140-6736(17)32137–S0140-6736(17)32132.
Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1532–43.
Lewiecki EM, Dinavahi RV, Lazaretti-Castro M, et al. One Year of Romosozumab Followed by Two Years of Denosumab Maintains Fracture Risk Reductions: Results of the FRAME Extension Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Mar;34(3):419–28.
Advisory Committee Briefing Documents provided by Amgen for FDA, January 2019.
Saag KG, Petersen J, Brandi ML, et al. Romosozumab or alendronate for fracture prevention in women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1417–27.
Black DM, Schwartz AV, Ensrud KE, et al. FLEX Research Group FLEX Research Group. Effects of continuing or stopping alendronate after 5 years of treatment: the fracture intervention trial long-term extension (FLEX): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2927–38.
Cosman F, Cauley JA, Eastell R, et al. Reassessment of fracture risk in women after 3 years of treatment with zoledronic acid: when is it reasonable to discontinue treatment? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:4546–54.
Ettinger B, San Martin J, Crans G, Pavo I. Differential effects of teriparatide on BMD after treatment with raloxifene or alendronate. J Bone Miner Res. 2004 May;19(5):745–51.
Boonen S, Marin F, Obermayer-Pietsch B, et al. Effects of previous antiresorptive therapy on the bone mineral density response to two years of teriparatide treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar;93(3):852–60.
Leder BZ, Tsai JN, Uihlein AV, et al. Denosumab and teriparatide transitions in postmenopausal osteoporosis (the DATA-Switch study): extension of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Sep 19;386(9999):1147–55.
Langdahl BL, Libanati C, Crittenden DB, et al. Romosozumab (sclerostin monoclonal antibody) versus teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis transitioning from oral bisphosphonate therapy: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017 Sep 30;390(10102):1585–94.
Anastasilakis AD, Papapoulos SE, Polyzos SA, Appelman-Dijkstra NM, Makras P. Zoledronate for the Prevention of Bone Loss in Women Discontinuing Denosumab Treatment. A Prospective 2-Year Clinical Trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Dec;34(12):2220–8.
van Staa T, Leufkens HGM, Abenhaim L, Zhang B, Cooper C. Use of oral corticosteroids and risk of fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:933–1000.
van Staa TP, Leufkens HGM, Cooper C. A meta-analysis of the epidemiology of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Osteoporo Int. 2002;13:777–87.
Amiche MA, Albaum JM, Tadrous M, et al. Fracture risk in oral glucocorticoid users: a Bayesian meta-regression leveraging control arms of osteoporosis clinical trials. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(5):1709–18.
Balasubramanian A, Wade SW, Adler RA, et al. Glucocorticoid exposure and fracture risk in patients with new-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(11):3239–49.
Saag KG, Zanchetta JR, Devogelaer JP, et al. Effects of teriparatide versus alendronate for treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: thirty six month results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:3346–55.
Roux C, Briot K. Imminent fracture risk. Osteoporos Int. 2017 Jun;28(6):1765–9.
Reid DM, Devogelaer JP, Saag K, et al. Zoledronic acid and risedronate in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (HORIZON): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 Apr 11;373(9671):1253–63.
Shane E, Cohen A, Stein EM, et al. Zoledronic acid versus alendronate for the prevention of bone loss after heart or liver transplantation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Dec;97(12):4481–90.
Keaveny TM, Crittenden DB, Bolognese MA, et al. Greater Gains in Spine and Hip Strength for Romosozumab Compared With Teriparatide in Postmenopausal Women With Low Bone Mass. J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Sep;32(9):1956–62.
Genant HK, Engelke K, Bolognese MA, et al. Effects of Romosozumab Compared With Teriparatide on Bone Density and Mass at the Spine and Hip in Postmenopausal Women With Low Bone Mass. J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Jan;32(1):181–7.
Black DM, Abrahamsen B, Bouxsein ML, Einhorn T, Napoli N. Atypical Femur Fractures: Review of Epidemiology, Relationship to Bisphosphonates, Prevention, and Clinical Management. Endocr Rev. 2019 Apr 1;40(2):333–68.
Khan AA, Morrison A, Hanley DA, et al. Diagnosis and management of osteonecrosis of the jaw: a systematic review and international consensus. J Bone Miner Res. 2015 Jan;30(1):3–23.
Jha S, Wang Z, Laucis N, Bhattacharyya T. Trends in media reports, Oral bisphosphonate prescriptions, and hip fractures 1996-2012: an ecological analysis. J Bone Miner Res. 2015 Dec;30(12):2179–87.
Kim SC, Kim DH, Mogun H, et al. Impact of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Safety-Related Announcements on the Use of Bisphosphonates After Hip Fracture. J Bone Miner Res. 2016 Aug;31(8):1536–40.
Khosla S, Cauley JA, Compston J, et al. Addressing the Crisis in the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Path Forward. J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Mar;32(3):424–30.
Solomon DH, Johnston SS, Boytsov NN, McMorrow D, Lane JM, Krohn KD. Osteoporosis medication use after hip fracture in U.S. patients between 2002 and 2011. J Bone Miner Res. 2014 Sep;29(9):1929–37.
Desai RJ, Mahesri M, Abdia Y, et al. Association of Osteoporosis Medication Use After Hip Fracture With Prevention of Subsequent Nonvertebral Fractures: An Instrumental Variable Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Jul 6;1(3):e180826.
National Osteoporosis Foundation National Bone Health Policy. New report on burden of osteoporosis highlights huge and growing economic and human toll of the disease. https://www.nof.org/news/new-report-on-burden-of-osteoporosis-highlights-huge-and-growing-economic-and-human-toll-of-the-disease/
Compston J. Reducing the treatment gap in osteoporosis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Nov 19. pii: S2213–8587(19)30378-X. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30378-X. [Epub ahead of print].
Hawley S, Leal J, Delmestri A, et al. REFReSH study group. Anti-Osteoporosis Medication Prescriptions and Incidence of Subsequent Fracture Among Primary Hip Fracture Patients in England and Wales: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis. J Bone Miner Res. 2016 Nov;31(11):2008–15.
Mitchell P, Åkesson K, Chandran M, Cooper C, Ganda K, Schneider M. Implementation of Models of Care for secondary osteoporotic fracture prevention and orthogeriatric Models of Care for osteoporotic hip fracture. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Jun;30(3):536–58.
de Bruin IJA, Wyers CE, van den Bergh JPW, Geusens PPMM. Fracture liaison services: do they reduce fracture rates? Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2017 Jul;9(7):157–64.
Walters S, Khan T, Ong T, Sahota O. Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Jan 10;12:117–27.
Wu CH, Tu ST, Chang YF, et al. Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone. 2018 Jun;111:92–100.
Mitchell PJ, Cooper C, Fujita M, et al. Quality Improvement Initiatives in Fragility Fracture Care and Prevention. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2019 Nov 16; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-019-00544-8.
Shepstone L, Lenaghan E, Cooper C, et al. Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018 Feb 24;391(10122):741–7.
McCloskey E, Johansson H, Harvey NC, et al. Management of Patients With High Baseline Hip Fracture Risk by FRAX Reduces Hip Fractures-A Post Hoc Analysis of the SCOOP Study. J Bone Miner Res. 2018 Jun;33(6):1020–6.
Rubin KH, Rothmann MJ, Holmberg, et al. Effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using FRAX: the randomized Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Mar;29(3):567–78.
Merlijn T, Swart KM, van Schoor NM, et al. The Effect of a Screening and Treatment Program for the Prevention of Fractures in Older Women: A Randomized Pragmatic Trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Nov;34(11):1993–2000.
Merlijn T, Swart KMA, van der Horst HE, Netelenbos JC, Elders PJM. Fracture prevention by screening for high fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2019 Dec 14; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05226-w.
Bouxsein ML, Eastell R, Lui LY, et al. Change in Bone Density and Reduction in Fracture Risk: A Meta-Regression of Published Trials. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Apr;34(4):632–42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Compston, J. (2022). Current Treatment of Osteoporosis and Future Prospects. In: Takahashi, H.E., Burr, D.B., Yamamoto, N. (eds) Osteoporotic Fracture and Systemic Skeletal Disorders. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5613-2_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5613-2_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-5612-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-5613-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)