Expert Commentary

Can we discern optimal long-term osteoporosis treatment for women?

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

What we can learn from longer term and recent studies of ideal treatment

Since we have no “cure” for osteoporosis, and since the benefits of therapy, including protection from fractures, abate upon stopping treatment (as they do when we stop treating hypertension or diabetes), very long term if not lifelong management is required for patients with osteoporosis. Persistent or even greater reduction of fracture risk with treatment up to 10 years, compared with the rate of fracture in the placebo or treated group during the first 3 years of the study, has been observed with zoledronate and denosumab.3-5 Denosumab was not included in the systematic review by Fink and colleagues since the pivotal fracture trial with that agent was placebo-controlled for only 3 years.6

Sequential drug treatment may be best. Fink and colleagues also did not consider new evidence, which suggests that the use of osteoporosis drugs in sequence—rather than a single agent for a long time—may be the most effective management strategy.7,8

More consideration should be given to the use of estrogen and raloxifene in younger postmenopausal women at risk for vertebral but not hip fracture.

Only treat high-risk patients. Using osteoporosis therapies to only treat patients at high risk for fracture will optimize the benefit:risk ratio and cost-effectiveness of therapy.

Bisphosphonate holidays may not be as important as once thought. BMD and fracture risk reduction does not improve after 5 years of bisphosphonate therapy, and longer treatment may increase the risk of atypical fractures, while switching to another agent can increase BMD and perhaps mitigate the safety concern, suggesting that there is little justification for continuous use of bisphosphonates for more than 5 years, thereby minimizing the importance of a bisphosphonate holiday.

Hip BMD may serve as indicator for treatment decisions. Recent evidence indicating that the change in hip BMD with treatment or the level of hip BMD achieved on treatment correlates with fracture risk reduction may provide a useful clinical target to guide treatment decisions.9,10

Because we have a lack of pristine evidence does not mean that we shouldn’t treat osteoporosis; we have to do the best we can with the limited evidence we have. Therapy must be individualized, for we are not just treating osteoporosis, we are treating patients with osteoporosis.

Pages

Recommended Reading

FRAX with BMD may not be accurate for women with diabetes
MDedge ObGyn
High-dose vitamin D for bone health may do more harm than good
MDedge ObGyn
Zoledronate maintains bone loss after denosumab discontinuation
MDedge ObGyn
Zoledronic acid reduces symptomatic periodontal disease in patients with osteoporosis
MDedge ObGyn
Higher BMD linked to family history of diabetes in postmenopausal women
MDedge ObGyn
High-dose teriparatide tops standard dose in boosting BMD in postmenopausal women
MDedge ObGyn
Secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures lacking
MDedge ObGyn
Vitamin D does not improve bone density, structure in healthy patients
MDedge ObGyn
Lumbar spine BMD, bone strength benefits persist after romosozumab-to-alendronate switch
MDedge ObGyn
Older black women have worse outcomes after fragility fracture
MDedge ObGyn