Osteoporosis

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

kurastomokibridichuwronushutodretrovametrofreslowesuclolajuthushotruswespecishoswovigekagespouekisusovogilispuhaswichakubraclubregumunumiclapritreclitrithawajikofrejocreshivekiuopacosletacruprocruclijephibicriclagogabospetok

cutedostochastovavukowrawilacrocluhuresavemeswediwretiniwroclolonoswutresliwot

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

kurastomokibridichuwronushutodretrovametrofreslowesuclolajuthushotruswespecishoswovigekagespouekisusovogilispuhaswichakubraclubregumunumiclapritreclitrithawajikofrejocreshivekiuopacosletacruprocruclijephibicriclagogabospetok

cutedostochastovavukowrawilacrocluhuresavemeswediwretiniwroclolonoswutresliwot

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

kurastomokibridichuwronushutodretrovametrofreslowesuclolajuthushotruswespecishoswovigekagespouekisusovogilispuhaswichakubraclubregumunumiclapritreclitrithawajikofrejocreshivekiuopacosletacruprocruclijephibicriclagogabospetok

cutedostochastovavukowrawilacrocluhuresavemeswediwretiniwroclolonoswutresliwot

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some vitamin D tests may give misleading results despite progress made in recent years to improve the quality of these assays, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Otoe Sugahara manager of the CDC Vitamin D Standardization-Certification Program (VDSCP), presented an update of her group’s work at ENDO 2024, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Boston. 

“Though most vitamin D tests in our program have improved, there still remain some sample-specific inaccuracies. The CDC is working with program participants to address these situations,” Ms. Sugahara said in a statement released by the Endocrine Society.

For example, some assays measure other compounds besides 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which can falsely elevate results of some blood samples, Ms. Sugahara reported. Thus, some tests may be misclassified, with results seen as sufficient from samples that should have indicated a vitamin D deficiency.

“While most vitamin D tests are effective, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of the potential inconsistencies associated with vitamin D tests to avoid misclassification of the patients,” Ms. Sugahara and coauthors said in an abstract provided by the Endocrine Society.

Ms. Sugahara’s report provided a snapshot of the state of longstanding efforts to improve the quality of a widely performed service in US healthcare: testing vitamin D levels.

These include an international collaboration that gave rise in 2010 to a vitamin D standardization program, from which the CDC’s VDSCP certification emerged. Among the leaders of these efforts was Christopher Sempos, PhD, then with the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health.

Many clinicians may not be aware of the concerns about the accuracy of vitamin D tests that led to the drive for standardization, Dr. Sempos, now retired, said in an interview. And, in his view, it’s something that busy practitioners should not have to consider.

“They have literally thousands of diseases they have to be able to recognize and diagnose,” Dr. Sempos said. “They should be able to count on the laboratory system to give them accurate and precise data.”
 

‘Nudging’ Toward Better Results

The CDC’s certification program gives labs and companies detailed information about the analytical accuracy and precision of their vitamin D tests. 

This feedback has paid off with improved results, Andy Hoofnagle, MD, PhD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Washington in Seattle, told this news organization. It helps by “nudging manufacturers in the right direction,” he said.

“Some manufacturers reformulated, others recalibrated, which is a lot of effort on their part, so that when the patient get a number, it actually means the right thing,” said Dr. Hoofnagle, who is also chair of the Accuracy-Based Programs Committee of the College of American Pathologists.

“There are still many immunoassays on the market that aren’t giving the correct results, unfortunately, but the standardization certification program has really pushed the field in the right direction,” he said.

US scientists use two main types of technologies to measure vitamin D in the blood, Ms. Sugahara said. One is mass spectrometry, which separately measures 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and D3 and sums the values. The other type, immunoassay, measures both compounds at the same time and reports one result for total 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

At the ENDO 2024 meeting, Ms. Sugahara reported generally positive trends seen in the VDSCP. For example, the program looks at specific tests’ bias, or the deviation of test results from the true value, as determined with the CDC’s reference method for vitamin D.

Average calibration bias was less than 1% for all assays in the VDSCP in 2022, Ms. Sugahara said. The average calibration bias for immunoassays was 0.86%, and for assays using mass spectrometry, it was 0.55%, Ms. Sugahara reported. 

These are improved results compared with 2019 data, in which mass spectrometry–based assays had a mean bias of 1.9% and immunoassays had a mean bias of 2.4%, the CDC told this news organization in an email exchange.

The CDC said the VDSCP supports laboratories and researchers from around the world, including ones based in the US, China, Australia, Japan, and Korea.
 

Call for Research

Vitamin D tests are widely administered despite questions about their benefit for people who do not appear likely to be deficient of it. 

The Endocrine Society’s newly released practice guideline recommends against routine testing of blood vitamin D levels in the general population.

Laboratory testing has increased over the years owing to studies reporting associations between blood vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases, wrote Marie B. Demay, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and coauthors in the new guideline. It was published on June 3 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

‘”Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population,” they wrote.

It’s uncertain that “any putative benefits of screening would outweigh the increased burden and cost, and whether implementation of universal 25(OH)D screening would be feasible from a societal perspective,” Dr. Demay and coauthors added.

They noted that the influential US Preventive Services Task Force also has raised doubts about widespread use of vitamin D tests. 

The USPSTF has a somewhat different take from the Endocrine Society. The task force in 2021 reiterated its view that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against widespread vitamin D testing for adults. The task force gave this test an I grade, meaning there is insufficient evidence to weigh the risks and benefits. That’s the same grade the task force gave it in 2014.

The USPSTF uses a grade of D to recommend against use of a test or service.

In an interview with this news organization, John Wong, MD, vice chair of the USPSTF, reiterated his group’s call for more research into the potential benefits and harms of vitamin D screening. 

One of the challenges in addressing this issue, Dr. Wong noted, has been the variability of test results. Therefore, efforts such as the CDC’s VDSCP in improving test quality may help in eventually building up the kind of evidence base needed for the task force to offer a more definitive judgment on the tests, he said.

Wong acknowledged it must be frustrating for clinicians and patients to hear that experts don’t have the evidence needed to make a broad call about whether routine vitamin D tests are beneficial.

“We really would like to have that evidence because we recognize that it’s an important health question to help everybody in this nation stay healthy and live longer,” Dr. Wong said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some vitamin D tests may give misleading results despite progress made in recent years to improve the quality of these assays, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Otoe Sugahara manager of the CDC Vitamin D Standardization-Certification Program (VDSCP), presented an update of her group’s work at ENDO 2024, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Boston. 

“Though most vitamin D tests in our program have improved, there still remain some sample-specific inaccuracies. The CDC is working with program participants to address these situations,” Ms. Sugahara said in a statement released by the Endocrine Society.

For example, some assays measure other compounds besides 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which can falsely elevate results of some blood samples, Ms. Sugahara reported. Thus, some tests may be misclassified, with results seen as sufficient from samples that should have indicated a vitamin D deficiency.

“While most vitamin D tests are effective, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of the potential inconsistencies associated with vitamin D tests to avoid misclassification of the patients,” Ms. Sugahara and coauthors said in an abstract provided by the Endocrine Society.

Ms. Sugahara’s report provided a snapshot of the state of longstanding efforts to improve the quality of a widely performed service in US healthcare: testing vitamin D levels.

These include an international collaboration that gave rise in 2010 to a vitamin D standardization program, from which the CDC’s VDSCP certification emerged. Among the leaders of these efforts was Christopher Sempos, PhD, then with the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health.

Many clinicians may not be aware of the concerns about the accuracy of vitamin D tests that led to the drive for standardization, Dr. Sempos, now retired, said in an interview. And, in his view, it’s something that busy practitioners should not have to consider.

“They have literally thousands of diseases they have to be able to recognize and diagnose,” Dr. Sempos said. “They should be able to count on the laboratory system to give them accurate and precise data.”
 

‘Nudging’ Toward Better Results

The CDC’s certification program gives labs and companies detailed information about the analytical accuracy and precision of their vitamin D tests. 

This feedback has paid off with improved results, Andy Hoofnagle, MD, PhD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Washington in Seattle, told this news organization. It helps by “nudging manufacturers in the right direction,” he said.

“Some manufacturers reformulated, others recalibrated, which is a lot of effort on their part, so that when the patient get a number, it actually means the right thing,” said Dr. Hoofnagle, who is also chair of the Accuracy-Based Programs Committee of the College of American Pathologists.

“There are still many immunoassays on the market that aren’t giving the correct results, unfortunately, but the standardization certification program has really pushed the field in the right direction,” he said.

US scientists use two main types of technologies to measure vitamin D in the blood, Ms. Sugahara said. One is mass spectrometry, which separately measures 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and D3 and sums the values. The other type, immunoassay, measures both compounds at the same time and reports one result for total 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

At the ENDO 2024 meeting, Ms. Sugahara reported generally positive trends seen in the VDSCP. For example, the program looks at specific tests’ bias, or the deviation of test results from the true value, as determined with the CDC’s reference method for vitamin D.

Average calibration bias was less than 1% for all assays in the VDSCP in 2022, Ms. Sugahara said. The average calibration bias for immunoassays was 0.86%, and for assays using mass spectrometry, it was 0.55%, Ms. Sugahara reported. 

These are improved results compared with 2019 data, in which mass spectrometry–based assays had a mean bias of 1.9% and immunoassays had a mean bias of 2.4%, the CDC told this news organization in an email exchange.

The CDC said the VDSCP supports laboratories and researchers from around the world, including ones based in the US, China, Australia, Japan, and Korea.
 

Call for Research

Vitamin D tests are widely administered despite questions about their benefit for people who do not appear likely to be deficient of it. 

The Endocrine Society’s newly released practice guideline recommends against routine testing of blood vitamin D levels in the general population.

Laboratory testing has increased over the years owing to studies reporting associations between blood vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases, wrote Marie B. Demay, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and coauthors in the new guideline. It was published on June 3 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

‘”Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population,” they wrote.

It’s uncertain that “any putative benefits of screening would outweigh the increased burden and cost, and whether implementation of universal 25(OH)D screening would be feasible from a societal perspective,” Dr. Demay and coauthors added.

They noted that the influential US Preventive Services Task Force also has raised doubts about widespread use of vitamin D tests. 

The USPSTF has a somewhat different take from the Endocrine Society. The task force in 2021 reiterated its view that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against widespread vitamin D testing for adults. The task force gave this test an I grade, meaning there is insufficient evidence to weigh the risks and benefits. That’s the same grade the task force gave it in 2014.

The USPSTF uses a grade of D to recommend against use of a test or service.

In an interview with this news organization, John Wong, MD, vice chair of the USPSTF, reiterated his group’s call for more research into the potential benefits and harms of vitamin D screening. 

One of the challenges in addressing this issue, Dr. Wong noted, has been the variability of test results. Therefore, efforts such as the CDC’s VDSCP in improving test quality may help in eventually building up the kind of evidence base needed for the task force to offer a more definitive judgment on the tests, he said.

Wong acknowledged it must be frustrating for clinicians and patients to hear that experts don’t have the evidence needed to make a broad call about whether routine vitamin D tests are beneficial.

“We really would like to have that evidence because we recognize that it’s an important health question to help everybody in this nation stay healthy and live longer,” Dr. Wong said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some vitamin D tests may give misleading results despite progress made in recent years to improve the quality of these assays, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Otoe Sugahara manager of the CDC Vitamin D Standardization-Certification Program (VDSCP), presented an update of her group’s work at ENDO 2024, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Boston. 

“Though most vitamin D tests in our program have improved, there still remain some sample-specific inaccuracies. The CDC is working with program participants to address these situations,” Ms. Sugahara said in a statement released by the Endocrine Society.

For example, some assays measure other compounds besides 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which can falsely elevate results of some blood samples, Ms. Sugahara reported. Thus, some tests may be misclassified, with results seen as sufficient from samples that should have indicated a vitamin D deficiency.

“While most vitamin D tests are effective, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of the potential inconsistencies associated with vitamin D tests to avoid misclassification of the patients,” Ms. Sugahara and coauthors said in an abstract provided by the Endocrine Society.

Ms. Sugahara’s report provided a snapshot of the state of longstanding efforts to improve the quality of a widely performed service in US healthcare: testing vitamin D levels.

These include an international collaboration that gave rise in 2010 to a vitamin D standardization program, from which the CDC’s VDSCP certification emerged. Among the leaders of these efforts was Christopher Sempos, PhD, then with the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health.

Many clinicians may not be aware of the concerns about the accuracy of vitamin D tests that led to the drive for standardization, Dr. Sempos, now retired, said in an interview. And, in his view, it’s something that busy practitioners should not have to consider.

“They have literally thousands of diseases they have to be able to recognize and diagnose,” Dr. Sempos said. “They should be able to count on the laboratory system to give them accurate and precise data.”
 

‘Nudging’ Toward Better Results

The CDC’s certification program gives labs and companies detailed information about the analytical accuracy and precision of their vitamin D tests. 

This feedback has paid off with improved results, Andy Hoofnagle, MD, PhD, professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Washington in Seattle, told this news organization. It helps by “nudging manufacturers in the right direction,” he said.

“Some manufacturers reformulated, others recalibrated, which is a lot of effort on their part, so that when the patient get a number, it actually means the right thing,” said Dr. Hoofnagle, who is also chair of the Accuracy-Based Programs Committee of the College of American Pathologists.

“There are still many immunoassays on the market that aren’t giving the correct results, unfortunately, but the standardization certification program has really pushed the field in the right direction,” he said.

US scientists use two main types of technologies to measure vitamin D in the blood, Ms. Sugahara said. One is mass spectrometry, which separately measures 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and D3 and sums the values. The other type, immunoassay, measures both compounds at the same time and reports one result for total 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

At the ENDO 2024 meeting, Ms. Sugahara reported generally positive trends seen in the VDSCP. For example, the program looks at specific tests’ bias, or the deviation of test results from the true value, as determined with the CDC’s reference method for vitamin D.

Average calibration bias was less than 1% for all assays in the VDSCP in 2022, Ms. Sugahara said. The average calibration bias for immunoassays was 0.86%, and for assays using mass spectrometry, it was 0.55%, Ms. Sugahara reported. 

These are improved results compared with 2019 data, in which mass spectrometry–based assays had a mean bias of 1.9% and immunoassays had a mean bias of 2.4%, the CDC told this news organization in an email exchange.

The CDC said the VDSCP supports laboratories and researchers from around the world, including ones based in the US, China, Australia, Japan, and Korea.
 

Call for Research

Vitamin D tests are widely administered despite questions about their benefit for people who do not appear likely to be deficient of it. 

The Endocrine Society’s newly released practice guideline recommends against routine testing of blood vitamin D levels in the general population.

Laboratory testing has increased over the years owing to studies reporting associations between blood vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases, wrote Marie B. Demay, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, and coauthors in the new guideline. It was published on June 3 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

‘”Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population,” they wrote.

It’s uncertain that “any putative benefits of screening would outweigh the increased burden and cost, and whether implementation of universal 25(OH)D screening would be feasible from a societal perspective,” Dr. Demay and coauthors added.

They noted that the influential US Preventive Services Task Force also has raised doubts about widespread use of vitamin D tests. 

The USPSTF has a somewhat different take from the Endocrine Society. The task force in 2021 reiterated its view that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against widespread vitamin D testing for adults. The task force gave this test an I grade, meaning there is insufficient evidence to weigh the risks and benefits. That’s the same grade the task force gave it in 2014.

The USPSTF uses a grade of D to recommend against use of a test or service.

In an interview with this news organization, John Wong, MD, vice chair of the USPSTF, reiterated his group’s call for more research into the potential benefits and harms of vitamin D screening. 

One of the challenges in addressing this issue, Dr. Wong noted, has been the variability of test results. Therefore, efforts such as the CDC’s VDSCP in improving test quality may help in eventually building up the kind of evidence base needed for the task force to offer a more definitive judgment on the tests, he said.

Wong acknowledged it must be frustrating for clinicians and patients to hear that experts don’t have the evidence needed to make a broad call about whether routine vitamin D tests are beneficial.

“We really would like to have that evidence because we recognize that it’s an important health question to help everybody in this nation stay healthy and live longer,” Dr. Wong said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercise interventions are recommended to help prevent falls and fall-related morbidity in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older who are at increased risk of falls, according to a new recommendation statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.8481).

Falls remain the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the United States, with approximately 27% of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older reporting at least one fall in the past year, wrote lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues.

The task force concluded with moderate certainty that exercise interventions yielded a moderate benefit in fall reduction among older adults at risk (grade B recommendation).

The decision to offer multifactorial fall prevention interventions to older adults at risk for falls should be individualized based on assessment of potential risks and benefits of these interventions, including circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient’s values and preferences (grade C recommendation), the authors wrote.

The exercise intervention could include individual or group activity, although most of the studies in the systematic review involved group exercise, the authors noted.

The recommendation was based on data from a systematic evidence review published in JAMA (2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.4166). The task force reviewed data from 83 randomized trials published between January 1, 2016, and May 8, 2023, deemed fair to good quality that examined six types of fall prevention interventions in a total of 48,839 individuals. Of these, 28 studies involved multifactorial interventions and 27 involved exercise interventions.

Overall, multifactorial interventions and exercise interventions were associated with a significant reduction in falls (incidence rate ratio 0.84 and 0.85, respectively).

Exercise interventions were significantly associated with reduced individual risk of one or more falls and injurious falls, but not with reduced individual risk of injurious falls. However, multifactorial interventions were not significantly associated with reductions in risk of one or more falls, injurious falls, fall-related fractures, individual risk of injurious falls, or individual risk of fall-related fractures.

Although teasing out the specific exercise components that are most effective for fall prevention is challenging, the most commonly studied components associated with reduced risk of falls included gait training, balance training, and functional training, followed by strength and resistance training, the task force noted.

Duration of exercise interventions in the reviewed studies ranged from 2 to 30 months and the most common frequency of sessions was 2 to 3 per week.

Based on these findings, the task force found that exercise had the most consistent benefits for reduced risk across several fall-related outcomes. Although individuals in the studies of multifactorial interventions were at increased risk for falls, the multistep process of interventions to address an individual’s multiple risk factors limited their effectiveness, in part because of logistical challenges and inconsistent adherence, the authors wrote.

The results of the review were limited by several factors, including the focus on studies with a primary or secondary aim of fall prevention, the fact that the recommendation does not apply to many subgroups of older adults, and the lack of data on health outcomes unrelated to falls that were associated with the interventions, the authors noted.

The new recommendation is consistent with and replaces the 2018 USPSTF recommendation on interventions for fall prevention in community-dwelling older adults, but without the recommendation against vitamin D supplementation as a fall prevention intervention. The new recommendation does not address vitamin D use; evidence will be examined in a separate recommendation, the task force wrote.
 

How to Get Older Adults Moving

“The biggest obstacle to exercise is patient inertia and choice to engage in other sedentary activities,” David B. Reuben, MD, and David A. Ganz, MD, both of the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.9063).

“Given the demonstrated benefits of exercise for cardiovascular disease, cognitive function, and favorable associations with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, specific fall prevention exercise recommendations need to be considered in the context of universal exercise recommendations, including aerobic and muscle strengthening exercise,” the authors wrote. However, maintaining regular exercise is a challenge for many older adults, and more research is needed on factors that drive exercise initiation and adherence in this population, they said.

Multifactorial fall assessments in particular take time, and more fall prevention programs are needed that include multifactorial assessments and interventions, the editorialists said. “Even if primary care clinicians faithfully implement the USPSTF recommendations, a significant reduction in falls and their resulting injuries is still far off,” in part, because of the need for more programs and policies, and the need to improve access to exercise programs and provide insurance coverage for them, they noted.

“Above all, older persons need to be active participants in exercise and reduction of risk factors for falls,” the editorialists concluded.

The research for the recommendation was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as an author of the 2022 World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management for Older Adults.

Exercise interventions are recommended to help prevent falls and fall-related morbidity in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older who are at increased risk of falls, according to a new recommendation statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.8481).

Falls remain the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the United States, with approximately 27% of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older reporting at least one fall in the past year, wrote lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues.

The task force concluded with moderate certainty that exercise interventions yielded a moderate benefit in fall reduction among older adults at risk (grade B recommendation).

The decision to offer multifactorial fall prevention interventions to older adults at risk for falls should be individualized based on assessment of potential risks and benefits of these interventions, including circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient’s values and preferences (grade C recommendation), the authors wrote.

The exercise intervention could include individual or group activity, although most of the studies in the systematic review involved group exercise, the authors noted.

The recommendation was based on data from a systematic evidence review published in JAMA (2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.4166). The task force reviewed data from 83 randomized trials published between January 1, 2016, and May 8, 2023, deemed fair to good quality that examined six types of fall prevention interventions in a total of 48,839 individuals. Of these, 28 studies involved multifactorial interventions and 27 involved exercise interventions.

Overall, multifactorial interventions and exercise interventions were associated with a significant reduction in falls (incidence rate ratio 0.84 and 0.85, respectively).

Exercise interventions were significantly associated with reduced individual risk of one or more falls and injurious falls, but not with reduced individual risk of injurious falls. However, multifactorial interventions were not significantly associated with reductions in risk of one or more falls, injurious falls, fall-related fractures, individual risk of injurious falls, or individual risk of fall-related fractures.

Although teasing out the specific exercise components that are most effective for fall prevention is challenging, the most commonly studied components associated with reduced risk of falls included gait training, balance training, and functional training, followed by strength and resistance training, the task force noted.

Duration of exercise interventions in the reviewed studies ranged from 2 to 30 months and the most common frequency of sessions was 2 to 3 per week.

Based on these findings, the task force found that exercise had the most consistent benefits for reduced risk across several fall-related outcomes. Although individuals in the studies of multifactorial interventions were at increased risk for falls, the multistep process of interventions to address an individual’s multiple risk factors limited their effectiveness, in part because of logistical challenges and inconsistent adherence, the authors wrote.

The results of the review were limited by several factors, including the focus on studies with a primary or secondary aim of fall prevention, the fact that the recommendation does not apply to many subgroups of older adults, and the lack of data on health outcomes unrelated to falls that were associated with the interventions, the authors noted.

The new recommendation is consistent with and replaces the 2018 USPSTF recommendation on interventions for fall prevention in community-dwelling older adults, but without the recommendation against vitamin D supplementation as a fall prevention intervention. The new recommendation does not address vitamin D use; evidence will be examined in a separate recommendation, the task force wrote.
 

How to Get Older Adults Moving

“The biggest obstacle to exercise is patient inertia and choice to engage in other sedentary activities,” David B. Reuben, MD, and David A. Ganz, MD, both of the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.9063).

“Given the demonstrated benefits of exercise for cardiovascular disease, cognitive function, and favorable associations with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, specific fall prevention exercise recommendations need to be considered in the context of universal exercise recommendations, including aerobic and muscle strengthening exercise,” the authors wrote. However, maintaining regular exercise is a challenge for many older adults, and more research is needed on factors that drive exercise initiation and adherence in this population, they said.

Multifactorial fall assessments in particular take time, and more fall prevention programs are needed that include multifactorial assessments and interventions, the editorialists said. “Even if primary care clinicians faithfully implement the USPSTF recommendations, a significant reduction in falls and their resulting injuries is still far off,” in part, because of the need for more programs and policies, and the need to improve access to exercise programs and provide insurance coverage for them, they noted.

“Above all, older persons need to be active participants in exercise and reduction of risk factors for falls,” the editorialists concluded.

The research for the recommendation was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as an author of the 2022 World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management for Older Adults.

Exercise interventions are recommended to help prevent falls and fall-related morbidity in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older who are at increased risk of falls, according to a new recommendation statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.8481).

Falls remain the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the United States, with approximately 27% of community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years and older reporting at least one fall in the past year, wrote lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues.

The task force concluded with moderate certainty that exercise interventions yielded a moderate benefit in fall reduction among older adults at risk (grade B recommendation).

The decision to offer multifactorial fall prevention interventions to older adults at risk for falls should be individualized based on assessment of potential risks and benefits of these interventions, including circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient’s values and preferences (grade C recommendation), the authors wrote.

The exercise intervention could include individual or group activity, although most of the studies in the systematic review involved group exercise, the authors noted.

The recommendation was based on data from a systematic evidence review published in JAMA (2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.4166). The task force reviewed data from 83 randomized trials published between January 1, 2016, and May 8, 2023, deemed fair to good quality that examined six types of fall prevention interventions in a total of 48,839 individuals. Of these, 28 studies involved multifactorial interventions and 27 involved exercise interventions.

Overall, multifactorial interventions and exercise interventions were associated with a significant reduction in falls (incidence rate ratio 0.84 and 0.85, respectively).

Exercise interventions were significantly associated with reduced individual risk of one or more falls and injurious falls, but not with reduced individual risk of injurious falls. However, multifactorial interventions were not significantly associated with reductions in risk of one or more falls, injurious falls, fall-related fractures, individual risk of injurious falls, or individual risk of fall-related fractures.

Although teasing out the specific exercise components that are most effective for fall prevention is challenging, the most commonly studied components associated with reduced risk of falls included gait training, balance training, and functional training, followed by strength and resistance training, the task force noted.

Duration of exercise interventions in the reviewed studies ranged from 2 to 30 months and the most common frequency of sessions was 2 to 3 per week.

Based on these findings, the task force found that exercise had the most consistent benefits for reduced risk across several fall-related outcomes. Although individuals in the studies of multifactorial interventions were at increased risk for falls, the multistep process of interventions to address an individual’s multiple risk factors limited their effectiveness, in part because of logistical challenges and inconsistent adherence, the authors wrote.

The results of the review were limited by several factors, including the focus on studies with a primary or secondary aim of fall prevention, the fact that the recommendation does not apply to many subgroups of older adults, and the lack of data on health outcomes unrelated to falls that were associated with the interventions, the authors noted.

The new recommendation is consistent with and replaces the 2018 USPSTF recommendation on interventions for fall prevention in community-dwelling older adults, but without the recommendation against vitamin D supplementation as a fall prevention intervention. The new recommendation does not address vitamin D use; evidence will be examined in a separate recommendation, the task force wrote.
 

How to Get Older Adults Moving

“The biggest obstacle to exercise is patient inertia and choice to engage in other sedentary activities,” David B. Reuben, MD, and David A. Ganz, MD, both of the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2024 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.9063).

“Given the demonstrated benefits of exercise for cardiovascular disease, cognitive function, and favorable associations with all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, specific fall prevention exercise recommendations need to be considered in the context of universal exercise recommendations, including aerobic and muscle strengthening exercise,” the authors wrote. However, maintaining regular exercise is a challenge for many older adults, and more research is needed on factors that drive exercise initiation and adherence in this population, they said.

Multifactorial fall assessments in particular take time, and more fall prevention programs are needed that include multifactorial assessments and interventions, the editorialists said. “Even if primary care clinicians faithfully implement the USPSTF recommendations, a significant reduction in falls and their resulting injuries is still far off,” in part, because of the need for more programs and policies, and the need to improve access to exercise programs and provide insurance coverage for them, they noted.

“Above all, older persons need to be active participants in exercise and reduction of risk factors for falls,” the editorialists concluded.

The research for the recommendation was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as an author of the 2022 World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management for Older Adults.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Anti-osteoporosis medications reduce fracture risk similarly, regardless of whether patients are younger or older than 70 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted the study as part of a  to assess bone mineral density as a surrogate marker for fracture risk.
• Analyses used individual patient data from 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials of anti-osteoporosis medications (11 of bisphosphonates, four of selective estrogen receptor modulators, three of anabolic medications, two of hormone replacement therapy, and one each of odanacatib, denosumab, and romosozumab).
• Overall, 43% of the included 123,164 patients were aged 70 years or older.
• The main outcomes were fractures and bone mineral density.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a similar benefit regardless of age when it came to the reduction in risks for hip fracture (odds ratio, 0.65 vs 0.72; P for interaction = .50) and any fracture (odds ratio, 0.72 vs 0.70; P for interaction = .20).
• Findings were comparable in analyses restricted to bisphosphonate trials, except that the reduction in hip fracture risk was greater among the younger group (hazard ratio, 0.44 vs 0.79; P for interaction = .02).
• The benefit of anti-osteoporosis medication in increasing hip and spine bone mineral density at 24 months was significantly greater among the older patients.

IN PRACTICE:

Taken together, the study results “strongly support treatment in those over age 70,” the authors wrote. “These are important findings with potential impact in patient treatment since it goes against a common misconception that medications are less effective in older people,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marian Schini, MD, PhD, FHEA, University of Sheffield, England, and was published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a preponderance of female patients (99%), possible residual confounding, a lack of analysis of adverse effects, and potentially different findings using alternate age cutoffs.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Society for Bone Mineral Research. Some authors disclosed affiliations with companies that manufacture anti-osteoporosis drugs.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.