Osteoporosis

Bone health begins in childhood, particularly during the rapid bone accrual phase of puberty, which is essential for attaining optimal peak bone mass. Peak bone mass is achieved in early adult life and affects both immediate and future fracture risk. Genetic, nutritional, exercise-related, and hormonal factors, and certain diseases and medications, have deleterious effects on bone health.

In addition, emerging data suggest that certain manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may affect bone accrual during this important period and potentially increase the risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. Osteoporosis refers to increased fracture risk because of low bone density and affects a large proportion of postmenopausal women and older men.

New evidence comes from a recent study conducted by investigators from the Keck School of Medicine, who examined the impact of exposure to PFAS on skeletal outcomes in youth. Of note, participants were primarily Hispanic; this population has a higher risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. PFAS are manmade chemicals with water- and grease-resistant properties. They are used in a variety of products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, carpets, and in certain industrial processes. They are pervasive in the environment, in wildlife, and in humans.

Use and production of certain PFAS, such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),  have decreased over the past two decades, with a significant reduction in blood concentrations of these chemicals. However, they can be resistant to degradation and have very long half-lives. As a consequence, these «forever chemicals» continue to linger in the environment. Also, the risk for exposure to other PFAS persists, and almost every individual has detectable levels of PFAS in blood.

Scientists are still learning about the impact of environmental chemicals on bone health. In contrast, other factors that may jeopardize pubertal bone accrual and peak bone mass acquisition have been studied extensively, with guidelines for management of the consequent poor skeletal health.

For PFAS, studies have reported deleterious effects on various body systems, such as the liver, immune system, thyroid, and the developing brain. The limited data related to bone suggest negative associations between certain, but not all, PFAS and bone density — ie, the higher the exposure, the worse the impact on bone health.

PFAS may affect health through alterations in the endocrine system. They have been associated with lower levels of testosterone and downregulation of its receptor (and testosterone is known to modulate bone formation and bone loss). On the other hand, some PFAS are estrogenic, which should be beneficial to bone. A direct impact of PFAS on pathways regulating activity of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) and osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells) has also been postulated, with conflicting results.

Previous research on PFAS and human bone health has found mixed results. In adolescents, Xiong and colleagues  reported negative associations of PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), but not perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), levels with bone density at various sites, mostly in females. Carwile and associates  reported similar negative associations of blood concentrations of PFOA and PFOS and urinary concentrations of phthalates with bone density in adolescents, but only in males. Lin and coworkers also reported negative associations of PFOA and bone density in adult premenopausal women, but found no associations of PFOA and PFOS concentrations with self-reported fractures, suggesting questionable biological significance of these findings. These were all cross-sectional studies and did not report on the impact of these chemicals on longitudinal bone accrual.

In the recent study, Beglarian and colleagues examined the impact of PFAS on longitudinal changes in bone density in adolescents, drawn from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (SOLAR) cohort and young adults from the Southern California Children’s Health Study (CHS) cohort. They found that in adolescents, higher baseline concentrations of PFOS predicted lower bone accrual over time. In young adults, there was a similar negative association of PFOS concentrations and bone density at baseline, but not with longitudinal bone accrual. In this study, other PFAS were not associated with bone outcomes.

Overall, research appears to suggest that PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA may have deleterious effects on bone density and bone accrual over time. However, data are not consistent across studies and across sexes, and more research is necessary to conclusively define the impact of these chemicals on skeletal health, particularly during the critical pubertal years of maximal bone accrual. In the meantime, continued efforts are necessary to reduce to concentrations of these PFAS in the environment.

Dr. Misra disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone health begins in childhood, particularly during the rapid bone accrual phase of puberty, which is essential for attaining optimal peak bone mass. Peak bone mass is achieved in early adult life and affects both immediate and future fracture risk. Genetic, nutritional, exercise-related, and hormonal factors, and certain diseases and medications, have deleterious effects on bone health.

In addition, emerging data suggest that certain manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may affect bone accrual during this important period and potentially increase the risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. Osteoporosis refers to increased fracture risk because of low bone density and affects a large proportion of postmenopausal women and older men.

New evidence comes from a recent study conducted by investigators from the Keck School of Medicine, who examined the impact of exposure to PFAS on skeletal outcomes in youth. Of note, participants were primarily Hispanic; this population has a higher risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. PFAS are manmade chemicals with water- and grease-resistant properties. They are used in a variety of products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, carpets, and in certain industrial processes. They are pervasive in the environment, in wildlife, and in humans.

Use and production of certain PFAS, such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),  have decreased over the past two decades, with a significant reduction in blood concentrations of these chemicals. However, they can be resistant to degradation and have very long half-lives. As a consequence, these «forever chemicals» continue to linger in the environment. Also, the risk for exposure to other PFAS persists, and almost every individual has detectable levels of PFAS in blood.

Scientists are still learning about the impact of environmental chemicals on bone health. In contrast, other factors that may jeopardize pubertal bone accrual and peak bone mass acquisition have been studied extensively, with guidelines for management of the consequent poor skeletal health.

For PFAS, studies have reported deleterious effects on various body systems, such as the liver, immune system, thyroid, and the developing brain. The limited data related to bone suggest negative associations between certain, but not all, PFAS and bone density — ie, the higher the exposure, the worse the impact on bone health.

PFAS may affect health through alterations in the endocrine system. They have been associated with lower levels of testosterone and downregulation of its receptor (and testosterone is known to modulate bone formation and bone loss). On the other hand, some PFAS are estrogenic, which should be beneficial to bone. A direct impact of PFAS on pathways regulating activity of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) and osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells) has also been postulated, with conflicting results.

Previous research on PFAS and human bone health has found mixed results. In adolescents, Xiong and colleagues  reported negative associations of PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), but not perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), levels with bone density at various sites, mostly in females. Carwile and associates  reported similar negative associations of blood concentrations of PFOA and PFOS and urinary concentrations of phthalates with bone density in adolescents, but only in males. Lin and coworkers also reported negative associations of PFOA and bone density in adult premenopausal women, but found no associations of PFOA and PFOS concentrations with self-reported fractures, suggesting questionable biological significance of these findings. These were all cross-sectional studies and did not report on the impact of these chemicals on longitudinal bone accrual.

In the recent study, Beglarian and colleagues examined the impact of PFAS on longitudinal changes in bone density in adolescents, drawn from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (SOLAR) cohort and young adults from the Southern California Children’s Health Study (CHS) cohort. They found that in adolescents, higher baseline concentrations of PFOS predicted lower bone accrual over time. In young adults, there was a similar negative association of PFOS concentrations and bone density at baseline, but not with longitudinal bone accrual. In this study, other PFAS were not associated with bone outcomes.

Overall, research appears to suggest that PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA may have deleterious effects on bone density and bone accrual over time. However, data are not consistent across studies and across sexes, and more research is necessary to conclusively define the impact of these chemicals on skeletal health, particularly during the critical pubertal years of maximal bone accrual. In the meantime, continued efforts are necessary to reduce to concentrations of these PFAS in the environment.

Dr. Misra disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone health begins in childhood, particularly during the rapid bone accrual phase of puberty, which is essential for attaining optimal peak bone mass. Peak bone mass is achieved in early adult life and affects both immediate and future fracture risk. Genetic, nutritional, exercise-related, and hormonal factors, and certain diseases and medications, have deleterious effects on bone health.

In addition, emerging data suggest that certain manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may affect bone accrual during this important period and potentially increase the risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. Osteoporosis refers to increased fracture risk because of low bone density and affects a large proportion of postmenopausal women and older men.

New evidence comes from a recent study conducted by investigators from the Keck School of Medicine, who examined the impact of exposure to PFAS on skeletal outcomes in youth. Of note, participants were primarily Hispanic; this population has a higher risk for osteoporosis in adulthood. PFAS are manmade chemicals with water- and grease-resistant properties. They are used in a variety of products, such as nonstick cookware, food packaging, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, carpets, and in certain industrial processes. They are pervasive in the environment, in wildlife, and in humans.

Use and production of certain PFAS, such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),  have decreased over the past two decades, with a significant reduction in blood concentrations of these chemicals. However, they can be resistant to degradation and have very long half-lives. As a consequence, these «forever chemicals» continue to linger in the environment. Also, the risk for exposure to other PFAS persists, and almost every individual has detectable levels of PFAS in blood.

Scientists are still learning about the impact of environmental chemicals on bone health. In contrast, other factors that may jeopardize pubertal bone accrual and peak bone mass acquisition have been studied extensively, with guidelines for management of the consequent poor skeletal health.

For PFAS, studies have reported deleterious effects on various body systems, such as the liver, immune system, thyroid, and the developing brain. The limited data related to bone suggest negative associations between certain, but not all, PFAS and bone density — ie, the higher the exposure, the worse the impact on bone health.

PFAS may affect health through alterations in the endocrine system. They have been associated with lower levels of testosterone and downregulation of its receptor (and testosterone is known to modulate bone formation and bone loss). On the other hand, some PFAS are estrogenic, which should be beneficial to bone. A direct impact of PFAS on pathways regulating activity of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) and osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells) has also been postulated, with conflicting results.

Previous research on PFAS and human bone health has found mixed results. In adolescents, Xiong and colleagues  reported negative associations of PFOS, PFOA, and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), but not perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), levels with bone density at various sites, mostly in females. Carwile and associates  reported similar negative associations of blood concentrations of PFOA and PFOS and urinary concentrations of phthalates with bone density in adolescents, but only in males. Lin and coworkers also reported negative associations of PFOA and bone density in adult premenopausal women, but found no associations of PFOA and PFOS concentrations with self-reported fractures, suggesting questionable biological significance of these findings. These were all cross-sectional studies and did not report on the impact of these chemicals on longitudinal bone accrual.

In the recent study, Beglarian and colleagues examined the impact of PFAS on longitudinal changes in bone density in adolescents, drawn from the Study of Latino Adolescents at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (SOLAR) cohort and young adults from the Southern California Children’s Health Study (CHS) cohort. They found that in adolescents, higher baseline concentrations of PFOS predicted lower bone accrual over time. In young adults, there was a similar negative association of PFOS concentrations and bone density at baseline, but not with longitudinal bone accrual. In this study, other PFAS were not associated with bone outcomes.

Overall, research appears to suggest that PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA may have deleterious effects on bone density and bone accrual over time. However, data are not consistent across studies and across sexes, and more research is necessary to conclusively define the impact of these chemicals on skeletal health, particularly during the critical pubertal years of maximal bone accrual. In the meantime, continued efforts are necessary to reduce to concentrations of these PFAS in the environment.

Dr. Misra disclosed ties with AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently published prospective study in JAMA Network Open identified a significant association between children’s bone health and their proximity to green areas.

The literature emphasized the benefits of childhood exposure to green spaces for neurocognitive, social, behavioral, and mental development, as well as well-being. In addition, such exposure is linked to lower body mass index, increased physical activity, and reduced risks for overweight, obesity, and hypertension. However, specific data on bone mineral density implications are limited.

To address this gap, Hanne Sleurs, PhD, a researcher at the Universiteit Hasselt in Belgium, and colleagues followed the bone health of 327 participants from birth to 4-6 years and examined correlations with individuals’ exposure to green areas. Data collection occurred from October 2014 to July 2021.

Green spaces were categorized as high (vegetation height > 3 m), low (vegetation height ≤ 3 m), and mixed (combination of both). The distances of green spaces from participants’ residences ranged from a radius of 100 m to 3 km. Radial bone mineral density assessment was conducted using quantitative ultrasound during follow-up consultations.

The scientists found that participants frequently exposed to high and mixed vegetation areas within a 500-m radius of their homes had significantly higher bone mineral density than those at other distances or those frequenting spaces with different vegetation. In addition, access to larger green spaces with mixed and high vegetation within a 1-km radius was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of low bone density in children.

“These findings illustrate the positive impact on bone health of early childhood exposure to green areas near their homes during critical growth and development periods, with long-term implications,” wrote the researchers.

The results aligned with those of a prior study in which authors noted factors contributing to families’ frequent park visits, including shorter distances, safety, and park organization, as well as the natural diversity and activities offered.

One hypothesis explaining improved bone density in children visiting green areas was increased physical activity practiced in these locations. The mechanical load from exercise can activate signaling pathways favoring bone development. Literature also gathered data on the influence of green areas on young populations engaging in physical activities, showing positive outcomes.

According to the study authors, the findings are crucial for public health because they emphasize the need for urban investments in accessible green spaces as a strategy for fracture and osteoporosis prevention. In the long term, such initiatives translate to reduced public health expenses, along with physical and emotional gains in communities adopting environmental strategies, they concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a wearable belt device for postmenopausal women with osteopenia, the precursor to osteoporosis, according to the company’s manufacturer, Bone Health Technologies.

According to the company, the device (Osteoboost) is the first nonpharmacologic device-based, prescription-only treatment for postmenopausal women with low bone density. It has not been tested for ability to reduce fracture risk.

Bone Health Technologies

The device is worn around the hips and delivers calibrated mild vibrations to the hips and lumbar spine to help preserve bone strength and density. A vibration pack is mounted to the back of the belt.

FDA approval, announced on January 18, was based on the findings of a National Institutes of Health–funded double-blinded, sham-controlled study of 126 women with low bone density conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. The data were shared at the 2023 Endocrine Society and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research annual meetings and published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Lead investigator Laura D. Bilek, PT, PhD, associate dean for research and associate professor at the University of Nebraska, and colleagues wrote that the primary outcome measurement was the change in vertebral strength measured by CT scans for women who used the device a minimum of three times per week compared with a sham group who wore a belt that emitted sound but had no vibrations.

Compressive strength and volumetric density of the first lumbar vertebra were analyzed.

In the active-belt group, women lost, on average, 0.48% bone strength, while those in the sham group lost nearly 2.84% (P = .014), about five times as much. Results also showed that participants in the active treatment group who used the device three times per week lost 0.29% bone mineral density (BMD) compared with the 1.97% BMD lost in the control group. No adverse events were reported in the study.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist at Rush University in Chicago, told this news organization there’s considerable fear among some patients about long-term use of available medications for bone health, “so any modality that is nontherapeutic — not a pill — is always exciting.”

The endpoints of the study are one good measure, she said, but she emphasized that it will be important to show that the improved bone density from the belt that is described in this study “is a true marker of decreased fracture risk.”

Because there are no apparent side effects, she said it may be effective in combination with weight-bearing exercise, vitamin D and calcium, and/or medication, depending on severity of bone loss.

Current medications on the market for osteoporosis have been shown to improve bone strength and reduce fracture risk, she noted.

“It could help; I just don’t think we have enough evidence that it will completely treat the bone loss,” Dr. Khandelwal said.

She said she sees the potential population most interested in the belt as premenopausal women with a family history of bone loss who may not meet the level of bone loss for medical management but are interested in prevention.

“I also think of individuals who might already meet medication needs but are completely averse to being on medication,” she said. The bulk of her practice is treating bone loss, she said, estimating that 20% of her patients do not want to be on medication.

Bone Health Technologies CEO Laura Yecies, MBA, told this news organization the company has not yet set the price for the device and noted that because it will be available by prescription only, out-of-pocket costs and copays will differ. She said the company expects to begin shipping later this year. Requests for update notifications can be made at the company’s website.

Dr. Bilek told this news organization the device was tested for a year, so it’s unclear how long people with osteopenia would need to wear the belt for maximum benefit.

The theory behind the mechanism of action, she said, “is that the vibration actually inhibits the cells [osteoclasts] that take away bone mass.”

The researchers included only postmenopausal women with osteopenia in the study, but Dr. Bilek said she would like to test the device on other groups, such as men with prostate cancer getting testosterone-blocking therapy, which can result in loss of bone density. An estimated 34 million people in the United States have osteopenia.

Dr. Bilek said a next step for the study is to enroll a more diverse cohort at an additional center to test the device because most of the women in this one were White.

She noted that women’s bone mass peaks at age 30 and then starts to decline.

“When women hit menopause, there’s a really rapid decline [in bone strength] for the next 5-7 years and then the decline levels off. If we can slow that decline, hopefully that woman’s bone density is maintained at a higher level throughout their life,” Dr. Bilek said.

Dr. Bilek is a scientific adviser to Bone Health Technologies. She and many coauthors of the study received grants or fees from the company and own stock in or are employees of the company. Ms. Yecies is the founder and CEO of Bone Health Technologies. Dr. Khandelwal had no relevant financial relationships.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources:

• 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10) for total protein
• 1.07 (1.02-1.11) for animal protein
• 1.14 (1.06-1.23) for dairy protein
• 1.38 (1.24-1.54) for plant protein 

In substitution analyses, significant positive associations were observed for the isocaloric replacement of animal or dairy protein, carbohydrate, or fat with plant protein — with increased ORs for healthy aging of 1.22-1.58 for each 3% of energy replacement.

On the measure of physical function, for example, replacing calories from all macronutrient variables with equivalent calories from plant protein was associated with 20%-60% higher odds of having no physical function limitations. Plant protein was also associated with higher odds for good mental status.

“Other studies have looked at protein intake in older adults, but we felt midlife was a more relevant etiological window,” Dr. Ardisson Korat said in an interview. “Our findings generally align, however, with those of protein intake in older populations, which have shown that protein can reduce the risk of frailty.”

He added that the benefits of protein, especially from plant sources, would likely apply to men as well and increasing plant protein intake is not difficult. “If you want a snack during the day, eat a handful of nuts instead of potato chips,” he advised. And eating several meals a week featuring beans, peas, lentils, tofu, whole grains, or seeds is an easy way to boost dietary plant protein, which comes with health-promoting soluble and insoluble fiber as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory polyphenols and other phytochemicals.

Conversely, plant but not animal protein consumption in older adulthood was linked to a lower risk of frailty in a previous NHS trial.

Higher plant protein intake was associated with a better probability of achieving healthy aging defined by changes in functional impairments, self-reported health/vitality, mental health, and use of health services in the Spanish Seniors-Estudio Sobre Nutricion y Riesgo Cardiovascular.

In contrast, animal protein intake in middle adulthood has been linked to an increased risk of premature death from chronic diseases driven by cardiovascular disease mortality.

The present findings are consistent with those observed for protein intakes in older adulthood, Dr. Ardisson Korat said.

“This study underscores the health advantages for midlife adults consuming adequate dietary protein — particularly plant protein — as one component of pursuing a healthy lifestyle,” said Douglas R. Dirschl, MD, chair of orthopedic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Most Americans consume adequate amounts of protein, but according to Dr. Dirschl, who treats many older patients for osteoporotic fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions, many US diets are subpar in this nutrient.

While protein is essential for bone and muscle formation and maintenance, “a surprising number of Americans are protein deficient, even those who seem hale and are overweight,” he said.


 

Dietary Recommendations for Midlife Patients

Physicians should therefore advise midlife patients to meet or perhaps modestly exceed the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg per day and to make plant protein a substantial component of daily dietary protein intake, Dr. Dirschl said.

Luke D. Kim, MD, MEd, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, noted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or with difficulty in day-to-day functioning are likely to have suboptimal protein intake. Such patients may need encouragement to eat more protein. “But we should keep in mind that showing a higher associated odds ratio of better health with increased protein take does not mean causality,” he said.

According to Rachel L. Amdur, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, the long-term follow-up data from the NHS are uniquely helpful. “Middle-aged persons may think they no longer need much dietary protein and need to be reminded. Sometimes eating carbohydrates is just easier,” she said in an interview. Physicians need to asses and counsel patients on nutrition at all stages of life. “As I tell my patients, it’s best to think of your future self now.”

In agreement is Louis J. Morledge, MD, an internist at Northwell Health in New York City. “I firmly counsel my patients about adequate and often increased protein intake in middle life. But this is always within a larger framework of overall nutritional health.” He added that middle-aged persons often find themselves “stuck in food ruts,” and one of his clinical focuses is to advise patients about the importance of healthier food choices so they can better adjust to mental, emotional, physical, and skeletal changes as they age.
 

Study Details

The NHS analysis drew on prospective data from 48,762 nurses under age 60 in 1984. Total protein, animal protein, dairy protein, and plant protein were derived from validated food-frequency questionnaires.

Adjusting for lifestyle, demographics, and health status, the investigators identified 3721 (7.6% of cohort) eligible participants. The mean age of participants at baseline was 48.6 years; 38.6% had body mass indexes (BMI; in kg/m²) greater than 25; 22.9% were current smokers; and 88.2% were married.

Healthy aging was defined as freedom from 11 major chronic diseases, good mental health, and no impairments in cognitive or physical function, as assessed in the 2014 or 2016 NHS participant questionnaires. Diseases/treatments included cancer, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Mean total protein consumption as a percentage of energy was 18.3% (standard deviation 3%), slightly higher than the average 16% in the US diet. Of this, 13.3% derived from animals, 3.6% from dairy products, and 4.9% from plants.

Total protein intake was positively associated with higher education levels, being physically active, higher BMI, and a baseline history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Conversely, total protein intake was inversely associated with intakes of total carbohydrates, nuts, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The associations between protein intake and healthy aging are complex and not fully understood, the authors stated.
 

Effects of Protein Intake

In studies of older adult populations lower protein intake has been associated with lean mass loss. Animal protein supplementation studies in older adults have shown lean mass gains potentially related to amino acid composition.

In terms of mechanisms, evidence suggests that protein-related activation of the rapamycin complex 1 pathway may play a role, the authors suggested. The activity of this signaling pathway decreases with age.

Rapamycin, a compound used to prevent organ transplant rejection, has been associated with delayed aging. In the body, dietary protein and exercise activate this pathway, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis and possibly improving physical function.

As for the differential associations of plant and animal protein on the chronic disease domain of the healthy aging phenotype, Dr. Ardisson Korat and coauthors said plant protein has been associated with favorable levels of important risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as reduced LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity, as well as decreased levels of proinflammatory markers.

Conversely, total and animal protein intakes have been positively associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is implicated in the growth of malignant cells in breast and prostate tissue.

This study is the first step in evaluating the long-term health effect of protein intake in midlife, the relevant development window for most chronic conditions, the NHS study authors said. More research is needed, however, to corroborate the study findings in other populations and identify underlying mechanisms.

This study was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The commentators disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources:

• 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10) for total protein
• 1.07 (1.02-1.11) for animal protein
• 1.14 (1.06-1.23) for dairy protein
• 1.38 (1.24-1.54) for plant protein 

In substitution analyses, significant positive associations were observed for the isocaloric replacement of animal or dairy protein, carbohydrate, or fat with plant protein — with increased ORs for healthy aging of 1.22-1.58 for each 3% of energy replacement.

On the measure of physical function, for example, replacing calories from all macronutrient variables with equivalent calories from plant protein was associated with 20%-60% higher odds of having no physical function limitations. Plant protein was also associated with higher odds for good mental status.

“Other studies have looked at protein intake in older adults, but we felt midlife was a more relevant etiological window,” Dr. Ardisson Korat said in an interview. “Our findings generally align, however, with those of protein intake in older populations, which have shown that protein can reduce the risk of frailty.”

He added that the benefits of protein, especially from plant sources, would likely apply to men as well and increasing plant protein intake is not difficult. “If you want a snack during the day, eat a handful of nuts instead of potato chips,” he advised. And eating several meals a week featuring beans, peas, lentils, tofu, whole grains, or seeds is an easy way to boost dietary plant protein, which comes with health-promoting soluble and insoluble fiber as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory polyphenols and other phytochemicals.

Conversely, plant but not animal protein consumption in older adulthood was linked to a lower risk of frailty in a previous NHS trial.

Higher plant protein intake was associated with a better probability of achieving healthy aging defined by changes in functional impairments, self-reported health/vitality, mental health, and use of health services in the Spanish Seniors-Estudio Sobre Nutricion y Riesgo Cardiovascular.

In contrast, animal protein intake in middle adulthood has been linked to an increased risk of premature death from chronic diseases driven by cardiovascular disease mortality.

The present findings are consistent with those observed for protein intakes in older adulthood, Dr. Ardisson Korat said.

“This study underscores the health advantages for midlife adults consuming adequate dietary protein — particularly plant protein — as one component of pursuing a healthy lifestyle,” said Douglas R. Dirschl, MD, chair of orthopedic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Most Americans consume adequate amounts of protein, but according to Dr. Dirschl, who treats many older patients for osteoporotic fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions, many US diets are subpar in this nutrient.

While protein is essential for bone and muscle formation and maintenance, “a surprising number of Americans are protein deficient, even those who seem hale and are overweight,” he said.


 

Dietary Recommendations for Midlife Patients

Physicians should therefore advise midlife patients to meet or perhaps modestly exceed the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg per day and to make plant protein a substantial component of daily dietary protein intake, Dr. Dirschl said.

Luke D. Kim, MD, MEd, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, noted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or with difficulty in day-to-day functioning are likely to have suboptimal protein intake. Such patients may need encouragement to eat more protein. “But we should keep in mind that showing a higher associated odds ratio of better health with increased protein take does not mean causality,” he said.

According to Rachel L. Amdur, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, the long-term follow-up data from the NHS are uniquely helpful. “Middle-aged persons may think they no longer need much dietary protein and need to be reminded. Sometimes eating carbohydrates is just easier,” she said in an interview. Physicians need to asses and counsel patients on nutrition at all stages of life. “As I tell my patients, it’s best to think of your future self now.”

In agreement is Louis J. Morledge, MD, an internist at Northwell Health in New York City. “I firmly counsel my patients about adequate and often increased protein intake in middle life. But this is always within a larger framework of overall nutritional health.” He added that middle-aged persons often find themselves “stuck in food ruts,” and one of his clinical focuses is to advise patients about the importance of healthier food choices so they can better adjust to mental, emotional, physical, and skeletal changes as they age.
 

Study Details

The NHS analysis drew on prospective data from 48,762 nurses under age 60 in 1984. Total protein, animal protein, dairy protein, and plant protein were derived from validated food-frequency questionnaires.

Adjusting for lifestyle, demographics, and health status, the investigators identified 3721 (7.6% of cohort) eligible participants. The mean age of participants at baseline was 48.6 years; 38.6% had body mass indexes (BMI; in kg/m²) greater than 25; 22.9% were current smokers; and 88.2% were married.

Healthy aging was defined as freedom from 11 major chronic diseases, good mental health, and no impairments in cognitive or physical function, as assessed in the 2014 or 2016 NHS participant questionnaires. Diseases/treatments included cancer, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Mean total protein consumption as a percentage of energy was 18.3% (standard deviation 3%), slightly higher than the average 16% in the US diet. Of this, 13.3% derived from animals, 3.6% from dairy products, and 4.9% from plants.

Total protein intake was positively associated with higher education levels, being physically active, higher BMI, and a baseline history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Conversely, total protein intake was inversely associated with intakes of total carbohydrates, nuts, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The associations between protein intake and healthy aging are complex and not fully understood, the authors stated.
 

Effects of Protein Intake

In studies of older adult populations lower protein intake has been associated with lean mass loss. Animal protein supplementation studies in older adults have shown lean mass gains potentially related to amino acid composition.

In terms of mechanisms, evidence suggests that protein-related activation of the rapamycin complex 1 pathway may play a role, the authors suggested. The activity of this signaling pathway decreases with age.

Rapamycin, a compound used to prevent organ transplant rejection, has been associated with delayed aging. In the body, dietary protein and exercise activate this pathway, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis and possibly improving physical function.

As for the differential associations of plant and animal protein on the chronic disease domain of the healthy aging phenotype, Dr. Ardisson Korat and coauthors said plant protein has been associated with favorable levels of important risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as reduced LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity, as well as decreased levels of proinflammatory markers.

Conversely, total and animal protein intakes have been positively associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is implicated in the growth of malignant cells in breast and prostate tissue.

This study is the first step in evaluating the long-term health effect of protein intake in midlife, the relevant development window for most chronic conditions, the NHS study authors said. More research is needed, however, to corroborate the study findings in other populations and identify underlying mechanisms.

This study was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The commentators disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources:

• 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10) for total protein
• 1.07 (1.02-1.11) for animal protein
• 1.14 (1.06-1.23) for dairy protein
• 1.38 (1.24-1.54) for plant protein 

In substitution analyses, significant positive associations were observed for the isocaloric replacement of animal or dairy protein, carbohydrate, or fat with plant protein — with increased ORs for healthy aging of 1.22-1.58 for each 3% of energy replacement.

On the measure of physical function, for example, replacing calories from all macronutrient variables with equivalent calories from plant protein was associated with 20%-60% higher odds of having no physical function limitations. Plant protein was also associated with higher odds for good mental status.

“Other studies have looked at protein intake in older adults, but we felt midlife was a more relevant etiological window,” Dr. Ardisson Korat said in an interview. “Our findings generally align, however, with those of protein intake in older populations, which have shown that protein can reduce the risk of frailty.”

He added that the benefits of protein, especially from plant sources, would likely apply to men as well and increasing plant protein intake is not difficult. “If you want a snack during the day, eat a handful of nuts instead of potato chips,” he advised. And eating several meals a week featuring beans, peas, lentils, tofu, whole grains, or seeds is an easy way to boost dietary plant protein, which comes with health-promoting soluble and insoluble fiber as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory polyphenols and other phytochemicals.

Conversely, plant but not animal protein consumption in older adulthood was linked to a lower risk of frailty in a previous NHS trial.

Higher plant protein intake was associated with a better probability of achieving healthy aging defined by changes in functional impairments, self-reported health/vitality, mental health, and use of health services in the Spanish Seniors-Estudio Sobre Nutricion y Riesgo Cardiovascular.

In contrast, animal protein intake in middle adulthood has been linked to an increased risk of premature death from chronic diseases driven by cardiovascular disease mortality.

The present findings are consistent with those observed for protein intakes in older adulthood, Dr. Ardisson Korat said.

“This study underscores the health advantages for midlife adults consuming adequate dietary protein — particularly plant protein — as one component of pursuing a healthy lifestyle,” said Douglas R. Dirschl, MD, chair of orthopedic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Most Americans consume adequate amounts of protein, but according to Dr. Dirschl, who treats many older patients for osteoporotic fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions, many US diets are subpar in this nutrient.

While protein is essential for bone and muscle formation and maintenance, “a surprising number of Americans are protein deficient, even those who seem hale and are overweight,” he said.


 

Dietary Recommendations for Midlife Patients

Physicians should therefore advise midlife patients to meet or perhaps modestly exceed the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg per day and to make plant protein a substantial component of daily dietary protein intake, Dr. Dirschl said.

Luke D. Kim, MD, MEd, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, noted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or with difficulty in day-to-day functioning are likely to have suboptimal protein intake. Such patients may need encouragement to eat more protein. “But we should keep in mind that showing a higher associated odds ratio of better health with increased protein take does not mean causality,” he said.

According to Rachel L. Amdur, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, the long-term follow-up data from the NHS are uniquely helpful. “Middle-aged persons may think they no longer need much dietary protein and need to be reminded. Sometimes eating carbohydrates is just easier,” she said in an interview. Physicians need to asses and counsel patients on nutrition at all stages of life. “As I tell my patients, it’s best to think of your future self now.”

In agreement is Louis J. Morledge, MD, an internist at Northwell Health in New York City. “I firmly counsel my patients about adequate and often increased protein intake in middle life. But this is always within a larger framework of overall nutritional health.” He added that middle-aged persons often find themselves “stuck in food ruts,” and one of his clinical focuses is to advise patients about the importance of healthier food choices so they can better adjust to mental, emotional, physical, and skeletal changes as they age.
 

Study Details

The NHS analysis drew on prospective data from 48,762 nurses under age 60 in 1984. Total protein, animal protein, dairy protein, and plant protein were derived from validated food-frequency questionnaires.

Adjusting for lifestyle, demographics, and health status, the investigators identified 3721 (7.6% of cohort) eligible participants. The mean age of participants at baseline was 48.6 years; 38.6% had body mass indexes (BMI; in kg/m²) greater than 25; 22.9% were current smokers; and 88.2% were married.

Healthy aging was defined as freedom from 11 major chronic diseases, good mental health, and no impairments in cognitive or physical function, as assessed in the 2014 or 2016 NHS participant questionnaires. Diseases/treatments included cancer, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Mean total protein consumption as a percentage of energy was 18.3% (standard deviation 3%), slightly higher than the average 16% in the US diet. Of this, 13.3% derived from animals, 3.6% from dairy products, and 4.9% from plants.

Total protein intake was positively associated with higher education levels, being physically active, higher BMI, and a baseline history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Conversely, total protein intake was inversely associated with intakes of total carbohydrates, nuts, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The associations between protein intake and healthy aging are complex and not fully understood, the authors stated.
 

Effects of Protein Intake

In studies of older adult populations lower protein intake has been associated with lean mass loss. Animal protein supplementation studies in older adults have shown lean mass gains potentially related to amino acid composition.

In terms of mechanisms, evidence suggests that protein-related activation of the rapamycin complex 1 pathway may play a role, the authors suggested. The activity of this signaling pathway decreases with age.

Rapamycin, a compound used to prevent organ transplant rejection, has been associated with delayed aging. In the body, dietary protein and exercise activate this pathway, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis and possibly improving physical function.

As for the differential associations of plant and animal protein on the chronic disease domain of the healthy aging phenotype, Dr. Ardisson Korat and coauthors said plant protein has been associated with favorable levels of important risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as reduced LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity, as well as decreased levels of proinflammatory markers.

Conversely, total and animal protein intakes have been positively associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is implicated in the growth of malignant cells in breast and prostate tissue.

This study is the first step in evaluating the long-term health effect of protein intake in midlife, the relevant development window for most chronic conditions, the NHS study authors said. More research is needed, however, to corroborate the study findings in other populations and identify underlying mechanisms.

This study was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The commentators disclosed no relevant competing interests.

VANCOUVER – Patients who undergo either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy are at an increased risk of fracture, compared with patients with obesity who do not undergo surgery, according to a new analysis of a predominantly male group of U.S. veterans.

Previous studies involving premenopausal women have found a risk of bone mineral density loss and fracture with bariatric surgery, but little was known about the risk among men. Research has also shown an increase in risk after RYGB, but there is less information on risks associated with sleeve gastrectomy, though it is now the most common surgery for weight loss.

Bone density loss after bariatric surgery has been shown to be significant, according to Eileen H. Koh, MD. “It’s quite a lot of bone loss, quickly,” said Dr. Koh, a graduated fellow from the endocrinology program at the University of California, San Francisco, who is moving to the University of Washington, Seattle.

Those observations generally come from studies of younger women. The purpose of the new study “was to see if we see the same risk of fracture in veterans who are older men, so kind of the opposite of the typical bariatric patient,” said Dr. Koh, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The researchers analyzed data from 8,299 U.S. veterans who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (41%), RYGB (51%), adjustable gastric banding (4%), or an unspecified bariatric procedure (4%) between 2000 and 2020. They were matched with 24,877 individuals with obesity who did not undergo surgery. The investigators excluded individuals who were at high risk of fracture because of another condition, such as organ transplantation or dialysis. Men made up 70% of both surgical and nonsurgical groups. The mean age was 52 years for both, and 89% and 88% were not Hispanic or Latino, respectively. The proportion of White individuals was 72% and 64%, and the proportion of Black individuals was 18% and 24%.

After adjustment for demographic variables and comorbidities, bariatric surgery was associated with a 68% increased risk of fracture (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.80), including hip fractures (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.98-2.97), spine (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06), radius/ulna (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.05-2.77), humerus (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.28-1.89), pelvis (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.68-3.46), and tibia/fibula/ankle (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69). Increased fracture risk was associated with RYGB (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.75-2.12) and sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69) but not adjustable gastric banding.

Compared with sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding was associated with a decreased risk of fracture (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84; P = .0012).

The study’s predominantly male population is important because men also get osteoporosis and are frequently overlooked, according to Anne Schafer, MD, who was the lead author of the study. “Even after they fracture, men are sometimes less likely to get care to prevent the next fracture. We’ve shown here that especially men who are on the older side, who go through surgical weight loss, do have a higher risk of fracture compared to those who are similarly obese but have not had the operation,” said Dr. Schafer, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

There are limited data on fracture risk after sleeve gastrectomy. “I think this is one of the first times that I’ve been able to demonstrate that there was a higher risk of fracture with sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with nonsurgical cohorts. Of course, it’s necessary to confirm these findings in further studies, but it’s interesting,” said Julien Paccou, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked for comment. His group’s study of a French population showed an increased fracture risk associated with RYGB but not sleeve gastrectomy. Another study found a reduction of fracture risk associated with sleeve gastrectomy and no difference between RYGB and nonsurgical matched control patients in a Medicare population.

In fact, there is a belief that fracture risk may be lower with sleeve gastrectomy, according to Dr. Schafer. “It’s part of why it’s so popular,” she said.

The reasons for increased fracture risk following surgical weight loss remains unknown, according to Dr. Paccou, but they could include mechanical unloading, loss of lean mass, and hormone and nutrition changes. “There are many, many factors,” said Dr. Paccou, a professor of rheumatology at Hospital Roger Salengro in Lille, France.

The study’s findings of increased risk of fracture after sleeve gastrectomy may be an argument against malabsorption because the procedure shouldn’t affect nutrient absorption. It suggests that other factors are at play. “It’s not the only reason,” Dr. Schafer said.

There are recommendations for postbariatric surgery care to optimize bone health, such as protein intake and calcium and vitamin D targets, along with lifestyle factors. “Despite all those [efforts], we still know that bone loss occurs,” Dr. Koh said. In fact, the group is conducting a study funded by Amgen of the use of denosumab (Prolia) for the prevention of high-turnover bone loss after RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy.

Dr. Schafer has received research support from Bone Health Technologies and Amgen. Dr. Koh and Dr. Paccou have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – Patients who undergo either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy are at an increased risk of fracture, compared with patients with obesity who do not undergo surgery, according to a new analysis of a predominantly male group of U.S. veterans.

Previous studies involving premenopausal women have found a risk of bone mineral density loss and fracture with bariatric surgery, but little was known about the risk among men. Research has also shown an increase in risk after RYGB, but there is less information on risks associated with sleeve gastrectomy, though it is now the most common surgery for weight loss.

Bone density loss after bariatric surgery has been shown to be significant, according to Eileen H. Koh, MD. “It’s quite a lot of bone loss, quickly,” said Dr. Koh, a graduated fellow from the endocrinology program at the University of California, San Francisco, who is moving to the University of Washington, Seattle.

Those observations generally come from studies of younger women. The purpose of the new study “was to see if we see the same risk of fracture in veterans who are older men, so kind of the opposite of the typical bariatric patient,” said Dr. Koh, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The researchers analyzed data from 8,299 U.S. veterans who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (41%), RYGB (51%), adjustable gastric banding (4%), or an unspecified bariatric procedure (4%) between 2000 and 2020. They were matched with 24,877 individuals with obesity who did not undergo surgery. The investigators excluded individuals who were at high risk of fracture because of another condition, such as organ transplantation or dialysis. Men made up 70% of both surgical and nonsurgical groups. The mean age was 52 years for both, and 89% and 88% were not Hispanic or Latino, respectively. The proportion of White individuals was 72% and 64%, and the proportion of Black individuals was 18% and 24%.

After adjustment for demographic variables and comorbidities, bariatric surgery was associated with a 68% increased risk of fracture (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.80), including hip fractures (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.98-2.97), spine (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06), radius/ulna (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.05-2.77), humerus (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.28-1.89), pelvis (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.68-3.46), and tibia/fibula/ankle (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69). Increased fracture risk was associated with RYGB (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.75-2.12) and sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69) but not adjustable gastric banding.

Compared with sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding was associated with a decreased risk of fracture (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84; P = .0012).

The study’s predominantly male population is important because men also get osteoporosis and are frequently overlooked, according to Anne Schafer, MD, who was the lead author of the study. “Even after they fracture, men are sometimes less likely to get care to prevent the next fracture. We’ve shown here that especially men who are on the older side, who go through surgical weight loss, do have a higher risk of fracture compared to those who are similarly obese but have not had the operation,” said Dr. Schafer, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

There are limited data on fracture risk after sleeve gastrectomy. “I think this is one of the first times that I’ve been able to demonstrate that there was a higher risk of fracture with sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with nonsurgical cohorts. Of course, it’s necessary to confirm these findings in further studies, but it’s interesting,” said Julien Paccou, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked for comment. His group’s study of a French population showed an increased fracture risk associated with RYGB but not sleeve gastrectomy. Another study found a reduction of fracture risk associated with sleeve gastrectomy and no difference between RYGB and nonsurgical matched control patients in a Medicare population.

In fact, there is a belief that fracture risk may be lower with sleeve gastrectomy, according to Dr. Schafer. “It’s part of why it’s so popular,” she said.

The reasons for increased fracture risk following surgical weight loss remains unknown, according to Dr. Paccou, but they could include mechanical unloading, loss of lean mass, and hormone and nutrition changes. “There are many, many factors,” said Dr. Paccou, a professor of rheumatology at Hospital Roger Salengro in Lille, France.

The study’s findings of increased risk of fracture after sleeve gastrectomy may be an argument against malabsorption because the procedure shouldn’t affect nutrient absorption. It suggests that other factors are at play. “It’s not the only reason,” Dr. Schafer said.

There are recommendations for postbariatric surgery care to optimize bone health, such as protein intake and calcium and vitamin D targets, along with lifestyle factors. “Despite all those [efforts], we still know that bone loss occurs,” Dr. Koh said. In fact, the group is conducting a study funded by Amgen of the use of denosumab (Prolia) for the prevention of high-turnover bone loss after RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy.

Dr. Schafer has received research support from Bone Health Technologies and Amgen. Dr. Koh and Dr. Paccou have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – Patients who undergo either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy are at an increased risk of fracture, compared with patients with obesity who do not undergo surgery, according to a new analysis of a predominantly male group of U.S. veterans.

Previous studies involving premenopausal women have found a risk of bone mineral density loss and fracture with bariatric surgery, but little was known about the risk among men. Research has also shown an increase in risk after RYGB, but there is less information on risks associated with sleeve gastrectomy, though it is now the most common surgery for weight loss.

Bone density loss after bariatric surgery has been shown to be significant, according to Eileen H. Koh, MD. “It’s quite a lot of bone loss, quickly,” said Dr. Koh, a graduated fellow from the endocrinology program at the University of California, San Francisco, who is moving to the University of Washington, Seattle.

Those observations generally come from studies of younger women. The purpose of the new study “was to see if we see the same risk of fracture in veterans who are older men, so kind of the opposite of the typical bariatric patient,” said Dr. Koh, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The researchers analyzed data from 8,299 U.S. veterans who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (41%), RYGB (51%), adjustable gastric banding (4%), or an unspecified bariatric procedure (4%) between 2000 and 2020. They were matched with 24,877 individuals with obesity who did not undergo surgery. The investigators excluded individuals who were at high risk of fracture because of another condition, such as organ transplantation or dialysis. Men made up 70% of both surgical and nonsurgical groups. The mean age was 52 years for both, and 89% and 88% were not Hispanic or Latino, respectively. The proportion of White individuals was 72% and 64%, and the proportion of Black individuals was 18% and 24%.

After adjustment for demographic variables and comorbidities, bariatric surgery was associated with a 68% increased risk of fracture (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.80), including hip fractures (HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.98-2.97), spine (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.61-2.06), radius/ulna (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 2.05-2.77), humerus (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.28-1.89), pelvis (HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.68-3.46), and tibia/fibula/ankle (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69). Increased fracture risk was associated with RYGB (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.75-2.12) and sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.69) but not adjustable gastric banding.

Compared with sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding was associated with a decreased risk of fracture (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84; P = .0012).

The study’s predominantly male population is important because men also get osteoporosis and are frequently overlooked, according to Anne Schafer, MD, who was the lead author of the study. “Even after they fracture, men are sometimes less likely to get care to prevent the next fracture. We’ve shown here that especially men who are on the older side, who go through surgical weight loss, do have a higher risk of fracture compared to those who are similarly obese but have not had the operation,” said Dr. Schafer, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at the San Francisco VA Medical Center.

There are limited data on fracture risk after sleeve gastrectomy. “I think this is one of the first times that I’ve been able to demonstrate that there was a higher risk of fracture with sleeve gastrectomy in comparison with nonsurgical cohorts. Of course, it’s necessary to confirm these findings in further studies, but it’s interesting,” said Julien Paccou, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked for comment. His group’s study of a French population showed an increased fracture risk associated with RYGB but not sleeve gastrectomy. Another study found a reduction of fracture risk associated with sleeve gastrectomy and no difference between RYGB and nonsurgical matched control patients in a Medicare population.

In fact, there is a belief that fracture risk may be lower with sleeve gastrectomy, according to Dr. Schafer. “It’s part of why it’s so popular,” she said.

The reasons for increased fracture risk following surgical weight loss remains unknown, according to Dr. Paccou, but they could include mechanical unloading, loss of lean mass, and hormone and nutrition changes. “There are many, many factors,” said Dr. Paccou, a professor of rheumatology at Hospital Roger Salengro in Lille, France.

The study’s findings of increased risk of fracture after sleeve gastrectomy may be an argument against malabsorption because the procedure shouldn’t affect nutrient absorption. It suggests that other factors are at play. “It’s not the only reason,” Dr. Schafer said.

There are recommendations for postbariatric surgery care to optimize bone health, such as protein intake and calcium and vitamin D targets, along with lifestyle factors. “Despite all those [efforts], we still know that bone loss occurs,” Dr. Koh said. In fact, the group is conducting a study funded by Amgen of the use of denosumab (Prolia) for the prevention of high-turnover bone loss after RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy.

Dr. Schafer has received research support from Bone Health Technologies and Amgen. Dr. Koh and Dr. Paccou have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) conferred the highest risk for a new, first-time clinical fracture in people with type 2 diabetes with overweight or obesity, independent of any prevalent neuropathy, according to findings from an analysis of a large, randomized clinical trial.

Although the findings are suggestive, they don’t definitively pin blame on TCAs, said Rachel Elam, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. “I think that there’s not enough information to conclude that tricyclic antidepressants directly lead to fractures, but I think it opens the door [to] something we should look into more. Is it being mediated by a better predictor, or is it the medication itself? I think it’s more hypothesis generating,” said Dr. Elam, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

Patients with type 2 diabetes are known to be at increased risk of fracture, but prediction tools tend to underestimate this risk, Dr. Elam said. “Type 2 diabetes–specific clinical risk factors may be helpful for finding out fracture risk in this population,” Dr. Elam said during her talk.

Glycemic control is one candidate risk factor because advanced glycation end products are linked to reduced bone strength. Other factors include antidiabetic medication use, neuropathy, and microvascular disease, which has been linked to increased cortical porosity.

The study examined a somewhat younger population than previous surveys, having drawn from the Look AHEAD-C clinical trial, which examined the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention on type 2 diabetes. Look AHEAD-C included 4,697 participants aged 45-75 from 16 U.S. clinical sites. Participants had a body mass index of 25.0 kg/m² or higher and hemoglobin A1c levels of 11% or below.

Dr. Elam cited the database’s inclusion of factors like A1c levels, renal parameters, and diabetic neuropathy. “It gave us a really good population to look at those risk factors” in a large group of people with type 2 diabetes, she said.

Over a median follow-up of 16.6 years, there were 649 participants with incident first clinical fracture(s). Statistically significant factors predicting fracture risk included TCA use (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-4.43), female gender (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.83-2.66), insulin use (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57), increases in A1c level (per 1% increase: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.20), age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), other or mixed race/ethnicity (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), Hispanic White race/ethnicity (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.47), and estrogen use (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98).

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Elsa Strotmeyer, PhD, commented that TCAs have been linked to central nervous system pathways in falls in other populations. “It’s a very nice study. It’s important to look at the diabetes complications related to the fracture risk, but I thought that they should have emphasized some more of the diabetes complications being related to fracture rather than these tricyclic antidepressants, because that is not a unique factor to that population,” said Dr. Strotmeyer, who is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Instead, she noted a different strength of the study. “The study population is important because they’re a relatively young population with type 2 diabetes, compared to many studies [that] have been published in older populations. Showing similar things that we found in older populations was the unique piece and the important piece of this study,” Dr. Strotmeyer said.

Ultimately, the model wasn’t sufficient to be used as a fall risk predictor, but it should inform future work, according to Dr. Elam. “I think it does lay some new groundwork that when we’re looking forward, it may [help in building] other models to better predict fracture risk in type 2 diabetes. Things that would be important to include [in future models] would be medication use, such as tricyclic antidepressants,” and to make sure we include glycemic control, A1c, and insulin medication.

The study was independently funded. Dr. Elam and Dr. Strotmeyer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A new calculator that predicts short-term fracture risk at both 1 year and 3 years in patients on dialysis performed well in a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The tool will soon be available on QxMD Calculate, which provides free decision-support tools for physicians, said presenter Andrea Cowan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, London.

Dialysis patients have an approximately fivefold increased risk for fracture, Dr. Cowan noted, compared with the general population. However, treatments to prevent fracture risk are relatively limited and can have significant side effects. Therefore, “you really want to make sure that the person you’re targeting for treatment is actually going to be at a reasonable risk of fracture,” she said.

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is useful, but it estimates 10-year fracture risk, which is too long of a time frame to be useful for dialysis patients who experience a 50% 5-year mortality, according to Dr. Cowan. It does not take kidney failure or severe hyperparathyroidism into account, and it also requires information like bone mineral density, which poses an additional burden for a dialysis patient already undergoing multiple tests.

The new calculator could also be useful for research because it doesn’t rely on clinical data that might not be generally available, such as parental fracture, smoking status, or body mass index. “There’s a move towards things like pragmatic trials, which use more routinely collected data, have broader inclusion criteria, and are often more cost efficient to run. This calculator should be relatively easy to implement in trials using routinely collected data to perhaps define a subgroup of patients who may be at high risk of fracture without having to apply really cumbersome tools,” Dr. Cowan said.

The researchers included 11,599 patients between ages 40 and 89 years who were treated at a single center in Ontario between 2010 and 2017. The mean age was 66.18 years, 38.6% were women, 64.1% had diabetes, 11.9% had liver disease, and median time on dialysis was 0.81 years. The patients’ median parathyroid hormone level was 30 pmol/L.

At 3 years, the cumulative incidence of any fracture was 7.36% (95% confidence interval, 6.89-7.85), including 2.62% for hip fracture (95% CI, 2.34-2.93), 1.36% for spine fracture (95% CI, 1.16-1.59), 1.93% for wrist or forearm (95% CI, 1.69-2.20), and 2.15% for the pelvis (95% CI, 1.89-2.43). The incidence for all fractures at 1 year was 2.93 (95% CI, 2.62-3.26).

Variables associated with fracture risk included female sex (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.67), a previous fracture more than 1 year in the past (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.37-2.00), a fracture in the past year (HR, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.86-4.60), and proton pump inhibitor use (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.45). After inclusion of vitamin D use, steroid use, time on dialysis, calcium levels, phosphate levels, presence of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic liver disease, the full model had an area under the curve of 77.7 at 1 year (95% CI, 73.3-84.4) and 69.9 at 3 years (95% CI, 68.0-72.2). For hip fracture, the model had an AUC of 80.1 at 1 year (95% CI, 77.0-83.5) and 71.9 at 3 years (95% CI, 70.1-74.2).

During the Q&A session, Dr. Cowan was asked how the tool could be implemented clinically. She said that it could have value in discussing fracture prediction and prevention with patients, but it could also increase fracture risk awareness among nephrologists. “I need to convince a lot of my colleagues because they’re focused on other things, so having this [calculator] I think is both good from a patient as well as a practitioner perspective. And the treatments that we have in people with end-stage renal disease are limited, so you want to know that you’re really targeting the high-risk person before you potentially put them on denosumab and increase the risk of severe hypercalcemia and things like that,” Dr. Cowan said.

The study points out the challenges of predicting fracture risk for specific populations, according to session comoderator Evelyn Hsieh, MD. She noted that the study needs follow-up. “I don’t think they had gotten to a validation [in a separate cohort] yet,” said Dr. Hsieh, an associate professor of medicine (rheumatology) and epidemiology (chronic diseases) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Cowan and Dr. Hsieh have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

VANCOUVER – A new calculator that predicts short-term fracture risk at both 1 year and 3 years in patients on dialysis performed well in a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The tool will soon be available on QxMD Calculate, which provides free decision-support tools for physicians, said presenter Andrea Cowan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, London.

Dialysis patients have an approximately fivefold increased risk for fracture, Dr. Cowan noted, compared with the general population. However, treatments to prevent fracture risk are relatively limited and can have significant side effects. Therefore, “you really want to make sure that the person you’re targeting for treatment is actually going to be at a reasonable risk of fracture,” she said.

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is useful, but it estimates 10-year fracture risk, which is too long of a time frame to be useful for dialysis patients who experience a 50% 5-year mortality, according to Dr. Cowan. It does not take kidney failure or severe hyperparathyroidism into account, and it also requires information like bone mineral density, which poses an additional burden for a dialysis patient already undergoing multiple tests.

The new calculator could also be useful for research because it doesn’t rely on clinical data that might not be generally available, such as parental fracture, smoking status, or body mass index. “There’s a move towards things like pragmatic trials, which use more routinely collected data, have broader inclusion criteria, and are often more cost efficient to run. This calculator should be relatively easy to implement in trials using routinely collected data to perhaps define a subgroup of patients who may be at high risk of fracture without having to apply really cumbersome tools,” Dr. Cowan said.

The researchers included 11,599 patients between ages 40 and 89 years who were treated at a single center in Ontario between 2010 and 2017. The mean age was 66.18 years, 38.6% were women, 64.1% had diabetes, 11.9% had liver disease, and median time on dialysis was 0.81 years. The patients’ median parathyroid hormone level was 30 pmol/L.

At 3 years, the cumulative incidence of any fracture was 7.36% (95% confidence interval, 6.89-7.85), including 2.62% for hip fracture (95% CI, 2.34-2.93), 1.36% for spine fracture (95% CI, 1.16-1.59), 1.93% for wrist or forearm (95% CI, 1.69-2.20), and 2.15% for the pelvis (95% CI, 1.89-2.43). The incidence for all fractures at 1 year was 2.93 (95% CI, 2.62-3.26).

Variables associated with fracture risk included female sex (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.67), a previous fracture more than 1 year in the past (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.37-2.00), a fracture in the past year (HR, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.86-4.60), and proton pump inhibitor use (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.45). After inclusion of vitamin D use, steroid use, time on dialysis, calcium levels, phosphate levels, presence of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic liver disease, the full model had an area under the curve of 77.7 at 1 year (95% CI, 73.3-84.4) and 69.9 at 3 years (95% CI, 68.0-72.2). For hip fracture, the model had an AUC of 80.1 at 1 year (95% CI, 77.0-83.5) and 71.9 at 3 years (95% CI, 70.1-74.2).

During the Q&A session, Dr. Cowan was asked how the tool could be implemented clinically. She said that it could have value in discussing fracture prediction and prevention with patients, but it could also increase fracture risk awareness among nephrologists. “I need to convince a lot of my colleagues because they’re focused on other things, so having this [calculator] I think is both good from a patient as well as a practitioner perspective. And the treatments that we have in people with end-stage renal disease are limited, so you want to know that you’re really targeting the high-risk person before you potentially put them on denosumab and increase the risk of severe hypercalcemia and things like that,” Dr. Cowan said.

The study points out the challenges of predicting fracture risk for specific populations, according to session comoderator Evelyn Hsieh, MD. She noted that the study needs follow-up. “I don’t think they had gotten to a validation [in a separate cohort] yet,” said Dr. Hsieh, an associate professor of medicine (rheumatology) and epidemiology (chronic diseases) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Cowan and Dr. Hsieh have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

VANCOUVER – A new calculator that predicts short-term fracture risk at both 1 year and 3 years in patients on dialysis performed well in a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The tool will soon be available on QxMD Calculate, which provides free decision-support tools for physicians, said presenter Andrea Cowan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, London.

Dialysis patients have an approximately fivefold increased risk for fracture, Dr. Cowan noted, compared with the general population. However, treatments to prevent fracture risk are relatively limited and can have significant side effects. Therefore, “you really want to make sure that the person you’re targeting for treatment is actually going to be at a reasonable risk of fracture,” she said.

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) is useful, but it estimates 10-year fracture risk, which is too long of a time frame to be useful for dialysis patients who experience a 50% 5-year mortality, according to Dr. Cowan. It does not take kidney failure or severe hyperparathyroidism into account, and it also requires information like bone mineral density, which poses an additional burden for a dialysis patient already undergoing multiple tests.

The new calculator could also be useful for research because it doesn’t rely on clinical data that might not be generally available, such as parental fracture, smoking status, or body mass index. “There’s a move towards things like pragmatic trials, which use more routinely collected data, have broader inclusion criteria, and are often more cost efficient to run. This calculator should be relatively easy to implement in trials using routinely collected data to perhaps define a subgroup of patients who may be at high risk of fracture without having to apply really cumbersome tools,” Dr. Cowan said.

The researchers included 11,599 patients between ages 40 and 89 years who were treated at a single center in Ontario between 2010 and 2017. The mean age was 66.18 years, 38.6% were women, 64.1% had diabetes, 11.9% had liver disease, and median time on dialysis was 0.81 years. The patients’ median parathyroid hormone level was 30 pmol/L.

At 3 years, the cumulative incidence of any fracture was 7.36% (95% confidence interval, 6.89-7.85), including 2.62% for hip fracture (95% CI, 2.34-2.93), 1.36% for spine fracture (95% CI, 1.16-1.59), 1.93% for wrist or forearm (95% CI, 1.69-2.20), and 2.15% for the pelvis (95% CI, 1.89-2.43). The incidence for all fractures at 1 year was 2.93 (95% CI, 2.62-3.26).

Variables associated with fracture risk included female sex (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.67), a previous fracture more than 1 year in the past (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.37-2.00), a fracture in the past year (HR, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.86-4.60), and proton pump inhibitor use (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.45). After inclusion of vitamin D use, steroid use, time on dialysis, calcium levels, phosphate levels, presence of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic liver disease, the full model had an area under the curve of 77.7 at 1 year (95% CI, 73.3-84.4) and 69.9 at 3 years (95% CI, 68.0-72.2). For hip fracture, the model had an AUC of 80.1 at 1 year (95% CI, 77.0-83.5) and 71.9 at 3 years (95% CI, 70.1-74.2).

During the Q&A session, Dr. Cowan was asked how the tool could be implemented clinically. She said that it could have value in discussing fracture prediction and prevention with patients, but it could also increase fracture risk awareness among nephrologists. “I need to convince a lot of my colleagues because they’re focused on other things, so having this [calculator] I think is both good from a patient as well as a practitioner perspective. And the treatments that we have in people with end-stage renal disease are limited, so you want to know that you’re really targeting the high-risk person before you potentially put them on denosumab and increase the risk of severe hypercalcemia and things like that,” Dr. Cowan said.

The study points out the challenges of predicting fracture risk for specific populations, according to session comoderator Evelyn Hsieh, MD. She noted that the study needs follow-up. “I don’t think they had gotten to a validation [in a separate cohort] yet,” said Dr. Hsieh, an associate professor of medicine (rheumatology) and epidemiology (chronic diseases) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Cowan and Dr. Hsieh have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

VANCOUVER – With treatment with a bisphosphonate following sequential use of teriparatide (Forteo) and denosumab (Prolia) for premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis, bone mineral density (BMD) was maintained over the first year following denosumab cessation, according to results from a small, nonrandomized extension of a phase 2 study.

Bisphosphonates are recommended for patients after they have completed a course of denosumab because cessation of the bone resorption blocker is known to increase bone turnover markers, decrease BMD, and raise the risk of vertebral fractures. Although there is evidence to support this treatment sequence for postmenopausal women, there was no evidence regarding premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis, said Adi Cohen, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

In the extension study, neither length of treatment with denosumab nor transition to menopause affected BMD results. Weekly doses of alendronate (ALN) better suppressed C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) than did zoledronic acid (ZOL) and led to better maintenance of BMD than did a single dose of ZOL. The researchers suggested that single-dose ZOL may not prevent bone loss for an entire year.

It is too early to call the results practice changing, said Dr. Cohen, professor of medicine and endocrinology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, but she noted, “It’s important just to provide information about how sequences of osteoporosis medications might be used in a rare but certainly understudied group of premenopausal women with osteoporosis who need treatment, and these data hopefully will help make some treatment decisions.”

In the early 2000s, researchers initially believed that premenopausal women with low BMD had experienced some kind of temporary event and that they would likely improve on their own over time. “I think we now recognize that whatever it is that causes this is an ongoing issue and that this is a problem they’re going to have to deal with for the rest of their lives. This is something that they have to stay on top of,” said coauthor Elizabeth Shane, MD, who is a professor of medicine at CUIMC.

However, there are no practice guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in premenopausal women, according to Dr. Shane. She noted that there is controversy as to whether to treat women with low bone density who do not have a history of fractures. “I think that there’s pretty much agreement that anybody who has a lot of fractures has an early-onset form of osteoporosis. The controversy is what to do about the person who just has a low bone density and hasn’t yet fractured and what is the utility of trying to treat them at that point and perhaps prevent a fracture. I don’t think we have enough data to address that,” Dr. Shane said.

Still, the research has provided some clarity in her own practice. “I think if somebody would come to my office who had very low bone density, I would probably treat them. If they have fractures, I would definitely treat them. I think that our work has provided a framework for people to approach that,” she said.

The study was an extension of a sequential treatment approach that began with 2 years of teriparatide (20 mcg daily) followed by an extension study of 2–3 years of treatment with denosumab (60 mg every 6 months). Seven months after the last dose of denosumab, patients underwent 1 year of treatment with ALN (70 mg weekly; n = 18) or a single dose of ZOL (5 mg IV; n = 6), according to patient choice.

The original phase 2 study started with 41 women. At 24 months, teriparatide treatment led to BMD increases of 13% in the lumbar spine (LS), 5% in the total hip (TH), and 5% in the femoral neck (FN). There was a 2% decline in BMD in the forearm (distal radius [DR]). A group of 32 of the women participated in an extension study and took denosumab for 12 months. Of those patients, 29 continued to take it for another 12 months. At 12 months, BMD increased 5% in the LS, 3% in the TH, 3% in the FN, and 1% in the DR (P < .05 for all). At 24 months, BMD rose by 22%, 10%, and 10% at the first three of those locations. BMD in the DR remained stable, compared with the baseline after taking teriparatide.

The bisphosphonate phase of the extension study included 24 women (mean age, 43 years). The mean body mass index of the patients was 23.0 kg/m². The patients had experienced a mean of 3.0 fractures in adulthood, and 38% of patients had a history of vertebral fracture.

Over 12 months of follow-up, the researchers found no statistically significant difference in BMD in the LS, TH, or FN, compared with bisphosphonate extension baseline. There was also no statistically significant change in serum CTX. There was evidence that, among patients with higher rates of bone turnover, there were higher rates of LS and FN bone loss during bisphosphonate treatment.

Among patients taking ZOL, at 12 months there was a statistically significant rise in CTX levels, but not among patients taking ALN. There were no new vertebral fractures among any participants during the bisphosphonate extension period.

The results represent critical data for an understudied population, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, PhD, who was comoderator of the session in which the study was presented. “They are showing that by using a bisphosphonate [patients] have this just slight decrease, but within error, so it’s maintaining the BMD, at least. I think it’s very important. It will be fascinating to see next year’s follow-up,” said Dr. Rhee, a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea. “The problem with premenopausal osteoporosis is that we don’t have good evidence. Even though this study is very small, we’re just following that data, all of us.”

Comoderator Maria Zanchetta, MD, a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, agreed. “We know what to do when we stop denosumab in postmenopausal women. We didn’t have any work about what to do when we stopped in premenopausal women. You can think that probably it’s going to be the same, but this is the first time you have the evidence that if you give bisphosphonate, you will maintain BMD.”

Limitations to the study include its small size and the lack of a placebo-treated control group. In addition, the bisphosphonate extension was not randomized.

The studies were funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Amgen. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Shane received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER – With treatment with a bisphosphonate following sequential use of teriparatide (Forteo) and denosumab (Prolia) for premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis, bone mineral density (BMD) was maintained over the first year following denosumab cessation, according to results from a small, nonrandomized extension of a phase 2 study.

Bisphosphonates are recommended for patients after they have completed a course of denosumab because cessation of the bone resorption blocker is known to increase bone turnover markers, decrease BMD, and raise the risk of vertebral fractures. Although there is evidence to support this treatment sequence for postmenopausal women, there was no evidence regarding premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis, said Adi Cohen, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

In the extension study, neither length of treatment with denosumab nor transition to menopause affected BMD results. Weekly doses of alendronate (ALN) better suppressed C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) than did zoledronic acid (ZOL) and led to better maintenance of BMD than did a single dose of ZOL. The researchers suggested that single-dose ZOL may not prevent bone loss for an entire year.

It is too early to call the results practice changing, said Dr. Cohen, professor of medicine and endocrinology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, but she noted, “It’s important just to provide information about how sequences of osteoporosis medications might be used in a rare but certainly understudied group of premenopausal women with osteoporosis who need treatment, and these data hopefully will help make some treatment decisions.”

In the early 2000s, researchers initially believed that premenopausal women with low BMD had experienced some kind of temporary event and that they would likely improve on their own over time. “I think we now recognize that whatever it is that causes this is an ongoing issue and that this is a problem they’re going to have to deal with for the rest of their lives. This is something that they have to stay on top of,” said coauthor Elizabeth Shane, MD, who is a professor of medicine at CUIMC.

However, there are no practice guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in premenopausal women, according to Dr. Shane. She noted that there is controversy as to whether to treat women with low bone density who do not have a history of fractures. “I think that there’s pretty much agreement that anybody who has a lot of fractures has an early-onset form of osteoporosis. The controversy is what to do about the person who just has a low bone density and hasn’t yet fractured and what is the utility of trying to treat them at that point and perhaps prevent a fracture. I don’t think we have enough data to address that,” Dr. Shane said.

Still, the research has provided some clarity in her own practice. “I think if somebody would come to my office who had very low bone density, I would probably treat them. If they have fractures, I would definitely treat them. I think that our work has provided a framework for people to approach that,” she said.

The study was an extension of a sequential treatment approach that began with 2 years of teriparatide (20 mcg daily) followed by an extension study of 2–3 years of treatment with denosumab (60 mg every 6 months). Seven months after the last dose of denosumab, patients underwent 1 year of treatment with ALN (70 mg weekly; n = 18) or a single dose of ZOL (5 mg IV; n = 6), according to patient choice.

The original phase 2 study started with 41 women. At 24 months, teriparatide treatment led to BMD increases of 13% in the lumbar spine (LS), 5% in the total hip (TH), and 5% in the femoral neck (FN). There was a 2% decline in BMD in the forearm (distal radius [DR]). A group of 32 of the women participated in an extension study and took denosumab for 12 months. Of those patients, 29 continued to take it for another 12 months. At 12 months, BMD increased 5% in the LS, 3% in the TH, 3% in the FN, and 1% in the DR (P < .05 for all). At 24 months, BMD rose by 22%, 10%, and 10% at the first three of those locations. BMD in the DR remained stable, compared with the baseline after taking teriparatide.

The bisphosphonate phase of the extension study included 24 women (mean age, 43 years). The mean body mass index of the patients was 23.0 kg/m². The patients had experienced a mean of 3.0 fractures in adulthood, and 38% of patients had a history of vertebral fracture.

Over 12 months of follow-up, the researchers found no statistically significant difference in BMD in the LS, TH, or FN, compared with bisphosphonate extension baseline. There was also no statistically significant change in serum CTX. There was evidence that, among patients with higher rates of bone turnover, there were higher rates of LS and FN bone loss during bisphosphonate treatment.

Among patients taking ZOL, at 12 months there was a statistically significant rise in CTX levels, but not among patients taking ALN. There were no new vertebral fractures among any participants during the bisphosphonate extension period.

The results represent critical data for an understudied population, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, PhD, who was comoderator of the session in which the study was presented. “They are showing that by using a bisphosphonate [patients] have this just slight decrease, but within error, so it’s maintaining the BMD, at least. I think it’s very important. It will be fascinating to see next year’s follow-up,” said Dr. Rhee, a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea. “The problem with premenopausal osteoporosis is that we don’t have good evidence. Even though this study is very small, we’re just following that data, all of us.”

Comoderator Maria Zanchetta, MD, a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, agreed. “We know what to do when we stop denosumab in postmenopausal women. We didn’t have any work about what to do when we stopped in premenopausal women. You can think that probably it’s going to be the same, but this is the first time you have the evidence that if you give bisphosphonate, you will maintain BMD.”

Limitations to the study include its small size and the lack of a placebo-treated control group. In addition, the bisphosphonate extension was not randomized.

The studies were funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Amgen. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Shane received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER – With treatment with a bisphosphonate following sequential use of teriparatide (Forteo) and denosumab (Prolia) for premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis, bone mineral density (BMD) was maintained over the first year following denosumab cessation, according to results from a small, nonrandomized extension of a phase 2 study.

Bisphosphonates are recommended for patients after they have completed a course of denosumab because cessation of the bone resorption blocker is known to increase bone turnover markers, decrease BMD, and raise the risk of vertebral fractures. Although there is evidence to support this treatment sequence for postmenopausal women, there was no evidence regarding premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis, said Adi Cohen, MD, who presented the results of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

In the extension study, neither length of treatment with denosumab nor transition to menopause affected BMD results. Weekly doses of alendronate (ALN) better suppressed C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) than did zoledronic acid (ZOL) and led to better maintenance of BMD than did a single dose of ZOL. The researchers suggested that single-dose ZOL may not prevent bone loss for an entire year.

It is too early to call the results practice changing, said Dr. Cohen, professor of medicine and endocrinology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, but she noted, “It’s important just to provide information about how sequences of osteoporosis medications might be used in a rare but certainly understudied group of premenopausal women with osteoporosis who need treatment, and these data hopefully will help make some treatment decisions.”

In the early 2000s, researchers initially believed that premenopausal women with low BMD had experienced some kind of temporary event and that they would likely improve on their own over time. “I think we now recognize that whatever it is that causes this is an ongoing issue and that this is a problem they’re going to have to deal with for the rest of their lives. This is something that they have to stay on top of,” said coauthor Elizabeth Shane, MD, who is a professor of medicine at CUIMC.

However, there are no practice guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in premenopausal women, according to Dr. Shane. She noted that there is controversy as to whether to treat women with low bone density who do not have a history of fractures. “I think that there’s pretty much agreement that anybody who has a lot of fractures has an early-onset form of osteoporosis. The controversy is what to do about the person who just has a low bone density and hasn’t yet fractured and what is the utility of trying to treat them at that point and perhaps prevent a fracture. I don’t think we have enough data to address that,” Dr. Shane said.

Still, the research has provided some clarity in her own practice. “I think if somebody would come to my office who had very low bone density, I would probably treat them. If they have fractures, I would definitely treat them. I think that our work has provided a framework for people to approach that,” she said.

The study was an extension of a sequential treatment approach that began with 2 years of teriparatide (20 mcg daily) followed by an extension study of 2–3 years of treatment with denosumab (60 mg every 6 months). Seven months after the last dose of denosumab, patients underwent 1 year of treatment with ALN (70 mg weekly; n = 18) or a single dose of ZOL (5 mg IV; n = 6), according to patient choice.

The original phase 2 study started with 41 women. At 24 months, teriparatide treatment led to BMD increases of 13% in the lumbar spine (LS), 5% in the total hip (TH), and 5% in the femoral neck (FN). There was a 2% decline in BMD in the forearm (distal radius [DR]). A group of 32 of the women participated in an extension study and took denosumab for 12 months. Of those patients, 29 continued to take it for another 12 months. At 12 months, BMD increased 5% in the LS, 3% in the TH, 3% in the FN, and 1% in the DR (P < .05 for all). At 24 months, BMD rose by 22%, 10%, and 10% at the first three of those locations. BMD in the DR remained stable, compared with the baseline after taking teriparatide.

The bisphosphonate phase of the extension study included 24 women (mean age, 43 years). The mean body mass index of the patients was 23.0 kg/m². The patients had experienced a mean of 3.0 fractures in adulthood, and 38% of patients had a history of vertebral fracture.

Over 12 months of follow-up, the researchers found no statistically significant difference in BMD in the LS, TH, or FN, compared with bisphosphonate extension baseline. There was also no statistically significant change in serum CTX. There was evidence that, among patients with higher rates of bone turnover, there were higher rates of LS and FN bone loss during bisphosphonate treatment.

Among patients taking ZOL, at 12 months there was a statistically significant rise in CTX levels, but not among patients taking ALN. There were no new vertebral fractures among any participants during the bisphosphonate extension period.

The results represent critical data for an understudied population, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, PhD, who was comoderator of the session in which the study was presented. “They are showing that by using a bisphosphonate [patients] have this just slight decrease, but within error, so it’s maintaining the BMD, at least. I think it’s very important. It will be fascinating to see next year’s follow-up,” said Dr. Rhee, a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea. “The problem with premenopausal osteoporosis is that we don’t have good evidence. Even though this study is very small, we’re just following that data, all of us.”

Comoderator Maria Zanchetta, MD, a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, agreed. “We know what to do when we stop denosumab in postmenopausal women. We didn’t have any work about what to do when we stopped in premenopausal women. You can think that probably it’s going to be the same, but this is the first time you have the evidence that if you give bisphosphonate, you will maintain BMD.”

Limitations to the study include its small size and the lack of a placebo-treated control group. In addition, the bisphosphonate extension was not randomized.

The studies were funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Amgen. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Shane received research funding from Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER – In patients with type 2 diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an adjunct to metformin were not associated with an increase in fracture risk, according to a new real-world study.

There have been some reports of an increase in fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, and it was observed in the phase 3 CANVAS trial of canagliflozin (Invokana), which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning of fracture risks associated with canagliflozin use. Some ensuing studies did not show an increased risk, but these studies were generally less than a year in duration and may have missed longer-term risk, according to Veerle van Hulten, MSc.

“Fracture risk is something that takes a long time to develop, so we wanted to have a longer follow-up. We looked into the CPRD [Clinical Practice Research Datalink], which is a beautiful database containing real-world data from primary care practices,” said Ms. van Hulten, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Ms. van Hulten and colleagues compared SGLT2 inhibitors with dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors because the latter are used in similar populations and have been shown to have no effect on fracture risk.

“What we found is that SGLT2 inhibitors are not associated with an increased fracture risk. Even with a duration of use of over 811 days, we did not observe an increased hazard ratio for fractures when compared DPP-4 inhibitor users,” Ms. van Hulten said.

SGLT2 inhibitors reduce blood sugar by increasing elimination of sugar in the urine. They also increase phosphate, reduce calcium, and increase parathyroid hormone, which could in turn negatively affect bone turnover, according to Ms. van Hulten.

In the new study, conducted between January 2013 and June 2020, the researchers used propensity score matching to compare adult patients, including 13,807 who were prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors and 28,524 who were prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors for the first time. They matched patients based on demographics, comorbidities, comedication, and lifestyle factors.

There was no association between SGLT2 inhibitor use and overall fracture risk or major osteoporotic, hip, vertebral, humerus, radius, or ulna fractures. There was no difference in risk for any duration of use, even with the longest duration of use of 811 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.0). There were no differences among specific SGLT2 inhibitors, including canagliflozin (aHR, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.72). Analyses by sex and age also revealed no statistically significant differences between the two drug classes.

During the Q&A session after the presentation, Sarah Berry, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a clinical researcher at the Marcus Institute for Aging Research, both in Boston, noted the trend toward an increase in fracture risk in the first 90 days. “It looked like there was something going on in the first 90 days, and then after that the results were much closer to the null. I would put out maybe another potential mechanism whereby the SGLT2 inhibitors might cause fracture, and that’s falls. They cause polyuria, and any drug you give that causes women to rush to the bathroom may well cause fractures, particularly in the short term,” Dr. Berry said.

Ms. van Hulten agreed, and also brought up that the drugs can cause osmotic diuresis. That can lead to hypovolemia, the symptoms of which include weakness, fatigue, and dizziness. “And increased falls, of course, increases fracture risk. We do not expect anything to happen to bone metabolism in the first 90 days. I think we can agree that there would be more time needed to alter the bone enough to increase fracture risk, so we expect that this trend toward an increased risk might be attributable to that increased fall risk that might occur with SGLT2 inhibitor use,” she said.

It’s possible that such a mechanism explains increased fracture risk seen in some earlier short-term studies, she added.

Overall, Ms. van Hulten said that the results should provide some confidence in SGLT2 inhibitors, though more work needs to be done. “I think we provide reassurance that SGLT2 inhibitors are safe to use. However, we still only have a median follow-up of 1.6 years. It’s not as long as we maybe would like, but it’s the best we can do with the data available, since the SGLT2 inhibitors have only been used since 2013. So maybe it’s best to prescribe it and keep [fall risk] in mind and look into the effects later on again, but it seems to be safe to use.”

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. van Hulten and Dr. Berry reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER – In patients with type 2 diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an adjunct to metformin were not associated with an increase in fracture risk, according to a new real-world study.

There have been some reports of an increase in fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, and it was observed in the phase 3 CANVAS trial of canagliflozin (Invokana), which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning of fracture risks associated with canagliflozin use. Some ensuing studies did not show an increased risk, but these studies were generally less than a year in duration and may have missed longer-term risk, according to Veerle van Hulten, MSc.

“Fracture risk is something that takes a long time to develop, so we wanted to have a longer follow-up. We looked into the CPRD [Clinical Practice Research Datalink], which is a beautiful database containing real-world data from primary care practices,” said Ms. van Hulten, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Ms. van Hulten and colleagues compared SGLT2 inhibitors with dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors because the latter are used in similar populations and have been shown to have no effect on fracture risk.

“What we found is that SGLT2 inhibitors are not associated with an increased fracture risk. Even with a duration of use of over 811 days, we did not observe an increased hazard ratio for fractures when compared DPP-4 inhibitor users,” Ms. van Hulten said.

SGLT2 inhibitors reduce blood sugar by increasing elimination of sugar in the urine. They also increase phosphate, reduce calcium, and increase parathyroid hormone, which could in turn negatively affect bone turnover, according to Ms. van Hulten.

In the new study, conducted between January 2013 and June 2020, the researchers used propensity score matching to compare adult patients, including 13,807 who were prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors and 28,524 who were prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors for the first time. They matched patients based on demographics, comorbidities, comedication, and lifestyle factors.

There was no association between SGLT2 inhibitor use and overall fracture risk or major osteoporotic, hip, vertebral, humerus, radius, or ulna fractures. There was no difference in risk for any duration of use, even with the longest duration of use of 811 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.0). There were no differences among specific SGLT2 inhibitors, including canagliflozin (aHR, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.72). Analyses by sex and age also revealed no statistically significant differences between the two drug classes.

During the Q&A session after the presentation, Sarah Berry, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a clinical researcher at the Marcus Institute for Aging Research, both in Boston, noted the trend toward an increase in fracture risk in the first 90 days. “It looked like there was something going on in the first 90 days, and then after that the results were much closer to the null. I would put out maybe another potential mechanism whereby the SGLT2 inhibitors might cause fracture, and that’s falls. They cause polyuria, and any drug you give that causes women to rush to the bathroom may well cause fractures, particularly in the short term,” Dr. Berry said.

Ms. van Hulten agreed, and also brought up that the drugs can cause osmotic diuresis. That can lead to hypovolemia, the symptoms of which include weakness, fatigue, and dizziness. “And increased falls, of course, increases fracture risk. We do not expect anything to happen to bone metabolism in the first 90 days. I think we can agree that there would be more time needed to alter the bone enough to increase fracture risk, so we expect that this trend toward an increased risk might be attributable to that increased fall risk that might occur with SGLT2 inhibitor use,” she said.

It’s possible that such a mechanism explains increased fracture risk seen in some earlier short-term studies, she added.

Overall, Ms. van Hulten said that the results should provide some confidence in SGLT2 inhibitors, though more work needs to be done. “I think we provide reassurance that SGLT2 inhibitors are safe to use. However, we still only have a median follow-up of 1.6 years. It’s not as long as we maybe would like, but it’s the best we can do with the data available, since the SGLT2 inhibitors have only been used since 2013. So maybe it’s best to prescribe it and keep [fall risk] in mind and look into the effects later on again, but it seems to be safe to use.”

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. van Hulten and Dr. Berry reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER – In patients with type 2 diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an adjunct to metformin were not associated with an increase in fracture risk, according to a new real-world study.

There have been some reports of an increase in fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, and it was observed in the phase 3 CANVAS trial of canagliflozin (Invokana), which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning of fracture risks associated with canagliflozin use. Some ensuing studies did not show an increased risk, but these studies were generally less than a year in duration and may have missed longer-term risk, according to Veerle van Hulten, MSc.

“Fracture risk is something that takes a long time to develop, so we wanted to have a longer follow-up. We looked into the CPRD [Clinical Practice Research Datalink], which is a beautiful database containing real-world data from primary care practices,” said Ms. van Hulten, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Ms. van Hulten and colleagues compared SGLT2 inhibitors with dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors because the latter are used in similar populations and have been shown to have no effect on fracture risk.

“What we found is that SGLT2 inhibitors are not associated with an increased fracture risk. Even with a duration of use of over 811 days, we did not observe an increased hazard ratio for fractures when compared DPP-4 inhibitor users,” Ms. van Hulten said.

SGLT2 inhibitors reduce blood sugar by increasing elimination of sugar in the urine. They also increase phosphate, reduce calcium, and increase parathyroid hormone, which could in turn negatively affect bone turnover, according to Ms. van Hulten.

In the new study, conducted between January 2013 and June 2020, the researchers used propensity score matching to compare adult patients, including 13,807 who were prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors and 28,524 who were prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors for the first time. They matched patients based on demographics, comorbidities, comedication, and lifestyle factors.

There was no association between SGLT2 inhibitor use and overall fracture risk or major osteoporotic, hip, vertebral, humerus, radius, or ulna fractures. There was no difference in risk for any duration of use, even with the longest duration of use of 811 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.0). There were no differences among specific SGLT2 inhibitors, including canagliflozin (aHR, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.72). Analyses by sex and age also revealed no statistically significant differences between the two drug classes.

During the Q&A session after the presentation, Sarah Berry, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a clinical researcher at the Marcus Institute for Aging Research, both in Boston, noted the trend toward an increase in fracture risk in the first 90 days. “It looked like there was something going on in the first 90 days, and then after that the results were much closer to the null. I would put out maybe another potential mechanism whereby the SGLT2 inhibitors might cause fracture, and that’s falls. They cause polyuria, and any drug you give that causes women to rush to the bathroom may well cause fractures, particularly in the short term,” Dr. Berry said.

Ms. van Hulten agreed, and also brought up that the drugs can cause osmotic diuresis. That can lead to hypovolemia, the symptoms of which include weakness, fatigue, and dizziness. “And increased falls, of course, increases fracture risk. We do not expect anything to happen to bone metabolism in the first 90 days. I think we can agree that there would be more time needed to alter the bone enough to increase fracture risk, so we expect that this trend toward an increased risk might be attributable to that increased fall risk that might occur with SGLT2 inhibitor use,” she said.

It’s possible that such a mechanism explains increased fracture risk seen in some earlier short-term studies, she added.

Overall, Ms. van Hulten said that the results should provide some confidence in SGLT2 inhibitors, though more work needs to be done. “I think we provide reassurance that SGLT2 inhibitors are safe to use. However, we still only have a median follow-up of 1.6 years. It’s not as long as we maybe would like, but it’s the best we can do with the data available, since the SGLT2 inhibitors have only been used since 2013. So maybe it’s best to prescribe it and keep [fall risk] in mind and look into the effects later on again, but it seems to be safe to use.”

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. van Hulten and Dr. Berry reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.