Osteoporosis

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

While artificial intelligence (AI) appears to be on its way to transforming all fields of medicine, its potential benefits in endocrinology, with its substantial complexity, may be uniquely important. However, hurdles encountered with the latest AI iterations of chatbots underscore the need to proceed with caution.

“In contrast to other medical fields, endocrinology is not connected to a single organ structure; rather, it is a complicated biological system of hormones and metabolites, [intertwined with] various receptors, signaling pathways and intricate feedback mechanisms,” explained the authors of a recent article on the issue in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With interconnections that are “often beyond the comprehension and reasoning capabilities of the human brain, AI [is anticipated] to be exceptionally well-suited to tackle this remarkable heterogeneity and complexity,” they wrote.

Since the first regulatory approvals for AI-based technology were granted back in 2015, endocrinology has already been revolutionized by AI-based tools, most notably with AI biosensors for continuous glucose monitoring systems alerting patients of glucose levels, and automated insulin-delivery systems.

AI-based machine learning has also ushered in improved detection and analysis of thyroid nodules and potential malignancies, with algorithms in the analysis of radiological test images enabling detection through a deeper analysis than can be applied with individual specialists.

Likewise, the benefits of AI in imaging extend to osteoporosis.

“Imaging certainly is one of the most promising fields, including (but not limited to) conventional radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance tomography,” explained Hans Peter Dimai, MD, a professor of medicine and endocrinology at the Medical University of Graz (Austria), and the past president of the Austrian Bone and Mineral Society.

“A typical indication is fracture detection, not in terms of replacing expert radiologists or orthopedists but rather in terms of supporting those who are in specialist training,” he said in an interview.

“Particularly the underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures has been an issue in past decades, with dramatic implications for the individual, since the first vertebral fracture would multiply the risk for any future fracture, and therefore requires immediate action from a physician’s side.”

The areas expected to further benefit from AI continue to grow as systems evolve, with advances being reported across a variety of endocrinologic conditions.

Papillary thyroid cancer (PTC): Central lymph node metastasis of papillary thyroid cancer is predictive of tumor recurrence and overall survival in PTC. However, few tests are able to diagnose the metastasis in the cancer with high accuracy. Using a convolutional neural network prediction model built with a deep-learning algorithm, researchers described high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of a model, as reported in a study published in Feburary. The prediction model, developed using genetic mutations and clinicopathologic factors, showed high prediction efficacy, with validation in subclinical as well as clinical metastasis groups, suggesting broad applicability.

Adrenal tumors: Adrenal incidentalomas, or masses that are incidentally discovered when performing abdominal imaging for other reasons, can be a perplexing clinical challenge. Discovery of these is increasing as imaging technology advances. However, an AI-based machine learning approach utilizing CT is being developed to differentiate between subclinical pheochromocytoma and lipid-poor adenomas. As reported in a 2022 study, the prediction model scoring system used traditional radiological features on CT images to provide for a noninvasive method in assisting in the diagnosis and providing personalized care for people with adrenal tumors.

Osteoporosis – bone mineral density (BMD): In the diagnosis of osteoporosis, the measurement of BMD using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard. However, the availability of DXA devices in many countries is inadequate, leaving an unmet need for alternative approaches. But one AI-based algorithm shows promising diagnostic accuracy, compared with DXA, potentially providing a low-cost screening alternative for the early diagnosis of osteoporosis.  

Osteoporosis – Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX): In fracture risk and prevention, the free FRAX tool, available online, is the gold standard and recommended in nearly all osteoporosis guidelines. However, several studies on AI-based tools show some benefit over FRAX, including one approach using longitudinal data with conventional spine radiographs, showing predictive accuracy that exceeds FRAX.  

Osteoporosis – treatment: And for the often challenging process of treatment decision-making in osteoporosis, AI-based software, developed from more than 15,000 osteoporosis patients followed over 10 years, shows high accuracy in the prediction of response to treatment in terms of BMD increase, as described in another study. “Our results show that it is feasible to use a combination of electronic medical records–derived information to develop a machine-learning algorithm to predict a BMD response following osteoporosis treatment,” the authors reported. “This alternative approach can aid physicians to select an optimal therapeutic regimen in order to maximize a patient-specific treatment outcome.”
 

Chatbot wrinkles

The prospects of large language models (LLMs) and ChatGPT unleash the potential to understand and generate text in a similar capacity as humans. Although controversial, they could likewise be compelling.

However, such systems can be vastly more complex than earlier AI-based tools, and some studies are illustrating the kinds of stumbling blocks that need to be overcome.

For instance, in a study published in May, researchers explored the potential of ChatGPT 4.0 to synthesize clinical guidelines for diabetic ketoacidosis from three different sources to reflect the latest evidence and local context.

Such efforts are important but can be very resource-intensive when conducted without the use of AI assistance.

The study’s results showed that, although ChatGPT was able to generate a comprehensive table comparing the guidelines, there were multiple recurrent errors in misreporting and nonreporting, as well as inconsistencies, “rendering the results unreliable,” the authors wrote.

“Although ChatGPT demonstrates the potential for the synthesis of clinical guidelines, the presence of multiple recurrent errors and inconsistencies underscores the need for expert human intervention and validation,” the authors concluded.

Likewise, other research using ChatGPT for use in vitreoretinal diseases, including diabetic retinopathy, further demonstrated disappointing results, with the technology showing the chatbot provided completely accurate responses to only 8 (15.4%) of 52 questions, with some responses containing inappropriate or potentially harmful medical advice.

“For example, in response to ‘How do you get rid of epiretinal membrane?’, the platform described vitrectomy but also included incorrect options of injection therapy and laser therapy,” the authors wrote.

“The study highlights the limitations of using ChatGPT for the adaptation of clinical guidelines without expert human intervention,” they concluded.

And in research published in August that looked at the ability of ChatGPT to interpret guidelines – in this case 26 diagnosis descriptions from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network – results showed that as many as one-third of treatments recommended by the chatbot were at least partially not concordant with information stated in the NCCN guidelines, with recommendations varying based on how the question about treatment was presented.

“Clinicians should advise patients that LLM chatbots are not a reliable source of treatment information,” the authors wrote.
 

Diversity concerns

Among the most prominent concerns about chatbot inaccuracy has been the known lack of racial and ethnic diversity in large databases utilized in developing AI systems, potentially resulting in critical flaws in the information the systems produce.

In an editorial published with the NCCN guideline study, Atul Butte, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that the shortcomings should be weighed with the potential benefits.

“There is no doubt that AI and LLMs are not yet perfect, and they carry biases that will need to be addressed,” Dr. Butte wrote. “These algorithms will need to be carefully monitored as they are brought into health systems, [but] this does not alter the potential of how they can improve care for both the haves and have-nots of health care.”

In a comment, Dr. Butte elaborated that, once the system flaws are refined, a key benefit will be the broader application of top standards of care to more patients who may have limited resources.

“It is a privilege to get the very best level of care from the very best centers, but that privilege is not distributable to all right now,” Dr. Butte said.

“The real potential of LLMs and AI will be their ability to be trained from the patient, clinical, and outcomes data from the very best centers, and then used to deliver the best care through digital tools to all patients, especially to those without access to the best care or [those with] limited resources,” he said.

Further commenting on the issue of potential bias with chatbots, Matthew Li, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said that awareness of the nature of the problem and need for diversity in data for training and testing AI-systems issues appears to be improving.

“Thanks to much research on this topic in recent years, I think most AI researchers in medicine are at least aware of these challenges now, which was not the case only a few years ago,” he said in an interview.

Across specialties, “the careful deployment of AI tools accounting for issues regarding AI model generalization, biases, and performance drift will be critical for ensuring safe and fair patient care,” Dr. Li noted.

On a broader level is the ongoing general concern of the potential for over-reliance on the technology by clinicians. For example, a recent study showing radiologists across all experience levels reading mammograms were prone to automation bias when being supported by an AI-based system.

“Concerns regarding over-reliance on AI remain,” said Dr. Li, who coauthored a study published in June on the issue.

“Ongoing research into and monitoring of the impact of AI systems as they are developed and deployed will be important to ensure safe patient care moving forward,” he said.

Ultimately, the clinical benefit of AI systems to patients should be the bottom line, Dr. Dimai added.

“In my opinion, the clinical relevance, i.e., the benefit for patients and/or physicians of a to-be-developed AI tool, must be clearly proven before its development starts and first clinical studies are carried out,” he said.

“This is not always the case,” Dr. Dimai said. “In other words, innovation per se should not be the only rationale and driving force for the development of such tools.”

Dr. Li, an associate editor for the journal Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dimai is a member of the key medical advisor team of Image Biopsy Lab.

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

While artificial intelligence (AI) appears to be on its way to transforming all fields of medicine, its potential benefits in endocrinology, with its substantial complexity, may be uniquely important. However, hurdles encountered with the latest AI iterations of chatbots underscore the need to proceed with caution.

“In contrast to other medical fields, endocrinology is not connected to a single organ structure; rather, it is a complicated biological system of hormones and metabolites, [intertwined with] various receptors, signaling pathways and intricate feedback mechanisms,” explained the authors of a recent article on the issue in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With interconnections that are “often beyond the comprehension and reasoning capabilities of the human brain, AI [is anticipated] to be exceptionally well-suited to tackle this remarkable heterogeneity and complexity,” they wrote.

Since the first regulatory approvals for AI-based technology were granted back in 2015, endocrinology has already been revolutionized by AI-based tools, most notably with AI biosensors for continuous glucose monitoring systems alerting patients of glucose levels, and automated insulin-delivery systems.

AI-based machine learning has also ushered in improved detection and analysis of thyroid nodules and potential malignancies, with algorithms in the analysis of radiological test images enabling detection through a deeper analysis than can be applied with individual specialists.

Likewise, the benefits of AI in imaging extend to osteoporosis.

“Imaging certainly is one of the most promising fields, including (but not limited to) conventional radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance tomography,” explained Hans Peter Dimai, MD, a professor of medicine and endocrinology at the Medical University of Graz (Austria), and the past president of the Austrian Bone and Mineral Society.

“A typical indication is fracture detection, not in terms of replacing expert radiologists or orthopedists but rather in terms of supporting those who are in specialist training,” he said in an interview.

“Particularly the underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures has been an issue in past decades, with dramatic implications for the individual, since the first vertebral fracture would multiply the risk for any future fracture, and therefore requires immediate action from a physician’s side.”

The areas expected to further benefit from AI continue to grow as systems evolve, with advances being reported across a variety of endocrinologic conditions.

Papillary thyroid cancer (PTC): Central lymph node metastasis of papillary thyroid cancer is predictive of tumor recurrence and overall survival in PTC. However, few tests are able to diagnose the metastasis in the cancer with high accuracy. Using a convolutional neural network prediction model built with a deep-learning algorithm, researchers described high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of a model, as reported in a study published in Feburary. The prediction model, developed using genetic mutations and clinicopathologic factors, showed high prediction efficacy, with validation in subclinical as well as clinical metastasis groups, suggesting broad applicability.

Adrenal tumors: Adrenal incidentalomas, or masses that are incidentally discovered when performing abdominal imaging for other reasons, can be a perplexing clinical challenge. Discovery of these is increasing as imaging technology advances. However, an AI-based machine learning approach utilizing CT is being developed to differentiate between subclinical pheochromocytoma and lipid-poor adenomas. As reported in a 2022 study, the prediction model scoring system used traditional radiological features on CT images to provide for a noninvasive method in assisting in the diagnosis and providing personalized care for people with adrenal tumors.

Osteoporosis – bone mineral density (BMD): In the diagnosis of osteoporosis, the measurement of BMD using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard. However, the availability of DXA devices in many countries is inadequate, leaving an unmet need for alternative approaches. But one AI-based algorithm shows promising diagnostic accuracy, compared with DXA, potentially providing a low-cost screening alternative for the early diagnosis of osteoporosis.  

Osteoporosis – Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX): In fracture risk and prevention, the free FRAX tool, available online, is the gold standard and recommended in nearly all osteoporosis guidelines. However, several studies on AI-based tools show some benefit over FRAX, including one approach using longitudinal data with conventional spine radiographs, showing predictive accuracy that exceeds FRAX.  

Osteoporosis – treatment: And for the often challenging process of treatment decision-making in osteoporosis, AI-based software, developed from more than 15,000 osteoporosis patients followed over 10 years, shows high accuracy in the prediction of response to treatment in terms of BMD increase, as described in another study. “Our results show that it is feasible to use a combination of electronic medical records–derived information to develop a machine-learning algorithm to predict a BMD response following osteoporosis treatment,” the authors reported. “This alternative approach can aid physicians to select an optimal therapeutic regimen in order to maximize a patient-specific treatment outcome.”
 

Chatbot wrinkles

The prospects of large language models (LLMs) and ChatGPT unleash the potential to understand and generate text in a similar capacity as humans. Although controversial, they could likewise be compelling.

However, such systems can be vastly more complex than earlier AI-based tools, and some studies are illustrating the kinds of stumbling blocks that need to be overcome.

For instance, in a study published in May, researchers explored the potential of ChatGPT 4.0 to synthesize clinical guidelines for diabetic ketoacidosis from three different sources to reflect the latest evidence and local context.

Such efforts are important but can be very resource-intensive when conducted without the use of AI assistance.

The study’s results showed that, although ChatGPT was able to generate a comprehensive table comparing the guidelines, there were multiple recurrent errors in misreporting and nonreporting, as well as inconsistencies, “rendering the results unreliable,” the authors wrote.

“Although ChatGPT demonstrates the potential for the synthesis of clinical guidelines, the presence of multiple recurrent errors and inconsistencies underscores the need for expert human intervention and validation,” the authors concluded.

Likewise, other research using ChatGPT for use in vitreoretinal diseases, including diabetic retinopathy, further demonstrated disappointing results, with the technology showing the chatbot provided completely accurate responses to only 8 (15.4%) of 52 questions, with some responses containing inappropriate or potentially harmful medical advice.

“For example, in response to ‘How do you get rid of epiretinal membrane?’, the platform described vitrectomy but also included incorrect options of injection therapy and laser therapy,” the authors wrote.

“The study highlights the limitations of using ChatGPT for the adaptation of clinical guidelines without expert human intervention,” they concluded.

And in research published in August that looked at the ability of ChatGPT to interpret guidelines – in this case 26 diagnosis descriptions from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network – results showed that as many as one-third of treatments recommended by the chatbot were at least partially not concordant with information stated in the NCCN guidelines, with recommendations varying based on how the question about treatment was presented.

“Clinicians should advise patients that LLM chatbots are not a reliable source of treatment information,” the authors wrote.
 

Diversity concerns

Among the most prominent concerns about chatbot inaccuracy has been the known lack of racial and ethnic diversity in large databases utilized in developing AI systems, potentially resulting in critical flaws in the information the systems produce.

In an editorial published with the NCCN guideline study, Atul Butte, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that the shortcomings should be weighed with the potential benefits.

“There is no doubt that AI and LLMs are not yet perfect, and they carry biases that will need to be addressed,” Dr. Butte wrote. “These algorithms will need to be carefully monitored as they are brought into health systems, [but] this does not alter the potential of how they can improve care for both the haves and have-nots of health care.”

In a comment, Dr. Butte elaborated that, once the system flaws are refined, a key benefit will be the broader application of top standards of care to more patients who may have limited resources.

“It is a privilege to get the very best level of care from the very best centers, but that privilege is not distributable to all right now,” Dr. Butte said.

“The real potential of LLMs and AI will be their ability to be trained from the patient, clinical, and outcomes data from the very best centers, and then used to deliver the best care through digital tools to all patients, especially to those without access to the best care or [those with] limited resources,” he said.

Further commenting on the issue of potential bias with chatbots, Matthew Li, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said that awareness of the nature of the problem and need for diversity in data for training and testing AI-systems issues appears to be improving.

“Thanks to much research on this topic in recent years, I think most AI researchers in medicine are at least aware of these challenges now, which was not the case only a few years ago,” he said in an interview.

Across specialties, “the careful deployment of AI tools accounting for issues regarding AI model generalization, biases, and performance drift will be critical for ensuring safe and fair patient care,” Dr. Li noted.

On a broader level is the ongoing general concern of the potential for over-reliance on the technology by clinicians. For example, a recent study showing radiologists across all experience levels reading mammograms were prone to automation bias when being supported by an AI-based system.

“Concerns regarding over-reliance on AI remain,” said Dr. Li, who coauthored a study published in June on the issue.

“Ongoing research into and monitoring of the impact of AI systems as they are developed and deployed will be important to ensure safe patient care moving forward,” he said.

Ultimately, the clinical benefit of AI systems to patients should be the bottom line, Dr. Dimai added.

“In my opinion, the clinical relevance, i.e., the benefit for patients and/or physicians of a to-be-developed AI tool, must be clearly proven before its development starts and first clinical studies are carried out,” he said.

“This is not always the case,” Dr. Dimai said. “In other words, innovation per se should not be the only rationale and driving force for the development of such tools.”

Dr. Li, an associate editor for the journal Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dimai is a member of the key medical advisor team of Image Biopsy Lab.

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

While artificial intelligence (AI) appears to be on its way to transforming all fields of medicine, its potential benefits in endocrinology, with its substantial complexity, may be uniquely important. However, hurdles encountered with the latest AI iterations of chatbots underscore the need to proceed with caution.

“In contrast to other medical fields, endocrinology is not connected to a single organ structure; rather, it is a complicated biological system of hormones and metabolites, [intertwined with] various receptors, signaling pathways and intricate feedback mechanisms,” explained the authors of a recent article on the issue in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With interconnections that are “often beyond the comprehension and reasoning capabilities of the human brain, AI [is anticipated] to be exceptionally well-suited to tackle this remarkable heterogeneity and complexity,” they wrote.

Since the first regulatory approvals for AI-based technology were granted back in 2015, endocrinology has already been revolutionized by AI-based tools, most notably with AI biosensors for continuous glucose monitoring systems alerting patients of glucose levels, and automated insulin-delivery systems.

AI-based machine learning has also ushered in improved detection and analysis of thyroid nodules and potential malignancies, with algorithms in the analysis of radiological test images enabling detection through a deeper analysis than can be applied with individual specialists.

Likewise, the benefits of AI in imaging extend to osteoporosis.

“Imaging certainly is one of the most promising fields, including (but not limited to) conventional radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance tomography,” explained Hans Peter Dimai, MD, a professor of medicine and endocrinology at the Medical University of Graz (Austria), and the past president of the Austrian Bone and Mineral Society.

“A typical indication is fracture detection, not in terms of replacing expert radiologists or orthopedists but rather in terms of supporting those who are in specialist training,” he said in an interview.

“Particularly the underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures has been an issue in past decades, with dramatic implications for the individual, since the first vertebral fracture would multiply the risk for any future fracture, and therefore requires immediate action from a physician’s side.”

The areas expected to further benefit from AI continue to grow as systems evolve, with advances being reported across a variety of endocrinologic conditions.

Papillary thyroid cancer (PTC): Central lymph node metastasis of papillary thyroid cancer is predictive of tumor recurrence and overall survival in PTC. However, few tests are able to diagnose the metastasis in the cancer with high accuracy. Using a convolutional neural network prediction model built with a deep-learning algorithm, researchers described high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of a model, as reported in a study published in Feburary. The prediction model, developed using genetic mutations and clinicopathologic factors, showed high prediction efficacy, with validation in subclinical as well as clinical metastasis groups, suggesting broad applicability.

Adrenal tumors: Adrenal incidentalomas, or masses that are incidentally discovered when performing abdominal imaging for other reasons, can be a perplexing clinical challenge. Discovery of these is increasing as imaging technology advances. However, an AI-based machine learning approach utilizing CT is being developed to differentiate between subclinical pheochromocytoma and lipid-poor adenomas. As reported in a 2022 study, the prediction model scoring system used traditional radiological features on CT images to provide for a noninvasive method in assisting in the diagnosis and providing personalized care for people with adrenal tumors.

Osteoporosis – bone mineral density (BMD): In the diagnosis of osteoporosis, the measurement of BMD using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard. However, the availability of DXA devices in many countries is inadequate, leaving an unmet need for alternative approaches. But one AI-based algorithm shows promising diagnostic accuracy, compared with DXA, potentially providing a low-cost screening alternative for the early diagnosis of osteoporosis.  

Osteoporosis – Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX): In fracture risk and prevention, the free FRAX tool, available online, is the gold standard and recommended in nearly all osteoporosis guidelines. However, several studies on AI-based tools show some benefit over FRAX, including one approach using longitudinal data with conventional spine radiographs, showing predictive accuracy that exceeds FRAX.  

Osteoporosis – treatment: And for the often challenging process of treatment decision-making in osteoporosis, AI-based software, developed from more than 15,000 osteoporosis patients followed over 10 years, shows high accuracy in the prediction of response to treatment in terms of BMD increase, as described in another study. “Our results show that it is feasible to use a combination of electronic medical records–derived information to develop a machine-learning algorithm to predict a BMD response following osteoporosis treatment,” the authors reported. “This alternative approach can aid physicians to select an optimal therapeutic regimen in order to maximize a patient-specific treatment outcome.”
 

Chatbot wrinkles

The prospects of large language models (LLMs) and ChatGPT unleash the potential to understand and generate text in a similar capacity as humans. Although controversial, they could likewise be compelling.

However, such systems can be vastly more complex than earlier AI-based tools, and some studies are illustrating the kinds of stumbling blocks that need to be overcome.

For instance, in a study published in May, researchers explored the potential of ChatGPT 4.0 to synthesize clinical guidelines for diabetic ketoacidosis from three different sources to reflect the latest evidence and local context.

Such efforts are important but can be very resource-intensive when conducted without the use of AI assistance.

The study’s results showed that, although ChatGPT was able to generate a comprehensive table comparing the guidelines, there were multiple recurrent errors in misreporting and nonreporting, as well as inconsistencies, “rendering the results unreliable,” the authors wrote.

“Although ChatGPT demonstrates the potential for the synthesis of clinical guidelines, the presence of multiple recurrent errors and inconsistencies underscores the need for expert human intervention and validation,” the authors concluded.

Likewise, other research using ChatGPT for use in vitreoretinal diseases, including diabetic retinopathy, further demonstrated disappointing results, with the technology showing the chatbot provided completely accurate responses to only 8 (15.4%) of 52 questions, with some responses containing inappropriate or potentially harmful medical advice.

“For example, in response to ‘How do you get rid of epiretinal membrane?’, the platform described vitrectomy but also included incorrect options of injection therapy and laser therapy,” the authors wrote.

“The study highlights the limitations of using ChatGPT for the adaptation of clinical guidelines without expert human intervention,” they concluded.

And in research published in August that looked at the ability of ChatGPT to interpret guidelines – in this case 26 diagnosis descriptions from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network – results showed that as many as one-third of treatments recommended by the chatbot were at least partially not concordant with information stated in the NCCN guidelines, with recommendations varying based on how the question about treatment was presented.

“Clinicians should advise patients that LLM chatbots are not a reliable source of treatment information,” the authors wrote.
 

Diversity concerns

Among the most prominent concerns about chatbot inaccuracy has been the known lack of racial and ethnic diversity in large databases utilized in developing AI systems, potentially resulting in critical flaws in the information the systems produce.

In an editorial published with the NCCN guideline study, Atul Butte, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that the shortcomings should be weighed with the potential benefits.

“There is no doubt that AI and LLMs are not yet perfect, and they carry biases that will need to be addressed,” Dr. Butte wrote. “These algorithms will need to be carefully monitored as they are brought into health systems, [but] this does not alter the potential of how they can improve care for both the haves and have-nots of health care.”

In a comment, Dr. Butte elaborated that, once the system flaws are refined, a key benefit will be the broader application of top standards of care to more patients who may have limited resources.

“It is a privilege to get the very best level of care from the very best centers, but that privilege is not distributable to all right now,” Dr. Butte said.

“The real potential of LLMs and AI will be their ability to be trained from the patient, clinical, and outcomes data from the very best centers, and then used to deliver the best care through digital tools to all patients, especially to those without access to the best care or [those with] limited resources,” he said.

Further commenting on the issue of potential bias with chatbots, Matthew Li, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said that awareness of the nature of the problem and need for diversity in data for training and testing AI-systems issues appears to be improving.

“Thanks to much research on this topic in recent years, I think most AI researchers in medicine are at least aware of these challenges now, which was not the case only a few years ago,” he said in an interview.

Across specialties, “the careful deployment of AI tools accounting for issues regarding AI model generalization, biases, and performance drift will be critical for ensuring safe and fair patient care,” Dr. Li noted.

On a broader level is the ongoing general concern of the potential for over-reliance on the technology by clinicians. For example, a recent study showing radiologists across all experience levels reading mammograms were prone to automation bias when being supported by an AI-based system.

“Concerns regarding over-reliance on AI remain,” said Dr. Li, who coauthored a study published in June on the issue.

“Ongoing research into and monitoring of the impact of AI systems as they are developed and deployed will be important to ensure safe patient care moving forward,” he said.

Ultimately, the clinical benefit of AI systems to patients should be the bottom line, Dr. Dimai added.

“In my opinion, the clinical relevance, i.e., the benefit for patients and/or physicians of a to-be-developed AI tool, must be clearly proven before its development starts and first clinical studies are carried out,” he said.

“This is not always the case,” Dr. Dimai said. “In other words, innovation per se should not be the only rationale and driving force for the development of such tools.”

Dr. Li, an associate editor for the journal Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dimai is a member of the key medical advisor team of Image Biopsy Lab.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

Vitamin D deficiency appears to render people more vulnerable to canagliflozin’s adverse effects on bone health, whereas vitamin D3 supplementation appears protective of individuals with vitamin D deficiency.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.

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

Vitamin D deficiency appears to render people more vulnerable to canagliflozin’s adverse effects on bone health, whereas vitamin D3 supplementation appears protective of individuals with vitamin D deficiency.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.

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

Vitamin D deficiency appears to render people more vulnerable to canagliflozin’s adverse effects on bone health, whereas vitamin D3 supplementation appears protective of individuals with vitamin D deficiency.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.

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

While half the fracture-prevention battle is getting people diagnosed with low bone density, nearly 80% of older Americans who suffer bone breaks are not tested or treated for osteoporosis. Fractures associated with aging and diminished bone mineral density exact an enormous toll on patients’ lives and cost the health care system billions of dollars annually according to Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. But current gaps in patient education and bone density screening are huge.

“It’s concerning that older patients at risk for fracture are often not screened to determine their risk factors contributing to osteoporosis and patients are not educated about fracture prevention,” said Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and chief of calcium and bone section, and professor of medicine, at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Furthermore, the majority of highest-risk women and men who do have fractures are not screened and they do not receive effective, [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies.”

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Recent guidelines

Screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is recommended for all women at age 65 and all men at age 70. But the occasion of a fracture in an older person who has not yet met these age thresholds should prompt a bone density assessment.

“Doctors need to stress that one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have a fracture in their remaining lifetimes,” Dr. LeBoff said. ”Primary care doctors play a critical role in ordering timely bone densitometry for both sexes.

If an older patient has been treated for a fracture, the main goal going forward is to prevent another one, for which the risk is highest in the 2 years after the incident fracture.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to Kendall F. Moseley, MD, clinical director of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, “Elderly patients need to understand that a fracture at their age is like a heart attack of the bone,” she said, adding that just as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and blood lipids are silent before a stroke or infarction, the bone thinning of old age is also silent.

Endocrinologist Jennifer J. Kelly, DO, director of the metabolic bone program and an associate professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, said a fracture in anyone over age 50 that appears not to have resulted from a traumatic blow, is a compelling reason to order a DEXA exam.

University of Vermont Medicine

UTHealth McGovern Medical School

Fracture management

Whether a senior suffers a traumatic fracture or an osteoporosis-related fragility fracture, older age can impede the healing process in some. Senescence may also increase systemic proinflammatory status, according to Clark and colleagues, writing in Current Osteoporosis Reports.

They called for research to develop more directed treatment options for the elderly population.

Dr. Rianon noted that healing may also be affected by a decrease in muscle mass, which plays a role in holding the bone in place. “But it is still controversial how changing metabolic factors affect bone healing in the elderly.”

However, countered Dr. Kelly, fractures in elderly patients are not necessarily less likely to mend – if osteoporosis is not present. “Many heal very well – it really depends more upon their overall health and medical history. Whether or not a person requires surgery depends more upon the extent of the fracture and if the bone is able to align and heal appropriately without surgery.”

Fracture sites

Spine. According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons the earliest and most frequent site of fragility fractures in the elderly is the spine. Most vertebral fracture pain improves within 3 months without specific treatment. A short period of rest, limited analgesic use, and possible back bracing may help as the fractures heal on their own. But if pain is severe and persistent, vertebral augmentation with percutaneous kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty may be an option. These procedures, however, can destabilize surrounding discs because of the greater thickness of the injected cement.

Hip. The most dangerous fractures occur in the hip. These carry at least a 20% risk of death in the first postoperative year and must be treated surgically. Those in the proximal femur, the head, or the femoral neck will usually need hip replacement, but if the break is farther down, it may be repaired with cement, screws, plates, and rods.

Distal radius. Outcomes of wrist fractures may be positive without surgical intervention, according to a recent retrospective analysis from Turkey by Yalin and colleagues. In a comparison of clinical outcomes in seniors aged 70-89 and assigned to cast immobilization or various surgical treatments for distal radius fractures, no statistically significant difference was found in patient-reported disability scores and range of motion values between casting and surgery in the first postoperative year.

Other sites. Fractures in the elderly are not uncommon in the shoulder, distal radius, cubitus, proximal humerus, and humerus. These fractures are often treated without surgery, but nevertheless signal a high risk for additional fractures.

Bone-enhancing medications

Even in the absence of diagnosed low bone density or osteoporosis, anabolic agents such as the synthetic human parathyroid hormones abaloparatide (Tymlos) and teriparatide (Forteo) may be used to help in some cases with a bad healing prognosis and may also be used for people undergoing surgeries such as a spinal fusion, but there are not clinical guidelines. “We receive referrals regularly for this treatment from our orthopedics colleagues, but it is considered an off-label use,” Dr. Kelly said.

The anabolics teriparatide and romosozumab (Evenity) have proved effective in lowering fractures in high-risk older women.

Post fracture

After recovering from a fracture, elderly people are strongly advised to make lifestyle changes to boost bone health and reduce risk of further fractures, said Willy M. Valencia, MD, a geriatrician-endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Apart from active daily living, he recommends several types of formal exercise to promote bone formation; increase muscle mass, strength, and flexibility; and improve endurance, balance, and gait. The National Institute on Aging outlines suitable exercise programs for seniors.

Cleveland Clinic

“These exercises will help reduce the risk of falling and to avoid more fractures,” he said. “Whether a patient has been exercising before the fracture or not, they may feel some reticence or reluctance to take up exercise afterwards because they’re afraid of having another fracture, but they should understand that their fracture risk increases if they remain sedentary. They should start slowly but they can’t be sitting all day.”

Even before it’s possible to exercise at the healing fracture site, added Dr. Rianon, its advisable to work other areas of the body. “Overall mobility is important, and exercising other parts of the body can stimulate strength and help prevent falling.”

In other postsurgical measures, a bone-friendly diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, as well as supplementation with these vital nutrients, is essential to lower the risk of falling.

Fall prevention is paramount, said Dr. Valencia. While exercise can improve, gait, balance, and endurance, logistical measures may also be necessary. Seniors may have to move to a one-floor domicile with no stairs to negotiate. At the very least, they need to fall-proof their daily lives by upgrading their eyeglasses and home lighting, eliminating obstacles and loose carpets, fixing bannisters, and installing bathroom handrails. Some may need assistive devices for walking, especially outdoors in slippery conditions.

At the end of the day, the role of the primary physician in screening for bone problems before fracture and postsurgical care is key. “Risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture risk must be added to the patient’s chart,” said Dr. Rianon. Added Dr. Moseley. “No matter how busy they are, my hope is that primary care physicians will not put patients’ bone health at the bottom of the clinical agenda.”

While half the fracture-prevention battle is getting people diagnosed with low bone density, nearly 80% of older Americans who suffer bone breaks are not tested or treated for osteoporosis. Fractures associated with aging and diminished bone mineral density exact an enormous toll on patients’ lives and cost the health care system billions of dollars annually according to Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. But current gaps in patient education and bone density screening are huge.

“It’s concerning that older patients at risk for fracture are often not screened to determine their risk factors contributing to osteoporosis and patients are not educated about fracture prevention,” said Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and chief of calcium and bone section, and professor of medicine, at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Furthermore, the majority of highest-risk women and men who do have fractures are not screened and they do not receive effective, [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies.”

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Recent guidelines

Screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is recommended for all women at age 65 and all men at age 70. But the occasion of a fracture in an older person who has not yet met these age thresholds should prompt a bone density assessment.

“Doctors need to stress that one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have a fracture in their remaining lifetimes,” Dr. LeBoff said. ”Primary care doctors play a critical role in ordering timely bone densitometry for both sexes.

If an older patient has been treated for a fracture, the main goal going forward is to prevent another one, for which the risk is highest in the 2 years after the incident fracture.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to Kendall F. Moseley, MD, clinical director of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, “Elderly patients need to understand that a fracture at their age is like a heart attack of the bone,” she said, adding that just as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and blood lipids are silent before a stroke or infarction, the bone thinning of old age is also silent.

Endocrinologist Jennifer J. Kelly, DO, director of the metabolic bone program and an associate professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, said a fracture in anyone over age 50 that appears not to have resulted from a traumatic blow, is a compelling reason to order a DEXA exam.

University of Vermont Medicine

UTHealth McGovern Medical School

Fracture management

Whether a senior suffers a traumatic fracture or an osteoporosis-related fragility fracture, older age can impede the healing process in some. Senescence may also increase systemic proinflammatory status, according to Clark and colleagues, writing in Current Osteoporosis Reports.

They called for research to develop more directed treatment options for the elderly population.

Dr. Rianon noted that healing may also be affected by a decrease in muscle mass, which plays a role in holding the bone in place. “But it is still controversial how changing metabolic factors affect bone healing in the elderly.”

However, countered Dr. Kelly, fractures in elderly patients are not necessarily less likely to mend – if osteoporosis is not present. “Many heal very well – it really depends more upon their overall health and medical history. Whether or not a person requires surgery depends more upon the extent of the fracture and if the bone is able to align and heal appropriately without surgery.”

Fracture sites

Spine. According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons the earliest and most frequent site of fragility fractures in the elderly is the spine. Most vertebral fracture pain improves within 3 months without specific treatment. A short period of rest, limited analgesic use, and possible back bracing may help as the fractures heal on their own. But if pain is severe and persistent, vertebral augmentation with percutaneous kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty may be an option. These procedures, however, can destabilize surrounding discs because of the greater thickness of the injected cement.

Hip. The most dangerous fractures occur in the hip. These carry at least a 20% risk of death in the first postoperative year and must be treated surgically. Those in the proximal femur, the head, or the femoral neck will usually need hip replacement, but if the break is farther down, it may be repaired with cement, screws, plates, and rods.

Distal radius. Outcomes of wrist fractures may be positive without surgical intervention, according to a recent retrospective analysis from Turkey by Yalin and colleagues. In a comparison of clinical outcomes in seniors aged 70-89 and assigned to cast immobilization or various surgical treatments for distal radius fractures, no statistically significant difference was found in patient-reported disability scores and range of motion values between casting and surgery in the first postoperative year.

Other sites. Fractures in the elderly are not uncommon in the shoulder, distal radius, cubitus, proximal humerus, and humerus. These fractures are often treated without surgery, but nevertheless signal a high risk for additional fractures.

Bone-enhancing medications

Even in the absence of diagnosed low bone density or osteoporosis, anabolic agents such as the synthetic human parathyroid hormones abaloparatide (Tymlos) and teriparatide (Forteo) may be used to help in some cases with a bad healing prognosis and may also be used for people undergoing surgeries such as a spinal fusion, but there are not clinical guidelines. “We receive referrals regularly for this treatment from our orthopedics colleagues, but it is considered an off-label use,” Dr. Kelly said.

The anabolics teriparatide and romosozumab (Evenity) have proved effective in lowering fractures in high-risk older women.

Post fracture

After recovering from a fracture, elderly people are strongly advised to make lifestyle changes to boost bone health and reduce risk of further fractures, said Willy M. Valencia, MD, a geriatrician-endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Apart from active daily living, he recommends several types of formal exercise to promote bone formation; increase muscle mass, strength, and flexibility; and improve endurance, balance, and gait. The National Institute on Aging outlines suitable exercise programs for seniors.

Cleveland Clinic

“These exercises will help reduce the risk of falling and to avoid more fractures,” he said. “Whether a patient has been exercising before the fracture or not, they may feel some reticence or reluctance to take up exercise afterwards because they’re afraid of having another fracture, but they should understand that their fracture risk increases if they remain sedentary. They should start slowly but they can’t be sitting all day.”

Even before it’s possible to exercise at the healing fracture site, added Dr. Rianon, its advisable to work other areas of the body. “Overall mobility is important, and exercising other parts of the body can stimulate strength and help prevent falling.”

In other postsurgical measures, a bone-friendly diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, as well as supplementation with these vital nutrients, is essential to lower the risk of falling.

Fall prevention is paramount, said Dr. Valencia. While exercise can improve, gait, balance, and endurance, logistical measures may also be necessary. Seniors may have to move to a one-floor domicile with no stairs to negotiate. At the very least, they need to fall-proof their daily lives by upgrading their eyeglasses and home lighting, eliminating obstacles and loose carpets, fixing bannisters, and installing bathroom handrails. Some may need assistive devices for walking, especially outdoors in slippery conditions.

At the end of the day, the role of the primary physician in screening for bone problems before fracture and postsurgical care is key. “Risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture risk must be added to the patient’s chart,” said Dr. Rianon. Added Dr. Moseley. “No matter how busy they are, my hope is that primary care physicians will not put patients’ bone health at the bottom of the clinical agenda.”

While half the fracture-prevention battle is getting people diagnosed with low bone density, nearly 80% of older Americans who suffer bone breaks are not tested or treated for osteoporosis. Fractures associated with aging and diminished bone mineral density exact an enormous toll on patients’ lives and cost the health care system billions of dollars annually according to Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. But current gaps in patient education and bone density screening are huge.

“It’s concerning that older patients at risk for fracture are often not screened to determine their risk factors contributing to osteoporosis and patients are not educated about fracture prevention,” said Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and chief of calcium and bone section, and professor of medicine, at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Furthermore, the majority of highest-risk women and men who do have fractures are not screened and they do not receive effective, [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies.”

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Recent guidelines

Screening with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is recommended for all women at age 65 and all men at age 70. But the occasion of a fracture in an older person who has not yet met these age thresholds should prompt a bone density assessment.

“Doctors need to stress that one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have a fracture in their remaining lifetimes,” Dr. LeBoff said. ”Primary care doctors play a critical role in ordering timely bone densitometry for both sexes.

If an older patient has been treated for a fracture, the main goal going forward is to prevent another one, for which the risk is highest in the 2 years after the incident fracture.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to Kendall F. Moseley, MD, clinical director of the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, “Elderly patients need to understand that a fracture at their age is like a heart attack of the bone,” she said, adding that just as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and blood lipids are silent before a stroke or infarction, the bone thinning of old age is also silent.

Endocrinologist Jennifer J. Kelly, DO, director of the metabolic bone program and an associate professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, said a fracture in anyone over age 50 that appears not to have resulted from a traumatic blow, is a compelling reason to order a DEXA exam.

University of Vermont Medicine

UTHealth McGovern Medical School

Fracture management

Whether a senior suffers a traumatic fracture or an osteoporosis-related fragility fracture, older age can impede the healing process in some. Senescence may also increase systemic proinflammatory status, according to Clark and colleagues, writing in Current Osteoporosis Reports.

They called for research to develop more directed treatment options for the elderly population.

Dr. Rianon noted that healing may also be affected by a decrease in muscle mass, which plays a role in holding the bone in place. “But it is still controversial how changing metabolic factors affect bone healing in the elderly.”

However, countered Dr. Kelly, fractures in elderly patients are not necessarily less likely to mend – if osteoporosis is not present. “Many heal very well – it really depends more upon their overall health and medical history. Whether or not a person requires surgery depends more upon the extent of the fracture and if the bone is able to align and heal appropriately without surgery.”

Fracture sites

Spine. According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons the earliest and most frequent site of fragility fractures in the elderly is the spine. Most vertebral fracture pain improves within 3 months without specific treatment. A short period of rest, limited analgesic use, and possible back bracing may help as the fractures heal on their own. But if pain is severe and persistent, vertebral augmentation with percutaneous kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty may be an option. These procedures, however, can destabilize surrounding discs because of the greater thickness of the injected cement.

Hip. The most dangerous fractures occur in the hip. These carry at least a 20% risk of death in the first postoperative year and must be treated surgically. Those in the proximal femur, the head, or the femoral neck will usually need hip replacement, but if the break is farther down, it may be repaired with cement, screws, plates, and rods.

Distal radius. Outcomes of wrist fractures may be positive without surgical intervention, according to a recent retrospective analysis from Turkey by Yalin and colleagues. In a comparison of clinical outcomes in seniors aged 70-89 and assigned to cast immobilization or various surgical treatments for distal radius fractures, no statistically significant difference was found in patient-reported disability scores and range of motion values between casting and surgery in the first postoperative year.

Other sites. Fractures in the elderly are not uncommon in the shoulder, distal radius, cubitus, proximal humerus, and humerus. These fractures are often treated without surgery, but nevertheless signal a high risk for additional fractures.

Bone-enhancing medications

Even in the absence of diagnosed low bone density or osteoporosis, anabolic agents such as the synthetic human parathyroid hormones abaloparatide (Tymlos) and teriparatide (Forteo) may be used to help in some cases with a bad healing prognosis and may also be used for people undergoing surgeries such as a spinal fusion, but there are not clinical guidelines. “We receive referrals regularly for this treatment from our orthopedics colleagues, but it is considered an off-label use,” Dr. Kelly said.

The anabolics teriparatide and romosozumab (Evenity) have proved effective in lowering fractures in high-risk older women.

Post fracture

After recovering from a fracture, elderly people are strongly advised to make lifestyle changes to boost bone health and reduce risk of further fractures, said Willy M. Valencia, MD, a geriatrician-endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Apart from active daily living, he recommends several types of formal exercise to promote bone formation; increase muscle mass, strength, and flexibility; and improve endurance, balance, and gait. The National Institute on Aging outlines suitable exercise programs for seniors.

Cleveland Clinic

“These exercises will help reduce the risk of falling and to avoid more fractures,” he said. “Whether a patient has been exercising before the fracture or not, they may feel some reticence or reluctance to take up exercise afterwards because they’re afraid of having another fracture, but they should understand that their fracture risk increases if they remain sedentary. They should start slowly but they can’t be sitting all day.”

Even before it’s possible to exercise at the healing fracture site, added Dr. Rianon, its advisable to work other areas of the body. “Overall mobility is important, and exercising other parts of the body can stimulate strength and help prevent falling.”

In other postsurgical measures, a bone-friendly diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, as well as supplementation with these vital nutrients, is essential to lower the risk of falling.

Fall prevention is paramount, said Dr. Valencia. While exercise can improve, gait, balance, and endurance, logistical measures may also be necessary. Seniors may have to move to a one-floor domicile with no stairs to negotiate. At the very least, they need to fall-proof their daily lives by upgrading their eyeglasses and home lighting, eliminating obstacles and loose carpets, fixing bannisters, and installing bathroom handrails. Some may need assistive devices for walking, especially outdoors in slippery conditions.

At the end of the day, the role of the primary physician in screening for bone problems before fracture and postsurgical care is key. “Risk factors for osteoporosis and fracture risk must be added to the patient’s chart,” said Dr. Rianon. Added Dr. Moseley. “No matter how busy they are, my hope is that primary care physicians will not put patients’ bone health at the bottom of the clinical agenda.”

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers detected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) tied to osteoporosis risk from a drop of blood, in a 15-minute, inexpensive test using an investigational electrochemical device.

METHODOLOGY:

• 10-mcL finger-prick blood samples from 15 people were diluted 1:5 and subjected to rapid thermolysis (30 seconds at 95° C) to extract the DNA.
• Blood samples with the lysed DNA, and negative controls, were applied to an investigational, generic, portable electrochemical device (Labman Automation), in which individual gold electrodes were covered with reverse primers for each of five osteoporosis-associated SNPs.
• DNA in the blood samples that matched the SNPs bound to these electrodes, and the reaction was amplified with recombinase polymerase labeled with ferrocene, which facilitates electrochemical detection.
• Five SNPs associated with an increased risk of developing osteoporosis and risk for fracture were detected in the 15 blood samples, and the results were validated using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays and Sanger sequencing.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Measuring bone mineral density by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry reliably predicts fracture risk, but only when a significant amount of bone is already lost.
• Researchers developed and validated a generic, battery-operable, portable device to detect osteoporosis-associated SNPs from a finger-prick blood sample, with no need for DNA extraction or purification.
• The entire assay from the addition of the thermolyzed blood sample to the readout of the results was complete in just 15 minutes, with a cost per SNP, on a laboratory scale, including the cost of the electrode array and all reagents, of 0.3 euro (0.33 USD).
• The researchers previously showed that the device identified an SNP associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum sample, and an SNP linked with cardiomyopathy in blood; they plan to test a scaled-up version of the device.

IN PRACTICE:

“The platform is completely generic and has immense potential for deployment at the point of need in an automated device for targeted SNP genotyping with the only required end-user intervention being sample addition,” said the authors in their report.

STUDY DETAILS:

The authors, from INTERFIBIO Research Group, Tarragona, Spain, as well as Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, published their findings in ACS Central Science.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not report any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

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

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

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

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

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

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the Endocrine Society on hormones and aging highlights the differences between normal aging and disease, and when treatment is and isn’t appropriate.

The idea of the statement “is to be complete, but also to clarify some misunderstandings. ...We tried to be very clear in the language about what we know, where we can go, where we shouldn’t go, and what we still need to learn,” statement coauthor Cynthia A. Stuenkel, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

The document is divided into nine parts or axes: growth hormone, adrenal, ovarian, testicular, thyroid, osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, type 2 diabetes, and water metabolism. Each section covers natural history and observational data in older individuals, available therapies, clinical trial data on efficacy and safety in older individuals, bulleted “key points,” and research gaps.

“Hormones and Aging: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement” was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society and published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

During a press briefing, writing group chair Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the goal is to “provide a really concise summary across each of these areas. ... There are multiple hormonal changes that occur with age, so we really couldn’t limit ourselves to just one gland or the few that we commonly think about. We wanted to cover all the axes.”

The statement tackles several controversial areas, including hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms in women and hypogonadal symptoms in men, diabetes treatment goals in older adults, distinguishing between age-associated changes in thyroid function and early hypothyroidism, and vitamin D supplementation in older adults.

“Hormones have these almost mythical qualities to some people. ... ‘If I just had my hormones back the way they were, it would all work out.’ What we want to do is make sure that patients are being treated appropriately and that their symptoms are being heard and managed and ascribed to the appropriate problems and not necessarily to hormonal problems when they are not. ... Part of what we need to do is [provide] the evidence that we have, which includes evidence of when not to prescribe as well as [when] to prescribe,” Dr. Cappola said.
 

Not designed to be read all at once

In the menopause section, for example, one “key point” is that menopausal symptoms are common, vary in degree and bother, and can be effectively treated with a variety of therapies proven effective in randomized clinical trials. Another key point is that menopausal hormone therapy is safest for women who are younger than 60 years and less than 10 years since starting menopause.

“It’s almost 20 years since the original Women’s Health Initiative, and that led to an incredible falloff of prescribing hormone therapy and a falloff in teaching of our students, residents, fellows, and practitioners about [menopausal] hormone therapy. ... Hopefully, by issuing this kind of aging statement it gets people to read, think, and learn more. And, hopefully, we can improve the education of physicians. ... Menopause is a universal experience. Clinicians should know about it,” noted Dr. Stuenkel, who chaired the menopause section writing panel.

In the type 2 diabetes section, in the bullet points it is noted that oral glucose tolerance testing may reveal abnormal glucose status in older adults that are not picked up with hemoglobin A1c or fasting glucose levels and that glycemic targets should be individualized.

Asked to comment on the statement, Michele Bellantoni, MD, said: “This was a huge undertaking because there are so many areas of expertise here. I thought they did a very good job of reviewing the literature and showing each of the different hormonal axes. ... It’s a good go-to review.”  

“I thought it was a very good attempt to catalog and provide opportunities for policy, and particularly at [the National Institutes of Health], as they look at funding to show where are these gaps and to support appropriate research. I think the most important aspect to come of this is identifying research gaps for funding opportunities. I very much support that,” noted Dr. Bellantoni, who is clinical director of the division of geriatric medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, she also said that the 40-page document might be a bit much for busy clinicians, despite the bullet points at the end of each section.

“I would love to see an editorial that puts into perspective the take-home messages or a subsequent article that distills this into every day practice of care of older adults, both preventative and treatment care. ... I think that would be so useful.”

During the briefing, Dr. Cappola noted that the document need not be read all at once.

“It ended up being a large document, but you should not be intimidated by it because each section is only about 2,000 words. So, it’s really a kind of one-stop shop to be able to look across all these axes at once. We also wanted people to think about the common themes that occur across all these axes when considering what’s going on right now and for future research,” she said.

Dr. Stuenkel, Dr. Cappola, and Dr. Bellantoni reported no relevant financial relationships.

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