Library

Notes: Abstract: A number of drugs are now available for the treatment of established osteoporosis and have been shown to significantly increase bone mineral density (BMD). There are, however, few comparative treatment studies and, furthermore, adverse events remain a problem with some of the newer agents, particularly in the elderly, in everyday clinical practice. We report a 12 month, open labeled, randomized controlled, prospective treatment study in 140 postmenopausal women with established vertebral osteoporosis, comparing the effect of continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate with calcitriol in terms of gain in BMD, reduction in bone turnover markers and adverse event profile. The mean percentage increases in BMD at 12 months, at the spine and hip respectively, were: continuous alendronate 5.7%, 2.6%; cyclical alendronate 4.1%, 1.6%; cyclical etidronate 4.9%, 2.0% (p〈0.01) and calcitriol 2.0%, 0.4% (NS). In comparison with calcitriol, the mean changes in BMD at the spine and hip respectively were greater in the other groups; continuous alendronate: 3.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 8.3), 2.2% (95% CI 0.7 to 4.0); cyclical alendronate: 2.1% (95% CI 1.2 to 6.4), 1.2% (95% CI −0.3 to 3.0); cyclical etidronate: 2.9% (95% CI 1.9 to 6.5), 1.6% (95% CI 0.9 to 3.1)). The reduction in bone turnover markers was between 26% and 32% in the alendronate and etidronate groups (p〈0.01), with a trend toward greater reduction in the continuous alendronate group. Eight patients discontinued the study: 6 in the continuous alendronate group, 1 in the cyclical alendronate group and 1 in the calcitriol group. Two patients in the cyclical etidronate group were unable to tolerate the Cacit component, but continued on substituting Cacit with Calcichew. In summary, 12 months of treatment with continuous alendronate, cyclical alendronate and cyclical etidronate are effective in terms of the gain in BMD at the anteroposterior spine and total hip in a comparable treatment population. These treatments are more effective than calcitriol and were generally well tolerated. Continuous alendronate showed a trend toward a larger gain in BMD and greater suppression of bone turnover markers than the other treatment groups, but had a higher incidence of adverse events, particularly within the older subgroup. Cyclical alendronate offers a lower adverse event profile and appears to be effective in comparison with continuous treatment, and may possibly be an alternative in the elderly. However, further studies are necessary, but more importantly with fracture end-points.

Notes: Abstract: Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) has been proposed as a tool which can measure both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of bone tissue and can predict the future risk of osteoporotic fractures. However, the usefulness of QUS in long-term monitoring has yet to be defined. We studied a group of early postmenopausal women over a 4-year period. Thirty subjects were allocated to hormone replacement therapy and 30 selected as controls matched for age, years past the menopause (YPM) and bone mineral density (BMD) at the anteroposterior spine (AP spine). The mean age of the subjects was 52.4 years (SD 3.9 years), mean YPM 4.0 years (SD 3.2) and all subjects had a BMD T-score above −2.5 SD (number of standard units related to the young normal mean population). BMD was measured at baseline and annually by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the AP spine and total hip, and QUS carried out at the calcaneus, measuring broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA), speed of sound (SOS) and Stiffness. Mean percentage changes from baseline were assessed at 2 and 4 years. The overall treatment effect (defined as the difference in percentage change between the two groups) was: AP spine BMD, 11.4%; total hip BMD, 7.4%; BUA, 6.4%; SOS, 1.1%; and Stiffness, 10.4% (p〈0.01). To compare the long-term precision of the two techniques we calculated the Standardized Precision, which for QUS was approximately 2–3 times that of DXA, for a given rate of change. The ability of each site to monitor response to treatment was assessed by calculating the Treatment Response Index (Treatment Effect/Standardized Precision), which was: AP spine BMD, 10.4; total hip BMD, 3.9; BUA, 3.1; SOS, 0.3; and Stiffness, 4.2. This was then normalized for AP spine BMD (to compare the role of QUS against the current standard, AP Spine BMD), which was: total hip BMD, 0.38; BUA, 0.30; Stiffness, 0.40 (p〈0.01); and SOS, 0.03 (NS). In summary, QUS parameters in the early menopause showed a similar rate of decline as AP spine BMD and total hip BMD measured by DXA. Hormone replacement therapy results in bone gain at the AP spine and total hip, and prevents loss in BUA and SOS measured by QUS at the calcaneus. QUS has a potential role in long-term monitoring, although presently the time period to follow individual subjects remains 2–3 times that for DXA, for a given rate of change. Anteroposterior spine remains the current optimal DXA monitoring site due to its greater rate of change and better long-term precision.

Notes: Abstract: In this study we report first the concordance and variation in diagnostic osteoporosis classification using multiple skeletal site measurements compared with the lumbar spine only; and secondly, at the lumbar spine, the variation and diagnostic osteoporosis reclassification using the lowest individual vertebra T-score compared with the L1–L4 mean T-score. One hundred and fifty early postmenopausal women were evaluated as part of the recruitment for a multicenter osteoporosis prevention study. Bone mineral density (BMD) was restricted such that no more than 10% of the subjects had a lumbar spine BMD below 0.8 g/cm2. Forty-seven per cent of the subjects were classified as having low bone mass (T-score ≤−1.0) at the lumbar spine, 63% at the mid-forearm, 39% at the distal forearm and 50% at the hip (p〈0.05). The greatest proportion of subjects were categorized as osteoporotic at the lumbar spine, followed by the forearm and then the hip. Correlation between sites ranged from 0.57 to 0.60 (p〈0.01). Eighty-one percent of the subjects had a significant difference between their highest and lowest individual lumbar vertebra T-score (defined as a difference outside the 90% confidence interval coefficient of variation T-score value). Using the lowest individual lumbar T-score, recategorized 33% of the subjects classified as osteopenic (based on the mean L1–L4 T-score) as osteoporotic, and 23% of those classified as normal as osteopenic (p〈0.05). Of all four vertebrae, L2 had the highest T-score in 37.7% of the subjects (mean −0.3) and L4 the lowest in 61% (mean −1.5) (mean difference 1.2 units, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.7). The classification of osteoporosis varies according to skeletal site, with pronounced differences in the early menopausal population. T-scores are useful for characterizing subjects with the highest risk of osteoporosis but BMD and fracture risk must be recognized in a continuum. Individual T-scores of the lumbar vertebrae show wide variation in the absence of degenerative spinal disease or vertebral collapse and the use of the lowest, significantly different, individual lumbar vertebra T-score reclassified over half of the subjects in this study. This poses a great therapeutic dilemma in clinical practice, particularly if these fractures are at higher risk of future collapse.