Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

UNASSIGNED: Osteoporosis (OP), characterized by low bone mass and increased fracture risk, is a prevalent skeletal disorder. Teriparatide (TP) and abaloparatide (ABL) are anabolic agents that may reduce fracture incidence, but their impact on musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (MCTD) risk is uncertain.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective, observational disproportionality analysis was conducted utilizing FAERS data from Q1 2004 to Q3 2023, where TP or ABL was identified as the primary suspect drug. Multiple data mining algorithms, including reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), were employed to detect MCTD safety signals.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 366,747 TP-related and 422,377 ABL-related cases were identified, predominantly among female patients aged ≥45 years. The top specific AEs involved musculoskeletal, connective tissue, and administration site disorders. Comparative analysis revealed a higher frequency of AEs related to the nervous, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal systems for ABL compared to TP. Both drugs exhibited strong signals for arthralgia, limb pain, back pain, muscle spasms, bone pain, muscle pain, and muscle weakness.
UNASSIGNED: The analysis suggests a potential MCTD risk with TP and ABL treatment in OP patients, highlighting the need for AE monitoring and management in clinical practice. This contributes to a better understanding of the safety profiles of these anabolic medications.

In the management of osteoporosis, anti-resorptive agents serve as a primary therapeutic approach. However, in cases where individuals exhibit an increased susceptibility to fractures, such as those characterized by severe low bone mass or a history of vertebral or hip fractures that markedly diminish life expectancy, the immediate reduction of fracture risk through the administration of osteoanabolic agents could be beneficial. Teriparatide, available in daily, once-weekly, or twice-weekly dosages, along with abaloparatide and romosozumab, constitutes a trio of such agents. Each of these medications is defined by unique characteristics, distinct efficacy profiles, and specific adverse effects. There is growing evidence to suggest that these agents have a superior effect on enhancing bone mineral density and reducing fracture incidence when compared to traditional bisphosphonate therapies. Nonetheless, their employment demands thorough consideration of clinical indications, which includes evaluating economic factors, the frequency of injections required, and the potential for adverse effects. The objective of this review is to consolidate the current evidence focusing primarily on the efficacy of these agents, with the goal of enhancing understanding and aiding in making more informed treatment decisions, particularly for those individuals who are at an elevated risk of fractures.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Osteoanabolic agents are used as a first line treatment in patients at high fracture risk. The PTH receptor 1 (PTH1R) agonists teriparatide (TPTD) and abaloparatide (ABL) increase bone formation, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone strength by activating PTH receptors on osteoblasts. Romosozumab (ROMO), a humanized monoclonal antibody against sclerostin, dramatically but transiently stimulates bone formation and persistently reduces bone resorption. Osteoanabolic agents increase BMD and bone strength while being more effective than antiresorptives in reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women. However, direct comparisons of the antifracture benefits of osteoanabolic therapies are limited. In a direct comparison of TPTD and ABL, the latter resulted in greater BMD increases at the hip. While no differences in vertebral or non-vertebral fracture risk were observed between the two drugs, ABL led to a greater reduction of major osteoporotic fractures. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two agents except for hypercalcemia, which occurred more often with TPTD. No direct comparisons of fracture risk reduction between ROMO and the PTH1R agonists exist. Individual studies have shown greater increases in BMD and bone strength with ROMO compared with TPTD in treatment-naive women and in women previously treated with bisphosphonates. Some safety aspects, such as a history of tumor precluding the use of PTH1R agonists, and a history of major cardiovascular events precluding the use of ROMO, should also be considered when choosing between these agents. Finally, convenience of administration, reimbursement by national health systems and length of clinical experience may influence patient choice.

OBJECTIVE: Skeletal fluorosis (SF) results from chronic exposure to fluoride (F-) causing excessive aberrantly mineralized brittle bone tissue, fractures, and exostoses. There is no established treatment other than avoiding the source of F-. Still, excess F- can persist in bone for decades after exposure ceases.
METHODS: A 50-year-old woman presented with multiple, recurrent, low AQ2 trauma fractures yet high radiologic bone mineral density. Serum F- was elevated, and osteomalacia was documented by non-decalcified transiliac biopsy. She reported intermittently \"huffing\" a keyboard cleaner containing F- (difluoroethane) for years. Following cessation of her F- exposure, we evaluated the administration of the parathyroid hormone analog, abaloparatide, hoping to increase bone remodeling and diminish her skeletal F- burden.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the prolonged half-life of F- in bone, SF can cause fracturing long after F- exposure stops. Anabolic therapy approved for osteoporosis, such as abaloparatide, may induce mineralized bone turnover to replace the poorly mineralized osteomalacic bone characteristic of SF and thereby diminish fracture risk. Following abaloparatide treatment for our patient, there was a decrease in bone density as well as a reduction in F- levels.

Review of medical records from 173 women with osteoporosis who received abaloparatide treatment revealed that 96.0% had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had medication support group access. The most common reasons for discontinuing treatment were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Most patients (64.8%) completed treatment as prescribed.
OBJECTIVE: Abaloparatide is approved for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns for patients new to abaloparatide, regardless of osteoporosis treatment history.
METHODS: Data for patients with ≥ 1 prescription for abaloparatide were collected retrospectively from six academic and clinical practice settings across the US.
RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 69.8 [7.4] years). At the time of abaloparatide treatment initiation, 78.6% had received other osteoporosis medications. Mean (SD) time from discontinuation of osteoporosis medications prior to initiation of abaloparatide was 1.7 (3.2) years. Twenty-four months of follow-up data from the initiation date of abaloparatide was collected from 94.0% of patients and 6.0% of patients had 12-24 months of follow-up. During the follow-up period, 96.0% of patients had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had access to a medication support program. The median duration of therapy was 18.6 months and 105/162 (64.8%) completed abaloparatide treatment as prescribed. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Following completion of a course of treatment with abaloparatide, 82/162 (50.6%) patients transitioned to another osteoporosis medication. The median time between abaloparatide treatment course completion and the initiation of follow-on medication was 21 days.
CONCLUSIONS: Most patients completed treatment with abaloparatide as prescribed, and over half continued with an antiresorptive agent. This favorable conduct may be the result of regular follow-up visits and accessibility to both medication and patient support services.

Both bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) and abaloparatide are used to promote bone formation. However, there is no consensus about their optimal administration. We investigated the optimal administration theory for the pairing of BMP-2 and abaloparatide in a rat spinal fusion model. Group I was only implanted in carriers and saline. Carriers with 3 µg of recombinant human BMP-2 (rhBMP-2) were implanted in other groups. Abaloparatide injections were administered three times a week for group III (for a total amount of 120 µg/kg in a week) and six times a week for group IV (for a total amount of 120 µg/kg in a week) after surgery. They were euthanized 8 weeks after the surgery, and we explanted their spines at that time. We assessed them using manual palpation tests, radiography, high-resolution micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), and histological analysis. We also analyzed serum bone metabolism markers. The fusion rate in Groups III and IV was higher than in Group I, referring to the manual palpation tests. Groups III and IV recorded greater radiographic scores than those in Groups I and II, too. Micro-CT analysis showed that Tbs. Sp in Groups III and IV was significantly lower than in Group I. Tb. N in Group IV was significantly higher than in Group I. Serum marker analysis showed that bone formation markers were higher in Groups III and IV than in Group I. On the other hand, bone resorption markers were lower in Group IV than in Group I. A histological analysis showed enhanced trabecular bone osteogenesis in Group IV. Frequent administration of abaloparatide may be suitable for the thickening of trabecular bone structure and the enhancement of osteogenesis in a rat spinal fusion model using BMP-2 in insufficient doses.

Spinal fusions are performed to treat congenital skeletal malformations, spondylosis, degenerative disk diseases, and other pathologies of the vertebrae that can be resolved by reducing motion between neighboring vertebrae. Unfortunately, up to 100,000 fusion procedures fail per year in the United States, suggesting that efforts to develop new approaches to improve spinal fusions are justified. We have explored whether the use of an osteotropic oligopeptide to target an attached bone anabolic agent to the fusion site might be exploited to both accelerate the mineralization process and improve the overall success rate of spinal fusions. The data presented below demonstrate that subcutaneous administration of a modified abaloparatide conjugated to 20 mer of D-glutamic acid not only localizes at the spinal fusion site but also outperforms the standard of care (topically applied BMP2) in both speed of mineralization (p < 0.05) and overall fusion success rate (p < 0.05) in a posterior lateral spinal fusion model in male and female rats, with no accompanying ectopic mineralization. Because the bone-localizing conjugate can be administered ad libitum post-surgery, and since the procedure appears to improve on standard of care, we conclude that administration of a bone-homing anabolic agent for improvement of spinal fusion surgeries warrants further exploration.