The Metabolic Bone Health Department, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, serves a local population of approximately 445 000 people. A retrospective audit of attendance data regarding the denosumab treatment clinic (the traditional treatment pathway) and the denosumab Self-Injection Program (SIP) was conducted to determine whether the SIP is both cost-effective and environmentally beneficial, compared to the traditional treatment pathway. Cost analysis was then conducted by the Finance Department. The audit was conducted over 3 years following the implementation of the service development; 233 patients had enrolled in the program at the time of the audit and 69 had completed 3 years of self-injected treatment. A control group of 497 patients were identified by the service. This group remained on the historical pathway and had consistent attendance activity over the 3-yr period from 2017 to 2019. Pre- and post-period activity of all patients on the program was compared, together with the activity for the independent control group. The SIP resulted in a reduction in clinical contacts, with financial analysis showing a total opportunity cost saving per patient of £420 per annum. There were obvious benefits to the patient of a reduced number of visits to a clinical site, which also resulted in an estimated carbon footprint reduction of 59 kg CO2 per patient per annum. The cost analysis is based on our organization\'s 2022 charges. The SIP demonstrates that by focusing on care \"closer to home\", it is possible to maximize resources, improve the patient experience through reduced travel, and reduce the environmental impact of healthcare.

The overarching goal of osteoporosis management is to prevent fractures. A goal-directed approach to long-term management of fracture risk helps ensure that the most appropriate initial treatment and treatment sequence is selected for individual patients. Goal-directed treatment decisions require assessment of clinical fracture history, vertebral fracture identification (using vertebral imaging as appropriate), measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) and consideration of other major clinical risk factors. Treatment targets should be tailored to each patient\'s individual risk profile and based on the specific indication for beginning treatment, including recency, site, number and severity of prior fractures, and BMD levels at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. Instead of first-line bisphosphonate treatment for all patients, selection of initial treatment should focus on reducing fracture risk rapidly for patients at very high and imminent risk, such as in those with recent fractures. Initial treatment selection should also consider the probability that a BMD treatment target can be attained within a reasonable period of time and the differential magnitude of fracture risk reduction and BMD impact with osteoanabolic versus antiresorptive therapy. This position statement of the ASBMR/BHOF Task Force on Goal-Directed Osteoporosis Treatment provides an overall summary of the major clinical recommendations about treatment targets and strategies to achieve those targets based on the best evidence available, derived primarily from studies in older postmenopausal women of European ancestry.
Goal-directed treatment can help healthcare providers recommend the best treatments for individual patients to prevent fractures. The goal-directed strategy considers the site, number and recency of prior fractures. This may require imaging for spine fractures, which may not have caused pain. Treatment decisions also require bone mineral density (BMD) measurement and consideration of other major risk factors. In contrast to the standard approach, same first treatment for all, treatment selection is tailored to an individual’s risk. In patients with recent fractures of the spine, hip or pelvis, fracture risk is very high and treatment should rapidly reduce that risk. For others, the target is a specific BMD level and should consider the likelihood that the treatment target can be attained within a reasonable period of time, which differs for osteoporosis medications. After initial therapy, BMD should be assessed to determine if the target has been achieved. If so, strategies should focus on maintaining BMD. If the target is not yet achieved, treatment should be intensified, or continued if it is already the most potent option. This position statement represents a consensus of expert recommendations about treatment targets and strategies to achieve those targets based on the best available evidence.

Osteoanabolic-first treatment sequences are superior to oral bisphosphonates for fracture reduction and bone mineral density (BMD) gain. However, data comparing osteoanabolic medications, with the more potent antiresorptive, denosumab (DMAb), are limited. We analyzed FRAME and FRAME Extension data to assess BMD and fracture incidence in patients treated with romosozumab (Romo) followed by DMAb (Romo/DMAb) versus DMAb (DMAb/DMAb) for 24 months. In FRAME, women aged ≥55 years (total hip [TH] or femoral neck [FN] T-score: -2.5 to -3.5) were randomized to Romo or placebo for 12 months followed by DMAb for 12 months. In FRAME Extension, both cohorts received DMAb for another 12 months. This post hoc analysis compared BMD change and fracture incidence in patients on Romo/DMAb (months 0-24) versus DMAb/DMAb (months 12-36). Patient characteristics were balanced by propensity score weighting (PSW) and sensitivity analyses were conducted using PSW with multiple imputation (PSW-MI) and propensity score matching (PSM). Unmeasured confounding was addressed using E-values. After PSW, over 24 months, compared with DMAb/DMAb, treatment with Romo/DMAb produced significantly greater BMD increases at the lumbar spine [LS], TH, and FN (mean differences: 9.3%, 4.4%, and 4.1%, respectively; all p<0.001). At month 24, in women with a baseline T-score of -3.0, the probability of achieving a T-score > -2.5 was higher with Romo/DMAb versus DMAb/DMAb (LS: 92% versus 47%; TH: 50% versus 5%). In the Romo/DMAb versus DMAb/DMAb cohorts, new vertebral fractures were significantly reduced (0.62% versus 1.26% [odds ratio = 0.45; p=0.003]) and rates of clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were lower (differences not significant). Similar BMD and fracture outcomes were observed with PSW-MI and PSM sensitivity analyses. The sequence of Romo/DMAb resulted in greater BMD gains and higher probability of achieving T-scores > -2.5, significantly reduced new vertebral fracture incidence, and numerically lowered the incidence (not significant) of clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures versus DMAb only through 24 months.
In patients with very high fracture risk, a treatment sequence with a bone-forming agent, followed by a bisphosphonate (one type of antiresorptive that reduces bone loss) is more effective in increasing bone mineral density (BMD) and reducing fracture risk compared to treatment with bisphosphonates alone. Here, we utilized patient data from the FRAME and FRAME Extension clinical trials to compare changes in BMD and fracture incidence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with the bone-forming agent, romosozumab (Romo), for 12 months followed by the most potent antiresorptive, denosumab (DMAb), for 12 months (Romo/DMAb) versus patients treated with DMAb alone for 24 months. Propensity score weighting was used to balance the patient characteristics between the two groups. We found that BMD gains were significantly higher in patients treated with the Romo/DMAb sequence versus DMAb alone; these patients also had a higher probability of achieving a T-score above the osteoporosis range (>–2.5). In addition, new vertebral fractures were significantly lower and rates of clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures trended lower in patients treated with the Romo/DMAb sequence versus DMAb alone. Thus, a 24-months treatment sequence of Romo/DMAb compared with DMAb alone, resulted in higher BMD gains and lower fracture risk.

Previous studies have demonstrated that the administration of zoledronic acid (ZOL) once yearly for 3 years or once over 3 years, yields similar antifracture efficacy. Bone turnover markers can predict the antifracture efficacy of antiresorptive agents, with procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) being the most useful marker. In this retrospective cohort study, we explored the effects of intravenous dosing of ZOL guided by serum (S)-P1NP assessment on bone mineral density (BMD) and fractures. Consenting patients (N = 202, mean age 68.2 years) with osteoporosis were treated with ZOL for an average of 4.4 (range 2-8) years. S-P1NP and BMD were measured at baseline and every 1-2 years. We assessed the number of subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in the 2-year time periods. The number of patients assessed was 202, 147, 69, and 29 at years 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8, respectively. A new ZOL infusion was given if S-P1NP exhibited values above 35 μg/L. BMD increased by 6.2% (SD 4.0) over the first 2 years and stabilized in years 2-8 (P <.05). Median S-P1NP exhibited an initial reduction from 58.0 to 31.3 μg/L at year 2 and then increased to 39.0 μg/L at years 7-8. Compared with fractures observed in the last 2 years before baseline, fracture rates exhibited consistent reductions, for vertebral fractures odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval] = 0.61 [0.47, 0.80], P <.001 and for nonvertebral fractures OR = 0.23 [0.18, 0.31], P <.001. In conclusion, intermittent dosing of intravenous ZOL based on the assessment of S-P1NP with cut-off at 35 μg/L resulted in an initial increase followed by a stable BMD, suppression of S-P1NP, and stable reduction of fractures for 8 years. Only 39% of patients needed more than one infusion. This approach reduces healthcare costs and might also reduce the risk of rare side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture.

Randomized trials have not been performed, and may never be, to determine if osteoporosis treatment prevents hip fracture in men. Addressing that evidence gap, we analyzed data from an observational study of new hip fractures in a large integrated healthcare system to compare the reduction in hip fractures associated with standard-of-care osteoporosis treatment in men versus women. Sampling from 271 389 patients age ≥ 65 who had a hip-containing computed tomography scan during care between 2005-2018, we selected all who subsequently had a first hip fracture (cases) after the CT scan (start of observation) and a sex-matched equal number of randomly selected patients. From those, we analyzed all who tested positive for osteoporosis (DXA-equivalent hip bone mineral density T-score ≤ -2.5, measured from the CT scan using VirtuOst). We defined \"treated\" as at least six months of any osteoporosis medication by prescription fill data during follow up; \"not-treated\" was no prescription fill. Sex-specific odds ratios of hip fracture for treated versus not-treated patients were calculated by logistic regression; adjustments included age, BMD T-score, a BMD-treatment interaction, body mass index, race/ethnicity, and seven baseline clinical risk factors. At two-year follow-up, 33.9% of the women (750/2211 patients) and 24.0% of the men (175/728 patients) were treated, primarily with alendronate; 51.3% and 66.3%, respectively, were not-treated; and 721 and 269, respectively, had a first hip fracture since the CT scan. Odds ratio of hip fracture for treated versus not-treated was 0.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.33) for women and 0.21 (0.13-0.34) for men; the ratio of these odds ratios (men:women) was 0.81 (0.47-1.37), indicating no significant sex effect. Various sensitivity and stratified analyses confirmed these trends, including results at five-year follow-up. Given these results and considering the relevant literature, we conclude that osteoporosis treatment prevents hip fracture similarly in both sexes.
Much evidence suggests that osteoporosis treatment should prevent hip fracture similarly in both sexes. However, because of their expense, randomized clinical trials to demonstrate that definitively have not been performed and may never be. As a result, osteoporosis testing and treatment is not as widely adopted for men as it is for women. Addressing that evidence gap, we analyzed data from over 250 000 patients in the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in Southern California. Sampling a subset of all patients over a 13-year period who had had a computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan as part of their medical care for any reason, we measured bone mineral density from the CT scans to identify all patients who had osteoporosis at the hip and then used data from the electronic health records to determine statistically the risk of a future hip fracture for those who were treated for osteoporosis versus those who were not treated. We found that the reduction in risk of hip fracture associated with treatment did not differ between the sexes. These results demonstrate that treating osteoporosis in patients at high risk of hip fracture should reduce the risk of hip fracture similarly in both sexes.

Data on long-term treatment regimens for preventing bone mineral density (BMD) loss that occurs after denosumab (Dmab) withdrawal are scarce. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term changes (12-36 months) in BMD and bone turnover markers in a group of postmenopausal women who had been treated with Dmab and received subsequent treatment with bisphosphonates. Secondary objectives were to evaluate factors associated with BMD loss, to compare the BMD change in patients who received oral vs intravenous bisphosphonates, and to assess the frequency of fragility fractures after Dmab discontinuation. The clinical data of 54 patients, 26 of whom had clinical and DXA assessments at 36 months, were analyzed. After 12 months, the mean LS BMD had decreased by 2.8% (±5.0), FN BMD by 1.9% (±5.8), and TH BMD by 1.9% (±3.7). After 36 months, LS BMD had decreased by 3.7% (±6.7), FN BMD by 2.5% (±7.1), and TH BMD by 3.6% (±5.2). C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide of type I collagen significantly increased during the first 12 months after Dmab withdrawal but then decreased at 36 months. BMD loss at 12 months was higher in patients with more than 30 months of Dmab treatment, but this difference was only statistically significant at FN (-3.3% vs -0.3%, P = .252 at LS, -3.3% vs 0.3%, P = .033 at FN, and -2.1% vs 0.9, P = .091 at TH). There were no statistically significant differences regarding the change in BMD at 12 and 36 months between oral and intravenous treatment. Seven patients suffered incidental vertebral fractures (clinical vertebral fractures: n = 6, morphometric fractures: n = 1) three of which were multiple. None of these patients were treated following international or institutional guidelines or recommendations. In summary, our study suggests that bisphosphonates can help maintain BMD for 36 months after Dmab discontinuation.

Although clinical trials have shown that denosumab significantly increases bone mineral density at key skeletal sites more than oral bisphosphonates, evidence is lacking from head-to-head randomized trials evaluating fracture outcomes. This retrospective cohort study uses administrative claims data from Medicare fee-for service beneficiaries to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of denosumab vs alendronate in reducing fracture risk among women with PMO in the US. Women with PMO ≥ 66 yr of age with no prior history of osteoporosis treatment, who initiated denosumab (n = 89 115) or alendronate (n = 389 536) from 2012 to 2018, were followed from treatment initiation until the first of a specific fracture outcome, treatment discontinuation or switch, end of study (December 31, 2019), or other censoring criteria. A doubly robust inverse-probability of treatment and censoring weighted function was used to estimate the risk ratio associated with the use of denosumab compared with alendronate for hip, nonvertebral (NV; includes hip, humerus, pelvis, radius/ulna, other femur), non-hip nonvertebral (NHNV), hospitalized vertebral (HV), and major osteoporotic (MOP; consisting of NV and HV) fractures. Overall, denosumab reduced the risk of MOP by 39%, hip by 36%, NV by 43%, NHNV by 50%, and HV fractures by 30% compared with alendronate. Denosumab reduced the risk of MOP fractures by 9% at year 1, 12% at year 2, 18% at year 3, and 31% at year 5. An increase in the magnitude of fracture risk reduction with increasing duration of exposure was also observed for other NV fracture outcomes. In this cohort of almost half-a-million treatment-naive women with PMO, we observed clinically significant reductions in the risk of MOP, hip, NV, NHNV, and HV fractures for patients on denosumab compared with alendronate. Patients who remained on denosumab for longer periods of time experienced greater reductions in fracture risk.
Osteoporosis-related fractures can have a significant impact on the health and quality of life of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, as well as pose a significant burden to society. Although clinical trials have shown that denosumab is more effective at increasing bone mineral density compared with alendronate, there is a lack of evidence evaluating the fracture risk between these 2 commonly used osteoporosis therapies. In this study using Medicare claims data for almost 500 000 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis with no prior history of osteoporosis medication use, we compared the risk of fracture—an important outcome to patients and health care providers—between denosumab and alendronate. Advanced analytic methods were implemented to ensure the study results were valid and were not unduly influenced by biases common in observational studies. We observed clinically meaningful reductions (from 30% up to 50%) in the risk of hip, nonvertebral, non-hip nonvertebral, hospitalized vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures for patients treated with denosumab compared with alendronate. Patients who remained on denosumab for longer periods of time experienced greater reductions in fracture risk than those who remained on alendronate.

Both bisphosphonates and denosumab are the mainstays of treatment for osteoporosis to prevent fractures. However, there are still few trials directly comparing the prevention of fractures and the safety of 2 drugs in the treatment of osteoporosis. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between denosumab and bisphosphonates using a nationwide claims database. The database was covered with 10 million, 20% of the whole Korean population sampled by age and sex stratification of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in South Korea. Among 228 367 subjects who were over 50 yr of age and taking denosumab or bisphosphonate from January 2018 to April 2022, the analysis was performed on 91 460 subjects after 1:1 propensity score matching. The primary outcome was treatment effectiveness; total fracture, major osteoporotic fracture, femur fracture, pelvic fracture, vertebral fracture, adverse drug reactions; acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and atypical femoral fracture. Total fracture and osteoporotic major fracture, as the main outcomes of efficacy, were comparable in the denosumab and bisphosphonate group (HR 1.06, 95% CI, 0.98-1.15, P = .14; HR 1.13, 95% CI, 0.97-1.32, P = .12, respectively). Safety for acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and atypical femoral fracture also did not show any differences between the 2 groups. In subgroup analysis according to ages, the denosumab group under 70 yr of age had a significantly lower risk for occurrences of acute kidney injury compared to the bisphosphonate group under 70 yr of age (HR 0.53, 95% CI, 0.29-0.93, P = .03). In real-world data reflecting clinical practice, denosumab and bisphosphonate showed comparable effectiveness for total fractures and major osteoporosis fractures, as well as safety regarding acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and atypical femoral fracture.
This study compared the effectiveness and safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates, 2 primary treatments for osteoporosis, using a large South Korean nationwide claims database. Analysis of data from 91 460 individuals over 50 yr old showed no significant difference in preventing fractures or in safety outcomes such as kidney injury and atypical femoral fractures between the 2 drugs. However, among patients under 70, denosumab was associated with a lower risk of acute kidney injury. Overall, both medications demonstrated similar effectiveness and safety in the real-world treatment of osteoporosis.

Low back pain derived from intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a debilitating spinal condition that, despite its prevalence, does not have any intermediary guidelines for pharmacological treatment between palliative care and invasive surgery. The development of treatments for the IVD is complicated by the variety of resident cell types needed to maintain the regionally distinct structural properties of the IVD that permit the safe, complex motions of the spine. Osteoporosis of the spine increases the risk of vertebral bone fracture that can increase the incidence of back pain. Fortunately, there are a variety of pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis that target osteoblasts, osteoclasts and/or osteocytes to build bone and prevent vertebral fracture. Of particular note, clinical and preclinical studies suggest that commonly prescribed osteoporosis drugs like bisphosphonates, intermittent parathyroid hormone, anti-sclerostin antibody, selective estrogen receptor modulators and anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand inhibitor denosumab may also relieve back pain. Here, we cite clinical and preclinical studies and include unpublished data to support the argument that a subset of these therapeutics for osteoporosis may alleviate low back pain by also targeting the IVD.

Timely administration of denosumab every 6 mo is critical in osteoporosis treatment to avoid multiple vertebral fracture risk upon denosumab discontinuation or delay. This study aimed to estimate the immediate and prolonged impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the timing of denosumab doses. We identified older adults (≥66 yr) residing in the community who were due to receive denosumab between January 2016 and December 2020 using Ontario Drug Benefit data. We completed an interrupted time-series analysis to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) on the monthly proportion of on-time denosumab doses (183 +/-30 d). Analyses were stratified by user type: patients due for their second dose (novice users), third or fourth dose (intermediate users), or ≥5th dose (established users). In additional analyses, we considered patients living in nursing homes, switching to other osteoporosis drugs, and reported trends until February 2022. We studied 148 554 patients (90.9% female, mean [SD] age 79.6 [8.0] yr) receiving 648 221 denosumab doses. The average pre-pandemic proportion of on-time therapy was steady in the community, yet differed by user type: 64.9% novice users, 72.3% intermediate users, and 78.0% established users. We identified an immediate overall decline in the proportion of on-time doses across all user types at the start of the pandemic: -17.8% (95% CI, -19.6, -16.0). In nursing homes, the pre-pandemic proportion of on-time therapy was similar across user types (average 83.5%), with a small decline at the start of the pandemic: -3.2% (95% CI, -5.0, -1.2). On-time therapy returned to pre-pandemic levels by October 2020 and was not impacted by therapy switching. Although on-time dosing remains stable as of February 2022, approximately one-fourth of patients in the community do not receive denosumab on-time. In conclusion, although pandemic disruptions to denosumab dosing were temporary, levels of on-time therapy remain suboptimal.