The incidence of osteoporotic fractures increases with age. Consequently, the global prevalence of osteoporotic fractures will increase with the aging of the population. In old age, osteoporosis is associated with a substantial burden in terms of morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, osteoporosis in old age continues to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. This may, at least partly, be explained by the fact that evidence of the antifracture efficacy of osteoporosis treatments comes mainly from randomized controlled trials in postmenopausal women with a mean age of 70–75 years. However, in the last years, subgroup analyses of these landmark trials have been published investigating the efficacy and safety of osteoporosis treatment in the very elderly. Based on this evidence, this narrative review discusses the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in the oldest old (≥80 years). Because of the high prevalence of calcium and/or vitamin D deficiency in old age, these supplements are essential in the management of osteoporosis in the elderly people. Adding antiresorptive or anabolic treatments or combinations, thereof, reduces the risk of vertebral fractures even more, at least in the elderly with documented osteoporosis. The reduction of hip fracture risk by antiresorptive treatments is less convincing, which may be explained by insufficient statistical power in some subanalyses and/or a higher impact of nonskeletal risk factors in the occurrence of hip fractures. Compared with younger individuals, a larger absolute risk reduction is observed in the elderly because of the higher baseline fracture risk. Therefore, the elderly will benefit more of treatment. In addition, current osteoporosis therapies also appear to be safe in the elderly. Although more research is required to further clarify the effect of osteoporosis drugs in the elderly, especially with respect to hip fractures, there is currently sufficient evidence to initiate appropriate treatment in the elderly with osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures.

In this consensus paper, the Belgian Bone Club aims to provide a state of the art on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis in frail individuals, including patients with anorexia nervosa, patients on dialysis, cancer patients, persons with sarcopenia, and the oldest old. All these conditions may indeed induce bone loss that is superimposed on physiological bone loss and often remains under-recognized and under-treated. This is of particular concern because of the major burden of osteoporotic fractures in terms of morbidity, mortality, and economic cost. Therefore, there is an urgent need to appreciate bone loss associated with these conditions, as this may improve diagnosis and management of bone loss and fracture risk in clinical practice.

Background Various techniques have been described for endoscopic resection of large symptomatic colon lipomas. Lipoma unroofing might provide a safer, more time efficient and easier technique compared to dissection-based techniques, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or loop-assisted resection. The aim of this systematic review was to compare efficacy and safety (endoscopic resolution rates, clinical remission rates and adverse events) of lipoma unroofing with respect to dissection-based techniques, EMR or loop-assisted resection. Methods As most outcomes were binary in nature and several outcomes did not occur in some studies, routine calculation of standard errors in outcome probability was not possible. Therefore, original patient data were extracted, after which efficacy and safety were compared. Results Twenty four studies met the selection criteria, which encompassed 77 lesions (46.8% female, mean age 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53–72 years), mean size 45.4 mm (IQR 30.0–60.0 mm). Ten patients underwent unroofing (13.0%), whereas 7 (9.1%), 31 (40.3%) and 29 patients (37.7%) underwent dissection-based techniques, EMR and loop-assisted-snare resection, respectively. Endoscopic resolution rates were 60%, 100% ( p = 0.103), 93.6% ( p = 0.024) and 93.1% ( p = 0.028). Clinical remission rates were identical in all four groups (100%). Amongst patients who underwent EMR and loop-assisted techniques, adverse events were identified in 12.9% ( p = 0.556) and 13.8% ( p = 0.556), respectively, compared to none in the unroofing and dissection-based resection group. Conclusions In patients with large colon lipomas, endoscopic treatment by unroofing, dissection-based resection, EMR and loop-assisted resection provided similar clinical remission rates. Amongst patients undergoing EMR and loop-assisted resection, increased endoscopic resolution rates were seen at the expense of more adverse events, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Until more reliable comparative data are available, the most optimal resection technique should rely on local expertise and patient profile.