Osteoporosis is a common condition that leads to substantial morbidity and mortality and affects an increasing number of persons worldwide. Several pharmacological therapies that inhibit bone resorption, promote bone formation, or both, are available for the treatment of osteoporosis. The osteoanabolic treatment spectrum was recently expanded by the introduction of a novel bone-forming agent in the United States, and clinical trials indicate that a new class of bone anabolic therapy may become available. Both antiresorptive and bone anabolic therapies are associated with common and rare adverse effects, which are particularly important to address as these drugs are used for long-term treatment in numerous patients with a large proportion being elderly and/or having multimorbidity. In addition, antiresorptive drugs are used to inhibit bone resorption in patients with malignant hypercalcaemia or to prevent skeletal events in cancer patients, and bisphosphonates have been repurposed as a cancer preventive therapy. However, therapeutic doses are generally higher when antiresorptive drugs are used in the oncological setting, which influence the prevalence of adverse effects significantly. This review highlights key issues and controversies regarding adverse effects of currently available and emerging drugs used for osteoporosis and metastatic bone diseases.
This paper demonstrates a large post-fracture anti-osteoporosis treatment gap in the period 2005 to 2015. The gap was stable in Denmark at around 88-90%, increased in Catalonia from 80 to 88%, and started to increase in the UK towards the end of our study. Improved post-fracture care is needed. Introduction Patients experiencing a fragility fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures, particularly within the first 2 years after the fracture. Previous studies have demonstrated that only a small proportion of fracture patients initiate therapy with an antiosteoporotic medication (AOM), despite the proven fracture risk reduction of such therapies. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the changes in this post-fracture treatment gap across three different countries from 2005 to 2015. Methods This analysis, which is part of a multinational cohort study, included men and women, aged 50 years or older, sustaining a first incident fragility fracture. Using routinely collected patient data from three administrative health databases covering Catalonia, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, we estimated the treatment gap as the proportion of patients not treated with AOM within 1 year of their first incident fracture. Results A total of 648,369 fracture patients were included. Mean age 70.2-78.9 years; 22.2-31.7% were men. In Denmark, the treatment gap was stable at approximately 88-90% throughout the 2005 to 2015 time period. In Catalonia, the treatment gap increased from 80 to 88%. In the UK, an initially decreasing treatment gap-though never smaller than 63%-was replaced by an increasing gap towards the end of our study. The gap was more pronounced in men than in women. Conclusion Despite repeated calls for improved secondary fracture prevention, an unacceptably large treatment gap remains, with time trends indicating that the problem may be getting worse in recent years.
Hip fracture rates and time trends in use of anti-osteoporosis medications in Denmark for the period 2005 to 2015: Missed opportunities in fracture prevention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.