Literature DB >> 15207030

Non-response to osteoporosis treatment.

Roger M Francis1.   

Abstract

There are now a number of effective treatments for osteoporosis, which increase bone mineral density (BMD) and decrease the risk of fractures. There is no clear consensus on the optimal method for assessing response to treatment in the individual patient. The goal of osteoporosis treatment is to prevent fractures after minimal trauma, but these are relatively uncommon events and cannot be totally avoided by the use of currently available therapies. Alternative methods of assessing response to treatment include serial measurement of BMD or the biochemical markers of bone turnover, but the observed changes may be misleading if they do not exceed the least significant change. The proportion of patients who fail to respond to osteoporosis treatments is difficult to quantify. Clinical trials show continuing bone loss in up to 15% of participants on hormone replacement therapy or bisphosphonates. Non-response to treatment is probably more common in clinical practice, but may be due to poor adherence to treatment recommendations. Other potential causes of an apparent failure to respond to treatment include the use of a weak antiresorptive agent, differences in bioavailability, low dietary calcium intake, vitamin D insufficiency and underlying causes of secondary osteoporosis. The management of patients who fail to respond to treatment includes confirmation that they are adhering to treatment and have an adequate dietary calcium intake and vitamin D status and excluding causes of secondary osteoporosis. Consideration should also be given to the addition of calcium and vitamin D supplementation and the use of alternative treatments for osteoporosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15207030     DOI: 10.1258/136218004774202409

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Br Menopause Soc        ISSN: 1362-1807


  7 in total

1.  Pharmacogenetics of anti-resorptive therapy efficacy: a Bayesian interpretation.

Authors:  Tuan V Nguyen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  The circulating sphingosine-1-phosphate level predicts incident fracture in postmenopausal women: a 3.5-year follow-up observation study.

Authors:  S J Bae; S H Lee; S H Ahn; H-M Kim; B-J Kim; J-M Koh
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Atypical femoral fractures.

Authors:  Sandro Giannini; Eugenio Chiarello; Giuseppe Tedesco; Matteo Cadossi; Deianira Luciani; Antonio Mazzotti; Davide Maria Donati
Journal:  Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab       Date:  2013-01

4.  QCT bone mineral density responses to 1 year of oral bisphosphonate after total knee replacement for knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J K Lee; C H Lee; C H Choi
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Genomic Medicine: Lessons Learned From Monogenic and Complex Bone Disorders.

Authors:  Katerina Trajanoska; Fernando Rivadeneira
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 5.555

6.  Novel positive allosteric modulators of A2B adenosine receptor acting as bone mineralisation promoters.

Authors:  Elisabetta Barresi; Chiara Giacomelli; Laura Marchetti; Emma Baglini; Silvia Salerno; Giovanni Greco; Federico Da Settimo; Claudia Martini; Maria Letizia Trincavelli; Sabrina Taliani
Journal:  J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 5.051

Review 7.  Vitamin D and bone disease.

Authors:  S Christodoulou; T Goula; A Ververidis; G Drosos
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 3.411

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.