Per Aspenberg1, Karin Wermelin, Pentti Tengwall, Anna Fahlgren. 1. Section of Orthopedics, Department of Neuroscience and Locomotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. per.aspenberg@inr.liu.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When PTH is used to increase the amount of bone in osteoporotic patients, combination with bisphosphonates is known to attenuate the response. This might be explained by the reduced number of remodeling sites after bisphosphonate treatment, which reduces the number of cells able to respond to PTH. However, in a repair situation after trauma, a large number of osteoblasts reside in the wound site. If their activity is no longer coupled to osteoclasts, decreased resorption by bisphosphonates and stimulation of osteoblastic activity by PTH should both (independently) increase bone formation. Thus, we hypothesized that in contrast to the case in osteoporosis treatment, PTH and bisphosphonates have an additive effect in situations involving bone regeneration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stainless steel screws, either coated with biphosphonates or uncoated, were inserted in 46 rat tibias. This normally elicits a bone repair response, leading to a gradual increase in the strength of screw fixation. Half of the rats also received daily injections of teriparatide (PTH). Thus, there were 4 groups: control, bisphosphonate, PTH, and bisphosphonate plus PTH. Pull-out force and energy were measured after 2 weeks. RESULTS: The combined treatment had the strongest effect. It doubled the pull-out force and tripled the pull-out energy, compared to untreated controls. Also, bisphosphonate or PTH alone increased the pull-out force and energy, although less. No treatment cross-dependency was observed. INTERPRETATION: Because bisphosphonates mainly influence osteoclasts, and intermittent administration of PTH mainly influences osteoblasts, our findings indicate that to a large extent these cells work without coupling in this model. It appears that bisphosphonates are unlikely to attenuate the response to PTH during the formation of new bone.
BACKGROUND: When PTH is used to increase the amount of bone in osteoporoticpatients, combination with bisphosphonates is known to attenuate the response. This might be explained by the reduced number of remodeling sites after bisphosphonate treatment, which reduces the number of cells able to respond to PTH. However, in a repair situation after trauma, a large number of osteoblasts reside in the wound site. If their activity is no longer coupled to osteoclasts, decreased resorption by bisphosphonates and stimulation of osteoblastic activity by PTH should both (independently) increase bone formation. Thus, we hypothesized that in contrast to the case in osteoporosis treatment, PTH and bisphosphonates have an additive effect in situations involving bone regeneration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stainless steel screws, either coated with biphosphonates or uncoated, were inserted in 46 rat tibias. This normally elicits a bone repair response, leading to a gradual increase in the strength of screw fixation. Half of the rats also received daily injections of teriparatide (PTH). Thus, there were 4 groups: control, bisphosphonate, PTH, and bisphosphonate plus PTH. Pull-out force and energy were measured after 2 weeks. RESULTS: The combined treatment had the strongest effect. It doubled the pull-out force and tripled the pull-out energy, compared to untreated controls. Also, bisphosphonate or PTH alone increased the pull-out force and energy, although less. No treatment cross-dependency was observed. INTERPRETATION: Because bisphosphonates mainly influence osteoclasts, and intermittent administration of PTH mainly influences osteoblasts, our findings indicate that to a large extent these cells work without coupling in this model. It appears that bisphosphonates are unlikely to attenuate the response to PTH during the formation of new bone.
Authors: Mehdi Amirhosseini; Rune V Madsen; K Jane Escott; Mathias P Bostrom; F Patrick Ross; Anna Fahlgren Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: Matthew J Grosso; Hayden-William Courtland; Xu Yang; James P Sutherland; Kirsten Stoner; Joseph Nguyen; Anna Fahlgren; F Patrick Ross; Marjolein C H van der Meulen; Mathias P Bostrom Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Anna Fahlgren; Xu Yang; Cesare Ciani; James A Ryan; Natalie Kelly; Frank C Ko; Marjolein C H van der Meulen; Mathias P G Bostrom Journal: Bone Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Xu Yang; Benjamin F Ricciardi; Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy; Caroline Brial; Zachary Lane; Samrath Bhimani; Jayme C Burket; Bin Hu; Alexander M Sarkisian; F Patrick Ross; Marjolein C H van der Meulen; Mathias P G Bostrom Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: E K Stuermer; S Sehmisch; T Rack; E Wenda; D Seidlova-Wuttke; M Tezval; W Wuttke; K H Frosch; K M Stuermer Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2008-12-02 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Henrik Daugaard; Brian Elmengaard; Troels Andreassen; Joan Bechtold; Anders Lamberg; Kjeld Soballe Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Leila Kolios; Ann Kristin Hoerster; Stephan Sehmisch; Marie Christin Malcherek; Thomas Rack; Mohammed Tezval; Dana Seidlova-Wuttke; Wolfgang Wuttke; Klaus Michael Stuermer; Ewa Klara Stuermer Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 4.333