Literature DB >> 24747363

Are we taking full advantage of the growing number of pharmacological treatment options for osteoporosis?

Karl J Jepsen1, Stephen H Schlecht2, Kenneth M Kozloff2.   

Abstract

We are becoming increasingly aware that the manner in which our skeleton ages is not uniform within and between populations. Pharmacological treatment options with the potential to combat age-related reductions in skeletal strength continue to become available on the market, notwithstanding our current inability to fully utilize these treatments by accounting for an individual's unique biomechanical needs. Revealing new molecular mechanisms that improve the targeted delivery of pharmaceuticals is important; however, this only addresses one part of the solution for differential age-related bone loss. To improve current treatment regimes, we must also consider specific biomechanical mechanisms that define how these molecular pathways ultimately impact whole bone fracture resistance. By improving our understanding of the relationship between molecular and biomechanical mechanisms, clinicians will be better equipped to take full advantage of the mounting pharmacological treatments available. Ultimately this will enable us to reduce fracture risk among the elderly more strategically, more effectively, and more economically. In this interest, the following review summarizes the biomechanical basis of current treatment strategies while defining how different biomechanical mechanisms lead to reduced fracture resistance. It is hoped that this may serve as a template for the identification of new targets for pharmacological treatments that will enable clinicians to personalize care so that fracture incidence may be globally reduced.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24747363      PMCID: PMC4072502          DOI: 10.1016/j.coph.2014.03.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Pharmacol        ISSN: 1471-4892            Impact factor:   5.547


  69 in total

1.  Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  R Paul Crawford; Christopher E Cann; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 2.  The role of the collagen matrix in skeletal fragility.

Authors:  Deepak Vashishth
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.096

3.  In vivo assessment of bone quality in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Joshua N Farr; Matthew T Drake; Shreyasee Amin; L Joseph Melton; Louise K McCready; Sundeep Khosla
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 4.  FRAX(®) with and without bone mineral density.

Authors:  John A Kanis; Eugene McCloskey; Helena Johansson; Anders Oden; William D Leslie
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 4.333

5.  Polymer-capped fiber-optic Raman probe for non-invasive Raman spectroscopy.

Authors:  Paul I Okagbare; Michael D Morris
Journal:  Analyst       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 4.616

6.  Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease.

Authors:  J A Kanis; P Delmas; P Burckhardt; C Cooper; D Torgerson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  The area moment of inertia of the tibia: a risk factor for stress fractures.

Authors:  C Milgrom; M Giladi; A Simkin; N Rand; R Kedem; H Kashtan; M Stein; M Gomori
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Variation in tibial functionality and fracture susceptibility among healthy, young adults arises from the acquisition of biologically distinct sets of traits.

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen; Rachel Evans; Charles H Negus; Joel J Gagnier; Amanda Centi; Tomer Erlich; Amir Hadid; Ran Yanovich; Daniel S Moran
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Functional integration of skeletal traits: an intraskeletal assessment of bone size, mineralization, and volume covariance.

Authors:  Stephen H Schlecht; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2013-05-27       Impact factor: 4.398

View more
  4 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: fractures in geriatric mice show decreased callus expansion and bone volume.

Authors:  Adele L Boskey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Mapping the natural variation in whole bone stiffness and strength across skeletal sites.

Authors:  Stephen H Schlecht; Erin M R Bigelow; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 3.  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

4.  Moving toward a prevention strategy for osteoporosis by giving a voice to a silent disease.

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen; Erin M R Bigelow; Melissa Ramcharan; Stephen H Schlecht; Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez
Journal:  Womens Midlife Health       Date:  2016-03-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.