Felicia Cosman1,2, David W Dempster3. 1. Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032-3784, USA. felcosman@gmail.com. 2. Endocrinology, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. felcosman@gmail.com. 3. Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY, 10032-3784, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman's life is unknown. We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40-50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman's life is unknown. We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40-50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.
Authors: J A Kanis; H Johansson; A Odén; N C Harvey; V Gudnason; K M Sanders; G Sigurdsson; K Siggeirsdottir; L A Fitzpatrick; F Borgström; E V McCloskey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: David L Kendler; Fernando Marin; Cristiano A F Zerbini; Luis A Russo; Susan L Greenspan; Vit Zikan; Alicia Bagur; Jorge Malouf-Sierra; Péter Lakatos; Astrid Fahrleitner-Pammer; Eric Lespessailles; Salvatore Minisola; Jean Jacques Body; Piet Geusens; Rüdiger Möricke; Pedro López-Romero Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Felicia Cosman; Daria B Crittenden; Jonathan D Adachi; Neil Binkley; Edward Czerwinski; Serge Ferrari; Lorenz C Hofbauer; Edith Lau; E Michael Lewiecki; Akimitsu Miyauchi; Cristiano A F Zerbini; Cassandra E Milmont; Li Chen; Judy Maddox; Paul D Meisner; Cesar Libanati; Andreas Grauer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul D Miller; Gary Hattersley; Bente Juel Riis; Gregory C Williams; Edith Lau; Luis Augusto Russo; Peter Alexandersen; Cristiano A F Zerbini; Ming-yi Hu; Alan G Harris; Lorraine A Fitzpatrick; Felicia Cosman; Claus Christiansen Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R M Neer; C D Arnaud; J R Zanchetta; R Prince; G A Gaich; J Y Reginster; A B Hodsman; E F Eriksen; S Ish-Shalom; H K Genant; O Wang; B H Mitlak Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-05-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kenneth G Saag; Jeffrey Petersen; Maria Luisa Brandi; Andrew C Karaplis; Mattias Lorentzon; Thierry Thomas; Judy Maddox; Michelle Fan; Paul D Meisner; Andreas Grauer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen Gehlbach; Kenneth G Saag; Jonathan D Adachi; Fred H Hooven; Julie Flahive; Steven Boonen; Roland D Chapurlat; Juliet E Compston; Cyrus Cooper; Adolfo Díez-Perez; Susan L Greenspan; Andrea Z LaCroix; J Coen Netelenbos; Johannes Pfeilschifter; Maurizio Rossini; Christian Roux; Philip N Sambrook; Stuart Silverman; Ethel S Siris; Nelson B Watts; Robert Lindsay Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Harjit P Bhattoa; Zoltán Szekanecz; Boglárka Soós; Ágnes Szentpétery; Hennie G Raterman; Willem F Lems Journal: Nat Rev Rheumatol Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 20.543
Authors: Christian Horst Tonk; Sarah Hani Shoushrah; Patrick Babczyk; Basma El Khaldi-Hansen; Margit Schulze; Monika Herten; Edda Tobiasch Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 5.923