Florence Trémollières

2012 update of French guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

OBJECTIVESnTo update the evidence-based position statement published by the French National Authority for Health (HAS) in 2006 regarding the pharmacological treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology and Groupe de Recherche et dInformation sur les Ostéoporoses (GRIO), and with the participation of several learned societies (Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français, Groupe dÉtude de la Ménopause et du Vieillissement hormonal, Société Française de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Société Française dEndocrinologie, and Société Française de Gériatrie et de Gérontologie).nnnMETHODSnA multidisciplinary panel representing the spectrum of clinical specialties involved in managing patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis developed updated recommendations based on a systematic literature review conducted according to the method advocated by the HAS.nnnRESULTSnThe updated recommendations underline the need for osteoporosis pharmacotherapy in women with a history of severe osteoporotic fracture. In these patients, any osteoporosis medication can be used; however, zoledronic acid is the preferred first-line medication after a hip fracture. In patients with non-severe fractures or no fractures, the appropriateness of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy depends on the bone mineral density and FRAX(®) values; any osteoporosis medication can be used, but raloxifene and ibandronate should be reserved for patients at low risk for peripheral fractures. Initially, osteoporosis pharmacotherapy should be prescribed for 5 years. The results of the evaluation done at the end of the 5-year period determine whether further treatment is in order.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThese updated recommendations are intended to provide clinicians with clarifications about the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis.

Male osteoporosis: Diagnosis and fracture risk evaluation

Male osteoporosis is challenging to diagnose and to treat. Underestimation of the risk of male osteoporosis, the combined presence of several interwoven causative factors in many patients, and uncertainty regarding the absorptiometry cutoffs associated with fractures are major obstacles to the diagnosis of male osteoporosis and to the identification of men at risk for fractures. The lifetime risk of osteoporotic fracture is estimated at 15% among men older than 50 years. One-third of proximal femoral fractures occur in men, and the associated mortality rate is 2- to 3-fold that in women. In men, nearly half the cases of osteoporosis are related to disease, medications, or risk factors. Although the criteria for diagnosing male osteoporosis are not agreed on, the definitions developed by the World Health Organization can be used provided the reference population is composed of young males. An absorptiometry T-score < or = -2.5 is useful for diagnosing osteoporosis but fails to adequately predict the fracture risk. The identification of men at high risk for fractures requires a combined evaluation of bone mineral density data, clinical risk factors, and risk factors for falls.

Trabecular Bone Score: Where are we now?

The Trabecular Bone Score is a rather new index obtained at the lumbar spine at the same time as a real bone mineral density. It was developed to reflect bone microarchitecture. It was proposed to be easily used in everyday practice as a surrogate of bone strength. Our aim was to review 1. technical points such as correlations between Trabecular Bone Score and bone microarchitectural parameters, Trabecular Bone Score and bone strength, the effects of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry image spatial resolution, age, macroarchitecture, body mass index, and osteoarthritis, on Trabecular Bone Score, and 2. evidences to use Trabecular Bone Score for separating individuals with fragility fractures from controls, predicting fragility fractures, and for longitudinally monitoring changes related to treatments. Correlations between Trabecular Bone Score and bone microarchitectural parameters vary widely across bone sites, microarchitectural parameters, and study designs. In vivo, the Trabecular Bone Score explains little of the variance in trabecular microarchitectural parameters. We emphasize that it is a texture parameter. The Trabecular Bone Score is reduced in patients with fragility fracture. Several retrospective and prospective studies have shown its discriminative ability regarding the fracture risk. When combining the areal Bone mineral Density and Trabecular Bone Score, the Trabecular Bone Score remains a predictor of fracture but not the areal Bone Mineral Density. However in prospective studies, the best predictor of fracture remains hip areal bone mineral density. Due to the lack of evidence, we recommend not to use Trabecular Bone Score for following patients treated by anti-osteoporotic drugs.

Usefulness of bone density measurement in fallers.

The objective of this systematic literature review is to discuss the latest French recommendation issued in 2012 that a fall within the past year should lead to bone mineral density (BMD) measurement using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). This recommendation rests on four facts. First, osteoporosis and fall risk are the two leading risk factors for nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women. Second, BMD measurement using DXA supplies significant information on the fracture risk independently from the fall risk. Thus, when a fall occurs, the fracture risk increases as BMD decreases. Third, osteoporosis drugs have been proven effective in preventing fractures only in populations with osteoporosis defined based on BMD criteria. Finally, the prevalence of osteoporosis is high in patients who fall and increases in the presence of markers for frailty (e.g., recurrent falls, sarcopenia [low muscle mass and strength], limited mobility, and weight loss), which are risk factors for both osteoporosis and falls. Nevertheless, life expectancy should be taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of DXA in fallers, as osteoporosis treatments require at least 12months to decrease the fracture risk. Another relevant factor is the availability of DXA, which may be limited due to geographic factors, patient dependency, or severe cognitive impairments, for instance. Studies are needed to better determine how the fall risk and frailty should be incorporated into the fracture risk evaluation based on BMD and the FRAX® tool.

Influence of vertebral fracture assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry on decision-making in osteoporosis: a structured vignette survey

OBJECTIVEnVertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is a radiographic method using DXA to diagnose vertebral fractures, validated for reproducibility, sensitivity and specificity as compared with spine radiographs. This study was designed to assess the impact of VFA results on decision-marking in osteoporosis, using a clinical vignette-based approach.nnnMETHODSnTwenty-nine rheumatologists provided data on post-menopausal women consulting for BMD measurement: clinical risk factors for osteoporosis, clinical characteristics of patients, BMD, T-score and VFA images. Standardized clinical vignettes were generated from these patients, and each rheumatologist assessed five vignettes assigned at random, in two distinct steps: first step without and second step with VFA data. At each step, they had to answer questions about the prescription of radiographs and treatments, using a yes/no format.nnnRESULTSnA total of 117 vignettes were available [117 patients: mean age 65.1 (10.1) years, lumbar spine T-score: -1.64 (0.92)], 36.7% with a personal history of fracture. Rheumatologists intended to prescribe radiographs in 62.4 and 46.2% cases (P = 0.0206) before and after VFA results, respectively; a change occurred in 36.8% of patients, i.e. a de novo prescription of radiographs in 12 patients, and a deleted prescription in 31 patients. VFA data induced a therapeutic change for 30.8% of patients.nnnCONCLUSIONnThis study shows that VFA results influence patient management, both for radiographs and treatment prescriptions.