Juliet Compston

Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: A 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee

Before publication of the original version of this report in 1987, practitioners of bone histomorphometry communicated with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general were unintelligible to those outside the field. The need for standardization of nomenclature had been recognized for many years,(1) during which there had been much talk but no action. To satisfy this need, B Lawrence Riggs (ASBMR President, 1985 to 1986) asked A Michael Parfitt to convene an ASBMR committee to develop a new and unified system of terminology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) as part of its Instructions to Authors. The resulting recommendations were published in 1987(2) and were quickly adopted not only by JBMR but also by all respected journals in the bone field. The recommendations improved markedly the ability of histomorphometrists to communicate with each other and with nonhistomorphometrists, leading to a broader understanding and appreciation of histomorphometric data. In 2012, 25 years after the development of the standardized nomenclature system, Thomas L Clemens (Editor in Chief of JBMR) felt that it was time to revise and update the recommendations. The original committee was reconvened by David W Dempster, who appointed one new member, Juliet E Compston. The original document was circulated to the committee members and was extensively revised according to their current recommendations. The key revisions include omission of terminology used before 1987, recommendations regarding the parameters and technical information that should be included in all histomorphometry articles, recommendations on how to handle dynamic parameters of bone formation in settings of low bone turnover, and updating of references.

Prevention and management of osteoporosis. Current trends and future prospects.

SummaryThere has been significant progress in the management of osteoporosis in recent years, resulting in a greater choice of therapeutic interventions for the physician. Nearly all of the treatments currently available are antiresorptive agents, which prevent bone loss and, in some cases, have been shown to reduce fracture risk. Some of these agents appear to have site-specific effects in the skeleton and may therefore not protect against all types of osteoporotic fracture. However, other drugs, such as hormone replacement therapy and possibly bisphosphonates, appear to reduce fracture risk in both the spine and hip.The optimal timing and duration of therapy for osteoporosis remain to be defined and will differ between agents. There is increasing evidence that the changes in bone mass induced by treatment do not always predict the corresponding changes in fracture rate. Thus, significant reductions in fractures may occur with antiresorptive therapy despite very small changes in bone mass, while large increases in bone mass may be associated with reduced bone strength and unchanged or increased fracture rates. Finally, the demonstration that relatively short term interventions can substantially reduce fracture rates, even in the very elderly in whom bone mass is almost universally low, provides the rationale for a more aggressive approach to treatment in patients with established disease.

A UK consensus group on management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis : an update

Abstract. Eastell R, Reid DM, Compston J, Cooper C, Fogelman I, Francis RM, Hosking DJ, Purdie DW, Ralston SH, Reeve J, Russell RGG, Stevenson JC, Torgerson DJ (University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield; University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen; University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge; Southampton General Hospital, Southampton; Guys Hospital, London; Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne; Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham; Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull; Wynn Institute for Metabolic Research, London; and the University of York, York, UK). A UK Consensus Group on management of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis: an update (Review). J Intern Med 1998; 244: 271–292.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK.

In 1999 and 2000 the Royal College of Physicians published guidelines for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis [Royal College of Physicians. Osteoporosis: clinical guidelines for the prevention and treatment. London: Royal College of Physicians; 1999; Royal College of Physicians and Bone and Tooth Society of Great Britain. Update on pharmacological interventions and an algorithm for management. London, UK: Royal College of Physicians; 2000.; Royal College of Physicians. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Guidelines on prevention and treatment; Bone and Tooth Society of Great Britain, National Osteoporosis Society and Royal College of Physicians. London, UK: Royal College of Physicians; 2002]. Since then, there have been significant advances in the field of osteoporosis including the development of new techniques for measuring bone mineral density, improved methods of assessing fracture risk and new treatments that have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of fractures. Against this background, the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG), in collaboration with many Societies in the UK, have updated the original guidelines [Royal College of Physicians, National Osteoporosis Guideline Group on behalf of the Bone Research Society, British Geriatrics Society, British Orthopaedic Association, British Society of Rheumatology, National Osteoporosis Society, Osteoporosis 2000, Osteoporosis Dorset, Primary Care Rheumatology Society, Society for Endocrinology. Osteoporosis. Clinical guideline for prevention and treatment, Executive Summary. University of Sheffield Press; 2008], a practical summary of which is detailed below. The management algorithms are underpinned by a health economic analysis applied to the epidemiology of fracture in the UK.

Comparison of Changes in Bone Density and Turnover with Abacavir-Lamivudine versus Tenofovir-Emtricitabine in HIV-Infected Adults: 48-Week Results from the ASSERT Study

BACKGROUND Abacavir-lamivudine and tenofovir DF-emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used as first-line antiretroviral therapies. However, few studies have comprehensively compared their relative safety profiles. METHODS In this European, multicenter, open-label, 96-week study, antiretroviral-naive adult subjects with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were randomized to receive either abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz. Primary analyses were conducted after 48 weeks of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD), a powered secondary end point, was assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover markers (osteocalcin, procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and type 1 collagen cross-linked C telopeptide [CTx]) were assessed in an exploratory analysis. RESULTS A total of 385 subjects were enrolled in the study. BMD loss was observed in both treatment groups, with a significant difference in the change from baseline in both total hip (abacavir-lamivudine group, -1.9%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, -3.6%; P < .001) and lumbar spine (abacavir-lamivudine group, -1.6%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, -2.4%; P = .036). BMD loss of >or=6% was more common in the tenofovir-emtricitabine group (13% of the tenofovir-emtricitabine group vs 3% of the abacavir-lamivudine group had a loss of >or=6% in the hip; 15% vs 5% had a loss of >or=6% in the spine). Bone turnover markers increased in both treatment groups over the first 24 weeks, stabilizing or decreasing thereafter. Increases in all markers were significantly greater in the tenofovir-emtricitabine treatment group than in the abacavir-lamivudine group at week 24. All but CTx remained significantly different at week 48 (eg, osteocalcin: abacavir-lamivudine group, +8.07 mg/L; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, +11.92 mg/L; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated the impact of first-line treatment regimens on bone. Greater increases in bone turnover and decreases in BMD were observed in subjects treated with tenofovir-emtricitabine than were observed in subjects treated with abacavir-lamivudine.

Obesity is not protective against fracture in postmenopausal women: GLOW

OBJECTIVE To investigate the prevalence and incidence of clinical fractures in obese, postmenopausal women enrolled in the Global Longitudinal study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW). METHODS This was a multinational, prospective, observational, population-based study carried out by 723 physician practices at 17 sites in 10 countries. A total of 60,393 women aged ≥ 55 years were included. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires that covered domains that included patient characteristics, fracture history, risk factors for fracture, and anti-osteoporosis medications. RESULTS Body mass index (BMI) and fracture history were available at baseline and at 1 and 2 years in 44,534 women, 23.4% of whom were obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)). Fracture prevalence in obese women at baseline was 222 per 1000 and incidence at 2 years was 61.7 per 1000, similar to rates in nonobese women (227 and 66.0 per 1000, respectively). Fractures in obese women accounted for 23% and 22% of all previous and incident fractures, respectively. The risk of incident ankle and upper leg fractures was significantly higher in obese than in nonobese women, while the risk of wrist fracture was significantly lower. Obese women with fracture were more likely to have experienced early menopause and to report 2 or more falls in the past year. Self-reported asthma, emphysema, and type 1 diabetes were all significantly more common in obese than nonobese women with incident fracture. At 2 years, 27% of obese women with incident fracture were receiving bone protective therapy, compared with 41% of nonobese and 57% of underweight women. CONCLUSIONS Our results demonstrate that obesity is not protective against fracture in postmenopausal women and is associated with increased risk of ankle and upper leg fractures.

The effects of estrogen on osteoprotegerin, RANKL, and estrogen receptor expression in human osteoblasts

Estrogen is essential for bone growth and development and for the maintenance of bone health in adulthood. The cellular responses of osteoblasts and osteoclasts to estrogen are initiated via two high-affinity receptors (ERs). Osteoblasts synthesize RANKL (receptor activator of NF-kappaB ligand), necessary for osteoclast formation and function, and osteoprotegerin (OPG), its decoy receptor. To investigate the effects of estrogen on the expression of OPG, RANKL, and ERs in human osteoblasts, cells were cultured with physiological (10(-10) M) and high-dose (10(-7) M) 17beta-estradiol for 24 and 48 h. Proteins and corresponding mRNA levels were quantitatively determined by immunocytochemistry and RT-PCR. OPG expression was significantly increased three- and sevenfold at 24 h with 10(-10) M (P < 0.05) and 10(-7) M (P < 0.01) estradiol, respectively, compared to untreated cells. Similar but smaller increases were seen at 48 h (P < 0.05). Osteoblasts treated with estradiol demonstrated increased RANKL protein expression at 24 h (P < 0.05), but this was not maintained at 48 h. ERalpha expression was significantly increased by high-dose estradiol (P < 0.01) at 24 h and dose-dependently increased at 48 h (P < 0.01), while ERbeta was only increased at 24 h (P < 0.01). The estrogen-induced protein expression of ER, OPG, and RANKL was abrogated when cells were cultured in the presence of the estrogen antagonist ICI 182780. mRNA levels at 24 h demonstrated a significant suppression of RANKL with the low-dose but not the high dose. ERalpha mRNA but not ERbeta expression was up-regulated by estrogen. Our results suggest that estrogen may exert its anti-resorptive effects on bone, at least in part, by stimulating ER and OPG expression in osteoblasts.

Bisphosphonate Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw

In 2003, the first reports describing osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients receiving bisphosphonates (BP) were published. These cases occurred in patients with cancer receiving high-dose intravenous BP; however, 5% of the cases were in patients with osteoporosis receiving low-dose bisphosphonate therapy. We present the results of a systematic review of the incidence, risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of BP associated ONJ. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies on BP associated ONJ in oncology and osteoporosis patients published before February 2008.All selected relevant articles were sorted by area of focus. Data for each area were abstracted by 2 independent reviewers. The results showed that the diagnosis is made clinically. Prospective data evaluating the incidence and etiologic factors are very limited. In oncology patients receiving high-dose intravenous BP, ONJ appears to be dependent on the dose and duration of therapy, with an estimated incidence of 1%–12% at 36 months of exposure. In osteoporosis patients, it is rare, with an estimated incidence < 1 case per 100,000 person-years of exposure. The incidence of ONJ in the general population is not known. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to confirm a causal link between low-dose BP use in the osteoporosis patient population and ONJ. We concluded BP associated ONJ is associated with high-dose BP therapy primarily in the oncology patient population. Prevention and treatment strategies are currently based on expert opinion and focus on maintaining good oral hygiene and conservative surgical intervention.

Osteoporosis and its management

Fractures caused by osteoporosis affect one in two women and one in five men over the age of 50, resulting in an estimated annual cost to the health services of around £1.8bn (€2.7bn;

Obesity and Fractures in Postmenopausal Women

3.5bn) in the United Kingdom and €30bn in all of Europe.1 2 Most patients with osteoporosis are managed in primary care, but a minority will benefit from referral to specialised centres. In recent years considerable advances have been made both in the identification of people at high risk of fracture and in therapeutic options to reduce the risk of fracture. This review focuses on these areas and also on the partnership that is required between primary and secondary care to optimise the management of patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporosis results from reduced bone mass and disruption of the micro-architecture of bone (fig 1)⇓, giving decreased bone strength and increased risk of fracture, particularly of the spine, hip, wrist, humerus, and pelvis. The risk of fractures increases steeply with age (fig 2)⇓ and most of those affected are over 75.1 2 Globally, osteoporotic fractures caused an estimated 5.8 million disability adjusted life years in the year 2000w1 and are also associated with increased mortality. Hip fractures (fig 3)⇓ result in loss of independence for at least a third of people with osteoporosis, and vertebral fractures (fig 4)⇓ cause height loss, chronic pain, and difficulty with normal daily activities. Fig 1 Scanning electron micrographs to show the structure of L3 vertebra in a 31 year old woman (top) and in a 70 year old woman (bottom). Note that many of the plate-like structures have become converted to thin rods Fig 2 Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Reprinted with permission28 Fig 3 Fracture of the femoral neck Fig 4 …