Objectives: This Clinical Guidance is aimed to help practitioners assess, diagnose and manage their patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), using the best available evidence.
Methods: A literature search using PubMed (MEDLINE) and The Cochrane Library identified all relevant articles on GIO and its assessment, diagnosis and treatment, from 2011, to update from the 2012 edition. The studies were assessed and the level of evidence assigned. For each statement, studies with the highest level of evidence were used to frame the recommendation.
Results: Consider treatment early in all patients on glucocorticoids (GC) as fracture risk increases within 3-6 months of starting GC. The decision to start treatment for GIO depends on the presence of prior fracture, category of risk (as calculated using Fracture Risk Assessment Tool), daily dose and duration of GC treatment, age, and menopausal status. General measures include adequate calcium and vitamin D intake and reducing the dose of GC to the minimum required to achieve disease control. In patients on GC with osteoporotic fractures or confirmed osteoporosis on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, bisphosphonates are the first-line treatment. Treatment should be continued as long as patients remain on GC. Algorithms for the management of GIO in both pre- and post-menopausal women and men have been updated.
Conclusions: In post-menopausal women and men above 50 years, bisphosphonates remain the mainstay of treatment in GIO. In pre-menopausal women and men below 50 years, bisphosphonates are recommended for those with a prevalent fracture or at very high risk only.
Objectives: Osteoporosis is a rapidly rising cause of concern for elderly patients. Various classes of drugs are available in the market. Bisphosphonates are considered as a first-line therapy for the prevention and treatment. Denosumab is an antiresorptive agent which is a RANK ligand inhibitor. There is a scarcity of comparison between these two classes of drugs. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy of Bisphosphonates and Denosumab in various parameters.
Methods: Literature search was done for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bisphosphonates with denosumab. RCTs with a treatment period of at least one year with a baseline bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) and follow up values at one year were included in the study. All included studies were also analysed for complications. The study has also been registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews.
Results: A total of five RCTs were identified providing data on 3751 participants. In all five studies, the BMD changes at both hip and spine were statistically significant in favour of denosumab. Result was similar in three studies that studied BMD changes at the wrist. Denosumab also produced significant reduction in BTM as early as one month, but at one year there was no difference compared to the bisphosphonates. There was no statistically significant differences in the complication rates.
Conclusions: Though both bisphosphonates and denosumab were effective with similar side effects, the latter was statistically superior in increasing the BMD and reducing the BTM.
Aim: This Clinical Guidance is aimed to help practitioners assess, diagnose and manage their patients with osteoporosis (OP), using the best available evidence.
Methods: A literature search using PubMed (MEDLINE) and The Cochrane Library identified all relevant articles on OP and its assessment, diagnosis and treatment, from 2011, to update from the 2012 edition. The studies were assessed and the level of evidence assigned. For each statement, studies with the highest level of evidence were used to frame the recommendation.
Results: This article summarizes the diagnostic and treatment pathways for postmenopausal and male OP, while addressing the risk-benefit ratio for OP treatment. Recognising the limitation of only depending on bone mineral density in assessing fracture risk, a move to assess 10 year fracture risk using tools such as FRAX, is recommended as a guide to decision-making on when to start treatment. A re-evaluation was done of the position of calcium supplementation and on the importance of vitamin D. There has been concern about the potential adverse effects of the long-term usage of bisphosphonates, which have been discussed fully. Algorithms for the management of postmenopausal and male OP have been updated.
Conclusions: Adequate intake of calcium (1000 mg from both diet and supplements) and vitamin D (800 IU) daily remain important adjuncts in the treatment of OP. However, in confirmed OP, pharmacological therapy with anti-resorptives is the mainstay of treatment in both men and postmenopausal women. Patients need to be regularly assessed while on medication and treatment adjusted as appropriate.
Objective: Following an osteoporotic fracture, pharmacological treatment is recommended to increase bone mineral density and prevent future fractures. However, the rate of starting treatment after an osteoporotic hip fracture remains low. The objective of this study was to survey the treatment rate following a low-trauma hip fracture at a tertiary private hospital in Malaysia over a period of 5 years.
Methods: The computerised hospital discharge records were searched using the terms "hip," "femur," "femoral," "trochanteric," "fracture," or "total hip replacement" for all patients over the age of 50, admitted between 2010 and 2014. The medical charts were obtained and manually searched for demographic data and treatment information. Hip operations done for non-low-trauma-related fracture and arthritis were excluded.
Results: Three hundred seventy patients over the age of 50 years were admitted with a hip fracture, of which 258 (69.7%) were low trauma, presumed osteoporotic, hip fractures. The median age was 79.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 12.0). Following a hip fracture, 36.8% (95 of 258) of the patients received treatment, but out of these, 24.2% (23 of 95) were on calcium/vitamin D only. The median duration of treatment was 1 month (IQR, 2.5). In 2010, 56.7% of the patients received treatment, significantly more than subsequent years 2011-2014, where approximately only 30% received treatment.
Conclusions: Following a low-trauma hip fracture, approximately 72% of patients were not started on active antiosteoporosis therapy. Of those who were, the median duration of treatment was 1 month. This represents a missed opportunity for the prevention of future fractures.
Objectives: Hip fracture is a major public health problem. Earlier studies projected that the total number of hip fracture will increase dramatically by 2050, and most of the hip fracture will occur in Asia. To date, only a few studies provided the updated projection, and none of them focused on the hip fracture projection in Asia. Thus, it is essential to provide the most up to date prediction of hip fracture in Asia, and to evaluate the total direct medical cost of hip fracture in Asia.
Methods: We provide the updated projection of hip fracture in 9 Asian Federation of Osteoporosis Societies members using the most updated incidence rate and projected population size.
Results: We show that the number of hip fracture will increase from 1,124,060 in 2018 to 2,563,488 in 2050, a 2.28-fold increase. This increase is mainly due to the changes on the population demographics, especially in China and India, which have the largest population size. The direct cost of hip fracture will increase from 9.5 billion United State dollar (USD) in 2018 to 15 billion USD in 2050, resulting a 1.59-fold increase. A 2%-3% decrease in incidence rate of hip fracture annually is required to keep the total number of hip fracture constant over time.
Conclusions: The results show that hip fracture remains a key public health issue in Asia, despite the available of better diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of fracture over the recent years. Healthcare policy in Asia should be aimed to reduce the burden of hip fracture.