Elliott N Schwartz | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Prescreening tools to determine who needs DXA.

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are designed to help physicians practice better. A number of CDRs to assist in identifying women with low bone mass have been developed since the mid 1990s, including SCORE, OST (OSTA), OSIRIS, SOFSURF, NOF, ABONE, pBW, ORAI, and weight-only-EPIDOS (which we have termed WO-E). This review discusses these CDRs in terms of development and validation cohorts and their sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivities of the available CDRs exceed 80% and specificities are about 50%. After much analysis, it appears that most experts prefer OST for its simplicity and SCORE for its flexibility, but there is no consensus on what risk factors to use in the CDRs and what regions of interest (spine, total hip, femoral neck, or a combination) to test with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Because of the lack of consensus, there are barriers to the clinical application of these CDRs. Agreement on a single CDR for worldwide use is required to optimally fulfill the objective of identifying low bone mass.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗

PubMed2005

Combination teriparatide and raloxifene therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from a 6-month double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

UNLABELLED: We compared combination treatment with teriparatide plus raloxifene with teriparatide alone in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in a 6-month double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that measured biochemical markers of bone turnover and BMD. Markers of bone formation and spine BMD increased similarly with teriparatide alone and combination therapy. However, combination therapy induced a significantly smaller increase in bone resorption versus teriparatide alone and significantly increased total hip BMD versus baseline. INTRODUCTION: The effects of combining two approved treatments for osteoporosis with different modes of action were examined by comparing teriparatide [rhPTH(1-34)] monotherapy with combination teriparatide and raloxifene therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 6-month randomized, double-blind trial comparing teriparatide plus raloxifene (n = 69) versus teriparatide plus placebo (n = 68) was conducted in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. RESULTS: Bone formation (N-terminal propeptide of type 1 collagen [PINP]) increased similarly in both treatment groups. However, the increase in bone resorption (serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [CTx]) in the combination group was significantly smaller than in the teriparatide-alone group (p = 0.015). Lumbar spine BMD significantly increased 5.19 +/- 0.67% from baseline in the teriparatide-alone group. In the combination group, lumbar spine (6.19 +/- 0.65%), femoral neck (2.23 +/- 0.64%), and total hip (2.31 +/- 0.56%) BMD significantly increased from baseline to study endpoint, and the increase in total hip BMD was significantly greater than in the teriparatide-alone group (p = 0.04). In the teriparatide-alone group, mean serum calcium levels increased from baseline to endpoint (0.30 +/- 0.06 mg/dl, p < 0.001), whereas mean serum phosphate remained unchanged. In the combination group, mean serum calcium was unchanged, and mean serum phosphate decreased (-0.20 +/- 0.06 mg/dl, p < 0.001) from baseline to endpoint. Changes in serum calcium (p < 0.001) and phosphate (p < 0.004) were significantly different between treatment groups. The safety profile of combination therapy was similar to teriparatide alone. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy increased bone formation to a similar degree as teriparatide alone. However, the increase in bone resorption was significantly less and total hip BMD significantly increased for combination therapy compared with teriparatide alone. Combination treatment with raloxifene may thus enhance the bone forming effects of teriparatide. Further studies over longer treatment duration that include fracture endpoints are necessary to fully ascertain the clinical significance of combination raloxifene plus teriparatide therapy in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Detection of vertebral fractures.

Despite the importance of vertebral compression fractures, there is much that remains uncertain. There is no "gold standard" for the definition which has led to epidemiologic and study differences. Height loss is a way to suspect vertebral fractures but it has its own issues. There are multiple radiographic systems for defining vertebral fractures, both prevalent and incident; risk factors for prevalent fractures have already been delineated. Recent studies have elucidated the risk factors for incident vertebral fractures including age, low weight, late menarche, lower bone mineral density, history of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, smoking, and use of a walking aid. Fan beam densitometers have had improving ability to image the spine, a procedure now known as vertebral fracture assessment (VFA). Recently (in the United States) a CPT code and reimbursement was established. Yet, many vertebral fractures go undiagnosed, diagnosed but unreported, or reported but not utilized in patient care. Because of this, the International Osteoporosis Foundation developed a Vertebral Fracture Initiative for radiologists and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry began a VFA course. Both teaching programs use the semi-quantitative assessment of Genant to aid the radiologists and clinicians in detecting vertebral fractures.

Body Height↗