Marlene Busko

“When considering the challenges of obesity, ask yourself: ‘If it were diabetes, cancer, HIV, or Alzheimer’s, how would you discuss it, approach it, assess it, treat it?’” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, asked the audience of health care professionals during ObesityWeek®, the annual meeting of The Obesity Society.

“And then do it for obesity, using the full spectrum of tools at our disposal,” he advised.

This was the takeaway that Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston, left the audience with at the end of his lecture entitled, “What does the future of obesity care look like?”

Invited to summarize his main points, Dr. Kaplan told this news organization in an interview that practitioners caring for patients with obesity need to first “recognize that obesity is a disease” caused by dysfunction of the metabolic system that regulates body fat – in the same way immune dysregulation can lead to asthma.

Second, “we are finally developing noninvasive therapies that are more effective,” he noted, referring to the recently approved semaglutide, and even more potent weight-loss therapies that could be on the market within 3 years, so that weight-loss outcomes with pharmacotherapy are approaching those with bariatric surgery.

Third, it is important that patients with obesity get “broad and equitable access” to treatment, and health care practitioners need to be on the same page and have a “shared understanding” of which treatments are appropriate for individual patients, “just as we do for other diseases.”  
 

Need for a shared understanding

“Dr. Kaplan really brought home the idea that we all need a shared understanding of what obesity is – and what it is not,” agreed symposium moderator Donna H. Ryan, MD, in an email.

“He underscored the biologic basis of obesity,” noted Dr. Ryan, professor emerita at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and associate editor-in-chief of Obesity, the official journal of The Obesity Society.

“It is a dysregulation of the body’s weight (especially adipose tissue) regulatory system,” she continued. “The body responds to powerful environmental pressures that produce excess energy balance, and we store that as fat and defend our highest fat mass. This makes obesity a disease, a chronic disease that requires a medical approach to reverse. It’s not a cosmetic problem, it’s a medical problem,” she emphasized.

There is so much misinformation out there about obesity, according to Dr. Ryan.

“People think it’s a lack of willpower, and even patients blame themselves for not being able to lose weight and keep it off. It’s not their fault! It’s biology.”

Although the supplement industry and fad diets falsely promise fast results, there is no magic diet, she continued.

“But we have made progress based on understanding the biologic basis of obesity and have new medications that offer real hope for patients.” 

“With 42% of U.S. adults having a BMI that qualifies as obesity, we need a concerted and broad effort to address this problem, and that starts with everybody on the same page as to what obesity is ... a shared understanding of the biologic basis of obesity. It’s time to take obesity seriously,” she summarized, echoing Dr. Kaplan.
 

A question of biology

“Obesity results from inappropriate pathophysiological regulation of body fat mass,” when the body defends adiposity, Dr. Kaplan explained at the start of his lecture.

The treatment strategy for obesity has always been a stepwise approach starting with lifestyle changes, then pharmacotherapy, then possibly bariatric surgery – each step with a potentially greater chance of weight loss. But now, he explained, medicine is on the verge of having an armamentarium of more potent weight-loss medications.

Compared with phentermine/topiramate, orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, and liraglutide – which roughly might provide 5% to 10% weight loss, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Association in June, provides almost double this potential weight loss.

And two new agents that could provide “never seen before weight loss” of 25% could potentially enter the marketplace by 2025: the amylin agonist cagrilintide (Novo Nordisk) and the twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) (a combined glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP] and GLP-1 receptor agonist).

In addition, when liraglutide comes off patent, a generic version could potentially be introduced, and combined generic liraglutide plus generic phentermine/topiramate could be a less expensive weight-loss treatment option in the future, he noted.
 

One size does not fit all

Importantly, weight loss varies widely among individual patients.

A graph of potential weight loss with different treatments (for example, bariatric surgery or liraglutide) versus the percentage of patients that attain the weight losses is roughly bell-shaped, Dr. Kaplan explained. For example, in the STEP1 trial of semaglutide, roughly 7.1% of patients lost less than 5% of their initial weight, 25% of patients lost 20% to 30%, and 10.8% of patients lost 30% or more; that is, patients at the higher end had weight loss comparable to that seen with bariatric surgery

Adding pharmacotherapy after bariatric surgery could be synergistic. For example, in the GRAVITAS study of patients with type 2 diabetes who had gastric bypass surgery, those who received liraglutide after surgery had augmented weight loss compared with those who received placebo.

People at a cocktail party might come up to him and say, “I’d like to lose 5 pounds, 10 pounds,” Dr. Kaplan related in the Q&A session.

“That’s not obesity,” he emphasized. Obesity is excess body fat that poses a risk to health. A person with obesity may have 50 or more excess pounds, and the body is trying to defend this weight.

“If we want to treat obesity more effectively, we have to fully understand why it is a disease and how that disease differs from the cultural desire for thinness,” he reiterated.

“We have to keep the needs and goals of all people living with obesity foremost in our minds, even if many of them have been previously misled by the bias, stigma, blame, and discrimination that surrounds them.”

“We need to re-evaluate what we think we know about obesity and open our minds to new ideas,” he added.

Dr. Kaplan has reported financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, IntelliHealth, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ryan has ties to numerous Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies, including having an ownership interest in Gila Therapeutics, Xeno Biosciences, Epitomee, Calibrate, Roman, and Scientific Intake.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“When considering the challenges of obesity, ask yourself: ‘If it were diabetes, cancer, HIV, or Alzheimer’s, how would you discuss it, approach it, assess it, treat it?’” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, asked the audience of health care professionals during ObesityWeek®, the annual meeting of The Obesity Society.

“And then do it for obesity, using the full spectrum of tools at our disposal,” he advised.

This was the takeaway that Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston, left the audience with at the end of his lecture entitled, “What does the future of obesity care look like?”

Invited to summarize his main points, Dr. Kaplan told this news organization in an interview that practitioners caring for patients with obesity need to first “recognize that obesity is a disease” caused by dysfunction of the metabolic system that regulates body fat – in the same way immune dysregulation can lead to asthma.

Second, “we are finally developing noninvasive therapies that are more effective,” he noted, referring to the recently approved semaglutide, and even more potent weight-loss therapies that could be on the market within 3 years, so that weight-loss outcomes with pharmacotherapy are approaching those with bariatric surgery.

Third, it is important that patients with obesity get “broad and equitable access” to treatment, and health care practitioners need to be on the same page and have a “shared understanding” of which treatments are appropriate for individual patients, “just as we do for other diseases.”  
 

Need for a shared understanding

“Dr. Kaplan really brought home the idea that we all need a shared understanding of what obesity is – and what it is not,” agreed symposium moderator Donna H. Ryan, MD, in an email.

“He underscored the biologic basis of obesity,” noted Dr. Ryan, professor emerita at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and associate editor-in-chief of Obesity, the official journal of The Obesity Society.

“It is a dysregulation of the body’s weight (especially adipose tissue) regulatory system,” she continued. “The body responds to powerful environmental pressures that produce excess energy balance, and we store that as fat and defend our highest fat mass. This makes obesity a disease, a chronic disease that requires a medical approach to reverse. It’s not a cosmetic problem, it’s a medical problem,” she emphasized.

There is so much misinformation out there about obesity, according to Dr. Ryan.

“People think it’s a lack of willpower, and even patients blame themselves for not being able to lose weight and keep it off. It’s not their fault! It’s biology.”

Although the supplement industry and fad diets falsely promise fast results, there is no magic diet, she continued.

“But we have made progress based on understanding the biologic basis of obesity and have new medications that offer real hope for patients.” 

“With 42% of U.S. adults having a BMI that qualifies as obesity, we need a concerted and broad effort to address this problem, and that starts with everybody on the same page as to what obesity is ... a shared understanding of the biologic basis of obesity. It’s time to take obesity seriously,” she summarized, echoing Dr. Kaplan.
 

A question of biology

“Obesity results from inappropriate pathophysiological regulation of body fat mass,” when the body defends adiposity, Dr. Kaplan explained at the start of his lecture.

The treatment strategy for obesity has always been a stepwise approach starting with lifestyle changes, then pharmacotherapy, then possibly bariatric surgery – each step with a potentially greater chance of weight loss. But now, he explained, medicine is on the verge of having an armamentarium of more potent weight-loss medications.

Compared with phentermine/topiramate, orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, and liraglutide – which roughly might provide 5% to 10% weight loss, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Association in June, provides almost double this potential weight loss.

And two new agents that could provide “never seen before weight loss” of 25% could potentially enter the marketplace by 2025: the amylin agonist cagrilintide (Novo Nordisk) and the twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) (a combined glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP] and GLP-1 receptor agonist).

In addition, when liraglutide comes off patent, a generic version could potentially be introduced, and combined generic liraglutide plus generic phentermine/topiramate could be a less expensive weight-loss treatment option in the future, he noted.
 

One size does not fit all

Importantly, weight loss varies widely among individual patients.

A graph of potential weight loss with different treatments (for example, bariatric surgery or liraglutide) versus the percentage of patients that attain the weight losses is roughly bell-shaped, Dr. Kaplan explained. For example, in the STEP1 trial of semaglutide, roughly 7.1% of patients lost less than 5% of their initial weight, 25% of patients lost 20% to 30%, and 10.8% of patients lost 30% or more; that is, patients at the higher end had weight loss comparable to that seen with bariatric surgery

Adding pharmacotherapy after bariatric surgery could be synergistic. For example, in the GRAVITAS study of patients with type 2 diabetes who had gastric bypass surgery, those who received liraglutide after surgery had augmented weight loss compared with those who received placebo.

People at a cocktail party might come up to him and say, “I’d like to lose 5 pounds, 10 pounds,” Dr. Kaplan related in the Q&A session.

“That’s not obesity,” he emphasized. Obesity is excess body fat that poses a risk to health. A person with obesity may have 50 or more excess pounds, and the body is trying to defend this weight.

“If we want to treat obesity more effectively, we have to fully understand why it is a disease and how that disease differs from the cultural desire for thinness,” he reiterated.

“We have to keep the needs and goals of all people living with obesity foremost in our minds, even if many of them have been previously misled by the bias, stigma, blame, and discrimination that surrounds them.”

“We need to re-evaluate what we think we know about obesity and open our minds to new ideas,” he added.

Dr. Kaplan has reported financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, IntelliHealth, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ryan has ties to numerous Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies, including having an ownership interest in Gila Therapeutics, Xeno Biosciences, Epitomee, Calibrate, Roman, and Scientific Intake.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“When considering the challenges of obesity, ask yourself: ‘If it were diabetes, cancer, HIV, or Alzheimer’s, how would you discuss it, approach it, assess it, treat it?’” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, asked the audience of health care professionals during ObesityWeek®, the annual meeting of The Obesity Society.

“And then do it for obesity, using the full spectrum of tools at our disposal,” he advised.

This was the takeaway that Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston, left the audience with at the end of his lecture entitled, “What does the future of obesity care look like?”

Invited to summarize his main points, Dr. Kaplan told this news organization in an interview that practitioners caring for patients with obesity need to first “recognize that obesity is a disease” caused by dysfunction of the metabolic system that regulates body fat – in the same way immune dysregulation can lead to asthma.

Second, “we are finally developing noninvasive therapies that are more effective,” he noted, referring to the recently approved semaglutide, and even more potent weight-loss therapies that could be on the market within 3 years, so that weight-loss outcomes with pharmacotherapy are approaching those with bariatric surgery.

Third, it is important that patients with obesity get “broad and equitable access” to treatment, and health care practitioners need to be on the same page and have a “shared understanding” of which treatments are appropriate for individual patients, “just as we do for other diseases.”  
 

Need for a shared understanding

“Dr. Kaplan really brought home the idea that we all need a shared understanding of what obesity is – and what it is not,” agreed symposium moderator Donna H. Ryan, MD, in an email.

“He underscored the biologic basis of obesity,” noted Dr. Ryan, professor emerita at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and associate editor-in-chief of Obesity, the official journal of The Obesity Society.

“It is a dysregulation of the body’s weight (especially adipose tissue) regulatory system,” she continued. “The body responds to powerful environmental pressures that produce excess energy balance, and we store that as fat and defend our highest fat mass. This makes obesity a disease, a chronic disease that requires a medical approach to reverse. It’s not a cosmetic problem, it’s a medical problem,” she emphasized.

There is so much misinformation out there about obesity, according to Dr. Ryan.

“People think it’s a lack of willpower, and even patients blame themselves for not being able to lose weight and keep it off. It’s not their fault! It’s biology.”

Although the supplement industry and fad diets falsely promise fast results, there is no magic diet, she continued.

“But we have made progress based on understanding the biologic basis of obesity and have new medications that offer real hope for patients.” 

“With 42% of U.S. adults having a BMI that qualifies as obesity, we need a concerted and broad effort to address this problem, and that starts with everybody on the same page as to what obesity is ... a shared understanding of the biologic basis of obesity. It’s time to take obesity seriously,” she summarized, echoing Dr. Kaplan.
 

A question of biology

“Obesity results from inappropriate pathophysiological regulation of body fat mass,” when the body defends adiposity, Dr. Kaplan explained at the start of his lecture.

The treatment strategy for obesity has always been a stepwise approach starting with lifestyle changes, then pharmacotherapy, then possibly bariatric surgery – each step with a potentially greater chance of weight loss. But now, he explained, medicine is on the verge of having an armamentarium of more potent weight-loss medications.

Compared with phentermine/topiramate, orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, and liraglutide – which roughly might provide 5% to 10% weight loss, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Association in June, provides almost double this potential weight loss.

And two new agents that could provide “never seen before weight loss” of 25% could potentially enter the marketplace by 2025: the amylin agonist cagrilintide (Novo Nordisk) and the twincretin tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) (a combined glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP] and GLP-1 receptor agonist).

In addition, when liraglutide comes off patent, a generic version could potentially be introduced, and combined generic liraglutide plus generic phentermine/topiramate could be a less expensive weight-loss treatment option in the future, he noted.
 

One size does not fit all

Importantly, weight loss varies widely among individual patients.

A graph of potential weight loss with different treatments (for example, bariatric surgery or liraglutide) versus the percentage of patients that attain the weight losses is roughly bell-shaped, Dr. Kaplan explained. For example, in the STEP1 trial of semaglutide, roughly 7.1% of patients lost less than 5% of their initial weight, 25% of patients lost 20% to 30%, and 10.8% of patients lost 30% or more; that is, patients at the higher end had weight loss comparable to that seen with bariatric surgery

Adding pharmacotherapy after bariatric surgery could be synergistic. For example, in the GRAVITAS study of patients with type 2 diabetes who had gastric bypass surgery, those who received liraglutide after surgery had augmented weight loss compared with those who received placebo.

People at a cocktail party might come up to him and say, “I’d like to lose 5 pounds, 10 pounds,” Dr. Kaplan related in the Q&A session.

“That’s not obesity,” he emphasized. Obesity is excess body fat that poses a risk to health. A person with obesity may have 50 or more excess pounds, and the body is trying to defend this weight.

“If we want to treat obesity more effectively, we have to fully understand why it is a disease and how that disease differs from the cultural desire for thinness,” he reiterated.

“We have to keep the needs and goals of all people living with obesity foremost in our minds, even if many of them have been previously misled by the bias, stigma, blame, and discrimination that surrounds them.”

“We need to re-evaluate what we think we know about obesity and open our minds to new ideas,” he added.

Dr. Kaplan has reported financial ties to Eli Lilly, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, IntelliHealth, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ryan has ties to numerous Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies, including having an ownership interest in Gila Therapeutics, Xeno Biosciences, Epitomee, Calibrate, Roman, and Scientific Intake.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the longest study of bone loss in postmenopausal women to date, on average, bone mineral density (BMD) at the femoral neck (the most common location for a hip fracture) had dropped by 10% in 25 years – less than expected based on shorter studies.

Specifically, average BMD loss at the femoral neck was 0.4% per year during 25 years in this new study from Finland, compared with a drop of 1.6% per year over 15 years reported in other cohorts.

Five-year BMD change appeared to predict long-term bone loss. However, certain women had faster bone loss, indicating that they should be followed more closely.

“Although the average bone loss was 10.1% ... there is a significant variation in the bone loss rate” among women in the study, senior author Joonas Sirola, MD, PhD, associate professor, University of Eastern Finland, and coauthor Heikki Kröger, MD, PhD, a professor at the same university, explained to this news organization in an email, so “women with fast bone loss should receive special attention.

The findings from the Kuopio Osteoporosis Risk Factor and Prevention study by Anna Moilanen and colleagues were published online October 19 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Several factors might explain the lower than expected drop in femoral neck BMD (the site that is used to diagnose osteoporosis), Dr. Sirola and Dr. Kröger said. BMD depends on a person’s age, race, sex, and genes. And compared with other countries, people in Finland consume more dairy products, and more postmenopausal women there take hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

“If otherwise indicated, HRT seemed to effectively protect from bone loss,” the researchers noted.

Also, the number of women who smoked or used corticosteroids was low, so bone loss in other populations may be higher. Moreover, the women who completed the study may have been healthier to start with, so the results should be interpreted with caution, they urge.

Nevertheless, the study sheds light on long-term changes in BMD in postmenopausal women and “stresses the importance of high peak bone mass before menopause and keeping a healthy weight” during aging to protect bone health, they say.

Indeed the work “changes our understanding of bone loss in older women,” said Dr. Kröger in a press release from the university.
 

Check BMD every 5 years after menopause

Invited to comment, American Society of Bone and Mineral Research President Peter R. Ebeling, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted key findings are that the rate of femoral neck bone loss after perimenopause was far less than previously expected, and 5-year BMD change appeared to predict long-term bone loss in postmenopausal women.

“We know bone loss begins 1 year before menopause and accelerates over the next 5 years,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, added in an email. “This study indicates some stabilization of bone loss thereafter with lesser effects of low estrogen levels on bone.”

“It probably means bone density does not need to be measured as frequently following the menopause transition and could be every 5 years, rather than every 2 years, if there was concern about continuing bone loss.”
 

Baseline risk factors and long-term changes in BMD

For the study, researchers examined the association between risk factors for bone loss and long-term changes in femoral neck BMD in 2,695 women living in Kuopio who were 47 to 56 years old in 1989. The women were a mean age of 53 years, and 62% were postmenopausal.

They answered questionnaires and had femoral neck BMD measured by DEXA every 5 years.

A total of 2,695, 2,583, 2,482, 2,135, 1,305, and 686 women were assessed at baseline and 5-, 10-, 15-, 20- and 25-year follow-ups, respectively, indicating significant study drop-out by 25 years. 

By then, 17% of patients had died, 9% needed long-term care, some were unwilling to continue in the study, and others had factors that would have resulted in DEXA measurement errors (for example, hip implants, spine degeneration).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles of mean initial femoral neck BMD: 1.09 g/cm2, 0.97 g/cm2, 0.89 g/cm2, and 0.79 g/cm2, corresponding with quartiles 1 to 4 respectively (where quartile 1 had the highest initial femoral BMD and quartile 4 the lowest).

At 25 years, the mean femoral BMD had dropped to 0.97 g/cm2, 0.87 g/cm2, 0.80 g/cm2, and 0.73 g/cm2 in these respective quartiles.

Women lost 0.9%, 0.5%, 3.0%, and 1.0% of their initial BMD each year in quartiles 1 to 4, respectively.

And at 25 years, the women had lost 22.5%, 12.5%, 7.5%, and 2.5% of their initial BMD in the four quartiles, respectively.

Women in quartile 1 had the greatest drop in femoral BMD at 25 years, although their mean BMD at 25 years was higher than the mean initial BMD of the other women. 

The prevalence of bone-affecting diseases, smoking, and use of vitamin D/calcium supplementation, corticosteroids, or alcohol was similar in the four quartiles and was not associated with significant differences in annual bone loss.
 

The most important protective factor was HRT

However, body mass index (BMI) and HRT were significantly different in the four quartiles.

On average, women in quartile 1 had a mean BMI of 26.7 kg/m2 at baseline and 27.8 kg/m2 at 25 years. Women in quartile 4 (lowest initial BMD and lowest drop in BMD) had a mean BMI of 24.9 kg/m2 at baseline and 28.4 kg/m2 at 25 years.

Women in quartile 4 (lowest initial BMD and lowest drop in BMD) were more likely to take HRT than women in quartile 1 (highest initial BMD and highest drop in BMD), at 41% versus 26%, respectively.

“The average decrease in bone mineral density was lower than has been assumed on the basis of earlier, shorter follow-ups where the bone loss rate at the femoral neck has been estimated to be even more than 20%,” Dr. Sirola commented in the press release.

“There were also surprisingly few risk factors affecting bone mineral density. The most significant factor protecting against bone loss was hormone replacement therapy. Weight gain during the follow-up also protected against bone loss,” Dr. Sirola added.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Ebeling have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the longest study of bone loss in postmenopausal women to date, on average, bone mineral density (BMD) at the femoral neck (the most common location for a hip fracture) had dropped by 10% in 25 years – less than expected based on shorter studies.

Specifically, average BMD loss at the femoral neck was 0.4% per year during 25 years in this new study from Finland, compared with a drop of 1.6% per year over 15 years reported in other cohorts.

Five-year BMD change appeared to predict long-term bone loss. However, certain women had faster bone loss, indicating that they should be followed more closely.

“Although the average bone loss was 10.1% ... there is a significant variation in the bone loss rate” among women in the study, senior author Joonas Sirola, MD, PhD, associate professor, University of Eastern Finland, and coauthor Heikki Kröger, MD, PhD, a professor at the same university, explained to this news organization in an email, so “women with fast bone loss should receive special attention.

The findings from the Kuopio Osteoporosis Risk Factor and Prevention study by Anna Moilanen and colleagues were published online October 19 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Several factors might explain the lower than expected drop in femoral neck BMD (the site that is used to diagnose osteoporosis), Dr. Sirola and Dr. Kröger said. BMD depends on a person’s age, race, sex, and genes. And compared with other countries, people in Finland consume more dairy products, and more postmenopausal women there take hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

“If otherwise indicated, HRT seemed to effectively protect from bone loss,” the researchers noted.

Also, the number of women who smoked or used corticosteroids was low, so bone loss in other populations may be higher. Moreover, the women who completed the study may have been healthier to start with, so the results should be interpreted with caution, they urge.

Nevertheless, the study sheds light on long-term changes in BMD in postmenopausal women and “stresses the importance of high peak bone mass before menopause and keeping a healthy weight” during aging to protect bone health, they say.

Indeed the work “changes our understanding of bone loss in older women,” said Dr. Kröger in a press release from the university.
 

Check BMD every 5 years after menopause

Invited to comment, American Society of Bone and Mineral Research President Peter R. Ebeling, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted key findings are that the rate of femoral neck bone loss after perimenopause was far less than previously expected, and 5-year BMD change appeared to predict long-term bone loss in postmenopausal women.

“We know bone loss begins 1 year before menopause and accelerates over the next 5 years,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, added in an email. “This study indicates some stabilization of bone loss thereafter with lesser effects of low estrogen levels on bone.”

“It probably means bone density does not need to be measured as frequently following the menopause transition and could be every 5 years, rather than every 2 years, if there was concern about continuing bone loss.”
 

Baseline risk factors and long-term changes in BMD

For the study, researchers examined the association between risk factors for bone loss and long-term changes in femoral neck BMD in 2,695 women living in Kuopio who were 47 to 56 years old in 1989. The women were a mean age of 53 years, and 62% were postmenopausal.

They answered questionnaires and had femoral neck BMD measured by DEXA every 5 years.

A total of 2,695, 2,583, 2,482, 2,135, 1,305, and 686 women were assessed at baseline and 5-, 10-, 15-, 20- and 25-year follow-ups, respectively, indicating significant study drop-out by 25 years. 

By then, 17% of patients had died, 9% needed long-term care, some were unwilling to continue in the study, and others had factors that would have resulted in DEXA measurement errors (for example, hip implants, spine degeneration).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles of mean initial femoral neck BMD: 1.09 g/cm2, 0.97 g/cm2, 0.89 g/cm2, and 0.79 g/cm2, corresponding with quartiles 1 to 4 respectively (where quartile 1 had the highest initial femoral BMD and quartile 4 the lowest).

At 25 years, the mean femoral BMD had dropped to 0.97 g/cm2, 0.87 g/cm2, 0.80 g/cm2, and 0.73 g/cm2 in these respective quartiles.

Women lost 0.9%, 0.5%, 3.0%, and 1.0% of their initial BMD each year in quartiles 1 to 4, respectively.

And at 25 years, the women had lost 22.5%, 12.5%, 7.5%, and 2.5% of their initial BMD in the four quartiles, respectively.

Women in quartile 1 had the greatest drop in femoral BMD at 25 years, although their mean BMD at 25 years was higher than the mean initial BMD of the other women. 

The prevalence of bone-affecting diseases, smoking, and use of vitamin D/calcium supplementation, corticosteroids, or alcohol was similar in the four quartiles and was not associated with significant differences in annual bone loss.
 

The most important protective factor was HRT

However, body mass index (BMI) and HRT were significantly different in the four quartiles.

On average, women in quartile 1 had a mean BMI of 26.7 kg/m2 at baseline and 27.8 kg/m2 at 25 years. Women in quartile 4 (lowest initial BMD and lowest drop in BMD) had a mean BMI of 24.9 kg/m2 at baseline and 28.4 kg/m2 at 25 years.

Women in quartile 4 (lowest initial BMD and lowest drop in BMD) were more likely to take HRT than women in quartile 1 (highest initial BMD and highest drop in BMD), at 41% versus 26%, respectively.

“The average decrease in bone mineral density was lower than has been assumed on the basis of earlier, shorter follow-ups where the bone loss rate at the femoral neck has been estimated to be even more than 20%,” Dr. Sirola commented in the press release.

“There were also surprisingly few risk factors affecting bone mineral density. The most significant factor protecting against bone loss was hormone replacement therapy. Weight gain during the follow-up also protected against bone loss,” Dr. Sirola added.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Ebeling have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the longest study of bone loss in postmenopausal women to date, on average, bone mineral density (BMD) at the femoral neck (the most common location for a hip fracture) had dropped by 10% in 25 years – less than expected based on shorter studies.

Specifically, average BMD loss at the femoral neck was 0.4% per year during 25 years in this new study from Finland, compared with a drop of 1.6% per year over 15 years reported in other cohorts.

Five-year BMD change appeared to predict long-term bone loss. However, certain women had faster bone loss, indicating that they should be followed more closely.

“Although the average bone loss was 10.1% ... there is a significant variation in the bone loss rate” among women in the study, senior author Joonas Sirola, MD, PhD, associate professor, University of Eastern Finland, and coauthor Heikki Kröger, MD, PhD, a professor at the same university, explained to this news organization in an email, so “women with fast bone loss should receive special attention.

The findings from the Kuopio Osteoporosis Risk Factor and Prevention study by Anna Moilanen and colleagues were published online October 19 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Several factors might explain the lower than expected drop in femoral neck BMD (the site that is used to diagnose osteoporosis), Dr. Sirola and Dr. Kröger said. BMD depends on a person’s age, race, sex, and genes. And compared with other countries, people in Finland consume more dairy products, and more postmenopausal women there take hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

“If otherwise indicated, HRT seemed to effectively protect from bone loss,” the researchers noted.

Also, the number of women who smoked or used corticosteroids was low, so bone loss in other populations may be higher. Moreover, the women who completed the study may have been healthier to start with, so the results should be interpreted with caution, they urge.

Nevertheless, the study sheds light on long-term changes in BMD in postmenopausal women and “stresses the importance of high peak bone mass before menopause and keeping a healthy weight” during aging to protect bone health, they say.

Indeed the work “changes our understanding of bone loss in older women,” said Dr. Kröger in a press release from the university.
 

Check BMD every 5 years after menopause

Invited to comment, American Society of Bone and Mineral Research President Peter R. Ebeling, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted key findings are that the rate of femoral neck bone loss after perimenopause was far less than previously expected, and 5-year BMD change appeared to predict long-term bone loss in postmenopausal women.

“We know bone loss begins 1 year before menopause and accelerates over the next 5 years,” Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, added in an email. “This study indicates some stabilization of bone loss thereafter with lesser effects of low estrogen levels on bone.”

“It probably means bone density does not need to be measured as frequently following the menopause transition and could be every 5 years, rather than every 2 years, if there was concern about continuing bone loss.”
 

Baseline risk factors and long-term changes in BMD

For the study, researchers examined the association between risk factors for bone loss and long-term changes in femoral neck BMD in 2,695 women living in Kuopio who were 47 to 56 years old in 1989. The women were a mean age of 53 years, and 62% were postmenopausal.

They answered questionnaires and had femoral neck BMD measured by DEXA every 5 years.

A total of 2,695, 2,583, 2,482, 2,135, 1,305, and 686 women were assessed at baseline and 5-, 10-, 15-, 20- and 25-year follow-ups, respectively, indicating significant study drop-out by 25 years. 

By then, 17% of patients had died, 9% needed long-term care, some were unwilling to continue in the study, and others had factors that would have resulted in DEXA measurement errors (for example, hip implants, spine degeneration).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles of mean initial femoral neck BMD: 1.09 g/cm2, 0.97 g/cm2, 0.89 g/cm2, and 0.79 g/cm2, corresponding with quartiles 1 to 4 respectively (where quartile 1 had the highest initial femoral BMD and quartile 4 the lowest).

At 25 years, the mean femoral BMD had dropped to 0.97 g/cm2, 0.87 g/cm2, 0.80 g/cm2, and 0.73 g/cm2 in these respective quartiles.

Women lost 0.9%, 0.5%, 3.0%, and 1.0% of their initial BMD each year in quartiles 1 to 4, respectively.

And at 25 years, the women had lost 22.5%, 12.5%, 7.5%, and 2.5% of their initial BMD in the four quartiles, respectively.

Women in quartile 1 had the greatest drop in femoral BMD at 25 years, although their mean BMD at 25 years was higher than the mean initial BMD of the other women. 

The prevalence of bone-affecting diseases, smoking, and use of vitamin D/calcium supplementation, corticosteroids, or alcohol was similar in the four quartiles and was not associated with significant differences in annual bone loss.
 

The most important protective factor was HRT

However, body mass index (BMI) and HRT were significantly different in the four quartiles.

On average, women in quartile 1 had a mean BMI of 26.7 kg/m2 at baseline and 27.8 kg/m2 at 25 years. Women in quartile 4 (lowest initial BMD and lowest drop in BMD) had a mean BMI of 24.9 kg/m2 at baseline and 28.4 kg/m2 at 25 years.

Women in quartile 4 (lowest initial BMD and lowest drop in BMD) were more likely to take HRT than women in quartile 1 (highest initial BMD and highest drop in BMD), at 41% versus 26%, respectively.

“The average decrease in bone mineral density was lower than has been assumed on the basis of earlier, shorter follow-ups where the bone loss rate at the femoral neck has been estimated to be even more than 20%,” Dr. Sirola commented in the press release.

“There were also surprisingly few risk factors affecting bone mineral density. The most significant factor protecting against bone loss was hormone replacement therapy. Weight gain during the follow-up also protected against bone loss,” Dr. Sirola added.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation. The authors and Dr. Ebeling have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.

Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.

The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.

The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.

More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
 

Management of hypoparathyroidism

The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.

There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.

The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.

The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.

Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:

• Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
• Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
• Evaluate target organ damage.
• Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
• Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life. 

The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.

It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.

A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.

Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.

“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.

The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.  
 

Management of primary hyperparathyroidism

There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.

The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.

As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.

They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.

“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.

In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.

Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.

The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.

In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.

Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.

The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.

Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.

The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.

The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.

More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
 

Management of hypoparathyroidism

The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.

There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.

The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.

The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.

Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:

• Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
• Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
• Evaluate target organ damage.
• Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
• Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life. 

The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.

It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.

A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.

Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.

“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.

The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.  
 

Management of primary hyperparathyroidism

There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.

The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.

As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.

They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.

“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.

In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.

Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.

The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.

In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.

Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.

The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.

Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.

The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.

The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.

More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
 

Management of hypoparathyroidism

The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.

There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.

The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.

The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.

Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:

• Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
• Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
• Evaluate target organ damage.
• Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
• Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life. 

The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.

It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.

A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.

Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.

“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.

The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.  
 

Management of primary hyperparathyroidism

There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.

The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.

As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.

They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.

“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.

In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.

Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.

The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.

In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.

Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.

The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among postmenopausal women who received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the lumbar spine to treat back and leg pain arising from a compressed nerve in the spine, levels of bone formation biomarkers were decreased. The decrease in levels persisted more than 12 weeks, results from a new study show.

In addition, serum cortisol levels decreased by 50% at week 1 after the ESI, indicating systemic absorption of the steroid.

“The extent and duration of these effects suggest that patients who receive multiple [ESIs in the lumbar spine] may be at particular risk for harmful skeletal consequences,” Shannon Clare reported in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Further studies are needed of the relationship between these short-term changes in bone turnover and bone loss and the risk for fracture among the burgeoning population treated with ESIs, added Ms. Clare, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The researchers examined changes in serum levels of bone formation and resorption markers and other analytes in 24 women who received a lumbar ESI for radicular back pain and in 8 other women from the hospital population who served as control persons.

Among the women who received ESI, 1 week after the injection, serum levels of two bone formation biomarkers – total procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) and osteocalcin – were about 27% lower than at baseline. The suppression persisted beyond 12 weeks.

Serum levels of the bone resorption biomarker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) did not differ significantly after ESI.

“Our results are notable because we found that the duration of suppression of bone formation extended beyond 12 weeks, a far longer duration than seen previously with intra-articular injections” of glucocorticoids, said Ms. Clare and senior author Emily M. Stein, MD, director of research for the Metabolic Bone Service and an endocrinologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and is associate professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

The findings suggest that patients should not receive multiple doses within a 12-week period, they told this news organization in a joint email response.

Women are not typically screened for osteopenia or osteoporosis before ESI. However, “our results suggest that physicians should consider screening women for osteoporosis who receive ESI, particularly those who are treated with multiple doses,” said Ms. Clare and Dr. Stein. “Steroid exposure should be minimized as much as possible by having patients space injections as far as they can tolerate.”
 

Systemic absorption, negative impact on bone turnover markers

“The hypothesis that [ESIs] interfere with the vertebral osseous microenvironment and increase the risk of vertebral fractures has been supported with evidence in the literature,” Mohamad Bydon, MD, professor of neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and health services research at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Prior studies have demonstrated a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in vertebral fractures following ESI, added Dr. Bydon, senior author of a 2018 review of the effect of ESI on BMD and vertebral fracture risk that was published in Pain Medicine. He was not involved with the current study.

“The article by Clare et al. provides evidence on the systemic absorption of glucocorticoids by demonstrating a drop in serum cortisol following ESI,” he noted. “The measurement of bone metabolism biomarkers offers molecular confirmation of clinical and radiological observations of previous studies” showing that ESI affects the vertebrae.
 

More than 9 million ESIs each year

Each year, more than 9 million ESIs are administered to patients in the United States to relieve radicular back and leg pain that may be caused by a herniated disc or spinal stenosis (a gradual narrowing of the open spaces in the spinal column, which is common in older adults), the researchers explained.

Some patients experience sufficient pain relief with ESIs. Others may not be eligible for surgery and may receive multiple ESIs annually for many years because they provide pain relief.

It is well established that oral and intravenous glucocorticoids profoundly suppress bone formation and transiently increase bone resorption, causing substantial bone loss and increased fracture risk within 3 months of administration, Ms. Clare explained in the session.

Long-term use of high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids has been associated with bone loss and fractures. However, the effect of ESIs on bone has been less well studied.

The researchers hypothesized that ESIs are systemically absorbed and cause suppression of bone formation without a compensatory decrease in bone resorption.

They enrolled 24 patients who had undergone lumbar ESIs and 8 control patients. The mean age of the patients in the two groups was 63 years and 68 years, respectively. Most patients were White (88% and 100%, respectively). The mean body mass index was 27 kg/m² and 28 kg/m², respectively. On average, the patients had entered menopause 12 and 16 years earlier, respectively.

In the group that received steroid injections, almost two-thirds (15 patients, 63%) received triamcinolone. The rest received dexamethasone (six patients, 25%) or betamethasone (three patients, 12%) at doses that were equivalent to 80 mg triamcinolone.

The patients’ baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, cortisol, P1NP, osteocalcin, and CTX were within the reference ranges and were similar in the two groups.

The researchers also determined serum levels of cortisol (to assess suppression of endogenous glucocorticoids), osteocalcin, P1NP, and CTX in the patients and control persons at 1, 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after patients had received the ESI.

The researchers acknowledged that the small sample is a study limitation. In addition, the first serum samples were taken 1 week after the injection, and so any earlier changes in analyte levels were not captured. The patients also received different types of steroids, although the doses were similar when converted to triamcinolone equivalents.

The study was supported by a Spine Service grant from the Hospital for Special Surgery. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among postmenopausal women who received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the lumbar spine to treat back and leg pain arising from a compressed nerve in the spine, levels of bone formation biomarkers were decreased. The decrease in levels persisted more than 12 weeks, results from a new study show.

In addition, serum cortisol levels decreased by 50% at week 1 after the ESI, indicating systemic absorption of the steroid.

“The extent and duration of these effects suggest that patients who receive multiple [ESIs in the lumbar spine] may be at particular risk for harmful skeletal consequences,” Shannon Clare reported in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Further studies are needed of the relationship between these short-term changes in bone turnover and bone loss and the risk for fracture among the burgeoning population treated with ESIs, added Ms. Clare, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The researchers examined changes in serum levels of bone formation and resorption markers and other analytes in 24 women who received a lumbar ESI for radicular back pain and in 8 other women from the hospital population who served as control persons.

Among the women who received ESI, 1 week after the injection, serum levels of two bone formation biomarkers – total procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) and osteocalcin – were about 27% lower than at baseline. The suppression persisted beyond 12 weeks.

Serum levels of the bone resorption biomarker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) did not differ significantly after ESI.

“Our results are notable because we found that the duration of suppression of bone formation extended beyond 12 weeks, a far longer duration than seen previously with intra-articular injections” of glucocorticoids, said Ms. Clare and senior author Emily M. Stein, MD, director of research for the Metabolic Bone Service and an endocrinologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and is associate professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

The findings suggest that patients should not receive multiple doses within a 12-week period, they told this news organization in a joint email response.

Women are not typically screened for osteopenia or osteoporosis before ESI. However, “our results suggest that physicians should consider screening women for osteoporosis who receive ESI, particularly those who are treated with multiple doses,” said Ms. Clare and Dr. Stein. “Steroid exposure should be minimized as much as possible by having patients space injections as far as they can tolerate.”
 

Systemic absorption, negative impact on bone turnover markers

“The hypothesis that [ESIs] interfere with the vertebral osseous microenvironment and increase the risk of vertebral fractures has been supported with evidence in the literature,” Mohamad Bydon, MD, professor of neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and health services research at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Prior studies have demonstrated a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in vertebral fractures following ESI, added Dr. Bydon, senior author of a 2018 review of the effect of ESI on BMD and vertebral fracture risk that was published in Pain Medicine. He was not involved with the current study.

“The article by Clare et al. provides evidence on the systemic absorption of glucocorticoids by demonstrating a drop in serum cortisol following ESI,” he noted. “The measurement of bone metabolism biomarkers offers molecular confirmation of clinical and radiological observations of previous studies” showing that ESI affects the vertebrae.
 

More than 9 million ESIs each year

Each year, more than 9 million ESIs are administered to patients in the United States to relieve radicular back and leg pain that may be caused by a herniated disc or spinal stenosis (a gradual narrowing of the open spaces in the spinal column, which is common in older adults), the researchers explained.

Some patients experience sufficient pain relief with ESIs. Others may not be eligible for surgery and may receive multiple ESIs annually for many years because they provide pain relief.

It is well established that oral and intravenous glucocorticoids profoundly suppress bone formation and transiently increase bone resorption, causing substantial bone loss and increased fracture risk within 3 months of administration, Ms. Clare explained in the session.

Long-term use of high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids has been associated with bone loss and fractures. However, the effect of ESIs on bone has been less well studied.

The researchers hypothesized that ESIs are systemically absorbed and cause suppression of bone formation without a compensatory decrease in bone resorption.

They enrolled 24 patients who had undergone lumbar ESIs and 8 control patients. The mean age of the patients in the two groups was 63 years and 68 years, respectively. Most patients were White (88% and 100%, respectively). The mean body mass index was 27 kg/m² and 28 kg/m², respectively. On average, the patients had entered menopause 12 and 16 years earlier, respectively.

In the group that received steroid injections, almost two-thirds (15 patients, 63%) received triamcinolone. The rest received dexamethasone (six patients, 25%) or betamethasone (three patients, 12%) at doses that were equivalent to 80 mg triamcinolone.

The patients’ baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, cortisol, P1NP, osteocalcin, and CTX were within the reference ranges and were similar in the two groups.

The researchers also determined serum levels of cortisol (to assess suppression of endogenous glucocorticoids), osteocalcin, P1NP, and CTX in the patients and control persons at 1, 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after patients had received the ESI.

The researchers acknowledged that the small sample is a study limitation. In addition, the first serum samples were taken 1 week after the injection, and so any earlier changes in analyte levels were not captured. The patients also received different types of steroids, although the doses were similar when converted to triamcinolone equivalents.

The study was supported by a Spine Service grant from the Hospital for Special Surgery. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among postmenopausal women who received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the lumbar spine to treat back and leg pain arising from a compressed nerve in the spine, levels of bone formation biomarkers were decreased. The decrease in levels persisted more than 12 weeks, results from a new study show.

In addition, serum cortisol levels decreased by 50% at week 1 after the ESI, indicating systemic absorption of the steroid.

“The extent and duration of these effects suggest that patients who receive multiple [ESIs in the lumbar spine] may be at particular risk for harmful skeletal consequences,” Shannon Clare reported in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Further studies are needed of the relationship between these short-term changes in bone turnover and bone loss and the risk for fracture among the burgeoning population treated with ESIs, added Ms. Clare, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The researchers examined changes in serum levels of bone formation and resorption markers and other analytes in 24 women who received a lumbar ESI for radicular back pain and in 8 other women from the hospital population who served as control persons.

Among the women who received ESI, 1 week after the injection, serum levels of two bone formation biomarkers – total procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) and osteocalcin – were about 27% lower than at baseline. The suppression persisted beyond 12 weeks.

Serum levels of the bone resorption biomarker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) did not differ significantly after ESI.

“Our results are notable because we found that the duration of suppression of bone formation extended beyond 12 weeks, a far longer duration than seen previously with intra-articular injections” of glucocorticoids, said Ms. Clare and senior author Emily M. Stein, MD, director of research for the Metabolic Bone Service and an endocrinologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and is associate professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

The findings suggest that patients should not receive multiple doses within a 12-week period, they told this news organization in a joint email response.

Women are not typically screened for osteopenia or osteoporosis before ESI. However, “our results suggest that physicians should consider screening women for osteoporosis who receive ESI, particularly those who are treated with multiple doses,” said Ms. Clare and Dr. Stein. “Steroid exposure should be minimized as much as possible by having patients space injections as far as they can tolerate.”
 

Systemic absorption, negative impact on bone turnover markers

“The hypothesis that [ESIs] interfere with the vertebral osseous microenvironment and increase the risk of vertebral fractures has been supported with evidence in the literature,” Mohamad Bydon, MD, professor of neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and health services research at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Prior studies have demonstrated a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in vertebral fractures following ESI, added Dr. Bydon, senior author of a 2018 review of the effect of ESI on BMD and vertebral fracture risk that was published in Pain Medicine. He was not involved with the current study.

“The article by Clare et al. provides evidence on the systemic absorption of glucocorticoids by demonstrating a drop in serum cortisol following ESI,” he noted. “The measurement of bone metabolism biomarkers offers molecular confirmation of clinical and radiological observations of previous studies” showing that ESI affects the vertebrae.
 

More than 9 million ESIs each year

Each year, more than 9 million ESIs are administered to patients in the United States to relieve radicular back and leg pain that may be caused by a herniated disc or spinal stenosis (a gradual narrowing of the open spaces in the spinal column, which is common in older adults), the researchers explained.

Some patients experience sufficient pain relief with ESIs. Others may not be eligible for surgery and may receive multiple ESIs annually for many years because they provide pain relief.

It is well established that oral and intravenous glucocorticoids profoundly suppress bone formation and transiently increase bone resorption, causing substantial bone loss and increased fracture risk within 3 months of administration, Ms. Clare explained in the session.

Long-term use of high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids has been associated with bone loss and fractures. However, the effect of ESIs on bone has been less well studied.

The researchers hypothesized that ESIs are systemically absorbed and cause suppression of bone formation without a compensatory decrease in bone resorption.

They enrolled 24 patients who had undergone lumbar ESIs and 8 control patients. The mean age of the patients in the two groups was 63 years and 68 years, respectively. Most patients were White (88% and 100%, respectively). The mean body mass index was 27 kg/m² and 28 kg/m², respectively. On average, the patients had entered menopause 12 and 16 years earlier, respectively.

In the group that received steroid injections, almost two-thirds (15 patients, 63%) received triamcinolone. The rest received dexamethasone (six patients, 25%) or betamethasone (three patients, 12%) at doses that were equivalent to 80 mg triamcinolone.

The patients’ baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, cortisol, P1NP, osteocalcin, and CTX were within the reference ranges and were similar in the two groups.

The researchers also determined serum levels of cortisol (to assess suppression of endogenous glucocorticoids), osteocalcin, P1NP, and CTX in the patients and control persons at 1, 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after patients had received the ESI.

The researchers acknowledged that the small sample is a study limitation. In addition, the first serum samples were taken 1 week after the injection, and so any earlier changes in analyte levels were not captured. The patients also received different types of steroids, although the doses were similar when converted to triamcinolone equivalents.

The study was supported by a Spine Service grant from the Hospital for Special Surgery. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational oral form of parathyroid hormone (PTH 1-34), EB 613 (Entera Bio) met its primary efficacy outcome in a phase 2 dosing study involving postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD).

The adverse effect profile of the drug was similar to that of the injectable PTH 1-34 teriparatide (Forteo), which is approved for osteoporosis.

Arthur C. Santora, MD, chief medical officer, Entera Bio, presented 6-month findings from the study during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The 3-month findings from the study were reported as a poster.

If the drug demonstrates efficacy and safety in larger phase 3 trials, it could be the first oral bone-building (anabolic) therapy for osteoporosis.

Clifford J. Rosen, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization: “I think this is an intriguing study.” The most likely patients for oral PTH, he added, “are those that have osteoporosis, previous fracture, or very low BMD, particularly those unlikely or unwilling to take bisphosphonates.”

However, “this is very early in the process before this drug could come to market,” cautioned Dr. Rosen, who is director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Maine Medical Research Institute, Scarborough.

“Much more data on efficacy are required at 12 and 24 months for phase 2, and then a full phase 3 [clinical trial] with high-risk fracture patients,” he said.

The company is seeking input from the Food and Drug Administration to develop the protocol for a phase 3 trial. They expect to start this trial in 2022 at sites in the United States, Europe, and Israel, Dr. Santora said.
 

Primary outcome met

The study randomly assigned 161 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD to receive placebo or the investigational oral PTH for 6 months.

Compared with women who received placebo, those who received the study drug experienced a significantly greater increase in the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to 3 months, thereby meeting the study’s primary outcome.

In secondary outcomes, women who received the 2.5-mg/d dose experienced a similar 6-month increase in BMD at the spine and greater increases in BMD at the total hip and femoral neck than those who received injectable teriparatide, Dr. Santora reported.

“The study’s key takeaway is that a once-daily oral PTH [tablet] has the potential to produce the same BMD effects as subcutaneous injections of PTH,” he said in an interview.

Additionally, “the drug was well tolerated when the dose was titrated by adding additional tablets, which suggests that the dose can be tailored to each patient,” he said.
 

Other study findings

Injectable teriparatide reduces the risk for vertebral fractures by up to 80%, Dr. Santora noted, but the fact that the drug must be administered by injection may deter some older patients from using it.

The company developed an oral form of biosynthetic human PTH with a proprietary drug delivery.

The researchers conducted the phase 2 study at four sites in Israel between June 2019 and May 2021. They enrolled women aged 50 years and older who had entered menopause at least 3 years earlier and who had osteoporosis or low BMD.

Forty-three women received placebo, and the others received oral PTH at doses of 0.5 mg/d (n = 25), 1.0 mg/d (n = 29), 1.5 mg/d (n = 28), 2.5 mg/d (n = 19), or at a dose that was titrated up to 2.5 mg/d starting at 1.5 mg/d for month 1, then 2 mg/d for month 2, and then 2.5 mg/d for months 3 to 6 (n = 17).

The mean age of the patients was 61 years, the mean body mass index was 25-27 kg/m², and the mean T score at the spine of –2.2 to –2.45.

Among the women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months, serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) decreased 21% from baseline to 6 months, and serum levels of P1NP increased at month 1 and then decreased to baseline by month 6.

The women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months also demonstrated significantly greater increases in BMD at the lumbar spine (3.8%), total hip (1.4%), and femoral neck (2.4%), compared with women who received placebo.

The safety profile of oral PTH was consistent with that of subcutaneous PTH. Patients experienced headache, nausea, presyncope, and dizziness; there were no treatment-emergent hypercalcemia adverse events.
 

A few ‘unexpected findings’

Suzanne M. Jan De Beur, MD, outgoing ASBMR president, said, “Oral PTH appeared to increase BMD by [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry] at the lumbar spine effectively and to a similar degree as teriparatide in previous studies.”

She identified two unexpected findings.

“There were increases in BMD by DXA at the femoral neck and total hip at 6 months that were [greater than those] seen in previous trials of teriparatide. Second, markers of bone resorption (CTX) decreased at 6 months, and this is in stark contrast to the increases observed with teriparatide treatment,” she noted in an interview.

Dr. Rosen also noted that “the decrease in CTX is very unusual for PTH and difficult to explain.” He added: “P1NP, a marker of bone formation, was not increased.”

Dr. Jan de Beur continued: “Teriparatide (PTH1-34) and abaloparatide are effective anabolic agents that we use to treat patients with high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Although effective, the burden of daily subcutaneous injection can be a barrier for older individuals, those with poor dexterity, and those that are averse to self-injection.

“Taken together, these results appear promising, that oral PTH may prove to be an effective anabolic agent for osteoporosis treatment,” she summarized.

She stressed that a larger phase 3 study is needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

The study was funded by Entera Bio. Dr. Santora is chief medical officer of Entera Bio.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

An investigational oral form of parathyroid hormone (PTH 1-34), EB 613 (Entera Bio) met its primary efficacy outcome in a phase 2 dosing study involving postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD).

The adverse effect profile of the drug was similar to that of the injectable PTH 1-34 teriparatide (Forteo), which is approved for osteoporosis.

Arthur C. Santora, MD, chief medical officer, Entera Bio, presented 6-month findings from the study during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The 3-month findings from the study were reported as a poster.

If the drug demonstrates efficacy and safety in larger phase 3 trials, it could be the first oral bone-building (anabolic) therapy for osteoporosis.

Clifford J. Rosen, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization: “I think this is an intriguing study.” The most likely patients for oral PTH, he added, “are those that have osteoporosis, previous fracture, or very low BMD, particularly those unlikely or unwilling to take bisphosphonates.”

However, “this is very early in the process before this drug could come to market,” cautioned Dr. Rosen, who is director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Maine Medical Research Institute, Scarborough.

“Much more data on efficacy are required at 12 and 24 months for phase 2, and then a full phase 3 [clinical trial] with high-risk fracture patients,” he said.

The company is seeking input from the Food and Drug Administration to develop the protocol for a phase 3 trial. They expect to start this trial in 2022 at sites in the United States, Europe, and Israel, Dr. Santora said.
 

Primary outcome met

The study randomly assigned 161 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD to receive placebo or the investigational oral PTH for 6 months.

Compared with women who received placebo, those who received the study drug experienced a significantly greater increase in the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to 3 months, thereby meeting the study’s primary outcome.

In secondary outcomes, women who received the 2.5-mg/d dose experienced a similar 6-month increase in BMD at the spine and greater increases in BMD at the total hip and femoral neck than those who received injectable teriparatide, Dr. Santora reported.

“The study’s key takeaway is that a once-daily oral PTH [tablet] has the potential to produce the same BMD effects as subcutaneous injections of PTH,” he said in an interview.

Additionally, “the drug was well tolerated when the dose was titrated by adding additional tablets, which suggests that the dose can be tailored to each patient,” he said.
 

Other study findings

Injectable teriparatide reduces the risk for vertebral fractures by up to 80%, Dr. Santora noted, but the fact that the drug must be administered by injection may deter some older patients from using it.

The company developed an oral form of biosynthetic human PTH with a proprietary drug delivery.

The researchers conducted the phase 2 study at four sites in Israel between June 2019 and May 2021. They enrolled women aged 50 years and older who had entered menopause at least 3 years earlier and who had osteoporosis or low BMD.

Forty-three women received placebo, and the others received oral PTH at doses of 0.5 mg/d (n = 25), 1.0 mg/d (n = 29), 1.5 mg/d (n = 28), 2.5 mg/d (n = 19), or at a dose that was titrated up to 2.5 mg/d starting at 1.5 mg/d for month 1, then 2 mg/d for month 2, and then 2.5 mg/d for months 3 to 6 (n = 17).

The mean age of the patients was 61 years, the mean body mass index was 25-27 kg/m², and the mean T score at the spine of –2.2 to –2.45.

Among the women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months, serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) decreased 21% from baseline to 6 months, and serum levels of P1NP increased at month 1 and then decreased to baseline by month 6.

The women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months also demonstrated significantly greater increases in BMD at the lumbar spine (3.8%), total hip (1.4%), and femoral neck (2.4%), compared with women who received placebo.

The safety profile of oral PTH was consistent with that of subcutaneous PTH. Patients experienced headache, nausea, presyncope, and dizziness; there were no treatment-emergent hypercalcemia adverse events.
 

A few ‘unexpected findings’

Suzanne M. Jan De Beur, MD, outgoing ASBMR president, said, “Oral PTH appeared to increase BMD by [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry] at the lumbar spine effectively and to a similar degree as teriparatide in previous studies.”

She identified two unexpected findings.

“There were increases in BMD by DXA at the femoral neck and total hip at 6 months that were [greater than those] seen in previous trials of teriparatide. Second, markers of bone resorption (CTX) decreased at 6 months, and this is in stark contrast to the increases observed with teriparatide treatment,” she noted in an interview.

Dr. Rosen also noted that “the decrease in CTX is very unusual for PTH and difficult to explain.” He added: “P1NP, a marker of bone formation, was not increased.”

Dr. Jan de Beur continued: “Teriparatide (PTH1-34) and abaloparatide are effective anabolic agents that we use to treat patients with high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Although effective, the burden of daily subcutaneous injection can be a barrier for older individuals, those with poor dexterity, and those that are averse to self-injection.

“Taken together, these results appear promising, that oral PTH may prove to be an effective anabolic agent for osteoporosis treatment,” she summarized.

She stressed that a larger phase 3 study is needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

The study was funded by Entera Bio. Dr. Santora is chief medical officer of Entera Bio.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

An investigational oral form of parathyroid hormone (PTH 1-34), EB 613 (Entera Bio) met its primary efficacy outcome in a phase 2 dosing study involving postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD).

The adverse effect profile of the drug was similar to that of the injectable PTH 1-34 teriparatide (Forteo), which is approved for osteoporosis.

Arthur C. Santora, MD, chief medical officer, Entera Bio, presented 6-month findings from the study during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The 3-month findings from the study were reported as a poster.

If the drug demonstrates efficacy and safety in larger phase 3 trials, it could be the first oral bone-building (anabolic) therapy for osteoporosis.

Clifford J. Rosen, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization: “I think this is an intriguing study.” The most likely patients for oral PTH, he added, “are those that have osteoporosis, previous fracture, or very low BMD, particularly those unlikely or unwilling to take bisphosphonates.”

However, “this is very early in the process before this drug could come to market,” cautioned Dr. Rosen, who is director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Maine Medical Research Institute, Scarborough.

“Much more data on efficacy are required at 12 and 24 months for phase 2, and then a full phase 3 [clinical trial] with high-risk fracture patients,” he said.

The company is seeking input from the Food and Drug Administration to develop the protocol for a phase 3 trial. They expect to start this trial in 2022 at sites in the United States, Europe, and Israel, Dr. Santora said.
 

Primary outcome met

The study randomly assigned 161 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD to receive placebo or the investigational oral PTH for 6 months.

Compared with women who received placebo, those who received the study drug experienced a significantly greater increase in the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to 3 months, thereby meeting the study’s primary outcome.

In secondary outcomes, women who received the 2.5-mg/d dose experienced a similar 6-month increase in BMD at the spine and greater increases in BMD at the total hip and femoral neck than those who received injectable teriparatide, Dr. Santora reported.

“The study’s key takeaway is that a once-daily oral PTH [tablet] has the potential to produce the same BMD effects as subcutaneous injections of PTH,” he said in an interview.

Additionally, “the drug was well tolerated when the dose was titrated by adding additional tablets, which suggests that the dose can be tailored to each patient,” he said.
 

Other study findings

Injectable teriparatide reduces the risk for vertebral fractures by up to 80%, Dr. Santora noted, but the fact that the drug must be administered by injection may deter some older patients from using it.

The company developed an oral form of biosynthetic human PTH with a proprietary drug delivery.

The researchers conducted the phase 2 study at four sites in Israel between June 2019 and May 2021. They enrolled women aged 50 years and older who had entered menopause at least 3 years earlier and who had osteoporosis or low BMD.

Forty-three women received placebo, and the others received oral PTH at doses of 0.5 mg/d (n = 25), 1.0 mg/d (n = 29), 1.5 mg/d (n = 28), 2.5 mg/d (n = 19), or at a dose that was titrated up to 2.5 mg/d starting at 1.5 mg/d for month 1, then 2 mg/d for month 2, and then 2.5 mg/d for months 3 to 6 (n = 17).

The mean age of the patients was 61 years, the mean body mass index was 25-27 kg/m², and the mean T score at the spine of –2.2 to –2.45.

Among the women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months, serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) decreased 21% from baseline to 6 months, and serum levels of P1NP increased at month 1 and then decreased to baseline by month 6.

The women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months also demonstrated significantly greater increases in BMD at the lumbar spine (3.8%), total hip (1.4%), and femoral neck (2.4%), compared with women who received placebo.

The safety profile of oral PTH was consistent with that of subcutaneous PTH. Patients experienced headache, nausea, presyncope, and dizziness; there were no treatment-emergent hypercalcemia adverse events.
 

A few ‘unexpected findings’

Suzanne M. Jan De Beur, MD, outgoing ASBMR president, said, “Oral PTH appeared to increase BMD by [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry] at the lumbar spine effectively and to a similar degree as teriparatide in previous studies.”

She identified two unexpected findings.

“There were increases in BMD by DXA at the femoral neck and total hip at 6 months that were [greater than those] seen in previous trials of teriparatide. Second, markers of bone resorption (CTX) decreased at 6 months, and this is in stark contrast to the increases observed with teriparatide treatment,” she noted in an interview.

Dr. Rosen also noted that “the decrease in CTX is very unusual for PTH and difficult to explain.” He added: “P1NP, a marker of bone formation, was not increased.”

Dr. Jan de Beur continued: “Teriparatide (PTH1-34) and abaloparatide are effective anabolic agents that we use to treat patients with high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Although effective, the burden of daily subcutaneous injection can be a barrier for older individuals, those with poor dexterity, and those that are averse to self-injection.

“Taken together, these results appear promising, that oral PTH may prove to be an effective anabolic agent for osteoporosis treatment,” she summarized.

She stressed that a larger phase 3 study is needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

The study was funded by Entera Bio. Dr. Santora is chief medical officer of Entera Bio.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .

Any pause in taking the osteoporosis drug risedronate (Actonel) should last no longer than 2 years rather than the 2-3 years currently recommended for bisphosphonates, new research suggests.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In a cohort of patients aged 66 and older in Ontario, Canada, those who had been taking risedronate had a 34% greater risk of a hip fracture during year 2 to year 3 of a pause in taking the drug – a drug holiday – compared with those who had been taking alendronate (Fosamax). 

The study showed that “risedronate, which has a shorter half-life, confers relatively less hip fracture protection than alendronate during drug holidays longer than 2 years and careful monitoring and follow-up after 2 years is likely warranted,” Kaley (Kaleen) N. Hayes, Pharm D, PhD, summarized in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Dr. Hayes is an assistant professor in the department of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.

“Although alendronate and risedronate have similar effectiveness for preventing fractures on treatment, our findings suggest that older patients on a risedronate drug holiday may benefit from assessment to consider resuming therapy after 2 years to prevent hip fractures,” she elaborated in an email.

Juliet Compston, MD, identified this study as one of the meeting’s clinical science highlights.

“This is the first study to directly compare fracture incidence during a drug holiday after treatment with the two most commonly prescribed oral bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate,” she told this news organization in an email.

The difference in fracture incidence during the 3-year drug holiday is “consistent with the known difference in pharmacokinetic properties of the two drugs,” noted Dr. Compston, professor of bone medicine and honorary consultant physician at the University of Cambridge (England) School of Clinical Medicine.

Since the increased risk of fracture after stopping risedronate vs. alendronate was seen by 2 years, “reevaluation of risk in risedronate-treated patients should therefore be considered earlier than the recommended period of 2-3 years after discontinuation,” she said.

“The study does not provide information about the optimal duration of drug holiday for either risedronate or alendronate, but it supports a shorter duration for the former of up to 2 years,” according to Dr. Compston.

Study rationale and findings

“The question of whether people treated for osteoporosis with oral bisphosphonates should have drug holidays is controversial,” Dr. Compston noted, “but many guidelines recommend that in lower-risk individuals who have received bisphosphonates for 5 years, a break from treatment of 2-3 years should be considered.”

Five or more years of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis has been associated with rare adverse effects such as atypical femoral fractures, and these drugs appear to have fracture protection effects that linger for a while, so a drug holiday is recommended for most patients, Dr. Hayes added.

Guidelines such as the 2016 ASBMR task force report on long-term bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, she continued, “acknowledge that evidence for this recommendation comes primarily from the extension trial for alendronate, and patients undergoing a risedronate drug holiday may need to be reassessed earlier because of risedronate’s shorter half-life.”

Compared with alendronate, risedronate accumulates less in the bone and is eliminated more quickly from the body, so its fracture protection during drug holidays may be shorter.

The researchers aimed to estimate the 3-year fracture risk after discontinuing long-term (3 or more years) risedronate vs. alendronate therapy among older adults in Ontario.

From health care administrative data, they identified 120,368 patients aged 66 years and older who had started taking risedronate or alendronate as initial therapy for osteoporosis during the period 2000-2016. They had taken the therapy for 3 or more years (with at least 80% adherence) before stopping it for 120 days or longer.

The researchers found that 45% of patients were taking risedronate and 55% were taking alendronate, which are the main bisphosphonates used in Ontario, Dr. Hayes noted. Etidronate (Didronel) is recommended as second-line therapy and accounts for less than 2% of patients starting oral bisphosphonate therapy. 

In an earlier study, the researchers identified a shift toward greater use of risedronate than alendronate since 2008, likely related to newer formulations (for example, monthly and weekly delayed-release formulations of risedronate vs. only weekly alendronate formulations).

The researchers matched 25,077 patients taking alendronate with 25,077 patients taking risedronate, based on fracture risk–related characteristics, including demographics, diagnoses, medication use, and health care use.

The patients had a mean age of 74 when they started taking an oral bisphosphonate; 82% were women and most were White.  

Most patients (78%) had received a prescription from a general practitioner and, on average, they took the bisphosphonate therapy for 5.9 years before the drug holiday.  

The primary outcome of incident hip fracture during a 3-year drug holiday occurred in 915 patients. There were 12.4 events per 1,000 patients in the risedronate group vs. 10.6 events per 1,000 patients in the alendronate group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.34).

The risks were not significantly higher during year 1 or year 2 of the drug holiday, but the curves began to diverge after 2 years, coauthor Suzanne Cadarette, PhD, of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto, explained when replying to a question after the presentation. Dr. Cadarette supervised this PhD dissertation research by Dr. Hayes.

The researchers acknowledged that the limitations of their study include a lack of information about race or bone mineral density, and the findings may not apply to a younger, more racially diverse population.

The research was supported by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant, and a doctoral research award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Any pause in taking the osteoporosis drug risedronate (Actonel) should last no longer than 2 years rather than the 2-3 years currently recommended for bisphosphonates, new research suggests.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In a cohort of patients aged 66 and older in Ontario, Canada, those who had been taking risedronate had a 34% greater risk of a hip fracture during year 2 to year 3 of a pause in taking the drug – a drug holiday – compared with those who had been taking alendronate (Fosamax). 

The study showed that “risedronate, which has a shorter half-life, confers relatively less hip fracture protection than alendronate during drug holidays longer than 2 years and careful monitoring and follow-up after 2 years is likely warranted,” Kaley (Kaleen) N. Hayes, Pharm D, PhD, summarized in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Dr. Hayes is an assistant professor in the department of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.

“Although alendronate and risedronate have similar effectiveness for preventing fractures on treatment, our findings suggest that older patients on a risedronate drug holiday may benefit from assessment to consider resuming therapy after 2 years to prevent hip fractures,” she elaborated in an email.

Juliet Compston, MD, identified this study as one of the meeting’s clinical science highlights.

“This is the first study to directly compare fracture incidence during a drug holiday after treatment with the two most commonly prescribed oral bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate,” she told this news organization in an email.

The difference in fracture incidence during the 3-year drug holiday is “consistent with the known difference in pharmacokinetic properties of the two drugs,” noted Dr. Compston, professor of bone medicine and honorary consultant physician at the University of Cambridge (England) School of Clinical Medicine.

Since the increased risk of fracture after stopping risedronate vs. alendronate was seen by 2 years, “reevaluation of risk in risedronate-treated patients should therefore be considered earlier than the recommended period of 2-3 years after discontinuation,” she said.

“The study does not provide information about the optimal duration of drug holiday for either risedronate or alendronate, but it supports a shorter duration for the former of up to 2 years,” according to Dr. Compston.

Study rationale and findings

“The question of whether people treated for osteoporosis with oral bisphosphonates should have drug holidays is controversial,” Dr. Compston noted, “but many guidelines recommend that in lower-risk individuals who have received bisphosphonates for 5 years, a break from treatment of 2-3 years should be considered.”

Five or more years of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis has been associated with rare adverse effects such as atypical femoral fractures, and these drugs appear to have fracture protection effects that linger for a while, so a drug holiday is recommended for most patients, Dr. Hayes added.

Guidelines such as the 2016 ASBMR task force report on long-term bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, she continued, “acknowledge that evidence for this recommendation comes primarily from the extension trial for alendronate, and patients undergoing a risedronate drug holiday may need to be reassessed earlier because of risedronate’s shorter half-life.”

Compared with alendronate, risedronate accumulates less in the bone and is eliminated more quickly from the body, so its fracture protection during drug holidays may be shorter.

The researchers aimed to estimate the 3-year fracture risk after discontinuing long-term (3 or more years) risedronate vs. alendronate therapy among older adults in Ontario.

From health care administrative data, they identified 120,368 patients aged 66 years and older who had started taking risedronate or alendronate as initial therapy for osteoporosis during the period 2000-2016. They had taken the therapy for 3 or more years (with at least 80% adherence) before stopping it for 120 days or longer.

The researchers found that 45% of patients were taking risedronate and 55% were taking alendronate, which are the main bisphosphonates used in Ontario, Dr. Hayes noted. Etidronate (Didronel) is recommended as second-line therapy and accounts for less than 2% of patients starting oral bisphosphonate therapy. 

In an earlier study, the researchers identified a shift toward greater use of risedronate than alendronate since 2008, likely related to newer formulations (for example, monthly and weekly delayed-release formulations of risedronate vs. only weekly alendronate formulations).

The researchers matched 25,077 patients taking alendronate with 25,077 patients taking risedronate, based on fracture risk–related characteristics, including demographics, diagnoses, medication use, and health care use.

The patients had a mean age of 74 when they started taking an oral bisphosphonate; 82% were women and most were White.  

Most patients (78%) had received a prescription from a general practitioner and, on average, they took the bisphosphonate therapy for 5.9 years before the drug holiday.  

The primary outcome of incident hip fracture during a 3-year drug holiday occurred in 915 patients. There were 12.4 events per 1,000 patients in the risedronate group vs. 10.6 events per 1,000 patients in the alendronate group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.34).

The risks were not significantly higher during year 1 or year 2 of the drug holiday, but the curves began to diverge after 2 years, coauthor Suzanne Cadarette, PhD, of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto, explained when replying to a question after the presentation. Dr. Cadarette supervised this PhD dissertation research by Dr. Hayes.

The researchers acknowledged that the limitations of their study include a lack of information about race or bone mineral density, and the findings may not apply to a younger, more racially diverse population.

The research was supported by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant, and a doctoral research award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Any pause in taking the osteoporosis drug risedronate (Actonel) should last no longer than 2 years rather than the 2-3 years currently recommended for bisphosphonates, new research suggests.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In a cohort of patients aged 66 and older in Ontario, Canada, those who had been taking risedronate had a 34% greater risk of a hip fracture during year 2 to year 3 of a pause in taking the drug – a drug holiday – compared with those who had been taking alendronate (Fosamax). 

The study showed that “risedronate, which has a shorter half-life, confers relatively less hip fracture protection than alendronate during drug holidays longer than 2 years and careful monitoring and follow-up after 2 years is likely warranted,” Kaley (Kaleen) N. Hayes, Pharm D, PhD, summarized in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Dr. Hayes is an assistant professor in the department of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.

“Although alendronate and risedronate have similar effectiveness for preventing fractures on treatment, our findings suggest that older patients on a risedronate drug holiday may benefit from assessment to consider resuming therapy after 2 years to prevent hip fractures,” she elaborated in an email.

Juliet Compston, MD, identified this study as one of the meeting’s clinical science highlights.

“This is the first study to directly compare fracture incidence during a drug holiday after treatment with the two most commonly prescribed oral bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate,” she told this news organization in an email.

The difference in fracture incidence during the 3-year drug holiday is “consistent with the known difference in pharmacokinetic properties of the two drugs,” noted Dr. Compston, professor of bone medicine and honorary consultant physician at the University of Cambridge (England) School of Clinical Medicine.

Since the increased risk of fracture after stopping risedronate vs. alendronate was seen by 2 years, “reevaluation of risk in risedronate-treated patients should therefore be considered earlier than the recommended period of 2-3 years after discontinuation,” she said.

“The study does not provide information about the optimal duration of drug holiday for either risedronate or alendronate, but it supports a shorter duration for the former of up to 2 years,” according to Dr. Compston.

Study rationale and findings

“The question of whether people treated for osteoporosis with oral bisphosphonates should have drug holidays is controversial,” Dr. Compston noted, “but many guidelines recommend that in lower-risk individuals who have received bisphosphonates for 5 years, a break from treatment of 2-3 years should be considered.”

Five or more years of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis has been associated with rare adverse effects such as atypical femoral fractures, and these drugs appear to have fracture protection effects that linger for a while, so a drug holiday is recommended for most patients, Dr. Hayes added.

Guidelines such as the 2016 ASBMR task force report on long-term bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, she continued, “acknowledge that evidence for this recommendation comes primarily from the extension trial for alendronate, and patients undergoing a risedronate drug holiday may need to be reassessed earlier because of risedronate’s shorter half-life.”

Compared with alendronate, risedronate accumulates less in the bone and is eliminated more quickly from the body, so its fracture protection during drug holidays may be shorter.

The researchers aimed to estimate the 3-year fracture risk after discontinuing long-term (3 or more years) risedronate vs. alendronate therapy among older adults in Ontario.

From health care administrative data, they identified 120,368 patients aged 66 years and older who had started taking risedronate or alendronate as initial therapy for osteoporosis during the period 2000-2016. They had taken the therapy for 3 or more years (with at least 80% adherence) before stopping it for 120 days or longer.

The researchers found that 45% of patients were taking risedronate and 55% were taking alendronate, which are the main bisphosphonates used in Ontario, Dr. Hayes noted. Etidronate (Didronel) is recommended as second-line therapy and accounts for less than 2% of patients starting oral bisphosphonate therapy. 

In an earlier study, the researchers identified a shift toward greater use of risedronate than alendronate since 2008, likely related to newer formulations (for example, monthly and weekly delayed-release formulations of risedronate vs. only weekly alendronate formulations).

The researchers matched 25,077 patients taking alendronate with 25,077 patients taking risedronate, based on fracture risk–related characteristics, including demographics, diagnoses, medication use, and health care use.

The patients had a mean age of 74 when they started taking an oral bisphosphonate; 82% were women and most were White.  

Most patients (78%) had received a prescription from a general practitioner and, on average, they took the bisphosphonate therapy for 5.9 years before the drug holiday.  

The primary outcome of incident hip fracture during a 3-year drug holiday occurred in 915 patients. There were 12.4 events per 1,000 patients in the risedronate group vs. 10.6 events per 1,000 patients in the alendronate group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.34).

The risks were not significantly higher during year 1 or year 2 of the drug holiday, but the curves began to diverge after 2 years, coauthor Suzanne Cadarette, PhD, of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto, explained when replying to a question after the presentation. Dr. Cadarette supervised this PhD dissertation research by Dr. Hayes.

The researchers acknowledged that the limitations of their study include a lack of information about race or bone mineral density, and the findings may not apply to a younger, more racially diverse population.

The research was supported by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant, and a doctoral research award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.