The evolution of selective estrogen receptor modulators in osteoporosis therapy

Department of Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine, and Osteoporosis, Philipps-University of Marburg , Marburg , Germany.
Climacteric (Impact Factor: 2.24). 08/2012; 15(6). DOI: 10.3109/13697137.2012.688079
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), which exhibit estrogen receptor agonist or antagonist activity based on the target tissue, have evolved through multiple generations for the prevention and/or treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. An ideal SERM would protect bone without stimulating the breast or endometrium. Raloxifene, lasofoxifene, and bazedoxifene have demonstrated unique preclinical profiles. Raloxifene, lasofoxifene, and bazedoxifene have shown significant reduction in the risk of vertebral fracture and improvement in bone mineral density versus placebo in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Raloxifene has been shown to reduce the risk of non-vertebral fractures in women with severe prevalent fractures at baseline. Lasofoxifene 0.5 mg, but not lasofoxifene 0.25 mg, has shown reduction in the incidence of non-vertebral fractures. Bazedoxifene 20 mg has been associated with a significant reduction in the risk of non-vertebral fracture versus placebo and raloxifene 60 mg in women at higher baseline fracture risk. Neither raloxifene, lasofoxifene, nor bazedoxifene has shown an increase in the incidence of endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma. All SERMs have been associated with increased venous thromboembolic events and hot flushes. SERMs are effective alternatives for women who cannot tolerate or are unwilling to take bisphosphonates and may be appropriate for women at higher risk of fracture, particularly younger women who expect to remain on therapy for many years and are concerned about the long-term safety of bisphosphonates.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are compounds that exhibit tissue-specific estrogen receptor (ER) agonist or antagonist activity, and are used for various indications, including treatment of breast cancer, osteoporosis, and menopausal symptoms. Endometrial safety has been a key differentiator between SERMs in clinical practice. For example, tamoxifen exhibits ER agonist activity in the uterus, resulting in an increased risk of endometrial hyperplasia and malignancy, whereas raloxifene and bazedoxifene have neutral effects on the uterus. Based on their efficacy and long-term safety, SERMs are increasingly being prescribed for women who cannot tolerate other treatment options and for younger women at an increased risk of fracture who may remain on therapy for long periods of time. Continuing advances in the understanding of SERM mechanisms of action and structural interactions with the ER may lead to the development of new agents and combinations of agents to provide optimal treatments to meet the varying needs of postmenopausal women. One such example is the tissue selective estrogen complex, which partners a SERM with 1 or more estrogens, with the aim of blending the desired estrogen-receptor agonist activities of estrogens on vasomotor symptoms, vulvar-vaginal atrophy, and loss of bone mass with the tissue selectivity of a SERM.
    The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology 03/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2014.03.003 · 3.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Secondary fracture prevention is of paramount importance in the clinical management of patients with hip fractures. However, in contrast to the excellent surgical care provided to these patients in the Western hemisphere and despite good medical options, causative treatment of the underlying osteopathy causing skeletal fragility remains an unmet medical need that urgently needs to be improved. This calls for a concerted action between orthopedic/trauma surgeons and osteologists, as outstanding hospitals not only treat fragility fractures, but also prevent fractures from recurring. Aiming for a holistic hip fracture approach, in this work we highlight aspects of (a) improved risk assessment and differential diagnosis, (b) optimized basic medical care, and (c) options for individualized, specific medical intervention within a realistic framework of current medical options and future perspectives.
    European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 06/2014; 40(3):265-271. DOI:10.1007/s00068-014-0374-y · 0.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The third generation selective estrogen receptor modulators lasofoxifene (las) and bazedoxifene (bza) are indicated for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. 17β-Estradiol (E2) and the second generation SERM raloxifene (ral) have major effects on the immune system, particularly on B cells. Treatment with E2 or ral inhibits B lymphopoiesis and treatment with E2, but not ral, stimulates antibody production. The effects of las and bza on the immune system have not been studied. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate their role in B cell development, maturation, and function. C57BL/6 mice were sham-operated or ovariectomized (ovx) and treated with vehicle, E2, ral, las, or bza. All substances increased total bone mineral density in ovx mice, as measured by peripheral quantitative computed tomography. In uterus, bza alone lacked agonistic effect in ovx mice and even acted as an antagonist in sham mice. As expected, E2 decreased B cell numbers at all developmental stages from pre-BI cells (in bone marrow) to transitional 1 (T1) B cells (in spleen) and increased marginal zone (MZ) B cells as determined by flow cytometry. However, treatment with las or bza only decreased the last stages of bone marrow B cell development and splenic T1 B cells, but had no effect MZ B cells. E2 increased antibody-producing cells quantified by ELISPOT, but las or bza did not. In conclusion, las and bza differ from E2 by retaining normal number of cells at most B cell stages during B lymphopoiesis and maturation and by not increasing antibody-producing cells.
    11/2014; DOI:10.1002/iid3.37

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014