In clinical practice, bone mineral density (BMD) determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry is used to monitor response to osteoporosis therapy. However, 1 to 2 yr are usually required to assess patients' BMD responses. The possibility of earlier indicators of a response or nonresponse to treatment, such as changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs), is of interest to physicians and patients.
In this post hoc analysis of women treated with once-weekly bisphosphonates, we examined the association of tertile percentage change from baseline in BTMs at 3 or 6 months and association of several baseline clinical characteristics with 24-month percentage change from baseline in BMD and with percentage of patients showing BMD nonresponse (defined as BMD loss at two or more of four sites) at 24 months. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine which factors were independently associated with BMD nonresponse.
Patients in the tertile with the greatest decrease in each of the BTMs had the greatest mean increase in BMD and the lowest percentage of BMD nonresponders at 24 months. Several characteristics were independently associated with BMD nonresponse, including smaller 3-month reductions from baseline in serum C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen; younger age of menopause; a family history of osteoporosis; and higher baseline trochanteric BMD. Baseline BTMs were not predictive of 24-month BMD response to therapy. The strongest associations were for changes in BTMs with treatment.
In groups of patients, short-term changes in markers of bone turnover appear to be predictors of longer term BMD response and nonresponse to bisphosphonate therapy.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The failure of an osseous fracture to heal, or the development of a nonunion, is common; however, current diagnostic measures lack the capability of early and reliable detection of such events. Analyses of radiographic imaging and clinical examination, in combination, remain the gold standard for diagnosis; however, these methods are not reliable for early detection. Delayed diagnosis of a nonunion is costly from both the patient and treatment standpoints. In response, repeated efforts have been made to identify bone metabolic markers as diagnostic or prognostic tools for monitoring bone healing. Thus far, the evidence regarding a correlation between the kinetics of most bone metabolic markers and nonunion is very limited. With the aim of classifying the role of biological pathways of bone metabolism and of understanding bone conditions in the development of osteoporosis, advances have been made in our knowledge of the molecular basis of bone remodeling, fracture healing, and its failure. Procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide has been shown to be a reliable bone formation marker in osteoporosis therapy and its kinetics during fracture healing has been recently described. In this article, we suggest that procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide presents a good opportunity for early detection of nonunion. We also review the role and potential of serum PINP, as well as other markers, as indications of fracture healing.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To asses fracture risk, bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most commonly used tool. The search for clinical risk factors is also advised and can provide a 10-year fracture probability (FRAX model). Another important determinant of bone strength is bone remodeling. High bone remodeling rates have been associated with a higher fracture risk and bone turnover markers (BTM) may offer dynamic information about skeletal status independent of BMD. The efficacy of antiresorptive agents in fracture prevention goes beyond what can be predicted by BMD especially in the beginning of the treatment. Inhibition of bone remodeling itself is certainly an important mechanism by which antiresorptive agents can rapidly reduce fracture risk. Thus, it seems quite logical to use BTM in patients with bone disease. It can also become a valuable surrogate marker in fracture prediction. However, BTM's pre-analytical and analytical variability should always be considered.
Arquivos brasileiros de endocrinologia e metabologia 03/2010; 54(2):99-105. DOI:10.1590/S0004-27302010000200003 · 0.84 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Bisphosphonate use has expanded beyond traditional applications to include treatment of a variety of low-bone-mass conditions. Complications associated with long-term bisphosphonate treatment have been noted, generating a critical need for information describing the local bisphosphonate-cell interactions responsible for these observations. This study demonstrates that a fluorescent bisphosphonate analogue, far-red fluorescent pamidronate (FRFP), is an accurate biomarker of bisphosphonate deposition and retention in vivo and can be used to monitor site-specific local drug concentration. In vitro, FRFP is competitively inhibited from the surface of homogenized rat cortical bone by traditional bisphosphonates. In vivo, FRFP delivery to the skeleton is rapid, with fluorescence linearly correlated with bone surface area. Limb fluorescence increases linearly with injected dose of FRFP; injected FRFP does not interfere with binding of standard bisphosphonates at the doses used in this study. Long-term FRFP retention studies demonstrated that FRFP fluorescence decreases in conditions of normal bone turnover, whereas fluorescence was retained in conditions of reduced bone turnover, demonstrating preservation of local FRFP concentration. In the mandible, FRFP localized to the alveolar bone and bone surrounding the periodontal ligament and molar roots, consistent with findings of osteonecrosis of the jaw. These findings support a role for FRFP as an effective in vivo marker for bisphosphonate site-specific deposition, turnover, and long-term retention in the skeleton.
Journal of bone and mineral research: the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 08/2010; 25(8):1748-58. DOI:10.1002/jbmr.66 · 6.83 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.