Slide1 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 39

Osteoporosis – Who to teat and with what? Dr Neil Gittoes Senior Lecturer Endocrinology, University of Birmingham, UK PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 112 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

Osteoporosis – Who to teat and with what? Dr Neil Gittoes Senior Lecturer Endocrinology, University of Birmingham, UK. Key facts about osteoporosis. The clinical relevance of OP is fracture Age is the best predictor of fracture risk

Related searches for Osteoporosis – Who to teat and with what? Dr Neil Gittoes Senior Lecturer Endocrinology, University of Birmingham, UK

Download Presentation

Osteoporosis – Who to teat and with what? Dr Neil Gittoes Senior Lecturer Endocrinology, University of Birmingham, UK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

Osteoporosis – Who to teat and with what?

Dr Neil Gittoes

Senior Lecturer Endocrinology,

University of Birmingham, UK


Slide2 l.jpg

Key facts about osteoporosis

  • The clinical relevance of OP is fracture

  • Age is the best predictor of fracture risk

  • BMD/DXA is not the be all and end all in fracture assessment

  • Previous fracture increases risk of subsequent fracture 2-5 fold

  • Drugs can reduce fracture risk by >60% in high risk patients

  • Think how a DXA result will change management


Slide3 l.jpg

Osteoporosis

Falls

Fracture

Falls risk

Force of fall

Osteoporosis is not a problem if you don’t fracture

Fractures

Bone fragility


Slide4 l.jpg

Osteoporosis – the age factor

  • T score is number of SDs above or below young adult mean BMD


Slide5 l.jpg

Ageing population – osteoporosis is the “norm”


Slide6 l.jpg

10 year risk: age and risk of # with low BMD

Kanis et al, 2001


Ageing society osteoporosis a growing problem l.jpg

Projected number of hip fractures (000) world wide

Number

Year

Ageing society – osteoporosis a growing problem

  • Hip fracture

    • 24% first year mortality

    • 50% unable to walk without aid

    • 33% totally dependent


Slide8 l.jpg

Combined effect of BMD and prior #

Ross et al, 1991


What are the current challenges in treatment of osteoporosis l.jpg

What are the current challenges in treatment of osteoporosis?

  • Which patients to treat?

  • Where do the new drugs fit?

    • How do we get patients to take drugs long term?

    • Treatment guidelines

  • What is new with calcium and vitamin D?

  • How long to treat for?

  • How do we determine if drugs are working?

  • Depo provera…

  • Availability of effective drugs is the least concern!


Slide10 l.jpg

Case finding strategy for prevention -high risk groups

  • Low trauma fracture (wrist, L-spine, hip, rib, upper humerus) <75

  • Prednisolone for >3 months if <65 years

  • First degree relative with history hip fracture before age 70 years

  • First degree relative with osteoporosis (T<-2.5)

  • Premature (<45) menopause not on HRT (iatrogenic/spontaneous)

  • Radiological evidence of osteopenia

  • Prolonged amenorrhoea (>6/12) not pregnancy/contraception

  • Male hypogonadism without testosterone replacement

  • Anorexia nervosa (BMI < 19kg/m²)

  • OTHER INDICATIONS FOR BONE MINERAL DENSITY (Secondary care?)

  • Thyrotoxicosis ·Primary hyperparathyroidism

  • Cushing’s syndrome · Organ transplantation

  • Malabsorption · Chronic liver disease

Send these patients for BMD measurement


Slide11 l.jpg

2 x

–1SD

Predictors of fracture risk – bone density

35

% patientswith vertebral fractures

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

T–score

SD – Standard deviation

Watts, 2001


Slide12 l.jpg

Facts about local DXA service

  • GP direct access

  • Under utilised

    • Capacity for further 1000 scans per year

  • Short wait time

  • £50 per scan

    • ‘Budget’ in place

  • Responds to urgent requests

  • Clinical reporting/access to outpatient clinics

  • Excellent quality service


Slide13 l.jpg

Available therapies to reduce fracture risk

  • Highly effective in high risk groups

    • Fractures, older, low BMD (T<-2.5)

    • 60%+ anti-fracture efficacy

    • Sustained effect (10 yrs)

  • Safe

  • Rapid onset of anti-fracture effect

    • 6-12 months

  • Multiple treatment options

    • Bisphosphonates, raloxifene, teriparatide, strontium ranelate, Ca/D


Slide14 l.jpg

Which drug for which patient?


Slide15 l.jpg

FORMATION

RESORPTION

Sr

+

Pre-OB

Pre-OC

REPLICATION

Sr -

DIFFERENTIATION

OB

OB

OB

Sr -

OC

+ BONE FORMING ACTIVITY

BONE RESORBING

ACTIVITY

Bone

Strontium ranelate - proposed mode of action

In vitro

.

Marie et al, 2001


Slide16 l.jpg

Strontium ranelate


Slide17 l.jpg

GI tolerability strontium ranelate

  • Diarrhoea higher vs placebo with strontium ranelate

    • 6.1% vs 3.6% p=0.02

    • effect resolved after first 3 months

  • Constipation slightly lower vs placebo with strontium ranelate

    • 5.3% vs 7.1% p<0.05

Meunier et al, 2004


Slide18 l.jpg

Other observations

  • Overall annual incidence of VTE in strontium studies

    • 0.7% (0.9% in Sr group / 0.6% in placebo group)

    • OR 1.42 (Cl [1.02;1.98], p=0.036)

    • No biological plausible explanation

    • Caution advised on SPC rather than contraindication

Protelos Summary of Product Characteristics. Date of preparation September 2004.


Slide19 l.jpg

Key points - strontium ranelate

  • Significant reduction in

    • Vertebral fractures (clinical and radiographic)

    • Non-vertebral fractures

    • Hip fractures in a high risk elderly population

  • Anti-fracture efficacy demonstrated in over 80s

  • Side effects (diarrhoea) mild and transient

  • Positioning

    • First line alternative to bisphosphonate

      • Particularly in elderly

      • Concerns regarding upper GI complications

    • Women with intolerance/inadequate response to other Rx


Combination bisphosphonate vitamin d l.jpg

Proportion with hip # > 60 years (n = 553) with vitamin D

inadequacy, according to six different thresholds

Gallacher et al, 2005

Combination bisphosphonate + vitamin D

  • Fosavance – ALN 70 mg + 2800 iU D

  • BPs don’t work in setting of vit D deficiency

  • Vitamin D deficiency is common

  • Adherence/compliance big problem


Slide21 l.jpg

Vitamin D inadequacy worldwide

81%

90

N=1285

80

63%

70

59%

59%

52%

51%

60

50

Prevalence (%)

40

30

20

10

0

All

Australia

LatinAmerica

Asia

Middle

East

Europe

Regions

Vitamin D inadequacy defined as serum 25(OH)D <30 ng/ml

1285 community-dwelling women with osteoporosis from 18 countries to evaluate serum 25(OH)D distribution.

Lim S-K et al, 2005


Slide22 l.jpg

Liver

Intestine

Bone formation

Vitamin D action

UVB

Sun

ProD3  PreD3  Vitamin D3

Skin

DietVitamin D3

Vitamin D2

25(OH)D

Kidney

Increase calcium and phosphorus absorption

1,25(OH)2D

Maintain serum calcium and phosphorus

Metabolic functions

Bone health

Neuromuscular functions


Slide23 l.jpg

Consequences of vitamin D insufficiency

Calcium absorption

Parathyroidhormone

Bone mineraldensity

Appropriateneuromuscularfunction

Risk of fracture

Falls


Slide24 l.jpg

Probable reasons for prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy

  • Lack of sunlight exposure (with age)

  • Vitamin D is not common in the diet

  • Ability to synthesize vitamin D in the skin decreases with age

  • Lack of compliance taking daily supplements

  • Growing use of sun screens

  • All clinical trials have had supplemental Ca/D

    • 500mg Ca + 400iU vitamin D

    • Evidence based practice


Slide25 l.jpg

Fosavance

  • Supersedes Fosamax/ALN

  • Deals with potential vitamin D deficiency

  • One weekly tablet

    • Adherence/compliance

  • Pricing

    • Ca/D supplementations

  • Some may need further vitamin D (calcium?) supplementation


Slide26 l.jpg

Bisphosphonates


Slide27 l.jpg

Ibandronate vertebral fracture incidence over 3 years

10

8

6

4

2

0

62% fracture risk reduction

9.6%

Incidence new vertebralfractures at year 3 (%)

4.7%

Placebo2.5 mg daily ibandronate

†p=0.0001 vs placebo

Chesnut et al, 2004


Slide28 l.jpg

MOBILE study – monthly non inferiorityLumbar spine BMD

Year 2

Year 1

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

6.6%†

5.0%

4.9%*

3.9%

Mean change from baseline (%)

2.5mg 150mg 2.5mg150mg

daily monthly dailymonthly

*p=0.002 vs daily ibandronate (2.5mg)

†p<0.001 vs daily ibandronate (2.5mg)

Delmas et al, 2005


Slide29 l.jpg

MOBILE study – non inferiorityHip BMD

2.5mg daily

150mg monthly

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

*

6.2

*

4.2

4.0

*

3.1

Mean change from baseline (%)

2.5

1.9

Total hip Femoral neck Trochanter

*p<0.05 vs daily ibandronate (2.5mg)

Delmas et al 2005


Slide30 l.jpg

MOBILE study – Adverse events

Lewiecki et al, 2004


Slide31 l.jpg

Conclusions - monthly ibandronate

  • Prevents vertebral fractures

  • No conclusive supporting evidence that prevents non-spine and hip fractures

  • Is well tolerated

  • Offers potential for improved compliance

    • Does well in persistence studies

  • Is supported by a patient support programme


Slide32 l.jpg

So how do we use these drugs?

NICE tell us how to manage patients with fragility fracturesSecondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures – NICE technology appraisal 87, January 2005


Nice hta 87 some background l.jpg

NICE – HTA 87 – some background

  • Low trauma/fragility fracture

    • # as result of fall from standing height or less

  • Fractures other than skull are included

  • Minority of vertebral # present clinically

  • Coincidental vertebral # on XR

    • Clinical diagnosis of OP if no history of significant trauma

  • Consider underlying conditions predisposing to #

    • Check T in men


Slide34 l.jpg

Secondary prevention of osteoporosis(after fracture) - NICE

Treat (BP)

Treat (BP)

Treat (BP)

Low BMI, unRx menop,

FH hip #, GC, infl, immob

T-score

Age


Limitations of nice guidelines l.jpg

Limitations of NICE guidelines

  • Deals with populations rather than individuals

  • Treat patients with no evidence base

  • Made all BPs ‘equal’

  • Concept of ‘treatment failure’ is difficult

  • Did not deal with men

  • Strontium ranelate to follow

  • Primary prevention to follow


Slide36 l.jpg

  • What do I do with a

    • 53 year old F with recent Colle’s #?

      • DXA

        • Dependent on T-score treat with BP + Ca/D

    • 77 year old F with recent # ankle?

      • Empirical treatment with BP + Ca/D

    • 75 year old M with 2 T-spine wedge # on XR?

      • Consider secondary causes (measure T, etc)

        • T replacement if appropriate

      • Empirical treatment with ALN


Slide37 l.jpg

Assess

suitability

Assess

suitability

Consider

long term BP if OP

Consider

long term BP if OP

1 stop DXA

1 g Ca +

800U vit D

1 g Ca +

800U vit D

OP – antiresorptive

+ Ca/D

Non-OP

Lifestyle advice

A fracture liaison service for S Bham?

Clinical #, age >50

Fracture clinic

Orthopaedic wards


Slide38 l.jpg

40

30

20

10

Vertebrae

Annual incidence per 1000 women

Hip

Wrist

50607080

Age (Years)

Age stratified approach to managing osteoporosis

IBN

HRT

PTH

Strontium

SERM

Weekly BP

Ca/D


  • Login