Search

Osteoporosis is a metabolic bone disorder for which treatment options include antiresorptive therapies (e.g., bisphosphonates, denosumab); anabolics (e.g., teriparatide, abaloparatide); and dual mechanisms (e.g., romosozumab). Management of osteoporosis with concurrent antiresorptive and anabolic agents may be superior to monotherapy, as demonstrated in the DATA trial with the combination of denosumab and teriparatide. However, there is limited experience with the combination of denosumab and romosozumab, which may be an alternative antiresorptive/anabolic regimen for individuals who are not candidates for PTH receptor agonists. In this case, we present a young man with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis who could not tolerate a daily injectable anabolic and who experienced improvement in bone mineral density with concurrent denosumab and off-label romosozumab administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current therapeutic approaches for osteoporosis predominantly involve antiresorptive agents, but the emergence of bone anabolic therapy, such as romosozumab, presents a promising alternative. Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting sclerostin, exhibits both bone anabolic and antiresorptive effects, offering the potential to enhance bone mineral density and mitigate fracture risk. Evidence from several studies demonstrating the efficacy of romosozumab is now established in improving bone mineral density and reducing fracture rates in postmenopausal women and men. This review critically evaluates the role of romosozumab in osteoporosis management, emphasizing findings from real-world studies to facilitate its practical application in clinical settings. Adverse effects, comparative effectiveness with other osteoporotic agents, and challenges in sequential therapy are also discussed, providing insights for informed decision-making by physicians, particularly in the context of pre-treatment considerations. Additionally, the review examines global prescribing guidelines and highlights challenges associated with romosozumab utilization in special patient subgroups, aiming to optimize its clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Methods Results Conclusion To compare the efficacy of romosozumab (ROMO) and denosumab (DEN) in prevalent long‐term glucocorticoid (GC) users.Adult patients receiving oral prednisolone (≥5 mg/day) with high risk of fracture were randomized to receive subcutaneous ROMO (210 mg monthly) or DEN (60 mg 6‐monthly) for 12 months, followed by DEN for two more doses. The primary end point was the change in spine bone mineral density (BMD) from Months 0 to 12. Secondary end points included changes in BMD of the spine/hip/femoral neck and bone turnover markers at various time points and adverse events.Seventy patients (age 62.6 ± 9.1 years; 96% women; median prednisolone dose 5.0 mg/day; duration of therapy 10.7 ± 7.4 years) were enrolled, and 63 completed the study. At Month 12, the spine BMD increased significantly in both ROMO (+7.3% ± 4.5%; p < 0.001) and DEN (+2.3% ± 3.1%; p < 0.001) groups. The absolute spine BMD gain from Months 0 to 12 was significantly greater in ROMO‐treated patients (p < 0.001). Although the total hip BMD at Month 12 also increased significantly in the ROMO (+1.6% ± 3.3%; p = 0.01) and DEN groups (+1.6% ± 2.6%; p = 0.003), the absolute BMD gain was not significantly different between the groups. At Month 24, the spine BMD continued to increase in both the ROMO (+9.7% ± 4.8%; p < 0.001) and DEN group (+3.0% ± 3.0%; p < 0.001) compared to baseline, and the absolute BMD gain remained significantly greater in ROMO‐treated patients. The total hip BMD continued to increase in both groups (ROMO +2.9% ± 3.7%; p < 0.001; DEN +2.2% ± 3.4%; p = 0.001), but the changes from baseline were similar. Injection site reaction was more frequently reported in ROMO‐treated patients.ROMO was superior to DEN in raising the spine BMD at Month 12 in chronic GC users. After switching to DEN, ROMO‐treated patients continued to gain spine BMD to a greater extent than DEN until Month 24. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Romosozumab, an osteoporosis treatment, has raised concerns about the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) such as heart attacks and strokes. The drug's efficacy in preventing fractures is valued, but its potential cardiovascular risks have been a subject of debate. The US FDA and European Medicines Agency initially withheld marketing authorization for romosozumab due to these concerns, but it was approved in Japan without data to counter the reservations of other regulatory agencies. Japan has since experienced a notable number of MACE and deaths associated with romosozumab, leading to the addition of a boxed warning in the prescribing instructions. However, the Japanese instructions do not list contraindications for high cardiovascular risk patients, and the phrasing of the warning has been criticized for its ambiguity. The FDA and EMA prescribing instructions explicitly contraindicate romosozumab for high cardiovascular risk patients. A pharmacovigilance report from the FDA indicates that the majority of MACE reports originated from Japan, where romosozumab is frequently prescribed to high cardiovascular risk patients and men. Another analysis from Japan's adverse drug event report database suggests that romosozumab is associated with a significantly higher risk of heart attacks and strokes compared to other osteoporosis treatments. However, these reports have limitations and should be interpreted with caution. A recent real-world analysis found that the risk of MACE and deaths was significantly lower in the romosozumab group compared to [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: We aimed to comprehensively compile placebo-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of romosozumab (210 mg, subcutaneously, once monthly) in postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis. Materials and methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant placebo-controlled trials (as of January 1, 2024). Percent change in bone mineral density (BMD), falls, fractures, and adverse events (AEs) after drug administration were collected. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Six trials (7990 patients; follow-up period, 6–12 months) were included. Compared with placebo, romosozumab significantly increased lumbar spine BMD (MD = 12.69; 95% CI 11.10–14.29), total hip BMD (MD = 4.42; 95% CI 3.03–5.80), and femoral neck BMD (MD = 3.99; 95% CI 2.42–5.57) at 12 months. Romosozumab significantly decreased falls (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.68–0.93) and major osteoporotic fractures (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.25–0.54), but increased injection-site reactions (RR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.46–2.30) within 12 months. No significant differences were observed in other AEs (including cardiovascular AEs) within 12 months. Conclusion: Romosozumab treatment resulted in a significant BMD gain, reduced falls and major osteoporotic fractures. It was generally well-tolerated, including the cardiovascular aspects. However, clinicians should consider the occurrence of minor AEs (e.g., injection-site reactions). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of treatment with romosozumab for 1 year and association between bone turnover markers and changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Methods: Participants were 53 treatment-naïve postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Correlations of per cent changes (Δ) in lumbar (L) and total hip (TH) BMD 12 months after initiating romosozumab with baseline demographic factors and parameters of N-terminal propeptide of Type 1 collagen (P1NP) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b at baseline and Months 1, 3, and 6 were assessed. Multiple regression analysis was performed on factors significantly correlated with ΔL-BMD and ΔTH-BMD at Month 12. Results: ΔL-BMD and ΔTH-BMD at Month 12 were 17.5% and 8.1%, respectively. Multiple regression analysis revealed that a high P1NP value at Month 3 predicted large increases in L-BMD and TH-BMD at Month 12. High total amount of P1NP values from baseline to Month 6 was associated with large increases in L-BMD and TH-BMD at Month 12 and was most strongly correlated with the P1NP value at Month 3. Conclusions: A high P1NP value at Month 3 predicted large increases in both L-BMD and TH-BMD at Month 12 in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients treated with romosozumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This multicentre, prospective cohort study measured the effect of romosozumab for 12 months on bone mineral density, taking into account prior therapies. Prior antiresorptive therapy blunted the BMD response to romosozumab, and the duration was correlated with BMD changes at both the lumbar spine and total hip. Introduction: In Switzerland, romosozumab is administered to high-risk osteoporosis patients. Our study aimed to assess the effect of romosozumab on bone mineral density (BMD), taking into account prior therapies. Methods: This multicentre, prospective cohort study measured the effect of romosozumab for 12 months in patients in a nationwide Swiss osteoporosis registry. BMD and bone turnover marker (P1NP and CTX) changes were measured and compared between pre-treated and treatment naïve patients. Results: Ninety-nine patients (92 women and 7 men, median age 71 years [65, 76]) were enrolled from January 2021 to December 2023. Among them, 22 had no prior treatment before romosozumab, while 77 had previous therapy (including 23 with a history of prior teriparatide therapy), with a median duration of 6 years [4, 11] of cumulative antiresorptive treatment. Over 12 months, romosozumab led to BMD changes of 10.3% [7.5, 15.5] at the lumbar spine, 3.1% [1.1, 5.8] at the total hip and 3.1% [0.5, 5.3] at the femoral neck, indicating notable variability. Significantly lower BMD responses were observed in pre-treated patients, with the duration of prior antiresorptive therapy inversely associated with BMD increases at the lumbar spine and hip. Other predictors of BMD changes at the total hip included baseline T-scores at the hip, body mass index and baseline CTX level, while the BMD response at the lumbar spine was associated with the lumbar spine T-score at baseline, age and baseline CTX level. Conclusion: Prior antiresorptive therapy blunted the BMD response to romosozumab, and the duration was correlated with BMD changes at both the lumbar spine and total hip. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: In severe osteoporosis, the optimal approach for sequential treatment between denosumab and romosozumab is unclear. We utilised a novel overlapping strategy in three patients with very-high fracture risk despite long-term denosumab which led to greater bone density improvements than previously reported with standard approaches. Larger confirmatory prospective studies are needed. Purpose/introduction: In patients with severe osteoporosis, the optimal approach for sequential treatment between denosumab and romosozumab has not been established. The ideal strategy would maximise gains in bone mineral density (BMD) with romosozumab and effectively mitigate the risk of rebound increased bone turnover when sequencing from denosumab. Limited studies exploring the sequence from denosumab to romosozumab report only modest-to-no improvement in BMD and inadequate suppression of rebound bone turnover. Methods: We describe three patients with severe osteoporosis and multiple fragility fractures despite long-term denosumab. A novel overlapping sequential treatment approach was utilised to maximise therapeutic benefit given these patients had a very high fracture risk. Romosozumab was commenced 3 months after the last denosumab dose. Instead of waiting until completion of romosozumab, denosumab was recommenced 6 months after commencing romosozumab in response to rising bone turnover markers. Results: Patients experienced a ~ 5–22% increase in lumbar spine BMD, and one patient had an 8% increase in total hip BMD after 12 months romosozumab. Serum bone turnover markers demonstrated an anabolic effect of romosozumab occurred despite overlapping treatment with denosumab. Recommencement of denosumab suppressed an increase in bone resorption in all cases. No new vertebral fractures occurred during this treatment. Conclusions: A novel overlapping sequential treatment approach between denosumab and romosozumab produced greater improvements in lumbar spine and hip BMD than previously reported with standard approaches. Larger prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings and establish the optimal use of romosozumab in patients pre-treated with denosumab to maximise BMD gains and minimise fracture risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract We aimed to investigate the efficacy of romosozumab treatment compared with that of denosumab in especially male osteoporosis patients. This retrospective cohort study included 174 Japanese male patients receiving either denosumab or romosozumab for 12 months. Propensity score matching extracted 50 patients per treatment group for standardization of group characteristics. The endpoints include the rate of change in the bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck after 12 months of treatment as well as the changes in serum bone metabolism markers. The mean 12-month percentage increase in the lumbar spine BMD from baseline was significantly greater with romosozumab (13.0% ±1.7%) than with denosumab (4.5%±0.6%) (P

Background: Romosozumab is a novel monoclonal antibody that binds to sclerostin, and has dual effects of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, giving it a unique mechanism of action. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis based on existing worldwide data on treatment effects and safety of romosozumab in randomized controlled trials. Methods: A systematic search was carried out on four databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The keywords used for search was “(romosozumab) AND (osteoporosis OR safety)”. Randomized controlled trial or post-hoc studies of the included randomized controlled trial which studied the effects and safety of romosozumab were included. The quality of selected studies was assessed with the Cochrane collaboration tool and the PEDro scale. Results: 20 studies were included for qualitative analysis. 14 studies were included for meta-analysis. In total, there were 13,507 (n = 13,507) participants with 637 men and 12,870 women from original cohorts. The overall mean difference was in favor of romosozumab treatment for lumbar spine (10.04 (95 % confidence interval (CI) = 7.51–12.57; p

Sclerostin is a glycoprotein predominantly released by specialized bone-forming cells (osteocytes). It serves as a principal inhibitor of osteogenesis and plays a key act in modulating the metabolism of alveolar bone. Sclerostin is shown to contribute to the occurrence of periodontitis by regulating the remodeling of the alveolar bone. A monoclonal antibody which antagonizes sclerostin has become extremely useful for osteoanabolic therapies. Romosozumab is an Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-sclerostin antibody that has shown promising results in the treatment of osteoporosis. Research is being conducted on the effect of anti-sclerostin antibody (Scl-Ab) as a therapeutic option in the management of periodontitis, and up till now, the results are promising. A comprehensive review of the literature was done using the PubMed database and Google Scholar. Research articles published before April 2023 with the search terms “sclerostin,” “periodontitis,” and “anti-sclerostin antibody” (Scl-Ab) were included. Most of the studies point toward a definitive association between chronic periodontitis and the levels of sclerostin. Numerous investigations underscore the significance of evaluating sclerostin levels as a diagnostic marker for periodontitis, and the application of anti-sclerostin antibodies as a potential therapeutic option for managing periodontitis and peri-implant diseases. However, further researches are required to delve into the therapeutic effects and possible side effects of Scl-Ab. Sclerostin antibodies show promise as an anabolic drug that enhances bone mass and could potentially become a viable therapeutic alternative for addressing periodontal conditions in future.

Objective We investigated the clinical efficacy of anabolic agents compared with bisphosphonates (BPs) for the incidence of new osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and fracture healing of OVF in the patients with OVF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for published RCTs till December 2022. The RCTs that recruited participants with osteoporosis at high-/very high-risk of fracture (a history of osteoporotic vertebral or hip fracture) or fresh OVF were included in this study. We assessed the risk of bias on every included RCTs, estimated relative risk (RR) for the incidence of new OVF and fracture healing of OVF, and overall certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed by Cochrane review manager (RevMan) ver. 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and GRADEpro/GDT were applied for evaluating methodological quality and overall certainty of evidence, respectively. Results Five hundred eighteen studies were screened, and finally 6 eligible RCTs were included in the analysis. In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents significantly reduced the incidence of new OVF (teriparatide and romosozumab vs. alendronate and risedronate [RR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.71; p < 0.00001; high-certainty of evidence]; teriparatide vs. risedronate [RR, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.68; p < 0.0001; high-certainty of evidence]). However, there was no evidence of teriparatide compared to alendronate in fracture healing of OVF (RR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–1.60; p = 0.12; low-certainty of evidence). Conclusion In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents showed a significant superiority for preventing new OVF than BPs, with no significant evidence for promoting fracture healing of OVF. However, considering small number of RCTs in this study, additional studies with large-scale data are required to obtain more robust evidences.

Objectives: There are challenges for the treatment of osteoporosis in patients with kidney failure and monoclonal antibodies (MAb) might be a suitable therapy. However, the efficacy and safety of MAb among patients with osteoporosis and renal insufficiency remains unclear. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of the use of MAb in patients with osteoporosis and renal insufficiency. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes. Mean difference (MD) was used for continuous outcomes. Results: We included 5 studies with 33,550 patients. MAb therapy decreased the risk of vertebral fractures (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.26–0.40; P

Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spinal fixation surgery has been increasingly performed in patients with osteoporosis. Romosozumab, a drug that was introduced in Japan recently, is known to possibly promote bone healing. However, few studies have reported the therapeutic effects of romosozumab in clinical practice in Japan. Therefore, here, we investigated the effects of romosozumab dosage on bone fusion promotion using an ovariectomized rat spinal fusion model. Eight‐week‐old female Sprague‐Dawley rats were matched by body weight and divided into three groups: 1.0 romosozumab (R) group (Evenity®, 25 mg/kg), 1/10R group (Evenity®, 2.5 mg/kg), and control (C) group (saline). Subcutaneous injections were administered twice a week for 8 weeks postoperatively. Computed tomography scans were performed every 2 weeks from the time of surgery till 8 weeks postoperatively. The mean fusion rates in terms of volume were significantly higher in the R groups [1/10R, 1.0R] than in the C group from 4 weeks postoperatively. The rate of increase was significantly higher in the 1.0R group from 4 weeks postoperatively and in the 1/10R group from 6 weeks postoperatively, than in the C group. The proportion of trabecular bone area was approximately 1.5 times higher in the R groups than in the C group. No significant differences were observed between the R groups. Our results suggest that romosozumab stimulates bone growth at the graft site, and similar effects were achieved at 1/10 of the standard dosage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case: A 62-year-old woman receiving romosozumab for 3 months underwent extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. From 1 week after surgery, she experienced gradually increasing pain from the right groin to the front of the thigh. Examination revealed ossifying myositis in bilateral psoas major muscles. Etidronate treatment was initiated, improving pain after 4 days. Computed tomography showed lesion disappearance by 3 months after surgery. Conclusion: We report a rare case of myositis ossificans in bilateral psoas major muscles following XLIF surgery, possibly influenced by intraoperative manipulation and romosozumab treatment. Etidronate administration may be effective, as with heterotopic ossification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Post hoc analysis of FRAME and ARCH revealed that on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 were less common in women initially treated with romosozumab versus placebo or alendronate. Recurrent fracture risk was also lower in romosozumab‑treated patients, and there were no fracture‑related complications. Results support continuing romosozumab treatment post‑fracture. Purpose: Post hoc analysis evaluating efficacy and safety of romosozumab, administered in the immediate post‑fracture period, in the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials. Methods: In FRAME (NCT01575834) and ARCH (NCT01631214), postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to romosozumab 210 mg monthly or comparator (FRAME, placebo; ARCH, alendronate 70 mg weekly) for 12 months, followed by antiresorptive therapy (FRAME, denosumab; ARCH, alendronate). In patients who experienced on-study nonvertebral or new/worsening vertebral fracture by Month 12, we report the following: fracture and treatment‑emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence through 36 months, bone mineral density changes (BMD), and romosozumab timing. Due to the sample sizes employed, meaningful statistical comparisons between treatments were not possible. Results: Incidence of on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 was numerically lower in romosozumab- versus comparator-treated patients (FRAME, 1.6% and 0.5% versus 2.1% and 1.6%; ARCH, 3.4% and 3.3% versus 4.6% and 4.9%, respectively). In those who experienced on-study nonvertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent nonvertebral and subsequent vertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower in patients initially treated with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 3.6% [2/56] and 1.8% [1/56] versus 9.2% [7/76] and 3.9% [3/76]; ARCH, 10.0% [7/70] and 5.7% [4/70] versus 12.6% [12/95] and 8.4% [8/95], respectively). Among those with on-study vertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent vertebral and subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 0.0% [0/17] and 0.0% [0/17] versus 11.9% [7/59] and 8.5% [5/59]; ARCH, 9.0% [6/67] and 7.5% [5/67] versus 15.0% [15/100] and 16.0% [16/100], respectively). In patients with fracture by Month 12, no fracture‑related complications were reported in romosozumab-treated patients. BMD gains were numerically greater with romosozumab than comparators. Conclusion: Data suggest support for the efficacy and safety of continuing romosozumab treatment following fracture. Trial registrations: NCT01575834; NCT01631214. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osteoanabolic agents are used as a first line treatment in patients at high fracture risk. The PTH receptor 1 (PTH1R) agonists teriparatide (TPTD) and abaloparatide (ABL) increase bone formation, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone strength by activating PTH receptors on osteoblasts. Romosozumab (ROMO), a humanized monoclonal antibody against sclerostin, dramatically but transiently stimulates bone formation and persistently reduces bone resorption. Osteoanabolic agents increase BMD and bone strength while being more effective than antiresorptives in reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women. However, direct comparisons of the antifracture benefits of osteoanabolic therapies are limited. In a direct comparison of TPTD and ABL, the latter resulted in greater BMD increases at the hip. While no differences in vertebral or non-vertebral fracture risk were observed between the two drugs, ABL led to a greater reduction of major osteoporotic fractures. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two agents except for hypercalcemia, which occurred more often with TPTD. No direct comparisons of fracture risk reduction between ROMO and the PTH1R agonists exist. Individual studies have shown greater increases in BMD and bone strength with ROMO compared with TPTD in treatment-naive women and in women previously treated with bisphosphonates. Some safety aspects, such as a history of tumor precluding the use of PTH1R agonists, and a history of major cardiovascular events precluding the use of ROMO, should also be considered when choosing between these agents. Finally, convenience of administration, reimbursement by national health systems and length of clinical experience may influence patient choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone loss below the level of neurological lesion is a well-known complication of spinal cord injury (SCI). To date, most research has focused on pharmaceutical intervention using antiresorptives to prevent bone loss during the acute phase of SCI; however, limited research has investigated treatments for established osteoporosis during chronic SCI. Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody with both antiresorptive and anabolic effects, has demonstrated significant increases in BMD for women with established PMO. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of monthly treatment with romosozumab to improve DXA-derived areal BMD at the hip, and CT-derived BMC and strength at the hip and knee in women with chronic SCI and an inability to ambulate. Twelve female participants with chronic SCI were recruited to receive 1 yr of monthly subcutaneous injections of romosozumab (210 mg). DXA and CT scans were taken at baseline, and months 3, 6, and 12 to quantify bone mineral, and finite element (FE) analysis was used to predict bone strength. Longitudinal mixed effects models were employed to determine the impact of treatment on bone properties. After 12 mo of treatment, areal BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip were significantly increased with median changes of 10.2% (IQR: 8.3–15.2%, p <.001) and 4.2% (IQR: 3.4–7.7%, p  = .009), respectively. Improvements at the hip were primarily due to increases in trabecular, not cortical, bone and effects were sufficient to significantly increase FE-predicted strength by 20.3% (IQR: 9.5–37.0%, p  = .004). Treatment with romosozumab did not lead to any significant improvement in bone mineral at the distal femur or proximal tibia. These findings provide promising results for romosozumab treatment to improve bone mineral and reduce fracture risk at the hip, but not the knee, in women with chronic SCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International osteoporosis guidelines have recommended treatment approaches based on fracture risk stratification, in particular, anabolic therapy for patients with very high risk (VHR) of fragility fracture. Aim: To summarise Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients at VHR of fracture. Methods: Australian clinicians invited to educational webinars on anabolic treatments for osteoporosis were surveyed in March and April 2021 about a typical patient they had most recently seen and identified as at VHR of fracture. Results: Of the 268 clinician attendees who were invited to complete the post‐webinar surveys, 67 (25%) responded and permitted the publication of aggregated data. A typical patient perceived to have a VHR of fracture was a woman in her 80's, living at home, who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis between 5 and 10 years ago, and received treatment for 1–5 years' duration, most commonly denosumab. The patient frequently had a T‐score below −3.0 SD (standard deviation), multiple fragility fractures and most commonly suffered a vertebral fracture in the past 12 months, whereas on an adequate regimen of osteoporosis medication. There was a mismatch between the patient being eligible for anabolic therapy (64.2%) and actually having been prescribed an anabolic treatment in the past (20.9%). Conclusions: Australian clinicians' perceptions of patients with a VHR of fracture and the use of anabolic agents appear to be heavily influenced by local reimbursement criteria. The mismatch between patients deemed eligible for reimbursed anabolic therapy and those prescribed an anabolic agent suggests treatment inertia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We investigated the clinical efficacy of anabolic agents compared with bisphosphonates (BPs) for the incidence of new osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and fracture healing of OVF in the patients with OVF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for published RCTs till December 2022. The RCTs that recruited participants with osteoporosis at high-/very high-risk of fracture (a history of osteoporotic vertebral or hip fracture) or fresh OVF were included in this study. We assessed the risk of bias on every included RCTs, estimated relative risk (RR) for the incidence of new OVF and fracture healing of OVF, and overall certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed by Cochrane review manager (RevMan) ver. 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and GRADEpro/GDT were applied for evaluating methodological quality and overall certainty of evidence, respectively. Results: Five hundred eighteen studies were screened, and finally 6 eligible RCTs were included in the analysis. In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents significantly reduced the incidence of new OVF (teriparatide and romosozumab vs. alendronate and risedronate [RR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.71; p < 0.00001; high-certainty of evidence]; teriparatide vs. risedronate [RR, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.37–0.68; p < 0.0001; high-certainty of evidence]). However, there was no evidence of teriparatide compared to alendronate in fracture healing of OVF (RR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–1.60; p = 0.12; low-certainty of evidence). Conclusion: In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents showed a significant superiority for preventing new OVF than BPs, with no significant evidence for promoting fracture healing of OVF. However, considering small number of RCTs in this study, additional studies with large-scale data are required to obtain more robust evidences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The impact of ROMO on the width of anabolic windows and the increase in BMD was reduced in the RA group compared to the non-RA group, and this reduction was associated with correlations to RA-related factors. Purpose: To investigate the effects of romosozumab (ROMO) in postmenopausal osteoporosis, with and without comorbid rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: In this retrospective, case-controlled, multicenter study, 171 postmenopausal patients who did not receive oral glucocorticoid, comprising 59 in the RA group and 121 in the non-RA group, received uninterrupted ROMO treatment for 12 months. Propensity score matching was employed to ensure comparability in clinical backgrounds, resulting in 41 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics were as follows: overall (mean age, 76.3 years; T-score of lumbar spine (LS), − 3.0; 45.1% were treatment-naive for osteoporosis); RA group (anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) positivity, 80.5%; titer, 206.2 U/ml; clinical disease activity index (CDAI), 13.6; health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI), 0.9). Bone mineral density (BMD) and serum bone turnover markers were monitored over a 12-month period. Results: The rate of increase in the bone formation marker, PINP, and the rates of decrease in the bone resorption marker, TRACP-5b, exhibited a trend toward smaller changes in the RA group compared to the non-RA group, implying a smaller anabolic window. After 12 months, the RA group displayed lower BMD increases in the LS (9.1% vs. 12.6%; P = 0.013) and total hip (2.4% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.025) compared to the non-RA group. Multiple regression analysis in the all RA group (n = 59) for the association between RA-specific factors and 12-month BMD changes revealed negative correlations between ACPA titer and LS BMD and between HAQ-DI and femoral neck BMD. Conclusions: The efficacy of ROMO may be attenuated by RA-related factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Optimization of sequential and combination treatment is crucial in shaping long-term management of postmenopausal osteoporosis (OP). Methods We conducted a 6-month prospective observational study on postmenopausal women with severe OP receiving treatment with romosozumab either alone (in patients naïve to treatment) or in combination with ongoing long-term denosumab (>2 years) or continuing ongoing denosumab alone (>2 years). We collected serum samples for bone turnover markers, bone modulators, and calcium phosphate metabolism at baseline, month 3 and month 6. BMD was assessed at baseline and after 6 months. Results Fifty-two postmenopausal women with OP were included in the study. Nineteen received romosozumab alone, 11 received romosozumab combined to ongoing denosumab, and 22 continued denosumab alone. BMD increased significantly at all sites at 6 months of follow-up in the romosozumab alone group (femoral neck +8.1%, total hip +6.8%, and lumbar spine +7.9%). In contrast, BMD increased significantly only at lumbar spine in the combination group (+7.2%) and in the denosumab group (+1.5%). P1nP increased significantly in romosozumab groups at month 3 (+70.4% in romosozumab alone group and +99.1% in combination group). Sclerostin levels increased steeply in both romosozumab groups, and Dkk1 did not change. Conclusion Romosozumab added to ongoing denosumab resulted in an increase in P1nP and lumbar spine BMD, but not in femoral neck BMD. For patients on denosumab, using romosozumab as an additional treatment appeared to be useful in terms of bone formation markers and spine BMD vs denosumab alone. Further randomized controlled trials, possibly powered to fracture outcomes, are needed to confirm our results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last years non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has grown into the most common chronic liver disease globally, affecting 17-38% of the general population and 50-75% of patients with obesity and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). NAFLD encompasses a spectrum of chronic liver diseases, ranging from simple steatosis (non-alcoholic fatty liver, NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH; or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, MASH) to fibrosis and cirrhosis with liver failure or/and hepatocellular carcinoma. Due to its increasing prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality, the disease-related and broader socioeconomic burden of NAFLD is substantial. Of note, currently there is no globally approved pharmacotherapy for NAFLD. Similar to NAFLD, osteoporosis constitutes also a silent disease, until an osteoporotic fracture occurs, which poses a markedly significant disease and socioeconomic burden. Increasing emerging data have recently highlighted links between NAFLD and osteoporosis, linking the pathogenesis of NAFLD with the process of bone remodeling. However, clinical studies are still limited demonstrating this associative relationship, while more evidence is needed towards discovering potential causative links. Since these two chronic diseases frequently co-exist, there are data suggesting that anti-osteoporosis treatments may affect NAFLD progression by impacting on its pathogenetic mechanisms. In the present review, we present on overview of the current understanding of the liver-bone cross talk and summarize the experimental and clinical evidence correlating NAFLD and osteoporosis, focusing on the possible effects of antiosteoporotic drugs on NAFLD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This retrospective study compared the efficacy of anabolic agents (romosozumab and teriparatide) with that of alendronate in preventing subsequent vertebral body fractures (SVBFs) after balloon kyphoplasty (BKP). All anabolic agents significantly reduced SVBFs. Romosozumab was most effective in increasing bone mineral density (BMD) and completely suppressed distant vertebral body fractures. Introduction: To determine optimal anti-osteoporosis medications, we compared romosozumab and teriparatide to alendronate as a control from perioperative BKP to the 1st postoperative year for treatment and secondary fracture prevention in osteoporosis. Methods: A total of 603 patients who underwent initial BKP for osteoporotic vertebral fractures were evaluated and categorized into five groups based on drug administration: romosozumab (group R, 155 patients), twice-weekly teriparatide (group TW, 48), weekly teriparatide (group W, 151), daily teriparatide (group D, 138), and alendronate (control) (group C, 111). The 1-year incidence of SVBFs, BMD change rate, and probability of requiring BKP were compared among the groups. Results: SVBF incidence was 3.9%, 6.5%, 8.3%, 6.0%, and 14.4% in groups R, D, TW, W, and C, respectively, with all other groups exhibiting significantly lower rates than group C. The groups that administered the anabolic agents had a notably lower incidence of distant fractures than group C. Compared with group C, group R showed significantly higher BMD change rates in lumbar vertebral bodies at 4, 8, and 12 months and group D at 12 months. Anabolic agent groups exhibited significantly higher improvement rates than group C after conservative treatment alone. Conclusion: The anabolic agents were found to be more effective at reducing the incidence of SVBF (especially distant vertebral fractures) than alendronate. These agents decreased the rate of repeat BKP even after the occurrence of a fracture. Overall, the use of an anabolic agent for the treatment of osteoporosis after BKP is better than the use of alendronate, even when treatment is initiated in the perioperative stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPostmenopausal osteoporosis (PMOP) increases fracture risk in women. Though traditional treatments are slow to act, combining romosozumab with conventional therapy shows promise. Despite its growing use, studies on effectiveness are limited. This study aims to systematically evaluate the combined therapy’s impact on pain relief, disease progression, and adverse reactions in PMOP patients.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to September 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of romosozumab in PMOP. Random or fixed effect models were employed for statistical analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsSix RCTs with a total sample size of 17,985 cases were included. The incidence of vertebral fractures was compared and analyzed after 12 and 24 months of treatment. Romosozumab significantly reduced the incidence of vertebral fractures at 24 months (OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.35–0.52) but not at 12 months (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.14–1.05). It was also associated with a decreased incidence of nonvertebral fractures (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66–0.94) and clinical fractures at 24 months (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.59–0.82) compared to standard therapy. Romosozumab demonstrated a significant improvement in percentage change in bone mineral density (BMD) [mean difference (MD) = 10.38; 95% CI: 4.62–16.14] and in hip joint BMD (MD = 4.24; 95% CI: 2.92–5.56). There was no notable difference in adverse reactions compared to standard care (p > 0.05). Funnel plots displayed a predominantly symmetrical pattern, suggesting no evidence of publication bias in the selected literature.ConclusionCombining romosozumab with conventional therapy effectively treats PMOP, significantly reducing vertebral, non-vertebral, and clinical fractures while increasing BMD in the hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. However, further high-quality studies are needed for validation.

Introduction: Domino osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) is as a subsequent fracture that develops within 3 months before the initial OVF heals. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of osteoanabolic agents on its treatment. This study evaluated the effects of bisphosphonates and anabolic agents teriparatide and romosozumab on subsequent domino OVF. Methods: This was post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted across 8 hospitals, enrolling 144 patients with conservatively treated OVF, grouped into patients receiving bisphosphonate (BP, n = 55), teriparatide (TPTD, n = 62), and romosozumab (Romo, n = 27). The primary outcome was the incidence of subsequent OVF at 3 and 12 months, whereas the secondary outcomes included the incidence of pseudoarthrosis and progression of vertebral collapse (VC). Pseudoarthrosis was classified as stable or unstable based on vertebral instability. Results: The use of osteoanabolic agents did not reduce the incidence of subsequent OVF at 3 and 12 months. There were no significant differences in the background data or type of conservative treatment among the three groups. However, the TPTD and Romo groups had significantly lower rates of unstable pseudarthrosis (p = 0.03). Additionally, there were no significant differences in VC progression between groups, but it tended to be higher in the BP group than the TPTD and Romo group (p = 0.07). Conclusion: Osteoanabolic agents were beneficial in reducing unstable pseudoarthrosis, but were not more effective than bisphosphonates in the development of subsequent domino OVF. A more comprehensive approach to the treatment of osteoporosis is needed to prevent domino OVFs.

Objective Romosozumab is increasingly employed to manage osteoporosis. However, no studies have analyzed its effects on recent osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of romosozumab compared with teriparatide in managing OVCFs. Methods The electronic medical records of postmenopausal patients with recent OVCFs who were administered romosozumab or teriparatide for one year from March 2018 to August 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the 2 groups for demographics, radiological outcomes (compression ratio, Cobb angle, and bone mineral density [BMD]), and clinical outcomes (Numerical Rating Scale [NRS] for back pain). Results Fifty-five patients with OVCFs, 32 patients treated with romosozumab and 23 with teriparatide, were included in this study. The change of BMD (g/cm2) values was significantly higher (p = 0.016) in the romosozumab (0.04 ± 0.06) than in the teriparatide group (0.00 ± 0.08) in the femur total. Furthermore, in subgroup analysis, the change of BMD (g/cm2) values in the lumbar spine was significantly higher (p = 0.016) in the romosozumab (0.12 ± 0.06) than in the teriparatide group (0.07 ± 0.06) in the lumbar spine. The decrease in NRS was significantly higher (p = 0.013) in the romosozumab (6.6 ± 2.0) than in the teriparatide group (5.5 ± 2.1). However, there was no significant difference in radiologic outcomes between the 2 groups. Conclusion Our findings suggest that romosozumab may be more effective than teriparatide in treating OVCFs in postmenopausal females, particularly in improving BMD and reducing back pain as measured by NRS.

Purpose: This study aimed to illustrate the possibility of an unfavorable response to treatment with the anabolic agent romosozumab for patients with severe osteoporosis and to discuss explanations for treatment failure. Methods: Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) including vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and X-rays of the thoracolumbar spine was used to assess bone mineral density (BMD) and the presence of vertebral fractures before and after treatment with romosozumab. Results: Our patient developed a decrease in the BMD of the hip, two incident new vertebral fractures, and worsening of one prevalent vertebral fracture during 1 year treatment with romosozumab. We have not detected non-adherence, there was no pretreatment with anti-resorptives, and we observed no signs of secondary osteoporosis and/or comorbidities. Conclusion: As the number of patients treated with romosozumab is rising, it becomes more likely that more patients will be found with new fractures and/or an unfavorable BMD response. Probably, the unfavorable response is a (bad) chance finding, but we think it is crucial for clinicians and patients to exclude nonadherence, new comorbidities and pretreatment with anti-resorptives as explanation in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To describe the real-world use of romosozumab in Japan, we conducted a chart review of > 1000 Japanese patients with osteoporosis (OP) at high risk of fracture, across multiple medical institutions. Materials and methods: Treatment-naïve and prior OP-treatment patients who received romosozumab for 12 months followed by ≥ 6 months of sequential OP treatment were included. The primary objective described the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics; secondary objectives evaluated changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers in all patients and effectiveness of romosozumab in a sub-group of treatment-naïve patients using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®). Results: Of the 1027 patients (92.4% female), 45.0% were treatment-naïve. The mean ± SD age of treatment-naïve versus prior OP-treatment patients was 76.8 ± 8.5 and 77.1 ± 8.5 years. The most frequent prior OP treatment was bisphosphonates (45.0%). Romosozumab treatment for 12 months increased BMD at the lumbar spine in all groups; the median percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was higher in the treatment-naïve (13.4%) versus prior OP-treatment group (bisphosphonates [9.2%], teriparatide [11.3%], denosumab [DMAb, 4.5%]). DMAb, bisphosphonates, or teriparatide after romosozumab maintained the BMD gains at all skeletal sites at month 18 in treatment-naïve patients. Most treatment-naïve patients were at high risk of fracture, BMD increased consistently with romosozumab regardless of the baseline fracture risk assessed by FRAX. Conclusion: This large-scale, multicenter chart review provides clinically relevant insights into the profiles of patients initiating romosozumab, effectiveness of real-world romosozumab use, and sequential therapy in Japanese patients at high risk of fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoporosis management often involves a sequential treatment approach to optimize patient outcomes and minimize fracture risks. This strategy is tailored to individual patient characteristics, treatment responses, and fracture risk profiles. Methods: A thorough literature review was systematically executed using prominent databases, including PubMed and EMBASE. The primary aim was to identify original articles and clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of sequential therapy with anti-osteoporosis drugs, focusing on the period from 1995 to 2023. The analysis encompassed an in-depth examination of osteoporosis drugs, delineating their mechanisms of action, side effects, and current trends as elucidated in the literature. Results and Discussion: Our study yielded noteworthy insights into the optimal sequencing of pharmacologic agents for the long-term treatment of patients necessitating multiple drugs. Notably, the achievement of optimal improvements in bone mass is observed when commencing treatment with an anabolic medication, followed by the subsequent utilization of an antiresorptive drug. This stands in contrast to initiating therapy with a bisphosphonate, which may potentially diminish outcomes in the post-anabolic intervention period. Furthermore, it has been discerned that caution should be exercised against transitioning from denosumab to PTH homologs due to the adverse effects of heightened bone turnover and sustained weakening of bone structure. Despite the absence of fracture data substantiating the implementation of integrated anabolic/antiresorptive pharmacotherapy, the incorporation of denosumab and teriparatide presents a potential avenue worthy of consideration for individuals at a heightened vulnerability to fragility fractures. Conclusions: A judiciously implemented sequential treatment strategy in osteoporosis offers a flexible and tailored approach to address diverse clinical scenarios, optimizing fracture prevention and patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, romosozumab demonstrated significantly greater improvement in trabecular bone score compared to denosumab therapy in postmenopausal women previously treated with antiresorptive agents. Notably, in patients previously treated with anti-resorptive agents, treatment with romosozumab resulted in similar increases in trabecular bone score compared to that of drug-naïve patients. Purpose: Romosozumab significantly increases bone mineral density (BMD) and rapidly reduces fracture risk. Whether romosozumab can improve the spinal trabecular bone score (TBS) as a bone quality indicator merits further investigation. Methods: Data for postmenopausal women starting romosozumab or denosumab treatment at Severance Hospital, Korea, were analyzed. Romosozumab and denosumab groups were 1:1 matched using propensity scores, considering relevant covariates. Good responders were defined as those with TBS improvement of 5.8% or greater. Results: Overall, 174 patients (romosozumab, n = 87; denosumab, n = 87) were analyzed. Matched groups did not differ in age (64 years), weight, height, previous fracture (38%), lumbar spine or femoral neck BMD (T-score, -3.4 and -2.6, respectively), or prior bisphosphonate or selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) exposure (50%). The romosozumab group exhibited a greater increase in lumbar spine BMD (15.2% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) and TBS (3.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.013) than the denosumab group. In patients transitioning from bisphosphonate or SERM, romosozumab users showed greater improvement in TBS compared to denosumab users (3.9% versus 0.8%, P = 0.006); the drug-naive group showed no significant difference (3.6% versus 2.7%, P = 0.472). The romosozumab group had a higher proportion of good responders than the denosumab group (33.3% vs. 18.4%, p = 0.024). Romosozumab therapy for 12 months resulted in 3.8-fold higher odds of a good response in TBS than denosumab after covariate adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 3.85, p = 0.002). Conclusion: Romosozumab could improve bone mass and bone quality, measured by TBS, in postmenopausal osteoporosis, particularly as a subsequent regimen in patients previously taking anti-resorptive agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may need dental implants to replace missing teeth. The data on implant failure in patients on antiresorptive medication requiring dental implants, is conflicting and limited. This systematic review aims to investigate if antiresorptive medications have any clinical impact on dental implant survival. Electronic databases were searched until May 2020. The focus question (PICOS): Participants: humans, Interventions: implant placement surgery in patients on antiresorptive medication, Comparisons: patients on antiresorptive medication vs control (patients not on antiresorptive medication), Outcomes: implant survival, and Study design: clinical studies. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020209083). Fourteen nonrandomized studies were selected for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-1 tool. Only studies with a control were included for the meta-analysis, 8 articles were included in the meta-analysis using implant-level data, and 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis using patient-level data. There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups at the patient level based on 265 patients. However, there was a statistically significant difference at the implant level based on 2697 implants. Therefore, antiresorptive medications, mainly bisphosphonates (BPs), may significantly contribute to implant failure. Antiresorptive medications, especially BPs may reduce implant survival and impair the osseointegration of dental implants. Failed implants in patients on BPs may not lead to osteonecrosis and may be replaced with success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last years non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has grown into the most common chronic liver disease globally, affecting 17-38% of the general population and 50-75% of patients with obesity and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). NAFLD encompasses a spectrum of chronic liver diseases, ranging from simple steatosis (non-alcoholic fatty liver, NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH; or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, MASH) to fibrosis and cirrhosis with liver failure or/and hepatocellular carcinoma. Due to its increasing prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality, the disease-related and broader socioeconomic burden of NAFLD is substantial. Of note, currently there is no globally approved pharmacotherapy for NAFLD. Similar to NAFLD, osteoporosis constitutes also a silent disease, until an osteoporotic fracture occurs, which poses a markedly significant disease and socioeconomic burden. Increasing emerging data have recently highlighted links between NAFLD and osteoporosis, linking the pathogenesis of NAFLD with the process of bone remodeling. However, clinical studies are still limited demonstrating this associative relationship, while more evidence is needed towards discovering potential causative links. Since these two chronic diseases frequently co-exist, there are data suggesting that anti-osteoporosis treatments may affect NAFLD progression by impacting on its pathogenetic mechanisms. In the present review, we present on overview of the current understanding of the liver-bone cross talk and summarize the experimental and clinical evidence correlating NAFLD and osteoporosis, focusing on the possible effects of anti-osteoporotic drugs on NAFLD.

Romosozumab (RSB) is a monoclonal antibody to sclerostin that is approved for post-menopausal osteoporosis at high fracture risk. It is administered as a monthly 210 mg subcutaneous injection for 12 months. We report the response to half the standard dose of RSB in an underweight patient with severe osteoporosis and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Using half dose RSB (approximately 3 mg/kg RSB), she demonstrated significant improvement in lumbar spine BMD, paralleling the results of phase III trials. This case highlights the effectiveness of RSB in a patient with concomitant PBC, in addition to its effectiveness at half the recommended dose in an underweight patient.

Background/Objective: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a genetic disorder that affects type 1 collagen synthesis causing increased bone fragility, low bone mass, and skeletal deformity. Bisphosphonates are recommended for treatment of OI patients; however, the efficacy of sclerostin inhibitors such as romosozumab has not been determined in OI patients with osteoporosis. Case Report: A 52-year-old G2P2 clinically diagnosed with OI, with a history of multiple fractures beginning in childhood presented with low bone mass. On physical examination, blue sclera was observed. She was previously treated with alendronate therapy from April 2014 to June 2015 without significant improvement in bone mineral density (BMD). After the onset of menopause, she began romosozumab 210 mg subcutaneous therapy once a month for 12 months. Repeat dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry showed an increase of 10.3% in BMD of the spine and a 5.4% increase in BMD of the right hip. The trabecular bone score increased by 5.2%. Discussion: Current literature is limited regarding the use of sclerostin inhibitors in OI patients. Our patient’s improvement in BMD of the spine and right hip after romosozumab therapy was significant at a 95% confidence level, compared to treatment initiation. Her trabecular bone score also improved significantly. Six months into our patient’s treatment course, a case in Japan of a male with severe osteoporotic OI and recurrent fractures showed improvement in BMD after romosozumab therapy. Conclusion: This case highlights our patient’s significant response to romosozumab and warrants further investigation of romosozumab as a potential treatment option for OI patients with osteoporosis.

Abstract Osteoporosis is a systemic bone disease characterized by low bone mass, microarchitectural deterioration, increased bone fragility, and fracture susceptibility. It commonly occurs in older people, especially postmenopausal women. As global ageing increases, osteoporosis has become a global burden. There are a number of medications available for the treatment of osteoporosis, categorized as anabolic and anti-resorptive. Unfortunately, there is no drugs which have dual influence on bone, while all drugs have limitations and adverse events. Some serious adverse events include jaw osteonecrosis and atypical femoral fracture. Recently, a novel medication has appeared that challenges this pattern. Romosozumab is a novel drug monoclonal antibody to sclerostin encoded by the SOST gene. It has been used in Japan since 2019 and has achieved promising results in treating osteoporosis. However, it is also accompanied by some controversy. While it promotes rapid bone growth, it may cause serious adverse events such as cardiovascular diseases. There has been scepticism about the drug since its inception. Therefore, the present review comprehensively covered romosozumab from its inception to its clinical application, from animal studies to human studies, and from safety to cost. We hope to provide a better understanding of romosozumab for its clinical application.

This article, titled "Editorial: Immunological processes in maxillofacial bone pathology," emphasizes the importance of understanding immunological processes in the context of maxillofacial bone pathologies. The author argues that a thorough understanding of these processes is crucial for providing effective clinical care. The article highlights various diseases, such as periodontitis, periimplantitis, dry socket, osteomyelitis, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), which are caused and maintained by immunological processes. The author encourages researchers and clinicians to engage with this research topic, as it serves as a model for the success of translational medicine efforts. [Extracted from the article]

A 24-year-old female patient was diagnosed with osteoporosis after presenting with numerous fractures throughout her childhood and adolescence. Risk factors included chronic constipation, severe vitamin D deficiency, and long-term high-dose steroid use for severe eczema. Metabolic bone disorder clinical exome screening (limited panel of metabolic bone disorders and gastrointestinal disorders) was undertaken and revealed a class 4 likely pathogenic variant in the LRP5 gene known to cause osteoporosis. Optimal treatment for patients with this variant is not well defined. A literature review of the condition and potential treatment options is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]