Bauer, Douglas C.

ABSTRACT The surrogate threshold effect (STE) is defined as the minimum treatment effect on a surrogate that is reliably predictive of a treatment effect on the clinical outcome. It provides a framework for implementing a clinical trial with a surrogate endpoint. The aim of this study was to update our previous analysis by validating the STE for change in total hip (TH) BMD as a surrogate for fracture risk reduction; the novelty of this study was this validation. To do so, we used individual patient data from 61,415 participants in 16 RCTs that evaluated bisphosphonates (nine trials), selective estrogen receptor modulators (four trials), denosumab (one trial), odanacatib (one trial), and teriparatide (one trial) to estimate trial-specific treatment effects on TH BMD and all, vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral fractures. We then conducted a random effects meta-regression of the log relative fracture risk reduction against 24-month change in TH BMD, and computed the STE as the intersection of the upper 95% prediction limit of this regression with the line of no fracture reduction. We validated the STE by checking whether the number of fractures in each trial provided 80% power and determining what proportion of trials with BMD changes ≥ STE reported significant reductions in fracture risk. We applied this analysis to (i) the trials on which we estimated the STE; and (ii) trials on which we did not estimate the STE. We found that the STEs for all, vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral fractures were 1.83%, 1.42%, 3.18%, and 2.13%, respectively. Among trials used to estimate STE, 27 of 28 were adequately powered, showed BMD effects exceeding the STE, and showed significant reductions in fracture risk. Among the validation set of 11 trials, 10 met these criteria. Thus STE differs by fracture type and has been validated in trials not used to develop the approach. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

ABSTRACTLarge‐scale studies have not addressed the knowledge level of US resident physicians regarding osteoporosis management. We gauged the knowledge level of family medicine, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians regarding osteoporosis management. In 2019, we sent an anonymous survey via e‐mail to all program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited residency programs in family medicine, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology for distribution to resident physicians. Knowledge items assessed osteoporosis screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We received responses from 182 family medicine, 275 internal medicine, and 122 obstetrics and gynecology programs. Of 582 resident physician respondents, 31% were family medicine residents, 47% were internal medicine residents, and 21% were obstetrics and gynecology residents. Although 77% of respondents correctly selected the T‐score threshold for the diagnosis of osteoporosis among persons aged 50 years and older (−2.5), only 20% of respondents correctly identified minimal‐trauma hip fracture as being diagnostic of osteoporosis. One‐third of respondents correctly identified which medications were demonstrated in clinical trials to decrease hip fracture risk. Fifteen percent of respondents correctly identified that denosumab and alendronate are associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw; and 40% of respondents correctly identified that decline in bone density is more rapid after discontinuation of denosumab than after discontinuation of bisphosphonates. Less than half of resident physicians knew that bisphosphonate‐associated atypical femoral fractures are duration‐dependent. One‐quarter of respondents felt not at all prepared to manage osteoporosis. In this nationwide survey of resident physicians, knowledge regarding osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment was poor, with a striking lack of knowledge regarding the two most serious adverse effects of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy (osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures). The undertreatment of osteoporosis is unlikely to improve without increased education of resident physicians. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

ABSTRACT Few analyses of antiresorptive (AR) treatment trials relate short-term changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs) to subsequent fracture reduction seeking to estimate the proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE) by BTMs. Pooling such information would be useful to assess new ARs or novel dosing regimens. In the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) Bone Quality project, we analyzed individual-level data from up to 62,000 participants enrolled in 12 bisphosphonate (BP) and four selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) placebo-controlled fracture endpoint trials. Using BTM results for two bone formation markers (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [bone ALP] and pro-collagen I N-propeptide [PINP]) and one bone resorption marker (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [CTX]) and incident fracture outcome data, we estimated the PTE using two different models. Separate analyses were performed for incident morphometric vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures over 1 to 5 years of follow-up. For vertebral fracture, the results showed that changes in all three BTMs at 6 months explained a large proportion of the treatment effect of ARs (57 to >100%), but not for and non-vertebral or hip fracture. We conclude that short-term AR treatment-related changes in bone ALP, PINP, and CTX account for a large proportion of the treatment effect for vertebral fracture. Change in BTMs is a useful surrogate marker to study the anti-fracture efficacy of new AR compounds or novel dosing regiments with approved AR drugs. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

ABSTRACT Osteoporosis is a chronic condition that reflects reduced bone strength and an associated increased risk for fracture. As a chronic condition, osteoporosis generally requires sustained medical intervention(s) to limit the risks for additional bone loss, compromise of skeletal integrity, and fracture occurrence. Further complicating this issue is the fact that the abrupt cessation of some therapies can be associated with an increased risk for harm. It is in this context that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented disruption to the provision of health care globally, including near universal requirements for social distancing. In this Perspective, we provide evidence, where available, regarding the general care of patients with osteoporosis in the COVID-19 era and provide clinical recommendations based primarily on expert opinion when data are absent. Particular emphasis is placed on the transition from parenteral osteoporosis therapies. It is hoped that these recommendations can be used to safely guide care for patients with osteoporosis until a return to routine clinical care standards is available. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

ABSTRACT Vertebral augmentation is among the current standards of care to reduce pain in patients with vertebral fractures (VF), yet a lack of consensus regarding efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty raises questions on what basis clinicians should choose one therapy over another. Given the lack of consensus in the field, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) leadership charged this Task Force to address key questions on the efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation and other nonpharmacological approaches for the treatment of pain after VF. This report details the findings and recommendations of this Task Force. For patients with acutely painful VF, percutaneous vertebroplasty provides no demonstrable clinically significant benefit over placebo. Results did not differ according to duration of pain. There is also insufficient evidence to support kyphoplasty over nonsurgical management, percutaneous vertebroplasty, vertebral body stenting, or KIVA®. There is limited evidence to determine the risk of incident VF or serious adverse effects (AE) related to either percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. No recommendation can be made about harms, but they cannot be excluded. For patients with painful VF, it is unclear whether spinal bracing improves physical function, disability, or quality of life. Exercise may improve mobility and may reduce pain and fear of falling but does not reduce falls or fractures in individuals with VF. General and intervention-specific research recommendations stress the need to reduce study bias and address methodological flaws in study design and data collection. This includes the need for larger sample sizes, inclusion of a placebo control, more data on serious AE, and more research on nonpharmacologic interventions. Routine use of vertebral augmentation is not supported by current evidence. When it is offered, patients should be fully informed about the evidence. Anti-osteoporotic medications reduce the risk of subsequent vertebral fractures by 40–70%. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

ABSTRACT Few pooled analyses of antiresorptive (AR) treatment trials relate short-term changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs) to subsequent fracture reduction. Such information would be useful to assess new ARs or novel dosing regimens. In the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) Bone Quality project, we analyzed individual-level data from 28,000 participants enrolled in 11 bisphosphonate (BP) and three selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) placebo-controlled fracture endpoint trials. Using BTM results for two bone formation markers (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase [bone ALP] and pro-collagen I N-propeptide [PINP]) and two bone resorption markers (N-terminal and C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) and incident fracture outcome data, we performed a meta-regression relating the mean net effect of treatment on change in bone turnover (active minus placebo % difference after 3 to 12 months) to the log of study-wide fracture risk reduction, and used linear regression to plot the best fitting line. Separate analyses were performed for incident morphometric vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures over 1 to 4 years of follow-up. Change in bone ALP and PINP were available for over 16,000 and 10,000 participants, respectively. For vertebral fracture, the results showed a strong relationship between treatment-related bone ALP or PINP changes and vertebral fracture risk reduction (r2 = 0.82 [p < 0.001] and r2 = 0.75 [p = 0.011], respectively) Relationships were weaker and no longer statistically significant for nonvertebral (r2 = 0.33 [p = 0.053] and r2 = 0.53 [p = 0.065], respectively) and hip fracture (r2 = 0.17 [p = 0.24] and r2 = 0.43 [p = 0.11], respectively) outcomes. Analyses limited to BP trials gave similar results. For all fracture types, relationships were weaker and nonsignificant for bone resorption markers. We conclude that short-term AR treatment-related changes in bone ALP and PINP strongly predict vertebral fracture treatment efficacy, but not nonvertebral or hip fracture treatment efficacy. Change in bone formation markers might be useful to predict the anti-vertebral fracture efficacy of new AR compounds or novel dosing regiments with approved AR drugs. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.