Seeman, Ego

ImportanceFalls and fractures are frequent and deleterious to the health of older people. Aspirin has been reported to reduce bone fragility and slow bone loss.ObjectiveTo determine if daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) reduces the risk of fractures or serious falls (fall-related hospital presentations) in healthy older men and women.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis substudy of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial studied older adult men and women in 16 major sites across southeastern Australia. The ASPREE-FRACTURE substudy was conducted as part of the Australian component of the ASPREE trial. Between 2010 and 2014 healthy (free of cardiovascular disease, dementia or physical disability), community-dwelling volunteers aged 70 years or older were recruited to participate in the ASPREE trial. Potentially eligible participants were identified by medical practitioners and trial personnel and were then sent a letter of invitation to participate. Interested participants were screened for suitability. Eligible participants with medical practitioner authorization and adherent to a 4-week run-in medication trial were randomized. Data were analyzed from October 17, 2019, to August 31, 2022.InterventionsParticipants in the intervention group received a daily dose of oral 100 mg enteric-coated (low-dose) aspirin. The control group received a daily identical enteric-coated placebo tablet.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome of ASPREE-FRACTURE was the occurrence of any fracture. The secondary outcome was serious fall resulting in hospital presentation.ResultsIn total, 16 703 people with a median (IQR) age of 74 (72-78) years were recruited, and 9179 (55.0%) were women. There were 8322 intervention participants and 8381 control participants included in the primary and secondary outcome analysis of 2865 fractures and 1688 serious falls over the median follow-up of 4.6 years. While there was no difference in the risk of first fracture between the intervention and control participants (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.06; P = .50), aspirin was associated with a higher risk of serious falls (total falls 884 vs 804; incidence rate ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.33; P = .01). Results remained unchanged in analyses that adjusted for covariates known to influence fracture and fall risk.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this substudy of a randomized clinical trial, the failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce the risk of fractures while increasing the risk of serious falls adds to evidence that this agent provides little favorable benefit in a healthy, White older adult population.Trial RegistrationThis substudy is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000347561).

AbstractAbsolute values of cortical porosity and trabecular density are used to estimate fracture risk, but these values are the net result of their growth‐related assembly and age‐related deterioration. Because bone loss affects both cortical and trabecular bone, we hypothesized that a surrogate measure of bone fragility should capture the age‐related deterioration of both traits, and should do so independently of their peak values. Accordingly, we developed a structural fragility score (SFS), which quantifies the increment in distal radial cortical porosity and decrement in trabecular density relative to their premenopausal mean values in 99 postmenopausal women with forearm fractures and 105 controls using HR‐pQCT. We expressed the results as odds ratios (ORs; 95% CI). Cortical porosity was associated with fractures in the presence of deteriorated trabecular density (OR 2.30; 95% CI, 1.30 to 4.05; p = 0.004), but not if trabecular deterioration was absent (OR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.86; p = 0.91). Likewise, trabecular density was associated with fractures in the presence of high cortical porosity (OR 3.35; 95% CI, 1.85 to 6.07; p < 0.0001), but not in its absence (OR 1.60; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.28; p = 0.20). The SFS, which captures coexisting cortical and trabecular deterioration, was associated with fractures (OR 4.52; 95% CI, 2.17 to 9.45; p < 0.0001). BMD was associated with fracture before accounting for the SFS (OR 5.79; 95% CI, 1.24 to 27.1; p = 0.026), not after (OR 4.38; 95% CI, 0.48 to 39.9; p = 0.19). The SFS was associated with fracture before (OR 4.67; 95% CI, 2.21 to 9.88) and after (OR 3.94; 95% CI, 1.80 to 8.6) accounting for BMD (both ps < 0.0001). The disease of bone fragility is captured by cortical and trabecular deterioration: A measurement of coexisting cortical and trabecular deterioration is likely to identify women at risk for fracture more robustly than absolute values of cortical porosity, trabecular density, or BMD. © 2018 The Authors. JBMR Plus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Background Disability, mortality and healthcare burden from fractures in older people is a growing problem worldwide. Observational studies suggest that aspirin may reduce fracture risk. While these studies provide room for optimism, randomised controlled trials are needed. This paper describes the rationale and design of the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE)-Fracture substudy, which aims to determine whether daily low-dose aspirin decreases fracture risk in healthy older people. Methods ASPREE is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial designed to assess whether daily active treatment using low-dose aspirin extends the duration of disability-free and dementia-free life in 19 000 healthy older people recruited from Australian and US community settings. This substudy extends the ASPREE trial data collection to determine the effect of daily low-dose aspirin on fracture and fall-related hospital presentation risk in the 16 500 ASPREE participants aged ≥70 years recruited in Australia. The intervention is a once daily dose of enteric-coated aspirin (100 mg) versus a matching placebo, randomised on a 1:1 basis. The primary outcome for this substudy is the occurrence of any fracture—vertebral, hip and non-vert-non-hip—occurring post randomisation. Fall-related hospital presentations are a secondary outcome. Discussion This substudy will determine whether a widely available, simple and inexpensive health intervention—aspirin—reduces the risk of fractures in older Australians. If it is demonstrated to safely reduce the risk of fractures and serious falls, it is possible that aspirin might provide a means of fracture prevention. Trial registration number The protocol for this substudy is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000347561).

Abstract The intensity of bone remodeling is a critical determinant of the decay of cortical and trabecular microstructure after menopause. Denosumab suppresses remodeling more than alendronate, leading to greater gains in areal bone mineral density (aBMD). These greater gains may reflect differing effects of each drug on bone microarchitecture and strength. In a phase 2 double-blind pilot study, 247 postmenopausal women were randomized to denosumab (60 mg subcutaneous 6 monthly), alendronate (70 mg oral weekly), or placebo for 12 months. All received daily calcium and vitamin D. Morphologic changes were assessed using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) at the distal radius and distal tibia and QCT at the distal radius. Denosumab decreased serum C-telopeptide more rapidly and markedly than alendronate. In the placebo arm, total, cortical, and trabecular BMD and cortical thickness decreased (−2.1% to −0.8%) at the distal radius after 12 months. Alendronate prevented the decline (−0.6% to 2.4%, p = .051 to &lt;.001 versus placebo), whereas denosumab prevented the decline or improved these variables (0.3% to 3.4%, p &lt; .001 versus placebo). Changes in total and cortical BMD were greater with denosumab than with alendronate (p ≤ .024). Similar changes in these parameters were observed at the tibia. The polar moment of inertia also increased more in the denosumab than alendronate or placebo groups (p &lt; .001). Adverse events did not differ by group. These data suggest that structural decay owing to bone remodeling and progression of bone fragility may be prevented more effectively with denosumab. © 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract Global aging superimposed on existing infectious diseases and trauma will aggravate competition for health care resources to diagnose and treat osteoporosis. Efforts to implement public health measures are needed, but the targeted approach to assessment and treatment of high-risk individuals must also be refined. Increases in the elderly population worldwide will cause a dramatic rise in osteoporotic fractures, but other age-related diseases will increase as well. Changes will be superimposed on existing public health problems (e.g., malaria, alcoholism), and these acute health care needs will take priority in some areas. Societies in most parts of the world may have to limit osteoporosis control to broad public health measures, and such efforts (e.g., calcium and vitamin D supplementation) should be supported. In these regions, clinical decision-making will generally be limited to treating patients with fractures (who presumably have already failed any public health measures in place), or in a few wealthy countries, to patients with low bone density identified by case-finding. Case-finding approaches will vary with the resources available, although unselective (mass) screening by bone densitometry is largely ineffective and unaffordable anywhere. The key to clinical decision-making on behalf of individuals will be an assessment of absolute fracture risk, and the tools needed to predict the risk of an osteoporotic fracture over the next 10 years are now being developed. These include bone density measures, but also incorporate other risk factors (e.g., fracture history, corticosteroid use), which may allow extension of fracture risk prediction to nonwhite populations and to men. Even with a universal risk prediction tool, cost-effective treatment thresholds will vary by country based on the level of fracture risk in the region and on the resources available for health care. To better compete for these resources, efforts should be made to lower the cost of osteoporosis interventions. Additionally, evidence is needed that these interventions are really effective in reducing fractures in the community.