Effects of self-reported age at nonsurgical menopause on time to first fracture and bone mineral density in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study.

Sullivan SD ，Lehman A ，Thomas F ，Johnson KC ，Jackson R ，Wactawski-Wende J ，Ko M ，Chen Z ，Curb JD ，Howard BV ... -  《-》

Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts (bone cells that break down bone tissue). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. To assess the benefits and harms of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively. We searched Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (which includes CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two trial registers, drug approval agency websites, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews to identify the studies included in this review. The latest search date was 01 February 2023. We imposed no restrictions on language, date, form of publication, or reported outcomes. We included only randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of alendronate on postmenopausal women. Targeted participants must have received at least one year of alendronate. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population met one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (-2.5 or lower), and 75 years old or older. If a study population met none of those criteria, we classified it as a primary prevention study. Our major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 tool. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Based on the previous review experience, in which the clinical and methodological characteristics in the primary and secondary prevention studies were homogeneous, we used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis and estimated effects using the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. Our base case analyses included all eligible placebo-controlled studies with usable data. We selected the data available for the longest treatment period. We consider a relative change exceeding 15% as clinically important. We included 119 studies, of which 102 studies provided data for quantitative synthesis. Of these, we classified 34 studies (15,188 participants) as primary prevention and 68 studies (29,577 participants) as secondary prevention. We had concerns about risks of bias in most studies. Selection bias was the most frequently overlooked domain, with only 20 studies (19%) describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Eight studies (8%) were at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The base case analyses included 16 primary prevention studies (one to five years in length; 10,057 women) and 20 secondary prevention studies (one to three years in length; 7375 women) which compared alendronate 10 mg/day (or 70 mg/week) to placebo, no treatment, or both. Indirectness, imprecision, and risk of bias emerged as the main factors contributing to the downgrading of the certainty of the evidence. For primary prevention, alendronate may lead to a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (16/1190 in the alendronate group versus 24/926 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.84; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 1.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence) and non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; ARR 1.6% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.3% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, clinically important differences were not observed for the following outcomes: hip fractures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; ARR 0.2% fewer, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 0.2% more; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.49; ARR 0.3% more, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 1.1% more; low-certainty evidence); withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; ARR 0.2% more, 95% CI 0.9% fewer to 1.5% more; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; ARR 0.5% more, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 2.8% more; low-certainty evidence). For secondary prevention, alendronate probably results in a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (24/1114 in the alendronate group versus 51/1055 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; ARR 2.7% fewer, 95% CI 3.5% fewer to 1.3% fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). It may lead to a clinically important reduction in non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; ARR 2.8% fewer, 95% CI 5.1% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); hip fractures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.96; ARR 1.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.5% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90; ARR 1.8% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96; ARR 3.5% fewer, 95% CI 5.8% fewer to 0.6% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, the effects of alendronate for withdrawals due to adverse events are uncertain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; ARR 0.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.7% fewer to 1.3% more; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, the updated evidence for the safety risks of alendronate suggests that, irrespective of participants' risk of fracture, alendronate may lead to little or no difference for gastrointestinal adverse events. Zero incidents of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture were observed. For primary prevention, compared to placebo, alendronate 10 mg/day may reduce clinical vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, but it might make little or no difference to hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. For secondary prevention, alendronate probably reduces clinical vertebral fractures, and may reduce non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, and serious adverse events, compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of alendronate on withdrawals due to adverse events. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. This review is an update of the previous review (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001155).

Wells GA ，Hsieh SC ，Peterson J ，Zheng C ，Kelly SE ，Shea B ，Tugwell P ... -  《-》

Romosozumab improves microarchitecture as assessed by tissue thickness-adjusted trabecular bone score in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Bone mineral density (BMD) is only one of several bone strength determinants affected by osteoporosis therapies. Trabecular Bone Score (TBS), a gray-level texture index determined from lumbar spine (LS) dual-X-ray absorptiometry scans, is an indirect measure of bone microarchitecture independent of and complementary to BMD and clinical risk factors. In the Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH), monthly subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg for 12 mo followed by 24-mo open-label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg (romosozumab-to-alendronate) significantly reduced fracture risk compared to 36-mo alendronate alone in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and prior fracture. This analysis evaluated tissue thickness-adjusted TBS (TBSTT) in a subgroup of patients from ARCH who had post-hoc TBS measurements at baseline and at least one post-baseline visit at months 12, 24, and 36. Baseline characteristics were similar between romosozumab-to-alendronate (n = 190) and alendronate alone (n = 188). Romosozumab led to significantly greater gains in TBSTT vs alendronate at month 12 (least squares mean difference, 3.6%), with greater gains maintained after transition to alendronate and persisting at months 24 (2.9%) and 36 (2.3%; all p<.001). Romosozumab-to-alendronate increased the percentage of individual patients with "normal" TBSTT from 28.9% at baseline to 48.1%, 43.9%, and 45.4% at months 12, 24, and 36, respectively, and decreased the percentage of individual patients with degraded TBSTT from 52.6% to 33.3%, 36.0%, and 33.5%, respectively (all p<.001). A similar but smaller trend was observed with alendronate alone from baseline through month 36 (p ≤.012). Changes in TBSTT and LS BMD were largely unrelated from baseline to month 12 (romosozumab-to-alendronate, r2 = 0.065; alendronate alone, r2 = 0.021) and month 36 (r2 = 0.058; r2 = 0.057, respectively). In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and prior fracture, 12-mo romosozumab followed by 24-mo alendronate significantly improved bone microarchitecture estimated by TBSTT more than 36-mo alendronate alone.

McClung MR ，Betah D ，Leder BZ ，Kendler DL ，Oates M ，Timoshanko J ，Wang Z ... -  《-》

The association between reproductive history and abdominal adipose tissue among postmenopausal women: results from the Women's Health Initiative.

What is the association between reproductive health history (e.g. age at menarche, menopause, reproductive lifespan) with abdominal adiposity in postmenopausal women? Higher visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) tissue levels were observed among women with earlier menarche, earlier menopause, and greater parity. Postmenopausal women are predisposed to accumulation of VAT and SAT. Reproductive health variables are known predictors of overall obesity status in women, defined by BMI. This study is a secondary analysis of data collected from the baseline visit of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI). The WHI is a large prospective study of postmenopausal women, including both a randomized trial and observational study. There were 10 184 women included in this analysis. Data were collected from a reproductive health history questionnaire, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and anthropometric measures at WHI baseline. Reproductive history was measured via self-report, and included age at menarche, variables related to pregnancy, and age at menopause. Reproductive lifespan was calculated as age at menopause minus age at menarche. Statistical analyses included descriptive analyses and multivariable linear regression models to examine the association between reproductive history with VAT, SAT, total body fat, and BMI. Women who reported early menarche (<10 years) or early menopause (<40 years) had the highest levels of VAT. Adjusted multivariable linear regression results demonstrate women who experienced menarche >15 years had 23 cm2 less VAT (95% CI: -31.4, -14.4) and 47 cm2 less SAT (95% CI: -61.8, -33.4) than women who experienced menarche at age 10 years or earlier. A similar pattern was observed for age at menopause: compared to women who experienced menopause <40 years, menopause at 50-55 years was associated with 19.3 cm2 (95% CI: -25.4, -13.3) less VAT and 27.4 cm2 (-29.6, 10.3) less SAT. High parity (>3 pregnancies) was also associated with VAT and SAT. For example, adjusted beta coefficients for VAT were 8.36 (4.33, 12.4) and 17.9 (12.6, 23.2) comparing three to four pregnancies with the referent, one to two pregnancies. The WHI reproductive health history questionnaire may be subject to poor recall owing to a long look-back window. Residual confounding may be present given lack of data on early life characteristics, such as maternal and pre-menarche characteristics. This study contributes to our understanding of reproductive lifespan, including menarche and menopause, as an important predictor of late-life adiposity in women. Reproductive health has also been recognized as a sentinel marker for chronic disease in late life. Given established links between adiposity and cardiometabolic outcomes, this research has implications for future research, clinical practice, and public health policy that makes use of reproductive health history as an opportunity for chronic disease prevention. HRB and AOO are supported by the National Institute of Health National Institute of Aging (R01AG055018-04). JWB reports royalties from 'ACSM'S Body Composition Assessment Book' and consulting fees from the WHI. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare. N/A.

Banack HR ，Cook CE ，Grandi SM ，Scime NV ，Andary R ，Follis S ，Allison M ，Manson JE ，Jung SY ，Wild RA ，Farland LV ，Shadyab AH ，Bea JW ，Odegaard AO ... -  《-》

Are There Differences in Performance Among Femoral Stem Brands Utilized in Cementless Hemiarthroplasty for Treatment of Geriatric Femoral Neck Fractures?

For the vast majority of displaced femoral neck fractures in older patients, cemented femoral fixation is indicated because it is associated with a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than cementless fixation. Nevertheless, cementless fixation continues to be utilized with high frequency for hip fractures in the United States. It is therefore helpful to understand the performance of individual cementless brands and models. Although prior studies have compared femoral stems by design type or stem geometry, there may still be a difference in revision risk according to femoral stem brand given the potential differences within design groupings with regard to manufacturing, implantation systems, and implant design nuances among vendors. (1) Is there a difference in aseptic revision risk among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age who have displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? (2) Is there a difference in revision for periprosthetic fracture among femoral stem brands in patients ≥ 60 years of age with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with cementless hemiarthroplasty? A retrospective, comparative, large-database cohort study was conducted using data from Kaiser Permanente's Hip Fracture Registry. This integrated healthcare system covers more than 12 million members throughout eight regions in the United States; membership has been found to be representative of the general population in the areas served. The Hip Fracture Registry collects details on all patients who undergo hip fracture repair within the organization. These patients are then longitudinally monitored for outcomes after their repair, and all identified outcomes are manually validated through chart review. Patients ages ≥ 60 years who underwent unilateral hemiarthroplasty treatment of a displaced femoral neck fracture from 2009 to 2021 were identified (n = 22,248). Hemiarthroplasties for polytrauma, pathologic or open fractures, or patients who had additional surgeries at other body sites during the same stay, as well as those with prior procedures in the same hip, were excluded (21.4% [4768]). Cemented procedures and those with missing or inconsistent implant information (for example, cement used but cementless implant recorded) were further excluded (47.1% [10,485]). To allow for enough events for evaluation, the study sample was restricted to seven stems for which there were at least 300 hemiarthroplasties performed, including four models from DePuy Synthes (Corail®, Summit®, Summit Basic, and Tri-Lock®) and three from Zimmer Biomet (Medial-Lateral [M/L] Taper®, Trabecular Metal®, and Versys® Low Demand Fracture [LD/FX]). The final sample included 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties: 653 Corail, 402 M/L Taper, 1699 Summit, 1590 Summit Basic, 384 Tri-Lock, 637 Trabecular Metal, and 311 Versys LD/FX. Procedures were performed by 396 surgeons at 35 hospitals. The mean age and BMI for the cohort was 81 years and 24 kg/m 2 , respectively; most were women (66% [3733 of 5676]) and White (79% [4488 of 5676]). Based on standardized mean differences, we controlled for age, race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, anesthesia technique, operative year, average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume, and operative year across the seven stem groups. Of the 5676 patients, 7% (378 of 5676) were lost to follow-up through membership termination at a median time of 1.6 years, and 56% (3194 of 5676) of the patients died during study follow-up. A multivariable cause-specific Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the risk for aseptic revision with adjustment for age, gender, ASA classification, depression, operating surgeon, deficiency anemias, time from admission to surgery, and average annual surgeon hemiarthroplasty volume. A random intercept was included to address effects from hemiarthroplasties performed by the same surgeon. Risk for revision for periprosthetic fracture was also evaluated as a secondary outcome. In the adjusted analysis, the Summit Basic (HR 1.91 [95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.72]; p < 0.001), the M/L Taper (HR 1.91 [95% CI 1.15 to 3.15]; p = 0.01), and the Versys LD/FX (HR 2.12 [95% CI 1.25 to 3.61]; p = 0.005) had higher aseptic revision risks during follow-up when compared with the Summit. No differences were observed for the Corail (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.10]; p = 0.09), the Tri-Lock (HR 1.13 [95% CI 0.62 to 2.07]; p = 0.68), or the Trabecular Metal (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.69 to 1.89]; p = 0.61) compared with the Summit. A higher risk for revision because of periprosthetic fracture was observed with the M/L Taper (HR 2.43 [95% CI 1.29 to 4.58]; p = 0.006) and the Summit Basic (within 3 months of follow-up: HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.60 to 2.25]; p = 0.66; after 3 months of follow-up: HR 2.84 [95% CI 1.36 to 5.94]; p = 0.006) stems when compared with the Summit. In a cohort of 5676 cementless hemiarthroplasties, we found differences in revision risks among different femoral stem brands. Based on our findings, we recommend against utilization of the Zimmer M/L Taper, DePuy Summit Basic, and Zimmer Versys LD/FX in the treatment of displaced geriatric femoral neck fractures with cementless hemiarthroplasty. Future large registry studies are needed to further elucidate differences in aseptic revision risk among higher performing cementless femoral stems. Although cemented fixation remains the recommended approach based on the best available evidence in hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fractures, our findings may help to mitigate aseptic revision risk should cementless fixation be chosen. Level III, therapeutic study.

Shah I ，Prentice HA ，Okike K ，Navarro RA ，Fasig BH ，Paxton EW ，Grimsrud CD ... -  《-》