SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

To the Editor:

Rosen et al.(1) have made the important point that it is important to compare the efficacy of treatments for osteoporosis in head-to-head studies. They claim that this cannot be done with fracture as the primary endpoint, because it would require samples sizes of around 50,000. The alternative is to compare changes in BMD and bone turnover markers. This is an attractive alternative, but we have learned a lot about the use of these surrogates in the last few years, and so the interpretation of this paper needs further consideration. The first issue is that the change in bone turnover markers is at least as informative as the change in BMD.(2) The authors have focused their analyses on change in BMD. The second is that the relationship between change in these surrogates and fracture risk is not linear; for BMD, a gain of up to 3% is associated with the same fracture risk reduction as a gain of >3%(3,4); for bone turnover markers, there may be no further benefit from further suppression of NTx/Cr <40%.(2) The authors have evaluated various BMD cut-points but not the cut-points in bone turnover markers. The third issue is that suppression of bone turnover with antiresorptive therapy may result in the accumulation of microcracks and a decrease in the toughness of bone.(5) The fourth issue is that, although alendronate showed significant increases in BMD and significant decreases in bone turnover markers compared with risedronate, the number of fractures observed were greater (26 fractures for alendronate versus 20 fractures for risedronate) and is in contrast with the hypotheses by Hochberg et al.(6)

We examined the baseline and follow-up study of our own publication and expressed the bone turnover marker in relation to the premenopausal reference interval. The latter requires logarithmic transformation of the NTx/Cr results. We noted that, before therapy, the majority of patients from the VERT study had results above this interval or were in the upper one-half of the reference interval (less than T score = −2, between T score = −2 and 0, between T score = 0 and 2, and more than T score = 2 were 0%, 11%, 62%, and 27%, respectively; Fig. 1). The results obtained after 3-6 months of risedronate (5 mg/day) and calcium (1000 mg/day) indicate that the results fall mainly into the lower one-half of the reference interval, although there are a few patients with values below the reference interval and a few with values in the upper one-half of the reference interval (less than T score = −2, between T score = −2 and 0, between T score = 0 and 2, and more than T score = 2 were 7%, 63%, 28%, and 2%, respectively).

thumbnail image

Figure FIG. 1.. The levels of the bone resorption marker NTx/Cr after logarithmic transformation and in actual units (nmol BCE/mmol creatinine) in all women (A) at baseline and (B) after 3-6 months. The light shaded area represents the lower one-half and the dark shaded area represents the upper one-half of the premenopausal reference interval.

Download figure to PowerPoint

We would like to know what proportion of women in the FACT study after 3-6 months had values below the reference interval for premenopausal women (17 nmol BCE/mmol creatinine in our study). These subjects may have “oversuppression” of bone turnover. Furthermore, we would like to know whether the calcium and vitamin D was commenced before the initial samples for bone turnover markers. Such a supplementation usually decreases bone resorption markers by 10-20% within a few weeks and, if so, would explain why the baseline levels of urinary NTx are rather low in the FACT study.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Rosen CJ, Hochberg MC, Bonnick SL, McClung MR, Miller P, Broy S, Kagan R, Chen E, Petruschke RA, Thompson DE, de Papp DE 2005 Treatment with once-weekly alendronate 70 mg compared to once-weekly risedronate 35 mg in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: A randomized, double-blind study. J Bone Miner Res 20: 141151.
  • 2
    Eastell R, Barton I, Hannon RA, Chines A, Garnero P, Delmas PD 2003 Relationship of early changes in bone resorption to the reduction in fracture risk with risedronate. J Bone Miner Res 18: 10511056.
  • 3
    Hochberg MC, Ross PD, Black D, Cummings SR, Genant HK, Nevitt MC, Barrett-Connor E, Musliner T, Thompson D 1999 Larger increases in bone mineral density during alendronate therapy are associated with a lower risk of new vertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Arthritis Rheum 42: 12461254.
  • 4
    Watts NB, Cooper C, Lindsay R, Eastell R, Manhart MD, Barton IP, van Staa TP, Adachi JD 2004 Relationship between changes in bone mineral density and vertebral fracture risk associated with risedronate: Greater increases in bone mineral density do not relate to greater decreases in fracture risk. J Clin Densitom 7: 255261.
  • 5
    Mashiba T, Hirano T, Turner CH, Forwood MR, Johnston CC, Burr DB 2000 Suppressed bone turnover by bisphosphonates increases microdamage accumulation and reduces some biomechanical properties in dog rib. J Bone Miner Res 15: 613620.
  • 6
    Hochberg MC, Greenspan S, Wasnich RD, Miller P, Thompson DE, Ross PD 2002 Changes in bone density and turnover explain the reductions in incidence of nonvertebral fractures that occur during treatment with antiresorptive agents. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87: 15861592.