Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inhibits sclerostin, increases bone formation, and decreases bone resorption. We enrolled 4093 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and a fragility fracture and randomly assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to receive monthly subcutaneous romosozumab (210 mg) or weekly oral alendronate (70 mg) in a blinded fashion for 12 months, followed by open-label alendronate in both groups. The primary end points were the cumulative incidence of new vertebral fracture at 24 months and the cumulative incidence of clinical fracture (nonvertebral and symptomatic vertebral fracture) at the time of the primary analysis (after clinical fractures had been confirmed in ≥330 patients). Secondary end points included the incidences of nonvertebral and hip fracture at the time of the primary analysis. Serious cardiovascular adverse events, osteonecrosis of the jaw, and atypical femoral fractures were adjudicated. Over a period of 24 months, a 48% lower risk of new vertebral fractures was observed in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group (6.2% [127 of 2046 patients]) than in the alendronate-to-alendronate group (11.9% [243 of 2047 patients]) (P<0.001). Clinical fractures occurred in 198 of 2046 patients (9.7%) in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group versus 266 of 2047 patients (13.0%) in the alendronate-to-alendronate group, representing a 27% lower risk with romosozumab (P<0.001). The risk of nonvertebral fractures was lower by 19% in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group than in the alendronate-to-alendronate group (178 of 2046 patients [8.7%] vs. 217 of 2047 patients [10.6%]; P=0.04), and the risk of hip fracture was lower by 38% (41 of 2046 patients [2.0%] vs. 66 of 2047 patients [3.2%]; P=0.02). Overall adverse events and serious adverse events were balanced between the two groups. During year 1, positively adjudicated serious cardiovascular adverse events were observed more often with romosozumab than with alendronate (50 of 2040 patients [2.5%] vs. 38 of 2014 patients [1.9%]). During the open-label alendronate period, adjudicated events of osteonecrosis of the jaw (1 event each in the romosozumab-to-alendronate and alendronate-to-alendronate groups) and atypical femoral fracture (2 events and 4 events, respectively) were observed. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who were at high risk for fracture, romosozumab treatment for 12 months followed by alendronate resulted in a significantly lower risk of fracture than alendronate alone. (Funded by Amgen and others; ARCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01631214.)

: This work provides a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2014 pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and offers recommendations for its management based on multidisciplinary international consensus. ONJ is associated with oncology-dose parenteral antiresorptive therapy of bisphosphonates (BP) and denosumab (Dmab). The incidence of ONJ is greatest in the oncology patient population (1% to 15%), where high doses of these medications are used at frequent intervals. In the osteoporosis patient population, the incidence of ONJ is estimated at 0.001% to 0.01%, marginally higher than the incidence in the general population (<0.001%). New insights into the pathophysiology of ONJ include antiresorptive effects of BPs and Dmab, effects of BPs on gamma delta T-cells and on monocyte and macrophage function, as well as the role of local bacterial infection, inflammation, and necrosis. Advances in imaging include the use of cone beam computerized tomography assessing cortical and cancellous architecture with lower radiation exposure, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scanning, and positron emission tomography, although plain films often suffice. Other risk factors for ONJ include glucocorticoid use, maxillary or mandibular bone surgery, poor oral hygiene, chronic inflammation, diabetes mellitus, ill-fitting dentures, as well as other drugs, including antiangiogenic agents. Prevention strategies for ONJ include elimination or stabilization of oral disease prior to initiation of antiresorptive agents, as well as maintenance of good oral hygiene. In those patients at high risk for the development of ONJ, including cancer patients receiving high-dose BP or Dmab therapy, consideration should be given to withholding antiresorptive therapy following extensive oral surgery until the surgical site heals with mature mucosal coverage. Management of ONJ is based on the stage of the disease, size of the lesions, and the presence of contributing drug therapy and comorbidity. Conservative therapy includes topical antibiotic oral rinses and systemic antibiotic therapy. Localized surgical debridement is indicated in advanced nonresponsive disease and has been successful. Early data have suggested enhanced osseous wound healing with teriparatide in those without contraindications for its use. Experimental therapy includes bone marrow stem cell intralesional transplantation, low-level laser therapy, local platelet-derived growth factor application, hyperbaric oxygen, and tissue grafting. © 2014 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research © 2014 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

Asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is routinely encountered in clinical practices of endocrinology throughout the world. This report distills an update of current information about diagnostics, clinical features, and management of this disease into a set of revised guidelines. Participants, representing an international constituency, with interest and expertise in various facets of asymptomatic PHPT constituted four Workshop Panels that developed key questions to be addressed. They then convened in an open 3-day conference September 19-21, 2013, in Florence, Italy, when a series of presentations and discussions addressed these questions. A smaller subcommittee, the Expert Panel, then met in closed session to reach an evidence-based consensus on how to address the questions and data that were aired in the open forum. Preceding the conference, each question was addressed by a relevant, extensive literature search. All presentations and deliberations of the Workshop Panels and the Expert Panel were based upon the latest information gleaned from this literature search. The expert panel considered all the evidence provided by the individual Workshop Panels and then came to consensus. In view of new findings since the last International Workshop on the Management of Asymptomatic PHPT, guidelines for management have been revised. The revised guidelines include: 1) recommendations for more extensive evaluation of the skeletal and renal systems; 2) skeletal and/or renal involvement as determined by further evaluation to become part of the guidelines for surgery; and 3) more specific guidelines for monitoring those who do not meet guidelines for parathyroid surgery. These guidelines should help endocrinologists and surgeons caring for patients with PHPT. A blueprint for future research is proposed to foster additional investigation into issues that remain uncertain or controversial.

Sarcopenia is increasingly recognized as a correlate of ageing and is associated with increased likelihood of adverse outcomes including falls, fractures, frailty and mortality. Several tools have been recommended to assess muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance in clinical trials. Whilst these tools have proven to be accurate and reliable in investigational settings, many are not easily applied to daily practice. This paper is based on literature reviews performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face-to-face meetings were afterwards organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations. This paper proposes some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be used to assess sarcopenia in real-life settings. Healthcare providers, particularly in primary care, should consider an assessment of sarcopenia in individuals at increased risk; suggested tools for assessing risk include the Red Flag Method, the SARC-F questionnaire, the SMI method or different prediction equations. Management of sarcopenia should primarily be patient centered and involve the combination of both resistance and endurance based activity programmes with or without dietary interventions. Development of a number of pharmacological interventions is also in progress. Assessment of sarcopenia in individuals with risk factors, symptoms and/or conditions exposing them to the risk of disability will become particularly important in the near future.

Background: All proposed definitions of sarcopenia include the measurement of muscle mass, but the techniques and threshold values used vary. Indeed, the literature does not establish consensus on the best technique for measuring lean body mass. Thus, the objective measurement of sarcopenia is hampered by limitations intrinsic to assessment tools. The aim of this study was to review the methods to assess muscle mass and to reach consensus on the development of a reference standard.Methods: Literature reviews were performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face‐to‐face meetings were organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations.Results: A wide range of techniques can be used to assess muscle mass. Cost, availability, and ease of use can determine whether the techniques are better suited to clinical practice or are more useful for research. No one technique subserves all requirements but dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry could be considered as a reference standard (but not a gold standard) for measuring muscle lean body mass.Conclusions: Based on the feasibility, accuracy, safety, and low cost, dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry can be considered as the reference standard for measuring muscle mass.