The adult skeleton is renewed by remodeling throughout life. Bone remodeling is a process where osteoclasts and osteoblasts work sequentially in the same bone remodeling unit. After the attainment of peak bone mass, bone remodeling is balanced and bone mass is stable for one or two decades until age-related bone loss begins. Age-related bone loss is caused by increases in resorptive activity and reduced bone formation. The relative importance of cortical remodeling increases with age as cancellous bone is lost and remodeling activity in both compartments increases. Bone modeling describes the process whereby bones are shaped or reshaped by the independent action of osteoblast and osteoclasts. The activities of osteoblasts and osteoclasts are not necessarily coupled anatomically or temporally. Bone modeling defines skeletal development and growth but continues throughout life. Modeling-based bone formation contributes to the periosteal expansion, just as remodeling-based resorption is responsible for the medullary expansion seen at the long bones with aging. Existing and upcoming treatments affect remodeling as well as modeling. Teriparatide stimulates bone formation, 70% of which is remodeling based and 20–30% is modeling based. The vast majority of modeling represents overflow from remodeling units rather than de novo modeling. Denosumab inhibits bone remodeling but is permissive for modeling at cortex. Odanacatib inhibits bone resorption by inhibiting cathepsin K activity, whereas modeling-based bone formation is stimulated at periosteal surfaces. Inhibition of sclerostin stimulates bone formation and histomorphometric analysis demonstrated that bone formation is predominantly modeling based. The bone-mass response to some osteoporosis treatments in humans certainly suggests that nonremodeling mechanisms contribute to this response and bone modeling may be such a mechanism. To date, this has only been demonstrated for teriparatide, however, it is clear that rediscovering a phenomenon that was first observed more half a century ago will have an important impact on our understanding of how new antifracture treatments work.

Context: Denosumab discontinuation is characterized by an increase in bone turnover overriding pretreatment status, a rapid bone loss in the majority and multiple vertebral fractures (VFx) in some patients. Methods: A working group of the European Calcified Tissue Society performed an updated systematic review of existing literature on changes of bone turnover, bone mineral density (BMD), and fracture risk after denosumab discontinuation and provided advice on management based on expert opinion. Results: Important risk factors for multiple VFx following denosumab cessation are prevalent VFx, longer duration off therapy, greater gain in hip BMD during therapy, and greater loss of hip BMD after therapy according to a retrospective analysis of the FREEDOM Extension Study. Case series indicate that prior bisphosphonate therapy mitigates the biochemical rebound phenomenon after denosumab discontinuation, but it is uncertain whether this attenuation prevents BMD loss and fractures. Current evidence indicates partial efficacy of subsequent antiresorptive treatment with results seemingly dependent on duration of denosumab treatment. Conclusions: A careful assessment of indications to start denosumab treatment is advised, especially for younger patients. A case for long-term treatment with denosumab can be made for patients at high fracture risk already on denosumab treatment given the favorable efficacy and safety profile. In case of denosumab discontinuation, alternative antiresorptive treatment should be initiated 6 months after the final denosumab injection. Assessment of bone turnover markers may help define the optimal regimen, pending results of ongoing randomized controlled trials. Patients who have sustained VFx should be offered prompt treatment to reduce high bone turnover.

The overarching goal of osteoporosis management is to prevent fractures. A goal-directed approach to long-term management of fracture risk helps ensure that the most appropriate initial treatment and treatment sequence is selected for individual patients. Goal-directed treatment decisions require assessment of clinical fracture history, vertebral fracture identification (using vertebral imaging as appropriate), measurement of bone mineral density (BMD), and consideration of other major clinical risk factors. Treatment targets should be tailored to each patient’s individual risk profile and based on the specific indication for beginning treatment, including recency, site, number and severity of prior fractures, and BMD levels at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. Instead of first-line bisphosphonate treatment for all patients, selection of initial treatment should focus on reducing fracture risk rapidly for patients at very high and imminent risk, such as in those with recent fractures. Initial treatment selection should also consider the probability that a BMD treatment target can be attained within a reasonable period of time and the differential magnitude of fracture risk reduction and BMD impact with osteoanabolic versus antiresorptive therapy. This position statement of the ASBMR/BHOF Task Force on Goal-Directed Osteoporosis Treatment provides an overall summary of the major clinical recommendations about treatment targets and strategies to achieve those targets based on the best evidence available, derived primarily from studies in older postmenopausal women of European ancestry.

Odanacatib (ODN) is a selective inhibitor of the collagenase cathepsin K that is highly expressed by osteoclasts. In this 2‐year, phase 2, dose‐ranging trial, postmenopausal women with bone mineral density (BMD) T‐scores −2.0 to −3.5 at spine or hip were randomized to weekly placebo or ODN 3, 10, 25, or 50 mg plus vitamin D₃ and calcium. Prespecified trial‐extensions continued through 5 years. In year 3, all women were re‐randomized to ODN 50 mg or placebo. For years 4 and 5, women who received placebo or ODN 3 mg in years 1 and 2 and placebo in year 3 received ODN 50 mg; others continued year 3 treatments. Endpoints included lumbar spine (primary), hip, 1/3 radius, and total body BMD; markers of bone metabolism; and safety. Women in the year 4 to 5 extension receiving placebo (n = 41) or ODN 50 mg (n = 100) had similar baseline characteristics. For women who received ODN (10–50 mg) for 5 years, spine and hip BMD increased over time. With ODN 50 mg continually for 5 years (n = 13), mean lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 11.9% (7.2% to 16.5%) versus −0.4% (−3.1% to 2.3%) for women who were switched from ODN 50 mg to placebo after 2 years (n = 14). In pooled results of women receiving continuous ODN (10–50 mg, n = 26–29), year 5 geometric mean percent changes from baseline in bone resorption markers cross‐linked N‐telopeptide of type I collagen (NTX)/creatinine and cross‐linked C‐telopeptide (CTX) were approximately −55%, but near baseline for bone formation markers bone‐specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) and amino‐terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (P1NP). In women switched from ODN 10 to 50 mg to placebo after 2 years (n = 25), bone turnover markers were near baseline. In summary, women receiving combinations of ODN (10–50 mg) for 5 years had gains in spine and hip BMD and showed larger reductions in bone resorption than bone formation markers. Discontinuation of ODN resulted in reversal of treatment effects. Treatment with ODN for up to 5 years was generally well‐tolerated. © 2012 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.