UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Introduction

This updated guideline has been prepared, with the support of the societies listed (Appendix 1 ), to provide guidance on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis with the overarching aim of reducing fragility fracture risk. This guideline updates previous National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidance [ 1 – 3 ]. The scope of the guideline is to review the assessment and diagnosis of osteoporosis, the therapeutic interventions available and the approaches for the prevention of fragility fractures, in postmenopausal women, and in men aged 50 years or older. This focus is chosen as fragility fractures and osteoporosis are uncommon in premenopausal women, and men younger than 50 years and therefore when these occur patients need thorough investigation for secondary causes of osteoporosis, and careful consideration of treatment options. Specialist referral is usually required.

This NOGG guidance has appraised the current evidence-based to inform these updated recommendations. The aim of the guideline is to provide clinically appropriate recommendations which integrate available evidence on clinical efficacy, effectiveness and safety. This contrasts with, but complements, the remit of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which focuses principally on establishing criteria for cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness analyses are generally supportive for treatment guided by clinical effectiveness thresholds, rather than defining intervention thresholds per se [ 4 ]. The NOGG recommendations have been previously demonstrated to be cost-effective and at the time of writing, NICE’s appraisal of romosozumab is awaited, with preliminary evidence of its cost-effectiveness established [ 5 ]. The guideline has been prepared by a writing group and has been approved after consultation with stakeholders (Appendix 1 ).

The guideline is intended for all healthcare professionals involved in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and fragility fractures. This includes primary care practitioners, allied health professionals, and relevant specialists in secondary care including rheumatologists, gerontologists, gynaecologists, endocrinologists, clinical biochemists, and orthopaedic surgeons. The guideline includes recommendations for training in osteoporosis care. The conclusions and recommendations in the document are systematically graded, according to the quality of information available, to indicate the level of evidence on which recommendations are based. The grading methodology is summarised in Appendix 2 . Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials have been used to provide the evidence base. The evidence base has been updated using PubMed to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses from July 2016 to September 2020. The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses used in the formulation of recommendations was assessed using AMSTAR2 [ 6 ] (Appendix 3 ). The recommendations in this guideline were agreed upon by the National Osteoporosis Guideline Development Group.

This guideline provides a framework from which local management protocols should be developed to provide advice for healthcare professionals. Implementation of this guideline should be audited at a local and national level. The recommendations in the guideline should be used to aid management decisions but do not replace the need for clinical judgment in the care of individual patients in clinical practice.

Background

The conceptual definition of osteoporosis was made by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1994 as a “progressive systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture” [ 7 ]. Since microarchitectural deterioration could not be measured clinically, the operational description was based on a bone mineral density (BMD) T-Score of ≤ − 2.5. Over the years, this was adopted as a clinical definition; however, the limitations of focusing on a BMD-based definition alone have since become clear. BMD is now viewed as one, albeit very important, risk factor to be considered when assessing fracture risk which is now viewed as the principal necessity.

The clinical significance of osteoporosis lies in the fractures that arise. Approximately one in two adult women and one in five men will sustain one or more fragility fractures (a low trauma fracture sustained from a fall from standing height or less) in their lifetime [ 8 ]. In the UK, the prevalence of femoral neck BMD T-Score ≤ − 2.5, in those aged 50 years and older, is 6.8% in men and 21.8% in women [ 9 ]. However, the majority of people who sustain a fragility fracture will have a femoral neck BMD T-Score above − 2.5, reflecting the contribution of many other factors, besides BMD, to fracture risk [ 10 – 12 ]. Fall-related risk factors add significantly to fracture risk and often overlap with risk factors for osteoporosis, hence the need for integrated fall and fracture services.

Currently, in the UK, approximately 549,000 new fragility fractures occur each year, including 105,000 hip fractures, 86,000 vertebral fractures, and 358,000 other fractures ( i.e ., fractures of the pelvis, ribs, humerus, forearm, tibia, fibula, clavicle, scapula, sternum, and other femoral fractures); 33% are sustained by men [ 9 , 13 , 14 ]. Such fractures cause severe pain, disability, and reduction in quality of life [ 15 , 16 ]. In the UK, fragility fractures are estimated to account for 579,722 DALYs (Disability Adjusted Life Years) lost, largely driven by years lived with disability. This equates to 24 DALYs per 1000 people aged over 50 years, which is comparable to the DALYs lost from dementia [ 9 ]. Costs of fragility fractures to the National Health Service (NHS) exceed £4.7 billion per annum, of which £2.6 billion is directly incurred after an incident fracture (£1.1 billion for hip fractures alone [ 17 ]), with more than £1.7 billion attributable to institutional care costs post-fracture (estimated for 2017) [ 9 ]. Total direct costs for 2019 were £5.4 billion accounting for 2.4% of healthcare spending [ 18 ].

Common sites of fragility fracture include the vertebral bodies, hip, distal radius, proximal humerus, and pelvis. Hip fracture is the most common reason for emergency anaesthesia and surgery in older people. It is also the most common cause of death following a fall. After hip fracture the mean hospital length of stay is 20 days, accounting for half a million hospital bed days used each year, with 3,600 hospital beds (3,159 in England, 325 in Wales, and 133 in Northern Ireland) occupied at any one time by patients recovering from hip fracture [ 19 , 20 ]. Loss of independence is common following a hip fracture with only 52% living in their own home after 120 days [ 13 ] and 26% will die within 12 months of their fracture [ 21 ]. Most major osteoporotic fractures are associated with reduced relative survival, part causally related and part due to associated co-morbidity [ 22 – 24 ].

In the UK, fracture rates vary by geographic location, race and levels of socioeconomic deprivation [ 25 – 27 ]. As in many higher-income countries, age- and sex-adjusted fracture rates appear relatively stable, although increases in hip fractures amongst men in the UK have been reported [ 25 , 28 ]. Changes in vertebral fracture rates potentially reflect secular alterations to reporting of cases. Importantly, the ageing of the UK population is predicted to give rise to a 19.6% increase in the number of fragility fractures by 2030 if changes are not made to current practice [ 9 ].

Fracture risk assessment and case finding

Recommendations

A FRAX assessment should be performed in any postmenopausal woman, or man age ≥ 50 years, with a clinical risk factor for fragility fracture, to guide BMD measurement and prompt timely referral and/or drug treatment, where indicated ( strong recommendation ). When using FRAX to calculate the probability of fracture, clinical judgement is needed when clinical risk exceeds those factors able to be entered into FRAX ( strong recommendation ). Arithmetic adjustments to FRAX probabilities of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF: clinical spine, hip, forearm or humerus) and hip fracture (Table 1 ) can be used in clinical practice, to take account of additional clinical risk factors, such as glucocorticoid use, discordantly low lumbar spine BMD, type II diabetes, and a history of falls ( conditional recommendation ). Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) is indicated in postmenopausal women, and men age ≥ 50 years, if there is a history of ≥ 4 cm height loss, kyphosis, recent or current long-term oral glucocorticoid therapy, a BMD T-score ≤ − 2.5 at either the spine or hip, or in cases of acute onset back pain with risk factors for osteoporosis ( strong recommendation ). T-scores in men and women derived from femoral neck BMD should use normative values for BMD derived from young healthy women from NHANES III ( strong recommendation ). DXA scan results should be reported within 3 weeks of the scan, by healthcare professionals with specific training in DXA interpretation, and in accordance with national and international reporting standards ( strong recommendation ). Patients with osteoporosis and/or a fragility fracture should be investigated for underlying causes, this includes the need for routine blood tests ( strong recommendation ). The use of quantitative ultrasound is not recommended for the diagnosis of osteoporosis ( strong recommendation ). QCT-measured femoral neck areal BMD in postmenopausal women, and men age ≥ 50 years, can be used for opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis and to inform individual treatment decisions using FRAX ( conditional recommendation ). Computer-Aided Diagnostics (CAD) may be considered to improve standard reporting of CTs performed on postmenopausal women, and men age ≥ 50 years, to improve opportunistic identification of vertebral fractures ( conditional recommendation ). Table 1 Approximate adjustments and considerations to probabilities of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture to aid the interpretation of FRAX Risk variable Adjustment to FRAX* Access Medium and high dose exposure to oral glucocorticoids Medium doses (2.5–7.5 mg daily) are the assumed minimum requirement for FRAX calculation, and the unadjusted FRAX value is used. For high doses (> 7.5 mg daily), MOF probabilities are upward revised by about 15% and hip fracture probabilities by 20% ¥ Automatic adjustment available on FRAX website Kanis et al. 2011 [ 83 ] Concurrent data on lumbar spine (LS) BMD Increase/decrease MOF probability by 10% for each rounded T-score difference between LS and FN* Leslie et al. 2011 Johansson et al. 2014 [ 84 , 85 ] Trabecular bone score (TBS) Increase MOF probability by 30% for each standard deviation (SD) decrease in TBS TBS adjustment can be accessed from the UK FRAX website. McCloskey et al. 2016 [ 86 ] Hip axis length (HAL) Increase hip fracture probability by 30% for each SD increase in HAL Leslie et al. 2016 [ 87 ] Falls history Increase MOF and hip fracture probability by 30% for a history of recurrent falls (≥ 2 falls in the last year) Masud et al. 2011 [ 88 ] Country of birth Use FRAX model for country of birth since individuals retain the risk characteristics of their country of origin Johansson et al. 2015 [ 89 ] Wändell et al. 2021 [ 317 ] Type II diabetes mellitus Enter ‘yes’ in the rheumatoid arthritis input to FRAX Other adjustments in Leslie et al. 2018 [ 90 ] Recent MOF Marked uplift to fracture probabilities (see Sect. 4 h) Kanis et al. 2020 [ 53 ] * Downward adjustment to FRAX probabilities should only be made in the context of a very reliable high lumbar spine BMD measurement and not on the basis of a discordant result due to artefact, e.g., from degenerative change ¥ See the ‘ 51 ’ section for further details on glucocorticoid doses and recommendations

Measurement of bone mineral density

The risk of fracture increases progressively with decreasing bone mineral density (BMD). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational population-based studies using absorptiometric techniques indicate that the risk of fracture increases approximately two-fold for each standard deviation (SD) decrease in BMD [ 29 , 30 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). The gradient of fracture risk varies according to the site and technique used, the person’s age and the fracture type [ 30 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). The predictive value of BMD for hip fracture is at least as good as that of blood pressure for stroke [ 31 ]; ( evidence level IV ).

The WHO and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) recommend that the reference technology for the measurement of BMD is dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) applied to the femoral neck, because of its higher predictive value for fracture [ 32 , 33 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). DXA measurements of femoral neck BMD are used in FRAX®. The spine is not always a reliable site for risk assessment or for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in older people because of the high prevalence of degenerative changes, which artefactually increase the BMD value. However, a result in an older person showing low BMD is almost always valid and clinically useful, particularly in those people with disproportionately low spine BMD compared to the hip. At the same DXA-measured femoral neck BMD, men and women are at approximately the same fracture risk [ 34 , 35 ]; (evidence level IIa). Therefore, the recommended reference range, from which femoral neck and total hip T-scores are calculated for men, women and transgender individuals in the US, is that derived from the NHANES III survey for white women aged 20–29 years [ 33 , 36 ]. The reference ranges, from which lumbar spine and distal forearm T-scores are calculated, for both men and women of all ethnicities, are usually those of the manufacturer of the DXA scanner [ 36 ].

Osteoporosis can be diagnosed on the basis of the BMD T-score measured at the total hip, femoral neck, or lumbar spine. However, fracture risk prediction is not improved by the use of measurements from multiple sites [ 37 , 38 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). Where hip BMD measurement is not possible for technical reasons, or if the spine is differentially affected, then spine BMD measurements can be used for diagnosis. A diagnosis of osteoporosis can be made based on the distal forearm (1/3 radius) T-score if neither spine nor hip can be reliably measured or interpreted, or if a patient exceeds the weight limit for the DXA table [ 36 ]; ( evidence level IV ). Serial BMD measurement can be used to monitor response to treatment [ 39 ]. Lumbar spine BMD shows the largest treatment-related changes and is the preferred site, although if spinal degenerative changes are marked, BMD at the hip is a better site for monitoring. The validity of BMD measurements depends on good quality control and national (Royal Osteoporosis Society) and international (International Society for Clinical Densitometry) bodies have published standards for the reporting of DXA scans [ 36 , 40 ].

QCT-measured femoral neck areal BMD predicts osteoporotic fractures in men and women and is equivalent to DXA-derived areal BMD [ 41 – 43 ]. Femoral neck and total hip T-scores calculated from two-dimensional projections of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) data are equivalent to the corresponding DXA-derived T-scores. Thus, femoral neck CT X-ray absorptiometry (CTXA) BMD measurements can be included in FRAX [ 36 , 44 – 46 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). Other techniques for assessing skeletal BMD, including quantitative ultrasound, have been less well-validated than absorptiometric techniques.

Assessment of clinical risk factors

The performance characteristics of BMD assessment can be improved by the concurrent consideration of clinical risk factors that operate independently of BMD. Of particular importance is age, which contributes to risk independently of BMD [ 12 , 47 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Additional clinical risk factors have been identified that provide information on fracture risk independently of both age and BMD: i. Low body mass index (BMI) is a significant risk factor for hip fracture, but the value of BMI in predicting other fractures is very much diminished when adjusted for BMD [ 48 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). ii. A history of a prior fracture, particularly if sustained from low trauma and at a site characteristic for osteoporosis, is an important risk factor for further fracture [ 49 ]. The risks are in part independent of BMD [ 50 ]. Fracture risk is approximately doubled in the presence of a prior fracture, including asymptomatic moderate or severe (grade 2 or 3) morphometric vertebral fractures [ 50 , 51 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). The increase in risk is even more marked for more than one vertebral fracture. After a fracture, the risk of subsequent fracture is highest in the immediate post-fracture interval (imminent risk) with more than one-third of subsequent fractures over a ten-year time frame occurring within the first year [ 52 , 53 ]; ( evidence level Ic ). iii. A parental history of hip fracture is a significant risk factor that is largely independent of BMD [ 54 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). iv. Smoking is a risk factor that is in part dependent on BMD [ 55 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). v. Oral glucocorticoid therapy increases fracture risk in a dose-dependent manner. The fracture risk conferred by the use of glucocorticoids is, however, not solely dependent upon bone loss and BMD-independent risks have been identified [ 56 , 57 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). vi. Alcohol intake shows a dose-dependent relationship with fracture risk. Where alcohol intake is on average two units or less daily, no increase in risk has been identified. Intakes of 3 or more units daily are associated with a dose-dependent increase in fracture risk [ 58 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). vii. There are many secondary causes of osteoporosis ( e.g. , inflammatory bowel disease, endocrine disorders), but in most instances, it is uncertain to what extent an increase in fracture risk is dependent on low BMD or other factors such as the use of glucocorticoids. By contrast, rheumatoid arthritis increases fracture risk independently of BMD and the use of glucocorticoids [ 57 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). viii. Diabetes mellitus (both type I and type II) is associated with an increase in the risk of hip and non-vertebral fracture. In type II diabetes; a longer duration of disease and insulin use is associated with an increased risk [ 59 , 60 ]; ( evidence level Ia ), which is partly independent of BMD [ 61 , 62 ].

The use of combined clinical risk factors alone to predict fracture risk performs very similarly to that of BMD alone [ 63 ]. The use of clinical risk factors with the addition of BMD is optimal, but BMD measurement can be targeted to those close to the threshold of low/high risk or close to the threshold of high/very high risk. There are many additional clinical risk factors for fracture not included in FRAX, including risks that either act solely by reducing BMD, or have been less well-validated, or identify a risk that may not be amenable to particular treatments [ 12 , 64 ]. Liability to falls is an example of the latter where the risk of fracture is high, and treatment with drugs affecting bone metabolism alone may not fully address this risk [ 65 ].

In addition to glucocorticoids, several medications are known to increase hip fracture risk including thyroid hormone excess, aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer and androgen deprivation for the treatment of prostate cancer [ 66 – 70 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Thiazolidinediones, used in the treatment of type II diabetes also increase fracture risk [ 71 , 72 ]. Several other drugs have been associated with increased fracture risk including antidepressants, antiparkinsonian drugs, antipsychotic drugs, anxiolytic drugs, benzodiazepines, sedatives, H2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors [ 66 – 70 ]. The extent to which fracture risk is mediated by low BMD, falls risk or other factors, or indeed is definitely causal in each case, is not known. The impact of sex steroids on bone health in transgender individuals is unclear [ 73 ]. Biochemical indices of skeletal turnover have the potential to aid risk assessment but probably play a more immediate role in the monitoring of treatment [ 74 – 76 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

Fracture risk assessment tools

The IOF and the WHO recommend that risk of fracture is expressed as absolute risk, i.e ., probability over a ten-year interval [ 12 ]. The absolute risk of fracture depends upon age and life expectancy as well as the current relative risk. The period of 10 years covers the likely initial duration of treatment and the benefits that may continue if treatment is stopped. Shorter time horizons do not aid the categorisation of risk [ 77 , 78 ]. Algorithms that integrate the weight of clinical risk factors for fracture risk, with or without information on BMD, were developed in 2008 by the then WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone Diseases at Sheffield. The FRAX tool ( www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX ) computes the 10-year probability of hip fracture and/or of major osteoporotic fracture. A major osteoporotic fracture is a clinical spine, hip, forearm or humerus fracture. The tool has been externally validated in independent cohorts [ 47 , 79 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

QFracture is based on a UK prospective open cohort study of routinely collected data from general practices that take into account numerous clinical risk factors and estimate the 1- to 10-year cumulative incidence of hip and/or major osteoporotic fracture ( http://www.qfracture.org [ 80 ]). The NICE has recommended the use of fracture risk assessment tools (FRAX or QFracture) in the assessment of patients [ 81 ]. Since FRAX and QFracture yield different outputs (probability of fracture accounting for mortality risk in the case of FRAX, and cumulative risk of fracture in the case of QFracture), the two calculators cannot be used interchangeably. In addition, BMD cannot be incorporated into QFracture estimations. Finally, the NOGG intervention thresholds, recommended by NICE Quality Standards, are based on FRAX probability and thus cannot be used with fracture risk derived from QFracture or other calculators [ 79 , 82 ].

The input into FRAX includes, with age and sex, BMD independent clinical risk factors including the following:

Body mass index (calculated from weight and height in kg/m 2 ), previous fragility fracture (including morphometric vertebral fracture), parental history of hip fracture, current glucocorticoid treatment (any dose, by mouth for 3 months or more), current smoking, alcohol intake 3 or more units daily, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary causes of osteoporosis (including type I diabetes, long-standing untreated hyperthyroidism, untreated hypogonadism/premature menopause (< 45 years), chronic malnutrition/malabsorption, chronic liver disease, non-dialysis chronic renal failure (i.e., CKD 3a–5). Femoral neck BMD is an optional input. The listed secondary causes are conservatively assumed to be mediated through low BMD and carry no weight when femoral neck BMD is entered into FRAX.

FRAX assessment takes no account of prior osteoporosis drug treatment, or of the dose of several clinical risk factors. For example, a history of two prior fractures carries a higher risk than a single prior fracture. A prior clinical vertebral fracture carries an approximately two-fold higher risk than other prior fracture types. Dose responses are also evident for glucocorticoid use and are partially addressed in the NOGG guideline. Since it is not possible to model all such scenarios within the FRAX algorithm, clinical judgement is needed to interpret FRAX outputs.

High- and low-impact injuries exist on a continuum and the clinical significance of high and low impact fractures is blurred in the context of osteoporosis. Indeed, prior high-trauma fractures are associated with low BMD and future fracture risk to the same extent as fractures without high trauma [ 49 ]. Although FRAX has a limited input of variables, relatively simple arithmetic procedures are available (Table 1 ) which can be applied to conventional FRAX estimates of probabilities of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture to adjust the probability assessment with knowledge of high, moderate, and low exposure to oral glucocorticoids [ 83 ]; ( evidence level IIa ), concurrent data on lumbar spine BMD [ 84 , 85 ]; ( evidence level Ia ), information on the trabecular bone score (TBS—values can be entered on the UK FRAX website) [ 86 ]; ( evidence level Ia ), hip axis length [ 87 ]; ( evidence level Ib ), falls history [ 88 ]; ( evidence level IIa ), country of birth [ 89 ]; ( evidence level Ib ), type II diabetes mellitus [ 90 ]; ( evidence level Ib ), and recent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) [ 53 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). When applying these FRAX adjustments, a suggested increase of x% should be applied as a proportion of the original FRAX score. For example, uplifting the FRAX probability of 30% by 10% gives an adjusted probability of 30 × 1.10 = 33%. There is no evidence base available to inform on the accuracy of multiple adjustments. Pragmatically, the adjustment should be made for the most dominant factor, i.e . that which will have the greater impact on the estimated probability; ( evidence level IV ). Although type I diabetes carries a risk of fracture over and above that provided by FRAX, there are yet no empirical data from which to recommend adjustment. In the meanwhile, the same adjustment can be used for type II diabetes; ( evidence level IV ). Additionally, FRAX values have been shown to be largely unaffected by socioeconomic status [ 91 ], variation in body composition [ 92 ], and chronic renal disease [ 93 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Adjustments to FRAX probabilities which take into account severity and/or number of vertebral fractures cannot currently be made because of the lack of appropriate empirical data.

Risk is best presented to patients numerically using simple frequencies and positive and negative framing, e.g., for a 23% risk say ‘100 people like you, over the next 10 years, 23 will break a bone and 77 will not’. Describing risks solely with words, such as ‘You have a high chance of experiencing a fracture’ is ineffective and does not provide patients with the details needed to make an informed decision; it increases risk perceptions, and patients vary in their interpretations of what are low and high risks. It is easier for patients to understand whole numbers and simple frequencies (e.g., 1 in 100) rather than percentages. Graphs and pictograms make numeric information easier to understand and should be used where available [ 94 ]; ( evidence level IV ).

Investigation of osteoporosis and fragility fractures

Diagnostic assessment of individuals with osteoporosis should exclude diseases that mimic osteoporosis, identify the cause(s) of the osteoporosis, and include the management of any associated comorbidity. Common investigations are given in Table 2 . Table 2 Proposed clinical investigations to consider for the investigation of osteoporosis/ fragility fractures Routine Other procedures, if indicated Clinical history Physical examination including measurement of height and assessment of thoracic kyphosis Full blood cell count Erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein Serum calcium, albumin, creatinine, phosphate a , alkaline phosphatase a, and liver transaminases Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D Thyroid function tests Serum electrophoresis, serum immunoglobulins, and serum-free light chain assay Plasma parathyroid hormone (PTH) b Serum testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone 24-h urinary free cortisol/overnight dexamethasone suppression test Serum prolactin Serum magnesium if hypocalcemic Tissue transglutaminase antibodies, ± endomysial antibodies (coeliac disease screen) Urinary calcium excretion Markers of bone turnover ( e.g ., CTX, P1NP) c Lateral radiographs of lumbar and thoracic spine or DXA based lateral vertebral imaging Bone densitometry (DXA) if indicated by FRAX assessment and/or required for BMD monitoring Isotope bone scan a Persistent low phosphate or alkaline phosphatase should not be overlooked as this can indicate underlying metabolic bone disease b Measure PTH if albumin-adjusted serum calcium ≥ 2.6 mmol/l twice, or if ≥ 2.5 mmol/l twice if primary hyperparathyroidism is suspected[ 318 ] c Principally measured to monitor bone turnover in response to anti-resorptive treatment (see the “ 34 ” section), CTX reflects bone resorption, P1NP bone formation. CTX is best measured in the morning after an overnight fast Other investigations, for example, bone biopsy and genetic testing for osteogenesis imperfecta, are largely restricted to specialist centres

Vertebral fracture assessment

The majority of vertebral fractures do not currently come to medical attention and thus remain undiagnosed [ 95 ]. Moderate or severe vertebral fractures, even when asymptomatic, are strong risk factors for subsequent fracture at the spine and other skeletal sites [ 51 , 96 , 97 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) should therefore be considered in high-risk individuals, using either lateral lumbar and thoracic spine radiographs or lateral spine DXA imaging [ 98 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). The latter delivers a significantly lower radiation dose whilst performing comparably to traditional radiographs [ 99 ]. Identification of vertebral fractures on routine radiological images, such as plain abdominal and chest radiographs, performed for other indications, offers the opportunity to detect clinically important osteoporotic fractures. Opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis and vertebral fractures is feasible using CT scans acquired for various clinical reasons since the hip and spine are frequently in the scan field [ 100 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Vertebral fracture identification from CT using Computer Aided Diagnostics (CAD) can augment and improve standard reporting methods [ 101 – 104 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). Reliable CAD methods have high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for vertebral fracture detection; ( evidence level IV ).

Screening and case finding

At present, there is no universally accepted policy for population-based screening to identify people with osteoporosis. With the recognition that factors in addition to BMD can improve fracture risk prediction, it is possible that screening strategies might be implemented in the future.

A trial of screening in the UK used FRAX to target osteoporosis drug treatment to women at high risk of hip fracture. The risk assessment, with subsequent femoral neck BMD measurement and input to FRAX in intermediate-/high-risk individuals, was conducted in a primary care setting and involved almost 12,500 women aged 70–85 years. Over 5 years, compared to standard clinical care, the screening program reduced the number of hip fractures by 28%. Similar results were observed in a study from Denmark [ 105 ], but with lesser effects observed in a further study in the Netherlands [ 106 ]. A meta-analysis of the three trials showed that screening reduced hip fracture risk by 20% [ 107 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

In the absence of a screening policy, a case-finding strategy is appropriate where patients are identified because of a fragility fracture or by the presence of other clinical risk factors. There are many clinical risk factors for fracture in addition to those included in FRAX which can be used to trigger fracture risk assessment (Table 3 ), including thoracic kyphosis and height loss (> 4 cm), either in comparison with recalled young adult height or a documented loss on serial measurements [ 108 ]; ( evidence level IIa ), and bariatric surgery resulting in malabsorption [ 109 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Table 3 Clinical risk factors for osteoporosis/fractures, not accommodated in FRAX, which should trigger fracture risk assessment Thoracic kyphosis Height loss (> 4 cm) Falls and Frailty Inflammatory disease: e.g. , ankylosing spondylitis, other inflammatory arthritides, connective tissue diseases, systemic lupus erythematosus Endocrine disease: e.g., type I and II diabetes mellitus a , hyperparathyroidism, hyperthyroidism, hypogonadism, Cushing’s disease/syndrome Haematological disorders/malignancy e.g., multiple myeloma, thalassaemia Muscle disease: e.g., myositis, myopathies and dystrophies, sarcopenia Lung disease: e.g. , asthma, cystic fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease HIV Neurological/ psychiatric disease e.g. , Parkinson’s disease and associated syndromes, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke, depression, dementia Nutritional deficiencies: calcium, vitamin D [note that vitamin D deficiency may contribute to fracture risk through undermineralisation of bone (osteomalacia) rather than osteoporosis] Bariatric surgery and other conditions associated with intestinal malabsorption Medications, e.g .: Some immunosuppressants (calmodulin/calcineurine phosphatase inhibitors) (Excess) thyroid hormone treatment (levothyroxine and/or liothyronine). Patients with thyroid cancer with suppressed TSH are at particular risk Drugs affecting gonadal hormone production (aromatase inhibitors, androgen deprivation therapy, medroxyprogesterone acetate, gonadotrophin hormone-releasing agonists, gonadotrophin hormone receptor antagonists) Some diabetes drugs ( e.g., thiazolidinediones) Some antiepileptics ( e.g., phenytoin and carbamazepine) a Able to be accommodated in FRAX by proxy, by entering ‘yes’ in the rheumatoid arthritis input (see Table 1 )

Intervention thresholds and strategy

Recommendations

An initial FRAX assessment, which provides the ten-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF; clinical spine, hip, forearm or humerus) and/or hip fracture, can be used to identify patients at low, intermediate, high or very high risk of fracture ( strong recommendation ). Consider, particularly in older people, drug treatment in those with a prior and/or recent fragility fracture, with fracture risk assessment informing the choice of drug treatment ( strong recommendation ). Men and women with high and very high fracture risk ( see Fig. 1 ) should have a DXA if a baseline measurement is needed against which to compare future BMD measurements ( strong recommendation ). Men and women with intermediate fracture risk ( i.e., between the upper and lower assessment thresholds) should be referred for BMD measurement, if practical. Thereafter, fracture probability should be reassessed using FRAX ( strong recommendation ). When BMD is included in a FRAX assessment, the patient’s risk (high, very high or low) is determined by the higher of the two (MOF and hip fracture) risk assessments ( strong recommendation ). In men and women with intermediate fracture risk , if BMD measurement is unavailable, contraindicated, or impractical ( e.g ., in frail individuals), drug treatment should be offered if there is a history of fragility fracture and/or if fracture risk exceeds the intervention threshold ( strong recommendation ). Men and women with low fracture risk , without a prior fragility fracture, can be reassured that their fracture risk is low and offered lifestyle advice as appropriate ( strong recommendation ). Consider referral of very high-risk patients to an osteoporosis specialist in secondary care, for assessment and consideration of parenteral treatment (some may need first-line anabolic drug treatment, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures). Indications for specialist referral include ( conditional recommendation ):

⚬ The presence of single but important clinical risk factors, such as the following:

A recent vertebral fracture (within the last 2 years) ≥ 2 vertebral fractures (whenever they have occurred) BMD T-score ≤ − 3.5 Treatment with high dose glucocorticoids (≥ 7.5 mg/day of prednisolone or equivalent over 3 months) (refer urgently given rapid loss in bone post-initiation of glucocorticoids; if any delay is anticipated, start an oral bisphosphonate in the meantime)

⚬ The presence of multiple clinical risk factors, particularly with a recent fragility fracture indicating a high imminent risk of re-fracture ⚬ Or other indicators of very high fracture risk.

9. The choice of drug treatment should be informed by the level of fracture risk, additional clinical risk factors, cost-effectiveness of treatment and patient preferences ( strong recommendation ). 10. FRAX and the link to the NOGG website should be incorporated into electronic patient health record systems ( strong recommendation ). Fig. 1 NOGG assessment, intervention, and risk thresholds for major osteoporotic fracture probability (MOF) in the UK with the use of FRAX. Individuals with probabilities below the lower assessment threshold (LAT) are considered for lifestyle advice. Those at intermediate risk (probabilities between the upper assessment threshold (UAT) and lower assessment threshold (LAT) are further assessed with BMD measurement. Where probabilities calculated using BMD lie above or below the intervention threshold (IT), treatment or lifestyle advice, respectively, is recommended [ 3 , 79 ]. Patients with probabilities above the upper assessment threshold (UAT) are considered for treatment. Those with probabilities above the very high-risk threshold (VHRT) should be considered for specialist referral. Where BMD measurement is not practical ( e.g ., when individuals are frail and unable to get onto a DXA table, or lie flat on a DXA table), patients with probabilities above the IT are considered for treatment

FRAX assessment thresholds for 10-year probability of fracture

The approach recommended for decision-making is based on fracture probabilities derived from FRAX and can be applied to men and women [ 79 ]. This approach is underpinned by cost-effectiveness analysis with oral or intravenous bisphosphonates as the intervention [ 110 , 111 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). FRAX assessment thresholds for 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) are shown in Fig. 1 . The use of FRAX without BMD has approximately the same performance as BMD without FRAX [ 12 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Thus, the same intervention threshold can be used when fracture risk is assessed with or without BMD (see Fig. 1 ). For men and women, the intervention threshold up to age 70 years is set at a risk equivalent to that of a woman of the same age with a prior fracture, in line with current clinical practice, and therefore rises with age. At age 70 years and above, fixed thresholds are applied [ 112 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). The proportion of women potentially eligible for treatment rises from approximately 30% to 50% with age, largely driven by the prevalence of prior fracture [ 112 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). When FRAX is calculated with BMD included, the NOGG website also provides intervention thresholds based on the 10-year probability of hip fracture, in addition to the 10-year probability of a MOF (Fig. 2 ). If there is discordance between the risk categories identified by the two probabilities, the highest risk category can be used to guide intervention. Of note, in the SCOOP study of screening for high fracture risk, treatment was targeted on the basis of risk assessed by hip fracture probability, with or without BMD [ 113 ]. Fig. 2 NOGG thresholds for intervention and/or referral using major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) and hip fracture (HF) probabilities in the UK. The panels show the thresholds following the recalculation of FRAX after the input of BMD; the same thresholds are used when BMD is unavailable. The intervention threshold (IT) and very high-risk threshold (VHRT) denote the thresholds for high and very high risk, respectively

Indications for specialist referral in those at very high-fracture risk

Individuals at very high fracture risk have the most to gain from a thorough investigation of osteoporosis, falls assessment, and development and delivery of a personalised treatment plan for a chronic, life-long condition. A number of treatments now available to treat osteoporosis are mostly (but not exclusively) initiated through secondary care, and the sequence in which they are used is important; for example, the two available anabolic agents (teriparatide and romosozumab) are licensed for once only treatment courses. Treatment with teriparatide or romosozumab, which are anabolic skeletal agents, result in rapid and greater fracture risk reductions than some antiresorptive treatments [ 114 – 116 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). This has led to the need to identify the sub-group of patients at very high fracture risk who would potentially benefit from clinical review by an osteoporosis specialist, and who may benefit from anabolic drug treatment [ 117 ]. Indications for referral to an osteoporosis specialist may arise through several routes, for example in the presence of single but important clinical risk factors, such as a recent vertebral fracture (within the last 2 years), ≥ 2 vertebral fractures (whenever they have occurred), a BMD T-score ≤ − 3.5, high-dose glucocorticoids use (≥ 7.5 mg/day of prednisolone or equivalent over 3 months) [ 56 , 118 ]; ( evidence levels IIb and IV ), or via a combination of clinical risk factors, resulting in very-high-fracture risk [ 119 ]; ( evidence level IIb ).

Prior fragility fracture is a well-established risk factor for a future fracture. This risk of subsequent osteoporotic fracture is particularly acute immediately after an index fracture and wanes progressively over the next 2 years, but thereafter remains higher than that of the general population [ 97 , 120 – 127 ]. This effect of recency of fracture, sometimes termed imminent risk [ 126 ], is also dependent on age, sex and site of fracture [ 53 ]; ( evidence level Ic ). This complexity is being addressed by the development of optional post-FRAX algorithms to allow clinicians to explore the potential impact of fracture recency on the calculated probability of MOF and hip fracture (Table 1 ) [ 53 ]. The mechanism underlying imminent risk is not yet fully understood and no clinical risk factors have yet been identified for short term recurrent fractures that differ from those identified for fracture over a longer time horizon [ 78 ]. Few therapeutic studies have reported the recency of fracture in those patients whom they have recruited, though rapid clinical efficacy has been demonstrated within studies of zoledronate, risedronate, teriparatide, and romosozumab [ 115 , 128 , 129 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

A NOGG threshold that characterises men and women at high and very high fracture risk has also been established using FRAX probabilities; very high risk is identified as a FRAX-based fracture probability that exceeds the intervention threshold by 60% (Figs. 1 and 2 ) [ 130 ]. It can be used to identify patients who likely require specialist referral for assessment of their osteoporosis (which should include DXA measurement of BMD), and further consideration of appropriate treatment strategies [ 117 , 131 ]. The proportion of postmenopausal women at very high risk defined in this way rises from approximately 6% at age 50–54 to 36% at age 90 years or older. Numerical values for the probability thresholds are given in Table 4 for MOF and for hip fracture. An assessment algorithm is shown in Fig. 3 . In patients with FRAX probabilities in the high-risk category, consideration of additional clinical risk factors ( e.g ., frequent falls, very low spine BMD; see Table 1 ) can also lead to redesignation from high to very high risk of fracture. Table 4 Numerical values for NOGG thresholds for major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture probabilities based on FRAX. LAT and UAT refer to the lower and upper assessment thresholds, respectively, between which a BMD is indicated. The intervention threshold (IT) and very high-risk threshold (VHRT) denote the thresholds for high and very high risk Age (years) LAT IT UAT VHRT Major osteoporotic fracture 50 3.4 7.3 8.8 11.7 55 4.5 9.5 11.4 15.2 60 6.0 12.2 14.6 19.4 65 8.6 16.5 19.8 26.4 70 11.1 20.3 24.4 32.5 Hip fracture 50 0.23 0.91 1.1 1.5 55 0.43 1.5 1.7 2.3 60 0.80 2.3 2.8 3.7 65 1.4 3.5 4.2 5.6 70 2.6 5.4 6.5 8.6 Fig. 3 Management algorithm for the assessment of individuals at risk of fracture [ 130 ]. Those at very high risk should be treated and considered for referral to an osteoporosis specialist in secondary care; some may benefit from parenteral treatment (including first-line anabolic drug treatment, especially if multiple vertebral fractures). All individuals should be offered lifestyle advice. CRF, clinical risk factor

FRAX—practical considerations

The FRAX MOF probabilities are transferred automatically to the NOGG website, by clicking on the specified button on the FRAX results box. Where practitioners receive the results of a FRAX risk assessment for an individual patient without treatment guidance, the FRAX probabilities can also be entered manually onto the NOGG website; this page also captures additional information (age, sex, glucocorticoid exposure and finally, whether a femoral neck BMD has been included, in the FRAX estimates) so that the result can be automatically compared to the NOGG thresholds with appropriate guidance on treatment. Lack of integration of FRAX assessments and links to NOGG guidance in existing patient health record systems represents a barrier to effective fracture risk assessment ( evidence IV ).

The targeted use of BMD assessments with the NOGG strategy makes more efficient use of often limited resources than would DXA scanning of all individuals with risk factors [ 132 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Historically it was thought that treatment should not be undertaken in women without initial BMD measurement, except in those with hip or vertebral fractures. This view arose after a post hoc analysis in 1998 suggested reduced efficacy of alendronate in patients with BMD T-scores above -2.5 [ 133 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). However, this approach is now outdated as many studies have since shown little or no interaction of BMD on the effectiveness of several agents, including bisphosphonates ( e.g ., zoledronate, denosumab, raloxifene, and teriparatide) [ 64 , 134 – 137 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Moreover, clinical risk factors are not independent of BMD and, when clinical risk factors alone are used in women age 70 years or more to identify patients at high fracture risk, BMD is approximately 1SD lower in the high-risk group compared with a low-risk group [ 138 , 139 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). These findings indicate that the categorisation of patients at high fracture risk on the basis of FRAX without BMD mostly selects patients with low BMD and that the higher the fracture probability, the lower the BMD. Note that this does not preclude the use of DXA scanning if more widely available; in addition to providing the most accurate risk assessment, DXA provides a baseline measurement for treatment monitoring and also permits, again if available and indicated, detection of vertebral fractures using VFA. FRAX is not recommended as a tool to monitor treatment [ 140 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). However, the use of FRAX is appropriate to re-evaluate current fracture probabilities when considering a change in patient management; ( evidence level IV ).

Non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis

Recommendations

Postmenopausal women, and men age ≥ 50 years, with osteoporosis or who are at risk of fragility fracture are recommended the following: A healthy, nutrient-rich balanced diet ( strong recommendation ). An adequate intake of calcium (minimum 700 mg daily) is preferably achieved through dietary intake or otherwise by supplementation ( strong recommendation ). To consume vitamin D from foods be prescribed vitamin D supplements of at least 800 IU/day if they have identified vitamin D insufficiency or risk factors for vitamin D insufficiency. Those who are either housebound or living in residential or nursing care are more likely to require calcium and vitamin D supplementation to achieve recommended levels of intake ( strong recommendation ). A combination of regular weight-bearing and muscle-strengthening exercise, tailored according to the individual patient’s needs and ability ( strong recommendation ). Advice about smoking cessation if an individual is a smoker ( strong recommendation ). Advice to restrict alcohol intake to ≤ 2 units/day ( strong recommendation ). A falls assessment should be undertaken in all patients with osteoporosis and fragility fractures; those at risk should be offered exercise programmes to improve balance and/or that contain a combined exercise protocol ( strong recommendation ).

Dietary modification

A meta-analysis of observational studies examining different dietary patterns found a modest reduction in risk of low BMD and of hip fractures in subjects adhering to ‘healthy’ (high in fruit and vegetables, fish, poultry and whole grains) diets and a reduction in risk of low BMD in those with ‘milk/dairy’ diets. By contrast, those with a ‘meat/Western’ dietary pattern (high in processed and red meat, animal fat, refined sugar, and soft drinks) saw a modest increase in the risk of low BMD and hip fractures. However, population heterogeneity with the inclusion of subjects aged under 25 years in many dietary studies reduces generalisability [ 141 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). A randomised controlled trial of a ‘healthy diet’ consumed for 30 days, specifically a calcium-rich diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)), resulted in a reduction in bone turnover [ 142 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Protein is an important constituent of bone and muscle tissue, and good dietary intake is necessary to maintain the health of the musculoskeletal system. Protein intakes higher than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of 0.75 g/kg body weight/day are associated with higher BMD at the neck of femur and total hip in one RCT, and in observational studies, has been associated with a reduced risk of hip fractures[ 143 , 144 ]; ( evidence levels Ib and IIa ); however, in a meta-analysis of 30 interventional studies, no significant effects of protein supplementation on BMD were seen[ 144 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Post-operative protein supplementation in patients with a recent hip fracture has been shown to improve the subsequent clinical course by significantly lowering the rates of infection and duration of hospital stay [ 145 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Whilst there are inconsistencies in the evidence base for the associations between vegetarian and vegan diets and musculoskeletal health, consumption of a vegetarian or vegan diet has been associated with lower BMD at the lumbar spine and hip than an omnivore diet, and a vegan diet has been associated with higher fracture risk [ 146 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). A subsequent prospective cohort study of 65,000 people in the UK also identified lower BMD at the spine and hip in vegans and vegetarians, and higher hip fracture risk in vegans, attenuated in part by adjustment for calcium and/or protein intake [ 147 ]; ( evidence level IIb ) .

Calcium and vitamin D

At every stage of life, adequate dietary intakes of key bone nutrients such as calcium and vitamin D contribute to bone health. The UK Reference Nutrient Intake per day of calcium is 700 mg for adults aged 19 years and older [ 148 ]. Dietary calcium calculators are available to assess intake, e.g ., https://www.cgem.ed.ac.uk/research/rheumatological/calcium-calculator/ . Whilst the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recommends a reference nutrient intake (RNI) of 400 IU daily of vitamin D for adults of all ages [ 149 ], in the context of osteoporosis higher levels, specifically 800 up to 2,000 IU daily may be appropriate [ 150 ]; ( evidence level IV ).

Most randomised controlled trials of anti-resorptive and anabolic drugs have included co-administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements. There have been many randomised controlled trials of either calcium alone, vitamin D alone, or both in combination to examine whether the use of these supplements alone reduces fracture risk. With respect to combined calcium and vitamin D supplements, meta-analyses have reported a reduction in hip and non-vertebral fractures, and possibly also in vertebral fractures [ 151 – 153 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Overall, there is little evidence that vitamin D supplementation alone reduces fracture incidence, although it may reduce falls risk [ 153 , 154 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). However, it is important for patients taking antiresorptive and anabolic osteoporosis drug therapies to be vitamin D replete. In clinical practice, dietary sources of calcium are the preferred option and calcium (combined with vitamin D) supplementation should be targeted to those who do not get sufficient calcium from their diet and who are at risk of osteoporosis and/or fragility fracture, such as older adults who are housebound or living in residential or nursing care [ 152 ], and those with intestinal malabsorption e.g. due to chronic inflammatory bowel disease, or following bariatric surgery. Calcium and vitamin D supplements may increase the risk of kidney stones, but not the incidence of cardiovascular disease or cancer [ 155 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Routine intermittent administration of large doses of vitamin D, e.g . ≥ 60,000 IU, is not advised, based on reports of an associated increased risk of fracture and falls [ 156 , 157 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

Exercise to improve or maintain bone density

Exercise has beneficial effects on BMD [ 158 ] ( evidence level Ia ); however, clear evidence for a reduction in fracture risk is wanting. The effect of exercise on different skeletal sites varies. Combination exercise programmes, which include weight-bearing and resistance strengthening exercise, are effective at reducing bone loss in the femoral neck and lumbar spine in post-menopausal women [ 158 , 159 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Similarly, upper body resistance exercise increases forearm bone mass [ 160 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). A meta-analysis of the effects of exercise interventions on BMD in men found only three studies and identified a significant but moderate improvement in BMD at the femoral neck and a trend towards increased BMD at the lumbar spine [ 161 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

The effect of exercise varies with intensity and duration. Strengthening (resistance) exercise may be more effective if supervised. People at risk of falls, or with vertebral fractures, may need more specific advice and assessment before increasing exercise intensity [ 162 ]. The NOGG supports the Royal Osteoporosis Society Strong, Steady and Straight Expert Consensus Statement, which offers advice on intensity and duration and linked patient information videos and factsheets [ 162 ]. In people with osteoporosis, repetitive forced spinal forward flexion exercises should be undertaken with care as this specific movement may be associated with an increased risk of new vertebral fractures [ 163 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). However, in general people with osteoporosis can safely participate in exercise because the risk of serious adverse events is very low [ 163 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

Falls interventions

The majority of non-vertebral fractures are preceded by a fall. Exercise can significantly reduce the risk of falls and, perhaps the risk of subsequent fractures, by maintaining or restoring muscle strength, balance and posture, improving confidence and reaction times. However, two recent large randomised controlled trials have not demonstrated an effect of multi-disciplinary interventions, targeted at falls, on fracture reduction, when combined with screening for falls risk in 70 [ 164 , 165 ]; ( evidence level Ib ), a recent Cochrane review of falls prevention exercise programmes, and two previous meta-analyses demonstrated, albeit with low certainty, evidence of a reduction in fall-related fractures (or falls resulting in fractures) in those living in the community [ 159 , 166 , 167 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Exercise interventions to reduce falls in people with osteoporosis and/or at high risk of falling have been found to be safe [ 168 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Programmes that involve balance training and/or a combined exercise protocol are more effective in those who have risk factors for falling [ 166 , 168 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Combined exercise protocols may include resistance training, balance challenging, aerobic exercise and impact exercise. Interventions of 3 h per week or more are most effective [ 169 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Interventions of short duration (less than 6 months) have been found to be effective, and good compliance with exercise interventions has been reported [ 168 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Home safety interventions (best delivered by an occupational therapist) have been shown to reduce the risk of falls in people living in the community [ 170 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Furthermore, whole-body vibration has been demonstrated to reduce fall rate but does not increase BMD [ 171 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

Lifestyle measures

Other measures to improve bone health include optimisation of body mass index if under or overweight, stopping smoking and reducing alcohol intake. Smoking cessation has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of vertebral and hip fractures in women [ 172 , 173 ]; ( evidence levels Ilb and IIa ). However, the risk of hip fracture was reduced in those who had stopped smoking, compared with current smokers, only after 5 years. Furthermore, pre-operative smoking cessation is associated with fewer post-operative complications [ 174 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). In men with previous alcohol dependence, BMD is significantly lower than in controls, but improves following 3–4 years of abstinence [ 175 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). The national guidelines recommend alcohol intake is limited to ≤ 2 units/day for women and men [ 176 ].

Pharmacological treatment options

Recommendations

Fracture risk assessment, patient suitability and preference and cost-effectiveness should inform the choice of drug treatment. In most people at risk of fragility fracture, anti-resorptive therapy is the first-line option ( strong recommendation ).

Antiresorptive drug treatment

2. Offer oral bisphosphonates (alendronate or risedronate) or intravenous zoledronate as the most cost-effective interventions. Alternative options include denosumab, ibandronate, hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene and strontium ranelate ( strong recommendation ). 3. Offer intravenous zoledronate as a first-line treatment option following a hip fracture ( strong recommendation ). 4. Before starting denosumab, ensure a long-term personalised osteoporosis management plan is in place and that both the patient and the primary care practitioner are made aware that denosumab treatment should not be stopped or delayed without discussion with a healthcare professional ( strong recommendation ). 5. Avoid unplanned cessation of denosumab because it can lead to increased vertebral fracture risk, hence it must not be stopped without considering an alternative therapy ( strong recommendation ). 6. If denosumab therapy is stopped, intravenous infusion of zoledronate is recommended 6 months after the last injection of denosumab, with subsequent monitoring of serum CTX guiding the timing of further treatment ( strong recommendation ). Where monitoring of serum CTX is not possible, consider a further intravenous infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first dose of zoledronate ( conditional recommendation ). 7. Limit the initiation of HRT for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis to younger post-menopausal women (age ≤ 60 years) who have low baseline risk for adverse malignant and thromboembolic events ( strong recommendation ). 8. Discuss continued use of HRT after the age of 60 years with the patient, with treatment based on an individual risk–benefit analysis ( conditional recommendation ).

Anabolic drug treatment

9. Consider teriparatide or romosozumab as first-line treatment options in postmenopausal women at very high fracture risk, particularly in those with vertebral fractures ( conditional recommendation ). 10. Consider teriparatide as a first-line treatment option in men age 50 years and older who are at very high fracture risk, particularly in those with vertebral fractures ( conditional recommendation ). 11. Consider as second-line treatment options, teriparatide in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older, and romosozumab in postmenopausal women, who are intolerant of bisphosphonate treatment, particularly in those with vertebral fractures ( conditional recommendation ). 12. Following the approved duration of treatment with teriparatide or romosozumab (24 or 12 months respectively), initiate treatment with alendronate, zoledronate or denosumab without delay ( strong recommendation ). 13. Consider raloxifene as an option for follow-on treatment after an anabolic drug in women ( conditional recommendation ).

Other treatments

14. When other antiresorptive and anabolic treatments are contraindicated or not tolerated, strontium ranelate can be used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis and men with severe osteoporosis, provided the risk–benefit in relation to cardiovascular and thromboembolic events is considered. Initiation by a specialist who is an expert in osteoporosis management is advised ( strong recommendation ). 15. Offer calcium and/or vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to anti-osteoporosis drug treatment, if dietary calcium is low and/or vitamin D insufficiency is a risk, respectively ( strong recommendation ). 16. Treat vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency prior to initiation of parenteral anti-osteoporosis drug treatment, and alongside initiation of oral anti-osteoporosis drug treatment ( strong recommendation ).

Overview of treatment options

Drugs used in the management of osteoporosis can be considered under two broad headings based on their primary mode of action . Anti-resorptive drugs primarily inhibit osteoclastic bone resorption with later secondary effects on bone formation. Anabolic drugs primarily stimulate osteoblastic bone formation with variable effects on bone resorption. Most drugs fit into one or another category but romosozumab has a dual action, both stimulating bone formation and inhibiting bone resorption. Anti-resorptive drugs are much less expensive than anabolic drugs. It is important to consider the long-term management strategy for each patient initiated on osteoporosis treatment, as the timing of use of certain drugs is important; for example, teriparatide can only be used once in a lifetime, whilst denosumab requires careful consideration before initiation is given the difficulties in stopping treatment once it is started.

The drugs listed in Table 5 have been shown to reduce fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men where indicated, with osteoporosis [ 177 ] ( evidence levels Ia and Ib ). The efficacy of the drugs listed in Table 5 is well established for the prevention of vertebral fractures. Teriparatide and romosozumab are superior to risedronate and alendronate respectively at reducing vertebral fractures in high-risk postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Most drugs listed in Table 5 have been shown to reduce hip fracture incidence, with the exception of ibandronate, calcitriol and raloxifene. Drugs listed in Table 5 (except calcitriol and raloxifene) have been shown to reduce the incidence of non-vertebral fractures. Table 5 Anti-fracture efficacy of approved drug treatments for postmenopausal women, and men, with osteoporosis when given with calcium and vitamin D Intervention Vertebral fracture Non-vertebral fracture Hip fracture Evidence of superiority or inferiority for vertebral fracture prevention in postmenopausal women with very high fracture risk Licenced for use in men Romosozumab Ib IIb IIb Superior to alendronate (Ib) No Teriparatide Ia Ia Ia Superior to risedronate (Ib) Yes Alendronate Ia Ia Ia Inferior to romosozumab (Ib) Yes Ibandronate Ib Ib NAE NAE No Risedronate Ia Ia Ia Inferior to teriparatide (Ib) Yes Zoledronate Ia Ia Ia NAE Yes Calcitriol IIa NAE NAE NAE Yes Denosumab Ia Ia Ia NAE Yes HRT Ia Ia Ia NAE No Raloxifene Ia NAE NAE NAE No Strontium Ranelate Ia Ia IIb NAE Yes Evidence levels shown (see Appendix 2 ). HRT hormone-replacement therapy; NAE no available evidence

At the time of writing decision is pending from NICE regarding the use of romosozumab in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; the initial decision from NICE is negative, but this is currently under consultation.

Primary and secondary care drug initiation

Oral and intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, raloxifene, calcitriol, and HRT can be initiated by primary or secondary care clinicians. If denosumab is initiated in 70 , consultation with secondary care colleagues is advised given the need to have a long-term personalised osteoporosis management plan in place before denosumab is started, to enable denosumab, to be stopped in a managed way, as necessary. As calcitriol use is only supported by a grade IIa evidence base, its use is generally restricted to a select sub-group managed through secondary care. Strontium ranelate can be initiated by primary or secondary care clinicians, but if started in 70 should involve consultation with secondary care.

Secondary care drug initiation.

Teriparatide and romosozumab should be initiated by secondary care clinicians. In the UK both are provided via ‘home healthcare’ services, which also provide patient education.

Treatment sequence

Any patient stopping denosumab, romosozumab or teriparatide requires a sequential therapy strategy usually involving an anti-resorptive drug, which should be planned at the time the initial therapy is instigated to avoid a gap in treatment.

Specific drug options

Anti-resorptive drugs: bisphosphonates

Alendronate 70 mg once weekly by mouth is recommended for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), men with osteoporosis; glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), and the prevention of PMO and GIO. The 70 mg weekly dose is considered equivalent to the previously approved dose of 10 mg daily. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, alendronate has been shown to reduce vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures [ 178 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Approval for the use of alendronate in men with osteoporosis and in men and women taking glucocorticoids was granted on the basis of BMD bridging studies [ 179 , 180 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Although the daily dose of alendronate (10 mg) is licenced for use in men, this is considered equivalent to the weekly dose (70 mg); ( evidence level IV ).

Common side-effects of alendronate include upper gastrointestinal symptoms, bowel disturbance, headaches and musculoskeletal pain. Alendronate should be taken after an overnight fast and at least 30 min before the first food or drink (other than water) of the day or any other oral medicinal products or supplementation (including calcium). Tablets should be swallowed whole with a glass of plain water (~ 200 ml) whilst the patient is sitting or standing in an upright position. Patients should not lie down for 30 min after taking the tablet. Alendronate is also available as 70 mg effervescent or soluble tablets, to be dissolved in a glass of plain water (≥ 120 ml).

Risedronate 35 mg once weekly by mouth is recommended for the treatment of PMO, men with osteoporosis; GIO and the prevention of GIO in women. The 35 mg weekly dose is considered equivalent to the previously approved dose of 5 mg daily. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, risedronate has been shown to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures [ 181 , 182 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). In a large population of older women, risedronate significantly decreased the risk of hip fractures, an effect that was greater in osteoporotic women [ 65 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Approval for use of risedronate in men with osteoporosis and in postmenopausal women taking glucocorticoids was granted on the basis of BMD bridging studies [ 183 – 185 ]; ( evidence levels Ib ).

Common side-effects include upper gastrointestinal symptoms, bowel disturbance, headache and musculoskeletal pain. Risedronate should be taken after an overnight fast and at least 30 min before the first food or drink (other than water) of the day or any other oral medicinal products or supplementation (including calcium). Tablets should be swallowed whole with a glass of plain water (≥ 120 ml) whilst the patient is sitting or standing in an upright position. Patients should not lie down for 30 min after taking the tablet.

Ibandronate 150 mg once monthly by mouth or 3 mg as a prefilled intravenous injection (usually given as a 15–30-s push via butterfly cannula) every 3 months is recommended for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The 150 mg monthly dose and 3 mg 3-monthly intravenous dose are considered equivalent to the following doses: 2.5 mg daily by mouth for the treatment of PMO. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, ibandronate 2.5 mg daily has been shown to reduce vertebral fracture incidence [ 186 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). In a post hoc analysis of women at high fracture risk (with a femoral neck BMD T-score below − 3.0), a significant reduction in non-vertebral fractures was shown [ 187 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). No data are available to show the efficacy of hip fracture risk reduction. Approval for the oral 150 mg once monthly and 3 mg intravenously every 3 months formulations was granted on the basis of BMD bridging studies [ 188 , 189 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Common side-effects with oral preparation include upper gastrointestinal side-effects and bowel disturbance. Intravenous administration may be associated with an acute-phase reaction, characterised by an influenza-like illness; this is generally short-lived and typically occurs only after the first injection. Oral ibandronate should be taken after an overnight fast and 1 h before the first food or drink (other than water) of the day, or any other oral medicinal products or supplementation (including calcium). Tablets should be swallowed whole with a glass of plain water (180 to 240 ml) whilst the patient is sitting or standing in an upright position. Patients should not lie down for 1 h after taking the tablet.

Zoledronate 5 mg once yearly by intravenous infusion (as 5 mg/100 ml infusion given over a minimum of 15 min via an intravenous cannula) is recommended for the treatment of PMO, men with osteoporosis and men and postmenopausal women with GIO. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, zoledronate 5 mg once yearly has been shown to reduce the incidence of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures [ 190 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Approval for use of zoledronate in men with osteoporosis and in men and women taking glucocorticoids was granted on the basis of BMD bridging studies [ 191 , 192 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). When given shortly after hip fracture, men and women given zoledronate 5 mg annually had had fewer clinical fractures and lower mortality 3 years later [ 129 ]; ( Evidence level Ib ). When given (without calcium supplementation) every 18 months to women with osteopenia, there were fewer vertebral and non-vertebral fractures [ 137 , 193 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). A lower although non-significant decrease in mortality in fracture-free women, fewer breast cancers and fewer non-breast cancers were also reported as secondary outcomes by the end of the 6-year study.

Common side-effects include an acute phase reaction usually only after the first infusion [ 194 ], which can be ameliorated by co-administration of paracetamol. Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) should be calculated prior to initiation of treatment and caution advised for recipients at risk of kidney failure; monitoring for any increase in serum creatinine or reduction in eGFR. The MHRA recommends the use of creatinine clearance instead of eGFR to inform treatment decisions in those aged over 75 years and/or with BMI < 18 or > 40 kg/m 2 . An increase in symptomatic atrial fibrillation, reported as a serious adverse event, was seen in the main phase III trial [ 190 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Contraindications and special precautions for the use of bisphosphonates

Oral and intravenous bisphosphonates are contraindicated in patients with hypocalcaemia, hypersensitivity to bisphosphonates, in women who are pregnant or lactating. Oral bisphosphonates are contraindicated in people with abnormalities of the oesophagus that delay oesophageal emptying such as stricture or achalasia, and inability to stand or sit upright for at least 30–60 min. They should be used with caution in patients with other upper gastrointestinal disorders. Zoledronate and risedronate are contraindicated in severe renal impairment (GFR ≤ 35 ml/min for zoledronate and ≤ 30 ml/min for risedronate), whilst alendronate and ibandronate are cautioned against (GFR ≤ 35 ml/min for alendronate and ≤ 30 ml/min for ibandronate). Pre-existing hypocalcaemia must be investigated and, where due to vitamin D deficiency, treated with vitamin D ( e.g ., 100,000 to 300,000 IU orally as a loading dose in divided doses) before zoledronate treatment is initiated. Rare adverse effects of long-term bisphosphonate treatment including osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures are addressed later.

Anti-resorptive drugs: denosumab

Denosumab is a fully humanised monoclonal antibody against Receptor Activator of Nuclear factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL), a major regulator of osteoclast development and activity. It is approved for the treatment of PMO and men at increased fracture risk, for the treatment of bone loss associated with hormone ablation in men with prostate cancer at increased fracture risk, and for the treatment of bone loss associated with long term systemic glucocorticoid therapy in adults at risk of fragility fracture [ 195 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Denosumab is given as a subcutaneous injection of 60 mg once every 6 months. It has been shown to reduce the incidence of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis [ 196 ] and safety and efficacy are maintained over 10 years of treatment [ 197 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Approval for its use in men with osteoporosis was granted on the basis of a BMD bridging study [ 198 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Denosumab is contraindicated in patients with hypocalcaemia or with hypersensitivity to any of the constituents of the formulation. Its use is not recommended in pregnancy or in those aged < 18 years. Hypocalcaemia, as a side-effect of denosumab treatment, increases with the degree of renal impairment; patients should be advised to report symptoms of hypocalcaemia. Pre-existing hypocalcaemia must be investigated and, where due to vitamin D deficiency, treated with vitamin D ( e.g., 100,000 to 300,000 IU orally as a loading dose in divided doses) before denosumab treatment is initiated. Adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D is important in all patients, especially those with severe renal impairment. The SPC states all patients should have calcium checked prior to each dose. In patients predisposed to hypocalcaemia (e.g., patients with a creatinine clearance < 35 ml/min), serum calcium levels should also be checked within 2 weeks after the initial dose [ 199 ]. Side-effects include skin infection, predominantly cellulitis, eczema, hypocalcaemia, and flatulence. Rare adverse effects of denosumab include osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures and are addressed later.

Denosumab cessation leads to rapid reductions in BMD and elevations in bone turnover to levels above those seen before treatment initiation [ 200 – 202 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Patients who discontinue denosumab have an increased risk of sustaining multiple vertebral fractures. In a post hoc analysis of the FREEDOM study and its extension, women discontinuing denosumab had an increased rate of vertebral fracture over an average of 3–6 months since the last denosumab injection was due. Of those patients who sustained vertebral fractures, 60.7% sustained multiple fractures compared to 38.7% of those discontinuing placebo [ 203 , 204 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). The increase in vertebral fracture risk following cessation of denosumab therapy emphasises the need to consider continued treatment with an alternative anti-resorptive drug following denosumab withdrawal. An intravenous infusion of 5 mg of zoledronate, 6 months after the last denosumab injection, reduces subsequent bone loss [ 205 – 209 ], although this effect is not seen in all patients and may not be maintained beyond one year, particularly in those who have had more than 3 years of denosumab treatment [ 210 ] ( evidence levels IIa and IIb ). Monitoring bone turnover markers at 3 and 6 months post zoledronate infusion can help guide the timing of subsequent infusions. Where bone turnover markers are not available, a second infusion of zoledronate after 6 months has been proposed [ 211 ]; ( evidence level IV ). Oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly, was shown to maintain BMD for 12 months in most patients following one year of denosumab therapy, although significant bone loss occurred in a minority [ 212 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). Given the difficulties in stopping denosumab treatment, particularly careful consideration is needed before starting denosumab in younger postmenopausal women, and men.

Anti-resorptive drugs: hormone-replacement therapy

Hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) comprises a large number of oestrogen formulations or oestrogen plus progestogen combinations, some of which are approved for the prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at risk of fragility fracture. Conjugated equine oestrogens 0.625 mg daily ± 2.5 mg/day of medroxyprogesterone acetate has been shown to reduce vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fracture risk in postmenopausal women not selected on the basis of low bone density or high fracture risk [ 213 , 214 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). The benefit-risk balance of HRT use in postmenopausal women within the age range 53–79 years, was reviewed in 2017. Women using estrogen-only therapy compared with placebo had a significantly lower risk of fractures but significantly higher risk of gall bladder disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and urinary incontinence. Women using oestrogen plus progestin in combination compared with placebo had a significantly lower risk of fractures but had a significantly higher risk of invasive breast cancer, probable dementia, gallbladder disease, stroke, urinary incontinence, and venous thromboembolism [ 215 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). A more recent narrative review concluded that overall, the benefit-risk profile supports the use of HRT in the management of osteoporosis in women < 60 years old, who have recently (within 10 years) become menopausal, who have menopausal symptoms and have low baseline risk for adverse events [ 216 ]; ( evidence level IIa ).

Anti-resorptive drugs: calcitriol

Calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D 3 ) is the active form of vitamin D and is approved for the treatment of established postmenopausal osteoporosis in an oral dose of 0.25 µg twice daily. It acts mainly by inhibiting bone resorption. It has been shown to reduce vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis but effects on non-vertebral and hip fractures have not been demonstrated [ 217 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). It is contraindicated in patients with hypercalcaemia or with metastatic calcification. Because calcitriol can cause hypercalcaemia and/or hypercalciuria, serum calcium and creatinine levels should be monitored at 1, 3, and 6 months after starting treatment and at 6 monthly intervals thereafter.

Anti-resorptive drugs: raloxifene

Raloxifene is a selective oestrogen receptor modulator and inhibits bone resorption. It is approved for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Raloxifene has been shown to reduce vertebral fracture risk but the reduction in non-vertebral and hip fractures has not been demonstrated [ 218 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Raloxifene is taken orally as a single daily 60 mg dose and may be taken at any time without regard to meals. Raloxifene is contraindicated in women with child-bearing potential, unexplained uterine bleeding, severe hepatic or renal impairment and in women with a history of venous thromboembolism. Side-effects include leg cramps, oedema and vasomotor symptoms. There is a small increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism, mostly within the first few months of treatment and a small increase in the risk of fatal stroke has been reported [ 219 ], ( evidence level IIa ) such that it should be used with caution in women with a history of stroke or with risk factors for stroke disease. In the phase III trials, women treated with raloxifene had a significantly decreased risk of developing breast cancer [ 220 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Other drugs: strontium ranelate

Strontium ranelate is taken in a dose of 2 g once at night by mouth as a suspension of granules stirred in water, at least 2 h after food and/or consumption of calcium-containing products. As an alkaline earth metal (closely related to calcium) it substitutes for calcium within hydroxyapatite. Its mode of action is not completely understood but the evidence suggests it has weak anti-resorptive effects whilst maintaining bone formation. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, strontium ranelate 2 g daily has been shown to reduce the incidence of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures [ 221 , 222 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Fewer hip fractures were reported in a post hoc analysis of women at high risk of hip fracture ( i.e ., age ≥ 74 years with a femoral neck BMD T-score ≤ − 2.5). Approval for its use in men with osteoporosis was granted on the basis of a BMD bridging study [ 223 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Common side effects include nausea and diarrhoea. There was a significant increase in venous thromboembolism in the phase III trials [ 224 ]. Contraindications include previous myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism as a post hoc pooled safety analysis showed significant increases in myocardial infarction and ‘nervous system disorders’ including cerebrovascular disease was observed in patients taking strontium ranelate compared to placebo [ 225 ]. The manufacturer advises against use when the eGFR is < 30 ml/ml. The higher atomic number of strontium compared with calcium artefactually increases BMD when incorporated into the bone matrix [ 226 ]. When strontium ranelate is stopped, this effect is slow to resolve with implications for future BMD monitoring.

Anabolic drugs: teriparatide (recombinant human parathyroid hormone [PTH] 1–34)

When administered intermittently, teriparatide has anabolic skeletal effects which are most marked in trabecular bone. Teriparatide is approved for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and in men at risk of fragility fracture, and osteoporosis is associated with systemic glucocorticoid therapy in women and men at risk of fragility fracture. Teriparatide is given as a subcutaneous injection in a dose of 20 µg/day. The duration of treatment is limited to 24 months.

Teriparatide is contraindicated in patients with hypercalcaemia, metabolic bone diseases other than osteoporosis and osteogenesis imperfecta, severe renal impairment, a malignant disease affecting the skeleton, prior radiation to the skeleton, and in women who are pregnant or lactating. Teriparatide should be used with caution in patients with moderate renal impairment. PTH levels need to be normal to initiate teriparatide; hence, levels should be checked even with normocalcaemia. Side effects include headache, nausea, dizziness, postural hypotension, and leg pain. Slight and transient elevations of serum calcium may occur following teriparatide injection.

Teriparatide has been shown to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis [ 227 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). No primary efficacy end-point data are available for hip fracture incidence, but systematic review and meta-analysis level evidence has shown an OR for hip fracture risk of 0.44 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.87; p = 0.019) in patients treated with teriparatide compared with placebo, when considering hip fracture as a safety endpoint. No significant benefit was seen on upper limb fractures [ 228 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). These findings were further supported by a network meta-analysis of a similar list of RCTs, which reported a HR of 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.73) for hip fracture in patients treated with teriparatide compared with placebo [ 229 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Approval for teriparatide use in men with osteoporosis and in men and women with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis was granted on the basis of BMD bridging studies [ 230 , 231 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Teriparatide biosimilars are now available which is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of the use of generic teriparatide.

Anabolic drugs: romosozumab

Romosozumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to and inhibits sclerostin. It has a dual action, stimulating bone formation and inhibiting bone resorption and is approved for the treatment of severe osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture. It is currently not approved for use in men. It is given as a subcutaneous injection in a dose of 210 mg (administered as two subcutaneous injections of 105 mg each) once monthly. The duration of treatment is limited to 12 months.

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who received romosozumab 210 mg or placebo subcutaneously once monthly for 12 months followed by denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously in both groups for 12 months, new vertebral fractures and clinical fractures were significantly reduced in women treated with romosozumab when compared to placebo at 12 months, and at 24 months vertebral fracture rates were significantly lower in women treated with romosozumab during the first 12 months [ 114 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). In a comparator-controlled study in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly for 12 months followed by oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly for 12 months was compared against alendronate 70 mg once weekly for 24 months) [ 115 ]. New vertebral, non-vertebral, clinical and hip fractures were all significantly lower in women treated with romosozumab followed by alendronate than in those treated with alendronate alone ( evidence level Ib ). Significantly greater risk reduction in new vertebral and clinical fractures was seen for romosozumab vs . alendronate at 12 months. A significantly higher incidence of cardiovascular events was seen in the romosozumab group compared to the alendronate group [ 114 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Romosozumab is contraindicated in patients with hypocalcaemia, hypersensitivity to any of the constituents of the formulation, or a history of myocardial infarction or stroke. When determining whether to use romosozumab for an individual patient, both fracture and cardiovascular risk (based on risk factors) over the next year need to be considered. Transient hypocalcaemia has been observed in patients receiving romosozumab. Hypocalcaemia should be corrected prior to initiation of treatment and patients should be adequately supplemented with calcium and vitamin D. Patients with severe renal impairment or on dialysis are at increased risk of developing hypocalcaemia. Osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures have been very rarely reported with romosozumab use.

Drug treatment for patients with very high fracture risk

Two randomised comparator-controlled studies in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis have demonstrated superior anti-fracture efficacy of skeletal anabolic agents versus anti-resorptive drugs. Subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly resulted in a significantly greater reduction of vertebral, non-vertebral, clinical and hip fractures at 24 months (risk reduction of 48%, 19%, 27% and 38% respectively) and significantly greater risk reduction in new vertebral and clinical fractures at 12 months when compared to oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly. In the VERtebral fracture treatment comparisons in Osteoporotic women (VERO) study, subcutaneous teriparatide, 20 µg once daily, was associated with significantly fewer new vertebral and clinical fractures than oral risedronate, 35 mg once weekly (56% and 52% respectively) after 2 years of treatment [ 232 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). These studies provide the rationale for considering teriparatide or romosozumab as a first-line treatment option in postmenopausal women at a very high risk of fracture. Comparator studies of anti-resorptive and anabolic agents have not been reported in men.

Following discontinuation of treatment with either teriparatide or romosozumab, bone turnover increases and there is a fall in BMD. Since the maximum permitted duration of treatment with teriparatide is 24 months and with romosozumab 12 months, sequential therapy with anti-resorptive drugs is required to maintain their beneficial skeletal effects. Both alendronate and denosumab have been shown to maintain and increase BMD at the spine and hip following either teriparatide or romosozumab therapy [ 115 , 233 – 236 ]. In the FRAME extension study, the beneficial effects of 12 months romosozumab therapy on vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk were maintained when followed by 24 months of denosumab treatment [ 237 ]; ( evidence level IIb ).

When women are switched from oral bisphosphonates to teriparatide or romosozumab, there is attenuation of the increase in spine and hip BMD compared to when these agents are used in treatment-naïve individuals. This blunting effect is greater for teriparatide than romosozumab, especially at the hip [ 238 , 239 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). The impact of these effects, if any, on fracture risk is unknown. In women previously treated with denosumab, switching to teriparatide is associated with transient bone loss in the spine and greater and longer-lasting bone loss in the hip [ 234 ]. When romosozumab is given following denosumab therapy, there is attenuation of the BMD increase at the spine and hip [ 232 , 240 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). The impact of these effects, if any, on fracture risk is unknown.

Duration and monitoring of bisphosphonate treatment

Osteoporosis is a long-term condition for which there is currently no cure, therefore life-long treatment and monitoring to prevent fractures is often required.

Recommendations

Plan to prescribe oral bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate) for at least 5 years and then re-assess fracture risk. Longer durations of treatment, for at least 10 years, are recommended in the following men and women ( strong recommendation ) (see Fig. 4 ): Age ≥ 70 years at the time that the bisphosphonate is started Who have a previous history of a hip or vertebral fracture(s) Treated with oral glucocorticoids ≥ 7.5 mg prednisolone/day or equivalent Who experience one or more fragility fractures during the first 5 years of treatment (if treatment is not changed). Plan to prescribe intravenous bisphosphonate ( i.e., zoledronate) for at least 3 years and then re-assess fracture risk. Longer durations of treatment, for at least 6 years, are recommended in the following men and women ( strong recommendation ) (see Fig. 5 ): Age ≥ 70 years at the time that the bisphosphonate is started Who have a previous history of a hip or vertebral fracture(s) Treated with oral glucocorticoids ≥ 7.5 mg prednisolone/day or equivalent Who experience one or more fragility fractures during the first 3 years of treatment (if treatment is not changed). If a new fracture occurs after bisphosphonate treatment is discontinued, reassess using FRAX and restart treatment ( strong recommendation ). If bisphosphonate treatment is discontinued and no new fracture occurs, reassess using FRAX after 18 months for risedronate and ibandronate, 2 years for alendronate, and 3 years for zoledronate to inform whether treatment should be restarted ( strong recommendation ). Fig. 4 Oral Bisphosphonates: clinical flowchart for long-term treatment and monitoring. GC, glucocorticoids (oral ≥ 7.5 mg prednisolone/day or equivalent). BP, bisphosphonate Fig. 5 Intravenous Bisphosphonates: clinical flowchart for long-term treatment and monitoring. GC, glucocorticoids (oral ≥ 7.5 mg prednisolone/day or equivalent). BP, bisphosphonate

Bisphosphonate therapy is associated with rare but serious adverse events, notably atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). Defining the optimal duration of bisphosphonate therapy attempts to ensure that the benefit in fracture risk reduction outweighs the small risk of AFFs and ONJ at all time points through patient management. Bisphosphonates are retained the long term in bone allowing the beneficial effects to persist for some time after cessation of treatment administration. This has raised the possibility that some patients may benefit from a period off treatment to restore the benefit/risk balance [ 241 ]; ( evidence level IIa ), in which treatment is stopped after some years and the need for the reinstitution of therapy is subsequently reassessed. Treatment review in patients taking bisphosphonates is therefore critical [ 242 ] and each patient must be assessed individually to assess relative risks and benefits; there is no standard policy for ‘all patients’ [ 204 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). Because pivotal clinical trials have mostly been limited to a duration of three years, recommendations for longer-term use and for pauses in treatment are based on limited evidence from extension studies in postmenopausal women [ 243 , 244 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). There is currently no evidence on which to base specific recommendations for men.

Withdrawal of bisphosphonate treatment is associated with decreases in BMD and increased bone turnover after 2–3 years for alendronate [ 245 , 246 ]; ( evidence level Ib ), and 1–2 years for ibandronate and risedronate [ 247 , 248 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). In the case of zoledronate, withdrawal after 3 years’ treatment is associated with only a small decrease in BMD after a further 3 years without treatment [ 249 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Comparison between the offset of alendronate and zoledronate at 3 years showed alendronate-treated patients had greater reductions in total hip BMD and greater rises in PINP, despite a longer treatment exposure with alendronate, supporting a more rapid offset of drug effect than with zoledronate [ 250 ]; ( evidence level IIb ).

In the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension study of alendronate (FLEX), there were significantly fewer clinical vertebral fractures in women previously treated with alendronate for 5 years who continued with alendronate for five more years than in those assigned to placebo after 5 years of alendronate [ 246 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). In the Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronate Once Yearly (HORIZON) study extension, the risk of morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in women continuing on zoledronate for 3 years after the initial 3 years of therapy when compared to those switched to placebo [ 249 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Post-hoc analyses from the alendronate and zoledronate extension studies suggest that women most likely to benefit from long-term bisphosphonate therapy are those with low hip BMD (T-score < − 2.0 in FLEX and ≤ − 2.5 in HORIZON), those with a prevalent vertebral fracture and those who sustained one or more incident fractures during the initial 3 or 5 years of treatment [ 71 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Older age was also associated with increased fracture risk after discontinuation of alendronate therapy [ 251 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

Reassessment of fracture risk in individuals on osteoporosis drug treatment

Recommendations

5. Review treatment adherence in men and women who sustain a fragility fracture whilst on drug treatment, (poor adherence is when less than 80% of treatment has been taken correctly) and investigate for secondary causes of osteoporosis ( strong recommendation ). 6. Fracture risk assessment in patients receiving drug treatment should be performed using FRAX with BMD, with arithmetic adjustments to FRAX probabilities to take account of additional clinical risk factors. If the FRAX-derived fracture probability exceeds the intervention threshold drug treatment should be continued ( strong recommendation ). 7. If biochemical markers of bone turnover indicate relapse from suppressed bone turnover and/or BMD has decreased following bisphosphonate withdrawal, consider resumption of drug treatment ( conditional recommendation ). 8. After 10 years of bisphosphonate treatment, patient management should be considered on an individual basis ( conditional recommendation ).

Stopping osteoporosis treatment, be it with bisphosphonate or denosumab, is associated with an increased risk of fragility fracture, such that routine cessation of anti-resorptive therapy (so-called drug holidays) is not supported by a review of the evidence [ 204 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). Reassessment of fracture risk in treated individuals can be performed using FRAX with femoral neck BMD [ 140 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). The NOGG intervention thresholds can then be used to guide the decision as to whether treatment can be stopped for a period of time (Figs. 4 and 5 ). Whereas FRAX cannot be used to assess treatment response [ 140 ]; ( evidence level IIb ) it does have a role in reassessing current fracture risk to determine the need to continue or to discontinue treatment. Detection of the offset of drug effect, using BMD and bone turnover changes, potentially provides information to influence clinical management. However, there are presently no definitive data that link a potential threshold change in BMD or bone turnover markers during drug offset to clinically meaningful changes in fracture risk.

Rare adverse effects of long-term bisphosphonate and denosumab treatment

Recommendations

9. During bisphosphonate or denosumab therapy, encourage all patients to maintain good oral hygiene, receive routine dental check-ups, and report any oral symptoms such as dental mobility, pain, or swelling ( strong recommendation ). 10. In those with the severe dental disease who require bisphosphonate or denosumab treatment, timely dental review and dental treatment by an appropriately experienced dental surgeon should be pursued before drug administration, bearing in mind drug treatment should be initiated as soon as possible after a fragility fracture; a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) approach to discuss individual needs is encouraged ( conditional recommendation ). 11. During bisphosphonate or denosumab treatment, although ideally, patients should minimise invasive dental procedures where possible, if indicated they can be carried out safely and successfully in most patients. When dental procedures are required, there are no data available to show whether treatment discontinuation reduces the risk of ONJ. Clinical judgment of the treating physician should guide the management plan of each patient based on individual benefit/risk assessment, ensuring patients continue to access routine dental care ( conditional recommendation ). 12. During bisphosphonate or denosumab therapy, advise patients to report any unexplained thigh, groin or hip pain and if such symptoms develop, the femur should be imaged (by full-length femur X-ray, isotope scanning or MRI) ( strong recommendation ). 13. If an AFF is identified, image the contralateral femur ( strong recommendation ). 14. All patients who develop an AFF should be referred to an osteoporosis specialist to guide the management of future bone health ( strong recommendation ). 15. In patients who develop an AFF, discontinue bisphosphonate or denosumab treatment ( conditional recommendation ).

Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) occurs only very rarely in patients receiving bisphosphonate or denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. The estimated incidence in those receiving bisphosphonates is 10–100/100,000 person-years of exposure in clinical trials. Risk factors for ONJ include poor oral hygiene, dental disease, dental interventions, smoking, cancer, chemotherapy and/or glucocorticoid therapy [ 252 , 253 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). The incidence of ONJ is substantially greater with the higher doses of bisphosphonates or denosumab that are used to treat patients with skeletal metastases. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme has produced guidance on oral health management in patients taking anti-resorptive medication [ 254 ]. Osteonecrosis of the external auditory canal after bisphosphonate treatment has been described very rarely in case reports, with patients presenting with ear symptoms including chronic ear infections. Possible risk factors include steroid use and chemotherapy and/ or local risk factors such as infection or trauma. [ 255 ]; ( evidence level IV ).

Atypical femoral fractures (AFF) , mainly of the subtrochanteric and diaphyseal regions of the femoral shaft, have been reported rarely in patients taking bisphosphonates or denosumab for osteoporosis. Asian race, femoral bowing and glucocorticoid use have been identified as risk factors [ 256 ]. In a recent review by the ASBMR Task Force on the management of osteoporosis in patients on long-term bisphosphonates, a systematic search of the literature revealed that the absolute risk was consistently low, ranging between 3.2 and 50 cases/100,000 person-years of exposure [ 257 , 258 ]; ( evidence level IV ). This estimate appeared to double with prolonged duration of BP use (> 3 years, median duration 7 years), and declined with discontinuation [ 257 , 258 ]; ( evidence level IV ), [ 259 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). In a nationwide cohort study from Denmark, use of alendronate in excess of 10 years was associated with a 30% lower risk of hip fracture and no increase in the risk of fractures of the subtrochanteric femur and femoral shaft, supporting an acceptable risk–benefit balance in terms of fracture outcomes [ 260 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). Atypical femoral fractures are often bilateral, associated with prodromal pain and tend to heal poorly. Prodromal pain can be felt in the thigh, groin or hip for days, weeks, or months before fracture. Discontinuation of bisphosphonate or denosumab therapy is advised in patients who develop an atypical fracture, weight-bearing activity should be restricted, adequate calcium and vitamin D should be ensured, and alternative treatment options considered where appropriate. Surgical treatment with intramedullary nailing is often recommended [ 257 , 258 ]; ( evidence level IV ).

There is a lack of good quality evidence on the medical management of bone health following an AFF. However, a recent international expert consensus document supported by a systematic review proposed practical measures to help in patient management [ 261 ]; ( evidence level IV ). Following an AFF, if the risk of fragility fracture is low, further pharmacological bone treatments can be avoided. If fracture risk is high, and bilateral surgical fixation of fractures has been performed, consider the use of teriparatide. If unilateral or no surgical intervention has taken place, consider teriparatide, romosozumab, raloxifene, or HRT. The potential utility of teriparatide as an adjunct to healing following AFF has been examined. There is no evidence that teriparatide enhances the healing of AFFs, but limited data show a tendency towards faster healing in surgically managed AFFs (complete and incomplete). However, in AFFs managed conservatively, there was no suggestion of improved fracture healing with teriparatide [ 261 ]; ( evidence level IV ). The benefits versus risks of using bisphosphonates or denosumab after AFF should be carefully examined if these options are considered, taking into consideration prior unilateral or bilateral nailing, use of an anabolic agent post AFF, together with the overall clinical situation and fracture risk ( evidence level IV ).

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

Recommendations

16. Because bone loss and increased fracture risk occur early after initiation of oral glucocorticoids, bone-protective treatment should be started in the following people, at the same time as glucocorticoid therapy without waiting for bone density assessment, which should follow later ( strong recommendations ): Anyone with a prior fragility fracture, Women age ≥ 70 years, Postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50 years, prescribed high doses of glucocorticoids, i.e., ≥ 7.5 mg/day of prednisolone or equivalent over 3 months ( N.B., this is equivalent to ≥ 30 mg/day of prednisone for 4 weeks over 3 months) Postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50 years, with a FRAX probability of major osteoporotic fracture or of hip fracture exceeding the intervention threshold. 17. Oral bisphosphonates (alendronate or risedronate) or intravenous zoledronate are the most cost-effective first-line drug options for bone protection. Denosumab is an alternative option. Teriparatide can be a first-line drug option in those at very high fracture risk ( strong recommendation ). 18. Adequate calcium intake should be achieved through dietary intake if possible, with the use of supplements if necessary. An adequate vitamin D status should be maintained, using supplements if required ( strong recommendation ). 19. If glucocorticoid therapy is stopped, withdrawal of bone-protective therapy may be considered at the same time, provided on re-assessment of fracture risk using FRAX, the probabilities of both major osteoporotic fracture and of hip fracture lie below the intervention threshold ( strong recommendation ). 20. If glucocorticoids are continued long term, bone protection should be maintained in the majority of cases ( strong recommendation ).

Patients starting medium or low dose oral glucocorticoid therapy who have a FRAX probability near to, but below the intervention threshold, should have FRAX with BMD reassessed 12–18 months after starting glucocorticoid therapy ( conditional recommendation ).

Bone protective therapy may be appropriate in some premenopausal women and younger men, particularly in individuals with a previous history of fracture, or those receiving high doses of glucocorticoids (≥ 7.5 mg/day of prednisolone or equivalent over 3 months). Caution is advised when prescribing drug treatment in women of childbearing age. Referral of complex cases to secondary care is often necessary. Although guidance on the prevention and management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis has been developed in many countries, there is evidence that in the UK osteoporosis risk assessment and management are still inadequate in long-term users of oral glucocorticoids [ 262 ]; ( evidence level IIIb ). Bone loss and increased fracture risk occur rapidly after initiation of oral glucocorticoid therapy and increase with the dose of glucocorticoids [ 56 , 263 ]. The increase in fracture risk is seen for vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, including hip fractures, and is partially independent of BMD [ 57 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

Approval for the use of bone protective therapy to prevent osteoporosis in people receiving oral glucocorticoids was based mainly on BMD bridging studies carried out as part of phase III randomised controlled trials with bisphosphonates [ 180 , 185 , 192 , 264 , 265 ]. Subsequently, approval has been given for denosumab using the same methodology [ 195 ]. Fracture prevention has not been considered as an efficacy end-point in most trials. However, although not a primary end-point, in an 18-month randomised controlled trial extended to 36 months comparing teriparatide with alendronate significantly fewer subjects in the teriparatide group had vertebral fractures compared with the alendronate arm [ 231 ], but with no benefit on non-vertebral fractures. This protection against vertebral fractures was confirmed in a recent metanalysis which showed that co-prescription of teriparatide, alendronate, risedronate or denosumab with glucocorticoids could reduce the incidence of vertebral fractures, with further evidence of a reduction in non-vertebral fracture rates with alendronate or teriparatide (Table 6 ) [ 266 ]; ( evidence levels Ia and Ib ). Table 6 Effect of approved interventions for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis on BMD and fracture risk Bone protective therapy Spine BMD Hip BMD Vertebral fracture Non-vertebral fracture Evidence of superiority for spine and/or hip BMD Alendronate Ib Ia Ia Ia Inferior to teriparatide (Ib) Risedronate Ib Ia Ia NAE Inferior to zoledronate (Ia) Zoledronate Ib Ib Ia NAE Superior to risedronate (Ib) Denosumab Ib Ia Ia NAE Superior to bisphosphonates (IIa) Teriparatide Ib Ib Ia Ia Superior to alendronate (Ib) NAE no available evidence

Considering the increased fracture risk associated with higher glucocorticoid doses, FRAX assessment provides fracture probabilities based on both an average dose of prednisolone (2.5–7.5 mg/day or its equivalent), and a higher dose (≥ 7.5 mg/day or its equivalent). Individuals taking an average dose of prednisolone < 2.5 mg/day will have lower fracture risk, and the average adjustments over all ages in postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50 years, are shown in Table 7 [ 83 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). For very high doses of glucocorticoids, i.e., > 20 mg/day prednisolone or its equivalent, greater upward adjustment of fracture probability is required [ 56 ]; ( evidence level IIa ).

When the UK FRAX model is used and the glucocorticoid box is filled, 2 points appear on the NOGG graphs, one for medium dose and one for high dose (all defined as above). The assessment thresholds (fracture probabilities for BMD testing) and intervention thresholds (fracture probabilities for therapeutic intervention) are then used in the same way as described for postmenopausal women and older men. Table 7 Adjustment of FRAX derived fracture probability estimates according to daily dose of prednisolone Dose Prednisolone equivalent dose (mg/day) Average adjustment to hip fracture probability Average adjustment to major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) probability Low < 2.5 − 35% − 20% Medium 2.5–7.5 None None High ≥ 7.5 + 20% + 15%

Men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy

Recommendations

The NOGG supports the recent guideline published by Brown et al. 2020 [ 267 ]. 21. All men starting androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) should have their fracture risk assessed using FRAX, considering ADT use as a secondary cause of osteoporosis, with BMD measured where available ( strong recommendation ). 22. Consider referring men, with high fracture risk requiring drug treatment, to secondary care for assessment and initiation of treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab ( conditional recommendation ). 23. Men with FRAX probability near to, but below the intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX with BMD reassessed 12–18 months after starting ADT ( conditional recommendation ).

There is no evidence that skeletal metabolism in men differs fundamentally from that of women [ 268 ]. However, secondary causes of osteoporosis are common in men and amongst these hypogonadism is prominent [ 269 ]. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), used primarily in the treatment of older men with prostate cancer, is frequently associated with hypogonadism. Osteoporosis caused by ADT is associated with rapid loss of BMD within 6–12 months of initiation of ADT [ 270 ]; ( evidence level Ic ). There is a significant increase in fracture risk in men with prostate cancer in the 5 years following the initiation of ADT when compared to those not receiving ADT [ 271 ]; ( evidence level Ic ). Bisphosphonates and denosumab are effective drug treatments for preventing BMD loss in men with prostate cancer taking ADT, although effects on fracture risk have not been demonstrated. Exercise programmes are a less effective alternative which are insufficient in isolation [ 272 ]; ( evidence level Ib ).

In a systematic review and network meta-analysis all evaluated treatments for ADT-induced bone loss, which included bisphosphonates and selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), were effective in improving BMD compared to placebo. However, zoledronate generated greater improvements in BMD compared to other drug treatments at all bone density sites, except for risedronate which had better BMD improvement compared to zoledronate at the femoral neck site in one small study [ 273 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). A recent UK consensus statement on prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss concluded that fracture risk should be calculated using FRAX, considering ADT use as a secondary cause of osteoporosis, and including BMD where available and practical. BMD should always be assessed where calculated fracture risk is close to the NOGG intervention threshold. Men requiring bone protection drug therapy should be further assessed with referral to secondary care if available and offered appropriate treatment to reduce fracture risk. Those with FRAX probability near to, but below the intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX with BMD repeated after 12–18 months [ 267 ]; ( evidence level IIa ).

Women receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy

Recommendations

24. All women starting aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy should have their fracture risk assessed using FRAX, considering AI use as a secondary cause of osteoporosis, including BMD measurement where practical ( strong recommendation ). 25. Women with high fracture risk should be commenced on drug treatment to prevent osteoporosis and fracture, with bisphosphonates or denosumab ( strong recommendation ). 26. Women with a FRAX probability near to, but below the intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX with BMD reassessed 12–24 months after starting AI therapy ( conditional recommendation ). 27. If adjuvant high-dose bisphosphonate therapy is used as part of breast cancer management, consider assessing fracture risk at the end of this bisphosphonate therapy, particularly if AI therapy continues ( conditional recommendation ).

The use of aromatase inhibitors (AI) in postmenopausal women induces bone loss at an average rate of 1–3% per year at sites rich in trabecular bone. Bone loss is more marked in young women with treatment-induced ovarian suppression, losing an average of 7–8% per annum [ 274 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). In case–control studies, the incidence of fracture in women with breast cancer treated with AI is reported to be around 18–20% after 5 years of follow-up [ 275 ]. NICE guidance on the management of early breast cancer, which recognises the excess risk of osteoporosis with the use of AIs, recommends a baseline DXA scan to assess BMD at the time of initiation of AI therapy [ 276 ]; ( evidence level IV ). International Consensus Position Statements suggest that fracture risk should be assessed, although the consideration of AI use as a secondary cause of osteoporosis in FRAX, may not adequately estimate fracture risk [ 275 , 277 ]; ( evidence level IIa ) with drug treatment to prevent bone loss and fractures recommended in those with a T-score of less than − 2, or less than − 1.5 with 1 additional risk factor, or in those with 2 or more risk factors (without BMD). Drug treatment should be bisphosphonate (oral or parenteral) or denosumab, used in the doses for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab and zoledronate both lead to significant gains in BMD at the spine and hip in postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving AI, and both denosumab and risedronate have been shown to reduce fracture risk [ 278 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

Management of symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Recommendations

Administer analgesia orally rather than parenterally whenever possible. Pain should be regularly reviewed, and analgesia titrated up or down according to pain intensity and side effects, with the use of the weakest effective agent for the shortest possible time ( strong recommendation ). Avoid the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in older people, but, if used, co-prescribe a proton-pump inhibitor, and monitor for gastro-intestinal, renal and cardiovascular side-effects ( strong recommendation ). Prescribe appropriate laxative therapy, such as the combination of a stool softener and a stimulant laxative, whenever opioid therapy is used in older people ( strong recommendation ). It is recommended that exercise programmes following vertebral fracture include progressive muscle-strengthening activity, including back extensor muscle strengthening and/or endurance exercise ( s trong recommendation). When a patient is in pain it may be advisable to initially perform an exercise for back extensors in an unloaded position ( conditional recommendation ). Provide clear and prompt guidance on how to adapt movements involved in day-to-day living, including how exercises can help with posture and pain, to patients with painful vertebral fractures ( strong recommendation ). Ensure prompt secondary fracture prevention is started following a fracture, with follow-up through fracture liaison services for all postmenopausal women, and men aged 50 years and older, with a newly diagnosed vertebral fracture ( strong recommendation ).

Vertebral fractures can cause acute and chronic pain, height loss, spinal deformity and altered body shape, functional impairment, and reduced health-related quality of life [ 15 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Analgesia for acute pain is important to allow restoration of function and mobility but must be used safely [ 279 – 281 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). In patients admitted to hospital, salmon calcitonin given for up to 4 weeks (50–100 IU daily given subcutaneously or intramuscularly), has been shown to be an effective adjunctive analgesic for pain, experienced at rest or when walking, associated with acute (within 10 days of) vertebral fracture [ 282 ]; ( evidence level IIa ). However, side-effects (mainly flushing and gastro-intestinal disturbance) are common. Of note, long-term use may be associated with an increased risk of cancer [ 283 ]. There is no evidence that salmon calcitonin is an effective treatment for chronic pain associated with vertebral fractures [ 282 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). Of note, in the SPC, calcitonin is indicated for the prevention of acute bone loss due to sudden immobilisation such as in patients with recent osteoporotic fractures, rather than for the management of pain. A single, small, randomised double-blind, controlled trial found 30 mg intravenous pamidronate, given within 21 days of acute vertebral fracture, to be more effective than placebo in reducing pain [ 284 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). Of note in the SPC, pamidronate is indicated for the treatment of conditions associated with increased osteoclast activity, rather than for the management of pain. Physiotherapist supervised exercise following vertebral fracture improves pain and physical performance [ 285 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). In the presence of pain, it may be advisable to initially perform an exercise for back extensors in an unloaded position, such as supine [ 286 ]; ( evidence level Ia ).

Combining exercise with physiotherapy-delivered education and guidance can reduce fear of falling and improve psychological symptoms associated with vertebral fractures [ 162 , 287 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). For patients with painful vertebral fractures, there is low-quality evidence suggesting that spinal bracing using soft or rigid external orthoses for 2 h a day over 6 months may improve pain and trunk muscle strength [ 286 ]. There is currently no evidence that bracing with soft or rigid external orthoses improves fracture healing [ 288 ]. Hence, routine use of bracing for the treatment of acute or subacute vertebral fractures cannot be recommended ( evidence level Ia ). The current evidence does not support the routine use of percutaneous vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, as these procedures do not show consistent patient benefit [ 286 , 289 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). In older women with vertebral fractures and chronic back pain stable for 6 months or more, a small randomised control has shown electrical nerve stimulation, administered as inferential therapy or horizontal therapy 5 days a week for 2 weeks, can improve pain over 14 weeks [ 290 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). Patients with a recent vertebral fracture have a high imminent risk of further fragility fracture [ 52 ]; ( evidence level IIb ). If a vertebral fracture is associated with impending or existing neurological deficits, urgent referral to spinal surgical services is indicated.

Models of care for fracture prevention

Recommendations

Multidisciplinary, coordinator-based FLS are recommended to systematically identify men and women with fragility fractures, facilitating timely assessment of fracture and falls risk, and where appropriate, tests to exclude secondary causes of osteoporosis, radiological investigation including BMD testing, and initiation of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to reduce risk of falls and fractures ( strong recommendation ). FLSs should include embedded local audit systems supported by a clinical fracture database to enable monitoring of care provided to fracture patients ( e.g ., Royal College of Physicians FLS-Database); ( strong recommendation ). FLSs should employ a range of case-finding strategies to identify all inpatients and outpatients with fragility fractures ( strong recommendation ). Diagnostic imaging services should routinely evaluate the spine in all imaging of postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50 years, in which the spine is visualised, and report vertebral fractures using standardised methods ( strong recommendation ). Patients recommended drug treatment for osteoporosis should be offered tailored information about osteoporosis and its treatments and further medication reviews to support adherence and to discuss alternative treatments if unacceptable adverse events arise or adherence is difficult ( strong recommendation ). Primary care clinicians should always have in mind the possibility of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women and men age ≥ 50 years who present with acute onset back pain, especially thoracic pain if they have risk factors for osteoporosis ( strong recommendation ).

FLS models of care

Collaboration between primary care clinicians, secondary care physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, radiologists, and pharmacists and between the medical and non-medical disciplines concerned, should underpin secondary fracture prevention programmes. Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) programmes reduce re-fracture rates and improve survival [ 291 , 292 ] ( evidence levels Ia and IIb ). The Department of Health and NHS RightCare both state that FLS should be provided for all patients sustaining a fragility fracture [ 293 , 294 ], which aligns with the International Osteoporosis Foundation’s global Capture the Fracture® programme [ 295 ] and the Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS) FLS Clinical Standards [ 296 ].

FLS should provide fully coordinated, intensive models of care for secondary fracture prevention. FLS models which provide identification, assessment and treatment initiation, or a treatment recommendation to primary care, are more clinically effective and cost-effective in improving patient outcomes than approaches that provide identification and/or patient alerts, and/or patient education only [ 297 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). The required approach is a FLS in which identification, assessment and osteoporosis treatment are all conducted within an integrated electronic health care network, overseen by a coordinator and utilizing a dedicated database measuring performance [ 295 , 297 – 299 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). FLS that initiate pharmacological treatment, rather than making a treatment recommendation for primary care initiation, have higher rates of treatment initiation [ 298 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). FLS should also initiate appropriate non-pharmacological interventions and communicate ongoing care effectively with primary care practitioners [ 296 ]. FLS should provide a coordinated programme with an integrated approach for falls and fracture prevention; all individuals with a fracture should be fully assessed for falls risk and appropriate interventions to reduce falls should be undertaken [ 300 ]. As the risk of re-fracture is highest immediately after a fragility fracture, secondary fracture prevention assessment and intervention should be initiated as soon as possible, and no later than 16 weeks post-fracture, as recommended by the Royal Osteoporosis Society [ 52 , 296 ].

FLS patient identification

FLSs need to employ a range of case-finding strategies, to identify both inpatients and outpatients with fragility fractures, and people with vertebral fractures who are often undiagnosed. Reasons for non-identification of vertebral fractures include the absence of a fall as a trigger for investigation, absence of symptoms, or attribution of symptoms to other causes. Furthermore, in patients who do have spinal imaging, the use of ambiguous non-standardised terminology in imaging reports, and failure to routinely evaluate the vertebrae captured in imaging of other body systems can both contribute to the non-identification of vertebral fractures. The Royal Osteoporosis Society recommend that radiology services should establish local processes to ensure that the spine is routinely evaluated for the presence of vertebral fracture in all available imaging and that reports identifying vertebral fractures should be standardised, using the words ‘vertebral fracture’, are actionable, and indicate future management [ 301 ]; ( evidence level IV ).

Primary care plays an important role in case finding for osteoporotic fractures, particularly vertebral fractures as acute onset back pain, especially thoracic pain, is a common presenting complaint. Targeted use of spinal imaging can help increase case identification, appropriate symptom management, and prompt secondary fracture prevention.

Providing patient information and adherence support

Patients identified by any clinical service, to be in need of further intervention, should be offered an explanation of osteoporosis, the causes, consequences and how it can be managed with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. When discussing pharmacological treatment, an explanation should be offered for why drug treatment is recommended, the aims and benefits, common and/or severe side effects, the practicalities of taking the medicine, and for how long it should be taken [ 302 ]; ( evidence level IV ). The use of decision aids in osteoporosis to support communication of medicine risk–benefit has been shown to improve shared decision making, reduce decisional conflict and improve the accuracy of patient-perceived fracture risk [ 303 ]; ( evidence level Ib ). Information should be tailored to the needs of the patient to make it accessible and understandable, including the provision of written information [ 304 ].

To promote treatment adherence, healthcare professionals should elicit and address any beliefs and concerns associated with reduced adherence and establish realistic treatment expectations with the patient [ 302 , 304 ]. No one type of intervention has been demonstrated to enhance medicines adherence in osteoporosis care, but multi-component models with active patient engagement have the most positive effects [ 305 , 306 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). FLS models with a greater number of patient interactions have demonstrated greater clinical effectiveness [ 299 ]; ( evidence level Ia ). The NOGG supports the Royal Osteoporosis Society recommendation to follow-up within 16 weeks and 52 weeks post-fracture, to review the use of medications that increase the risk of falls and/or fracture, to ensure co-prescription of calcium and vitamin D with bone protective interventions where indicated, to review adverse effects and monitor adherence to therapy [ 296 ].

Recommendations for training

Recommendations

The following are recommended: Training in personalised care, including shared decision making, is provided within all higher professional training curricula in relevant medicine and surgical specialities ( strong recommendation ). Training in osteoporosis and metabolic bone diseases is a clearly articulated component of each of the relevant medical and surgical specialities higher professional training curricula set out by the applicable medical and surgical Royal Colleges ( strong recommendation ). Primary care physicians have sufficient training in this area with efficient access to up-to-date evidence-based resources and guidelines, and continual professional development (CPD) opportunities to maintain and refine knowledge ( strong recommendation ). The management of osteoporosis is a component of training in all relevant allied health disciplines ( strong recommendation ). Training should be provided to Fracture Liaison Service personnel to achieve high-quality DXA performance and reporting ( strong recommendation ). Quality improvement training should be provided to healthcare personnel responsible for the delivery of Fracture Liaison and/or Osteoporosis Services ( strong recommendation ).

The management of osteoporosis and fragility fracture risk is not subserved by any one specialty. The relevant medical and surgical specialties include general practice, rheumatology, orthopaedic surgery, endocrinology, metabolic medicine, geriatric medicine, and obstetrics and gynaecology. Furthermore, the care of patients with osteoporosis is the responsibility of multiple healthcare professionals, including nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists and DXA operators. The multi-disciplinary nature of osteoporosis care offers opportunities for cross-speciality training. It is recognised that primary care is pivotal to the identification of the population at risk of fragility fractures as well as to the long-term management of patients with osteoporosis. It is important that primary care physicians have sufficient training in this area, with access to resources such as updated guidelines and online learning modules to refresh their knowledge.

Common to all healthcare roles is a need to provide personalised patient-centred care, a key commitment outlined by the NHS to be achieved by 2023/24. Personalised care is a partnership approach that helps people make informed decisions and choices about their health and wellbeing, working alongside clinical information (Personalised Care Institute 2020). There is significant variability in the access to and quality of DXA services for established FLS worldwide. Despite two decades of training initiatives in osteoporosis densitometry, many centres are falling short of the standards of the IOF-ISCD Osteoporosis Essentials criteria [ 307 ].

Improving the quality of osteoporosis and fracture liaison services is about making health care delivery safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient, and equitable. Quality improvement involves the use of a systematic and coordinated approach to solving a problem using specific methods and tools with the aim of bringing about a measurable improvement within a health care setting [ 308 ] and can be aided by the use of appropriate Toolkits (e.g. the Royal Osteoporosis Society Fracture Liaison Service Implementation Toolkit).

Examples of appropriate training

i. Training in Personalised Care. The Personalised Care Institute is a virtual organisation, accountable for setting the standards for evidence-based training in personalised care in England. The Personalised Care Institute Curriculum sets out the standards for training programmes to become accredited with the Personalised Care Institute. The Personalised Care Institute provides eLearning modules for example on Shared Decision Making. The curriculum is designed for health care personnel within primary and secondary care and community teams https://www.personalisedcareinstitute.org.uk . ii. Training in Osteoporosis Management. The Royal Osteoporosis Society Fracture Prevention Practitioner Training is accredited for CPD by RCGP, RCP and RCN. The online training includes five foundation modules and then three advanced modules https://theros.org.uk/healthcare-professionals/courses-and-cpd/fracture-prevention-practitioner-training/ . The Royal College of General Practice also provides a short e-Learning module on the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis https://elearning.rcgp.org.uk/course/info.php?id=233 iii. Training in Musculoskeletal Pain Management. The Health Education England e-Learning for Healthcare Pain Management programme includes training on musculoskeletal pain which encompasses the assessment and management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures https://www.e-lfh.org.uk/programmes/pain-management/ . iv. Training in DXA conduct and reporting. The Royal Osteoporosis Society run a Bone Densitometry Foundation Course. This online course provides a foundation in osteoporosis and DXA ( https://theros.org.uk/healthcare-professionals/courses-and-cpd/bone-densitometry-foundation-course/ ).

Recommendations for commissioners of healthcare

In 2017, the National Falls Prevention Coordination Group with Public Health England (PHE) produced a falls and fracture consensus statement and resource pack with the aim of reducing falls and fracture risk and improving the management of fractures, including secondary prevention ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/falls-and-fractures-consensus-statement ). The guidance is aimed at local commissioning and strategic leads in England with a remit for falls, bone health and healthy ageing. Following this, NHS RightCare, working with PHE and the Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS), developed a Falls and Fragility Fractures Pathway ( https://www.england.nhs.uk/rightcare/products/pathways/falls-and-fragility-fractures-pathway/ ) which defines three priorities that commissioners responsible for falls and fragility fractures should optimise as a priority: (i) falls prevention, (ii) detecting and managing osteoporosis, and (iii) optimal support after a fragility fracture. The ROS has developed an online Fracture Liaison Service Implementation Toolkit ( https://theros.org.uk/healthcare-professionals/fracture-liaison-services/implementation-toolkit/ ) designed to enable FLS Commissioning. In England, the move to Integrated Care Systems (ICS) provides an opportunity to embed enhanced pathways of care for patients at risk of fragility fracture, including imminent fracture risk [ 309 ], as part of routine service delivery, for example enabling direct referrals between different secondary care services to streamline patient care pathways.

Where healthcare funding is not delivered through a commissioning structure the recommendations below apply to bodies providing healthcare funding and to local health boards. Thus, in Wales, these recommendations apply to the Welsh Government and to local health boards (that are funded directly from the Welsh Government) when setting their Integrated Medium-Term Plans (IMTPs). In Northern Ireland, health and social care are integrated and are the responsibility of the Department of Health. Health services are commissioned by the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) through local commissioning groups from the five Health and Social Care Trusts. Thus, in Northern Ireland, these recommendations apply to the HSCB and to the five local commissioning groups.

Recommendations

Based upon the evidence presented in this guideline, the NOGG makes the following recommendations to service leaders and/or commissioners of healthcare: Should recognise that fractures due to osteoporosis are a significant and growing public health issue with consequent high health and social care costs and ensure that fragility fractures are addressed explicitly in their local healthcare programmes ( strong recommendation ). Should ensure that local healthcare programmes address approaches to reduce the prevalence of avoidable risk factors for osteoporosis and fractures related to falls and poor bone health and, in so doing, makes explicit the roles of both the NHS and other agencies ( strong recommendation ). Should ensure electronic patient health record systems have FRAX, and the link to the NOGG website, integrated to aid identification and treatment of those at risk of fragility fracture, and that electronic patient health record systems enable clear, and where possible automated, electronic communication between FLS and primary care teams ( strong recommendation ). Should put arrangements in place so that those at risk of osteoporotic fractures have the opportunity to receive appropriate investigation ( e.g., fracture risk assessment, falls risk assessment, bone density measurement), lifestyle advice ( e.g., about diet, exercise, and smoking), and bone protective drug therapy (NICE Quality Standards 149, 2017). The latter includes the availability of parenteral drug therapies in 70 and community healthcare settings ( strong recommendation ). Should ensure that accurate, up-to-date consistent information about pharmacological drug interventions is widely available to postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50 years, their healthcare advocates, and professional advisers, so that patients can make informed decisions about treatment and treatment adherence ( strong recommendation ). Integrated Care Systems (ICS) should specifically address the burden of fragility fractures on the local economy and ensure that Fracture Liaison Services are available for all patients who sustain a fragility fracture ( strong recommendation ). ICS should bring together local specialists, generalists and other stakeholders, including patient representatives, to agree local treatment practices and referral pathways for the management of osteoporosis and prevention of fragility fractures. It is often helpful to identify a lead clinician in both primary and secondary care. The recommendations of this group should take account of local resources and relevant cost-effectiveness data. Local guidelines should be consistent with the evidence presented in this document. Once local guidelines have been agreed, they should be widely disseminated to relevant professionals and potential patients, and the necessary service changes made to allow the guidelines to be implemented. Implementation should be audited and appropriate changes in practice should be instituted where standards are not met with appropriate monitoring of compliance to guidelines thereafter ( strong recommendation ).

Review criteria for audit and quality improvement

Quality standards for osteoporosis

Four quality standards for osteoporosis were produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2017 (QS149) ( https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs149 ). Seven quality standards for osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures were produced by the Royal Osteoporosis Society in 2017 ( https://theros.org.uk/media/0dillsrh/ros-op-standards-november-2017.pdf )

Primary care

3. Documentation of the proportion of postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50 years, registered with a general practice: With a fracture code, who have been assessed to determine whether their fracture was a fragility (low-trauma) fracture With one or more risk factors for fragility fracture, who receive formal fracture risk assessment. With a prior fragility fracture, who have had a DXA scan with the result recorded. Calculated to be high or very high risk by FRAX assessment, who have been offered drug treatment. With an incident hip fracture, those who receive pharmacological drug therapy for osteoporosis within 16 weeks of their fracture. Who are prescribed pharmacological drug therapy for osteoporosis and who have had confirmed adherence to osteoporosis therapy within the last 12 months. Who are prescribed pharmacological drug therapy for osteoporosis and have had a 5-year and 10-year review. Who are prescribed denosumab, who have received timely (within 4 weeks of due date) follow-up injection. Who are on oral glucocorticoids for ≥ 3 months who have had a fracture risk assessment. With documented discussion of fracture risk assessment and a treatment decision.

Fracture liaison services

4. The Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS) published in 2019 six key standards for FLS with a corresponding timeline for the achievement of these six steps, with examples of audit and evidence [ 296 ]. 5. The Royal College of Physicians Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) Database National Audit ( https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/fracture-liaison-service-database-fls-db ) is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) as part of the Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme. The FLS-DB is included in the HQIP listing for national audits that must be reported in each English hospital trust’s Quality Account and is required by the Welsh Government for all Health Boards in Wales. These form part of the National Clinical Audit Patient Outcomes Programme. All FLS sites that treat fractures are eligible to participate. The FLS-DB sets out 11 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which are designed to measure performance against technology assessments, guidance on osteoporosis and clinical standards for FLSs from the NICE, the ROS and NOGG. 6. The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) Capture the Fracture Best Practice Framework outlines 13 standards for FLS delivery with criteria and targets specified for bronze, silver or gold levels of achievement ( https://www.capturethefracture.org/best-practice-framework ).

DXA reporting

6. The ROS published in 2019 six quality standards for DXA reporting with a corresponding audit template [ 40 ].

Summary of main recommendations

This guideline summary addresses the assessment, diagnosis and current treatments for osteoporosis, including recommendations to prevent fragility fractures. It applies to postmenopausal women, and to men aged 50 years or older.

Concerning the assessment of fracture risk in postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50

Conduct a FRAX assessment in people with a clinical risk factor for fragility fracture. Measure BMD in people with intermediate fracture risk by FRAX ( amber ) to refine the estimate of 10-year risk. Measure BMD in people with high and very high fracture risk by FRAX ( red ) to guide drug choice and provide a baseline for BMD monitoring. Consider imaging to look for a vertebral fracture in people with acute onset back pain who have risk factors for osteoporosis, and/or in people with a history of ≥ 4 cm height loss, kyphosis, recent or current long-term oral glucocorticoid therapy, or a BMD T-score ≤ − 2.5. Assess falls risk in patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures and offer those at risk an exercise programme to improve balance and muscle strength.

Regarding drug treatment to prevent fractures in postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50

6. Offer drug treatment to people at high and very high risk of fracture. 7. If BMD measurement is not practical (e.g., due to frailty), use the online NOGG intervention thresholds based on FRAX, to guide treatment decisions. 8. Consider, particularly in older people, drug treatment in those with a prior and/or recent fragility fracture.

When selecting drug treatments to prevent fractures in postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50

9. Consider the level of fracture risk, any additional clinical risk factors, patient choice, and the cost-effectiveness of treatment , when deciding on a particular drug treatment. 10. Start treatment promptly following a fragility fracture , because the risk of re-fracture is highest immediately after a fracture, and risk remains elevated. 11. Consider referral of very high-risk patients to an osteoporosis specialist in secondary care , for assessment and consideration of parenteral treatment (some may need first-line anabolic drug treatment, especially if multiple vertebral fractures). Indications for specialist referral include the presence of important risk factors, including a recent vertebral fracture (within the last 2 years), ≥ 2 vertebral fractures (whenever they have occurred), BMD T-score ≤ − 3.5, treatment with high dose glucocorticoids (≥ 7.5 mg/day of prednisolone or equivalent over 3 months); the presence of multiple clinical risk factors, particularly with a recent fragility fracture indicating high imminent risk of re-fracture; or other indicators of very high fracture risk. 12. In other patients for whom treatment is indicated, offer antiresorptive therapy with oral bisphosphonates (alendronate or risedronate) or intravenous zoledronate. 13. Consider alternative treatment options if first-line bisphosphonates are unsuitable or not tolerated; denosumab, ibandronate, hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene or strontium ranelate. 14. Following treatment with teriparatide or romosozumab , start alendronate, zoledronate or denosumab without delay.

When postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50, have started drug treatment

15. Regularly review patients' tolerance of, and adherence to, oral drug treatments. 16. Remember long-term treatment is often required , because osteoporosis is a long-term condition for which there is currently no cure. 17. Plan to prescribe oral bisphosphonates for at least 5 years, or intravenous bisphosphonates for at least 3 years and then re-assess fracture risk . Longer durations of treatment will be needed in those who are older (age ≥ 70 years), have had a hip or vertebral fracture, are on high-dose oral glucocorticoids (≥ 7.5 mg/day of prednisolone or equivalent over 3 months), or have a further fragility fracture during osteoporosis treatment. In lower-risk patients, a temporary treatment pause of 18 to 36 months can be considered after 5 years’ oral bisphosphonate or 3 years’ intravenous bisphosphonate (see clinical flowcharts on p.39 and p.40). 18. Before starting denosumab, ensure a long-term personalised osteoporosis management plan is in place. 19. Do not stop denosumab treatment without a plan for subsequent anti-resorptive therapy, where renal function permits. 20. Repeat fracture risk assessment after any new fracture , regardless of when this occurs. 21. Reassess fracture risk 18 months to 3 years after pausing drug treatment.

When postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50, are treated with oral glucocorticoids

22. If starting ≥ 7.5 mg/day prednisolone or equivalent for the next 3 months, start bone protective treatment at the same time (without waiting for a DXA scan, which can follow later). 23. Offer antiresorptive therapy with oral bisphosphonates (alendronate or risedronate) or intravenous zoledronate, and in those at very high risk of vertebral fracture refer for consideration of anabolic treatment. 24. Consider denosumab as an alternative treatment option.

When advising on lifestyle and dietary measures

25. Recommend a healthy, balanced diet, moderation of alcohol consumption and avoidance of smoking. 26. Ensure a sufficient dietary calcium and vitamin D intake and supplement these as necessary. 27. Encourage a combination of regular weight-bearing and muscle-strengthening exercise.

Regarding fracture prevention services

28. Patients who sustain a fragility fracture should have access to a multidisciplinary, coordinator-based Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) which enables timely fracture and falls risk assessment, investigation, treatment, and monitoring. 29. Ensure that diagnostic imaging services routinely evaluate the spine in all imaging of postmenopausal women, and men aged ≥ 50 years, in which the spine is visualised, and report vertebral fractures using standardised methods.

When a postmenopausal woman, or a man aged ≥ 50, has a symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral fracture

30. Consider referral to an exercise programme that provides progressive muscle-strengthening activity, including back extensor muscle strengthening and/or endurance exercise. 31. Investigate for underlying causes of fragility fracture. 32. Start treatment promptly to reduce the risk of further fractures.

The evidence presented in this guideline underpins a further series of recommendations made for leaders and commissioners of healthcare services, as well as criteria for audit and quality improvement in primary and secondary care settings.

Appendix 1

List of stakeholders

Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

Bone Research Society.

British Geriatrics Society.

British Orthopaedic Association.

British Orthopaedic Research Society.

British Menopause Society.

British Society for Rheumatology.

European Calcified Tissues Society.

European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases

International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Osteoporosis 2000.

Osteoporosis Dorset.

Primary Care Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Medicine Society.

Royal College of Physicians.

Royal Osteoporosis Society.

Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

Society for Endocrinology.

The Nutrition Society.

External reviewers

1. Prof. William Leslie, University of Manitoba, Canada.

2. Dr. Nicola Peel, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

3. Dr. Stephen Tuck, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

Appendix 2. Grading of evidence

Levels of evidence for studies of intervention

Ia from systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) Ib individual RCT(s) (with narrow confidence intervals). Ila systematic review of at least one non-randomised controlled trial or well-designed cohort study. IIb individual cohort study or low-quality RCTs. IIIa systematic review of at least one case-controlled study. IIIb individual case–control study. IV expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of authorities, case series (and poor-quality cohort and case–control studies).

Levels of evidence for the validity of candidate risk factors

Ia Systematic reviews or meta-analysis of level I studies with a high degree of homogeneity. Ib Systematic reviews or meta-analysis with moderate or poor homogeneity. Ic Level I studies (with appropriate populations and internal controls). IIa Systematic reviews or meta-analysis of level II studies. IIb Level II studies (inappropriate population or lacking an internal control). IIIa Systematic reviews or meta-analysis of level III studies. IIIb Case-control studies IV Evidence from expert committees without explicit critical scientific analysis or that based on physiology, basic research or first principles.

Of note, FRAX risk factors are all grade A or B according to evidence for reversibility of risk [ 64 ].

Grading of recommendations

Recommendations follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation GRADE binary classification of recommendations as either strong or conditional (also known as discretionary or qualified recommendations) [ 310 ]. Recommendations have been made after the assessment of [ 311 ]: The balance between desirable and undesirable effects -The larger the difference between the desirable and undesirable effects, the more likely a strong recommendation is warranted. The quality of evidence—The higher the quality of evidence, the more likely a strong recommendation is warranted. Values and preferences—The more variability/ uncertainty in values and preferences the more likely a conditional recommendation is warranted. Costs (resource allocation)—The higher the costs of an intervention ( i.e., the more resources consumed) the more likely a conditional recommendation is warranted.

For example, a strong recommendation applies where the clinician considers that most people ought to receive the intervention, or where adherence to the recommendation could be used as a performance or quality indicator and that deviation from this recommendation would prompt documentation of a clinician’s rationale. NICE suggests using ‘offer’ (or similar action wording such as ‘measure’, ‘advise’, ‘commission’ or ‘refer’) when describing a strong recommendation [ 312 ].

A conditional recommendation applies where the clinician examines the evidence and prepares to discuss this with the patient together with the patient’s values and preferences, or where documentation of the discussion of the pros and cons of an intervention is the indicator of quality, rather than the course of action itself. NICE suggests using wording such as ‘consider’ when describing conditional recommendations. Where insufficient evidence is available or the evidence available is equivocal, recommendations are not made.

Appendix 3. AMSTAR2 grading of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

The quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses used in the formulation of recommendations was assessed using AMSTAR2 ( https://amstar.ca/Amstar-2.php ). Topic Reference Type of study AMSTAR2 grading Reference Fracture risk assessment and case finding Bai et al. 2020 MA Low [ 60 ] Gausden et al. 2017 SR Medium [ 100 ] Johannesdottir et al. 2018 SR Low [ 42 ] Kanis et al. 2016 SR Medium [ 79 ] Marshall et al. 1996 MA Critically Low [ 29 ] Merlijn et al. 2019 SR & MA Critically Low [ 107 ] Mortensen et al. 2020 SR & MA Medium [ 66 ] Singh-Ospina et al. 2017 SR & MA Low [ 73 ] Vilaca et al. 2020 SR & MA Low [ 59 ] Zhang et al. 2020 SR & MA Low [ 109 ] Intervention thresholds and management strategy Kanis et al. 2016 SR Medium [ 79 ] Non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis Babatunde et al. 2020 SR & MA Medium [ 160 ] El-Khoury et al. 2013 SR & MA Medium [ 166 ] Darling et al. 2019 SR & MA Medium [ 144 ] Fabiani et al. 2019 SR & MA Medium [ 141 ] Gillespie et al. 2012 SR & MA High [ 170 ] Groenendijk et al. 2019 SR & MA Medium [ 143 ] Iguacel et al. 2018 SR & MA High [ 146 ] Howe et al. 2011 SR & MA High [ 158 ] Jepsen et al. 2017 SR & MA Medium [ 171 ] Kahwati et al. 2018 SR & MA Medium [ 155 ] Kelley et al. 2000 SR & MA Medium [ 161 ] Kemmler et al. 2020 SR & MA Low [ 159 ] Kunutsor et al. 2018 SR & MA Medium [ 163 ] Min et al. 2017 SR & MA Low [ 174 ] Shen et al. 2015 SR & MA Medium [ 173 ] Sherrington et al. 2017 SR & MA Low [ 169 ] Sherrington et al. 2019 SR & MA High [ 167 ] Yao et al. 2019 SR & MA Medium [ 151 ] Zhao et al. 2019 SR & MA Low [ 168 ] Pharmacological treatment options Diez-Perez et al. 2019 SR & MA Medium [ 228 ] Gartlehner et al. 2017 SR & MA Medium [ 215 ] Nayak et al. 2017 SR & MA Low [ 313 ] Poon et al. 2018 SR & MA Low [ 273 ] Simpson et al. 2020 SR & MA Medium [ 229 ] Zeng et al. 2019 SR & MA Medium [ 314 ] Strategies for management of osteoporosis and fracture risk Deng et al. 2020 SR & MA Low [ 266 ] Dennison et al. 2019 SR Medium [ 204 ] Gedmintas et al. 2013 SR & MA Medium [ 259 ] Khan et al. 2015 SR Medium [ 252 ] Miyashita et al. 2020 SR & MA Low [ 278 ] Nayak et al. 2019 SR & MA High [ 241 ] Tsourdi et al. 2020 SR Medium [ 202 ] Wang et al. 2018 SR & MA Critically Low [ 315 ] Yanbeiy et al. 2019 SR & MA Low [ 316 ] Management of symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral fractures Al-Sari et al. 2016 SR & MA Low [ 15 ] British Geriatric Society 2013 SR Medium [ 281 ] Buchbinder et al. 2018 SR & MA High [ 289 ] Ebeling et al. 2019 SR & MA Critically Low [ 286 ] Gibbs et al. 2019 SR Medium [ 285 ] Hofler et al. 2020 SR Low [ 288 ] Knopp-Sihota et al. 2012 SR & MA Medium [ 282 ] Svensson et al. 2017 SR Low [ 287 ] Models of care for fracture prevention Ganda et al. 2013 SR & MA Critically Low [ 297 ] Ganda et al. 2019 SR & MA Low [ 298 ] Martin et al. 2020 SR & MA Medium [ 306 ] Paskins et al. 2020 SR Medium [ 303 ] Wu et al. 2018 SR Critically Low [ 292 ] Wu et al. 2018 SR & MA Low [ 299 ]

SR systematic review; MA meta-analysis.

Jean Bowden, Jane Parker, and Nic Vine are public and patient representatives.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

5/19/2022

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s11657-022-01115-8

Acknowledgements

NOGG are grateful to our external peer reviewers, stakeholders, and the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases for their endorsement of this manuscript.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research,CS-2018–18-ST2-010,Zoe Paskins

No funding source/body was involved in the development and/or writing of this guideline, all members gave up their time voluntarily, without any remuneration for their work.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) Guideline Writing Group is divided into two groups, a Guideline Development Group (GDG) and an Expert Advisory Group (EAG). The GDG consists of 8 voting members (CLG, JC, JE, JK, RL, SL, ZP, JT), and 3 lay members (JB, JP, NV). One member has a financial disclosure, unrelated to drug development (JC received honoraria for speaking at a CME approved bone academy meeting and for consultancy relating to the characterisation of people at very high fracture risk), the remaining 10 have no financial disclosures. ZP is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2018–18-ST2-010)/NIHR Academy). ZP has undertaken consultancy for non-promotional activities for UCB and waived any rights to any fees. One member (JK) is also a member of the FRAX group, hence all FRAX-based recommendations had to be agreed by consensus of all the GDG. The Chair (CLG) has no disclosures. The EAG is composed of 9 members, all of whom have relevant conflicts of interest. DA has received advisory/speaking fees from UCB and Internis Pharma and has shares in GSK. CC has received advisory/speaking fees from Amgen, Danone, Eli Lilly, GSK, Kyowa Kirin, Medtronic, Merck, Nestle, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Shire, Takeda, and UCB. NG is on the advisory board of UCB, Novo Nordisk, Shire/Takeda and has received fees from UCB and Takeda. NCH has received advisory board/consultancy fees/honoraria from Alliance for Better Bone Health, Amgen, MSD, Eli Lilly, UCB, Radius, Servier, Shire, Consilient Healthcare, and Internis Pharma. EMC has received advisory/honoraria from Amgen, Consilient Healthcare, Kyowa Kirin, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Internis, ObsEva, Radius Inc and Redx Pharma and received research funding from Amgen, Internis, and Radius Inc. KM has received conference sponsorship from Abbvie, UCB, Novartis, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Pfizer, and Internis, and advisory/honoraria from Alexion. KP received advisory/speaker fees from UCB which were then donated to charities. DR has received advisory fees from UCB and Osteolabs. MS has received advisory/speaker fees from UCB, and speaker fees from Amgen and Gedeon Richter. All members of the GDG and EAG have read NICE’s ‘Policy on declaring and managing interests for NICE advisory boards’ (version 1.1, July 2019). Disclosures of all members of both groups are available on the NOGG website. Both the GDG and the EAG attend online meetings and take part in email discussions. However, voting on the recommendations is restricted to the GDG. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

References

1. Compston J Cooper A Cooper C Francis R Kanis JA Marsh D McCloskey EV Reid DM Selby P Wilkins M Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK Maturitas 2009 62 105 108 10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.11.022 19135323

2. Compston J Bowring C Cooper A Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and older men in the UK: National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) update 2013 Maturitas 2013 75 392 396 10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.05.013 23810490

3. Compston J Cooper A Cooper C UK clinical guideline for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis Arch Osteoporos 2017 12 43 10.1007/s11657-017-0324-5 28425085 PMC5397452

4. Harvey NC McCloskey E Kanis JA Compston J Cooper C Cost-effective but clinically inappropriate: new NICE intervention thresholds in osteoporosis (Technology Appraisal 464) Osteoporos Int 2018 29 1511 1513 10.1007/s00198-018-4505-x 29947864 PMC6037288

5. Söreskog E Lindberg I Kanis JA Åkesson KE Willems D Lorentzon M Ström O Berling P Borgström F Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden Osteoporos Int 2021 32 585 594 10.1007/s00198-020-05780-8 33409591 PMC7929944

6. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 358:j4008 10.1136/bmj.j4008 PMC5833365 28935701

7. Kanis JA Melton LJ 3rd Christiansen C Johnston CC Khaltaev N The diagnosis of osteoporosis J Bone Miner Res 1994 9 1137 1141 10.1002/jbmr.5650090802 7976495

8. van Staa TP Dennison EM Leufkens HG Cooper C Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales Bone 2001 29 517 522 10.1016/S8756-3282(01)00614-7 11728921

9. Borgström F Karlsson L Ortsäter G Fragility fractures in Europe: burden, management and opportunities Arch Osteoporos 2020 15 59 10.1007/s11657-020-0706-y 32306163 PMC7166207

10. Wainwright SA, Marshall LM, Ensrud KE, Cauley JA, Black DM, Hillier TA, Hochberg MC, Vogt MT, Orwoll ES, for the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research G Hip Fracture in Women without Osteoporosis J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005 90 2787 2793 10.1210/jc.2004-1568 15728213

11. Schuit SCE van der Klift M Weel AEAM de Laet CEDH Burger H Seeman E Hofman A Uitterlinden AG van Leeuwen JPTM Pols HAP Fracture incidence and association with bone mineral density in elderly men and women: the Rotterdam Study Bone 2004 34 195 202 10.1016/j.bone.2003.10.001 14751578

12. Kanis JA Oden A Johnell O The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women Osteoporos Int 2007 18 1033 1046 10.1007/s00198-007-0343-y 17323110

13. Royal College of Physicians (2019) National Hip Fracture Database Annual Report. https://www.nhfd.co.uk/files/2019ReportFiles/NHFD_2019_Annual_Report_v101.pdf

14. NHS National Services Scotland (2019) Scottish Hip Fracture Audit. Hip Fracture Care Pathway Report 2019. https://www.shfa.scot.nhs.uk/Reports/_docs/2019-08-20-SHFA-Report.pdf

15. Al-Sari UA Tobias J Clark E Health-related quality of life in older people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2016 27 2891 2900 10.1007/s00198-016-3648-x 27262840

16. Griffin XL, Parsons N, Achten J, Fernandez M, Costa ML (2015) Recovery of health-related quality of life in a United Kingdom hip fracture population. The Warwick Hip Trauma Evaluation--a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J, 97-b:372–382 10.1302/0301-620X.97B3.35738 25737522

17. Leal J Gray AM Prieto-Alhambra D Arden NK Cooper C Javaid MK Judge A Impact of hip fracture on hospital care costs: a population-based study Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 2016 27 549 558 10.1007/s00198-015-3277-9 26286626 PMC4740562

18. Kanis JA, Norton N, Harvey NC, Jacobson T, Johansson H, Lorentzon M, McCloskey EV, Willers C, F B (2021) SCOPE 2021: a new scorecard for osteoporosis in Europe. Arch Osteoporos. 10.1007/s11657-020-00871-9 10.1007/s11657-020-00871-9 PMC8172408 34080059

19. Royal College of Physicians (2018) National Hip Fracture Database Annual Report. https://www.nhfd.co.uk/files/2018ReportFiles/NHFD-2018-Annual-Report-v101.pdf

20. Royal College of Physicians The challenge of the next decade: are hip fracture services ready? A review of data from the National Hip Fracture Database (January–December 2019) 2021 London RCP

21. Hawley S Javaid MK Prieto-Alhambra D Lippett J Sheard S Arden NK Cooper C Judge A Clinical effectiveness of orthogeriatric and fracture liaison service models of care for hip fracture patients: population-based longitudinal study Age Ageing 2016 45 236 242 10.1093/ageing/afv204 26802076 PMC4776625

22. Bliuc D Nguyen ND Milch VE Nguyen TV Eisman JA Center JR Mortality risk associated with low-trauma osteoporotic fracture and subsequent fracture in men and women JAMA 2009 301 513 521 10.1001/jama.2009.50 19190316

23. Johnell O Kanis JA Odén A Sernbo I Redlund-Johnell I Petterson C De Laet C Jönsson B Mortality after osteoporotic fractures Osteoporos Int 2004 15 38 42 10.1007/s00198-003-1490-4 14593451

24. Kanis JA Oden A Johnell O De Laet C Jonsson B Oglesby AK The components of excess mortality after hip fracture Bone 2003 32 468 473 10.1016/S8756-3282(03)00061-9 12753862

25. Bhimjiyani A Neuburger J Jones T Ben-Shlomo Y Gregson CL The effect of social deprivation on hip fracture incidence in England has not changed over 14 years: an analysis of the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (2001–2015) Osteoporos Int 2018 29 115 124 10.1007/s00198-017-4238-2 28965213

26. Bhimjiyani A Neuburger J Jones T Ben-Shlomo Y Gregson CL Inequalities in hip fracture incidence are greatest in the North of England: regional analysis of the effects of social deprivation on hip fracture incidence across England Public Health 2018 162 25 31 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.05.002 29945041

27. Curtis EM van der Velde R Moon RJ van den Bergh JP Geusens P de Vries F van Staa TP Cooper C Harvey NC Epidemiology of fractures in the United Kingdom 1988–2012: variation with age, sex, geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic status Bone 2016 87 19 26 10.1016/j.bone.2016.03.006 26968752 PMC4890652

28. van der Velde RY Wyers CE Curtis EM Geusens PPMM van den Bergh JPW de Vries F Cooper C van Staa TP Harvey NC Secular trends in fracture incidence in the UK between 1990 and 2012 Osteoporos Int 2016 27 3197 3206 10.1007/s00198-016-3650-3 27283403 PMC5035540

29. Marshall D Johnell O Wedel H Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures BMJ 1996 312 1254 1259 10.1136/bmj.312.7041.1254 8634613 PMC2351094

30. Johnell O Kanis JA Oden A Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures J Bone Miner Res 2005 20 1185 1194 10.1359/JBMR.050304 15940371

31. Kanis JA Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk Lancet 2002 359 1929 1936 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5 12057569

32. Kanis JA Gluer CC An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors International Osteoporosis Foundation OsteoporosInt 2000 11 192 202 10.1007/s001980050281 10824234

33. Kanis JA McCloskey EV Johansson H Oden A Melton LJ 3rd Khaltaev N A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis Bone 2008 42 467 475 10.1016/j.bone.2007.11.001 18180210

34. De Laet CE Van Hout BA Burger H Weel AE Hofman A Pols HA Hip fracture prediction in elderly men and women: validation in the Rotterdam study J Bone Miner Res 1998 13 1587 1593 10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.10.1587 9783547

35. Binkley N Adler R Bilezikian JP Osteoporosis diagnosis in men: the T-score controversy revisited Curr Osteoporos Rep 2014 12 403 409 10.1007/s11914-014-0242-z 25255867 PMC4275049

36. International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) (2019) Adult Official Positions of the ISCD. https://iscd.org/learn/official-positions/adult-positions/

37. Kanis JA Johnell O Oden A The use of multiple sites for the diagnosis of osteoporosis Osteoporos Int 2006 17 527 534 10.1007/s00198-005-0014-9 16402164

38. Leslie WD Tsang JF Caetano PA Lix LM Number of osteoporotic sites and fracture risk assessment: a cohort study from the Manitoba Bone Density Program J Bone Miner Res 2007 22 476 483 10.1359/jbmr.061112 17144788

39. Leslie WD Martineau P Bryanton M Lix LM Which is the preferred site for bone mineral density monitoring as an indicator of treatment-related anti-fracture effect in routine clinical practice? A registry-based cohort study Osteoporos Int 2019 30 1445 1453 10.1007/s00198-019-04975-y 31016351

40. Royal Osteoporosis Society (2019) Reporting dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans in adult fracture risk assessment: Standards for quality. https://theros.org.uk/media/xhfhyy52/ros-reporting-dxa-scans-in-adult-fracture-risk-assessment-august-2019.pdf

41. Adams AL Fischer H Kopperdahl DL Osteoporosis and hip fracture risk from routine computed tomography scans: the Fracture, Osteoporosis, and CT Utilization Study (FOCUS) J Bone Miner Res 2018 33 1291 1301 10.1002/jbmr.3423 29665068 PMC6155990

42. Johannesdottir F Allaire B Bouxsein ML Fracture prediction by computed tomography and finite element analysis: current and future perspectives Curr Osteoporos Rep 2018 16 411 422 10.1007/s11914-018-0450-z 29846870

43. Pickhardt PJ Bodeen G Brett A Brown JK Binkley N Comparison of femoral neck BMD evaluation obtained using Lunar DXA and QCT with asynchronous calibration from CT colonography J Clin Densitom 2015 18 5 12 10.1016/j.jocd.2014.03.002 24880495

44. Cann CE Adams JE Brown JK Brett AD CTXA hip–an extension of classical DXA measurements using quantitative CT PLoS ONE 2014 9 e91904 e91904 10.1371/journal.pone.0091904 24637515 PMC3956816

45. Ziemlewicz TJ Maciejewski A Binkley N Brett AD Brown JK Pickhardt PJ Opportunistic quantitative CT bone mineral density measurement at the proximal femur using routine contrast-enhanced scans: direct comparison with DXA in 355 adults J Bone Miner Res 2016 31 1835 1840 10.1002/jbmr.2856 27082831

46. Lenchik L Weaver AA Ward RJ Boone JM Boutin RD Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using computed tomography: state of the art and argument for paradigm shift Curr Rheumatol Rep 2018 20 74 10.1007/s11926-018-0784-7 30317448 PMC7092507

47. Kanis JA on behalf of the WHO Scientific Group (2007) Assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health-care level. Technical Report. WHO Collaborating Centre, University of Sheffield, UK, Sheffield 2008

48. Laet C Kanis J Oden A Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2005 16 1330 1338 10.1007/s00198-005-1863-y 15928804

49. Leslie WD Schousboe JT Morin SN Martineau P Lix LM Johansson H McCloskey EV Harvey NC Kanis JA Fracture risk following high-trauma versus low-trauma fracture: a registry-based cohort study Osteoporos Int 2020 31 1059 1067 10.1007/s00198-019-05274-2 32173782 PMC7115893

50. Kanis J Johnell O Laet CD A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk Bone 2004 35 375 382 10.1016/j.bone.2004.03.024 15268886

51. Johansson H Odén A McCloskey EV Kanis JA Mild morphometric vertebral fractures predict vertebral fractures but not non-vertebral fractures Osteoporos Int 2014 25 235 241 10.1007/s00198-013-2460-0 23974856

52. Kanis JA Johansson H Odén A Characteristics of recurrent fractures Osteoporos Int 2018 29 1747 1757 10.1007/s00198-018-4502-0 29947869 PMC6076437

53. Kanis JA Johansson H Harvey NC Gudnason V Sigurdsson G Siggeirsdottir K Lorentzon M Liu E Vandenput L McCloskey EV Adjusting conventional FRAX estimates of fracture probability according to the recency of sentinel fractures Osteoporos Int 2020 31 1817 1828 10.1007/s00198-020-05517-7 32613411 PMC7116089

54. Kanis JA Johansson H Oden A A family history of fracture and fracture risk: a meta-analysis Bone 2004 35 1029 1037 10.1016/j.bone.2004.06.017 15542027

55. Kanis JA Johnell O Oden A Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2005 16 155 162 10.1007/s00198-004-1640-3 15175845

56. van Staa TP Leufkens HG Abenhaim L Zhang B Cooper C Oral corticosteroids and fracture risk: relationship to daily and cumulative doses Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000 39 1383 1389 10.1093/rheumatology/39.12.1383 11136882

57. Kanis JA Johansson H Oden A A meta-analysis of prior corticosteroid use and fracture risk J Bone Mineral Research 2004 19 893 899 10.1359/JBMR.040134 15125788

58. Kanis JA Johansson H Johnell O Oden A De Laet C Eisman JA Pols H Tenenhouse A Alcohol intake as a risk factor for fracture Osteoporos Int 2005 16 737 742 10.1007/s00198-004-1734-y 15455194

59. Vilaca T, Schini M, Harnan S, Sutton A, Poku E, Allen IE, Cummings SR, Eastell R (2020) The risk of hip and non-vertebral fractures in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. Bone 137:115457 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115457 32480023

60. Bai J Gao Q Wang C Dai J Diabetes mellitus and risk of low-energy fracture: a meta-analysis Aging Clin Exp Res 2020 32 2173 2186 10.1007/s40520-019-01417-x 31768878

61. Leslie WD Rubin MR Schwartz AV Kanis JA Type 2 diabetes and bone J Bone Miner Res 2012 27 2231 2237 10.1002/jbmr.1759 23023946

62. Giangregorio LM Leslie WD Lix LM Johansson H Oden A McCloskey E Kanis JA FRAX underestimates fracture risk in patients with diabetes J Bone Miner Res 2012 27 301 308 10.1002/jbmr.556 22052532

63. Johansson H Kanis JA Oden A Johnell O McCloskey E BMD, clinical risk factors and their combination for hip fracture prevention Osteoporos Int 2009 20 1675 1682 10.1007/s00198-009-0845-x 19291344

64. Kanis JA McCloskey E Johansson H Oden A Leslie WD FRAX(®) with and without bone mineral density Calcif Tissue Int 2012 90 1 13 10.1007/s00223-011-9544-7 22057815

65. McClung MR Geusens P Miller PD Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group N Engl J Med 2001 344 333 340 10.1056/NEJM200102013440503 11172164

66. Mortensen SJ Mohamadi A Wright CL Chan JJ Weaver MJ von Keudell A Nazarian A Medications as a risk factor for fragility hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Calcif Tissue Int 2020 107 1 9 10.1007/s00223-020-00688-1 32253446

67. Vestergaard P Rejnmark L Mosekilde L Fracture risk associated with parkinsonism and anti-Parkinson drugs Calcif Tissue Int 2007 81 153 161 10.1007/s00223-007-9065-6 17705047

68. Arbouw ME Movig KL van Staa TP Egberts AC Souverein PC de Vries F Dopaminergic drugs and the risk of hip or femur fracture: a population-based case-control study Osteoporos Int 2011 22 2197 2204 10.1007/s00198-010-1455-3 20967420 PMC3106160

69. Lee YK, Lee EG, Kim HY, Lee Y, Lee SM, Suh DC, Yoo JI, Lee S (2020) Osteoporotic fractures of the spine, hip, and other locations after adjuvant endocrine therapy with aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis. J Korean Med Sci 35:e403 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e403 PMC7707928 33258332

70. Myint ZW, Momo HD, Otto DE, Yan D, Wang P, Kolesar JM (2020) Evaluation of fall and fracture risk among men with prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA network open 3:e2025826 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25826 PMC7672516 33201234

71. Cosman F Cauley JA Eastell R Boonen S Palermo L Reid IR Cummings SR Black DM Reassessment of fracture risk in women after 3 years of treatment with zoledronic acid: when is it reasonable to discontinue treatment? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014 99 4546 4554 10.1210/jc.2014-1971 25215556

72. Palermo A D'Onofrio L Eastell R Schwartz AV Pozzilli P Napoli N Oral anti-diabetic drugs and fracture risk, cut to the bone: safe or dangerous? A narrative review Osteoporos Int 2015 26 2073 2089 10.1007/s00198-015-3123-0 25910746

73. Singh-Ospina N Maraka S Rodriguez-Gutierrez R Davidge-Pitts C Nippoldt TB Prokop LJ Murad MH Effect of sex steroids on the bone health of transgender individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017 102 3904 3913 10.1210/jc.2017-01642 28945851

74. Diez-Perez A Adachi JD Agnusdei D Treatment failure in osteoporosis Osteoporos Int 2012 23 2769 2774 10.1007/s00198-012-2093-8 22836278

75. Lorentzon M Branco J Brandi ML Algorithm for the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in the diagnosis, assessment and follow-up of treatment for osteoporosis Adv Ther 2019 36 2811 2824 10.1007/s12325-019-01063-9 31440982 PMC6822833

76. Johansson H Odén A Kanis JA McCloskey EV Morris HA Cooper C Vasikaran S A meta-analysis of reference markers of bone turnover for prediction of fracture Calcif Tissue Int 2014 94 560 567 10.1007/s00223-014-9842-y 24590144

77. Kanis JA Johansson H Harvey NC The use of 2-, 5-, and 10-year probabilities to characterize fracture risk after a recent sentinel fracture Osteoporos Int 2021 32 47 54 10.1007/s00198-020-05700-w 33083910

78. McCloskey EV, Borgström F, Cooper C, Harvey NC, Javaid MK, Lorentzon M, JA. K (2021) Short time horizons for fracture prediction tools: time for a rethink. Osteoporos Int in press 10.1007/s00198-021-05962-y PMC7611752 33914103

79. Kanis JA Harvey NC Cooper C Johansson H Odén A McCloskey EV A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX : a report prepared for the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group and the International Osteoporosis Foundation Arch Osteoporos 2016 11 25 10.1007/s11657-016-0278-z 27465509 PMC4978487

80. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C (2009) Predicting risk of osteoporotic fracture in men and women in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QFractureScores. 339:b4229 10.1136/bmj.b4229 PMC2779855 19926696

81. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2012) Osteoporosis: assessing the risk of fragility fracture. NICE clinical guideline [CG146]. Manchester: NICE. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg146 31869026

82. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2017) Osteoporosis: Quality standard [QS149]. Manchester, NICE

83. Kanis JA Johansson H Oden A McCloskey EV Guidance for the adjustment of FRAX according to the dose of glucocorticoids Osteoporos Int 2011 22 809 816 10.1007/s00198-010-1524-7 21229233

84. Leslie WD Morin S Lix LM Johansson H Oden A McCloskey E Kanis JA Fracture risk assessment without bone density measurement in routine clinical practice Osteoporos Int 2012 23 75 85 10.1007/s00198-011-1747-2 21850546

85. Johansson H Kanis JA Odén A Impact of femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD discordances on FRAX probabilities in women: a meta-analysis of international cohorts Calcified Tiss Inter 2014 95 428 435 10.1007/s00223-014-9911-2 PMC4361897 25187239

86. McCloskey EV Odén A Harvey NC A meta-analysis of trabecular bone score in fracture risk prediction and its relationship to FRAX J Bone Mineral Res 2016 31 940 948 10.1002/jbmr.2734 26498132

87. Leslie WD Lix LM Morin SN Johansson H Odén A McCloskey EV Kanis JA Adjusting Hip Fracture Probability in Men and Women Using Hip Axis Length: the Manitoba Bone Density Database J Clin Densitom 2016 19 326 331 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.07.004 26257267

88. Masud T Binkley N Boonen S Hannan MT Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding falls and frailty: can falls and frailty be used in FRAX®? From Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX® J Clin Densitom 2011 14 194 204 10.1016/j.jocd.2011.05.010 21810525

89. Johansson H Odén A Lorentzon M McCloskey E Kanis JA Harvey NC Karlsson MK Mellström D Is the Swedish FRAX model appropriate for Swedish immigrants? Osteoporos Int 2015 26 2617 2622 10.1007/s00198-015-3180-4 26018091

90. Leslie WD Johansson H McCloskey EV Harvey NC Kanis JA Hans D Comparison of Methods for Improving Fracture Risk Assessment in Diabetes: The Manitoba BMD Registry J Bone Mineral Res 2018 33 1923 1930 10.1002/jbmr.3538 PMC6193547 29953670

91. Brennan SL Leslie WD Lix LM Johansson H Oden A McCloskey E Kanis JA FRAX provides robust fracture prediction regardless of socioeconomic status Osteoporos Int 2014 25 61 69 10.1007/s00198-013-2525-0 24190425

92. Leslie WD Orwoll ES Nielson CM Morin SN Majumdar SR Johansson H Odén A McCloskey EV Kanis JA Estimated lean mass and fat mass differentially affect femoral bone density and strength index but are not FRAX independent risk factors for fracture J Bone Mineral Res 2014 29 2511 2519 10.1002/jbmr.2280 24825359

93. Whitlock RH Leslie WD Shaw J Rigatto C Thorlacius L Komenda P Collister D Kanis JA Tangri N The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) predicts fracture risk in patients with chronic kidney disease Kidney Int 2019 95 447 454 10.1016/j.kint.2018.09.022 30579724

94. Baruch Fischhoff, Noel T. Brewer, Downs. JS (2018) Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence-based user's guide. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration.,

95. Fink HA Milavetz DL Palermo L Nevitt MC Cauley JA Genant HK Black DM Ensrud KE What proportion of incident radiographic vertebral deformities is clinically diagnosed and vice versa? J Bone Miner Res 2005 20 1216 1222 10.1359/JBMR.050314 15940375

96. Melton LJ 3rd Atkinson EJ Cooper C O'Fallon WM Riggs BL Vertebral fractures predict subsequent fractures Osteoporos Int 1999 10 214 221 10.1007/s001980050218 10525713

97. Lindsay R Silverman SL Cooper C Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture JAMA 2001 285 320 323 10.1001/jama.285.3.320 11176842

98. Jang HD Kim EH Lee JC Choi SW Kim K Shin BJ Current concepts in the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a narrative review Asian Spine J 2020 14 898 909 10.31616/asj.2020.0594 33373513 PMC7788360

99. Lewiecki EM Bone densitometry and vertebral fracture assessment Curr Osteoporos Rep 2010 8 123 130 10.1007/s11914-010-0018-z 20556673

100. Gausden EB Nwachukwu BU Schreiber JJ Lorich DG Lane JM Opportunistic use of CT imaging for osteoporosis screening and bone density assessment: a qualitative systematic review J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017 99 1580 1590 10.2106/JBJS.16.00749 28926388

101. Bromiley PA Clark EM Poole KE Computer-aided diagnostic systems for osteoporotic vertebral fracture detection: opportunities and challenges J Bone Mineral Research 2020 35 2305 2306 10.1002/jbmr.4205 PMC8126958 33188716

102. Kolanu N Silverstone EJ Ho BH Pham H Hansen A Pauley E Quirk AR Sweeney SC Center JR Pocock NA Clinical utility of computer-aided diagnosis of vertebral fractures from computed tomography images J Bone Miner Res 2020 35 2307 2312 10.1002/jbmr.4146 32749735

103. Howlett DC Drinkwater KJ Mahmood N Illes J Griffin J Javaid K Radiology reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fragility fractures on computed tomography studies: results of a UK national audit Eur Radiol 2020 30 4713 4723 10.1007/s00330-020-06845-2 32435926

104. Kim YM Demissie S Genant HK Cheng X Yu W Samelson EJ Kiel DP Bouxsein ML Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures using CT lateral scout views: a comparison of semi-automated quantitative vertebral morphometry and radiologist semi-quantitative grading Osteoporos Int 2012 23 1007 1016 10.1007/s00198-011-1774-z 21927924 PMC3584446

105. Rubin KH Rothmann MJ Holmberg T Effectiveness of a two-step population-based osteoporosis screening program using FRAX: the randomized Risk-stratified Osteoporosis Strategy Evaluation (ROSE) study Osteoporos Int 2018 29 567 578 10.1007/s00198-017-4326-3 29218381

106. Merlijn T Swart KM van Schoor NM The effect of a screening and treatment program for the prevention of fractures in older women: a randomized pragmatic trial J Bone Miner Res 2019 34 1993 2000 10.1002/jbmr.3815 31220365 PMC6900199

107. Merlijn T Swart KMA van der Horst HE Netelenbos JC Elders PJM Fracture prevention by screening for high fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2020 31 251 257 10.1007/s00198-019-05226-w 31838551 PMC7010619

108. Ismail AA Cooper C Felsenberg D Varlow J Kanis JA Silman AJ O'Neill TW Number and type of vertebral deformities: epidemiological characteristics and relation to back pain and height loss. European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study Group Osteoporos Int 1999 9 206 213 10.1007/s001980050138 10450408

109. Zhang Q Dong J Zhou D Liu F Comparative risk of fracture for bariatric procedures in patients with obesity: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis Int J Surg (London, England) 2020 75 13 23 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.01.018 31978646

110. Kanis JA McCloskey EV Johansson H Strom O Borgstrom F Oden A Case finding for the management of osteoporosis with FRAX–assessment and intervention thresholds for the UK Osteoporos Int 2008 19 1395 1408 10.1007/s00198-008-0712-1 18751937

111. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) Bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis. Technology appraisal guidance [TA464]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta464

112. McCloskey E Kanis JA Johansson H FRAX-based assessment and intervention thresholds–an exploration of thresholds in women aged 50 years and older in the UK Osteoporos Int 2015 26 2091 2099 10.1007/s00198-015-3176-0 26077380

113. Shepstone L Lenaghan E Cooper C Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial Lancet 2018 391 741 747 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32640-5 29254858

114. Cosman F Crittenden DB Adachi JD Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2016 375 1532 1543 10.1056/NEJMoa1607948 27641143

115. Saag KG Petersen J Brandi ML Karaplis AC Lorentzon M Thomas T Maddox J Fan M Meisner PD Grauer A Romosozumab or alendronate for fracture prevention in women with osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2017 377 1417 1427 10.1056/NEJMoa1708322 28892457

116. Kendler DL Marin F Zerbini CAF Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial Lancet 2018 391 230 240 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32137-2 29129436

117. Kanis JA Harvey NC McCloskey E Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures Osteoporos Int 2020 31 1 12 10.1007/s00198-019-05176-3 31720707 PMC7018677

118. Delmas PD Genant HK Crans GG Stock JL Wong M Siris E Adachi JD Severity of prevalent vertebral fractures and the risk of subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures: results from the MORE trial Bone 2003 33 522 532 10.1016/S8756-3282(03)00241-2 14555255

119. Kanis JA Cooper C Rizzoli R Reginster JY European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women Osteoporos Int 2019 30 3 44 10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5 30324412 PMC7026233

120. Johnell O Oden A Caulin F Kanis JA Acute and long-term increase in fracture risk after hospitalization for vertebral fracture Osteoporos Int 2001 12 207 214 10.1007/s001980170131 11315239

121. Giangregorio LM Leslie WD Time since prior fracture is a risk modifier for 10-year osteoporotic fractures J Bone Miner Res 2010 25 1400 1405 10.1002/jbmr.35 20200950

122. Dretakis KE Dretakis EK Papakitsou EF Psarakis S Steriopoulos K Possible predisposing factors for the second hip fracture Calcif Tissue Int 1998 62 366 369 10.1007/s002239900446 9504964

123. Nymark T Lauritsen JM Ovesen O Röck ND Jeune B Short time-frame from first to second hip fracture in the Funen County Hip Fracture Study Osteoporos Int 2006 17 1353 1357 10.1007/s00198-006-0125-y 16823545

124. Ryg J Rejnmark L Overgaard S Brixen K Vestergaard P Hip fracture patients at risk of second hip fracture: a nationwide population-based cohort study of 169,145 cases during 1977–2001 J Bone Miner Res 2009 24 1299 1307 10.1359/jbmr.090207 19257816

125. van Geel TA van Helden S Geusens PP Winkens B Dinant GJ Clinical subsequent fractures cluster in time after first fractures Ann Rheum Dis 2009 68 99 102 10.1136/ard.2008.092775 18677009

126. Johansson H Siggeirsdóttir K Harvey NC Odén A Gudnason V McCloskey E Sigurdsson G Kanis JA Imminent risk of fracture after fracture Osteoporos Int 2017 28 775 780 10.1007/s00198-016-3868-0 28028554 PMC5338733

127. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Harvey NC, Gudnason V, Sigurdsson G, Siggeirsdottir K, Lorentzon M, Liu E, Vandenput L, McCloskey EV (2021) The effect on subsequent fracture risk of age, sex, and prior fracture site by recency of prior fracture. Osteoporosis International 10.1007/s00198-020-05803-4 33537845

128. Body JJ Marin F Kendler DL Efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate on FRAX(®)-defined major osteoporotic fractures: results of the VERO clinical trial Osteoporos Int 2020 31 1935 1942 10.1007/s00198-020-05463-4 32474650 PMC7497508

129. Lyles KW Colon-Emeric CS Magaziner JS Zoledronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture N Engl J Med 2007 357 1799 1809 10.1056/NEJMoa074941 17878149 PMC2324066

130. Kanis JA Johansson H Harvey NC Lorentzon M Liu E Vandenput L EV. M, An assessment of intervention thresholds for very high fracture risk applied to the NOGG guidelines Osteoporos Int 2021 32 1951 1960 10.1007/s00198-021-05942-2 33813622

131. Kanis JA Rizzoli R Cooper C Reginster JY Challenges for the development of bone-forming agents in Europe Calcif Tissue Int 2014 94 469 473 10.1007/s00223-014-9844-9 24687521

132. Johansson H Kanis JA Oden A Compston J McCloskey E A comparison of case-finding strategies in the UK for the management of hip fractures Osteoporos Int 2012 23 907 915 10.1007/s00198-011-1864-y 22234810

133. Cummings SR Black DM Thompson DE Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial JAMA 1998 280 2077 2082 10.1001/jama.280.24.2077 9875874

134. Eastell R Black DM Boonen S Effect of once-yearly zoledronic acid five milligrams on fracture risk and change in femoral neck bone mineral density J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009 94 3215 3225 10.1210/jc.2008-2765 19567517 PMC5101059

135. Harvey NC Kanis JA Odén A Nakamura T Shiraki M Sugimoto T Kuroda T Johansson H McCloskey EV Efficacy of weekly teriparatide does not vary by baseline fracture probability calculated using FRAX Osteoporos Int 2015 26 2347 2353 10.1007/s00198-015-3129-7 26092062 PMC4532707

136. McCloskey E A BMD threshold for treatment efficacy in osteoporosis? A need to consider the whole evidence base Osteoporos Int 2016 27 417 419 10.1007/s00198-015-3406-5 26564227

137. Reid IR Horne AM Mihov B Stewart A Garratt E Wong S Wiessing KR Bolland MJ Bastin S Gamble GD Fracture prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia N Engl J Med 2018 379 2407 2416 10.1056/NEJMoa1808082 30575489

138. Johansson H Oden A Johnell O Jonsson B de Laet C Oglesby A McCloskey EV Kayan K Jalava T Kanis JA Optimization of BMD measurements to identify high risk groups for treatment–a test analysis J Bone Mineral Res 2004 19 906 913 10.1359/jbmr.2004.19.6.906 15190881

139. Leslie WD Majumdar SR Lix LM Johansson H Oden A McCloskey E Kanis JA High fracture probability with FRAX usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice Osteoporos Int 2012 23 391 397 10.1007/s00198-011-1592-3 21365460

140. Leslie WD Lix LM Johansson H Oden A McCloskey E Kanis JA Does osteoporosis therapy invalidate FRAX for fracture prediction? J Bone Mineral Research 2012 27 1243 1251 10.1002/jbmr.1582 22392538

141. Fabiani R Naldini G Chiavarini M Dietary patterns in relation to low bone mineral density and fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md) 2019 10 219 236 10.1093/advances/nmy073 30657847 PMC6416046

142. Lin P-H Ginty F Appel LJ Aickin M Bohannon A Garnero P Barclay D Svetkey LP The DASH diet and sodium reduction improve markers of bone turnover and calcium metabolism in adults J Nutr 2003 133 3130 3136 10.1093/jn/133.10.3130 14519796

143. Groenendijk I den Boeft L van Loon LJC de Groot L High versus low dietary protein intake and bone health in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2019 17 1101 1112 10.1016/j.csbj.2019.07.005 31462966 PMC6704341

144. Darling AL Manders RJF Sahni S Zhu K Hewitt CE Prince RL Millward DJ Lanham-New SA Dietary protein and bone health across the life-course: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis over 40 years Osteoporos Int 2019 30 741 761 10.1007/s00198-019-04933-8 30903209

145. Myint MW Wu J Wong E Chan SP To TS Chau MW Ting KH Fung PM Au KS Clinical benefits of oral nutritional supplementation for elderly hip fracture patients: a single blind randomised controlled trial Age Ageing 2013 42 39 45 10.1093/ageing/afs078 22685164

146. Iguacel I Miguel-Berges ML Gómez-Bruton A Moreno LA Julián C Veganism, vegetarianism, bone mineral density, and fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis Nutr Rev 2019 77 1 18 10.1093/nutrit/nuy045 30376075

147. Tong TYN Appleby PN Armstrong MEG Fensom GK Knuppel A Papier K Perez-Cornago A Travis RC Key TJ Vegetarian and vegan diets and risks of total and site-specific fractures: results from the prospective EPIC-Oxford study BMC Med 2020 18 353 10.1186/s12916-020-01815-3 33222682 PMC7682057

148. Department of Health Dietary reference values for food energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom 1991 London HMSO

149. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) (2016) Vitamin D and Health. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-committee-on-nutrition

150. Royal Osteoporosis Society (2018) Vitamin D and bone health: a practical clinical guideline for patient management. https://strwebprdmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/ef2ideu2/ros-vitamin-d-and-bone-health-in-adults-february-2020.pdf

151. Yao P, Bennett D, Mafham M, Lin X, Chen Z, Armitage J, Clarke R (2019) Vitamin D and calcium for the prevention of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2:e1917789 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789 PMC6991219 31860103

152. Tang BM Eslick GD Nowson C Smith C Bensoussan A Use of calcium or calcium in combination with vitamin D supplementation to prevent fractures and bone loss in people aged 50 years and older: a meta-analysis Lancet 2007 370 657 666 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61342-7 17720017

153. Group. DVDIPAoRT (2010) Patient level pooled analysis of 68 500 patients from seven major vitamin D fracture trials in US and Europe. Bmj 340:b5463 10.1136/bmj.b5463 PMC2806633 20068257

154. Harvey NC Biver E Kaufman JM The role of calcium supplementation in healthy musculoskeletal ageing Osteoporos Int 2017 28 447 462 10.1007/s00198-016-3773-6 27761590 PMC5274536

155. Kahwati LC Weber RP Pan H Gourlay M LeBlanc E Coker-Schwimmer M Viswanathan M Vitamin D, calcium, or combined supplementation for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling adults: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force JAMA 2018 319 1600 1612 10.1001/jama.2017.21640 29677308

156. Sanders KM Stuart AL Williamson EJ Simpson JA Kotowicz MA Young D Nicholson GC Annual high-dose oral vitamin D and falls and fractures in older women: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 2010 303 1815 1822 10.1001/jama.2010.594 20460620

157. Bischoff-Ferrari HA Dawson-Hughes B Orav EJ Staehelin HB Meyer OW Theiler R Dick W Willett WC Egli A Monthly high-dose vitamin D treatment for the prevention of functional decline: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Intern Med 2016 176 175 183 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7148 26747333

158. Howe TE, Shea B, Dawson LJ, Downie F, Murray A, Ross C, Harbour RT, Caldwell LM, Creed G (2011) Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Cd000333 10.1002/14651858.CD000333.pub2 PMC12744941 21735380

159. Kemmler W Shojaa M Kohl M von Stengel S Effects of different types of exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis Calcif Tissue Int 2020 107 409 439 10.1007/s00223-020-00744-w 32785775 PMC7546993

160. Babatunde OO Bourton AL Hind K Paskins Z Forsyth JJ Exercise interventions for preventing and treating low bone mass in the forearm: a systematic review and meta-analysis Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2020 101 487 511 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.07.007 31465763

161. Kelley GA Kelley KS Kohrt WM Exercise and bone mineral density in men: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Bone 2013 53 103 111 10.1016/j.bone.2012.11.031 23219948

162. Royal Osteoporosis Society (2018) Strong, Steady and Straight; An Expert Consensus Statement on physical activity and exercise for osteoporosis. https://theros.org.uk/media/0o5h1l53/ros-strong-steady-straight-quick-guide-february-2019.pdf 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104634 PMC9304091 35577538

163. Kunutsor SK Leyland S Skelton DA James L Cox M Gibbons N Whitney J Clark EM Adverse events and safety issues associated with physical activity and exercise for adults with osteoporosis and osteopenia: a systematic review of observational studies and an updated review of interventional studies Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls 2018 3 155 178 10.22540/JFSF-03-155 32300705 PMC7155356

164. Bhasin S Gill TM Reuben DB A Randomized Trial of a Multifactorial Strategy to Prevent Serious Fall Injuries N Engl J Med 2020 383 129 140 10.1056/NEJMoa2002183 32640131 PMC7421468

165. Lamb SE Bruce J Hossain A Screening and Intervention to Prevent Falls and Fractures in Older People N Engl J Med 2020 383 1848 1859 10.1056/NEJMoa2001500 33211928

166. El-Khoury F, Cassou B, Charles M-A, Dargent-Molina P (2013) The effect of fall prevention exercise programmes on fall induced injuries in community dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. 347:f6234 10.1136/bmj.f6234 PMC3812467 24169944

167. Sherrington C, Fairhall NJ, Wallbank GK, Tiedemann A, Michaleff ZA, Howard K, Clemson L, Hopewell S, Lamb SE (2019) Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:Cd012424 10.1002/14651858.CD012424.pub2 PMC6360922 30703272

168. Zhao R Bu W Chen X The efficacy and safety of exercise for prevention of fall-related injuries in older people with different health conditions, and differing intervention protocols: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials BMC Geriatr 2019 19 341 10.1186/s12877-019-1359-9 31795944 PMC6892137

169. Sherrington C Michaleff ZA Fairhall N Paul SS Tiedemann A Whitney J Cumming RG Herbert RD Close JCT Lord SR Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis Br J Sports Med 2017 51 1750 1758 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096547 27707740

170. Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, Sherrington C, Gates S, Clemson LM, Lamb SE (2012) Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Cd007146 10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub3 PMC8095069 22972103

171. Jepsen DB, Thomsen K, Hansen S, Jørgensen NR, Masud T, Ryg J (2017) Effect of whole-body vibration exercise in preventing falls and fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 7:e018342 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018342 PMC6027066 29289937

172. Thorin MH Wihlborg A Åkesson K Gerdhem P Smoking, smoking cessation, and fracture risk in elderly women followed for 10 years Osteoporos Int 2016 27 249 255 10.1007/s00198-015-3290-z 26302684

173. Shen GS Li Y Zhao G Zhou HB Xie ZG Xu W Chen HN Dong QR Xu YJ Cigarette smoking and risk of hip fracture in women: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies Injury 2015 46 1333 1340 10.1016/j.injury.2015.04.008 25956674

174. Min W An R Li S Feng J Yang J Huang Z The effects of preoperative smoking cessation on the healing of fractures and postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis Biomed Res 2017 28 1883 1889

175. Song TH Shim JC Jung DU Moon JJ Jeon DW Kim SJ Oh MK Increased bone mineral density after abstinence in male patients with alcohol dependence Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci 2018 16 282 289 10.9758/cpn.2018.16.3.282 30121978 PMC6124870

176. Health. Do (2016) UK Chief Medical Officers’ Alcohol Guidelines Review Summary of the proposed new guidelines. Williams Lea

177. Crandall CJ Newberry SJ Diamant A Lim YW Gellad WF Booth MJ Motala A Shekelle PG Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review Ann Intern Med 2014 161 711 723 10.7326/M14-0317 25199883

178. Black DM Cummings SR Karpf DB Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group Lancet 1996 348 1535 1541 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07088-2 8950879

179. Orwoll E Ettinger M Weiss S Alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis in men N Engl J Med 2000 343 604 610 10.1056/NEJM200008313430902 10979796

180. Saag KG Emkey R Schnitzer TJ Alendronate for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis Intervention Study Group N Engl J Med 1998 339 292 299 10.1056/NEJM199807303390502 9682041

181. Harris ST Watts NB Genant HK Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group JAMA 1999 282 1344 1352 10.1001/jama.282.14.1344 10527181

182. Reginster J Minne HW Sorensen OH Randomized trial of the effects of risedronate on vertebral fractures in women with established postmenopausal osteoporosis. Vertebral Efficacy with Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group Osteoporos Int 2000 11 83 91 10.1007/s001980050010 10663363

183. Boonen S Orwoll ES Wenderoth D Stoner KJ Eusebio R Delmas PD Once-weekly risedronate in men with osteoporosis: results of a 2-year, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study J Bone Miner Res 2009 24 719 725 10.1359/jbmr.081214 19049326

184. Wallach S Cohen S Reid DM Effects of risedronate treatment on bone density and vertebral fracture in patients on corticosteroid therapy Calcif Tissue Int 2000 67 277 285 10.1007/s002230001146 11000340

185. Reid DM Hughes RA Laan RF Sacco-Gibson NA Wenderoth DH Adami S Eusebio RA Devogelaer JP Efficacy and safety of daily risedronate in the treatment of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis in men and women: a randomized trial. European Corticosteroid-Induced Osteoporosis Treatment Study J Bone Miner Res 2000 15 1006 1013 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.6.1006 10841169

186. Delmas PD Recker RR Chesnut CH 3rd Skag A Stakkestad JA Emkey R Gilbride J Schimmer RC Christiansen C Daily and intermittent oral ibandronate normalize bone turnover and provide significant reduction in vertebral fracture risk: results from the BONE study Osteoporos Int 2004 15 792 798 10.1007/s00198-004-1602-9 15071723

187. Chesnut CH 3rd Skag A Christiansen C Effects of oral ibandronate administered daily or intermittently on fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis J Bone Miner Res 2004 19 1241 1249 10.1359/JBMR.040325 15231010

188. Reginster JY Adami S Lakatos P Efficacy and tolerability of once-monthly oral ibandronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2 year results from the MOBILE study Ann Rheum Dis 2006 65 654 661 10.1136/ard.2005.044958 16339289 PMC1798147

189. Eisman JA Civitelli R Adami S Efficacy and tolerability of intravenous ibandronate injections in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2-year results from the DIVA study J Rheumatol 2008 35 488 497 18260172

190. Black DM Delmas PD Eastell R Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2007 356 1809 1822 10.1056/NEJMoa067312 17476007

191. Boonen S Reginster JY Kaufman JM Fracture risk and zoledronic acid therapy in men with osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2012 367 1714 1723 10.1056/NEJMoa1204061 23113482

192. Reid DM Devogelaer JP Saag K Zoledronic acid and risedronate in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (HORIZON): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial Lancet 2009 373 1253 1263 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60250-6 19362675

193. Reid IR Horne AM Mihov B Stewart A Garratt E Bastin S Gamble GD Effects of zoledronate on cancer, cardiac events, and mortality in osteopenic older women J Bone Miner Res 2020 35 20 27 10.1002/jbmr.3860 31603996

194. Reid IR Gamble GD Mesenbrink P Lakatos P Black DM Characterization of and risk factors for the acute-phase response after zoledronic acid J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010 95 4380 4387 10.1210/jc.2010-0597 20554708

195. Saag KG Wagman RB Geusens P Adachi JD Messina OD Emkey R Chapurlat R Wang A Pannacciulli N Lems WF Denosumab versus risedronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, non-inferiority study Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018 6 445 454 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30075-5 29631782

196. Cummings SR San Martin J McClung MR Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2009 361 756 765 10.1056/NEJMoa0809493 19671655

197. Bone HG Wagman RB Brandi ML 10 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the phase 3 randomised FREEDOM trial and open-label extension Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017 5 513 523 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30138-9 28546097

198. Langdahl BL Teglbjaerg CS Ho PR A 24-month study evaluating the efficacy and safety of denosumab for the treatment of men with low bone mineral density: results from the ADAMO trial J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015 100 1335 1342 10.1210/jc.2014-4079 25607608

199. (2014) https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/denosumab-monitoring-recommended Accessed January 7th 2021

200. Bone HG Bolognese MA Yuen CK Kendler DL Miller PD Yang YC Grazette L San Martin J Gallagher JC Effects of denosumab treatment and discontinuation on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with low bone mass J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011 96 972 980 10.1210/jc.2010-1502 21289258

201. Miller PD Wagman RB Peacock M Lewiecki EM Bolognese MA Weinstein RL Ding B San Martin J McClung MR Effect of denosumab on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover: six-year results of a phase 2 clinical trial J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011 96 394 402 10.1210/jc.2010-1805 21159841

202. Tsourdi E, Zillikens MC, Meier C, et al. (2020) Fracture risk and management of discontinuation of denosumab therapy: a systematic review and position statement by ECTS. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism 10.1210/clinem/dgaa756 33103722

203. Cummings SR Ferrari S Eastell R Vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab: a post hoc analysis of the randomized placebo-controlled FREEDOM trial and its extension J Bone Miner Res 2018 33 190 198 10.1002/jbmr.3337 29105841

204. Dennison EM Cooper C Kanis JA Bruyère O Silverman S McCloskey E Abrahamsen B Prieto-Alhambra D Ferrari S Fracture risk following intermission of osteoporosis therapy Osteoporos Int 2019 30 1733 1743 10.1007/s00198-019-05002-w 31175404

205. Reid IR Horne AM Mihov B Gamble GD Bone loss after denosumab: only partial protection with zoledronate Calcif Tissue Int 2017 101 371 374 10.1007/s00223-017-0288-x 28500448

206. Horne AM Mihov B Reid IR Effect of zoledronate on bone loss after romosozumab/denosumab: 2-year follow-up Calcif Tissue Int 2019 105 107 108 10.1007/s00223-019-00553-w 31087124

207. Anastasilakis AD, Papapoulos SE, Polyzos SA, Appelman-Dijkstra NM, Makras P (2019) Zoledronate for the prevention of bone loss in women discontinuing denosumab treatment. A Prospective 2-Year Clinical Trial. J Bone Mineral Res; 34:2220–2228 10.1002/jbmr.3853 31433518

208. Everts-Graber J Reichenbach S Ziswiler HR Studer U Lehmann T A single infusion of zoledronate in postmenopausal women following denosumab discontinuation results in partial conservation of bone mass gains J Bone Miner Res 2020 35 1207 1215 10.1002/jbmr.3962 31991007

209. Sølling AS Harsløf T Langdahl B Treatment with zoledronate subsequent to denosumab in osteoporosis: a randomized trial J Bone Miner Res 2020 35 1858 1870 10.1002/jbmr.4098 32459005

210. Makras P Appelman-Dijkstra NM Papapoulos SE van Wissen S Winter EM Polyzos SA Yavropoulou MP Anastasilakis AD The duration of denosumab treatment and the efficacy of zoledronate to preserve bone mineral density after its discontinuation J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2021 106 e4155 e4162 10.1210/clinem/dgab321 33978745

211. Tsourdi E Langdahl B Cohen-Solal M Aubry-Rozier B Eriksen EF Guañabens N Obermayer-Pietsch B Ralston SH Eastell R Zillikens MC Discontinuation of denosumab therapy for osteoporosis: a systematic review and position statement by ECTS Bone 2017 105 11 17 10.1016/j.bone.2017.08.003 28789921

212. Kendler D Chines A Clark P Ebeling PR McClung M Rhee Y Huang S Stad RK Bone mineral density after transitioning from denosumab to alendronate J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020 105 e255 264 10.1210/clinem/dgz095 31665314 PMC7112973

213. Marjoribanks J, Farquhar C, Roberts H, Lethaby A (2012) Long term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD004143 10.1002/14651858.CD004143.pub4 22786488

214. Rossouw JE Anderson GL Prentice RL Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial JAMA 2002 288 321 333 10.1001/jama.288.3.321 12117397

215. Gartlehner G Patel SV Feltner C Weber RP Long R Mullican K Boland E Lux L Viswanathan M Hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force JAMA 2017 318 2234 2249 10.1001/jama.2017.16952 29234813

216. Rozenberg S Al-Daghri N Aubertin-Leheudre M Is there a role for menopausal hormone therapy in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int 2020 31 2271 2286 10.1007/s00198-020-05497-8 32642851 PMC7661391

217. Gallagher JC Goldgar D Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with high doses of synthetic calcitriol. A randomized controlled study Ann Intern Med 1990 113 649 655 10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-649 2221645

218. Ettinger B Black DM Mitlak BH Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) Investigators JAMA 1999 282 637 645 10.1001/jama.282.7.637 10517716

219. Barrett-Connor E Cox DA Song J Mitlak B Mosca L Grady D Raloxifene and risk for stroke based on the framingham stroke risk score Am J Med 2009 122 754 761 10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.01.033 19540454

220. Barrett-Connor E Mosca L Collins P Geiger MJ Grady D Kornitzer M McNabb MA Wenger NK Use R for The Heart Trial I, Effects of raloxifene on cardiovascular events and breast cancer in postmenopausal women N Engl J Med 2006 355 125 137 10.1056/NEJMoa062462 16837676

221. Meunier PJ Roux C Seeman E The effects of strontium ranelate on the risk of vertebral fracture in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2004 350 459 468 10.1056/NEJMoa022436 14749454

222. Reginster JY Seeman E De Vernejoul MC Strontium ranelate reduces the risk of nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: Treatment of Peripheral Osteoporosis (TROPOS) study J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005 90 2816 2822 10.1210/jc.2004-1774 15728210

223. Kaufman JM Audran M Bianchi G Efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporosis in men J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013 98 592 601 10.1210/jc.2012-3048 23341486

224. Osborne V Layton D Perrio M Wilton L Shakir SA Incidence of venous thromboembolism in users of strontium ranelate: an analysis of data from a prescription-event monitoring study in England Drug Saf 2010 33 579 591 10.2165/11533770-000000000-00000 20553059

225. Agency EM (2013) PSUR assessment report Strontium Ranelate

226. Blake GM Compston JE Fogelman I Could strontium ranelate have a synergistic role in the treatment of osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Ress 2009 24 1354 1357 10.1359/jbmr.090601 19558313

227. Neer RM Arnaud CD Zanchetta JR Effect of parathyroid hormone (1–34) on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis N Engl J Med 2001 344 1434 1441 10.1056/NEJM200105103441904 11346808

228. Diez-Perez A Marin F Eriksen EF Kendler DL Krege JH Delgado-Rodriguez M Effects of teriparatide on hip and upper limb fractures in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Bone 2019 120 1 8 10.1016/j.bone.2018.09.020 30268814

229. Simpson EL, Martyn-St James M, Hamilton J, Wong R, Gittoes N, Selby P, Davis S (2020) Clinical effectiveness of denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab, and teriparatide for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bone 130:115081 10.1016/j.bone.2019.115081 31626995

230. Orwoll ES Scheele WH Paul S Adami S Syversen U Diez-Perez A Kaufman JM Clancy AD Gaich GA The effect of teriparatide [human parathyroid hormone (1–34)] therapy on bone density in men with osteoporosis J Bone Miner Res 2003 18 9 17 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.1.9 12510800

231. Saag KG Zanchetta JR Devogelaer JP Adler RA Eastell R See K Krege JH Krohn K Warner MR Effects of teriparatide versus alendronate for treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: thirty-six-month results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial Arthritis Rheum 2009 60 3346 3355 10.1002/art.24879 19877063

232. Kendler DL Bone HG Massari F Bone mineral density gains with a second 12-month course of romosozumab therapy following placebo or denosumab Osteoporos Int 2019 30 2437 2448 10.1007/s00198-019-05146-9 31628490 PMC6877701

233. Rittmaster RS Bolognese M Ettinger MP Hanley DA Hodsman AB Kendler DL Rosen CJ Enhancement of bone mass in osteoporotic women with parathyroid hormone followed by alendronate J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000 85 2129 2134 10852440 10.1210/jcem.85.6.6614

234. Leder BZ Tsai JN Uihlein AV Wallace PM Lee H Neer RM Burnett-Bowie SA Denosumab and teriparatide transitions in postmenopausal osteoporosis (the DATA-Switch study): extension of a randomised controlled trial Lancet 2015 386 1147 1155 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61120-5 26144908 PMC4620731

235. Cosman F Crittenden DB Ferrari S Khan A Lane NE Lippuner K Matsumoto T Milmont CE Libanati C Grauer A FRAME study: the foundation effect of building bone with 1 year of romosozumab leads to continued lower fracture risk after transition to denosumab J Bone Mineral Res 2018 33 1219 1226 10.1002/jbmr.3427 29573473

236. McClung MR Brown JP Diez-Perez A Effects of 24 months of treatment with romosozumab followed by 12 months of denosumab or placebo in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density: a randomized, double-blind, phase 2, parallel group study J Bone Miner Res 2018 33 1397 1406 10.1002/jbmr.3452 29694685

237. Lewiecki EM Dinavahi RV Lazaretti-Castro M Ebeling PR Adachi JD Miyauchi A Gielen E Milmont CE Libanati C Grauer A One year of romosozumab followed by two years of denosumab maintains fracture risk reductions: results of the FRAME extension study J Bone Miner Research 2019 34 419 428 10.1002/jbmr.3622 30508316

238. Langdahl BL Libanati C Crittenden DB Romosozumab (sclerostin monoclonal antibody) versus teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis transitioning from oral bisphosphonate therapy: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2017 390 1585 1594 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31613-6 28755782

239. Keaveny TM Crittenden DB Bolognese MA Greater gains in spine and hip strength for romosozumab compared with teriparatide in postmenopausal women with low bone mass J Bone Miner Research 2017 32 1956 1962 10.1002/jbmr.3176 28543940

240. Ebina K, Hirao M, Tsuboi H, et al. (2020) Effects of prior osteoporosis treatment on early treatment response of romosozumab in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 140:115574 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115574 32777516

241. Nayak S Greenspan SL A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of bisphosphonate drug holidays on bone mineral density and osteoporotic fracture risk Osteoporos Int 2019 30 705 720 10.1007/s00198-018-4791-3 30623214 PMC6499675

242. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2016) Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management. NICE guideline [NG56]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56

243. Adler RA El-Hajj Fuleihan G Bauer DC Managing osteoporosis in patients on long-term bisphosphonate treatment: report of a Task Force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research J Bone Miner Research 2016 31 16 35 10.1002/jbmr.2708 26350171 PMC4906542

244. Fink HA MacDonald R Forte ML Long-term drug therapy and drug discontinuations and holidays for osteoporosis fracture prevention: a systematic review Ann Intern Med 2019 171 37 50 10.7326/M19-0533 31009947 PMC13492491

245. Ensrud KE Barrett-Connor EL Schwartz A Randomized trial of effect of alendronate continuation versus discontinuation in women with low BMD: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial long-term extension J Bone Min Res 2004 19 1259 1269 10.1359/JBMR.040326 15231012

246. Black DM Schwartz AV Ensrud KE Effects of continuing or stopping alendronate after 5 years of treatment: the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (FLEX): a randomized trial JAMA 2006 296 2927 2938 10.1001/jama.296.24.2927 17190893

247. Ravn P Christensen JO Baumann M Clemmesen B Changes in biochemical markers and bone mass after withdrawal of ibandronate treatment: prediction of bone mass changes during treatment Bone 1998 22 559 564 10.1016/S8756-3282(98)00044-1 9600792

248. Watts NB Chines A Olszynski WP McKeever CD McClung MR Zhou X Grauer A Fracture risk remains reduced one year after discontinuation of risedronate Osteoporos Int 2008 19 365 372 10.1007/s00198-007-0460-7 17938986

249. Black DM Reid IR Boonen S The effect of 3 versus 6 years of zoledronic acid treatment of osteoporosis: a randomized extension to the HORIZON-Pivotal Fracture Trial (PFT) J Bone Miner Res 2012 27 243 254 10.1002/jbmr.1494 22161728 PMC3427916

250. Kim TY Bauer DC McNabb BL Schafer AL Cosman F Black DM Eastell R Comparison of BMD changes and bone formation marker levels 3 years after bisphosphonate discontinuation: FLEX and HORIZON-PFT Extension I Trials J Bone Miner Res 2019 34 810 816 10.1002/jbmr.3654 30536713 PMC10463267

251. Bauer DC Schwartz A Palermo L Cauley J Hochberg M Santora A Cummings SR Black DM Fracture prediction after discontinuation of 4 to 5 years of alendronate therapy: the FLEX study JAMA Intern Med 2014 174 1126 1134 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1232 24798675 PMC4409325

252. Khan AA Morrison A Hanley DA Diagnosis and management of osteonecrosis of the jaw: a systematic review and international consensus J Bone Miner Res 2015 30 3 23 10.1002/jbmr.2405 25414052

253. Khosla S Burr D Cauley J Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw: report of a Task Force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research J Bone Miner Res 2007 22 1479 1491 10.1359/jbmr.0707onj 17663640

254. Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (2017) Oral health management of patients at risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: dental clinical guidance. https://www.sdcep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SDCEP-Oral-Health-Management-of-Patients-at-Risk-of-MRONJ-Guidance-full.pdf 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.539 28642516

255. Salzman R Hoza J Perina V Stárek I Osteonecrosis of the external auditory canal associated with oral bisphosphonate therapy: case report and literature review Otol Neurotol 2013 34 209 213 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31827ca34d 23444468

256. Black DM Abrahamsen B Bouxsein ML Einhorn T Napoli N Atypical femur fractures: review of epidemiology, relationship to bisphosphonates, prevention, and clinical management Endocr Rev 2019 40 333 368 10.1210/er.2018-00001 30169557

257. Shane E Burr D Ebeling PR Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research J Bone Min Research 2010 25 2267 2294 10.1002/jbmr.253 20842676

258. Shane E Burr D Abrahamsen B Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a Task Force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research J Bone Miner Res 2014 29 1 23 10.1002/jbmr.1998 23712442

259. Gedmintas L Solomon DH Kim SC Bisphosphonates and risk of subtrochanteric, femoral shaft, and atypical femur fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Bone Min Research 2013 28 1729 1737 10.1002/jbmr.1893 PMC3713078 23408697

260. Abrahamsen B, Eiken P, Prieto-Alhambra D, Eastell R (2016) Risk of hip, subtrochanteric, and femoral shaft fractures among mid and long term users of alendronate: nationwide cohort and nested case-control study. Bmj 353:i3365 10.1136/bmj.i3365 PMC4924596 27353596

261. van de Laarschot DM McKenna MJ Abrahamsen B Langdahl B Cohen-Solal M Guañabens N Eastell R Ralston SH Zillikens MC Medical management of patients after atypical femur fractures: a systematic review and recommendations from the European Calcified Tissue Society J Clin Endocrin Metab 2020 105 1682 1699 10.1210/clinem/dgz295 PMC7121199 31867670

262. Carter M Prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: clinical audit to evaluate the implementation of National Osteoporosis Guideline Group 2017 guidelines in a primary care setting J Clin Densitom 2019 22 25 30 10.1016/j.jocd.2018.03.009 29729949

263. van Staa TP Leufkens HG Cooper C The epidemiology of corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2002 13 777 787 10.1007/s001980200108 12378366

264. Adachi JD Saag KG Delmas PD Two-year effects of alendronate on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture in patients receiving glucocorticoids: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension trial Arthritis Rheum 2001 44 202 211 10.1002/1529-0131(200101)44:1<202::AID-ANR27>3.0.CO;2-W 11212161

265. Cohen S Levy RM Keller M Risedronate therapy prevents corticosteroid-induced bone loss: a twelve-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study Arthritis Rheum 1999 42 2309 2318 10.1002/1529-0131(199911)42:11<2309::AID-ANR8>3.0.CO;2-K 10555025

266. Deng J, Silver Z, Huang E, Zheng E, Kavanagh K, Wen A, Cheng W, Dobransky J, Sanger S, Grammatopoulos G (2020) Pharmacological prevention of fractures in patients undergoing glucocorticoid therapies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa228 32572480

267. Brown JE, Handforth C, Compston JE, et al. (2020) Guidance for the assessment and management of prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss. A consensus position statement from an expert group. J Bone Oncol 25:100311 10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100311 PMC7516275 32995252

268. Watts NB Adler RA Bilezikian JP Drake MT Eastell R Orwoll ES Finkelstein JS Endocrine S Osteoporosis in men: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012 97 1802 1822 10.1210/jc.2011-3045 22675062

269. Health NIf (2018) Osteoporosis in Men

270. Mittan D Lee S Miller E Perez RC Basler JW Bruder JM Bone loss following hypogonadism in men with prostate cancer treated with GnRH analogs J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 87 3656 3661 10.1210/jcem.87.8.8782 12161491

271. Shahinian VB Kuo YF Freeman JL Goodwin JS Risk of fracture after androgen deprivation for prostate cancer N Engl J Med 2005 352 154 164 10.1056/NEJMoa041943 15647578

272. Joseph JS Lam V Patel MI Preventing osteoporosis in men taking androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urol Oncol 2019 2 551 561 10.1016/j.euo.2018.11.001 31411986

273. Poon Y Pechlivanoglou P Alibhai SMH Naimark D Hoch JS Papadimitropoulos E Hogan ME Krahn M Systematic review and network meta-analysis on the relative efficacy of osteoporotic medications: men with prostate cancer on continuous androgen-deprivation therapy to reduce risk of fragility fractures BJU Int 2018 121 17 28 10.1111/bju.14015 28921820

274. Reid DM Doughty J Eastell R Heys SD Howell A McCloskey EV Powles T Selby P Coleman RE Guidance for the management of breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss: a consensus position statement from a UK Expert Group Cancer Treat Rev 2008 34 Suppl 1 S3 18 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.007 18515009

275. Hadji P Aapro MS Body JJ Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive breast cancer: Joint position statement of the IOF, CABS, ECTS, IEG, ESCEO IMS, and SIOG J Bone Oncol 2017 7 1 12 10.1016/j.jbo.2017.03.001 28413771 PMC5384888

276. Excellence NIfHaC (2017) Early breast cancer (preventing recurrence and improving survival): adjuvant bisphosphonates

277. Waqas K, Lima Ferreira J, Tsourdi E, Body JJ, Hadji P, Zillikens MC (2021) Updated guidance on the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) in pre- and postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. J Bone Oncol 28:100355 10.1016/j.jbo.2021.100355 PMC8080519 33948427

278. Miyashita H Satoi S Kuno T Cruz C Malamud S Kim SM Bone modifying agents for bone loss in patients with aromatase inhibitor as adjuvant treatment for breast cancer; insights from a network meta-analysis Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020 181 279 289 10.1007/s10549-020-05640-3 32318956

279. World Health Organization (1987) Traitement de la douleur cancéreuse. Genève: Organisation mondiale de la Santé. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41712

280. Schofield P The Assessment of pain in older people: UK National Guidelines Age Ageing 2018 47 i1 i22 10.1093/ageing/afx192 29579142 PMC5888957

281. British Geriatric Society Guidance on the management of pain in older people Age Ageing 2013 42 i1 i57 10.1093/ageing/afs200 23420266

282. Knopp-Sihota JA Newburn-Cook CV Homik J Cummings GG Voaklander D Calcitonin for treating acute and chronic pain of recent and remote osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2012 23 17 38 10.1007/s00198-011-1676-0 21660557

283. European Medicines Agency (2012) European Medicines Agency recommends limiting long-term use of calcitonin medicines. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/european-medicines-agency-recommends-limiting-long-term-use-calcitonin-medicines

284. Armingeat T Brondino R Pham T Legré V Lafforgue P Intravenous pamidronate for pain relief in recent osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a randomized double-blind controlled study Osteoporos Int 2006 17 1659 1665 10.1007/s00198-006-0169-z 16896508

285. Gibbs JC, MacIntyre NJ, Ponzano M, Templeton JA, Thabane L, Papaioannou A, Giangregorio LM (2019) Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10.1002/14651858.CD008618.pub3 PMC6609547 31273764

286. Ebeling PR Akesson K Bauer DC The efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation: a second ASBMR Task Force Report 2019 34 3 21 10.1002/jbmr.3653 30677181

287. Svensson HK Olsson LE Hansson T Karlsson J Hansson-Olofsson E The effects of person-centered or other supportive interventions in older women with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures-a systematic review of the literature Osteoporos Int 2017 28 2521 2540 10.1007/s00198-017-4099-8 28585054 PMC5550548

288. Hofler RC Jones GA Bracing for acute and subacute osteoporotic compression fractures: a systematic review of the literature World Neurosurg 2020 141 e453 e460 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.199 32474094

289. Buchbinder R, Johnston RV, Rischin KJ, Homik J, Jones CA, Golmohammadi K, Kallmes DF (2018) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:Cd006349 10.1002/14651858.CD006349.pub4 PMC6517304 30399208

290. Zambito A Bianchini D Gatti D Rossini M Adami S Viapiana O Interferential and horizontal therapies in chronic low back pain due to multiple vertebral fractures: a randomized, double blind, clinical study Osteoporos Int 2007 18 1541 1545 10.1007/s00198-007-0391-3 17609842

291. Axelsson KF Johansson H Lundh D Möller M Lorentzon M Association between recurrent fracture risk and implementation of fracture liaison services in four Swedish hospitals: a cohort study J Bone Miner Res 2020 35 1216 1223 10.1002/jbmr.3990 32097504

292. Wu CH Tu ST Chang YF Chan DC Chien JT Lin CH Singh S Dasari M Chen JF Tsai KS Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis Bone 2018 111 92 100 10.1016/j.bone.2018.03.018 29555309

293. Department of Health (2009) Fracture prevention services - an economic evaluation

294. NHS_RightCare (2017) Falls and Fragility Fractures Pathway. https://www.england.nhs.uk/rightcare/products/pathways/falls-and-fragility-fractures-pathway/

295. Javaid MK Kyer C Mitchell PJ Effective secondary fracture prevention: implementation of a global benchmarking of clinical quality using the IOF Capture the Fracture(R) Best Practice Framework tool Osteoporos Int 2015 26 2573 2578 10.1007/s00198-015-3192-0 26070301

296. Royal Osteoporosis Society (2019) Effective Secondary Prevention of Fragility Fractures: Clinical Standards for Fracture Liaison Services https://theros.org.uk/media/1eubz33w/ros-clinical-standards-for-fracture-liaison-services-august-2019.pdf

297. Ganda K Puech M Chen JS Speerin R Bleasel J Center JR Eisman JA March L Seibel MJ Models of care for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2013 24 393 406 10.1007/s00198-012-2090-y 22829395

298. Ganda K, Mitchell PJ, Seibel MJ (2019) Chapter 3, Models of secondary fracture prevention: systematic review and metaanalysis of outcomes. In Mitchell PJ, Seibel MJ (eds) Secondary Fracture Prevention, an International Perspective. Elsevier Inc, pp 33–62

299. Wu CH Chen CH Chen PH Yang JJ Chang PC Huang TC Bagga S Sharma Y Lin RM Chan DC Identifying characteristics of an effective fracture liaison service: systematic literature review Osteoporos Int 2018 29 1023 1047 10.1007/s00198-017-4370-z 29525971

300. Public Health England (2017) Falls and fracture consensus statement: Supporting commissioning for prevention Public Health England with the National Falls Prevention Coordination Group, www.gov.uk/phe

301. Royal Osteoporosis Society (2017) Clinical Guidance for the Effective Identification of Vertebral Fractures https://theros.org.uk/healthcare-professionals/tools-and-resources/clinical-guidance/

302. Laurna Bullock, Fay Crawford-Manning, Elizabeth Cottrell, et al. (2021) Co-designing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform the content of the i-FraP complex consultation intervention. Archives in Osteoporosis in press: 10.1007/s11657-021-00913-w PMC7989712 33761007

303. Paskins Z, Torres Roldan VD, Hawarden AW, et al. (2020) Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan. Osteoporos Int 10.1007/s00198-020-05479-w 32500301

304. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2009) Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. Clinical Guideline [CG76]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg76

305. Cornelissen D de Kunder S Si L Reginster JY Evers S Boonen A Hiligsmann M Interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications: an updated systematic review Osteoporos Int 2020 31 1645 1669 10.1007/s00198-020-05378-0 32358684 PMC7423788

306. Martin J Viprey M Castagne B Merle B Giroudon C Chapurlat R Schott AM Interventions to improve osteoporosis care: a systematic review and meta-analysis Osteoporos Int 2020 31 429 446 10.1007/s00198-020-05308-0 31993718

307. Clynes MA Westbury LD Dennison EM Kanis JA Javaid MK Harvey NC Fujita M Cooper C Leslie WD Shuhart CR Bone densitometry worldwide: a global survey by the ISCD and IOF Osteoporos Int 2020 31 1779 1786 10.1007/s00198-020-05435-8 32377806 PMC7115939

308. Foundation TH (2021) Quality improvement made simple: what everyone should know about health care quality improvement. 3rd ednThe Health Foundation, 8 Salisbury Square, London

309. Javaid MK, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Kanis JA, C C (2021) Assessment and management of imminent fracture risk in the setting of the fracture liaison service. Osteo Internat in press: 10.1007/s00198-021-06284-9 35286437

310. Andrews J Guyatt G Oxman AD GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations J Clin Epidemiol 2013 66 719 725 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013 23312392

311. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schünemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, Norris S, Bion J (2008) Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. 337:a744 10.1136/bmj.a744 18669566

312. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2012) The guidelines manual. Process and methods [PMG6]. Section 9 Developing and wording guideline recommendations

313. Nayak S Greenspan SL Osteoporosis treatment efficacy for men: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Am Geriatr Soc 2017 65 490 495 10.1111/jgs.14668 28304090 PMC5358515

314. Zeng LF Pan BQ Liang GH Does routine anti-osteoporosis medication lower the risk of fractures in male subjects? An updated systematic review with meta-analysis of clinical trials Front Pharmacol 2019 10 882 10.3389/fphar.2019.00882 31447677 PMC6695469

315. Wang YK, Zhang YM, Qin SQ, Wang X, Ma T, Guo JB, Zhu C, Luo ZJ (2018) Effects of alendronate for treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 97:e12691 10.1097/MD.0000000000012691 PMC6211897 30334952

316. Yanbeiy ZA Hansen KE Denosumab in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Drug Des Devel Ther 2019 13 2843 2852 10.2147/DDDT.S148654 31616133 PMC6698580

317. Wändell P Li X Carlsson AC Sundquist J Sundquist K Osteoporotic fractures among foreign-born individuals: a national Swedish study Osteoporos Int 2021 32 343 352 10.1007/s00198-020-05597-5 32814995 PMC7838135

318. Excellence. NIfHaC (2019) NICE guideline [NG132]: Hyperparathyroidism (primary): diagnosis, assessment and initial management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng132/chapter/Recommendations#diagnostic-testing-in-primary-care 31194309