Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Benefits and Limitations of Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover Markers to Monitor Patients Treated for Osteoporosis

  • Published:
Current Osteoporosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medications are approved by regulatory agencies for treating osteoporosis when at least one randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial shows a reduction in vertebral fracture risk and the benefit-risk ratio is determined to be acceptable. Subjects who participate in registration trials are a generally homogeneous group carefully screened with strict entry criteria. Individual patients who are treated for osteoporosis in clinical practice commonly differ from subjects enrolled in these clinical trials according to confounding factors that include age, sex, comorbidities, compliance, and persistence. Because the goal of therapy is reduction of fracture risk, and this cannot be directly assessed in an individual patient, biomarkers are commonly used as surrogate end points for effectiveness. This article reviews the clinical use and abuse of the two biomarkers most commonly used to assess the effectiveness of therapy in clinical practice: bone mineral density testing and measurement of markers of bone turnover.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as follows: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy: Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA 2001, 285:785–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, et al.: Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 2007, 22:465–475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kanis JA, Johnell O: Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:229–238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. WHO Study Group on Assessment of Fracture Risk and its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: Assessment of Fracture Risk and Its Application to Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Technical report series 843. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994

    Google Scholar 

  5. •• Baim S, Binkley N, Bilezikian JP, et al.: Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and executive summary of the 2007 ISCD Position Development Conference. J Clin Densitom 2008, 11:75–91. The ISCD Official Positions include essential quality standards for the clinical use of BMD testing to monitor response to osteoporosis therapy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization: FRAX WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  7. • National Osteoporosis Foundation: Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation; 2008. These evidence-based guidelines for managing osteoporosis in the United States provide recommendations for monitoring the treatment of osteoporosis with BMD testing and BTMs.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kanis JA, Burlet N, Cooper C, et al.: European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19:399–428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dowd R, Recker RR, Heaney RP: Study subjects and ordinary patients. Osteoporosis Int 2000, 11:533–536.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilkes MM, Navickis RJ, Chan WW, Lewiecki EM: Bisphosphonates and osteoporotic fractures: a cross-design synthesis of results among compliant/persistent postmenopausal women in clinical practice versus randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 2009 Jul 2 [Epub ahead of print].

  11. Cramer JA, Gold DT, Silverman SL, Lewiecki EM: A systematic review of persistence and compliance with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2007, 18:1023–1031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Siris ES, Harris ST, Rosen CJ, et al.: Adherence to bisphosphonate therapy and fracture rates in osteoporotic women: relationship to vertebral and nonvertebral fractures from 2 US claims databases. Mayo Clin Proc 2006, 81:1013–1022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001, 69:89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. • Bouxsein ML, Delmas PD: Considerations for development of surrogate endpoints for antifracture efficacy of new treatments in osteoporosis: a perspective. J Bone Miner Res 2008, 23:1155–1167. This is a thorough review of the evidence supporting the use of BMD testing and BTMs as surrogate end points in clinical trials of bone-active pharmacologic agents, with implications for their use in clinical practice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewiecki EM, Watts NB: Assessing response to osteoporosis therapy. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19:1363–1368.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wasnich RD, Miller PD: Antifracture efficacy of antiresorptive agents are related to changes in bone density. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000, 85:231–236.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Harris F, et al: Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. Am J Med 2002, 112:281–289.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hochberg MC, Greenspan S, Wasnich RD, et al.: Changes in bone density and turnover explain the reductions in incidence of nonvertebral fractures that occur during treatment with antiresorptive agents. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002, 87:1586–1592.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lewiecki EM, Rudolph LA: How common is loss of bone mineral density in elderly clinical practice patients receiving oral bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis? J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17(Suppl 2):S367.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Berger C, Langsetmo L, Joseph L, et al.: Association between change in bone mineral density (BMD) and fragility fracture in women and men. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:361–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, et al.: Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Lancet 1996, 348:1535–1541.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, et al.: Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. JAMA 1998, 280:2077–2082.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH, et al.: Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. JAMA 1999, 282:637–645.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cummings SR, Palermo L, Browner W, et al.: Monitoring osteoporosis therapy with bone densitometry: misleading changes and regression to the mean. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. JAMA 2000, 283:1318–1321.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lenchik L, Watts NB: Regression to the mean: what does it mean? Using bone density results to monitor treatment of osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom 2001, 4:1–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bonnick SL: Monitoring osteoporosis therapy with bone densitometry: a vital tool or regression toward mediocrity? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000, 85:3493–3495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lewiecki EM: Nonresponders to osteoporosis therapy. J Clin Densitom 2003, 6:307–314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sebba AI: Significance of a decline in bone mineral density while receiving oral bisphosphonate treatment. Clin Ther 2008, 30:443–452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bell KJ, Hayen A, Macaskill P, et al.: Value of routine monitoring of bone mineral density after starting bisphosphonate treatment: secondary analysis of trial data. BMJ 2009, 338:b2266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Watts NB, Lewiecki EM, Bonnick SL, et al.: Clinical value of monitoring BMD in patients treated with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:1643–1646.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Neer RM, Arnaud CD, Zanchetta JR, et al.: 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Watts NB, Miller PD, Kohlmeier LA, et al.: Vertebral fracture risk is reduced in women who lose femoral neck bone mineral density with teriparatide treatment. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:1125–1131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. The Lewin Group: Assessing the costs of performing DXA services in the office-based setting (survey data report prepared for American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. International Society for Clinical Densitometry, The Endocrine Society, and American College of Rheumatology). The Lewin Group; October 2007. Available at http://www.lewin.com/PublicationsInsights/Publications.aspx?published=anytime&areaid=34&typeid=14. Accessed January 2010.

  34. Lewiecki EM: Crisis in osteoporosis care. The Female Patient 2009, 34:1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lewiecki EM, Baim S, Siris ES: Osteoporosis care at risk in the United States. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19:1505–1509.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Greenspan SL, Parker RA, Ferguson L, et al.: Early changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover predict the long-term response to alendronate therapy in representative elderly women: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Miner Res 1998, 13:1431–1438.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Eastell R, Barton I, Hannon RA, et al.: Relationship of early changes in bone resorption to the reduction in fracture risk with risedronate. J Bone Miner Res 2003, 18:1051–1056.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bauer DC, Black DM, Garnero P, et al.: Change in bone turnover and hip, non-spine, and vertebral fracture in alendronate-treated women: the fracture intervention trial. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:1250–1258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sarkar S, Reginster JY, Crans GG, et al.: Relationship between changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover and BMD to predict vertebral fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:394–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chen P, Satterwhite JH, Licata AA, et al.: Early changes in biochemical markers of bone formation predict BMD response to teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2005, 20:962–970.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hannon R, Eastell R: Preanalytical variability of biochemical markers of bone turnover. Osteoporos Int 2000, 11(Suppl 6):S30–S44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Seibel MJ: Biochemical markers of bone turnover: part I: biochemistry and variability. Clin Biochem Rev 2005, 26:97–122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Seibel MJ, Lang M, Geilenkeuser WJ: Interlaboratory variation of biochemical markers of bone turnover. Clin Chem 2001, 47:1443–1450.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bergmann P, Body JJ, Boonen S, et al.: Evidence-based guidelines for the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in the selection and monitoring of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis: a consensus document of the Belgian Bone Club. Int J Clin Pract 2009, 63:19–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Srivastava AK, Vliet EL, Lewiecki EM, et al.: Clinical use of serum and urine bone markers in the management of osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 2005, 21:1015–1026.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nishizawa Y, Nakamura T, Ohta H, et al.: Guidelines for the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in osteoporosis (2004). J Bone Miner Metab 2005, 23:97–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Clowes JA, Peel NF, Eastell R: The impact of monitoring on adherence and persistence with antiresorptive treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004, 89:1117–1123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Meier C, Seibel MJ, Kraenzlin ME: Use of bone turnover markers in the real world: are we there yet? J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:386–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lewiecki EM, Baim S, Bilezikian JP, et al.: 2008 Santa Fe Bone Symposium: update on osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom 2009, 12:135–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Singer FR, Eyre DR: Using biochemical markers of bone turnover in clinical practice. Cleve Clin J Med 2008, 75:739–750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Michael Lewiecki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewiecki, E.M. Benefits and Limitations of Bone Mineral Density and Bone Turnover Markers to Monitor Patients Treated for Osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep 8, 15–22 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-010-0004-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-010-0004-5

Keywords

Navigation