4.0 Review

Anabolic therapy for osteoporosis: update on efficacy and safety

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ENDOCRINOLOGY METABOLISM
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 707-716

出版社

SBEM-SOC BRASIL ENDOCRINOLOGIA & METABOLOGIA
DOI: 10.20945/2359-3997000000566

关键词

Osteoporosis; treatment; teriparatide; abaloparatide; romosozumab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anabolic agents increase bone density, improve bone strength, and reduce fracture risk. They work by increasing osteoblastic bone formation, distinguishing them from antiresorptive drugs. However, the bone forming effects of anabolic therapy are self-limited, necessitating the use of antiresorptive therapy to enhance the benefits achieved.
Anabolic agents for the treatment of osteoporosis increase bone density, improve bone strength, and reduce fracture risk. They are distinguished from antiresorptive drugs by their property of increasing osteoblastic bone formation. Teriparatide and abaloparatide are parathyroid hormone receptor agonists that increase bone remodeling with bone formation increasing more than bone resorption. Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody to sclerostin that has a dual effect of increasing bone formation while decreasing bone resorption. The bone forming effects of anabolic therapy appear to be self-limited, making it imperative that it be followed by antiresorptive therapy to enhance or consolidate the beneficial effects achieved. Teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab each have unique pharmacological properties that must be appreciated when using them to treat patients at high risk for fracture. Clinical trials have shown a favorable balance of expected benefits and possible risks. Anabolic therapy is superior to bisphosphonates for high-risk patients, with greater benefit when initial treatment is with an anabolic agent followed by an antiresorptive drug, rather than the reverse sequence of therapy. Recent clinical practice guidelines have included recommendations with examples of patients who are candidates with anabolic therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据