Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tight control: a new therapeutic strategy in the management of osteoporotic patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

BMD changes in patients under tight control (monitored at 3-month intervals with adjustment of therapy guided by bone turnover markers) and routine management (controlled once a year) were compared. After 1 year, the femoral neck BMD increased significantly in the tight control compared to the routine management group.

Introduction

We intended to ascertain whether tight control (i.e., follow-up visits and bone turnover markers/BTM/and parathyroid hormone/PTH/monitoring at 3-month intervals) strategy achieves a statistically greater increase in bone mineral density over the observation period than standard follow-up care (i.e., bone densitometry at 1-year intervals, without BTM monitoring).

Methods

We studied involutional osteoporotic patients newly enrolled into chronic care. One hundred and eleven patients underwent tight control, while another 113 received routine treatment (with follow-up visits scheduled at > 1-year intervals). We compared the changes in bone mineral density reflected by the results of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements of the lumbar spine and of the left femoral neck. Statistical analyses were performed with version 22 of the SPSS software package.

Results

In the group of patients under tight control, baseline and follow-up median BMD values were 0.842/0.881 g/cm2 at the L1–4 vertebrae and 0.745/0.749 g/cm2 at the femoral neck. In the group under routine care, the corresponding values were 0.903/0.915 g/cm2 and 0.742/0.72 g/cm2, respectively. The relative changes of the bone mineral density of the femoral neck was significantly (p = 0.041) higher in patients under tight control than in those receiving routine care; however, BMD changes in the lumbar spine were not statistically different.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that adopting tight control as a new therapeutic strategy might be justified in the osteoporosis management. In fact, a greater improvement of BMD can be achieved by treatment according to these principles.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Poór G (1999) Osteoporosis care in Hungary. Bull World Health Organ 77(5):429–430

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kazár G, Cserháti P, Melly A, Kádas I (1997) Five-year follow up of patients with femoral neck fractures. Orv Hetil 138:3173–3177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C (2001) A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 23(8):1296–1310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McCombs JS, Thiebaud P, McLaughlin-Miley C, Shi J (2004) Compliance with drug therapies for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Maturitas 48(3):271–287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Caro JJ, Ishak KJ, Huybrechts KF, Raggio G, Naujoks C (2004) The impact of compliance with osteoporosis therapy on fracture rates in actual practice. Osteoporos Int 15(12):1003–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clowes JA, Peel NF, Eastell R (2004) The impact of monitoring on adherence and persistence with antiresorptive treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89(3):1117–1123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Riis BJ, Overgaard K, Christiansen C (1995) Biochemical markers of bone turnover to monitor the bone response to postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy. Osteoporos Int 5(4):276–280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Garnero P, Delmas P (1996) New developments in biochemical markers for osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 59:S2–S9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen JE, Kollerup G, Sørensen HA, Sørensen OH (1997) Intraindividual variability in bone markers in the urine. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 227:29–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Russell RG (1997) The assessment of bone metabolism in vivo using biochemical approaches. Horm Metab Res 29(3):138–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shebba AI (2008) Significance of a decline in bone mineral density while receiving oral bisphosphonate treatment. Clin Ther 30(3):443–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim SW, Park DJ, Park KS, Kim SY, Cho BY, Lee HK, Shin CS (2005) Early changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover predict bone mineral density response to antiresorptive therapy in Korean postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Endocr J 52(6):667–674

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Delmas PD, Vrijens B, Eastell R, Roux C, Pols HA, Ringe JD, Grauer A, Cahall D, Watts NB (2007) Improving measurements of persistence on actonel treatment (IMPACT) investigators. Effect of monitoring bone turnover markers on persistence with risedronate treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92(4):1296–1304

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reginster JY, Collette J, Neuprez A, Zegels B, Deroisy R, Bruyere O (2008) Role of biochemical markers of bone turnover as prognostic indicator of successful osteoporosis therapy. Bone 42(5):832–836

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergmann P, Body JJ, Boonen S, Boutsen Y, Devogelaer JP, Goemaere S, Kaufman JM, Reginster JY, Gangji V (2009) Members of advisory board on bone markers. 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 63(1):19–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bieglmayer C, Dimai HP, Gasser RW, Kudlacek S, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Woloszczuk W, Zwettler E, Griesmacher A (2012) Biomarkers of bone turnover in diagnosis and therapy of osteoporosis: a consensus advice from an Austrian working group. Wien Med Wochenschr 162(21–22):464–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Devogelaer JP, Boutsen Y, Gruson D, Manicourt D (2011) Is there a place for bone turnover markers in the assessment of osteoporosis and its treatment? Rheum Dis Clin N Am 37(3):365–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Henriksen K, Leeming DJ, Christiansen C, Karsdal MA (2011) Use of bone turnover markers in clinical osteoporosis assessment in women: current issues and future options. Women’s Health (Lond Engl) 7(6):689–698

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee J, Vasikaran S (2012) Current recommendations for laboratory testing and use of bone turnover markers in management of osteoporosis. Ann Lab Med 32(2):105–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lakatos P, Takács I, Marton I, Tóth E, Zoltan C, Lang Z, Psachoulia E, Intorcia M (2016) Retrospective longitudinal database study of persistence and compliance with treatment of osteoporosis in Hungary. Calcif Tissue Int 98(3):215–225

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Grigor C, Capell H, Stirling A, McMahon AD, Lock P, Vallance R, Kincaid W, Porter D (2004) Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364:263–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Verstappen SM, Jacobs JW, van der Veen MJ, Heurkens AH, Schenk Y, ter Borg EJ, Blaauw AA, Bijlsma JW, Utrecht Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort study group (2007) Intensive treatment with methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: aiming for remission. Computer assisted management in early rheumatoid arthritis (CAMERA, an open-label strategy trial). Ann Rheum Dis 66:1443–1449

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Fransen J, Creemers MC, Van Riel PL (2004) Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: agreement of the disease activity score (DAS28) with the ARA preliminary remission criteria. Rheumatology 43:1252–1255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Goekoop YPM, Goekoop-Ruiterman YP, de Vries-Bouwstra JK, Nielen MM, Vos K, van Schaardenburg D, Speyer I, Seys PE, Breedveld FC, Allaart CF, Dijkmans BA (2010) DAS-driven therapy versus routine care in patients with recent-onset active rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 69:65–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Coates LC, Moverley AR, McParland L, Brown S, Navarro-Coy N, O'Dwyer JL, Meads DM, Emery P, Conaghan PG, Helliwell PS (2015) Effect of tight control of inflammation in early psoriatic arthritis (TICOPA): a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386(10012):2489–2498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Coates LC (2016) Implementing the findings of the TICOPA trial in clinical practice: challenges in implementation and how information technology can bridge the gap. Clin Exp Rheumatol 34:S73–S74

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    A. Halasi

  2. Kenézy Gyula University Hospital, University of Debrecen, Bartók Béla 2-26, Debrecen, H-4031, Hungary

    G. Kincse & J. Gaál

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    J. Varga

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    J. Kéri & J. Gaál

Authors
  1. A. Halasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Kincse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Varga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Kéri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Gaál
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Gaál.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Halasi, A., Kincse, G., Varga, J. et al. Tight control: a new therapeutic strategy in the management of osteoporotic patients. Osteoporos Int 29, 2677–2683 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4674-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4674-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation