Osteoporosis in Older Adults: A 2025 Review of Screening Protocols, Therapeutic Advances, and Clinical Management

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive review of osteoporosis management for older individuals, targeting researchers and drug development professionals. It synthesizes the latest evidence on screening strategies, including updated 2025 USPSTF guidelines and risk assessment tools. The scope covers foundational pathophysiology, methodological approaches for diagnosis and treatment application, optimization strategies to address current care gaps, and a comparative analysis of emerging anabolic agents versus traditional antiresorptives. The review concludes with future research directions, highlighting novel therapeutic targets and personalized medicine approaches in osteoporosis drug development.

The Evolving Burden and Pathophysiology of Osteoporosis in Aging Populations

Osteoporosis, characterized by reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and deterioration of bone microarchitecture, represents a significant and growing global public health challenge, particularly for older seniors [1]. As populations worldwide continue to age, the prevalence of osteoporosis and associated fragility fractures is projected to increase substantially, creating considerable economic and healthcare burdens [2] [3]. This application note provides a comprehensive analysis of current epidemiological trends, experimental methodologies, and research protocols relevant to the study of osteoporosis in aging populations, with specific focus on individuals over 75 years of age. The data and methodologies presented herein are framed within the context of a broader thesis on osteoporosis screening and treatment research in older individuals, aiming to support researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in advancing this critical field.

Global and Regional Epidemiological Data

Global Burden of Disease

According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2021, low bone mineral density (LBMD) was responsible for 219,552 deaths and 7.76 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in postmenopausal women globally in 2021 [3]. The age-standardized DALY rate reached 979.2 per 100,000 population, with marked disparities across regions and age groups. While age-standardized rates for deaths and DALYs showed slight declines from 1990 to 2021, the absolute number of LBMD-related deaths more than doubled, increasing from 91,941 in 1990 to 219,552 in 2021, largely driven by global population aging [3].

Table 1: Global Burden of Low Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women (2021)

Metric	Global Absolute Numbers	Age-Standardized Rate (per 100,000)	Temporal Trend (EAPC† 1990-2021)
Deaths	219,552	27.51	-0.05
DALYs	7.76 million	979.20	-0.30
YLLs	4.20 million	411.69	-0.21
YLDs	3.56 million	567.51	-0.36

†EAPC: Estimated Annual Percentage Change

Regional Variations in Prevalence and Burden

Substantial geographical heterogeneity exists in the burden of LBMD. In 2021, South Asia exhibited the highest age-standardized death rate (70.18 per 100,000), followed by Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa (54.10) and Central Sub-Saharan Africa (49.29) [3]. For DALYs, South Asia also ranked first with an ASR of 1,833.32 per 100,000, significantly higher than Australasia (1,268.62) and High-income North America (1,194.14) [3]. The burden was highest in women aged ≥80 years and increased most rapidly in those aged ≥95 [3].

Table 2: Country-Specific Prevalence and Burden of Osteoporosis

Country	Prevalence in Key Demographics	Noteworthy Trends
United States	19.6% of women aged ≥50 [4]	Prevalence in women increased from 14.0% (2007-2008) to 19.6% (2017-2018) [4]
India	8-62% across studies in women [1]	Highest DALYs rate globally: 2,100.67 per 100,000 [3]
China	20.6% in women aged ≥40 [5]	Only 6.5% receive pharmacological treatment post-fracture [5]
European Union	22 million women and 5.5 million men aged 50-84 [2]	Projected to increase to 33.9 million by 2025 [2]
Canada	1 in 4 women and 1 in 8 men over 50 [2]	Increased from 1.4 million (2000) to 2 million affected (2017) [2]

Age and Gender Disparities

Osteoporosis prevalence demonstrates significant variation based on age and gender. According to NHANES 2017-2018 data, the prevalence of osteoporosis among U.S. adults aged 50 and over was substantially higher in women (19.6%) compared with men (4.4%) [4]. The prevalence increases dramatically with age, rising from 4% in women aged 50-59 years to 44% in women aged 80 years and older [6]. Postmenopausal women experience a 15.17-fold higher mortality and 5.84-fold higher burden in DALYs compared to premenopausal women [3].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) for Bone Mineral Density Assessment

Principle: DEXA is the clinical gold standard for measuring BMD, utilizing low-dose X-rays at two different energy levels to distinguish between bone and soft tissue, thereby quantifying bone mineral content [7].

Procedure:

• Patient Preparation: Confirm patient has not ingested calcium supplements for 24 hours prior to scan. Remove metallic objects that may interfere with imaging.
• Positioning: Position patient supine on scanning table with hips and knees flexed for lumbar spine imaging, or with leg rotated internally for femoral neck assessment.
• Scanning: Perform anteroposterior scan of lumbar spine (L1-L4) and proximal femur (femoral neck and total hip) using standardized protocols.
• Calibration: Perform daily quality control calibration using phantom standards provided by manufacturer.
• Analysis: Calculate T-score (comparison to young adult reference mean) and Z-score (age-matched comparison) using integrated software.
• Interpretation: Diagnose osteoporosis based on WHO criteria: T-score ≤ -2.5 standard deviations [1].

Quality Control:

• Regular cross-calibration across multiple scanner models and protocols to address variability in bone density values [8].
• Participation in standardized proficiency testing programs.
• Use of statistical methods for calibrating measurements across different scanners and protocols [8].

Protocol 2: Opportunistic CT Screening with AI Algorithm

Principle: Artificial intelligence algorithms can analyze routine CT scans performed for other clinical indications to identify osteoporosis by assessing bone mineral density of lumbar and thoracic vertebrae [8].

Procedure:

• Data Collection: Acquire existing CT scans from clinical databases. The NYU Langone study utilized 538,946 CT examinations from 283,499 patients with mean age of 65 years [8].
• Algorithm Application: Apply AI tool designed to assess BMD for all major lumbar and thoracic vertebrae according to thresholds for age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
• Calibration: Use robust statistical methods for calibrating measurements across different scanner models and protocols to ensure consistency.
• Verification: Have radiologists verify algorithm findings through manual assessment.
• Validation: Compare results with DEXA screening when available (subset of patients had CT within 12 months of DEXA) [8].

Limitations:

• Limited generalizability if using data from single geographical regions.
• Thresholds established are specific to the 3D technique used and cannot be directly applied to 2D methods without adjustments [8].
• Requires validation of cutpoints across different CT scanners to ensure consistent sensitivity and specificity [8].

Protocol 3: Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) Integration

Principle: The FRAX score estimates an individual's 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture, integrating clinical risk factors with or without BMD measurements [7].

Procedure:

• Data Collection: Gather patient information including age, sex, weight, height, and clinical risk factors (previous fracture, parental hip fracture, glucocorticoid use, current smoking, alcohol intake, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis).
• BMD Input: Optionally input femoral neck BMD T-score if available.
• Calculation: Use country-specific FRAX algorithm to compute 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture.
• Interpretation: Apply region-specific intervention thresholds to guide treatment decisions.

Application in Older Seniors:

• Particularly valuable in individuals >75 years where BMD testing may be underutilized.
• Can be used without BMD measurement when DEXA is unavailable.
• Helps identify high-risk individuals who may benefit from intervention even without DEXA confirmation [9].

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

The pathophysiology of osteoporosis in older seniors involves multiple molecular pathways that regulate bone remodeling. Estrogen deficiency following menopause induces a cascade of physiological alterations including accelerated bone turnover, trabecular thinning, and increased cortical porosity [3]. Key molecular pathways include the RANK/RANKL/OPG axis, Wnt/β-catenin signaling, and increased oxidative stress, leading to compromised bone quality and microarchitectural deterioration [3].

Diagram 1: Molecular Pathways in Osteoporosis (82 characters)

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Osteoporosis Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
BMD Measurement	Hologic Discovery DXA Systems; Lunar iDXA	Clinical gold standard for osteoporosis diagnosis and monitoring [4]
Bone Turnover Markers	Serum CTX (resorption); P1NP (formation)	Quantify bone remodeling rates; monitor treatment response
Cell Culture Systems	Primary osteoblasts; Osteoclast precursors	Study bone cell differentiation and function in vitro
Animal Models	Ovariectomized rodents; Aged C57BL/6 mice	Model postmenopausal bone loss; age-related osteoporosis
AI Analysis Tools	Visage AI Algorithm	Opportunistic CT screening for osteoporosis identification [8]
Vitamin D Assays	25-hydroxyvitamin D ELISA	Assess vitamin D status in study populations [6]

Research Workflow for Epidemiological Studies

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive research workflow for conducting epidemiological studies on osteoporosis in aging populations, integrating multiple data sources and methodological approaches.

Diagram 2: Osteoporosis Research Workflow (76 characters)

Discussion and Research Implications

The epidemiological data presented demonstrate the substantial and growing burden of osteoporosis in older seniors worldwide, with particular impact on postmenopausal women and those in specific geographical regions such as South Asia [3]. The disproportionate burden in older seniors underscores the urgent need for age-tailored, equity-focused interventions to mitigate fracture risk and improve musculoskeletal health among aging populations [3].

Research initiatives should prioritize several key areas: (1) addressing underdiagnosis and undertreatment, particularly in men, Mexican Americans, and individuals aged 50-59 where nearly 70% of osteoporosis cases go undiagnosed [10]; (2) validating opportunistic screening methods across diverse populations and healthcare settings; and (3) developing targeted interventions for high-risk subgroups, including frail older adults and those with previous fractures.

The integration of AI-driven diagnostic tools with traditional assessment methods presents promising opportunities for enhancing early detection and intervention strategies [8]. However, important barriers must be addressed before widespread implementation, including healthcare system workflows that facilitate appropriate follow-up of incidental findings and economic considerations regarding software integration costs [8].

Future research should focus on longitudinal studies examining whether implementing opportunistic osteoporosis screening in healthcare systems actually lowers fracture rates or reduces fracture-related healthcare costs, particularly in the highest-risk populations of older seniors [8].

Age-related bone remodeling dysregulation is the fundamental pathophysiological process underlying the development of primary osteoporosis in older individuals [11] [12]. This dysregulation represents a loss of the delicate balance between bone resorption and bone formation, ultimately resulting in a progressive reduction of bone mass, deterioration of bone microarchitecture, and increased fracture risk [13] [14]. The skeleton is a dynamic organ that undergoes continuous renewal through the tightly coupled process of bone remodeling, where old or damaged bone is removed by osteoclasts and subsequently replaced by osteoblast-derived new bone [11] [15]. In young healthy adults, this process remains in equilibrium, maintaining skeletal integrity. However, with advancing age, this balance is disrupted, leading to a progressive negative bone balance where resorption exceeds formation [12] [14]. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for developing targeted screening protocols and novel therapeutic interventions for osteoporosis in the aging population.

Core Pathophysiological Mechanisms

Cellular Senescence and the Bone Microenvironment

Cellular senescence within the bone marrow compartment plays a pivotal role in age-related bone loss [12] [14]. As individuals age, bone cells accumulate damage and undergo senescence, acquiring a distinctive senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

• Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells (BMSCs) Ageing: Ageing BMSCs exhibit telomere shortening, DNA damage response, and upregulation of p16INK4a and p53 pathways, leading to diminished osteogenic differentiation and a shift toward adipogenic lineage [14]. This results in reduced osteoblast formation and increased bone marrow adipose tissue, which further compromises the bone microenvironment [12]. The SASP from senescent BMSCs creates a pro-inflammatory milieu, disrupting normal bone remodeling processes [14].

• Osteocyte and Osteoprogenitor Ageing: Osteocytes, the most abundant bone cells and key mechanosensors, undergo senescence with age [11] [14]. This is characterized by a loss of dendritic processes and a decrease in lacunar occupancy. Senescent osteocytes produce SASP factors and express increased levels of RANKL, the key stimulator of osteoclast formation, thereby promoting bone resorption [11] [14]. Concurrently, osteoprogenitor cells experience reduced proliferative capacity and impaired function, contributing to diminished bone formation [14].

• Osteoclast Ageing: While osteoclastogenesis may be delayed in aged individuals, the resorptive capacity of osteoclasts is often preserved or even enhanced within the inflammatory SASP-rich microenvironment [14]. An imbalance in molecules regulating osteoclast lifespan, such as cathepsin K deficiency, can lead to impaired apoptosis and prolonged resorptive activity [14].

Table 1: Key Features of Cellular Senescence in Bone Tissue

Cell Type	Key Age-Related Changes	Consequence for Bone Remodeling
Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells (BMSCs)	Telomere shortening, reduced osteogenic differentiation, increased adipogenesis, SASP secretion [14]	Reduced pool of osteoblast precursors, increased bone marrow fat, pro-inflammatory microenvironment
Osteocytes	Loss of dendrites, decreased lacunar occupancy, SASP secretion, increased RANKL expression [11] [14]	Impaired mechanosensing, increased osteoclast activation, disrupted remodeling coordination
Osteoprogenitors	DNA damage, cell cycle arrest, elevated p53/p21 levels [14]	Reduced bone formation capacity, impaired fracture healing
Osteoclasts	Delayed differentiation but preserved resorption capacity, dysregulated apoptosis [14]	Sustained bone resorption, imbalance in remodeling coupling

Dysregulation of Key Signaling Pathways

The cellular dysfunction in aging bone is driven by the dysregulation of several critical signaling pathways that control the birth, activity, and death of bone cells.

• RANK/RANKL/OPG Pathway: This is the master regulatory system for osteoclastogenesis [11] [16]. RANKL, produced by osteoblasts, osteocytes, and stromal cells, binds to its receptor RANK on osteoclast precursors, promoting their differentiation and activation. Osteoprotegerin (OPG), a decoy receptor for RANKL, inhibits this interaction [11] [16]. With aging, the RANKL/OPG ratio increases, favoring excessive osteoclast activity and bone resorption [11]. Furthermore, the recently identified receptor LGR4 competes with RANK for RANKL binding, inhibiting osteoclast differentiation, and its role in aging is an area of active investigation [16].

• Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling Pathway: This pathway is a principal regulator of osteoblastogenesis and bone formation [11]. Wnt proteins bind to frizzled receptors and LRP5/6 co-receptors on osteoblast progenitors, stabilizing β-catenin and promoting osteoblastic gene expression. With aging, the production of endogenous Wnt inhibitors, most notably sclerostin (produced by osteocytes) and Dickkopf-1 (DKK-1), increases [11] [17]. This inhibits Wnt signaling, leading to suppressed bone formation [11].

The following diagram illustrates the interplay between these key signaling pathways in the context of age-related dysregulation:

The Osteoimmunology of Aging Bone

The concept of osteoimmunology highlights the intimate connection between the immune system and bone [11] [14]. With aging, the immune system undergoes "immunosenescence," characterized by a chronic, low-grade inflammatory state often termed "inflamm-aging" [12] [14]. This state is marked by increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, and IL-17 [11] [12]. These cytokines potently stimulate osteoclastogenesis by enhancing RANKL expression on stromal and T-cells, thereby directly driving bone resorption [11]. Notably, the Th17 subset of T-cells, which produces IL-17, accumulates with age and has been strongly implicated in inflammatory bone loss [11]. Thus, the aged immune system actively contributes to the dysregulation of bone remodeling.

Quantitative Assessment of Bone Remodeling

In both research and clinical practice, the rate of bone turnover is quantified using a combination of imaging techniques and biochemical markers.

Bone Turnover Markers (BTMs)

BTMs are biochemical products measured in blood or urine that reflect the overall activity of osteoclasts and osteoblasts [17] [15] [18]. They are categorized into bone formation markers (from osteoblasts) and bone resorption markers (from osteoclast activity) [15]. The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) have recommended P1NP and CTX as the reference biomarkers for bone formation and resorption, respectively, due to their performance and clinical validity [18].

Table 2: Key Bone Turnover Markers for Research and Clinical Monitoring

Marker Category	Specific Marker	Description & Source	Application in Research & Monitoring
Bone Formation	P1NP (Procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide) [17] [15] [18]	By-product of type 1 collagen synthesis; from osteoblasts	Gold standard for monitoring anabolic treatment (e.g., teriparatide) [18].
	Bone-specific ALP (BALP) [17] [15]	Enzyme from osteoblast cell membranes	Indicator of osteoblast activity; useful in metabolic bone diseases.
	Osteocalcin (OC) [17] [15]	Non-collagenous protein of bone matrix; from osteoblasts	Specific indicator of osteoblast function; influenced by vitamin K status.
Bone Resorption	CTX (C-telopeptide of type 1 collagen) [15] [18]	Degradation product of type 1 collagen; from osteoclast activity	Gold standard for monitoring antiresorptive therapy; sensitive to diurnal variation and food intake [18].
	NTX (N-telopeptide of type 1 collagen) [15] [18]	Degradation product of type 1 collagen; from osteoclast activity	Measured in urine or serum; used for monitoring treatment response.
	TRAP5b (Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b) [15]	Enzyme secreted by active osteoclasts	Specific marker of osteoclast number; not affected by renal clearance.

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Bone Remodeling

Protocol 1: Measurement of Serum P1NP and CTX for Treatment Monitoring

This protocol outlines the procedure for reliably measuring the recommended bone turnover markers to monitor response to osteoporosis therapy in a clinical research setting [18].

Principle: Changes in P1NP and CTX occur within months of initiating treatment, providing an early indicator of efficacy and adherence long before changes in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) can be detected [18].

Materials & Reagents:

• Serum separator tubes
• Centrifuge
• Cryovials for storage
• Radioimmunoassay (RIA) or Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) kits for intact P1NP and serum CTX
• Microplate reader/luminometer (if using CLIA)
• Gamma counter (if using RIA)

Procedure:

• Sample Collection: Draw blood in the morning (between 7:00 and 10:00 AM) after an overnight fast. This is critical for CTX due to its significant diurnal variation and sensitivity to food intake [18]. P1NP has minimal diurnal variation.
• Sample Processing: Allow blood to clot at room temperature for 30 minutes. Centrifuge at 2000-3000 x g for 15 minutes. Aliquot the serum into cryovials immediately.
• Storage: If not analyzed immediately, store serum samples at -80°C. Avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles.
• Analysis: Perform the P1NP and CTX assays according to the manufacturer's instructions. All samples from a single subject should be analyzed in the same batch to minimize inter-assay variability.
• Calculation & Interpretation:
  • Calculate the percentage change from baseline to the follow-up measurement (typically at 3 months).
  • Compare the percentage change to the Least Significant Change (LSC). The LSC is the minimal change needed to be considered a true biological effect, accounting for analytical and within-person biological variability [18].
  • For serum CTX with antiresorptive therapy, a decrease >27% (assay-dependent) indicates a good response. For P1NP with anabolic therapy, an increase >20% indicates a good response [18].
  • A change smaller than the LSC should trigger investigation into poor adherence or inadequate treatment response.

The workflow for this monitoring protocol is summarized below:

Protocol 2: In Vitro Assessment of Osteoclastogenesis via RANKL Stimulation

This protocol describes a method to investigate osteoclast differentiation and activity, which is fundamental to studying resorption in age-related bone loss.

Principle: Hematopoietic osteoclast precursors, such as primary mouse bone marrow cells or human PBMCs, can be differentiated into mature, bone-resorbing osteoclasts in vitro by providing M-CSF and RANKL, the essential cytokines for this process [11].

Materials & Reagents:

• Osteoclast precursor cells (e.g., RAW 264.7 cell line, primary bone marrow macrophages)
• Cell culture plates (e.g., 96-well for differentiation, dentine slices for resorption)
• Alpha-MEM culture medium, Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS), Penicillin/Streptomycin
• Recombinant Mouse/RHuman M-CSF and RANKL
• Fixative (e.g., 4% Paraformaldehyde)
• TRAP Staining Kit (Tartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphatase)
• Phalloidin (for F-actin ring staining)
• Light microscope and fluorescence microscope

Procedure:

• Cell Seeding: Seed osteoclast precursors in a 96-well plate at a density of 5,000-10,000 cells/well in complete medium supplemented with M-CSF (25-50 ng/mL).
• Osteoclast Differentiation: After 24 hours, add RANKL (50-100 ng/mL) to the culture medium to initiate differentiation. Refresh the medium with M-CSF and RANKL every 2-3 days.
• TRAP Staining: After 5-7 days of culture, fix the cells with 4% PFA for 10 minutes. Perform TRAP staining according to the kit protocol. TRAP is a key enzymatic marker of osteoclasts.
• Analysis of Differentiation: Count the number of multinucleated (≥3 nuclei) TRAP-positive cells under a light microscope. This quantifies osteoclast formation.
• Resorption Pit Assay (Optional): Seed cells on dentine slices or bovine bone discs. After differentiation, remove cells with bleach or mechanical scrubbing. Stain the discs with toluidine blue or phloxine B to visualize and quantify resorption pits, which represent functional osteoclast activity.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Investigating Bone Remodeling Mechanisms

Research Reagent / Assay	Function & Application
Recombinant RANKL & M-CSF	Essential cytokines for inducing osteoclast differentiation and survival in in vitro models [11].
Recombinant Wnt3a / Wnt Agonists	To stimulate canonical Wnt signaling and investigate anabolic bone formation pathways in osteoblast cultures [11].
Sclerostin / DKK-1 Inhibitors	Neutralizing antibodies or small molecules used to block endogenous Wnt inhibitors and study their role in age-related bone formation decline [11] [17].
Senolytic Compounds (e.g., Dasatinib + Quercetin)	Used to selectively clear senescent cells (e.g., in aged animal models) to investigate the causal role of cellular senescence in bone aging [14].
TRAP Staining Kit	Histochemical method to identify and quantify osteoclasts in cell culture or bone tissue sections [15].
P1NP & CTX Immunoassays	Validated commercial kits (ELISA, RIA, CLIA) for quantifying key bone turnover markers in serum/plasma for monitoring bone remodeling status [17] [18].
Anti-RANKL Antibody (e.g., Denosumab)	Therapeutic agent used in both clinical practice and research to potently inhibit osteoclastogenesis via the RANKL pathway [11] [19].

---

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength, predisposing individuals to increased fracture risk. While bone mineral density (BMD) remains a diagnostic cornerstone, emerging research highlights the critical roles of skeletal fragility determinants (e.g., bone microarchitecture, turnover) and fall dynamics (e.g., balance, neuromuscular function) in fracture pathogenesis. This document synthesizes quantitative data, experimental protocols, and analytical tools to advance research beyond BMD-centric models.

---

Quantitative Research Landscape

Table 1: Bibliometric Analysis of Osteoporosis Research (2014–2025)

Category	Findings	Data Source
Annual Publications	Steady growth; 10,343 articles published (2014–2025)	WoSCC, PubMed [20]
Leading Countries	China (4,157 publications), USA (1,596), Japan (594)	VOSviewer Analysis [20]
Key Institutions	Shanghai Jiao Tong University (197 papers), Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (154)	[20]
High-Frequency Keywords	Bone mineral density, postmenopausal women, fracture, pathogenesis, treatment	Citespace [20]
Research Hotspots	Precision diagnosis, pathogenesis, targeted drug delivery, AI-based fracture detection	[20] [21]

---

Risk Factor Analysis: Beyond BMD

Table 2: Key Determinants of Skeletal Fragility and Fall Risk

Domain	Specific Factors	Experimental Assessment Tools
Bone Quality	Trabecular microarchitecture, bone turnover rates, collagen cross-links	TBS, HR-pQCT, bone turnover markers (BTMs) [22] [23]
Muscle Function	Sarcopenia, grip strength, quadriceps weakness	DXA-derived muscle mass, dynamometry, gait speed [24]
Fall Dynamics	Balance deficits, proprioception impairment, polypharmacy	Tinetti Scale, posturography, fall diaries [24]
Systemic Regulators	Estrogen deficiency, vitamin D insufficiency, chronic inflammation	ELISA (estradiol, 25-OH-D), cytokine panels [23]

---

Diagnostic and Research Tools

Table 3: Advanced Tools for Skeletal Health Assessment

Tool	Function	Applications
Trabecular Bone Score (TBS)	Textural analysis of lumbar spine DXA images; reflects bone microarchitecture	Fracture risk prediction independent of BMD; guides anabolic therapy [22]
High-Resolution pQCT (HR-pQCT)	3D quantification of trabecular and cortical bone at peripheral sites (e.g., tibia)	Virtual bone biopsy; microstructural analysis [22]
Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS)	Non-ionizing ultrasound-based BMD estimation	Portable BMD screening; correlates with DXA [22] [25]
FRAX with TBS Adjustment	Integrates clinical risk factors + TBS for fracture probability	Enhances risk stratification in diabetes, CKD [22] [25]
AI-Based Fracture Detection	Convolutional neural networks for vertebral fracture identification from X-ray/CT	Improves diagnostic accuracy; reduces radiologist workload [22]

---

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) Analysis

Objective: Quantify bone microarchitecture from DXA images. Workflow:

• Subject Preparation: Position patient for lumbar spine DXA (L1–L4).
• Image Acquisition: Use DXA scanner (e.g., Hologic Discovery) with TBS software.
• Data Processing:
  • Exclude vertebrae with fractures/artifacts.
  • Calculate TBS via gray-level variogram analysis.
• Interpretation:
  • TBS >1.35: Normal microarchitecture.
  • TBS 1.25–1.35: Partially degraded.
  • TBS <1.25: Degraded microstructure [22].

Protocol: Bone Turnover Marker (BTM) Assays

Objective: Monitor bone formation/resorption dynamics. Methodology:

• Formation Markers: P1NP (serum), osteocalcin (ELISA).
• Resorption Markers: CTX (serum), NTX (urine).
• Sampling: Fasting morning samples to minimize diurnal variation.
• Analysis: Electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (e.g., Roche Elecsys) [23].

Protocol: Fall Risk Assessment

Tools:

• Timed Up-and-Go Test: Measures mobility (<12 seconds = low risk).
• Berg Balance Scale: 14-item scale (score <45 indicates high fall risk).
• Medication Review: Identify fall-associated drugs (e.g., benzodiazepines) [24].

---

Visualization of Osteoporosis Pathogenesis

Title: Osteoporosis Pathogenesis Pathways

---

The Scientist’s Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Example
ELISA Kits (P1NP, CTX)	Quantify bone formation/resorption markers	Monitoring treatment response [23]
Primary Osteoblasts	In vitro modeling of bone formation mechanisms	Drug screening assays [23]
HR-pQCT Phantoms	Calibrate scanners for volumetric BMD measurements	Standardizing microarchitectural analysis [22]
AI Training Datasets	Annotated vertebral X-rays for machine learning	Developing fracture prediction algorithms [22]
RANKL/OPG Antibodies	Detect key osteoclast regulators in serum/tissue	Pathogenesis studies [23]

---

Integrating skeletal fragility indices (e.g., TBS, BTMs) and fall dynamics into osteoporosis research enables a holistic approach to fracture risk assessment. The protocols and tools outlined here provide a framework for advancing drug development and personalized management in high-risk populations. Future directions include AI-enhanced diagnostics and targeted anabolic therapies [20] [22] [21].

Osteoporosis, a systemic skeletal disease characterized by compromised bone strength and microarchitectural deterioration, presents a critical global health challenge due to its association with fragility fractures [26] [27]. This silent epidemic affects over 200 million individuals worldwide, with projections indicating rising prevalence as populations age [28] [29]. The economic burden associated with osteoporotic fractures constitutes a substantial portion of healthcare expenditures in many countries, creating an urgent need for comprehensive cost analysis and effective prevention strategies [26] [30].

Fragility fractures—those resulting from low-trauma events such as falls from standing height—represent the most significant clinical consequence of osteoporosis and the primary driver of its economic impact [26] [27]. These fractures particularly affect the hip, spine, and wrist, leading to pain, disability, diminished quality of life, and increased mortality [30] [27]. The economic burden extends beyond direct medical costs to include significant indirect costs from lost productivity and long-term care requirements [26].

This application note examines the current economic impact of osteoporotic fractures, projects future costs, and details standardized protocols for evaluating fracture risk and intervention strategies within osteoporosis management programs for older individuals.

The Global Economic Burden of Osteoporotic Fractures

Current Cost Estimates

Recent studies demonstrate that osteoporotic fractures impose a substantial financial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The direct annual cost of treating osteoporotic fractures averages between $5,000 and $6,500 billion in Canada, Europe, and the United States alone, with these figures excluding indirect costs such as disability and productivity loss [26]. In the United States, a 2020 retrospective cohort study of managed care enrollees found the mean total all-cause healthcare cost following an osteoporotic fracture was $34,855 per patient within the first year, with health plans covering the majority ($31,863) versus patient out-of-pocket costs ($2,992) [30].

A 2023 analysis of U.S. healthcare databases revealed even higher mean annual healthcare costs of $44,311 (±$67,427) among patients with fragility fractures, with costs significantly influenced by the site of care where the initial fracture diagnosis occurred [31]. Inpatient diagnoses were associated with the highest costs at $71,561 (±$84,072), followed by outpatient hospital settings ($24,837 ± $36,869) and outpatient office visits ($19,594 ± $36,150) [31].

Table 1: Healthcare Costs Following Osteoporotic Fractures by Care Setting

Site of Fracture Diagnosis	Mean Annual Healthcare Costs (USD)	Standard Deviation	Proportion of Patients with Subsequent Fractures
Inpatient Admission	$71,561	±$84,072	33.2%
Outpatient Hospital	$24,837	±$36,869	19.4%
Outpatient Office	$19,594	±$36,150	21.7%
Emergency Room	$23,579	±$38,558	23.9%
Overall Average	$44,311	±$67,427	25.6%

Projected Cost Trajectories

With aging populations in most developed countries, the economic impact of osteoporosis is expected to escalate significantly in coming decades. Between 2006 and 2025, annual osteoporotic fracture events and associated costs in the United States are projected to grow by more than 48% [30]. The Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that by 2025, the United States will face approximately 3 million osteoporosis-related fractures annually, with direct healthcare costs reaching $25.3 billion [31].

Globally, these economic pressures are even more pronounced. Annual fracture-related costs are estimated to rise to over $95 billion worldwide by 2040 [27] [31]. This projection underscores the urgent need for effective prevention and management strategies to mitigate the growing economic burden.

Regional Variations and Cost Drivers

The economic impact of osteoporotic fractures varies significantly by geographic region and healthcare system. Research output and economic analyses have been led by countries including China, the United States, and Japan [20] [29]. The highest costs are consistently associated with hip fractures, which often require surgical intervention, prolonged hospitalization, and rehabilitation services [26]. In the 12 months following fracture, approximately 75% of patients require rehabilitation services, with mean costs of $18,025 per patient [30].

Leading predictors of increased costs include diagnosis of the index fracture during an inpatient stay (cost ratio: 2.16; 95% CI: 2.13-2.19) and fractures occurring at multiple sites (cost ratio: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.21-1.26) [30]. These findings highlight the substantial economic benefit potential of preventing initial fractures and avoiding hospitalization through early intervention.

Experimental Protocols for Fracture Risk Assessment and Cost Evaluation

Protocol 1: Systematic Review Methodology for Economic Burden Analysis

Purpose: To establish a standardized approach for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing literature on the economic burden of osteoporotic fractures.

Search Strategy:

• Utilize multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Cochrane
• Apply search terms combining economic burden concepts ("Cost of Illness," "Economic Burden," "Disease Costs," "Burden of Illness") with osteoporosis terms ("osteoporosis," "Post-Traumatic Osteoporosis," "Senile Osteoporosis," "Age-Related Bone Loss")
• Restrict search timeframe to appropriate period (e.g., 1980-2018 as in published methodology)
• Limit to original research articles published in English [26]

Screening and Selection Process:

• Initial screening of titles and abstracts against predefined inclusion criteria
• Full-text review of potentially relevant articles
• Apply inclusion criteria: economic burden studies of osteoporosis, including direct and indirect costs; available full-text; original research
• Apply exclusion criteria: non-English publications; protocols, conference abstracts, review articles, and letters to the editor [26]

Data Extraction and Synthesis:

• Extract data on study characteristics, population demographics, cost methodologies, direct and indirect costs, and cost drivers
• Categorize costs as direct medical, direct non-medical, or indirect costs
• Convert costs to a common currency and year using appropriate indices for comparison
• Perform qualitative synthesis of findings across studies [26]

Table 2: Data Extraction Elements for Economic Burden Systematic Reviews

Category	Specific Data Elements
Study Characteristics	Author, publication year, country, study period, data sources, study population
Methodology	Costing approach (top-down vs. bottom-up), perspective (societal, healthcare system, payer)
Cost Components	Direct medical costs (inpatient, outpatient, medications, rehabilitation)
	Direct non-medical costs (transportation, home modifications)
	Indirect costs (productivity losses, informal care)
Population Data	Sample size, age distribution, gender distribution, fracture types
Results	Total costs, cost per patient, cost by fracture site, temporal trends

Protocol 2: Retrospective Database Analysis of Fracture Costs

Purpose: To analyze healthcare resource utilization and costs following osteoporotic fractures using administrative claims data.

Data Source Requirements:

• Comprehensive administrative claims databases with medical and pharmacy components (e.g., Merative MarketScan Databases, Optum Research Database)
• Data should include enrollment information, inpatient and outpatient medical claims, pharmacy claims, and patient demographics
• Sufficient sample size to ensure statistical power (e.g., 100,000+ patients with fractures) [30] [31]

Patient Selection Criteria:

• Include patients aged 50 years and older with a fragility fracture diagnosis
• Require continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months pre-index (baseline) and 12 months post-index (follow-up)
• Define index date as first fracture claim during identification period
• Exclude patients with Paget's disease, malignancy (except non-melanoma skin cancer), or other specified bone diseases [30] [31]

Fracture Identification:

• Identify fractures using International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM) codes
• Consider fractures case-qualifying if they occur during an inpatient stay or outpatient visit with a repair procedure code
• For spine fractures, require accompanying imaging claims within 30 days of diagnostic claim
• Apply episode-based algorithm with 90-day gap between claims to identify distinct fracture episodes [30]

Cost Calculation Methodology:

• Calculate all-cause and osteoporosis-related healthcare costs
• Include costs from office visits, outpatient visits, emergency department visits, acute hospital stays, long-term care, and pharmacy claims
• Classify claims as osteoporosis-related if containing diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture, fracture aftercare, or osteoporosis treatment
• Report costs from both health plan and patient perspectives
• Adjust costs to constant dollars using Medical Care component of Consumer Price Index [30] [31]

Protocol 3: Fracture Risk Screening in High-Risk Populations

Purpose: To implement systematic fracture risk assessment in older long-term care residents using validated screening tools.

Screening Methodology:

• Administer the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) to all eligible long-term care residents
• Offer bone mineral density examination via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to those identified as high or moderate risk
• Conduct clinical assessment for history of prior fractures, fall risk, and secondary causes of osteoporosis [32]

Diagnostic Confirmation:

• Perform DXA scans at lumbar spine (L1-L4) and femoral neck following standardized protocols
• Define osteoporosis according to WHO criteria: T-score ≤ -2.5 standard deviations
• Categorize low bone mass (osteopenia) as T-score between -1.0 and -2.4
• Use the lowest T-score from measured sites for final diagnosis [28] [27]

Treatment and Follow-up:

• Initiate anti-osteoporosis medication based on fracture risk assessment results
• Provide calcium and vitamin D supplementation as appropriate
• Implement fall prevention strategies within the long-term care facility
• Schedule follow-up assessments at appropriate intervals [32]

Visualization of Osteoporosis Screening and Management Pathway

Osteoporosis Screening and Management Clinical Pathway - This diagram illustrates the standardized protocol for identifying high-risk individuals and guiding appropriate intervention strategies.

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Osteoporosis and Fracture Risk Studies

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Research Application
Diagnostic Tools	Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA)	Gold standard for BMD measurement and osteoporosis diagnosis [33] [27]
	FRAX Tool	Validated algorithm for 10-year fracture probability assessment [27]
	Vertebral Fracture Assessment (VFA)	Identifies prevalent vertebral fractures from DXA images [27]
	Quantitative CT (qCT)	Volumetric BMD measurement and 3D bone structure analysis [27]
Biochemical Markers	Serum CTX (C-terminal telopeptide)	Bone resorption marker for treatment monitoring
	P1NP (Procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide)	Bone formation marker for treatment response assessment
	25-Hydroxyvitamin D	Nutritional status assessment for bone health [33]
Cell-Based Assays	Osteoclast differentiation assays	In vitro evaluation of bone resorption and anti-resorptive drug effects
	Osteoblast mineralization assays	Assessment of bone formation potential and anabolic agent efficacy
Animal Models	Ovariectomized rodent models	Standard postmenopausal osteoporosis model for preclinical testing [29]
	Aged mouse models	Senile osteoporosis modeling for age-related bone loss studies [29]
Data Resources	Administrative claims databases	Real-world evidence generation on treatment patterns and costs [30] [31]
	Population-based cohorts	Longitudinal fracture risk assessment and epidemiology studies [26]

The economic burden of osteoporotic fractures represents a significant and growing challenge to healthcare systems worldwide, with current estimates reaching $25 billion annually in the United States alone and projected to increase substantially by 2040 [27] [31]. This analysis demonstrates that fragility fractures are associated with substantial healthcare costs, particularly when diagnosed in inpatient settings, and are characterized by concerning treatment gaps despite the availability of effective interventions [28] [31].

The standardized protocols presented in this application note provide researchers and healthcare professionals with validated methodologies for assessing fracture risk, evaluating economic impact, and implementing evidence-based management strategies. Future research should focus on optimizing screening programs, improving treatment adherence, and developing cost-effective interventions that can mitigate the projected increase in osteoporosis-related expenditures. As demographic shifts continue to increase the population at risk, systematic approaches to prevention, diagnosis, and management will be essential to reducing the global economic impact of osteoporotic fractures.

Secondary osteoporosis is a significant skeletal disorder characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, leading to increased fracture risk attributable to an underlying medical condition or specific medication use [34] [35]. Unlike primary osteoporosis, which is age-related or postmenopausal, secondary osteoporosis affects a broader demographic, including premenopausal women and younger men, with underlying causes identified in up to 30% of postmenopausal women, 50-80% of men, and over two-thirds of older men undergoing evaluation [34] [36] [35]. This application note provides researchers and drug development professionals with a comprehensive framework for investigating the pathophysiology, screening, and management of secondary osteoporosis, with particular emphasis on mechanistic insights and experimental methodologies essential for therapeutic development.

The clinical and economic burdens of secondary osteoporosis are substantial. Osteoporosis causes more than 8 million fractures annually worldwide, and secondary forms contribute significantly to this figure [36]. The economic impact is profound, with evidence suggesting that effective pharmacological interventions could yield substantial cost savings through fracture prevention [37]. Understanding the distinct pathophysiological mechanisms underlying secondary osteoporosis is crucial for developing targeted therapies, as treatment response may be limited if the underlying disorder remains unaddressed [34].

Pathophysiology and Key Mechanisms

Core Bone Remodeling Disruption

Bone is a metabolically active tissue that undergoes continuous remodeling through the coordinated actions of osteoclasts (bone resorption) and osteoblasts (bone formation) [38] [35]. This process occurs within basic multicellular units (BMUs) and is tightly regulated by the RANKL/RANK/OPG signaling pathway [38] [35]. Osteoblasts express both RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B ligand) and OPG (osteoprotegerin), while osteoclasts express RANK (receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B) [35]. The RANKL/RANK interaction stimulates osteoclast differentiation and activity, whereas OPG acts as a decoy receptor, inhibiting RANKL and thus suppressing bone resorption [38] [35]. An imbalance in this system, favoring osteoclast-mediated resorption, underpins most forms of secondary osteoporosis.

Disease and Medication-Specific Pathways

Various medical conditions and medications disrupt bone homeostasis through distinct mechanisms. The table below summarizes the principal pathophysiological mechanisms for major causes of secondary osteoporosis.

Table 1: Pathophysiological Mechanisms in Secondary Osteoporosis

Etiology	Key Pathophysiological Mechanisms	Primary Cellular Targets
Glucocorticoid-Induced [34] [38]	Induction of RANKL/MCSF; decreased OPG; increased osteoblast/osteocyte apoptosis; inhibition of osteoblast differentiation via Wnt/β-catenin pathway	Osteoblasts, osteocytes, osteoclasts
Hyperthyroidism [34] [36]	Increased bone turnover; direct stimulation of osteoclast activity via thyroid hormones	Osteoclasts
Diabetes Mellitus [36] [35]	Type 1: Autoimmune destruction of β-cells; possible alterations in bone quality; Type 2: Complex mechanisms including advanced glycation end products (AGEs)	Bone matrix quality affected
Hyperparathyroidism [34] [36]	Excess PTH increases bone remodeling; uncouples bone formation from resorption	Osteoblasts, osteoclasts
Proton Pump Inhibitors [39]	Impaired calcium absorption; potential direct effects on bone via EGFR, ESR1, and SRC pathways	Osteoclasts, potential direct molecular targets
Hypogonadism [34] [35]	Estrogen/testosterone deficiency increases osteoclast survival/activity via OPG/RANKL system	Osteoclasts

The following diagram illustrates the central RANKL/RANK/OPG pathway and how major medications and diseases disrupt bone remodeling:

Screening and Diagnostic Protocols

Risk Assessment Tools

Effective screening for secondary osteoporosis involves identifying at-risk individuals through validated assessment tools. The recently developed Primary Osteoporosis Screening Tool (POST) demonstrates superior performance compared to established tools like the Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool for Asians (OSTA), particularly in Chinese populations [40]. POST utilizes a simple algorithm based on age, sex, and weight, offering a pragmatic balance between simplicity and predictive efficacy.

Table 2: Performance Characteristics of Osteoporosis Screening Tools

Screening Tool	Parameters Required	Target Population	AUC	Sensitivity	Specificity
POST [40]	Age, sex, weight	Adults ≥50 years	0.82 (reported)	High (specific values study-dependent)	Moderate (specific values study-dependent)
OSTA [40]	Age, weight	Asian adults ≥50 years	0.75-0.80 (varies)	Moderate	Moderate
FRAX [34] [40]	Multiple clinical risk factors with/without BMD	General population	Not applicable (predicts fracture risk)	Varies by population	Varies by population

Diagnostic Workflow and Biochemical Evaluation

The diagnostic protocol for suspected secondary osteoporosis should include:

1. Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Measurement:

• Methodology: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
• Sites: Lumbar spine (L1-L4), femoral neck, total hip
• Diagnostic Criteria: T-score ≤ -2.5 SD at any site indicates osteoporosis [35] [40]

2. Laboratory Assessment for Secondary Causes:

• Basic Panel: Serum calcium, phosphate, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, renal and liver function tests [34] [38]
• Endocrine Panel: Thyroid-stimulating hormone, parathyroid hormone, testosterone (in men), estradiol (in premenopausal women)
• Specialized Tests: Serum and urine protein electrophoresis (for multiple myeloma), tissue transglutaminase antibodies (for celiac disease), urinary calcium excretion [34] [36]

3. Biochemical Bone Turnover Markers:

• Bone Resorption Markers: Serum C-telopeptide (CTX)
• Bone Formation Markers: Serum procollagen type I N-propeptide (P1NP), osteocalcin [34]

Experimental Protocols for Mechanistic Investigation

Network Toxicology Analysis for Drug-Induced Osteoporosis

This protocol outlines a comprehensive approach to identify molecular targets and pathways in medication-induced osteoporosis, adapted from methodologies used to investigate proton pump inhibitor-induced bone loss [39].

Objective: To systematically identify potential molecular targets and pathways underlying drug-induced osteoporosis using computational approaches.

Materials and Reagents:

• Chemical Structures: Canonical SMILES of investigated compounds from PubChem database
• Target Prediction Databases: STITCH, SwissTargetPrediction
• Osteoporosis-Related Genes Database: GeneCards
• Protein-Protein Interaction Network: STRING database
• Functional Enrichment Analysis: clusterProfiler R package
• Visualization Software: Cytoscape 3.8.2

Procedure:

• Target Prediction:

  • Retrieve standard structures and canonical SMILES of investigated compounds from PubChem database
  • Perform target prediction using STITCH and SwissTargetPrediction databases
  • Restrict species to "Homo sapiens" to identify human-specific targets
  • Standardize target names using UniProt database and remove duplicates

• Osteoporosis-Related Target Screening:

  • Identify osteoporosis-related gene targets from GeneCards database
  • Set screening threshold to relevance score greater than median value
  • Generate Venn diagrams to identify overlapping targets between compounds and osteoporosis

• Network Construction and Analysis:

  • Construct protein-protein interaction (PPI) network using STRING database with medium confidence (0.4)
  • Import network into Cytoscape for visualization and analysis
  • Identify hub genes based on topological parameters (degree, betweenness centrality, closeness centrality)

• Enrichment Analysis:

  • Perform Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis using clusterProfiler
  • Apply significance threshold of p < 0.05 for enriched terms
  • Visualize results using enrichplot and ggplot2 R packages

The following diagram illustrates the experimental workflow for network toxicology analysis:

Molecular Docking and Dynamics Simulations

Objective: To evaluate binding affinities and stability between identified compounds and their potential targets.

Materials and Reagents:

• Software: AutoDock Vina 1.5.6, PyMOL, ChemOffice, Gromacs 2022
• Protein Structures: RCSB Protein Data Bank (PDB)
• Force Fields: CHARMM 36 (proteins), GAFF (ligands)

Procedure:

• Structure Preparation:

  • Obtain 2D structures of ligands from PubChem, convert to 3D using ChemOffice
  • Retrieve crystal structures of protein receptors from PDB
  • Prepare proteins by removing water molecules, phosphate groups using PyMOL

• Molecular Docking:

  • Prepare protein and ligand structures using AutoDock Tools
  • Set docking grid box to encompass predicted binding site
  • Perform docking using AutoDock Vina, select optimal conformation based on docking score
  • Visualize interactions using PyMOL and Discovery Studio

• Molecular Dynamics Simulation:

  • Subject protein-ligand complex to 100 ns molecular dynamics simulation using Gromacs
  • Parameterize protein using CHARMM 36 force field, ligand using GAFF
  • Analyze root mean square deviation (RMSD), root mean square fluctuation (RMSF), and hydrogen bonding

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table outlines essential research reagents and tools for investigating secondary osteoporosis mechanisms and screening for therapeutic interventions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Secondary Osteoporosis Investigation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Key Function
Cell Culture Models [34]	Primary human osteoblasts, osteoclast precursors, MC3T3-E1 (mouse osteoblast), SaOS-2 (human osteosarcoma)	In vitro mechanistic studies	Model bone cell behavior and drug responses
Animal Models [34] [39]	Ovariectomized rodents, glucocorticoid-treated mice, Zucker diabetic fatty rats	In vivo efficacy and safety testing	Recapitulate human disease pathophysiology
Molecular Biology Tools [39]	siRNA/shRNA for target validation, CRISPR-Cas9 for gene editing, qPCR primers for bone markers	Target validation and pathway analysis	Modulate and measure gene expression
Antibodies [34]	Anti-RANKL, Anti-OPG, Anti-Osteocalcin, Anti-Sclerostin	Protein detection and quantification	Detect and quantify key bone-related proteins
Bone Turnover Assays [34]	ELISA for CTX, P1NP, TRAP5b	Biochemical assessment	Measure bone resorption and formation rates
Computational Resources [39]	STITCH, SwissTargetPrediction, GeneCards, STRING	In silico target identification	Predict compound-target interactions

Therapeutic Implications and Research Perspectives

Understanding the distinct mechanisms underlying secondary osteoporosis informs targeted therapeutic approaches. While bisphosphonates remain first-line treatment for many forms of secondary osteoporosis, their efficacy may be reduced in certain contexts unless the underlying cause is addressed [34] [41]. For glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, teriparatide (a recombinant PTH analog) demonstrates superior efficacy compared to bisphosphonates by counteracting osteoblast and osteocyte apoptosis [38]. Recent research on denosumab (a RANKL inhibitor) shows promise for patients intolerant to bisphosphonates [38].

Future research directions should focus on:

• Developing disease-specific treatment protocols that address unique pathophysiological mechanisms
• Exploring combination therapies that simultaneously target underlying conditions and bone loss
• Investigating novel anabolic agents with improved safety profiles for long-term use
• Validating multi-omics approaches for personalized risk stratification and treatment selection

The investigation of secondary osteoporosis requires interdisciplinary collaboration between bone biologists, clinical researchers, and computational scientists to advance our understanding of these complex conditions and develop more effective, targeted therapeutics.

Advanced Screening Algorithms and Evidence-Based Treatment Protocols

Osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterized by decreased bone mass and compromised bone architecture, represents a significant global health problem due to the associated increased fragility and fracture risk [27]. This subclinical condition often presents asymptomatically until the first fragility fracture occurs, leading to substantial morbidity, mortality, and socioeconomic burden [27]. With the global population aging rapidly, the incidence and prevalence of osteoporosis are expected to increase substantially, with annual fracture incidence projected to reach 3.2 million by 2040 in the United States alone [27]. This application note synthesizes the 2025 updated recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) with contemporary research evidence and technical protocols to establish comprehensive frameworks for osteoporosis screening and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) implementation within clinical and research settings. The guidance is specifically contextualized within a broader thesis on osteoporosis screening in older individuals, addressing critical evidence gaps while providing implementable protocols for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals engaged in bone health innovation.

2025 USPSTF Guideline Updates: Quantitative Recommendations and Evidence Grading

The USPSTF released updated osteoporosis screening recommendations in January 2025, maintaining consistent guidance for women while highlighting persistent evidence gaps for male screening populations [24] [42]. The recommendations are stratified by population groups with corresponding evidence grades, reflecting the strength of evidence and net benefit estimations based on systematic review of current literature.

Table 1: 2025 USPSTF Osteoporosis Screening Recommendations by Population

Population	Recommendation	Grade	Key Considerations
Women ≥65 years	Recommends screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures	B	Moderate certainty of moderate net benefit; includes DXA of hip and lumbar spine
Postmenopausal women <65 years	Recommends screening if at increased risk based on clinical assessment	B	Use clinical risk assessment tools; moderate certainty of moderate net benefit
Men	Evidence insufficient to assess balance of benefits and harms	I	Clinical judgment needed; more research required on fracture prevention

The updated guidelines specify that screening should be conducted using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the hip and lumbar spine, which can be performed with or without formal fracture risk assessment tools [24] [43]. Importantly, the USPSTF clarifies that fracture risk assessment tools alone are insufficient for screening without DXA confirmation, establishing DXA as the cornerstone of osteoporosis evaluation [43]. For postmenopausal women younger than 65 years, the USPSTF suggests a two-step approach: first identifying the presence of risk factors (e.g., low body weight, parental hip fracture history, smoking, excess alcohol consumption), then using a clinical risk assessment tool to estimate fracture risk before proceeding with DXA screening [24].

A significant clarification in the 2025 update addresses the use of clinical risk assessment tools. While the 2018 recommendation referenced FRAX thresholds corresponding to the 10-year fracture risk of an average 65-year-old White woman, the 2025 update states that if FRAX is used, the USPSTF "does not intend that these 10-year risk levels be used as mechanistic thresholds" [44]. This refinement acknowledges evidence indicating that the predictive value of FRAX without bone mineral density is poor and potentially inferior to simpler tools such as the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) [44].

DXA Implementation: Technical Protocols and Diagnostic Classifications

DXA Methodology and Technical Specifications

DXA remains the gold standard for bone mineral density evaluation and osteoporosis diagnosis, providing both quantitative bone density measurements and standardized classification based on World Health Organization criteria [27]. The technology measures bone mineral content divided by the scanned area, reporting results in grams per square centimeter (g/cm²) [27]. Central or axial DXA measures BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, with hip measurements considered most predictive of hip fracture risk [27]. The International Society of Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) recommends measuring BMD at two sites in all patients, typically the lumbar spine and hip, to ensure comprehensive assessment [27].

Table 2: WHO Osteoporosis Classification Based on DXA T-scores

Classification	T-score Range	Clinical Implications
Normal	T-score ≥ -1.0	Bone density within normal range for young adult reference
Low Bone Mass (Osteopenia)	T-score between -1.0 and -2.5	Intermediate fracture risk; consider FRAX assessment
Osteoporosis	T-score ≤ -2.5	High fracture risk; pharmacologic therapy recommended

The reference standard for T-score calculation utilizes the female, white, age 20-29 NHANES II database as the young adult reference population, regardless of patient race or gender [27]. T-scores represent the number of standard deviations the patient's BMD is above or below the mean value for the young healthy reference population. For premenopausal women and men under 50, Z-scores (comparison to age-matched reference) are preferred, with a Z-score of -2.0 or lower indicating low bone mass for age and warranting evaluation for secondary causes of bone loss [27].

Limitations and Technical Artifacts

While DXA represents the criterion standard for osteoporosis evaluation, several technical limitations must be considered in both clinical and research applications. Artifacts including calcifications, fractures, and osteophytes in the lumbar spine can artificially increase measured bone mineral density [43]. Surgical clips or other metallic implants can similarly alter BMD results, potentially compromising accuracy [43]. Appropriate patient positioning and scan analysis are critical for reliable results, with particular attention to anatomical abnormalities that might affect measurement validity. Additionally, the accuracy of T-score calculation depends on correct assignment of demographic characteristics including gender and race, as errors in these inputs can generate inaccurate scores [43].

Fracture Risk Assessment: Integrating FRAX with DXA Outcomes

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), developed by the University of Sheffield, represents a validated approach for estimating 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, spine, wrist, or shoulder) and hip fractures specifically [27] [43]. This tool integrates clinical risk factors with femoral neck BMD to provide enhanced fracture prediction beyond BMD alone, particularly valuable for patients with low bone mass (osteopenia) where treatment decisions may be uncertain.

Table 3: FRAX Risk Factor Inputs and Specifications

Risk Factor Category	Specific Elements	Technical Notes
Demographic Factors	Age, sex, body mass index	Valid for ages 40-90; BMI required
Clinical History	Prior osteoporotic fracture, parental hip fracture, rheumatoid arthritis	Prior fracture substantial multiplier
Medication Exposures	Oral glucocorticoid use (>3 months, ≥5mg prednisone)	Current or historical use
Lifestyle Factors	Current smoking, alcohol intake (>3 units/day)	Binary input limitation
Secondary Causes	Type I diabetes, untreated hyperthyroidism, premature menopause (<45), chronic malnutrition, liver disease, osteogenesis imperfecta	Limited to specified conditions

FRAX is validated for use in treatment-naïve patients and may be used for patients who have been off bisphosphonate therapy for at least 2 years or off non-bisphosphonate treatments for 1 year [27]. An important limitation of FRAX is the binary nature of clinical risk factor inputs, which doesn't account for dose-response relationships or duration of exposures [27]. Additionally, while FRAX can be calculated without BMD input (using clinical factors alone), predictive accuracy significantly improves when femoral neck BMD is included [43].

Research indicates that despite the diagnostic utility of DXA T-scores ≤ -2.5 for osteoporosis identification, the majority of fragility fractures occur in patients with T-scores higher than -2.5 [27]. One study of 149,524 White postmenopausal women found that while fracture rates were highest in patients with T-score ≤ -2.5, this group experienced only 18% of osteoporotic fractures and 26% of hip fractures [27]. This epidemiological pattern underscores the importance of integrating fracture risk assessment with DXA measurements to identify at-risk populations who might benefit from interventional therapies despite not meeting strict osteoporosis diagnostic criteria by BMD alone.

Experimental Evidence and Emerging Protocols

High-Yield Screening in Older Men: The VA Remote Bone Health Service Model

A cluster randomized clinical trial published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2025 demonstrated the efficacy of a centralized Remote Bone Health Service (BHS) for osteoporosis screening in high-risk men [45] [46]. The study involved 3,112 male veterans aged 65-85 years with at least one fracture risk factor but no prior fractures, randomized across 39 primary care teams in two Veterans Affairs Health Systems.

The BHS intervention group received invitations for DXA scans followed by electronic consultations to primary care clinicians with specific recommendations. A nurse care manager facilitated orders, provided patient education, and monitored adherence via telephone [45]. Results demonstrated dramatically higher screening rates in the BHS group (49.2% vs. 2.3% in usual care, p<0.001), with 51.1% of screened men identified with osteopenia or osteoporosis [45] [46]. Treatment initiation reached 84.4% in the BHS group, with exceptional adherence (91.7% of days covered) and persistence (mean 657 days over 2-year follow-up) [45]. At 24-month follow-up, a randomly selected subset showed significantly improved femoral neck T-scores in the BHS group compared to usual care (-0.55 vs. -0.70, p=0.04) [45].

Therapeutic Efficacy in the Oldest Old: Post-Fracture Intervention Protocol

Research presented at ENDO 2025 investigated osteoporosis treatment efficacy in patients older than 80 years, a population often underrepresented in clinical trials [47]. Using the TriNetX health research database, researchers analyzed 88,676 patients aged 80 and older who sustained fragility fractures, comparing outcomes between those receiving osteoporosis medications (bisphosphonates, denosumab, raloxifene, or teriparatide) versus untreated controls.

The study implemented a rigorous methodology with 5-year follow-up after initial fracture, controlling for multiple comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, stroke, COPD, chronic kidney disease, hyperlipidemia, rheumatoid arthritis, neoplasm, and vitamin D deficiency [47]. Results demonstrated that the treatment group experienced significantly lower risks of hospitalization and reduced all-cause mortality, supporting therapeutic initiation even in advanced age populations after fracture occurrence [47].

Alternative Screening Paradigm: Population-Based Intervention Regardless of BMD

A novel randomized controlled trial published in January 2025 investigated an alternative screening and prevention strategy by treating women in early menopause with antiresorptive therapy regardless of baseline bone mineral density [44]. The study enrolled 1,054 women aged 50-60 years with T-scores ranging from 0 to -2.5 at the lumbar spine or hip, randomizing participants to one of three groups: two-dose zoledronate (infusion at baseline and 5 years), single-dose zoledronate (infusion at baseline, placebo at 5 years), or placebo-placebo.

After 10 years of follow-up, fracture incidence was 11.1% in the placebo group, 6.6% in the single-dose zoledronate group, and 6.3% in the two-dose zoledronate group [44]. The relative risk of fractures for the two-dose zoledronate group compared to placebo was 0.72, with a number needed to treat of 25 to prevent one fracture [44]. This population-based approach, bypassing traditional screening paradigms, demonstrates potential for alternative prevention strategies in selected populations, though comparative cost-effectiveness versus risk-stratified approaches requires further investigation.

Table 4: Essential Research Materials and Methodological Tools for Osteoporosis Investigation

Category/Reagent	Research Application	Technical Specifications
Central DXA Systems	Gold standard BMD measurement	Lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck sites; NHANES III reference database
FRAX Algorithm	10-year fracture probability calculation	Clinical risk factors ± femoral neck BMD; country-specific algorithms
Vertebral Fracture Assessment (VFA)	Identification of prevalent vertebral fractures	DXA-based morphometric analysis; enhances fracture risk prediction
Trabecular Bone Score (TBS)	Bone microarchitecture assessment	DXA image texture analysis; independent of BMD
Bone Turnover Markers	Treatment monitoring and adherence assessment	Serum CTX, P1NP; baseline and 3-month follow-up
Zoledronic Acid	Intravenous bisphosphonate intervention	5mg annual infusion; demonstrated efficacy in diverse populations
Denosumab	RANK ligand inhibitor intervention	60mg subcutaneous every 6 months; requires subsequent sequencing
Quantitative CT (qCT)	3-dimensional bone density assessment	Volumetric BMD measurement; separates cortical/trabecular bone

Discussion: Research Implications and Translational Applications

The 2025 USPSTF guidelines, coupled with emerging clinical evidence, establish DXA as the irreplaceable cornerstone of osteoporosis screening while highlighting critical research priorities. The persistent "I statement" for male screening reflects an evidence gap increasingly challenged by recent studies, including the VA BHS trial demonstrating high screening yield and treatment efficacy in at-risk men [45] [46]. This discrepancy between guideline recommendations and emerging evidence underscores the dynamic nature of osteoporosis research and the need for continued investigation into sex-specific screening paradigms.

The Remote Bone Health Service model presents an implementable framework for systematic screening that transcends traditional clinic-based approaches, offering particular promise for reaching underserved populations and addressing healthcare disparities [45] [46]. The remarkably high adherence rates (91.7% of days covered) achieved through nurse care manager support challenge conventional assumptions about treatment persistence in older populations and suggest that systematic support structures may dramatically improve real-world outcomes [45].

For drug development professionals, the demonstrated efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy in reducing fracture incidence among women with non-osteoporotic T-scores (0 to -2.5) suggests potential market expansion opportunities for existing therapies while raising important questions about population-based versus risk-stratified prevention approaches [44]. Similarly, the mortality benefit demonstrated with post-fracture treatment in octogenarians supports the value of even late-life intervention and identifies an important therapeutic target population [47].

The evolving landscape of fracture risk assessment, with recognition of FRAX limitations and exploration of alternative tools like the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool and Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, indicates ongoing refinement of risk prediction methodologies [44]. Future research directions should prioritize validation of screening strategies in diverse populations, assessment of cost-effectiveness across different healthcare systems, and investigation of novel biomarkers that might enhance fracture prediction beyond current BMD-based paradigms.

The 2025 osteoporosis screening landscape reflects both consistency in core recommendations and evolution in implementation strategies. DXA maintains its position as the gold standard for diagnosis, while complementary risk assessment tools and innovative care models enhance identification of at-risk populations beyond traditional screening paradigms. The compelling evidence supporting systematic screening in high-risk men, coupled with demonstrated efficacy of treatment even in advanced age populations, challenges persistent evidence gaps and underscores the dynamic nature of bone health research. For scientific and drug development professionals, these updated guidelines and emerging evidence provide robust frameworks for clinical protocol development while highlighting fertile ground for continued investigation into optimized screening strategies, therapeutic interventions, and implementation models that translate evidence into reduced fracture burden across diverse populations.

Osteoporosis, a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength and an increased risk of fragility fractures, represents a significant global health burden [48] [49]. For researchers and clinicians, accurate identification of individuals at high fracture risk is paramount for targeting interventions effectively. While bone mineral density (BMD) measurement via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) remains the diagnostic gold standard, its limitations—including limited availability, cost constraints for mass screening, and insufficient sensitivity for predicting all fractures—have driven the development of clinical risk assessment tools [49] [50].

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and other clinical assessment instruments have transformed osteoporosis management by enabling a more nuanced, probability-based approach to fracture risk evaluation [49]. These tools integrate clinical risk factors with or without BMD to estimate an individual's 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, clinical spine, forearm, and proximal humerus) [51]. This document provides detailed application notes and experimental protocols for implementing these risk stratification tools within research and clinical development settings, framed within the broader context of optimizing osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies for older populations.

Tool Descriptions and Algorithmic Components

Several validated tools are available for assessing osteoporosis and fracture risk, each with distinct algorithms and clinical applications.

Table 1: Key Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tools and Their Components

Tool Name	Key Variables	Calculation Algorithm	Primary Output
FRAX [49] [51]	Age, sex, weight, height, previous fracture, parental hip fracture, glucocorticoid use, rheumatoid arthritis, secondary osteoporosis, smoking status, alcohol consumption (≥3 units/day), femoral neck BMD (optional)	Country-specific algorithm that integrates hazard ratios for fracture and mortality.	10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture and a hip fracture.
OST (Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool) [48]	Age, weight	OST = 0.2 × (Weight - Age)	Continuous score; lower values indicate higher risk.
ORAI (Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument) [48]	Age, weight, estrogen use	Weighted scoring system: Age (≥75=15; 65-74=9; 55-64=5), Weight (<60 kg=9; 60-69 kg=3), No estrogen=2.	Total score ≥9 indicates high risk.
SCORE (Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation) [48]	Rheumatoid arthritis, history of fracture, age, weight, estrogen use	SCORE = RA (+4) + Fracture history (+4/fracture, max 12) + No estrogen (+1) + (3 × age/10) - (weight/10)	Total score ≥6 indicates high risk.
OSIRIS (Osteoporosis Index of Risk) [48]	Age, weight, estrogen use, low impact fracture history	OSIRIS = [(-0.2 × age)] + [(0.2 × weight)] + Estrogen use (+2) + Fracture history (-2) [Values in brackets are rounded to nearest integer]	Continuous score; lower values indicate higher risk.

Performance Characteristics and Comparative Analysis

Understanding the predictive performance of each tool is critical for selecting the appropriate instrument for specific research or clinical objectives.

Table 2: Performance Characteristics of Risk Assessment Tools

Tool	Study Population	AUC (95% CI)	Recommended Cut-off	Sensitivity/Specificity	Key Findings
FRAX (MOF without BMD) [50]	Thai Geriatric (N=2,991; Age ≥60)	0.72 (0.71-0.74)	≥4.5%	90.4% Sens / 33.7% Spec	Effective for initial screening in geriatric population; high NPV (89.7%).
FRAX (HF without BMD) [50]	Thai Geriatric (N=2,991; Age ≥60)	0.75 (0.73-0.77)	≥1.5%	90.4% Sens / 38.8% Spec
OST [48]	Postmenopausal Women 50-64 (N=258)	N/R	2.8	High sum of Sens+Spec	Correlated best with DXA T-score ≤-2.5 in young postmenopausal women.
ORAI [48]	Postmenopausal Women 50-64 (N=258)	N/R	8	High sum of Sens+Spec	Demonstrated highest performance for T-score ≤-2.0.
FRAX (with BMD) [52]	Individuals with Cancer (N=9,877)	N/R	N/A	HR per SD: MOF=1.84; HF=3.61	Good stratification and calibration for predicting incident fractures in patients with cancer.

AUC: Area Under the Curve; MOF: Major Osteoporotic Fracture; HF: Hip Fracture; Sens: Sensitivity; Spec: Specificity; NPV: Negative Predictive Value; N/R: Not Reported; HR: Hazard Ratio.

Methodological Protocols for Tool Application and Validation

Protocol 1: Implementing FRAX in a Research Cohort

Objective: To systematically calculate FRAX scores for participants in an observational study or clinical trial and validate its predictive accuracy for incident fractures.

Materials and Reagents:

• Clinical Data Collection Form: Electronic or paper case report form capturing all FRAX variables.
• FRAX Algorithm: Access to the official online tool or integration of the calculation algorithm into the research database.
• Anthropometric Equipment: Calibrated scales and stadiometers for accurate weight and height measurement.
• Data Validation Checks: Automated range checks for data entries (e.g., plausible age, weight, and height values).

Procedure:

• Participant Enrollment: Recruit the target study population based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., postmenopausal women ≥40 years, men ≥50 years, or specific patient subgroups such as those with cancer [52]).
• Data Collection at Baseline: a. Record demographic information: date of birth, sex, race/ethnicity. b. Measure and record current weight (kg) and height (cm). Calculate BMI. c. Administer a structured interview or questionnaire to ascertain the presence of FRAX clinical risk factors: - Prior Fragility Fracture: (Yes/No) after age 40. - Parental Hip Fracture: (Yes/No). - Current or Past Smoking: (Yes/No). - Glucocorticoid Use: (Yes/No) current or past use for >3 months of prednisolone ≥5 mg/day. - Rheumatoid Arthritis: (Yes/No) diagnosed by a physician. - Secondary Osteoporosis: (Yes/No) including type 1 diabetes, osteogenesis imperfecta, untreated hyperthyroidism, hypogonadism, premature menopause (<45 years), chronic malnutrition, malabsorption, chronic liver disease. - Alcohol Consumption: (Yes/No) ≥3 units per day. d. (If available) Obtain femoral neck BMD T-score from DXA scan performed per protocol.
• FRAX Score Calculation: a. Access the official FRAX website (https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/). b. Select the appropriate country model for the research population. c. Input all collected data points. Perform calculations both with and without femoral neck BMD if available. d. Record the 10-year probability for Major Osteoporotic Fracture (%) and Hip Fracture (%).
• Follow-up and Outcome Ascertainment: a. Establish a follow-up protocol (e.g., 2, 5, 10 years) to monitor for incident fractures. b. Identify incident fractures through periodic study visits, telephone interviews, validated questionnaires, and linkage with national health records or claims data. c. Adjudicate all reported fractures by an independent endpoint committee to confirm they are incident fragility fractures (occurring with low trauma, from a fall from standing height or less).
• Statistical Analysis: a. Assess the discriminative ability of FRAX by calculating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) for predicting incident fractures. b. Evaluate calibration by comparing predicted fracture probabilities with observed fracture incidence (e.g., Hosmer-Lemeshow test). c. Perform Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate hazard ratios (HR) per standard deviation increase in FRAX score.

Protocol 2: Comparative Evaluation of Multiple Clinical Tools

Objective: To compare the performance of FRAX against simpler tools (OST, ORAI, SCORE, OSIRIS) for identifying individuals with low BMD or high fracture risk.

Materials and Reagents:

• Data Set: Cohort with complete clinical risk factor data and gold-standard BMD measurements (DXA).
• Statistical Software: Package capable of ROC analysis and multivariate statistics (e.g., R, SPSS, SAS).
• Tool Algorithms: Pre-programmed calculations for OST, ORAI, SCORE, and OSIRIS.

Procedure:

• Cohort Selection: Identify a well-characterized cohort, such as postmenopausal women under 65 or a geriatric population [48] [50].
• Data Collection: Collect the necessary variables for all tools being evaluated (see Table 1 for specific variable requirements).
• Calculation of Scores: For each participant, calculate the FRAX score (without BMD), OST, ORAI, SCORE, and OSIRIS values.
• Reference Standard Definition: Define the primary outcome, which could be:
  • DXA-defined Osteoporosis: T-score ≤ -2.5 at the hip or spine [48].
  • Incident Fragility Fracture: Over a predefined follow-up period.
• Performance Assessment: a. Perform Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis for each tool against the reference standard. b. Compare the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values among tools. c. Determine optimal tool-specific cut-off points that maximize the sum of sensitivity and specificity for the target population. d. Calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) at recommended and population-optimized cut-offs.
• Advanced Analysis: a. Use Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) analysis to build a predictive model and determine how the tools merge to explain the outcome variables [48]. b. Assess reclassification improvement when combining tools or adding FRAX to clinical judgment.

Visual Workflows for Research Implementation

FRAX Application and Validation Workflow

Tool Selection and Comparison Logic

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Research

Item	Specifications	Research Application
DXA Scanner	Central DXA capable of measuring hip and lumbar spine BMD.	Gold-standard for osteoporosis diagnosis (T-score ≤ -2.5); provides femoral neck BMD for FRAX calculation.
FRAX Algorithm	Country-specific version from official website (https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/).	Calculating 10-year fracture probability; can be integrated into electronic health records or research databases.
Clinical Data Forms	Structured questionnaires capturing all FRAX and tool-specific risk factors.	Standardized collection of clinical risk factors (fracture history, medication use, comorbidities).
Anthropometric Tools	Calibrated digital scale and stadiometer.	Accurate measurement of weight and height for BMI calculation, a key input for FRAX and other tools.
Statistical Software	Packages with ROC analysis (e.g., R, SPSS, SAS).	Assessing tool performance (AUC, sensitivity, specificity), calibration, and predictive value.

Discussion and Research Gaps

The integration of FRAX and other clinical assessment tools into osteoporosis research has significantly advanced fracture risk prediction, yet several important research gaps remain. Future studies should focus on:

• Population-Specific Calibration: While FRAX is available in country-specific models, further validation is needed in underrepresented populations and special patient subgroups (e.g., those with cancer, where FRAX with BMD has shown promising predictive ability [52]).
• Tool Combination Strategies: Research is needed to determine optimal strategies for combining tools or sequentially applying them to improve risk stratification, particularly in transitional age groups like postmenopausal women under 65 [48].
• Integration of Novel Risk Factors: The development of FRAXplus and other enhanced tools that incorporate additional risk factors like falls, trabecular bone score (TBS), and specific medication doses represents an important frontier [49] [53].
• Intervention Threshold Refinement: Further research is needed to establish cost-effective, population-specific intervention thresholds that balance treatment benefits against potential harms and resource constraints [24] [50].

In conclusion, FRAX and complementary clinical assessment tools provide powerful methodologies for enhancing osteoporosis research and drug development. Their rigorous application, as outlined in these protocols, will continue to refine fracture risk estimation and ultimately improve targeted therapeutic strategies for vulnerable populations.

Osteoporosis, a systemic metabolic bone disease characterized by decreased bone mass and deterioration of bone microarchitecture, presents a significant global health burden with over 200 million individuals affected worldwide [54]. The condition substantially increases fracture susceptibility, with fragility fractures leading to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs exceeding $3.82 billion annually in Australia alone [54]. The disease pathophysiology stems from an imbalance in bone remodeling where bone resorption exceeds formation [54]. First-line pharmacological management primarily utilizes antiresorptive agents, with bisphosphonates as the most widely prescribed initial therapy and denosumab representing an important alternative or second-line option [54] [55]. This application note provides a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy data and experimental protocols for evaluating these foundational osteoporosis treatments within the context of optimizing care for older individuals.

Efficacy Data Comparison

Table 1: Comparative Efficacy of Bisphosphonates and Denosumab in Clinical Studies

Parameter	Bisphosphonates	Denosumab	Notes
Mechanism of Action	Bind to bone hydroxyapatite; inhibit osteoclast function via mevalonate pathway disruption [54]	Human monoclonal antibody against RANKL; inhibits osteoclast formation, function, and survival [56] [57]	Distinct mechanisms with different pharmacokinetic profiles
Fracture Risk Reduction (Vertebral)	40-70% risk reduction [54]	68% risk reduction at 3 years [57]	Both show significant efficacy versus placebo
Fracture Risk Reduction (Hip)	40-50% risk reduction [54]	40% risk reduction at 3 years [57]	Both show significant efficacy versus placebo
BMD Improvement (Lumbar Spine)	Significant increases demonstrated [54]	21.7% increase at 10 years; predicted 27.9% with extended use [57]	Denosumab shows continuous BMD gains over decade
BMD Improvement (Total Hip)	Significant increases demonstrated [54]	9.2% increase at 10 years; predicted 9.8% at 20 years [57]	Hip BMD stabilizes long-term with denosumab
Treatment Persistence (12-month)	61.3% with alendronate [55]	82.7% [55]	Real-world data from Asia-Pacific study
Treatment Compliance (12-month)	54.1% with alendronate [55]	86.0% [55]	Real-world data from Asia-Pacific study
Onset of Significant Fracture Risk Reduction	Becomes evident within first year of treatment	Significant reduction by year 4; persists through 10 years [57]	Earlier fracture risk reduction with bisphosphonates

Table 2: Combination Therapy with Teriparatide: Meta-Analysis Results (2025)

Parameter	TPTD + Bisphosphonates	TPTD + Denosumab	Clinical Implications
Vertebral Fracture Risk (OR)	No significant difference vs monotherapy (OR=0.93, 95%CI 0.12-6.93) [58]	No significant difference vs monotherapy (OR=0.93, 95%CI 0.12-6.93) [58]	Fracture risk reduction similar to TPTD monotherapy
Non-vertebral Fracture Risk (OR)	No significant difference vs monotherapy (OR=0.68, 95%CI 0.31-1.46) [58]	No significant difference vs monotherapy (OR=0.68, 95%CI 0.31-1.46) [58]	Fracture risk reduction similar to TPTD monotherapy
Lumbar Spine BMD	Moderate improvement	Significant improvement (+3.40%, 95%CI 0.44-6.36) [58]	Denosumab combination superior for spine BMD
Femoral Neck BMD	Moderate improvement	Significant improvement (+4.00%, 95%CI 1.96-6.04) [58]	Denosumab combination superior for femoral neck BMD
Total Hip BMD	Short-term improvement (<24 months: +1.81%, 95%CI 0.65-2.97) [58]	Significant improvement (+4.25%, 95%CI 3.20-5.29) [58]	Denosumab combination superior for hip BMD
Effect on Bone Formation Marker (P1NP)	40-80% reduction versus monotherapy [58]	Preserved bone formation markers	Bisphosphonates suppress formation; denosumab preserves it
Safety Profile	Comparable hypercalcemia incidence (16.3% vs 14.7%) [58]	Comparable hypercalcemia incidence (16.3% vs 14.7%) [58]	Similar safety profiles between combinations

Mechanisms of Action: Signaling Pathways

Denosumab: RANKL Inhibition Pathway

Diagram 1: Denosumab inhibits osteoclastogenesis via RANKL blockade. The monoclonal antibody denosumab binds RANKL, preventing its interaction with RANK on osteoclast precursors, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation, function, and survival [56] [57]. This targeted mechanism specifically reduces bone resorption.

Bisphosphonates: Mevalonate Pathway Disruption

Diagram 2: Bisphosphonates disrupt osteoclast function intracellularly. Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates are internalized by osteoclasts and inhibit farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) in the mevalonate pathway, preventing prenylation of GTP-binding proteins essential for osteoclast function and survival, ultimately leading to osteoclast apoptosis [54].

Experimental Protocols

Clinical Trial Protocol: BMD and Fracture Endpoint Evaluation

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates versus denosumab in increasing bone mineral density and reducing fracture incidence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Study Design:

• Type: Randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled trial
• Duration: 24-36 months minimum (with extension phases for long-term data)
• Participants: Postmenopausal women with BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 at lumbar spine or hip, or T-score ≤ -1.5 with radiographic vertebral fracture
• Exclusion Criteria: Previous osteoporotic treatment, disorders affecting bone metabolism, hypocalcemia, severe renal impairment

Randomization and Masking:

• 1:1 randomization to bisphosphonate or denosumab groups
• Open-label design due to different administration routes
• Centralized reading of radiographs and DXA scans by blinded assessors

Interventions:

• Bisphosphonate group: Oral alendronate 70 mg weekly or intravenous zoledronic acid 5 mg annually per standard protocol
• Denosumab group: Subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months

Primary Endpoints:

• Percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12, 24, and 36 months
• Incidence of new vertebral fractures at 36 months
• Incidence of non-vertebral fractures at 36 months

Secondary Endpoints:

• Percentage change in total hip and femoral neck BMD
• Changes in bone turnover markers (serum CTX, P1NP)
• Safety and tolerability assessments
• Health economic outcomes

Assessment Schedule:

• BMD measurements: Baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months using DXA
• Vertebral fracture assessment: Baseline and 36 months using lateral spine radiographs or DXA-based VFA
• Bone turnover markers: Baseline, 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months
• Safety monitoring: At each visit (every 3 months)

Statistical Considerations:

• Sample size calculation based on non-inferiority margin of 1.5% for BMD difference
• Mixed models for repeated measures analysis of BMD changes
• Cox proportional hazards models for fracture risk analysis
• Intention-to-treat principle for primary analyses

Real-World Persistence Study Protocol

Objective: To compare treatment persistence and compliance between denosumab and bisphosphonates in routine clinical practice.

Study Design:

• Type: Prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study
• Duration: 12-24 months follow-up
• Data Source: Electronic health records, pharmacy dispensing data, patient interviews

Participant Selection:

• Inclusion: Postmenopausal women initiating denosumab or oral bisphosphonates
• Exclusion: Contraindications to both treatments, participation in interventional trials

Persistence Definition:

• Denosumab: Second injection within 8 months (180 days + 60-day grace period) of first injection
• Bisphosphonates: No gap >60 days between prescriptions over 12-month period

Compliance Measurement:

• Denosumab: Receipt of two injections within 365 days
• Bisphosphonates: Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) ≥0.80

Statistical Analysis:

• Multivariable logistic regression to adjust for confounders (age, fracture history, prior treatment)
• Kaplan-Meier analysis for time to discontinuation
• Calculation of adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Osteoporosis Pharmacotherapy Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Specific Examples
DXA (Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry)	Gold standard for BMD measurement at lumbar spine and hip [24]	Hologic Discovery, GE Lunar iDXA
ELISA Kits for Bone Turnover Markers	Quantification of bone formation/resorption markers in serum [58]	Serum CTX (resorption), P1NP (formation)
VFA (Vertebral Fracture Assessment)	Identification of vertebral fractures using DXA technology [24]	Integrated with modern DXA systems
FRAX Tool	Assessment of 10-year probability of fracture [24]	Country-specific algorithms with/without BMD
qPCR Systems	Analysis of gene expression in bone metabolism pathways	RANK, RANKL, OPG expression
Osteoclast Culture Systems	In vitro assessment of osteoclast differentiation and activity	RANKL-induced differentiation assays
Micro-CT Imaging	High-resolution 3D analysis of bone microarchitecture	Trabecular bone structure quantification

Bisphosphonates and denosumab represent foundational pharmacotherapeutic options for osteoporosis management with distinct mechanisms of action and efficacy profiles. While bisphosphonates remain first-line therapy for many patients, denosumab demonstrates superior BMD gains particularly in combination with anabolic agents, and offers advantages in treatment persistence potentially due to its less frequent administration schedule [58] [55]. The choice between these agents should be individualized based on fracture risk, comorbidities, potential adverse effects, and patient preferences. Future research directions should focus on long-term outcomes beyond 10 years of treatment, optimal sequencing strategies, and personalized approaches based on bone turnover markers and genetic factors to maximize fracture prevention while minimizing risks in our aging global population.

Osteoporosis, a chronic condition characterized by reduced bone density and structural deterioration of bone tissue, represents a significant global health burden due to the associated fragility fractures it causes [20]. It is estimated that over 200 million individuals worldwide are affected by osteoporosis, with recent statistics indicating that one in three women and one in five men over 50 will experience osteoporotic fractures in their lifetime [20]. These fractures lead to substantial morbidity, increased mortality, and altered quality of life, generating projected healthcare costs of $25.3 billion annually in the United States alone by 2025 [20]. Within the context of osteoporosis screening and treatment research in older individuals, this document establishes structured protocols for implementing bone-healthy lifestyle interventions encompassing nutrition, exercise, and fall prevention strategies. These non-pharmacological approaches serve as fundamental components of comprehensive osteoporosis management, working synergistically with screening programs and pharmacological treatments to reduce fracture risk across populations.

Nutritional Interventions

Adequate nutrition provides the essential substrates for bone formation and maintenance throughout life. Research indicates that dietary patterns influence bone metabolism, bone mineral density (BMD), bone microstructure, and bone material properties, ultimately affecting overall bone strength and fracture risk [59].

Essential Nutrients for Bone Health

Table 1: Key Nutritional Requirements for Bone Health

Nutrient	Recommended Daily Intake	Primary Food Sources	Mechanism of Action
Calcium	800-1200 mg [59]	Dairy products, fortified foods, dark leafy greens	Primary mineral component of bone hydroxyapatite crystals; maintains bone structural integrity
Vitamin D	600-800 IU [60] [59]	Sunlight exposure, oily fish, eggs, fortified dairy	Promotes intestinal calcium absorption; regulates bone mineralization
Protein	1.0-1.2 g/kg body weight [59]	Dairy, poultry, fish, legumes, meat	Supports bone matrix formation; maintains muscle mass which stimulates bone loading
Magnesium	300-400 mg [59]	Nuts, seeds, whole grains, dark chocolate	Cofactor for alkaline phosphatase; facilitates calcium incorporation into bone

Experimental Protocol: Dietary Assessment and Intervention

Objective: To evaluate and optimize dietary intake for osteoporosis prevention in at-risk populations.

Methodology:

• Baseline Assessment:
  • Conduct 3-day food diary or 24-hour dietary recall
  • Analyze nutrient intake using standardized nutritional analysis software
  • Measure serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels
  • Assess BMD via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)

• Intervention Phase:

  • Implement personalized dietary plan targeting specific nutrient deficiencies
  • Incorporate ≥3 daily servings of dairy products, particularly fermented varieties (yogurt, kefir) [59]
  • Ensure ≥5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily to provide alkaline buffers and polyphenols [59]
  • Consider calcium (500-1000 mg/day) and vitamin D (800-1000 IU/day) supplementation if dietary intake remains inadequate [59]

• Monitoring and Outcomes:

  • Repeat dietary assessments at 3-month intervals
  • Monitor biochemical markers of bone turnover (CTX, P1NP) at baseline and 6 months
  • Repeat BMD measurement at 12-24 months
  • Document fragility fracture incidence

Diagram: Nutritional Intervention Workflow - This diagram outlines the sequential protocol for assessing and implementing nutritional interventions for bone health.

Emerging Research: Dietary Patterns and Gut-Bone Axis

Recent evidence suggests that comprehensive dietary patterns exert more significant effects on bone health than individual nutrients. Adherence to Mediterranean-style diets and regular consumption of tea (particularly green tea) have been associated with 26-31% reduced hip fracture risk in observational studies [59]. The proposed mechanisms include the provision of fermentable fibers and polyphenols that modulate gut microbiota composition and function, potentially influencing bone metabolism through immune-endocrine pathways. Conversely, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, particularly carbonated drinks, demonstrates negative associations with BMD, potentially through milk displacement or direct metabolic effects [59].

Exercise and Physical Activity Protocols

Exercise interventions for osteoporosis prevention must incorporate specific loading patterns to stimulate bone adaptation. The mechanostat theory principles guide exercise prescription, emphasizing the importance of magnitude, rate, frequency, and distribution of mechanical strains.

Exercise Prescription Framework

Table 2: Exercise Intervention Components for Bone Health

Exercise Modality	Intensity Parameters	Frequency	Target Population	Evidence Strength
Weight-Bearing Aerobic	Moderate-high (6-8 RPE)	3-5 days/week	Adults of all ages, postmenopausal women	Strong for BMD maintenance at loaded sites
Resistance Training	70-85% 1RM for upper body; body weight for lower body	2-3 days/week	Older adults, early postmenopausal women	Moderate for spine BMD improvement
Balance Training	Progressive difficulty with reduced base of support	2-3 days/week	Older adults (>65 years), fall-prone individuals	Strong for fall risk reduction
Combined Programs	Multimodal approach	3+ days/week	Frail elderly, established osteoporosis	Strongest for fracture risk reduction

Experimental Protocol: Progressive Exercise Intervention

Objective: To implement and evaluate a structured exercise program for osteoporosis prevention and management.

Methodology:

• Pre-participation Screening:
  • Medical history and physical activity readiness assessment
  • Baseline BMD measurement
  • Balance and functional mobility testing (Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up-and-Go)
  • Muscle strength assessment (handgrip strength, 5-repetition maximum)

• Intervention Protocol (12-month duration):

  • Weight-bearing exercises: 30-45 minutes, 4 days/week (brisk walking, stair climbing, low-impact aerobics)
  • High-intensity resistance training: 2 days/week (leg press, chest press, rows; 2-3 sets of 8-12 repetitions at 70-80% 1RM)
  • Balance training: 10-15 minutes, 2 days/week (tandem stance, single-leg stance, proprioceptive challenges)
  • Postural exercises: Daily (thoracic extension, scapular retraction)

• Progression and Safety Considerations:

  • Progressive overload principle with 5-10% intensity increase every 4-6 weeks
  • Spinal precautions: Avoid forward flexion, twisting, and high-impact activities in established osteoporosis
  • Individual adaptation based on comorbidities and functional limitations

• Outcome Measures:

  • BMD changes at lumbar spine and hip at 12 months
  • Fall incidence diary
  • Changes in balance and functional measures
  • Bone turnover markers (optional)

Diagram: Multimodal Exercise Components - This diagram illustrates the parallel implementation of different exercise modalities within a comprehensive bone health program.

Fall Prevention Strategies

With approximately one-third of people over age 65 falling each year—many resulting in broken bones—comprehensive fall prevention represents a critical component of osteoporosis management [61]. Effective programs address both environmental hazards and intrinsic risk factors.

Environmental Modification Protocol

Objective: To systematically identify and remediate environmental fall hazards in home and community settings.

Methodology:

• Home Environment Assessment:
  • Conduct room-by-room evaluation using standardized checklist
  • Identify lighting inadequacies (≤300 lux in activity areas)
  • Document floor surface irregularities and tripping hazards
  • Evaluate bathroom safety features

• Intervention Implementation:

  • Floors: Remove loose wires, cords, and throw rugs; ensure carpets are secured with skid-proof backing; avoid slippery wax on bare floors [61]
  • Bathrooms: Install grab bars on walls beside tub, shower, and toilet; use non-skid rubber mats in shower/tub; consider shower chair if unsteady [61]
  • Lighting: Install night lights between bedroom and bathroom; ensure light switches are accessible from room entrances and bedside [61]
  • Stairs: Mark top and bottom steps with bright tape; ensure sturdy handrails on both sides; maintain well-lit stairwells with switches at top and bottom [61]

• Outdoor Safety Measures:

  • Cover porch steps with gritty, weather-proof paint
  • Install handrails on both sides of outdoor steps
  • Maintain clear walkways free of leaves, snow, and clutter
  • Provide rock salt or kitty litter for icy conditions [61]

Behavioral and Assistive Intervention Protocol

Objective: To reduce fall risk through behavioral modification and appropriate assistive device utilization.

Methodology:

• Risk Factor Assessment:
  • Medication review for fall-increasing drugs (psychotropics, antihypertensives)
  • Visual acuity and depth perception evaluation
  • Footwear assessment (proper fit, slip-resistant soles)
  • Gait and balance assessment

• Intervention Strategies:

  • Assistive devices: Prescribe appropriate canes or walkers; ensure proper fitting and user training
  • Footwear recommendations: Low-heeled shoes with rubber soles for traction; warm boots in winter conditions [61]
  • Behavioral techniques: Encourage slow position transitions to prevent orthostatic hypotension; promote single-task walking without distractions
  • Hip protectors: Consider for high-risk individuals with history of falls [61]

• Technology Solutions:

  • Personal emergency response systems (PERS) for those living alone [61]
  • Cordless or mobile telephones for each level of home
  • Community support services (delivery pharmacies, grocery services)

Diagnostic and Screening Methodologies in Osteoporosis Research

Accurate diagnosis forms the foundation for targeted intervention in osteoporosis care. Recent advancements in screening technologies and risk assessment tools have enhanced identification of at-risk individuals.

Comparative Diagnostic Modalities

Table 3: Osteoporosis Diagnostic and Screening Methodologies

Method	Principle	Applications	Advantages	Limitations
DXA	Measures areal BMD (g/cm²) using X-ray attenuation	Gold standard for osteoporosis diagnosis (T-score ≤ -2.5); treatment monitoring	Low radiation; rapid; extensive reference data	2D projection; confounded by osteoarthritis; underestimates risk in some populations
QCT	Measures volumetric BMD (mg/cm³) using CT	3D BMD assessment; trabecular architecture evaluation; vertebral fracture assessment	True volumetric density; avoids artifacts; higher sensitivity [62]	Higher radiation; less standardized; limited reference data
FRAX Tool	Clinical risk factor algorithm	10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture; screening selection	No BMD required; internationally validated	Underestimates risk in high-risk populations; limited without BMD

Recent evidence indicates significant diagnostic disparities between modalities. A 2025 meta-analysis of 19 studies (3,939 participants) revealed that QCT identifies 4.91 times more osteoporosis cases than DXA in the same population (95% CI: 3.19-7.54; p<0.0001) [62]. This diagnostic discrepancy is particularly pronounced in males (OR: 8.45) and adults aged ≥65 years (OR: 6.01) [62].

Screening Protocol for Older Individuals

Objective: To implement evidence-based screening strategies for osteoporosis identification in older populations.

Methodology:

• Risk Stratification:
  • Women ≥65 years: Universal screening recommended [44]
  • Postmenopausal women <65 years: Clinical risk assessment using validated tool (OST, ORAI, FRAX) [44]
  • Men: Individualized screening based on risk factors

• Assessment Tools:

  • Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool (OST): Simple calculation using weight and age
  • FRAX Tool: Incorporates clinical risk factors with or without BMD
  • SCORE Assessment: Includes multiple risk factors with weighting

• Diagnostic Confirmation:

  • Central DXA measurement of lumbar spine and hip
  • Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) if indicated
  • Consider QCT as alternative if DXA unavailable or inconclusive

• Monitoring Intervals:

  • Repeat screening every 2 years for untreated individuals with normal BMD
  • More frequent monitoring with specific risk factors or medication initiation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Materials and Reagents for Bone Health Studies

Reagent/Kit	Manufacturer Examples	Application	Technical Notes
ELISA Bone Turnover Markers	Immunodiagnostic Systems, Quidel Corporation,	Serum CTX (resorption), P1NP (formation)	Fasting samples for CTX; diurnal variation consideration
Bone Histomorphometry Kits	BioGnost, Sigma-Aldrich	Tetracycline labeling-based dynamic parameters	Double labeling protocol essential for calculation of bone formation rates
Primary Human Osteoblasts	Lonza, PromoCell	In vitro mechanistic studies	Donor age and health status critically affect experimental outcomes
Osteoclast Differentiation Kits	R&D Systems, Stemcell Technologies	Osteoclastogenesis assays from monocyte precursors	M-CSF and RANKL essential components; TRAP staining for identification
Calcium & Vitamin D Kits	DiaSorin, Abbott Laboratories, Roche Diagnostics	Nutritional status assessment	25(OH)D measurement reflects total body vitamin D status
qPCR Arrays - Osteogenesis	Qiagen, Bio-Rad	Osteogenic differentiation marker analysis	Includes Runx2, Osterix, Osteocalcin, Osteopontin gene panels
Bone Extraction Kits (RNA/Protein)	Norgen Biotek, Qiagen	Molecular analysis from bone tissue	Requires specialized homogenization for mineralized tissue

Integrated Implementation Framework

Successful bone health intervention requires coordinated implementation across nutrition, exercise, and fall prevention domains. The temporal sequence of intervention components should align with individual risk profiles and readiness for change.

Diagram: Integrated Intervention Timeline - This diagram displays the parallel implementation of different intervention components within a comprehensive bone health program.

Synergistic Effects and Clinical Implications

The integrated approach to bone health capitalizes on synergistic effects between intervention domains. Adequate protein intake (≥1.0 g/kg/day) enhances muscle protein synthesis, supporting the anabolic effects of resistance exercise, while sufficient calcium and vitamin D status ensures mineral availability for bone adaptation to mechanical loading [59]. Simultaneously, balance training reduces fall impact forces, complementing environmental modifications that minimize fall severity. This multidimensional strategy aligns with emerging research demonstrating that combination interventions yield superior fracture risk reduction compared to single-modality approaches.

Recent clinical trials underscore the potential of early intervention regardless of BMD status. A 2025 randomized controlled trial demonstrated that zoledronate administration to women in early menopause (50-60 years) with T-scores between 0 and -2.5 reduced fracture risk by 28% compared to placebo (number needed to treat = 25) [44]. This suggests potential paradigm shifts toward broader preventive treatment strategies complementing the lifestyle interventions detailed in this protocol.

These structured application notes and protocols provide researchers and clinicians with evidence-based frameworks for implementing bone-health lifestyle interventions within comprehensive osteoporosis management programs. The integration of nutritional optimization, targeted exercise prescription, and systematic fall prevention represents the most effective non-pharmacological approach to reducing fracture incidence in aging populations. Future research directions should focus on personalized intervention sequencing, technology-enhanced adherence monitoring, and quantification of synergistic effects between intervention domains. Standardization of these methodologies across research and clinical settings will facilitate more consistent outcome reporting and more effective translation of evidence into practice.

Application Note: Protocols for BMD Monitoring Intervals and Treatment Persistence

Within a broader research thesis on osteoporosis screening in older individuals, effective management hinges on two critical pillars: precise monitoring of bone mineral density (BMD) and ensuring patient persistence with prescribed therapies. Osteoporosis is a chronic, progressive disease that remains largely asymptomatic until a fragility fracture occurs, often with devastating consequences including ongoing pain, loss of independence, and increased mortality [63] [64]. Although effective pharmacologic treatments exist to reduce fracture risk, their benefit is critically dependent on consistent, long-term use. This application note synthesizes evidence-based protocols and quantitative data on BMD testing intervals and treatment persistence strategies for researchers and clinical scientists developing improved osteoporosis management frameworks.

BMD Testing Intervals and Monitoring Protocols

Serial BMD testing provides an objective measure of treatment response and disease progression, yet requires standardized protocols to ensure measurement accuracy and clinical utility.

• Recommended Testing Intervals: The suggested interval between baseline and follow-up BMD testing after initiating therapy is typically one to two years, with subsequent intervals determined according to individual clinical circumstances [65]. Follow-up BMD testing should be performed when a fracture has occurred or new risk factors have developed, but should not delay treatment initiation for secondary fracture prevention [66].

• Individualized Testing Intervals: Repeat BMD testing intervals must be individualized considering an individual's age, baseline BMD, pharmacological treatment type, and clinical factors associated with bone loss [66]. Shorter intervals between BMD testing may be indicated with factors associated with rapid bone mineral density change, including glucocorticoid use, aromatase inhibitors, androgen deprivation therapy, malabsorption, severe systemic inflammatory diseases, bariatric surgery, and surgical menopause [66].

• Precision Assessment Requirements: Valid quantitative comparison of BMD measurements requires testing on the same DXA machine (or different machines that have been properly cross-calibrated) according to established quality standards that include precision assessment and calculation of the least significant change (LSC) [66] [65]. The LSC represents the smallest change in BMD that is statistically significant and must be established by each DXA facility through precision testing.

Table 1: DXA Precision Assessment Standards and Least Significant Change (LSC) Calculations

Anatomic Site	Minimum Acceptable Precision (%)	LSC at 95% Confidence Interval (%)
Lumbar Spine	1.9%	5.3%
Total Hip	1.8%	5.0%
Femoral Neck	2.5%	6.9%

Source: International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) Official Positions [66]

• Clinical Rationale for Monitoring: Monitoring patients treated for osteoporosis helps identify suboptimal response to therapy resulting from poor adherence, insufficient calcium/vitamin D intake, malabsorption, or undetected comorbidities with adverse skeletal effects [65]. A significant decrease in BMD (exceeding the LSC) suggests a suboptimal response requiring further evaluation and potentially a change in treatment, while stability or a significant increase represents an acceptable therapeutic response associated with reduced fracture risk [65].

Quantitative Assessment of Treatment Persistence

Treatment persistence, defined as the duration of continuous therapy from initiation to discontinuation, is a critical determinant of fracture risk reduction outcomes in osteoporosis management.

• Persistence Measurement Methodology: Using healthcare utilization data, persistence is quantified as the number of days covered by medication without a predefined permissible gap (grace period) [67]. Studies commonly use permissible gaps of 30-90 days to identify discontinuation, with variations impacting persistence rates [63] [68] [67]. Non-persistence is indicated by an untreated period exceeding this threshold or evidence of switching to a different medication class [63].

• Comparative Persistence Across Therapies: Research consistently shows suboptimal persistence across all osteoporosis medications, though significant differences exist between treatment modalities and dosing frequencies.

Table 2: Treatment Persistence Rates with Osteoporosis Medications Among Postmenopausal Women

Therapy	1-Year Persistence	2-Year Persistence	3-Year Persistence	Study Population
Denosumab	73%	50%	38%	Medicare-insured women (US) [63]
Oral Bisphosphonates	39%	25%	17%	Medicare-insured women (US) [63]
Oral Bisphosphonates	~50%	49.4%	-	Primary care patients (Ireland) [68]
Denosumab	-	53.8%	-	Primary care patients (Ireland) [68]

• Factors Influencing Persistence: Treatment persistence is multifactorial, influenced by medication-specific and patient-specific characteristics. Denosumab demonstrates superior persistence compared to oral bisphosphonates, attributed to its less frequent (six-month) subcutaneous dosing that avoids gastrointestinal issues associated with oral administration [63] [68]. Key factors associated with better persistence include older age, state-funded health cover, concomitant calcium/vitamin D prescription, diagnosed osteoporosis, and higher number of concomitant medications [68] [69]. Conversely, dementia is significantly associated with higher discontinuation rates [69].

Experimental Protocols for Adherence Research

Protocol 1: Precision Assessment for DXA Monitoring

Purpose: To establish facility-specific precision error and calculate the Least Significant Change (LSC) for accurate serial BMD assessment.

Methodology:

• Patient Selection: Measure 15 patients 3 times or 30 patients 2 times. Patients should be representative of the clinic's population regarding age, sex, and BMD range.
• Scanning Procedure: Perform scans with complete repositioning of the patient after each scan. Measure all anatomic sites used in clinical practice (typically lumbar spine and proximal femur).
• Calculation:
  • Calculate the root mean square standard deviation (RMS-SD) for the group.
  • Calculate LSC for the group at 95% confidence interval using the formula: LSC = RMS-SD × 2.77 [66].
• Quality Threshold: Compare calculated precision error to minimum acceptable standards (Table 1). Technologists with precision worse than these values require retraining.

Application: This protocol ensures that observed changes in serial BMD measurements represent true biological changes rather than measurement variability, providing critical data for clinical trial endpoints and treatment monitoring protocols.

Protocol 2: Measuring Persistence Using Healthcare Data

Purpose: To standardize the measurement of treatment persistence using pharmacy claims data for outcomes research.

Methodology:

• Cohort Definition: Identify patients with a new prescription (no use in prior 6-12 months) for osteoporosis medication during the study period.
• Follow-up Period: Define observation period from initiation (index date) through end of continuous coverage, censoring events (e.g., incident cancer), death, or end of study.
• Persistence Calculation:
  • For each patient, calculate days covered by medication based on dispensing dates and days supplied.
  • Define a permissible gap (e.g., 60 days); treatment discontinuation occurs when the gap between the end of one supply and the next dispensing exceeds this threshold.
  • Persistence rates at specific timepoints (e.g., 1, 2, 3 years) are calculated using survival analysis methods such as Kaplan-Meier estimators.
• Sensitivity Analysis: Conduct analyses using different permissible gaps (e.g., 30, 90 days) to test robustness of findings.

Application: This standardized methodology enables reliable comparison of persistence across different medications, patient populations, and healthcare systems, facilitating research on interventions to improve long-term treatment adherence.

Visualization of Monitoring and Adherence Pathways

Figure 1: Integrated BMD Monitoring and Treatment Persistence Assessment Pathway. This workflow illustrates the parallel processes for monitoring bone mineral density (BMD) changes against the Least Significant Change (LSC) and assessing treatment persistence through gap analysis, leading to clinical decisions regarding therapy continuation or modification.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials and Analytical Tools for Osteoporosis Monitoring and Adherence Studies

Item	Function/Application	Specifications/Standards
Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA)	Gold standard for BMD measurement at hip, spine, and forearm; used for diagnosis and monitoring treatment effects.	Must comply with ISCD precision standards; NHANES III database reference for femoral neck/T-score calculation [70] [66].
Quality Control Phantom	Periodic calibration verification for DXA systems; ensures measurement consistency and longitudinal reliability.	Weekly scanning recommended; establish corrective action thresholds if BMD difference >1% after hardware changes [66].
FRAX Tool	Clinical risk assessment tool estimating 10-year probability of hip or major osteoporotic fracture; guides treatment decisions.	Can be used with or without BMD; country-specific models available; not recommended as mechanistic threshold [24] [44].
Vertebral Fracture Assessment (VFA)	Method for detecting vertebral fractures using DXA; identifies prevalent fractures highly predictive of future fractures.	Moderately good concordance with thoracolumbar X-ray; limitations in upper thoracic spine visualization [70].
Healthcare Claims Databases	Research data source for analyzing real-world treatment patterns, persistence, adherence, and outcomes.	Require standardized metrics (permissible gap, immeasurable time adjustment) for valid persistence measurement [63] [67].

Effective management of osteoporosis requires rigorous, standardized protocols for both BMD monitoring and treatment persistence assessment. Establishing facility-specific precision error and LSC is fundamental to accurate BMD monitoring, while standardized definitions of persistence using permissible gaps enable reliable evaluation of treatment adherence. Research demonstrates significantly higher persistence with denosumab compared to oral bisphosphonates, though overall adherence remains suboptimal across all therapies. Future research should focus on developing targeted interventions for at-risk populations, optimizing BMD monitoring intervals based on individual risk profiles, and further elucidating the relationship between adherence patterns and fracture outcomes. Integrating these monitoring and adherence strategies provides a comprehensive framework for improving osteoporosis management outcomes in clinical research and practice.

Addressing Clinical Challenges and Treatment Gaps in Geriatric Care

Overcoming Underdiagnosis and Undertreatment in High-Risk Populations

Osteoporosis, characterized by compromised bone strength and an increased risk of fragility fractures, represents a significant and growing global health challenge. Despite well-established clinical guidelines and effective therapeutic options, a persistent care gap remains in the identification and management of high-risk populations. This silent disease often remains undiagnosed until the first fragility fracture occurs, leading to substantial morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs [71]. Recent data indicate that the age-adjusted prevalence of osteoporosis among adults aged 50 and over in the United States was 12.6% in 2017-2018, with significantly higher rates in women (19.6%) compared to men (4.4%) [4]. Perhaps more concerning is the prevalence of low bone mass (osteopenia) at 43.1%, representing a massive at-risk population requiring monitoring and potential intervention [4].

This application note addresses the critical challenges of underdiagnosis and undertreatment in osteoporosis by synthesizing current epidemiological data, presenting novel screening methodologies including artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and emerging biomarkers, and providing detailed protocols for implementing comprehensive care pathways. The information is specifically framed for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to advance the field through improved risk stratification tools, diagnostic technologies, and treatment strategies.

Epidemiology and the Burden of Undertreatment

Quantitative Assessment of the Screening Gap

The underdiagnosis of osteoporosis is quantitatively demonstrated through analyses of proximal femur fracture repair (PFFR) patients, a population in which osteoporosis should be universally suspected. A 2025 analysis of the TriNetX database revealed that from 2004 to 2024, the percentage of patients undergoing PFFR without a prior history of osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency decreased from 74.60% to 49.83%, indicating improved recognition of bone health issues [72]. However, this still leaves approximately half of all fragility fracture patients without a formal diagnosis before their fracture event.

Table 1: First-Time Diagnosis Rates Following Proximal Femur Fracture Repair

Time After PFFR	Osteoporosis Diagnosis Rate	Vitamin D Deficiency Diagnosis Rate
1 month	3.7%	2.1%
6 months	8.6%	4.4%
1 year	10.3%	5.6%

Source: TriNetX database analysis (2004-2024) [72]

The data demonstrate significant missed opportunities for secondary prevention, as only 10.3% of patients received a first-time osteoporosis diagnosis within one year following a fragility fracture [72]. This gap is particularly concerning given that any fracture in adults aged 50 years or older signifies imminent elevated risk for subsequent fractures, especially in the year following the initial event [71].

Disparities in Prevalence and Screening

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for osteoporosis in women 65 years or older and in postmenopausal women younger than 65 who are at increased risk, but concludes that evidence is insufficient to assess balance of benefits and harms of screening in men [24]. This discrepancy in guidelines contributes to the underdiagnosis in male populations, despite data showing 4.4% of men aged 50 and over have osteoporosis and 33.5% have low bone mass [4].

Table 2: Osteoporosis Prevalence by Demographic Factors (2017-2018)

Demographic Factor	Category	Prevalence	Notes
Sex	Women	19.6%	Age-adjusted
	Men	4.4%	Age-adjusted
Age	50-64 years	8.4%
	≥65 years	17.7%
Race/Ethnicity	Women ≥65 years	27.1%
	Men ≥65 years	5.7%

Source: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2017-2018 [24] [4]

Novel Screening Methodologies and Diagnostic Technologies

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Approaches

Primary Care Diagnosis Prediction Model

A 2025 study demonstrated the feasibility of using machine learning (Stochastic Gradient Boosting) to identify patients at risk for osteoporosis using only primary care diagnoses and healthcare utilization patterns [73]. The model achieved high predictive accuracy (AUC >0.899 across all age and sex strata) and identified several predictive factors:

• The number of visits to primary care in the year prior to osteoporosis diagnosis contributed the most predictive information across all demographics
• Unspecific diagnoses including dorsalgia (2.6-9.0% normalized relative influence) and other painful musculoskeletal disorders showed high predictive value
• Hypertension had high predictive value for patients aged >65 years but not in younger patients (40-65 years) [73]

This approach enables risk stratification using routinely collected healthcare data without requiring additional testing, potentially identifying candidates for formal diagnostic assessment.

Opportunistic CT Screening with AI

An emerging approach addresses underdiagnosis through AI analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans performed for other clinical indications. A 2025 study developed and validated an AI algorithm that assessed bone mineral density from routine chest, abdomen, and spine CT scans [8]. The method demonstrated:

• Capability to analyze 538,946 CT examinations across different scanner models and protocols
• Successful calibration of measurements across diverse imaging parameters using a robust statistical method
• Identification of expected population trends in bone density (higher in Black patients, followed by Asian and White patients)
• Similar prevalence detection (23.65% via AI-CT) compared to DXA screening (23.74%) in a subset of 6,373 women aged 60-69 [8]

This opportunistic screening approach leverages existing imaging data without additional radiation exposure or dedicated appointments, potentially identifying at-risk individuals who would not otherwise undergo screening.

Emerging Biomarkers for Enhanced Risk Prediction

While bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) remains the diagnostic standard, its limitations in predicting fracture risk are well-established, with approximately half of incident fractures occurring in individuals with T-scores above -2.5 [74] [75]. Research efforts have identified promising biomarkers that may enhance risk prediction:

Table 3: Promising Biomarkers for Osteoporotic Fracture Risk Prediction

Biomarker Category	Specific Markers	Potential Clinical Application
Bone Turnover Markers	PINP, β-CTX	International Osteoporosis Foundation reference standards; monitoring treatment efficacy
Novel Bone Formation Markers	ECM1, SOST, DKK-1	Early detection of high-risk patients; ECM1 elevated in patients at risk of osteoporotic fractures
Bone Resorption Markers	TRAcP5b, RANKL, RANKL/OPG ratio	Assessment of bone resorption status
Inflammatory/Oxidative Stress Markers	SII, IL-6, GGT	Reflection of chronic inflammation contributing to bone loss
Other Novel Biomarkers	S1P, LRRc17, MIAT	S1P associated with 9.89-fold higher fracture risk in highest quartile

Source: Adapted from multiple sources [74] [75]

Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) has emerged as a particularly promising biomarker, with clinical studies demonstrating that high blood S1P levels are inversely correlated with BMD and associated with significantly higher fracture risk (9.89-fold in the highest quartile) independent of BMD [75]. Leucine-rich repeat-containing 17 (LRRc17) shows promise as an inhibitor of osteoclast differentiation, with postmenopausal women in the lowest plasma LRRc17 tertile having a 3.32-fold higher odds ratio for vertebral fracture [75].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Machine Learning Risk Prediction Model Development

Objective: Develop a predictive model for osteoporosis using primary care diagnostic data.

Data Collection and Preprocessing:

• Cohort Identification: Identify cases of incident osteoporosis (ICD-10 codes: M80, M81, M82) across all outpatient care settings over a defined period (e.g., 2012-2019)
• Control Selection: Select age- and sex-matched controls from individuals without osteoporosis diagnosis during the study period (up to 10 controls per case)
• Feature Extraction: Extract all diagnoses from primary care visits during the three years prior to index date (osteoporosis diagnosis for cases, matched date for controls)
• Data Stratification: Stratify data by sex and age groups (40-65 years and >65 years) to account for differing risk factors

Model Development:

• Algorithm Selection: Implement Stochastic Gradient Boosting (SGB) with Bernoulli loss function
• Parameter Tuning: Set parameters to 20,000 trees maximum, depth of 5 interactions, learning rate of 0.01, minimum 10 observations in terminal nodes, subsampling rate of 0.5
• Validation: Use 10-fold cross-validation to determine optimal number of trees
• Performance Evaluation: Assess model using area under the curve (AUC) with train-test approach (50% training, 50% testing)

Output Analysis:

• Variable Importance: Calculate normalized relative influence (NRI) score for each diagnosis
• Association Strength: Compute odds ratio of marginal effects (ORME) for significant predictors
• Clinical Implementation: Develop simplified risk scoring system based on top predictors for clinical use [73]

Protocol 2: Biomarker Risk Score Development

Objective: Develop and validate a biomarker risk score for enhanced fracture prediction.

Sample Collection and Processing:

• Participant Recruitment: Enroll postmenopausal women and men aged ≥50 years in a prospective cohort design
• Baseline Assessment: Collect demographic data, clinical risk factors, medication use, and measure BMD using DXA
• Biospecimen Collection: Obtain fasting blood samples (serum, plasma) and urine samples morning collections to minimize diurnal variation
• Sample Processing: Centrifuge blood samples within 2 hours of collection; aliquot and store at -80°C until analysis

Biomarker Analysis:

• Conventional BTMs: Measure reference bone formation (serum PINP) and resorption (serum CTX) markers using established immunoassays
• Novel Biomarkers: Analyze emerging biomarkers (S1P, LRRc17, sclerostin, RANKL/OPG ratio) using ELISA or mass spectrometry-based methods
• Quality Control: Include duplicate samples and appropriate controls in each assay batch

Statistical Analysis and Score Development:

• Association Analysis: Examine relationships between biomarkers and BMD/fracture outcomes using multivariable regression adjusted for clinical risk factors
• Risk Stratification: Categorize biomarker levels into quartiles and assess fracture risk across categories
• Score Development: Construct a weighted biomarker risk score using regression coefficients from multivariable models
• Performance Validation: Assess discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow), and reclassification (net reclassification improvement) compared to FRAX alone [74] [75]

Protocol 3: Opportunistic CT Screening Implementation

Objective: Implement AI-based osteoporosis screening using existing CT scans.

CT Image Analysis Workflow:

Figure 1: Opportunistic CT Screening Workflow

Implementation Steps:

• Algorithm Integration: Implement AI algorithm into institutional picture archiving and communication system (PACS)
• Automated Analysis: Configure system to automatically analyze eligible CT scans of chest, abdomen, or spine
• Threshold Application: Apply validated thresholds for osteoporosis classification specific to age, gender, and race/ethnicity
• Radiologist Verification: Include radiologist verification of algorithm findings in standard reporting protocol
• Referral Pathway: Establish clear referral pathway for patients with positive screening to undergo confirmatory DXA and clinical evaluation [8]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Osteoporosis Biomarker Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
Bone Turnover Assays	Serum PINP, Serum CTX immunoassays	Reference standard bone formation and resorption markers
Novel Biomarker Assays	S1P ELISA, LRRc17 ELISA, Sclerostin ELISA	Measurement of emerging prognostic biomarkers
Molecular Biology Tools	miRNA PCR panels (miR-21, miR-203a, etc.), lncRNA assays	Investigation of regulatory RNA networks in bone metabolism
Cell Culture Systems	Osteoblast/osteoclast differentiation kits, RANKL/M-CSF	In vitro modeling of bone remodeling processes
Animal Models	Ovariectomized mice/rats, Aged murine models	Preclinical evaluation of therapeutic interventions

Integrated Care Pathway: From Screening to Treatment

Comprehensive Risk Assessment Strategy

A multifaceted approach to risk assessment incorporates both traditional and novel elements:

• Initial Risk Stratification:

  • For women ≥65 years and men ≥70 years: automatic DXA screening
  • For postmenopausal women <65 years and men 50-69 years: FRAX assessment with BMD if indicated
  • For all adults with fragility fractures: automatic bone health evaluation regardless of age

• Enhanced Risk Prediction:

  • Consider biomarker risk score in intermediate-risk cases
  • Implement opportunistic CT screening when available
  • Utilize machine learning prediction models in primary care settings

• Secondary Prevention:

  • Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) models for all patients with fragility fractures
  • Comprehensive evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis
  • Vertebral fracture assessment in high-risk individuals [71]

Treatment Initiation and Monitoring Protocol

Pharmacologic Treatment Indications:

• T-score ≤ -2.5 at hip or spine
• Low bone mass (T-score -1.0 to -2.5) with 10-year hip fracture risk ≥3% or major osteoporosis-related fracture risk ≥20% by FRAX
• Hip or vertebral fracture regardless of BMD
• High-risk individuals identified through novel screening methodologies

Monitoring Framework:

• BMD testing 1-2 years after initiating treatment
• Bone turnover markers (PINP, CTX) 3-6 months after treatment initiation to assess response
• Regular assessment of adherence, side effects, and fracture recurrence
• Consideration of "drug holiday" after 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy in stabilized patients [71]

Overcoming the underdiagnosis and undertreatment of osteoporosis in high-risk populations requires a multifaceted approach that integrates traditional risk assessment with novel technologies and methodologies. The implementation of machine learning prediction models in primary care, opportunistic screening using AI analysis of existing CT scans, and enhanced risk stratification using emerging biomarkers represent promising approaches to close the current care gap. For researchers and drug development professionals, these advanced protocols provide frameworks for validating new risk prediction tools, exploring novel therapeutic targets, and implementing comprehensive care pathways that address the silent epidemic of osteoporosis before devastating fractures occur.

Within the framework of osteoporosis management in older individuals, the potent efficacy of antiresorptive agents in reducing fragility fractures is well-established. However, long-term treatment introduces complex therapeutic limitations, primarily atypical femur fractures (AFF) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) [76] [77]. These rare but serious adverse events pose significant challenges for researchers and drug development professionals, necessitating a deep understanding of their pathophysiology, risk quantification, and management. This document provides detailed application notes and experimental protocols to support the investigation and mitigation of these risks within preclinical and clinical research settings. A precise understanding of these limitations is crucial for developing next-generation osteoporosis therapeutics with improved safety profiles.

Quantitative Risk Assessment

Epidemiological data provides a critical foundation for understanding the scope of AFF and ONJ. The incidence of these events is influenced by factors such as drug potency, treatment duration, and the underlying patient condition (e.g., osteoporosis versus metastatic bone disease).

Table 1: Incidence of Atypical Femur Fractures (AFF)

Risk Factor	Incidence	Context & Notes	Source
Bisphosphonate Use (after 6-7 years)	1-2 per 1,000 patient-years	Risk increases with continuous treatment duration.	[76]
Bisphosphonate Use (after 8-9.9 years)	~1 per 1,000 patient-years	Significant increase in risk observed after 8 years of use.	[76]
Overall AFF Risk with Bisphosphonates	Adjusted Relative Risk: 1.70	Increased risk associated with bisphosphonate exposure.	[76]
Denosumab and AFF	Incidence remains low and uncertain	Cases reported in long-term extension studies and real-world use.	[76]

Table 2: Incidence of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ)

Risk Factor	Incidence	Context & Notes	Source
Osteoporosis Patients (Oral Bisphosphonates)	0.15% to <0.001% person-years	Considered very low.	[77]
Oncology Patients (IV Bisphosphonates)	1% to 15%	Varies by malignancy; higher with zoledronic acid.	[77]
Denosumab in Oncology	Higher than in osteoporosis	Dose-dependent risk, potentially more reversible than with BPs.	[78]
Mandible vs. Maxilla	More frequent in mandible	Higher bone turnover rate in the mandible.	[77]

Pathogenesis and Experimental Models

Signaling Pathways in Bone Remodeling and Pharmacologic Intervention

The pathogenesis of AFF and ONJ is linked to the profound suppression of bone remodeling. Antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates and denosumab inhibit osteoclast function, but through distinct mechanisms. The following diagram illustrates these pathways and the points of therapeutic intervention.

The diagram above shows two key drug mechanisms:

• Bisphosphonates: These are incorporated into the bone matrix and ingested by osteoclasts during resorption, inducing apoptosis via inhibition of the farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) enzyme in the mevalonate pathway [77].
• Denosumab: This monoclonal antibody binds to RANKL, preventing its interaction with RANK on osteoclast precursors and mature osteoclasts, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation, function, and survival [78].

The resulting severely suppressed bone turnover is the central hypothesis for both AFF and ONJ. It is thought to lead to accumulation of microdamage (AFF) and impaired healing following minor trauma or infection in the jaw (ONJ) [76] [77].

Experimental Protocol: Histomorphometric Analysis of Bone Turnover

Objective: To quantitatively assess the impact of antiresorptive therapies on bone remodeling in a pre-clinical rodent model.

Materials:

• Animal model (e.g., ovariectomized rats or mice)
• Test compounds (efficacious dose of bisphosphonate, denosumab, or vehicle control)
• Calcein dye (10 mg/kg in 2% sodium bicarbonate)
• Alizarin complexone dye (30 mg/kg in 2% sodium bicarbonate)
• Hard tissue microtome or saw
• Fluorescence microscope with image analysis software

Methodology:

• Group Allocation and Dosing: Randomize animals into control and treatment groups (n≥8). Administer test compounds subcutaneously or orally according to the established dosing regimen for a period of 8-12 weeks.
• Fluorochrome Labeling: Inject calcein intraperitoneally 9 days and 2 days prior to sacrifice. This creates two distinct fluorescent labels in newly mineralized bone.
• Tissue Harvest and Preparation: Euthanize animals and dissect out femurs and tibiae. Fix bones in 70% ethanol for 48 hours. Dehydrate and embed undecalcified in methyl methacrylate resin.
• Sectioning: Use a hard tissue microtome to create longitudinal sections (5-10 μm thick) of the tibial diaphysis.
• Image Acquisition and Analysis: Visualize sections under fluorescence microscopy. Measure the following parameters in the cortical bone of the endosteal and periosteal surfaces:
  • Mineral Apposition Rate (MAR): The average distance between the two calcein labels divided by the time interval between labels.
  • Bone Formation Rate (BFR/BS): The volume of new bone formed per unit bone surface per unit time.
  • Osteoclast Number (N.Oc/B.Pm): Count the number of osteoclasts per millimeter of bone perimeter on TRAP (tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase) stained sections.

Data Interpretation: A significant reduction in MAR, BFR/BS, and N.Oc/B.Pm in treatment groups compared to the control group confirms the anticipated suppression of bone turnover. This model provides a foundational readout for the pharmacodynamic efficacy of antiresorptives and the potential risk of over-suppression.

Clinical Monitoring and Management Protocols

Protocol for Atypical Femur Fracture (AFF) Surveillance and Management

Objective: To establish a clinical workflow for identifying patients at risk for AFF, diagnosing incomplete AFF, and implementing management strategies to prevent complete fracture.

Patient Identification & Risk Assessment:

• High-Risk Profile: Identify patients with >5 years of continuous potent antiresorptive (bisphosphonate or denosumab) use. Additional risk factors include Asian ethnicity, glucocorticoid use, and specific femoral geometry (varus angulation) [76].
• Symptom Screening: At each follow-up visit, specifically inquire about prodromal thigh or groin pain, which is often bilateral [76].

Diagnostic Workflow:

• Clinical Evaluation: Perform a physical exam, noting pain upon palpation of the thigh or with hip rotation.
• First-Line Imaging:
  • Anteroposterior and Lateral Radiographs of Full Femur: Look for major features of AFF: lateral cortical thickening, a transverse fracture line, and a "beaked" appearance or periosteal reaction [76].
• Second-Line Imaging (if radiographs are inconclusive but clinical suspicion remains high):
  • MRI or Bone Scan: These are more sensitive for detecting the bone edema and stress reaction associated with an incomplete AFF.

Management Strategy: The following diagram outlines the core decision pathway for managing a suspected AFF.

Protocol for Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ)

Objective: To define prevention and management strategies for MRONJ in patients receiving antiresorptive therapy.

Prevention Protocol (Pre-Therapy Dental Screening):

• Comprehensive Oral Examination: A dental examination is mandatory prior to initiating antiresorptive therapy, especially high-dose IV treatment in oncology [79] [80].
• Elimination of Risk Factors: All invasive dental procedures (extractions, implants, periodontal surgery) should be completed at least 4 weeks before treatment starts to allow for complete mucosal healing [79]. Address caries, periodontal, and endodontic infections non-surgically where possible.
• Patient Education: Instruct patients on maintaining excellent oral hygiene and the importance of regular dental check-ups. They must inform their dentist of their medication history [80].

Diagnostic Criteria for MRONJ:

• Current or history of antiresorptive/antiangiogenic use.
• Exposed bone or bone that can be probed through an intraoral or extraoral fistula in the maxillofacial region for more than 8 weeks.
• No history of radiation therapy to the jaw [77].

Staging and Management: Management is primarily conservative, escalating with severity.

• At Risk: No apparent necrotic bone. Emphasize patient education and conservative dental care.
• Stage 1: Exposed bone, asymptomatic. Manage with antimicrobial mouth rinses (e.g., chlorhexidine 0.12%) and close monitoring [77].
• Stage 2: Exposed bone with associated pain and infection. Treat with oral antibiotics (e.g., amoxicillin/clavulanate or a combination of penicillin and metronidazole) and antimicrobial mouth rinses [77].
• Stage 3: Exposed bone with pain, infection, and pathologic fracture or extra-oral fistula. Requires more extensive surgical debridement/resection of necrotic bone, often in combination with antibiotic therapy [77].

Research Toolkit: Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Investigating AFF and ONJ

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Experimental Context
Calcein / Alizarin Complexone	Fluorochrome labels that bind to newly mineralized bone matrix.	Dynamic histomorphometry; used to calculate mineral apposition rate (MAR) and bone formation rate (BFR).
TRAP Staining Kit	Histochemical stain to identify active osteoclasts on bone surfaces.	Quantifying osteoclast number (N.Oc/B.Pm) and surface (Oc.S/BS) as a direct measure of antiresorptive effect.
Anti-RANKL Antibody	Used to mimic denosumab action in vitro and in vivo.	In vitro osteoclastogenesis assays; in vivo models to study RANKL inhibition.
Zoledronic Acid	A potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate.	In vitro assays of osteoclast apoptosis; in vivo models to induce profound bone turnover suppression and study AFF/ONJ pathogenesis.
CTX (C-terminal telopeptide) ELISA	Quantifies a bone resorption biomarker in serum/plasma.	Clinical & pre-clinical biomarker for monitoring the degree of antiresorptive effect and bone turnover suppression.
Methyl Methacrylate Resin	Embedding medium for undecalcified bone specimens.	Essential for preserving mineral content during sectioning for high-quality histomorphometry.

Osteoporosis management has progressed significantly beyond traditional monotherapies. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding treatment transitions has become paramount as evidence confirms that patients will require multiple therapeutic agents over their lifetime [81]. The current treatment paradigm has evolved toward strategic sequencing and combination approaches to maximize bone mineral density (BMD) gains and fracture risk reduction, particularly for high-risk patients [54]. This shift recognizes the limitations of individual agents—including safety concerns with prolonged use, regulatory restrictions on treatment duration, and the phenomenon of diminishing returns over time [81]. The strategic initiation of potent anabolic or dual-action therapies followed by antiresorptive agents now represents a fundamental advancement in clinical practice, especially for patients with imminent fracture risk [54]. This application note synthesizes current evidence and provides detailed protocols for implementing optimized treatment transitions in both research and clinical settings.

Fundamental Treatment Classifications and Mechanisms of Action

Anabolic and Antiresorptive Agents

Osteoporosis therapeutics are categorized based on their primary effect on bone remodeling:

• Anabolic Agents: Promote bone formation through stimulation of osteoblast activity. Includes teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab.
• Antiresorptive Agents: Reduce bone resorption through inhibition of osteoclast activity. Includes bisphosphonates, denosumab, and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) [81].

The table below summarizes key characteristics of primary therapeutic classes:

Table 1: Mechanism of Action and Key Characteristics of Osteoporosis Therapeutics

Therapeutic Class	Representative Agents	Primary Mechanism	Key Characteristics
Bisphosphonates	Alendronate, Risedronate, Zoledronic acid	Inhibition of farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS), disrupting osteoclast function [81]	- Differential binding affinity to bone mineral- Long-term skeletal retention- "Drug holiday" potential after 3-5 years
RANKL Inhibitors	Denosumab	Monoclonal antibody binding RANKL, inhibiting osteoclast differentiation and survival [81]	- Rapid, potent antiresorptive effect- No skeletal retention- Rapid reversal upon discontinuation with rebound fracture risk
Sclerostin Inhibitors	Romosozumab	Monoclonal antibody inhibiting sclerostin, increasing Wnt pathway signaling and bone formation [54]	- Dual action: increases bone formation and decreases resorption- Limited to 12-month treatment duration- Requires cardiovascular risk assessment
PTH Receptor Agonists	Teriparatide, Abaloparatide	Intermittent activation of parathyroid hormone receptors, stimulating osteoblast activity [54]	- Anabolic effect depends on intermittent dosing- Limited to 24-month treatment lifetime- Requires subsequent antiresorptive to maintain gains

Key Signaling Pathways in Osteoporosis Therapeutics

The following pathway diagram illustrates molecular targets for current and emerging osteoporosis therapies:

Diagram 1: Key molecular pathways and therapeutic targets in osteoporosis treatment. Therapeutic agents (ovals) interact with key pathway components to modulate bone remodeling.

Evidence-Based Sequential Therapy Protocols

Efficacy of Sequential Treatment Strategies

A 2024 network meta-analysis of 19 randomized controlled trials (n=18,416) provides the most comprehensive quantitative evidence for sequential treatment efficacy [82]. The analysis compared five sequential strategies with the following results:

Table 2: Efficacy of Sequential Treatment Strategies on Fracture Risk and Bone Mineral Density

Sequence Type	Vertebral Fracture Risk Reduction (SUCRA %)	Total Hip BMD Improvement (SUCRA %)	Total Fracture Risk Reduction (SUCRA %)	Key Clinical Applications
AB → AR	77.5%	84.2%	94.3%	Very high-risk patients; maximizes fracture reduction [82]
AR → AR	68.9%	96.1%	82.4%	Patients requiring transition between antiresorptives [82]
AR → C	81.5%	75.3%	79.1%	Severe cases requiring aggressive approach [82]
AR → AB	73.8%	71.6%	76.2%	Patients failing initial antiresorptive therapy [82]
AB → C	61.3%	62.8%	67.0%	Limited evidence; specialized applications only [82]

SUCRA = Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve; higher values indicate greater efficacy

Key Sequential Therapy Protocols

Anabolic to Antiresorptive Transition (AB → AR)

Clinical Context: First-line strategy for patients at very high fracture risk, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures or imminent fracture risk [81].

Mechanistic Rationale: Anabolic agents initially rebuild bone microarchitecture and increase bone mass, while subsequent antiresorptive therapy preserves these gains by reducing remodeling space [54].

Experimental Protocol:

• Anabolic Phase Administration:
  • Romosozumab: 210 mg subcutaneously monthly for 12 months [54]
  • Teriparatide: 20 μg subcutaneously daily for 18-24 months
  • Abaloparatide: 80 μg subcutaneously daily for 18-24 months

• Transition Timing:

  • Initiate antiresorptive within 1-2 months of anabolic completion
  • Do not implement treatment gap between sequences [81]

• Antiresorptive Options:

  • Zoledronic acid: 5 mg intravenous infusion annually
  • Denosumab: 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months
  • Oral bisphosphonate: Alendronate 70 mg weekly or Risedronate 35 mg weekly

• Monitoring Schedule:

  • Baseline DXA and vertebral fracture assessment (VFA)
  • Follow-up DXA at 12 months (end of anabolic phase)
  • Subsequent DXA at 12-24 months after antiresorptive initiation
  • Bone turnover markers (CTX, P1NP) at 3-6 month intervals

Supporting Evidence: The DATA-HD study demonstrated that transitioning from teriparatide to denosumab resulted in significantly greater BMD increases at the lumbar spine (+10.5%) and total hip (+5.4%) compared to continuing teriparatide alone [54].

Antiresorptive to Antiresorptive Transition (AR → AR)

Clinical Context: Transitioning between antiresorptive agents, particularly when switching from denosumab to bisphosphonates to prevent rebound bone loss [81].

Critical Consideration: Denosumab discontinuation without sequential therapy results in rapid bone loss and increased vertebral fracture risk due to rebound increase in bone turnover [81].

Experimental Protocol:

• Denosumab to Bisphosphonate Transition:
  • Administer final denosumab dose (60 mg SC)
  • Initiate oral bisphosphonate within 2-4 months
  • Consider intravenous zoledronic acid for high-risk patients
  • Monitor bone turnover markers 3-4 months after transition

• Bisphosphonate Holiday Management:
  • After 3-5 years of treatment, assess fracture risk
  • For high-risk patients, continue therapy or switch to alternative agent
  • For moderate-risk patients, consider drug holiday with annual monitoring
  • Reinitiate therapy when BMD declines or fracture occurs [81]

Supporting Evidence: Studies show that transition from denosumab to bisphosphonates prevents the rapid BMD loss typically seen with denosumab discontinuation, preserving approximately 50-70% of BMD gains depending on timing and potency of subsequent bisphosphonate therapy [83].

Combination Therapy Approaches

Evidence-Based Combination Strategies

While sequential therapy remains the cornerstone of osteoporosis management, certain combination approaches show promise for specific patient populations. A 2025 systematic review identified three combinations with evidence for superior efficacy compared to monotherapy [84]:

Table 3: Evidence-Based Combination Therapies for Osteoporosis

Combination	BMD Outcomes vs Monotherapy	Fracture Risk Reduction	Research Applications
Teriparatide + Denosumab	Significantly greater increases in lumbar spine and hip BMD than either agent alone [84]	Limited data on fracture outcomes	Severe osteoporosis cases; treatment-resistant patients
Teriparatide + Zoledronic Acid	Lumbar spine BMD increased more than zoledronic acid alone; hip BMD increased more than teriparatide alone [84]	Reduced clinical fracture risk vs zoledronic acid alone [84]	High fracture risk patients requiring rapid BMD improvement
Alendronate + Raloxifene	Significant benefit on BMD outcomes [84]	Insufficient fracture outcome data	Postmenopausal women with breast cancer risk concerns

Experimental Protocol: Teriparatide and Denosumab Combination

Clinical Context: Patients with severe osteoporosis (multiple vertebral fractures, very low BMD T-scores <-3.0) requiring rapid and substantial BMD improvement.

Mechanistic Rationale: Concurrent bone formation stimulation (teriparatide) and potent resorption inhibition (denosumab) may produce synergistic effects on bone mass.

Experimental Protocol:

• Dosing Regimen:
  • Teriparatide: 20 μg subcutaneously daily
  • Denosumab: 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months
  • Calcium and vitamin D supplementation to maintain sufficiency

• Monitoring Schedule:

  • Baseline DXA, vertebral fracture assessment, and bone turnover markers
  • DXA at 6-month intervals for first year, then annually
  • Bone turnover markers (P1NP, CTX) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months
  • Renal function and calcium monitoring at regular intervals

• Transition Considerations:

  • Continue denosumab indefinitely if well-tolerated
  • If transitioning from combination, follow with antiresorptive therapy
  • Avoid treatment gaps to prevent rapid bone loss

Supporting Evidence: A small randomized trial found that after 12 months, combination therapy increased lumbar spine BMD by 9.1% compared to 6.2% with teriparatide alone and 5.5% with denosumab alone [84].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for Osteoporosis Therapeutic Investigations

Research Tool	Function/Application	Key Characteristics
Humanized Sclerostin mAb (Romosozumab)	Wnt pathway activation for bone formation studies [54]	Dual-action: increases formation, decreases resorption; 12-month limitation
Recombinant PTH(1-34) (Teriparatide)	Intermittent PTH receptor activation for anabolic research [54]	Anabolic effects with daily administration; 24-month lifetime limit
RANKL Monoclonal Antibody (Denosumab)	Potent antiresorptive activity through RANKL inhibition [81]	Rapid, reversible effect; no skeletal retention; rebound phenomenon upon cessation
Nitrogen-Containing Bisphosphonates (Zoledronic acid)	Osteoclast apoptosis induction via FPPS inhibition [81]	Varying binding affinity and potency; long skeletal half-life
Bone Turnover Assays (CTX, P1NP)	Treatment response monitoring and adherence assessment [85]	CTX for resorption; P1NP for formation; essential for transition timing

The strategic implementation of sequential and combination therapies represents a sophisticated approach to osteoporosis management that mirrors the chronic nature of the disease. The current evidence strongly supports initiating treatment with an anabolic agent followed by an antiresorptive in high-risk patients to maximize fracture risk reduction and BMD gains [54] [81] [82]. For research and drug development professionals, critical knowledge gaps remain that warrant investigation:

• Long-term safety and efficacy data for novel sequential approaches
• Comparative effectiveness trials of various sequencing strategies
• Optimal timing for therapy transitions and treatment holidays
• Biomarkers for predicting treatment response and fracture risk
• Mechanisms underlying cardiovascular signals with sclerostin inhibition [54]

As the osteoporosis therapeutic landscape continues to evolve, the principles outlined in these application notes provide a framework for optimizing treatment transitions that can be refined as new evidence emerges.

Osteoporosis management necessitates a tailored approach for distinct patient populations who face unique pathophysiological challenges and treatment considerations. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) and male osteoporosis represent two such high-priority subpopulations where disease burden is significant but often under-recognized. Glucocorticoid use is the most common cause of secondary osteoporosis, requiring specific prevention and treatment strategies that differ from postmenopausal osteoporosis [86]. Concurrently, male osteoporosis, while historically overlooked, carries substantial morbidity and mortality, with men experiencing higher mortality rates following hip fractures than women [87] [88] [89]. This creates a critical imperative for focused clinical and research attention. Framed within the broader context of optimizing bone health in aging populations, this article provides detailed application notes and experimental protocols for these special populations, addressing the pressing need to translate growing research insights into structured management frameworks for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis (GIOP)

Pathophysiology and Clinical Burden

Glucocorticoid (GC) use exerts profound negative effects on bone metabolism through dual mechanisms: inhibiting bone formation and accelerating bone resorption. GCs directly suppress osteoblast activity and induce osteoblast apoptosis, while simultaneously prolonging osteoclast survival, leading to an uncoupling of the bone remodeling process [86]. The clinical consequence is a rapid initial bone loss, most pronounced within the first 3-6 months of therapy, which significantly increases fracture risk, even at higher bone mineral density (BMD) T-scores compared to postmenopausal osteoporosis. Fracture risk rises early after GC initiation and is dose-dependent, with even low doses (e.g., <2.5 mg/day prednisone equivalent) conferring some increased risk. Common conditions necessitating GC therapy include rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, asthma, COPD, inflammatory bowel disease, and post-transplant immunosuppression [86].

Diagnostic and Risk Assessment Strategies

The 2022 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Guideline provides a structured framework for GIOP management [90]. Risk assessment should be initiated for all adults beginning long-term GC therapy (≥2.5 mg/day of prednisone equivalent for ≥3 months). The ACR guideline emphasizes the use of FRAX with BMD adjustment and specific risk factors to stratify patients into low, moderate, and high-risk categories for guiding treatment decisions.

Table 1: Key Risk Factors for Fracture in Glucocorticoid-Treated Patients

Risk Factor Category	Specific Factors
Medication-Related	High-dose GC use (≥7.5 mg/day prednisone equivalent), prolonged duration (>3 months)
Patient-Related	Age >40 years, prior fragility fracture, low body mass index (BMI <20 kg/m²)
Disease-Related	Underlying inflammatory conditions (e.g., RA), COPD, organ transplantation
Bone Health-Related	Low BMD (T-score ≤ -1.0 to -2.5, depending on risk), rapid bone loss

GIOP Management Protocol

The following workflow diagram outlines the core decision pathway for managing GIOP, based on the 2022 ACR Guideline [90]:

Figure 1: GIOP Management Workflow. This diagram outlines the clinical decision pathway for managing glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis based on fracture risk stratification, as per the 2022 ACR Guideline [90].

Pharmacological Intervention Protocol:

• First-Line Therapy: Oral bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate) are recommended as first-line treatment for high-risk patients. The typical research protocol for alendronate is 70 mg orally once weekly or 10 mg daily, with careful adherence to dosing instructions (fasting state, upright posture with water) [90] [85].
• Second-Line/Alternative Agents: For patients who cannot tolerate oral bisphosphonates, have contraindications, or an inadequate response, zoledronate (intravenous) or denosumab (subcutaneous) are second-line options. Teriparatide (recombinant human PTH 1-34) is reserved for patients at very high fracture risk (e.g., multiple vertebral fractures) due to its anabolic mechanism and cost, typically administered as a 20 μg daily subcutaneous injection [85] [47].
• Calcium and Vitamin D: Adequate repletion is fundamental. A common research and clinical protocol includes elemental calcium 1000-1200 mg/day and vitamin D 800-2000 IU/day to maintain serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels >30 ng/mL [85] [89].

Male Osteoporosis

Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

Male osteoporosis is a significant yet under-diagnosed public health problem. It is estimated that one in five men over the age of 50 will experience an osteoporotic fracture in their remaining lifetime [85] [91]. The number of hip fractures in men is projected to rise by approximately 310% between 1990 and 2050 [85]. Mortality following a fracture is substantially higher in men than in women; one-year mortality after a hip fracture is 37.5% in men compared to 28.2% in women [91]. Pathophysiologically, bone loss in aging men is driven by a combination of factors including a gradual decline in sex steroids (both testosterone and estrogen), reduced bone formation due to impaired osteoblast function, and a high prevalence of secondary causes, which account for up to 40-50% of cases [87] [89].

Diagnostic and Screening Approaches

A significant challenge in male osteoporosis is the lack of universal screening consensus. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening in men [24]. However, other professional societies advocate for targeted case-finding in high-risk individuals.

Table 2: Diagnostic Criteria and Risk Assessment for Male Osteoporosis

Component	Key Recommendations and Findings
Densitometric Diagnosis	Use of central DXA at the hip and spine; female reference database (NHANES III) recommended for T-score calculation in men aged ≥50 years [85] [91].
Diagnostic Threshold	T-score ≤ -2.5 standard deviations defines osteoporosis [89].
Fracture Risk Assessment	FRAX is the appropriate tool, using the "male" checkbox. Intervention thresholds should be age-dependent [85].
Secondary Cause Workup	Recommended for all men with osteoporosis or fragility fractures. Key tests: CBC, liver/renal function, TSH, testosterone, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, calcium, SPEP [89].
Clinical Risk Tools	Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score (MORES) uses age, weight, and COPD history to identify men ≥60 years for DXA [89].

Management Protocol for Male Osteoporosis

The 2024 international guideline by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) provides a modern framework for management [85] [91]. The following diagram illustrates the core management strategy:

Figure 2: Male Osteoporosis Management. This diagram outlines the comprehensive management strategy for male osteoporosis, from diagnosis and foundational measures to pharmacological intervention stratified by fracture risk, based on the 2024 ESCEO guideline [85] [91].

Pharmacological Intervention Protocol:

• First-Line Treatment: Oral bisphosphonates (alendronate 70 mg/week, risedronate 35 mg/week) are the cornerstone of treatment for men at high fracture risk [85] [89]. The evidence for fracture reduction, particularly vertebral fractures, is robust from multiple randomized controlled trials [89].
• Second-Line Agents: Zoledronate (IV) or denosumab (SC) are recommended as second-line treatments for men at high risk who cannot tolerate or have contraindications to oral bisphosphonates [85].
• Anabolic Therapy: For men at very high fracture risk (e.g., multiple vertebral fractures, failure of other therapies), a sequential therapy starting with a bone-forming agent (teriparatide or abaloparatide) followed by an anti-resorptive agent is recommended [85] [91]. Teriparatide is typically administered as a 20 μg daily subcutaneous injection for up to 24 months.
• Hypogonadism Management: In men with osteoporosis and confirmed hypogonadism, testosterone therapy should be considered after careful evaluation of contraindications, such as prostate cancer [89].

Experimental and Research Methodologies

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Advancing research in special-population osteoporosis requires a standardized toolkit. The following table details essential reagents and their applications in preclinical and clinical research.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Osteoporosis Studies

Research Reagent / Material	Function and Application in Osteoporosis Research
Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA)	Gold-standard for measuring areal Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in clinical trials and animal models (using special scanners). Primary endpoint for many studies [87] [24].
Micro-Computed Tomography (μCT)	Provides high-resolution 3D analysis of bone microarchitecture (trabecular thickness, connectivity, cortical porosity) in bone biopsy specimens and animal models [91].
Bone Turnover Markers (BTMs)	Serum/urine biomarkers (e.g., P1NP, CTX) to non-invasively monitor dynamic changes in bone formation and resorption, assessing treatment adherence and early efficacy [85].
FRAX Algorithm	Validated tool for calculating 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture; used for risk stratification and enrollment criteria in clinical trials [85] [44].
Glucocorticoid Animal Models	Rodents administered prednisolone (e.g., 5 mg/kg/day) via subcutaneous implant or oral gavage to study GIOP pathophysiology and drug efficacy [86].
Orchidectomized (ORX) Rat Model	Standard animal model for studying age-related bone loss in males, mimicking hypogonadism; used to test anabolic and anti-resorptive agents [87] [89].
Primary Human Osteoblasts	Cell culture systems derived from bone samples to study osteoblast function, differentiation, and response to glucocorticoids or therapeutic compounds [86].

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Preclinical GIOP Model

This protocol outlines a standardized method for evaluating a potential osteoprotective agent in a rodent model of GIOP.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of Drug X in preventing glucocorticoid-induced bone loss. Model: 3-month-old, male Sprague-Dawley rats (n=12/group). Groups: 1) Vehicle Control; 2) Glucocorticoid-only (Prednisolone, 5 mg/kg/day, SC); 3) Glucocorticoid + Drug X (e.g., oral bisphosphonate or novel agent). Duration: 8 weeks. Key Methodological Steps:

• Baseline Measurements: In vivo DXA scan for baseline BMD under anesthesia.
• Intervention: Daily subcutaneous injections of prednisolone or vehicle. Concurrent daily administration of Drug X or vehicle via oral gavage.
• Monitoring: Weekly body weight measurement. Serum collection at weeks 0, 4, and 8 for BTMs (e.g., P1NP for formation, CTX for resorption).
• Terminal Analysis (Week 8):
  • Final DXA Scan: Perform under anesthesia to quantify change in BMD.
  • μCT Analysis: Euthanize animals and dissect out femora and lumbar vertebrae. Fix in formalin and scan using μCT to quantify 3D microarchitectural parameters (trabecular bone volume fraction, trabecular number/thickness, cortical thickness).
  • Biomechanical Testing: Perform 3-point bending test on femur or compression test on vertebra to assess bone strength (ultimate load, stiffness).
  • Bone Histomorphometry: Process undecalcified bone sections (e.g., from tibia) for dynamic labeling with calcein. Analyze osteoblast and osteoclast parameters on stained sections. Primary Endpoints: Change in BMD, trabecular bone volume fraction by μCT, bone strength. Secondary Endpoints: Changes in BTMs, histomorphometric parameters.

The effective management of osteoporosis in special populations demands a nuanced and evidence-based approach. For glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, proactive risk stratification using the ACR guideline and early intervention with bisphosphonates or other potent agents are essential to mitigate rapid bone loss and fracture risk. For male osteoporosis, overcoming under-diagnosis through targeted case-finding and employing a management strategy that includes thorough evaluation for secondary causes, followed by risk-appropriate pharmacotherapy (with oral bisphosphonates as first-line), is critical to reducing the substantial morbidity and mortality burden. Future research must focus on closing the evidence gap in men, specifically through trials powered to assess the efficacy of anti-osteoporosis medications, including denosumab and bone-forming therapies, on non-vertebral and hip fractures. Furthermore, integrating health economic evaluations and personalized treatment sequences based on individual fracture risk will be paramount for optimizing patient outcomes in our aging global population.

Vitamin D Insufficiency and Comorbidity Management in Older Adults

Vitamin D insufficiency represents a significant global health challenge, particularly for older adults, and is a critical modifiable risk factor within the broader context of osteoporosis screening and treatment research in aging populations [92] [93] [94]. Vitamin D plays a crucial physiological role in calcium and phosphate homeostasis, bone mineralization, and muscle function [93] [95]. The age-related decline in cutaneous synthesis, with older skin producing four times less vitamin D than younger skin under similar conditions, combined with increasingly indoor lifestyles, has created a high prevalence of deficiency among older adults globally [96] [95]. This deficiency is associated with secondary hyperparathyroidism, increased bone turnover, bone loss, and mineralization defects that ultimately lead to reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fracture risk [92] [94]. In clinical settings, vitamin D deficiency has been identified as a marker for health status and disease severity, with studies demonstrating an association between low 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and longer hospital stays, highlighting its clinical significance beyond skeletal health [93].

Diagnostic Assessment and Measurement Standards

Accurate assessment of vitamin D status is fundamental to both clinical management and research protocols. The standard method for determining vitamin D status is measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], the major circulating metabolite that reflects overall vitamin D status from both cutaneous synthesis and dietary intake [92] [93] [94]. However, significant methodological challenges exist in its measurement. A multitude of techniques are widely employed, primarily falling into two categories: immunoassays and chromatography-based methods, with the latter increasingly considered the gold standard due to higher specificity and sensitivity [92]. The lack of standardized assays means serum 25(OH)D values from different laboratories may not be comparable, necessitating the use of standardized reference materials and participation in quality assessment schemes such as the Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) [92].

Table 1: Vitamin D Status Classification Based on Serum 25(OH)D Concentrations

Status Category	Serum 25(OH)D Level (nmol/L)	Serum 25(OH)D Level (ng/mL)	Clinical Implications
Severe Deficiency	< 25 nmol/L	< 10 ng/mL	Associated with rickets and osteomalacia [95]
Deficiency	25-49 nmol/L	10-19 ng/mL	Increased bone resorption and PTH levels [95]
Insufficiency	50-74 nmol/L	20-29 ng/mL	Suboptimal for bone health [95]
Adequacy	75-110 nmol/L	30-44 ng/mL	Optimal for bone health and fracture prevention [92] [95]

International guidelines generally recommend against universal screening but endorse targeted measurement in high-risk populations, including older adults with osteoporosis, those with malabsorption syndromes, individuals with a history of falls or nontraumatic fractures, and people with limited sun exposure [92] [95]. The diagnostic workflow for vitamin D status assessment follows a structured pathway to ensure appropriate identification and management of at-risk individuals.

Therapeutic Protocols and Supplementation Strategies

The management of vitamin D insufficiency in older adults with or at risk for osteoporosis requires carefully calibrated supplementation strategies. Expert consensus recommends maintaining serum 25(OH)D levels ≥75 nmol/L in patients with osteoporosis, as this threshold is associated with optimal calcium absorption, reduced parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, and maximal fracture risk reduction [92]. The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) recommends daily supplementation of 800-1000 IU vitamin D for adults aged 60 years and older, as this range has been associated with improved muscle strength and bone health [95]. Research indicates that vitamin D supplementation at doses greater than 700 IU daily is necessary for significant fracture and fall risk reduction [95] [92].

The choice between vitamin D formulations is important, with clinical evidence suggesting vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is more effective than vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) in reducing falls and fractures [95] [24]. Supplementation should be administered with meals to enhance absorption of this fat-soluble vitamin [95] [93]. Annual high-dose regimens should be avoided due to associations with increased risk of falls and fractures [95] [97]. For patients with documented deficiency (25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L), higher initial doses are required for repletion before transitioning to maintenance therapy.

Table 2: Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation Guidelines from Major Organizations

Organization	Target Population	Recommended Vitamin D Dose	Recommended Calcium Intake	Target 25(OH)D Level
Expert Consensus [92]	Osteoporosis patients	Individualized to achieve target level	Not specified	≥75 nmol/L (≥30 ng/mL)
International Osteoporosis Foundation [95]	Adults ≥60 years	800-1000 IU/day	Not specified (adequate intake recommended)	50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL)
National Academy of Medicine [98]	Adults 61-70 years	600 IU/day	1000 mg/day (males), 1200 mg/day (females)	50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL)
National Academy of Medicine [98]	Adults ≥71 years	800 IU/day	1200 mg/day	50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL)

The biochemical pathway of vitamin D metabolism, activation, and physiological action reveals the complex interplay between nutritional status, organ function, and bone health. Understanding this pathway is essential for developing effective intervention strategies.

Research Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Clinical Trial Design for Vitamin D Interventions

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evaluating the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in older adults with osteoporosis. Recent meta-analyses have incorporated up to 11 RCTs with 43,869 participants to assess the impact of combined calcium and vitamin D supplementation on BMD and fracture risk [97]. These trials typically employ intervention durations ranging from 6 weeks to over 10 years, with baseline characterization of participants including serum 25(OH)D concentrations, bone mineral density measurements, and fracture risk assessment [97]. The inclusion of postmenopausal women or older men (typically >60 years) with documented osteoporosis or increased fracture risk is standard, while exclusion criteria often include conditions significantly affecting vitamin D metabolism (renal or hepatic impairment, malabsorption syndromes) or current use of bone-active medications [97] [98].

Primary outcomes typically include changes in BMD at key sites (lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, pelvis) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and incidence of fragility fractures (vertebral, non-vertebral, hip) confirmed radiographically [97] [94]. Secondary outcomes often encompass changes in serum 25(OH)D levels, PTH concentrations, bone turnover markers (e.g., P1NP, CTx), and fall incidence [97] [94]. Recent large-scale trials have implemented centralized adjudication of fracture endpoints to enhance validity, with sensitivity analyses to assess findings' robustness [97]. Subgroup analyses are critical to identify potential differential effects based on baseline vitamin D status, with significant improvements in serum 25(OH)D particularly evident in participants with baseline deficiencies [97].

Laboratory Assessment Protocols

Standardized laboratory protocols are essential for reliable measurement of vitamin D status and related parameters. Blood collection should follow standardized procedures with serum separation within 2-4 hours and storage at -80°C until analysis to maintain sample integrity [93]. The recommended method for vitamin D status assessment is quantitative determination of 25(OH)D using validated methods such as chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) [93] [96]. Additional laboratory parameters relevant to bone metabolism include:

• Parathyroid hormone (PTH): Measured to assess secondary hyperparathyroidism
• Bone turnover markers: Including bone formation markers (P1NP, osteocalcin) and resorption markers (CTx, NTx)
• Serum calcium and phosphate: For assessment of mineral homeostasis
• Albumin and total protein: To account for potential effects on total calcium levels

Quality control should include participation in external proficiency testing programs and use of standard reference materials to ensure assay standardization and inter-laboratory comparability [92].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Vitamin D and Bone Metabolism Studies

Reagent/Material	Specification/Format	Primary Research Application	Technical Considerations
25(OH)D Assay Kit	CLIA, ELISA, or LC-MS/MS	Quantification of vitamin D status	Method-dependent reference ranges; standardization critical [92] [93]
PTH Immunoassay	Intact PTH or biointact PTH	Assessment of bone metabolism regulation	Fasting samples preferred; diurnal variation considered
Bone Turnover Markers	P1NP (formation), CTx (resorption)	Dynamic assessment of bone remodeling	Consider circadian rhythm; standardized collection time [94]
Vitamin D Standards	Certified reference materials	Assay calibration and quality control	Traceable to NIST standards for comparability [92]
DXA Phantom	Anthropomorphic calibration	BMD measurement quality control	Daily quality assurance; cross-calibration between devices

Comorbidity Considerations and Special Populations

Vitamin D insufficiency frequently intersects with multiple comorbidities in older adults, creating complex management scenarios. Research demonstrates particular concern for institutionalized older adults, with studies showing a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among nursing home residents (mean 25(OH)D concentration of 34 nmol/L) [96]. However, recent research has not established associations between vitamin D status and nonspecific symptoms (fatigue, restlessness, confusion) in this population, suggesting these symptoms should not be primarily attributed to vitamin D deficiency without comprehensive assessment [96].

Patients with conditions affecting absorption (inflammatory bowel disease, bariatric surgery) or medications influencing vitamin D metabolism (anticonvulsants, glucocorticoids) represent special populations requiring intensified monitoring and typically higher supplementation doses [92] [99]. The relationship between vitamin D status and hospital outcomes is particularly relevant, with studies demonstrating that deficiency is associated with longer length of stay, highlighting its potential role as a marker of health status and disease severity [93]. Despite this association, supplementation rates remain suboptimal, with one study reporting only 14% of hospitalized patients taking supplements before admission, and just 61% of deficient patients receiving supplementation during hospitalization [93].

Vitamin D insufficiency management in older adults with osteoporosis remains an evolving field with several critical research implications. While current evidence supports maintaining 25(OH)D levels ≥75 nmol/L for optimal bone health in osteoporosis patients, recent large-scale meta-analyses have revealed that combined calcium and vitamin D supplementation, while improving pelvic BMD and correcting serum 25(OH)D deficiencies, does not significantly reduce clinical fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis [97]. This apparent paradox highlights the need for more sophisticated research approaches, including individual participant data meta-analyses to identify responder subgroups, and investigations of optimal dosing regimens that may differ based on genetic factors, comorbidities, and environmental influences.

Future research directions should prioritize randomized controlled trials with rigorous adherence monitoring and adjudicated fracture endpoints [97]. Additionally, studies exploring the relationship between vitamin D status and non-skeletal outcomes in older adults, including muscle function, immune response, and hospital course, would provide valuable insights for comprehensive geriatric care. The development of personalized supplementation strategies based on genetic polymorphisms in vitamin D metabolism and response pathways represents a promising avenue for precision medicine in osteoporosis management. As the global population continues to age, refining our understanding of vitamin D's role in healthy aging will remain a critical component of osteoporosis research and clinical practice.

Comparative Efficacy Analysis of Novel Therapeutics and Emerging Agents

Osteoporosis management has evolved significantly with the advent of both antiresorptive and anabolic pharmacological agents. While antiresorptive agents primarily inhibit bone breakdown, anabolic agents actively stimulate new bone formation, offering distinct mechanisms of action and therapeutic profiles [100]. This document synthesizes evidence from recent head-to-head clinical trials and meta-analyses to guide researchers and drug development professionals in understanding the comparative efficacy, optimal sequencing, and experimental protocols for evaluating these treatments. The focus is on high-risk populations, including postmenopausal women and older individuals with fragility fractures, within the critical context of expanding osteoporosis screening initiatives [24] [46].

Current clinical paradigms are increasingly shifting towards a sequential treatment approach, initiating with anabolic agents to rebuild bone architecture, followed by antiresorptive agents to maintain the gains achieved [101] [102]. This review provides a detailed comparison of agent efficacy, outlines core experimental methodologies, and visualizes key biological pathways to inform future research and clinical protocol development.

Quantitative Outcomes from Clinical Evidence

Comparative Efficacy of Anabolic and Antiresorptive Agents

A 2025 network meta-analysis of 227 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides a comprehensive hierarchy of treatment efficacy for postmenopausal osteoporosis [101] [103]. The analysis compared multiple drug classes against placebo and each other, with key outcomes detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Anti-Fracture Efficacy at 12 Months (Network Meta-Analysis)

Agent Class	Specific Agent	Spine Fracture Risk Reduction (OR vs. Placebo)	Hip Fracture Risk Reduction (OR vs. Placebo)
Anabolic	Anti-Sclerostin Antibody (e.g., Romosozumab)	OR: 0.27 (95% CI: 0.15–0.47)	OR: 0.27 (95% CI: 0.15–0.47)
Antiresorptive	Anti-RANKL Antibody (e.g., Denosumab)	OR: 0.41	OR: 0.41
Anabolic	Parathyroid Hormone Analogues (e.g., Teriparatide)	Moderate benefit	Moderate benefit
Antiresorptive	Bisphosphonates	Moderate benefit	Moderate benefit

The analysis identified the anti-sclerostin antibody as the most effective anabolic agent, demonstrating profound and rapid fracture risk reduction and BMD gains at the spine and hip within 12 months [101] [103]. Among antiresorptive agents, the anti-RANKL antibody showed superior, sustained efficacy over 36 months, making it a leading candidate for long-term maintenance therapy [101] [103].

Table 2: Bone Mineral Density (BMD) Changes from Baseline

Agent	Femoral Neck BMD Change (Mean Difference, %)	Spinal BMD Change (Mean Difference, %)
	12 Months	24 Months	36 Months	12 Months	24 Months	36 Months
Anti-Sclerostin (Anabolic)	+6.00 (3.34–8.66)	Data not reported in meta-analysis	+13.30 (9.15–17.45)	Data not reported in meta-analysis
Anti-RANKL (Antiresorptive)	+2.50 (0.96–4.05)	+3.58 (0.83–6.34)	+5.67 (2.61–8.74)	+5.26 (4.00–6.53)	+7.46 (4.89–10.04)	+9.49 (6.60–12.38)
Bisphosphonates (Antiresorptive)	Moderate benefit	Moderate benefit	Moderate benefit	Moderate benefit	Moderate benefit	Moderate benefit

The Sequential Therapy Paradigm

Evidence supports the superior effectiveness of sequential therapy (anabolic followed by antiresorptive) over monotherapy, particularly in high-risk patients. A 2025 retrospective cohort study on patients with osteoporotic hip fractures demonstrated the tangible benefits of this approach [102].

Table 3: Outcomes of Sequential vs. Non-Sequential Therapy at 1 Year

Outcome Measure	Sequential Therapy Group	Non-Sequential (Monotherapy) Group
Lumbar Spine BMD Change	+3.6% (p < 0.001)	Non-significant change
Femoral Neck BMD Change	+4.4% (p < 0.001)	Non-significant change
Total Hip BMD Change	+1.9% (p < 0.001)	Non-significant change
Bone Resorption Marker (CTX)	Significant decrease (0.57 to 0.32 ng/ml, p < 0.001)	Non-significant increase (0.73 to 0.90 ng/ml, p = 0.44)
Bone Formation Marker (P1NP)	Decreased (88.2 to 66.2 µg/L, p < 0.001)	Data not reported

The study protocol involved a short-term anabolic phase (3-6 months of teriparatide or romosozumab) followed by denosumab (60 mg subcutaneous injection at 6-month intervals) [102]. This sequence resulted in significant BMD improvements at all measured sites and normalized bone turnover markers (BTMs), whereas anabolic monotherapy failed to produce significant BMD gains [102].

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

Protocol 1: Network Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological Agents

This protocol outlines the methodology from the seminal 2025 network meta-analysis, providing a framework for evidence synthesis [101] [103].

• Objective: To compare the anti-osteoporosis effects and compliance of different anabolic and anti-resorptive agents and explore optimal cycling strategies.
• Data Sources: Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to February 1, 2024.
• Study Selection:
  • Population: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or osteopenia.
  • Intervention/Comparator: Anabolic or antiresorptive agents compared against placebo or another active agent.
  • Outcomes: BMD change, fracture incidence (vertebral/hip), and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.
  • Design: Included 227 RCTs with 140,230 participants.
• Statistical Analysis:
  • Model: Frequentist random-effects model for network meta-analysis.
  • Outcome Measures: Pooled mean differences (for BMD) and odds ratios (for fractures and discontinuation) with 95% confidence intervals.
  • Certainty of Evidence: Assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

Protocol 2: Sequential Therapy in Hip Fracture Patients

This protocol details the clinical study evaluating sequential therapy in a high-risk population [102].

• Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of short-term anabolic agents followed by antiresorptive treatment on BMD and BTMs in patients with osteoporotic hip fractures.
• Study Design: Retrospective cohort study (n=113 patients).
  • Sequential Group (n=68): Received teriparatide (20 µg/day SC) or romosozumab (210 mg/month SC) for 3-6 months, followed by denosumab (60 mg SC at 6-month intervals).
  • Non-Sequential Group (n=45): Received anabolic agent monotherapy.
• Primary Outcome: Mean percent change in BMD at lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip at one-year postoperatively.
• Secondary Outcomes:
  • Changes in bone turnover markers: serum CTX (resorption) and P1NP (formation).
  • Changes in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D₃ levels.
  • Medication adherence profile.
• Measurements:
  • BMD: Assessed by DXA (Lunar iDXA, GE Healthcare).
  • BTMs: Measured preoperatively and at 12-month follow-up.

Signaling Pathways & Mechanisms of Action

Understanding the distinct molecular mechanisms of anabolic and antiresorptive agents is crucial for rational drug design and combination strategies.

Anabolic Agent: Anti-Sclerostin Antibody (Romosozumab)

Figure 1: Anabolic action of Romosozumab via the WNT/β-catenin pathway.

Romosozumab, an anti-sclerostin antibody, inhibits sclerostin, a natural inhibitor of the WNT/β-catenin signaling pathway [104]. This inhibition promotes osteoblast differentiation and bone formation, while concurrently reducing bone resorption, resulting in a rapid net gain in bone mass [101] [104]. A key limitation is the compensatory increase in Dickkopf-1 (DKK1), another WNT pathway inhibitor, which contributes to the waning of the anabolic effect over time, typically limiting treatment duration to 12 months [104].

Anabolic Agent: Parathyroid Hormone Analogues (Teriparatide/Abaloparatide)

Figure 2: Dual-phase bone remodeling action of PTH analogues.

Teriparatide and abaloparatide activate the parathyroid hormone receptor 1 (PTH1R). This activation has a dual-phase effect: it promptly stimulates osteoblast-mediated bone formation, but later also enhances osteoclastic bone resorption by increasing RANKL expression [104]. The net result is an anabolic effect through enhanced bone remodeling. Due to safety concerns observed in rodent models, the treatment duration for teriparatide is typically limited to 24 months [104].

Antiresorptive Agent: Anti-RANKL Antibody (Denosumab)

Figure 3: Antiresorptive action of Denosumab via the RANKL pathway.

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to RANKL, a key protein required for the formation, activation, and survival of osteoclasts [101] [103]. By inhibiting the RANKL/RANK interaction, denosumab potently suppresses bone resorption [101]. A critical clinical consideration is the rapid rebound in bone turnover and elevated fracture risk upon discontinuation, necessitating careful treatment planning and transition to another agent [105].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 4: Key Reagents and Materials for Osteoporosis Pharmacological Research

Reagent/Material	Primary Function in Research	Application Example
Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA)	Gold-standard for measuring areal Bone Mineral Density (BMD).	Primary outcome in clinical trials to assess drug efficacy at spine, femoral neck, and total hip [45] [102].
Bone Turnover Markers (BTMs): CTX & P1NP	Serum biomarkers for dynamic bone remodeling. CTX measures resorption; P1NP measures formation.	Secondary endpoints to monitor early response to therapy (weeks/months) before BMD changes [102].
Cell Culture Systems (Osteoblasts/Osteoclasts)	In vitro models to study drug effects on bone cell differentiation and activity.	Investigating molecular mechanisms of anabolic and antiresorptive agents [104].
Animal Models (e.g., Ovariectomized Rats)	Preclinical models of postmenopausal bone loss.	Evaluating bone-strengthening efficacy and safety of new compounds before human trials.
Clinical Risk Assessment Tools (e.g., FRAX)	Algorithm to estimate an individual's 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture.	Risk stratification for enrolling high-risk populations in clinical trials [24].

Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and deterioration of bone microarchitecture, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures [106]. With an aging global population, osteoporosis has become a growing medical and socioeconomic problem, with hip fractures associated with significant morbidity and mortality [106]. Current estimates indicate that over 200 million people worldwide suffer from osteoporosis, with incidence expected to rise significantly in coming decades [107]. The economic burden is substantial, with annual costs of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States projected to reach $25 billion [108] [109].

Osteoporosis treatments have historically fallen into two categories: antiresorptive agents that slow bone loss and anabolic agents that stimulate new bone formation [110] [106]. Until recently, parathyroid hormone (PTH) and its fragments represented the only available anabolic options [106]. However, PTH-based therapies have limitations including required daily injections, limited treatment duration, and concomitant stimulation of bone resorption which may blunt their anabolic efficacy [111]. Research has therefore focused on novel anabolic approaches, with two promising targets emerging: sclerostin inhibition and salt-inducible kinase (SIK) inhibition [110] [111].

Sclerostin Biology and Therapeutic Inhibition

The Wnt Signaling Pathway and Sclerostin Mechanism

Sclerostin is a 190-amino acid secreted glycoprotein produced predominantly by osteocytes, the most abundant cells in bone [106] [112]. It functions as a key negative regulator of bone formation through its inhibition of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway, which is crucial for both bone development and maintenance of bone mass in adults [106].

The canonical Wnt signaling pathway promotes osteoblast differentiation, proliferation, function, and survival [106]. When Wnt proteins bind to a receptor complex consisting of frizzled family receptors and low-density lipoprotein receptor-related proteins 5 or 6 (LRP5/6), they initiate an intracellular signaling cascade that results in stabilization and nuclear translocation of β-catenin, leading to transcription of osteogenic genes [106]. Sclerostin antagonizes this pathway by binding to LRP5/6 receptors, thereby preventing Wnt binding and downstream signaling [106]. This inhibition decreases osteoblastic activity, reducing bone formation and mineralization.

Table 1: Key Components of Wnt Signaling Pathway and Sclerostin Inhibition

Component	Function	Role in Bone Metabolism
Wnt Proteins	Ligands that initiate signaling	Promote osteoblast differentiation and activity
LRP5/6 Receptors	Co-receptors for Wnt binding	Transduce pro-osteogenic signals
β-catenin	Transcriptional co-activator	Regulates expression of osteogenic genes
Sclerostin (SOST)	Endogenous Wnt inhibitor	Negatively regulates bone formation
GSK-3β	Kinase that targets β-catenin for degradation	Negative regulator of Wnt signaling

Evidence from human genetic disorders underscores the importance of sclerostin in bone homeostasis. Sclerosteosis and Van Buchem disease are rare autosomal recessive disorders characterized by generalized skeletal overgrowth and high bone mass, both resulting from deficient sclerostin production due to mutations in the SOST gene or its regulatory regions [106]. These natural experiments demonstrated that sclerostin deficiency leads to increased bone formation without apparent compensatory increases in resorption, suggesting its inhibition as a promising therapeutic strategy [106].

Sclerostin Antibody Therapeutics

Monoclonal antibodies targeting sclerostin have been developed as potential osteoporosis treatments. The two most advanced are romosozumab and blosozumab, both humanized antibodies that bind and neutralize sclerostin [106]. By sequestering sclerostin, these antibodies prevent its interaction with LRP5/6 receptors, thereby releasing the brake on Wnt signaling and promoting bone formation [110].

Preclinical studies in rodent and non-human primate models demonstrated that sclerostin antibody treatment increases bone mass, improves bone strength, and enhances fracture repair [110] [112]. These effects include robust bone formation at trabecular, cortical (periosteal and endocortical surfaces), and intracortical compartments of long bones, spine, and hip [112].

Clinical trials in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis showed that sclerostin antibody treatment rapidly increases bone formation markers while simultaneously decreasing bone resorption markers, representing a unique dual mechanism of action [110]. This dual effect contrasts with PTH therapy, which increases both formation and resorption [110]. BMD increases were observed primarily at central skeletal sites (spine and hips) rather than peripheral sites (wrist) [110].

Table 2: Sclerostin Antibodies in Clinical Development

Antibody	Developers	Clinical Stage	Key Characteristics
Romosozumab	Amgen/UCB	Phase III (FRAME study)	Significant BMD increases at spine and hip
Blosozumab	Eli Lilly	Phase II	Increased bone formation markers, decreased resorption markers
BPS804	Novartis	Clinical trials for OI	Investigated for osteogenesis imperfecta

SIK Inhibition as a Novel Anabolic Approach

SIK Signaling in Bone Metabolism

Salt-inducible kinases (SIKs) are serine/threonine kinases belonging to the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) family [111]. In bone, SIKs regulate key signaling pathways in osteocytes, the cells that orchestrate bone remodeling through secretion of factors like sclerostin (SOST) and RANKL [113] [108].

Research has revealed that PTH signaling in osteocytes inhibits SIK2 activity through protein kinase A-mediated phosphorylation [111]. SIKs in turn regulate the subcellular localization of class IIa histone deacetylases (HDAC4/5) and cAMP-regulated transcriptional coactivators (CRTC2) [113]. When phosphorylated by SIKs, HDAC4/5 and CRTC2 are sequestered in the cytoplasm; when SIK activity is inhibited, these proteins translocate to the nucleus where HDAC4/5 suppress MEF2C-driven SOST expression and CRTC2 promotes CREB-mediated RANKL expression [108].

This signaling pathway explains how PTH simultaneously suppresses sclerostin (promoting bone formation) while stimulating RANKL (promoting bone resorption) [108]. The discovery of this mechanism prompted investigation of SIK inhibitors as potential therapeutic agents that might mimic the anabolic effects of PTH while potentially uncoupling formation from resorption.

Small Molecule SIK Inhibitors

YKL-05-099 is a small molecule SIK inhibitor that has demonstrated promising effects in preclinical models [111]. In hypogonadal female mice (a model for postmenopausal osteoporosis), YKL-05-099 treatment increased trabecular bone mass to a similar extent as PTH treatment [111]. Importantly, while both treatments increased bone formation markers, only PTH increased bone resorption markers; YKL-05-099 did not significantly increase resorption, representing an uncoupling of the formation-resorption balance [111].

Further investigation revealed that YKL-05-099 possesses dual target specificity, inhibiting both SIK2/3 and CSF1R (colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor) [111]. CSF1R is the receptor for M-CSF, a key osteoclastogenic cytokine. This dual inhibition explains the unique uncoupling effect: SIK inhibition promotes bone formation (via sclerostin suppression), while CSF1R inhibition simultaneously blocks osteoclast differentiation and activity, reducing bone resorption [111].

Figure 1: PTH-cAMP-SIK Signaling Pathway in Osteocytes. PTH activation inhibits SIK2 via PKA, leading to nuclear translocation of HDAC4/5 and CRTC2. HDAC4/5 inhibit MEF2C-driven SOST expression, promoting bone formation. CRTC2 coactivates CREB-mediated RANKL expression, stimulating bone resorption.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Evaluating Sclerostin Antibody Effects in OVX Rodent Model

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of sclerostin monoclonal antibodies on bone mass and strength in ovariectomized (OVX) rats, a well-established model for postmenopausal osteoporosis [112].

Materials:

• 6-month-old female Sprague-Dawley rats
• Sclerostin antibody (e.g., romosozumab) and isotype control antibody
• Micro-computed tomography (μCT) system
• Bone histomorphometry equipment
• Serum markers for bone formation (P1NP) and resorption (CTX)

Procedure:

• Perform bilateral ovariectomy (OVX) or sham surgery on rats under anesthesia.
• Allow 60 days for bone loss establishment post-ovariectomy.
• Randomize OVX rats into treatment groups (n=12/group):
  • Group 1: Vehicle control
  • Group 2: Sclerostin antibody (e.g., 25 mg/kg, twice weekly, subcutaneously)
  • Group 3: Positive control (e.g., PTH 1-34, 75 μg/kg, daily, subcutaneously)
• Treat animals for 12 weeks.
• Administer calcein (10 mg/kg) 10 and 3 days before sacrifice for dynamic histomorphometry.
• At endpoint, collect blood for serum biomarker analysis (P1NP, CTX).
• Euthanize animals and harvest lumbar vertebrae and femora.
• Analyze bones by μCT for trabecular and cortical bone parameters.
• Process bones for undecalcified histology and perform static and dynamic histomorphometry.
• Perform biomechanical testing on femora (three-point bending) and vertebrae (compression).

Outcome Measures:

• μCT: Bone volume/total volume (BV/TV), trabecular number, thickness, separation
• Histomorphometry: Osteoblast and osteoclast parameters, mineralizing surface, bone formation rate
• Biomechanics: Ultimate load, stiffness, energy to failure
• Serum biomarkers: P1NP (formation), CTX (resorption)

Protocol 2: Assessing SIK Inhibitor Effects on Bone Cells

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of SIK inhibitors on osteocyte gene expression and osteoclast differentiation in vitro [113] [111].

Materials:

• Ocy454 osteocyte cell line or primary osteocytes
• Bone marrow-derived macrophages for osteoclast differentiation
• SIK inhibitor (YKL-05-099 or alternative)
• PTH 1-34 as positive control
• qPCR system and reagents
• Immunofluorescence microscopy equipment
• Osteoclast differentiation media (M-CSF, RANKL)
• TRAP staining kit

Procedure:

Part A: Osteocyte Studies

• Culture Ocy454 cells in DMEM with 10% FBS at 33°C (permissive temperature) until 80% confluent.
• Shift temperature to 37°C for 4 days to induce osteocyte differentiation.
• Treat cells with:
  • Vehicle control (DMSO)
  • SIK inhibitor (YKL-05-099, 1 μM)
  • PTH 1-34 (100 nM) as positive control
• After 6 hours, harvest RNA for qPCR analysis of SOST and TNFSF11 (RANKL) expression.
• For immunofluorescence, culture cells on chamber slides, treat for 2 hours, then fix and stain for HDAC4/5 and CRTC2 localization.
• Quantify nuclear vs. cytoplasmic distribution of HDAC4/5 and CRTC2.

Part B: Osteoclast Differentiation Assay

• Isolate bone marrow cells from 8-week-old mouse femora and tibiae.
• Culture in α-MEM with 10% FBS and M-CSF (30 ng/mL) for 3 days to generate osteoclast precursors.
• Seed cells in 96-well plates (1.5×10^4 cells/well) with M-CSF (30 ng/mL) and RANKL (50 ng/mL).
• Treat with:
  • Vehicle control
  • SIK inhibitor (YKL-05-099, 0.1-1 μM)
  • CSF1R inhibitor (as additional control)
• Refresh media and treatments every 2 days.
• On day 5, fix cells and perform TRAP staining.
• Count TRAP-positive multinucleated cells (≥3 nuclei) as osteoclasts.

Outcome Measures:

• Gene expression changes (SOST suppression, RANKL induction)
• HDAC4/5 and CRTC2 subcellular localization
• Osteoclast number and size
• TRAP activity

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Sclerostin and SIK Inhibition Studies

Reagent/Cell Line	Supplier Examples	Application	Key Features
Ocy454 cell line	ATCC, Kerafast	Osteocyte model	Conditionally immortalized, differentiates at 37°C
Recombinant sclerostin	R&D Systems	In vitro Wnt inhibition	Bioactive human protein for control experiments
Anti-sclerostin antibodies	Multiple	Neutralization studies	Romosozumab, blosozumab for reference standards
SIK inhibitors (YKL-05-099)	Tocris, MedChemExpress	SIK inhibition studies	Potent SIK2/3 inhibitor with CSF1R activity
LRP5/6 antibodies	Cell Signaling	Wnt pathway analysis	Detect receptor expression and activation
Phospho-HDAC4/5 antibodies	Abcam, CST	SIK pathway signaling	Monitor HDAC phosphorylation status
TRAP staining kit	Sigma-Aldrich	Osteoclast detection	Identifies mature osteoclasts in culture
μCT systems	Bruker, Scanco	Bone microarchitecture	Quantifies 3D bone structure parameters

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Quantitative Assessment of Treatment Effects

Table 4: Comparative Analysis of Anabolic Osteoporosis Therapies

Parameter	Sclerostin Antibody	SIK Inhibitor	PTH (1-34)
Bone formation markers	Increased ~100-150% [110]	Increased similar to PTH [111]	Increased ~50-100% [110]
Bone resorption markers	Decreased ~50% [110]	No significant change [111]	Increased ~50-100% [110]
Trabecular BV/TV	Increased ~40-60% in OVX rats [112]	Increased comparable to PTH in OVX mice [111]	Increased ~30-50% in OVX rats [112]
Cortical thickness	Increased ~10-20% [112]	Preserved cortical quality [111]	Increased ~5-15% [112]
Fracture repair	Accelerated in preclinical models [112]	Not fully evaluated	Limited data
Treatment duration	Transient effect (~12 months) [110]	Under investigation	Limited to 24 months

Clinical Translation Considerations

For both sclerostin inhibition and SIK-targeted therapies, several considerations are important for clinical translation. Sclerostin antibody treatment demonstrates transient anabolic effects, with bone formation markers returning toward baseline after approximately 12 months of treatment despite continued therapy [110]. This may reflect compensatory upregulation of other Wnt antagonists or feedback mechanisms limiting prolonged anabolic stimulation [112].

Potential safety concerns include the need to monitor cardiovascular events with sclerostin antibodies, as well as alterations in calcium homeostasis and increases in PTH levels [110] [112]. Preclinical studies also reported that sclerostin depletion may compromise B cell development in bone marrow, requiring further investigation [110].

For SIK inhibitors, the dual targeting of SIK2/3 and CSF1R appears advantageous for uncoupling bone formation from resorption [111]. However, optimization of selectivity profiles may be needed to minimize potential off-target effects, as first-generation inhibitors showed hyperglycemia and nephrotoxicity in preclinical models that were not observed with genetic SIK2/3 deletion [111].

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Evaluating Novel Anabolic Therapies in OVX Rodent Model. Standardized protocol for assessing therapeutic efficacy in postmenopausal osteoporosis model.

Sclerostin inhibition and SIK-targeted therapies represent promising novel approaches for osteoporosis treatment with unique mechanisms of action. Sclerostin antibodies offer the advantage of dual anabolic and anti-resorptive activity, while SIK inhibitors potentially uncouple bone formation from resorption through multi-kinase targeting.

Future research directions should focus on optimizing treatment sequencing, exploring combination therapies, and identifying patient subgroups most likely to benefit from these novel approaches. Understanding the temporal patterns of treatment response and potential escape mechanisms will be crucial for maximizing clinical efficacy. As the population continues to age, such innovative anabolic approaches will play an increasingly important role in reducing the substantial burden of osteoporotic fractures.

Osteoporosis, characterized by diminished bone density and quality, compromised bone microstructure, and increased bone fragility, represents a significant and growing global health challenge [29]. It affects over 200 million people worldwide, with more than 9 million osteoporosis-related fractures reported annually [29]. These fractures, particularly at the hip and vertebrae, are associated with increased morbidity, excess mortality, loss of independence, and substantial economic burden on healthcare systems and society [114] [24] [115]. In Germany alone, osteoporosis-related healthcare costs reached €13.8 billion in 2019 [115].

Economic evaluations have become increasingly important for healthcare decision-makers to allocate limited resources efficiently [114]. This application note provides detailed methodologies for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoporosis treatments, framed within the context of a broader thesis on osteoporosis screening and treatment in older individuals. It is designed to assist researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in designing, conducting, and reporting high-quality economic evaluations that meet current methodological standards.

Core Principles for Economic Evaluation in Osteoporosis

Recommended Methodological Standards

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) has established specific recommendations for the design and conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis [114]. These recommendations supplement general guidelines such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement and ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) good research practices [114] [115].

Table 1: Key Methodological Recommendations for Osteoporosis Economic Evaluations

Component	Recommended Approach	Rationale
Type of Analysis	Cost-utility analysis using QALY as outcome	Enables comparison across different disease areas and interventions
Modeling Technique	Lifetime horizon with Markov model (6 months/1 year cycle length)	Captures long-term consequences of fractures and treatment effects
Fracture Types	Hip, clinical vertebral, and non-vertebral non-hip fracture	Accounts for the most clinically and economically significant fractures
Population	Multiple scenarios: age range, BMD, and fracture risk scenarios	Reflects variation in cost-effectiveness across risk groups
Mortality	Excess mortality after hip fractures (25-30% attributable to fracture)	Accounts for significant mortality impact particularly following hip fractures
Perspective	Societal and/or healthcare payer perspective	Determines which costs and outcomes to include

Fracture-Related Parameters in Economic Models

Accurate estimation of fracture-related parameters is essential for valid cost-effectiveness results. The ESCEO working group recommends specific approaches to capture the full impact of fractures [114].

Table 2: Key Fracture-Related Parameters for Economic Models

Parameter	Recommended Measurement	Sources
Fracture Costs	Acute fracture costs + long-term costs after hip fracture (attributable to the fracture)	National databases, hospital records, literature
Health Utilities	First year and subsequent years' effects of fractures on disutility	Quality of life studies, national EQ-5D surveys
Multiple Fractures	Additional effect (on costs and/or utility) after multiple fractures	Longitudinal studies, registry data
Excess Mortality	Time-dependent risk (highest in first 6 months post-fracture)	Survival studies, registry data

Experimental Protocols for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Protocol 1: Model-Based Economic Evaluation Using Markov Modeling

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions using a state-transition modeling approach.

Materials and Software:

• TreeAge Pro, R, MATLAB, or Excel with VBA macros
• Epidemiological data on fracture incidence
• Treatment efficacy data from clinical trials or meta-analyses
• Country-specific cost data
• Health utility weights

Procedure:

• Model Structure Definition:

  • Define health states: Well, Post-Hip Fracture, Post-Vertebral Fracture, Post-Other Fracture, Dead
  • Allow for multiple fractures and transitions between states
  • Use 6-month or 1-year cycle length as recommended [114]

• Parameter Estimation:

  • Obtain age-specific fracture risks from FRAX or country-specific data
  • Incorporate excess mortality following fractures: hip fracture (0-6 months: HR 4.54; 7-12 months: HR 1.76; subsequent years: HR 1.78) [115]
  • Apply relative risk reduction for fractures based on intervention efficacy
  • Include real-world adherence and persistence rates

• Base-Case Analysis:

  • Simulate cohort over lifetime horizon (e.g., up to 100 years) [115]
  • Calculate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)
  • Compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus comparator

• Scenario Analyses:

  • Conduct analyses for different age groups (e.g., 50-64, 65-74, 75+)
  • Vary fracture risk levels (e.g., 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk of 10%, 20%, 30%)
  • Test different treatment sequences and durations

Markov Model Structure for Osteoporosis Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Protocol 2: One-Way Sensitivity Analysis and Tornado Diagram Creation

Purpose: To assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on cost-effectiveness results and identify the most influential parameters.

Materials and Software:

• Excel with VBA macros as described by Bounthavong [116]
• Completed cost-effectiveness model
• Parameter ranges (lower and upper limits) for all uncertain parameters

Procedure:

• Parameter Range Definition:

  • For each parameter, define plausible lower and upper limits (e.g., 95% confidence intervals)
  • Base ranges on literature, expert opinion, or statistical analysis

• Excel VBA Macro Setup:

  • Implement three macros as described by Bounthavong [116]:
    • Macro 1: Sort one-way sensitivity analysis table by parameter number
    • Macro 2: Re-calculate ICERs with lower and upper limits for each parameter
    • Macro 3: Re-sort table by absolute difference between upper and lower limit ICERs

• One-Way Sensitivity Analysis Execution:

  • Run Macro 1 to initialize the parameter table
  • Execute Macro 2 to systematically vary each parameter through its range
  • Record resulting ICER values for each parameter variation

• Tornado Diagram Generation:

  • Run Macro 3 to sort parameters by impact on ICER
  • Create horizontal bar chart with parameters ordered from largest to smallest impact
  • Format diagram with appropriate labels and colors

Sensitivity Analysis Workflow for Economic Evaluation

Protocol 3: Evaluation of Novel Screening Strategies

Purpose: To assess the cost-effectiveness of innovative screening approaches, such as AI-assisted opportunistic screening.

Materials and Software:

• Screening test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity)
• Disease prevalence data
• Clinical management algorithms based on guidelines

Procedure:

• Decision Tree Construction:

  • Model screening strategies versus no screening
  • Incorporate real-world follow-up rates (e.g., 50% receive confirmatory DXA after positive AI screen) [115]
  • Include real-world treatment initiation rates (e.g., 66% initiate treatment after diagnosis) [115]

• Treatment Pathways:

  • Apply guideline-based treatment algorithms:
    • <5% 3-year fracture risk: No treatment
    • 5-<10% risk: Alendronate monotherapy
    • ≥10% risk: Sequential therapy (e.g., romosozumab followed by alendronate) [115]

• Long-Term Outcomes:

  • Link decision tree to Markov model for long-term projections
  • Incorporate real-world medication persistence (e.g., 80% for romosozumab, 30% for alendronate) [115]

• Cost-Effectiveness Calculation:

  • Calculate cost per QALY gained for screening strategy versus no screening
  • Compare to country-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds (e.g., €60,000 in Germany) [115]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Osteoporosis Economic Evaluation

Item	Function	Examples/Specifications
FRAX Tool	Fracture risk assessment	Incorporates clinical risk factors with or without BMD; country-specific versions [114]
DXA BMD Measurement	Gold standard for osteoporosis diagnosis	T-score ≤ -2.5 defines osteoporosis; used in screening strategies [117] [24]
Trabecular Bone Score (TBS)	Bone quality assessment	Texture measurement from DXA images; independent predictor of fracture risk [117]
CHEERS Checklist	Reporting standards	24-item checklist for transparent reporting of economic evaluations [115] [118]
QHES Instrument	Quality assessment	16-item instrument to evaluate methodological quality of economic studies [118]
AI-Based Screening Tools	Opportunistic screening	Deep learning models applied to routine radiographs; sensitivity 86%, specificity 74% [115]

Data Synthesis and Reporting Standards

Key Cost-Effectiveness Findings from Recent Studies

Recent economic evaluations have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of various osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies:

Table 4: Summary of Recent Cost-Effectiveness Findings in Osteoporosis

Intervention	Population	Comparator	ICER/Findings	Source
AI-driven chest X-ray screening	German women ≥50 years	No screening	€13,340 per QALY (below €60,000 threshold)	[115]
AI-driven chest X-ray screening	Japanese women ≥50 years	No screening	¥189,713 per QALY (below ¥5M threshold)	[119]
Anti-osteoporotic drugs	Postmenopausal women >60-65 years with low BMD or previous fracture	No treatment	Generally cost-effective; cost-saving over age 80	[114]
Screening	Women ≥65 years	No screening	Moderate net benefit (B recommendation)	[24]

Quality Appraisal of Economic Evaluations

A systematic review of economic evaluations of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis found that while the majority of studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness, methodological shortcomings were common [118]. Industry-funded studies (n=35) demonstrated higher quality scores (QHES mean 82.44±8.69) compared to non-industry funded studies (n=11, mean 72.22±17.67) [118]. The overall quality of published literature remains variable, highlighting the need for adherence to methodological standards.

This application note provides comprehensive methodological guidance for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoporosis treatment options. By adhering to established methodological standards, incorporating real-world parameters, and conducting appropriate sensitivity analyses, researchers can generate robust evidence to inform healthcare decisions. The protocols outlined here emphasize the importance of transparency, appropriate modeling techniques, and comprehensive reporting to enhance the credibility and utility of economic evaluations in osteoporosis.

---

Osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are prevalent age-related conditions with shared pathophysiological mechanisms, including chronic inflammation, hormonal changes, and mineral metabolism dysregulation [120] [121]. The safety profile of anti-osteoporosis medications, particularly their cardiovascular risks, is critical for optimizing treatment in older individuals. This document provides a structured comparison of class-specific cardiovascular risks, experimental protocols for safety assessment, and visualization of key pathways to guide researchers and drug development professionals.

---

Quantitative Comparison of Cardiovascular Risks

Table 1: Cardiovascular Safety Profiles of Anti-Osteoporosis Medications

Drug Class	Examples	Cardiovascular Risk Profile	Key Evidence
Bisphosphonates	Alendronate, Zoledronic Acid	Neutral to protective: Associated with reduced MI risk (OR 0.52–0.80) [122].	Cohort studies show decreased CVD mortality [122] [123].
Denosumab	-	Neutral: No significant increase in MACE [124] [122]. Adjusted OR: 0.13 (95% CI: 0.12–0.15) for overall CVD [122].	Meta-analyses of RCTs show no elevated CVD risk vs. placebo [123].
SERMs	Raloxifene	Increased VTE risk (2-fold higher) [124]. Neutral for arterial events.	RCTs highlight thromboembolic risk [124] [122].
PTH Analogues	Teriparatide, Abaloparatide	Neutral to protective: Reduced MACE (OR 0.25–0.31) [123] [125].	Trials show lower odds of CVD vs. placebo [123].
Romosozumab	-	Potential increased risk: Higher MI (0.8% vs. 0.3% vs. alendronate) and stroke [126] [123].	ARCH trial reported imbalance in CV events [126].
Menopausal Hormone Therapy	Estrogen + Progestin	Increased VTE and stroke risk [122].	WHI trial demonstrated elevated CVD events [124] [122].

---

Experimental Protocols for Cardiovascular Safety Assessment

Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) Design for Cardiovascular Endpoints

• Primary Objective: Evaluate the incidence of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) — myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death — in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.
• Study Population: Women aged ≥65 years with T-score ≤−2.5 and no prior CVD.
• Intervention: Administer study drug (e.g., romosozumab 210 mg/month SC) vs. active comparator (e.g., alendronate 70 mg/week) or placebo for 12–24 months.
• Endpoint Adjudication: Use a blinded Clinical Endpoint Committee to classify CVD events based on ECG, cardiac enzymes, and imaging [126] [123].
• Statistical Analysis: Calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals using Bayesian network meta-analysis [123].

Real-World Data Analysis Protocol

• Data Source: National health claims databases (e.g., Taiwan NHIRD) [122].
• Cohort Definition: Patients aged ≥40 years with osteoporosis diagnosis. Exclude those with pre-existing CVD.
• Exposure: Use propensity score matching to compare medication users vs. non-users.
• Outcomes: Track incident CAD, heart failure, stroke, VTE, and mortality.
• Analysis: Perform Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for comorbidities [122].

---

Signaling Pathways and Mechanistic Insights

Wnt/Sclerostin Pathway in Bone and Vascular Health

Title: Wnt Pathway Inhibition by Sclerostin and CVD Risk. Mechanism: Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, enhancing Wnt signaling to promote bone formation. However, genetic variants in SOST (encoding sclerostin) are linked to higher MI risk, suggesting a trade-off between bone efficacy and cardiovascular safety [126].

---

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Cardiovascular Safety Studies

Reagent/Tool	Function	Example Application
DXA Scanner	Measures bone mineral density (BMD) and aortic calcification.	Quantifies abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) to predict CVD risk [127].
ML-AAC-24 Algorithm	Machine learning tool for automated AAC scoring.	Reduces manual labor in CVD risk stratification from DXA images [127].
cTnI ELISA Kits	Detects cardiac troponin I for MI diagnosis.	Adjudicates MI events in RCTs [123].
Sclerostin Antibodies	Neutralizes sclerostin in mechanistic studies.	Evaluates Wnt pathway activation in bone and vascular cells [126].
NHANES Database	Provides population-level BMD and CVD data.	Analyzes associations between femur BMD and CVD in older adults [128].

---

Cardiovascular risk profiles vary significantly among anti-osteoporosis medications. Bisphosphonates and denosumab demonstrate neutral to protective effects, while romosozumab requires careful CV risk stratification. Integrating RCTs with real-world data and mechanistic studies ensures balanced benefit-risk assessment in osteoporosis drug development.

The therapeutic landscape for osteoporosis (OP) is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by an advanced understanding of bone biology and innovations in pharmaceutical engineering. Current research is focused on developing therapies that offer dual-action mechanisms, enhanced bone-targeting capabilities, and improved patient compliance. This assessment details the emerging molecular targets, advanced drug delivery systems, and associated experimental protocols that are shaping the next generation of osteoporosis treatments, with particular relevance to the aging population central to broader osteoporosis research.

Emerging Molecular Targets and Therapeutic Agents

The pathophysiology of osteoporosis, characterized by an imbalance between osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and osteoblast-mediated bone formation, reveals multiple molecular targets for therapeutic intervention. Beyond established targets in the RANKL/OPG and Wnt/β-catenin pathways, recent investigations have identified several promising targets for novel drug development.

Table 1: Emerging Molecular Targets and Therapeutic Candidates in Osteoporosis

Target/Pathway	Therapeutic Agent / Modality	Mechanism of Action	Development Stage
Sclerostin & DKK1	AGA2118 (Bispecific Antibody)	Simultaneously neutralizes sclerostin and DKK1, potentiating Wnt signaling to promote bone formation [129].	Phase II (ARTEMIS trial) [129].
Oral PTH(1-34)	EB613 (Oral Tablet)	First oral, once-daily osteoanabolic tablet; PTH analog to stimulate bone formation [129].	Phase III planned for H2 2025 [129].
Oral PTH Analog	RT-102 (RaniPill GO Capsule)	Oral formulation of PTH analog using robotic pill for intestinal absorption [129].	Phase II anticipated [129].
microRNAs (e.g., miR-214)	miRNA-based Gene Therapy	Inhibits osteogenic differentiation and promotes osteoclastogenesis; antisense oligonucleotides can block its action to promote bone formation [130].	Preclinical research.
BMP/SMAD & Wnt/β-catenin	Extracellular Vesicles/Exosomes	Natural nanocarriers delivering pro-osteogenic signals (e.g., miRNAs, proteins) to promote bone regeneration [131] [21].	Preclinical research.

The Wnt/β-catenin pathway remains a cornerstone for anabolic therapy. Sclerostin inhibitors like romosozumab have validated this pathway, paving the way for next-generation therapies like AGA2118. By targeting both sclerostin and DKK1, AGA2118 aims to prevent compensatory upregulation of either inhibitor, potentially leading to more robust and sustained increases in bone mineral density (BMD) [129]. Furthermore, the successful development of oral anabolic agents like EB613 and RT-102 addresses a significant unmet need for non-invasive alternatives to subcutaneous injections, which is crucial for improving long-term adherence in older populations [129].

Advanced Drug Delivery Systems (DDS)

Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems are being engineered to overcome the limitations of traditional therapies, such as low bioavailability and off-target toxicity. These systems enhance drug accumulation at bone tissue and enable controlled release in response to the pathological bone microenvironment [131] [132].

Table 2: Nano-Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS) for Osteoporosis Therapy

Material Class	Representative Systems	Key Advantages	Primary Targeting Moieties
Organic	PLGA, Chitosan, Liposomes	Biodegradable, good biocompatibility, ease of surface modification [131].	Bisphosphonates, peptides [131] [133].
Inorganic	Nanohydroxyapatite (nHA), Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles (MSNs)	High stability, inherent bone affinity (nHA), high drug-loading capacity (MSNs) [131] [132].	Intrinsic (nHA), Bisphosphonates [131].
Biologically Derived	Exosomes, Cell Membrane-coated NPs	Low immunogenicity, natural targeting capabilities [131].	Inherited from source cells [131].
Hybrid	HAP-chitosan, MSN-liposome	Multifunctional synergy, optimized performance by combining material advantages [131].	Bisphosphonates, peptides [131] [134].

A key design strategy involves the surface functionalization of nanocarriers with bone-targeting moieties. Bisphosphonates (BPs), with their high affinity for bone hydroxyapatite (HA), are the most widely used targeting ligands [132] [133] [134]. Other moieties include tetracyclines and acidic oligopeptides (e.g., aspartic acid-rich sequences) [132]. These systems can also be designed as "smart" stimuli-responsive carriers, releasing their payload in response to the low pH or high reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels present in osteoclastic resorption lacunae [131] [132].

Experimental Protocols for In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation

Robust experimental validation is critical for advancing new targets and delivery systems from the bench to the bedside. The following protocols outline standard methodologies.

Protocol: In Vitro Evaluation of Osteogenic Differentiation

Aim: To assess the efficacy of a therapeutic agent or nano-formulation in promoting the differentiation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) into osteoblasts.

Materials:

• Research Reagent Solutions:
  • Primary BMSCs (e.g., from murine or human sources).
  • Osteogenic induction medium (OM): Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% FBS, 50 µM ascorbate-2-phosphate, 10 mM β-glycerophosphate, and 100 nM dexamethasone.
  • Alizarin Red S stain (2%, pH 4.2) for detecting calcium deposits.
  • Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP) staining kit.
  • RNA extraction kit and qPCR reagents for osteogenic markers (Runx2, Osterix, Osteocalcin).

Methodology:

• Cell Seeding: Plate BMSCs in culture plates at a defined density (e.g., 5x10^3 cells/cm²) and allow to adhere overnight in growth medium.
• Treatment: Replace medium with OM containing the test formulation (nanoparticles with drug), free drug, or vehicle control. Refresh the medium every 2-3 days.
• Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP) Staining: At day 7-10 post-induction, rinse cells with PBS, fix with 4% paraformaldehyde, and incubate with the ALP staining solution according to the kit protocol. ALP activity is an early marker of osteoblast differentiation.
• Alizarin Red S Staining (Mineralization): At day 21-28, fix cells as above and stain with Alizarin Red S solution for 20 minutes. Wash extensively to remove non-specific staining. Quantify calcium nodule formation by eluting the stain with 10% cetylpyridinium chloride and measuring absorbance at 562 nm.
• Gene Expression Analysis (qPCR): At intermediate time points (e.g., days 7, 14), extract total RNA. Synthesize cDNA and perform qPCR for key osteogenic transcription factors and markers (Runx2, Osterix, Osteocalcin). Normalize data to a housekeeping gene (e.g., GAPDH).

Protocol: In Vivo Efficacy in an Ovariectomized (OVX) Rodent Model

Aim: To evaluate the therapeutic effect of a bone-targeted NDDS on preventing bone loss in a postmenopausal osteoporosis model.

Materials:

• Animals: Female Sprague-Dawley or Wistar rats (3-6 months old).
• Key Reagent: The test article (e.g., BP-modified nanoparticles loaded with drug), appropriate vehicle control, and positive control (e.g., alendronate).
• Equipment: Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) scanner, micro-Computed Tomography (μCT) system, mechanical testing instrument.

Methodology:

• OVX Surgery: Anesthetize animals. Perform bilateral ovariectomy (OVX group) to induce estrogen deficiency-related bone loss. A sham-operated group serves as a non-osteoporotic control.
• Treatment Regimen: After a 2-week period for bone loss initiation, randomly assign OVX rats to treatment groups (n=8-10/group). Administer formulations via a relevant route (e.g., intravenous, oral) at defined intervals for 8-12 weeks.
• Terminal Analysis:
  • Bone Densitometry: Euthanize animals and excise femurs and tibiae. Scan using DXA to measure Bone Mineral Density (BMD) and Bone Mineral Content (BMC).
  • Microarchitectural Analysis (μCT): Scan the proximal tibia or distal femur using μCT. Analyze 3D parameters including Bone Volume/Total Volume (BV/TV), Trabecular Number (Tb.N), Trabecular Separation (Tb.Sp), and Trabecular Thickness (Tb.Th).
  • Biomechanical Testing: Perform a three-point bending test on the femoral mid-shaft to determine ultimate load (strength), stiffness, and energy to failure.
  • Histomorphometry: Process undecalcified bone sections for staining (e.g., H&E, Goldner's Trichrome) and TRAP staining for osteoclasts. Quantify dynamic parameters like bone formation rate (BFR/BS) by administering fluorescent labels (e.g., calcein) prior to sacrifice.

Protocol: Assessing Bone-Targeting Efficiency

Aim: To quantify the biodistribution and bone-specific accumulation of a targeted NDDS. Methodology:

• Labeling: Label the NDDS (e.g., with a near-infrared dye like DiR or a radiotracer like ^99mTc).
• Administration: Inject the labeled formulation into healthy or OVX rodents intravenously.
• Ex Vivo Imaging: At predetermined time points (e.g., 2, 6, 24 hours), euthanize animals, collect major organs (bone, liver, spleen, kidneys, heart, lung) and blood.
• Quantification: Measure fluorescence/radioactivity in each organ. Express bone targeting as the percentage of injected dose per gram of tissue (%ID/g). A high bone-to-liver or bone-to-spleen ratio indicates effective targeting and reduced off-target accumulation.

Visualization of Pathways and Workflows

Wnt Signaling Pathway and Therapeutic Inhibition of Sclerostin/DKK1

Workflow for Development and Evaluation of a Bone-Targeted NDDS

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Osteoporosis Drug Development

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Bone Marrow-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells (BMSCs)	In vitro model for studying osteogenic differentiation and adipogenic shift in OP [130].	Testing anabolic agents in osteogenesis assays.
RAW 264.7 Cell Line	Murine monocyte/macrophage cell line that can be differentiated into osteoclasts [130].	Screening anti-resorptive agents via TRAP staining.
Bisphosphonate-Alendronate	Bone-targeting moiety for functionalizing nanocarriers; also used as a positive control in anti-resorptive studies [132] [133].	Conjugating to PLGA nanoparticles to enhance bone affinity.
Osteogenic Induction Medium	Standardized cocktail to induce BMSC differentiation into osteoblasts in vitro [130].	Protocol 3.1 for evaluating pro-osteogenic effects.
TRAP Staining Kit	Histochemical detection of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase, a marker for osteoclasts [130].	Quantifying osteoclast number on bone slices or in cell culture.
OVX Rodent Model	Gold-standard in vivo model for postmenopausal osteoporosis [131] [130].	Protocol 3.2 for evaluating the efficacy of new therapeutics.

Conclusion

The management of osteoporosis in older adults requires an integrated approach combining validated screening protocols, personalized treatment selection, and ongoing monitoring. Current evidence supports systematic screening for women over 65 and high-risk younger postmenopausal women, while highlighting critical evidence gaps for male osteoporosis management. The therapeutic landscape is rapidly evolving with novel anabolic agents offering promising alternatives for severe osteoporosis, though traditional bisphosphonates remain foundational for most patients. Future research must prioritize long-term safety data for emerging therapies, comparative effectiveness trials, personalized medicine approaches using biomarkers, and strategies to address the significant treatment gap in high-risk populations. For drug development professionals, key opportunities lie in developing oral anabolic agents, targeting novel pathways like SIK inhibition, and creating sequential therapy protocols that maximize bone density gains while minimizing risks.

References

• 1. Epidemiology of Osteoporosis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10721571/]
• 2. Epidemiology | International Osteoporosis Foundation [https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/about-osteoporosis/epidemiology]
• 3. insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-025-00269-2]
• 4. Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass in Older Adults [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db405.htm]
• 5. Frontiers | Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward osteoporosis ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1621402/full]
• 6. Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in the older senior [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2685234/]
• 7. Osteoporosis - Diagnosis and treatment [https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/osteoporosis/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20351974]
• 8. Opportunistic CT Screening Can Identify Osteoporosis [https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/opportunistic-ct-screening-can-identify-osteoporosis-2025a1000wzj]
• 9. Management of osteoporosis in frail and older people (over ... [https://www.racgp.org.au/clinical-resources/clinical-guidelines/key-racgp-guidelines/view-all-racgp-guidelines/osteoporosis/special-issues/management-of-osteoporosis]
• 10. Study highlights disparities in osteoporosis diagnosis across... [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250319/Study-highlights-disparities-in-osteoporosis-diagnosis-across-demographics.aspx]
• 11. Osteoporosis: Pathophysiology and therapeutic options - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415937/]
• 12. The Mechanism of Bone Remodeling After Bone Aging [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994557/]
• 13. Pathophysiology | International Osteoporosis Foundation [https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/about-osteoporosis/pathophysiology]
• 14. Ageing-related bone and immunity changes: insights into ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41413-024-00346-4]
• 15. The Treatment and Monitoring of Osteoporosis using Bone ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11710883]
• 16. Novel Biomarkers of Bone Metabolism [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/5/605]
• 17. Bone biomarker for the clinical assessment of osteoporosis [https://biomarkerres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40364-017-0097-4]
• 18. Laboratory Testing of Bone Turnover Markers - Mayo Clinic Labs [https://news.mayocliniclabs.com/2023/08/07/laboratory-testing-of-bone-turnover-markers/]
• 19. Comparison of Osteoporosis Pharmacotherapy Fracture ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6216103/]
• 20. Research Status and Hot Spot Visualization Analysis of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12579869/]
• 21. A bibliometric analysis of the current state and future ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1622425/full]
• 22. Other diagnostic tools [https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/diagnosis/other-diagnostic-tools]
• 23. JCI - Pathogenesis of osteoporosis : concepts, conflicts, and prospects [https://www.jci.org/articles/view/27071]
• 24. Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: Screening [https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/osteoporosis-screening]
• 25. Bone Density Test, Osteoporosis Screening & T-score ... [https://www.bonehealthandosteoporosis.org/patients/diagnosis-information/bone-density-examtesting/]
• 26. Economic burden of osteoporosis in the world [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7787041/]
• 27. Updates on the Role of DXA in the Evaluation and Monitoring ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12578744/]
• 28. Beyond Bone Mineral Density: Real-World Fracture Risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12346389/]
• 29. Research trends and hotspots on osteoporosis: a decade ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1436486/full]
• 30. Economic Burden of Osteoporotic Fractures in US ... [https://www.ajmc.com/view/economic-burden-of-osteoporotic-fractures-in-us-managed-care-enrollees]
• 31. Treatment rates and healthcare costs of patients with ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11657-023-01229-7]
• 32. Screening of Fracture Risk and Osteoporosis Among Older ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1279770724002227]
• 33. Osteoporosis Prevention, Screening, and Treatment [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4089021/]
• 34. SECONDARY OSTEOPOROSIS: PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4534332/]
• 35. Beyond the Surface: Uncovering Secondary Causes of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/12/11/2558]
• 36. Secondary Osteoporosis - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470166/]
• 37. 绝经后女性骨质疏松性骨折防治的药物经济学分析 [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-8/20250803235712595.htm]
• 38. Medication-induced osteoporosis: screening and treatment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4206646/]
• 39. Exploring the mechanisms and targets of proton pump ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1592048/full]
• 40. Performance of the Primary Osteoporosis Screening Tool ... [https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-025-03104-2]
• 41. 骨质疏松症治疗：药物治疗可能会有所帮助- 妙佑医疗国际 [https://www.mayoclinic.org/zh-hans/diseases-conditions/osteoporosis/in-depth/osteoporosis-treatment/art-20046869]
• 42. Updated Guidelines for Preventing Osteoporosis -Related Fractures... [https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2025-01-14/updated-guidelines-for-preventing-osteoporosis-related-fractures-released]
• 43. Rapid Review Quiz: Osteoporosis Screening Guidelines [https://reference.medscape.com/viewarticle/rapid-review-quiz-osteoporosis-screening-guidelines-and-risk-2025a10008mn]
• 44. What Is New in Osteoporosis Screening and Fracture ... [https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/afp-community-blog/entry/what-is-new-in-osteoporosis-screening-and-fracture-prevention.html]
• 45. Remote Bone Health Service for Osteoporosis Screening ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40853653/]
• 46. Study: Osteoporosis Screening Effective in Older Men [https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/study-osteoporosis-screening-effective-in-older-men]
• 47. Osteoporosis treatment benefits people older than 80 [https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/endo-annual-meeting/endo-2025-press-releases/flocco-press-release]
• 48. Comparative Evaluation of Osteoporosis Clinical Risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11609562/]
• 49. An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10904566/]
• 50. A new cut-off value of FRAX tools as an osteoporosis ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90594-z]
• 51. Home | FRAXplus® [https://www.fraxplus.org/]
• 52. Fracture Risk Prediction Using the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39361310/]
• 53. Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) Tool [https://www.physio-pedia.com/Fracture_Risk_Assessment_(FRAX)_Tool]
• 54. Novel therapies in osteoporosis – Clinical update – 2025 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1521694225000683]
• 55. Real-world persistence and compliance of denosumab ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00774-025-01663-2]
• 56. Efficacy and safety of denosumab in treatment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12512401/]
• 57. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Denosumab [https://e-enm.org/journal/view.php?number=2567]
• 58. Comparative efficacy of teriparatide and bisphosphonates ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40469971/]
• 59. Nutrition and Osteoporosis Prevention - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11499541/]
• 60. Prevention [https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/patients/prevention]
• 61. Preventing Falls [https://www.bonehealthandosteoporosis.org/patients/treatment/exercisesafe-movement/preventing-falls/]
• 62. Criteria for osteoporosis diagnosis: a systematic review ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589537025001762]
• 63. Treatment patterns and long-term persistence with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8608759/]
• 64. Patient adherence to osteoporosis medications [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17233546/]
• 65. Bone Density Testing to Monitor Osteoporosis Therapy in ... [https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2010/1001/p749.html]
• 66. Official Adult Positions [https://iscd.org/official-positions-2023/]
• 67. Measuring and Improving Adherence to Osteoporosis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3160417/]
• 68. Persistence with oral bisphosphonates and denosumab ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33864529/]
• 69. AB0287 FACTORS AFFECTING PERSISTENCE OF ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003496724169725]
• 70. Bone mineral density: testing for osteoporosis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4917635/]
• 71. The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9546973/]
• 72. Burden of screening and treatment of bone health markers ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12366382/]
• 73. A machine learning tool for predicting newly diagnosed ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24450-5]
• 74. Laboratory-based Biomarkers for Risk Prediction, Auxiliary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11978538/]
• 75. Potential Biomarkers to Improve the Prediction of ... [https://www.e-enm.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3803/enm.2020.35.1.55]
• 76. Atypical femur fractures: current understanding and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7443989/]
• 77. Bisphosphonate-Related Jaw Osteonecrosis - StatPearls - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534771/]
• 78. Navigating Stomatologic Complications Secondary to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11987939/]
• 79. Cancer Therapies and Dental Considerations [https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/cancer-therapies-and-dental-considerations]
• 80. General side effects of bisphosphonates and denosumab [https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/bisphosphonates/general-side-effects]
• 81. The why and how of sequential and combination therapy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10118820/]
• 82. Safety and efficacy of sequential treatments for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702400004X]
• 83. Sequential and Long-term Therapy for Osteoporosis [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40119973/]
• 84. A systematic review of combination treatment strategies for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41221003/]
• 85. New evidence-based guideline for the management of ... [https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/news/new-evidence-based-guideline-management-osteoporosis-men-20240325-1145]
• 86. Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis [https://www.endocrine.org/patient-engagement/endocrine-library/glucocorticoid-induced-osteoporosis]
• 87. The clinical epidemiology of male osteoporosis: a review of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4295898/]
• 88. Osteoporosis in Men: an Overlooked Patient Population [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40053208/]
• 89. Osteoporosis in Men [https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2010/0901/p503.html]
• 90. Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis Guideline [https://rheumatology.org/glucocorticoid-induced-osteoporosis-guideline]
• 91. Evidence-Based Guideline for the management of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41584-024-01094-9]
• 92. Expert consensus on vitamin D in osteoporosis - Lei - Annals of Joint [https://aoj.amegroups.org/article/view/9070/html]
• 93. Vitamin D Status in Patients at the Department of Internal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467564/]
• 94. Vitamin D and Calcium in Osteoporosis, and the Role of Bone Turnover Markers: A Narrative Review of Recent Data from RCTs - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9944083/]
• 95. Vitamin D [https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/prevention/nutrition/vitamin-d]
• 96. Are long-lasting nonspecific symptoms related to vitamin D ... [https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-025-06132-z]
• 97. The effects of combined calcium and vitamin D ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12506016/]
• 98. Draft Recommendation: Vitamin D, Calcium, or Combined ... [https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/vitamin-d-calcium-combined-supplementation-primary-prevention-falls-fractures-communitydwelling-adults]
• 99. Osteoporosis Treatment: Updated Guidelines From ACOG [https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2023/0700/practice-guidelines-osteoporosis-treatment.html]
• 100. [Osteoporosis therapy - Update 2025, Part 1: Antiresorptive ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40091709/]
• 101. Effectiveness of anabolic and anti-resorptive agents for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40652262/]
• 102. Short-term anabolic agent and sequential therapy to improve ... [https://josr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13018-025-06084-5]
• 103. Effectiveness of anabolic and anti-resorptive agents for ... [https://josr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13018-025-06040-3]
• 104. Osteoanabolic agents for fracture prevention: bone ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00774-025-01591-1]
• 105. How, When, and Why to Potentially Stop Antiresorptive ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40211796/]
• 106. Sclerostin inhibition: a novel therapeutic approach in the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4459616/]
• 107. Sclerostin Antibody Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: Clinical Prospects and Challenges - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27313945/]
• 108. SIKs control osteocyte responses to parathyroid hormone [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13176]
• 109. Therapeutic Treatments for Osteoporosis—Which ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8836178/]
• 110. Targeted inhibition of sclerostin for post-menopausal osteoporosis therapy: A critical assessment of the mechanism of action - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29476877/]
• 111. Dual targeting of salt inducible kinases and CSF1R ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/67772]
• 112. Targeted inhibition of sclerostin for post-menopausal ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014299918301067]
• 113. SIKs control osteocyte responses to parathyroid hormone - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5075806/]
• 114. Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6331734/]
• 115. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic osteoporosis screening ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12069426/]
• 116. Cost-effectiveness models — Mark Bounthavong blog [https://mbounthavong.com/blog/category/Cost-effectiveness+models]
• 117. Quantitative imaging methods in osteoporosis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5219969/]
• 118. Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405525520300534]
• 119. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic osteoporosis screening ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405525525001487]
• 120. Cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis: Balancing risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2291312/]
• 121. The link between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2781192/]
• 122. Antiosteoporosis medications and cardiovascular disease [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2023.1220174/full]
• 123. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36372197/]
• 124. Assessment of Cardiovascular Safety of Anti-Osteoporosis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7536167/]
• 125. Evidence for the cardiovascular effects of osteoporosis ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S8756328222002873]
• 126. Cardiovascular safety of osteoanabolic agents - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11954844/]
• 127. Bone Density Test Can Gauge Heart Attack Risk [https://hms.harvard.edu/news/bone-density-test-can-gauge-heart-attack-risk]
• 128. Association between bone mineral density and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10328748/]
• 129. Osteoporosis Market Set to Expand Significantly During the ... [https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/osteoporosis-market-set-to-expand-significantly-during-the-forecast-period-20252034-due-to-rising-aging-population-and-novel-therapeutics--delveinsight-302616594.html]
• 130. Drug Delivery and Therapy Strategies for Osteoporosis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10534890/]
• 131. The Emerging Roles of Nano Drug Delivery Systems in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12433661/]
• 132. Bone-Targeted Nanoparticle Drug Delivery System [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2022.909408/full]
• 133. Review Targeted delivery of anti-osteoporosis therapy [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332224005833]
• 134. Bone targeted nano-drug and nano-delivery | Bone Research [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41413-024-00356-2]