Anabolic Agents for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis is characterized by quantitative and qualitative changes of bone tissue leading to increased bone fragility with consequent fractures. Pharmacological therapy is aimed at decreasing the risk of fractures, mainly correcting the imbalance between bone resorption and formation at the level of bone remodeling units. Contrary to traditional antiresorptive agents, anabolic drugs increase bone mass to a greater extent. There are currently two available drugs licensed for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis by the US Food and Drug Administration (parathyroid hormone 1-34 and abaloparatide); only PTH 1-34 is marketed in Europe. Another new drug on the horizon is represented by the humanized monoclonal antibody against sclerostin, romosozumab. The availability of such a portfolio of anabolic treatments will allow a more tailored approach to the treatment of patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis.
KeywordsOsteoporosis Fractures Teriparatide Abaloparatide Romosozumab
- 3.Bone health and osteoporosis: a report of the surgeon general, Rockville, MD; 2004.Google Scholar
- 4.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M, et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden: a report prepared in collaboration with the international osteoporosis foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1–2):136.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Dempster DW, Zhou H, Recker RR, et al. A longitudinal study of skeletal histomorphometry at 6 and 24 months across four bone envelopes in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis receiving teriparatide or zoledronic acid in the SHOTZ trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:1429–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Piemonte S, Romagnoli E, Bratengeier C, et al. Serum sclerostin levels decline in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis following treatment with intermittent parathyroid hormone. J Endocrinol Investig. 2012;35:866–8.Google Scholar