Osteoporosis management in patients with breast cancer : EMAS position statement

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the first-line recommended standard of care for postmenopausal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Because they cause a profound suppression of estrogen levels, concerns regarding their potential to increase the risk of fracture were rapidly raised. There is currently a general consensus that a careful baseline evaluation is needed of the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women about to start treatment with AIs but also in all premenopausal women with early disease. Bisphosphonates have been shown in several phase III trials to prevent the bone loss induced by cancer treatment, although no fracture data are available. Even though they do not have regulatory approval for this indication, their use must be discussed with women at high risk of fracture. Accordingly, several guidelines recommend considering treatment in women with a T-score â\u89¤â\u88\u922 or those with two or more clinical risk factors. Moreover, recent data suggest that bisphosphonates, especially intravenous zoledronic acid, may have an anticancer effect, in that they reduce bone recurrence as well as extra-skeletal metastasis and breast cancer mortality in postmenopausal women. The anti-RANK ligand antibody denosumab is also emerging as a new adjuvant therapeutic option to prevent AI-induced bone loss. It has been shown to extend the time to first fracture in postmenopausal women treated with AIs. Several issues still need to be addressed regarding the use of these different agents in an adjuvant setting. The purpose of this position statement is to review the literature on antifracture therapy and to discuss the current guidelines for the management of osteoporosis in women with early breast cancer

Drug holidays from bisphosphonates and denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis: EMAS position statement

Background Bisphosphonates and denosumab are used extensively in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Despite their proven efficacy in the reduction of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, their optimal duration of use has not been determined. The occurrence of adverse effects, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fractures (AFF), has raised the issue of bisphosphonate or denosumab discontinuation (â\u80\u9cdrug holidayâ\u80\u9d) after a certain treatment period. Aim To assess the effect of bisphosphonate and denosumab discontinuation on fracture risk, as well as its possible benefits in reducing the risk of adverse effects. Methods Systematic review and consensus of expert opinion. Results and conclusions Discontinuation of bisphosphonates should be considered in all patients who have beentreated for more than five years with alendronate, risedronate or zoledronic acid. In view of the limited evidence, no robust recommendations can be made for ibandronate and denosumab. If the patient has not experienced fractures before or during therapy and the fracture risk is low, a â\u80\u9cdrug holidayâ\u80\u9d canbe recommended. Although there is no solid evidence, 1â\u80\u932 years for risedronate, 3â\u80\u935 years for alendronate and 3â\u80\u936 years for zoledronic acid are suggested. After this time, the patient should be reassessed. If a new fracture is experienced, or fracture risk has increased or BMD remains low (femoral neck T-score â\u89¤â\u88\u922.5), anti-osteoporotic treatment should be resumed. In the case of denosumab discontinuation, close monitoring is suggested, due to the possibility of rebound fractures

Is there a role for menopausal hormone therapy in the management of post-menopausal osteoporosis?

We provide an evidence base and guidance for the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) for the maintenance of skeletal health and prevention of future fractures in recently menopausal women. Despite controversy over associated side effects, which has limited its use in recent decades, the potential role for MHT soon after menopause in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis is increasingly recognized. We present a narrative review of the benefits versus risks of using MHT in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Current literature suggests robust anti-fracture efficacy of MHT in patients unselected for low BMD, regardless of concomitant use with progestogens, but with limited evidence of persisting skeletal benefits following cessation of therapy. Side effects include cardiovascular events, thromboembolic disease, stroke and breast cancer, but the benefit-risk profile differs according to the use of opposed versus unopposed oestrogens, type of oestrogen/progestogen, dose and route of delivery and, for cardiovascular events, timing of MHT use. Overall, the benefit-risk profile supports MHT treatment in women who have recently (< 10 years) become menopausal, who have menopausal symptoms and who are less than 60 years old, with a low baseline risk for adverse events. MHT should be considered as an option for the maintenance of skeletal health in women, specifically as an additional benefit in the context of treatment of menopausal symptoms, when commenced at the menopause, or shortly thereafter, in the context of a personalized benefit-risk evaluation