Scholarlink

Purpose of Review <p>Osteoporosis affects more than 53&#xa0;million Americans and contributes to nearly 2&#xa0;million fragility fractures each year, yet most patients who sustain fractures never receive guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Traditional step-therapy typically begins with bisphosphonates and reserves anabolic agents for later-line use, whereas sequential therapy prioritizes anabolic treatment followed by antiresorptive consolidation. This review synthesizes the evidence comparing these treatment paradigms and examines their relevance to orthopedic populations, in whom bone quality directly influences fracture healing, fixation, fusion, and implant-related outcomes.</p> Recent Findings <p>Among 37 studies meeting PRISMA-ScR inclusion criteria, anabolic-first sequential therapy generally produced greater gains in bone mineral density and greater fracture risk reduction than step-therapy or antiresorptive monotherapy. In one representative trial, romosozumab followed by denosumab achieved a 16.8% increase in lumbar spine bone mineral density versus 7.5% with monotherapy, and 92% versus 47% of patients reached treatment targets. In ARCH, anabolic-first therapy was associated with 48% lower vertebral fracture risk and 38% lower hip fracture risk. In orthopedic settings, emerging evidence suggests that sequential protocols may improve postoperative bone mineral density after hip fracture, support spinal fusion, and mitigate periprosthetic bone loss after arthroplasty. Prior antiresorptive exposure appeared to attenuate subsequent anabolic response, particularly at the hip, supporting the rationale for earlier anabolic use. Economic analyses also suggest that, despite higher upfront drug costs, sequential therapy may be cost-effective in patients at high fracture risk.</p> Summary <p>Current evidence supports anabolic-first sequential therapy as a more effective strategy than step-therapy for improving bone mineral density and reducing fracture risk in appropriately selected high-risk patients. For orthopedic populations, the available data suggest meaningful potential benefits in hip fracture care, spinal reconstruction, and arthroplasty, although subspecialty-specific evidence remains more limited than the broader osteoporosis literature. These findings support reconsideration of formulary and treatment policies that delay anabolic therapy in patients most likely to benefit.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Sequential Versus Step-Therapy Approaches for Osteoporosis Management in Orthopedic Subspecialties

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月5日

查看全文
  • Samer G. Salman,
  • Rohan Phadke,
  • James Burnett,
  • Jonathan Walsh

摘要

Purpose of Review

Osteoporosis affects more than 53 million Americans and contributes to nearly 2 million fragility fractures each year, yet most patients who sustain fractures never receive guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Traditional step-therapy typically begins with bisphosphonates and reserves anabolic agents for later-line use, whereas sequential therapy prioritizes anabolic treatment followed by antiresorptive consolidation. This review synthesizes the evidence comparing these treatment paradigms and examines their relevance to orthopedic populations, in whom bone quality directly influences fracture healing, fixation, fusion, and implant-related outcomes.

Recent Findings

Among 37 studies meeting PRISMA-ScR inclusion criteria, anabolic-first sequential therapy generally produced greater gains in bone mineral density and greater fracture risk reduction than step-therapy or antiresorptive monotherapy. In one representative trial, romosozumab followed by denosumab achieved a 16.8% increase in lumbar spine bone mineral density versus 7.5% with monotherapy, and 92% versus 47% of patients reached treatment targets. In ARCH, anabolic-first therapy was associated with 48% lower vertebral fracture risk and 38% lower hip fracture risk. In orthopedic settings, emerging evidence suggests that sequential protocols may improve postoperative bone mineral density after hip fracture, support spinal fusion, and mitigate periprosthetic bone loss after arthroplasty. Prior antiresorptive exposure appeared to attenuate subsequent anabolic response, particularly at the hip, supporting the rationale for earlier anabolic use. Economic analyses also suggest that, despite higher upfront drug costs, sequential therapy may be cost-effective in patients at high fracture risk.

Summary

Current evidence supports anabolic-first sequential therapy as a more effective strategy than step-therapy for improving bone mineral density and reducing fracture risk in appropriately selected high-risk patients. For orthopedic populations, the available data suggest meaningful potential benefits in hip fracture care, spinal reconstruction, and arthroplasty, although subspecialty-specific evidence remains more limited than the broader osteoporosis literature. These findings support reconsideration of formulary and treatment policies that delay anabolic therapy in patients most likely to benefit.