jbm > Volume 32(1); 2025 > Article
Mochizuki, Ando, Yano, Hiroshima, Ikari, and Okazaki: Treatment Goals for Prevention of Vertebral Fractures in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abstract

Background

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with vertebral fractures and treatment goals to prevent new vertebral fractures in patients with RA.

Methods

The database used in this study included outpatient data of RA patients at the authors’ hospital of RA patients taken from 2018 to 2022. The patients underwent annual imaging evaluations to assess parameters, including bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (LS; L2-4), total hip, and femoral neck, as well as vertebral fractures. Vertebral fractures were evaluated using radiographic images of the T8 to L5 vertebrae.

Results

The prevalence rates of new vertebral fractures in 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 were 2.0%, 1.3%, 2.3%, and 2.0%, respectively. The presence of existing vertebral fractures was associated with new vertebral fractures (P=0.003; odds ratio, 0.241; 95% confidence interval, 0.093-0.624). The cut-off T-score values for the LS for new vertebral fractures in patients with or without pre-existing vertebral fractures were −0.7 (sensitivity, 40.9%; specificity, 100%) and −1.4 (sensitivity, 69.0%; specificity, 62.5%), respectively.

Conclusions

The presence of pre-existing vertebral fractures is an independent factor associated with new vertebral fractures. It is important to tailor treatment goals based on the presence or absence of vertebral fractures to effectively prevent new fractures.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is a common disease and a major risk factor for fragility fractures, particularly in older patients.[1] Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) also have an increased risk of vertebral fractures.[2-4] In one study, the number of vertebral deformities in the RA group (female; mean age, 63.0 years) was 2.9 times higher than in the control group.[3] In another, the odds ratio (OR) of vertebral fracture in the RA group was 6.5, greater than that of the control group.[4] In general, among women, the age-adjusted relative risk of mortality following vertebral fracture was 8.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.45-16.74).[5] In community-dwelling volunteers aged ≥65 years, the hazard ratio of mortality in individuals with osteoporosis and vertebral fracture was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.27-2.77).[6]
The Japanese population is aging, and the onset of RA has increased.[7] Therefore, examining the factors associated with vertebral fractures in patients with RA is important. This retrospective study aimed to investigate factors associated with vertebral fractures and treatment goals to prevent new vertebral fractures in patients with RA. Japanese patients with RA were analyzed to determine the prevalence and identify significant predictors of vertebral fractures and treatment goals to prevent vertebral fractures. The hypothesis of this study was that treatment goals for vertebral fracture prevention depend on the presence of risk factors for vertebral fracture. This study should contribute to better clinical management and improved outcomes for patients with RA who are at risk of vertebral fractures.

METHODS

A total of 304 patients with RA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria (1987) and/or the ACR/European League Against Rheumatism criteria [8,9] in 2018 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The cohort database from the authors’ hospital was used. Patients with missing data, scoliosis, difficulty walking independently, dementia, hospital transfer, or death were excluded (Fig. 1). The patients underwent spine X-rays and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements annually from 2018 to 2022. In 2017, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and the United States National Osteoporosis Foundation formed a working group that described goal-directed treatment for osteoporosis.[10] One of principles of goal-directed treatment for osteoporosis is a fracture-free interval of 3 to 5 years. Therefore, the follow-up period was four years.
Vertebral fractures were evaluated using thoracic and lumbar spine (LS) lateral X-rays of the T8 to L5 vertebrae. The presence of a vertebral fracture indicated grade 1 or higher on a semiquantitative grading scale.[11] A new vertebral fracture indicated an increase of at least one grade on the scale, while a worsening fracture was defined as one that results in a height loss of 20% or more at the vertebra.[11,12]
The BMD of the LS (L2-4), total hip (TH), and femoral neck (FN) were measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (Lunar Prodigy Advance; GE Healthcare, Madison WI, USA).
The clinical data included the following: age, sex, disease duration, body mass index, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), serum Ca level corrected for serum albumin level, and pharmacotherapy status. Pharmacotherapy for RA included the administration of methotrexate (MTX), glucocorticoids (GC), and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs). Pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis includes the use of bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, romosozumab, selective estrogen receptor modulators, and active vitamin D3. Patient adherence to osteoporosis medications was examined.
The CDAI is a composite disease activity measure of RA and calculated as the sum of swollen joint count, tender joint count, patient’s global assessment, and evaluator’s global assessment.[13] The HAQ-DI is a patient-reported measure of physical disability.[14]

Statistical analyses

Trend tests using the Cochran-Armitage, Jonckheere-Terpstra, and χ2 tests (as appropriate) were performed for various variables (age, sex, duration of RA, drug treatment for RA and osteoporosis, disease activity of RA, HAQ-DI, and T-scores of the LS, TH, and FN).
To analyze of new vertebral fractures, patients were categorized into two groups: those with or without new vertebral fractures over a four-year period. To analyze the factors associated with new vertebral fractures, the two-sample t-test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare variables between patients with and without new vertebral fractures. Variables eligible for the therapeutic intervention analysis included pharmacotherapies, CDAI, HAQDI, presence of vertebral fractures and T-scores of the LS, TH, and FN. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on variables with P equal to or less than 0.05 in the univariate analysis. To identify treatment goals to prevent new vertebral fractures, cut-off values for the T-scores of the LS associated with new vertebral fractures were measured using the receiver operating characteristic method, along with corresponding sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC).
A P value of less than 0.05 was set as the cut-off for statistically significance in all analyses. All analyses were performed using the R Statistical Package, version 3.3.2 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; http://www.r-project.org/).

RESULTS

The characteristics and clinical data for the years 2018 to 2022 and the results of the trend tests are summarized in Table 1. The rates of bDMARD or tsDMARD, MTX, and GC use were 53.9%, 69.4%, and 19.4%, respectively. The mean CDAI and HAQ-DI were 4.2±4.5 and 0.3±0.6. This study found that 41.8% of patients received pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis. The adherence rates for denosumab, teriparatide, romosozumab, bisphosphonate, selective estrogen receptor modulator, and active vitamin D were 95.6%, 86.9%, 94.5%, 93.7%, 99.2%, and 97.7%, respectively. Vertebral fractures were noted in 26.3% of patients. The mean T-scores in the LS, TH, and FN 2018 were −0.7±1.4, −1.3±1.0, and −1.7±1.1, respectively. Additionally, the standard error of the mean Tscores in the LS, TH, and FN were 0.08, 0.06, and 0.06, respectively. In 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, the mean T-scores in the LS changed by −0.7±1.3, −0.6±1.4, −0.6±1.4, and −0.5±1.4, respectively; those in the TH changed by −1.3±1.0, −1.3±1.0, −1.3±1.0, and −1.3±1.0; and those changed by −1.8±1.0, −1.8±1.0, −1.8±1.0, and −1.7±1.0. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the T-scores was calculated based on 2018. These values for the LS were 0.228 in 2019, 0.241 in 2020, 0.268 in 2021, and 0.317 in 2022; those for the TH were 0.203 in 2019, 0.197 in 2020, 0.252 in 2021, and 0.235 in 2022; and those for the FN were 0.258 in 2019, 0.275 in 2020, 0.305 in 2021, and 0.281 in 2022. Based on the MCID, the T-score did not significantly change for any site.
The prevalence rates of new vertebral fractures in 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 were 2.0%, 1.3%, 2.3%, and 2.0%, respectively. Results of analyses of factors associated with new vertebral fractures are summarized in Table 2. Univariate analysis revealed that the significant variables were the presence of vertebral fractures (P<0.001), and T-scores in the LS (P=0.002), TH (P= 0.003), and FN (P<0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the presence of existing vertebral fractures was associated with new vertebral fractures (P=0.003; OR, 0.241; 95% CI, 0.093-0.624).
The cut-off T-score values for new vertebral fractures in the LS in patients with and without pre-existing vertebral fractures were −0.7 (sensitivity, 40.9%; specificity, 100%; AUC, 0.686) (Fig. 2A) and −1.4 (sensitivity, 69.0%; specificity, 62.5%; AUC, 0.651) (Fig. 2B), respectively.

DISCUSSION

In this study, the prevalence rates of new vertebral fractures continued at a constant rate over four years. The presence of pre-existing vertebral fractures was identified as a factor associated with the occurrence of new vertebral fractures. The occurrence of vertebral fractures is associated with high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, high RA disease activity, high HAQ-DI, presence of existing vertebral fractures, and GC use.[15-17] In a previous cross-sectional study, independent factors associated with the presence of vertebral fractures were CRP (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.20-2.94) and DAS28 (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.30-2.12).[16] In another study, HAQ-DI was associated with the presence of vertebral and hip fractures (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.01-2.89). [18] The patients in this study had a mean CDAI of 4.2±4.5 and a mean HAQ-DI of 0.3±0.6. Additionally, 92.1% and 81.3% of the patients had low disease activity and achieved functional remission, respectively. Recently, the rate of clinical remission has increased.[19] We assume that the disease activity of RA may not be associated with new vertebral fractures in patients with controlled disease activity such as those in this study. Although the relationship between GC use and vertebral fractures in patients with RA is controversial,[4,20-22] GC use can inhibit bone formation and affect bone quality.[23-25] GC dosage is related to worse BMD values and increased fracture risk. A high dose (>7.5 mg/d) can cause a higher probability of fractures than low (<2.5 mg/d) and intermediate (2.5-7.5 mg/d) doses.[26] The low percentage of GC use (19.4%) and low doses (3.1±1.7 mg/d) in this study may have affected the results.
Based on these results, the presence of pre-existing vertebral fractures was identified as a factor associated with the occurrence of new vertebral fractures. Pre-existing vertebral fractures were associated with a 4- to 5-fold increased risk of developing new vertebral fractures.[27] Another cohort study found that the prevalence of pre-existing vertebral fractures was associated with the T-score of the LS.[28] In this study, the cut-off values for the T-score of the LS in patients with and without pre-existing vertebral fractures were −0.7 and −1.4, respectively. Patients with pre-existing vertebral fractures require strict clinical management. To prevent new vertebral fractures, it is crucial to achieve and maintain BMD levels exceeding the cut-off values for osteoporosis treatment.
This study has some limitations. First, although there was an inflow and outflow of patients due to the nature of real-world data, the data were obtained from ongoing information in daily practice. As shown in the flowchart of enrolled participants, this study has a selection bias. However, when treating RA and osteoporosis, the decision to continue or discontinue drugs is made for various reasons. Second, 41.8% of the enrolled patients had already received treatment for osteoporosis at baseline. In particular, the effectiveness of bisphosphonates on BMD was stable over the long term.[29,30] Third, the enrolled patients were relatively old, had prolonged clinical courses, and displayed suppressed RA disease activity of RA as determined using CDAI. Therefore, factors associated with new vertebral fractures may have been influenced by the clinical profiles of the patients. Finally, the presence or absence of acute vertebral fractures and their severity were not investigated. Despite these limitations, the results of this study are important for the management of osteoporosis in patients with RA in daily practice.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the presence of pre-existing vertebral fractures is an independent factor associated with new vertebral fractures. Based on these results, it is important to tailor treatment goals based on the presence or absence of vertebral fractures to effectively prevent new fractures from forming.

DECLARATIONS

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this article.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board. All patients provided written informed consent.

Conflict of interest

TM received honorariums for lectures from Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB. KY received honorariums for lectures from AbbVie, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol-Meyers, Eisai, Hisamitsu, Mochida, and Takeda. KI received honorariums for lectures from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol-Myers, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kaken, Pfizer, Takeda, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin, and UCB. The other authors declare that they have no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Fig. 1
Flowchart of the disposition of patients in the study. RA, rheumatoid arthritis.
jbm-24-811f1.jpg
Fig. 2
Receiver operating characteristic curve of cut-off values of the T-scores for the lumbar spine in patients (A) with and (B) without pre-existing vertebral fractures. Sens, sensitivity; Spec, specificity; PV, predictive value; est., estimate; s.e., standard error.
jbm-24-811f2.jpg
jbm-24-811f3.jpg
Table 1
Characteristics and clinical data from 2018 to 2022 (N=304)
Variables 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 P-value
Age (yr) 64.6±12.7 NA

Female 252 (82.9) NA

Body mass index 22.5±3.7 22.6±3.7 22.8±4.0 22.6±3.7 22.5±3.8 0.146

Duration of RA (yr) 12.3±9.8 NA

b/tsDMARDs use 164 (53.9) 162 (53.3) 175 (57.6) 170 (55.9) 182 (59.9) 0.067

MTX use 211 (69.4) 203 (66.8) 192 (63.2) 180 (59.2) 181 (59.5) 0.003

Glucocorticoid use 59 (19.4) 53 (17.4) 52 (17.1) 45 (14.8) 50 (16.4) 0.243

CDAI 4.2±4.5 4.5±4.3 3.9±3.7 4.2±4.3 4.1±4.4 0.595

HAQ-DI 0.3±0.6 0.3±0.6 0.3±0.5 0.3±0.6 0.4±0.6 0.698

Pharmacotherapies for OP 127 (41.8) 118 (38.8) 127 (41.8) 133 (43.8) 131 (43.1) 0.315
 Denosumab 70 (23.0) 69 (22.7) 82 (27.0) 84 (27.6) 74 (24.3)
 Teriparatide 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 3 (1.0)
 Romosozumab 2 (0.7) 8 (2.6) 7 (2.3) 2 (0.7) 1 (0.3)
 Bisphosphonate 25 (8.2) 17 (5.6) 19 (6.3) 23 (7.6) 24 (7.9)
 SERM 8 (2.6) 7 (2.3) 7 (2.3) 6 (2.0) 7 (2.3)
 Active vitamin Da) 21 (6.9) 16 (5.3) 11 (3.6) 17 (5.6) 22 (7.2)

Serum corrected calcium level 9.5±0.4 9.4±0.5 9.2±0.4 9.4±0.4 9.5±0.4 0.606

Presence of vertebral fracture 80 (26.3) NA

Bone mineral density in lumbar spine (g/cm2) 1.1±0.2 NA

Bone mineral density in total hip (g/cm2) 0.8±0.1 NA

Bone mineral density in femoral neck (g/cm2) 0.7±0.1 NA

T-score in lumbar spine −0.7±1.4 −0.7±1.3 −0.6±1.4 −0.6±1.4 −0.5±1.4 0.146

T-score in total hip −1.3±1.0 −1.3±1.0 −1.3±1.0 −1.3±1.0 −1.3±1.0 0.889

T-score in femoral neck −1.7±1.1 −1.8±1.0 −1.8±1.0 −1.8±1.0 −1.7±1.0 0.886

The data is presented as mean±standard deviation or N (%).

a) Excluded active vitamin D used in combination with other drugs for osteoporosis.

RA, rheumatoid arthritis; b/tsDMARDs, biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; MTX, methotrexate; CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; OP, osteoporosis; SERM, selective estrogen receptor modulator; NA, not available.

Table 2
Results of analyses of factors associated with new vertebral fractures
Variables New VF (+) (N=22) New VF (−) (N=282) P-valuea) P-valueb) OR (95% CI)b)
b/tsDMARDs use 13 (59.1) 151 (53.5) 0.663
MTX use 14 (63.6) 197 (69.9) 0.631
Glucocorticoid use 3 (13.6) 56 (19.9) 0.587
CDAI 3.9±3.0 4.2±4.6 0.786
HAQ-DI 0.4±0.4 0.3±0.6 0.498
Drug treatment for OP 12 (54.5) 115 (40.8) 0.262
Presence of vertebral fracture 14 (63.6) 66 (23.4) <0.001 0.003 0.241 (0.093-0.624)
T-score in lumbar spine −1.6±1.5 −0.6±1.4 0.002 0.181 1.369 (0.864-2.169)
T-score in total hip −2.0±0.9 −1.3±1.0 0.003 0.461 0.685 (0.250-1.876)
T-score in femoral neck −2.5±1.0 −1.7±1.0 <0.001 0.161 2.175 (0.733-6.449)

The data is presented as mean±standard deviation or N (%).

VF, vertebral fracture; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; b/tsDMARDs, biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; MTX, methotrexate; CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; OP, osteoporosis.

a) Univariate analysis.

b) Multivariate analysis.

REFERENCES

1. Colón-Emeric CS, Saag KG. Osteoporotic fractures in older adults. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2006;20:695-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2006.04.004.
crossref pmid pmc
2. van Staa TP, Geusens P, Bijlsma JW, et al. Clinical assessment of the long-term risk of fracture in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:3104-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22117.
crossref pmid
3. Ørstavik RE, Haugeberg G, Mowinckel P, et al. Vertebral deformities in rheumatoid arthritis: A comparison with population-based controls. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:420-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.4.420.
crossref pmid
4. Ghazi M, Kolta S, Briot K, et al. Prevalence of vertebral fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Revisiting the role of glucocorticoids. Osteoporos Int 2012;23:581-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1584-3.
crossref pmid
5. Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, et al. Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:556-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980070075.
crossref pmid
6. Nishimura A, Akeda K, Kato K, et al. Osteoporosis, vertebral fractures and mortality in a Japanese rural community. Mod Rheumatol 2014;24:840-3. https://doi.org/10.3109/14397595.2013.866921.
crossref pmid
7. Kato E, Sawada T, Tahara K, et al. The age at onset of rheumatoid arthritis is increasing in Japan: A nationwide database study. Int J Rheum Dis 2017;20:839-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185x.12998.
crossref pmid
8. Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988;31:315-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780310302.
crossref pmid
9. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:2569-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.27584.
crossref pmid
10. Cummings SR, Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, et al. Goal-directed treatment for osteoporosis: A progress report from the ASBMR-NOF working group on goal-directed treatment for osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2017;32:3-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3039.
crossref pmid
11. Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, et al. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:1137-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650080915.
crossref pmid
12. Nakamura T, Fukunaga M, Nakano T, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-yearly zoledronic acid in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis: Two-year results from a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study (zoledronate treatment in efficacy to osteoporosis; ZONE study). Osteoporos Int 2017;28:389-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3736-y.
crossref pmid
13. Aletaha D, Nell VP, Stamm T, et al. Acute phase reactants add little to composite disease activity indices for rheumatoid arthritis: Validation of a clinical activity score. Arthritis Res Ther 2005;7:R796-806. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar1740.
crossref pmid pmc
14. Bruce B, Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: A review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003;30:167-78.
pmid
15. El Maghraoui A, Rezqi A, Mounach A, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of vertebral fractures in women with rheumatoid arthritis using vertebral fracture assessment. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:1303-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keq084.
crossref pmid
16. Mohammad A, Lohan D, Bergin D, et al. The prevalence of vertebral fracture on vertebral fracture assessment imaging in a large cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014;53:821-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ket353.
crossref pmid
17. Adami G, Saag KG. Osteoporosis pathophysiology, epidemiology, and screening in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2019;21:34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-019-0836-7.
crossref pmid
18. Kim D, Cho SK, Choi CB, et al. Incidence and risk factors of fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An Asian prospective cohort study. Rheumatol Int 2016;36:1205-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3453-z.
crossref pmid
19. Yamanaka H, Tanaka E, Nakajima A, et al. A large observational cohort study of rheumatoid arthritis, IORRA: Providing context for today’s treatment options. Mod Rheumatol 2020;30:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14397595.2019.1660028.
crossref pmid
20. Orstavik RE, Haugeberg G, Uhlig T, et al. Incidence of vertebral deformities in 255 female rheumatoid arthritis patients measured by morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:35-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1631-4.
crossref pmid
21. van Onna M, Boonen A. Challenges in the management of older patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2022;18:326-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-022-00768-6.
crossref pmid
22. Blavnsfeldt AG, de Thurah A, Thomsen MD, et al. The effect of glucocorticoids on bone mineral density in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Bone 2018;114:172-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.06.008.
crossref pmid
23. Ohnaka K, Tanabe M, Kawate H, et al. Glucocorticoid suppresses the canonical Wnt signal in cultured human osteoblasts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;329:177-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.01.117.
crossref pmid
24. Saito M, Marumo K. Effects of collagen crosslinking on bone material properties in health and disease. Calcif Tissue Int 2015;97:242-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-015-9985-5.
crossref pmid
25. Wang L, Heckmann BL, Yang X, et al. Osteoblast autophagy in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. J Cell Physiol 2019;234:3207-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.27335.
crossref pmid
26. Kanis JA, Johansson H, Oden A, et al. Guidance for the adjustment of FRAX according to the dose of glucocorticoids. Osteoporos Int 2011;22:809-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1524-7.
crossref pmid
27. Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, et al. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 2001;285:320-3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.3.320.
crossref pmid
28. Lindner L, Callhoff J, Alten R, et al. Osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Trends in the German National Database 2007-2017. Rheumatol Int 2020;40:2005-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-020-04593-6.
crossref pmid pmc
29. Hagino H, Shiraki M, Fukunaga M, et al. Three years of treatment with minodronate in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Metab 2012;30:439-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-011-0332-2.
crossref pmid
30. Black DM, Reid IR, Boonen S, et al. The effect of 3 versus 6 years of zoledronic acid treatment of osteoporosis: A randomized extension to the HORIZON-Pivotal Fracture Trial (PFT). J Bone Miner Res 2012;27:243-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1494.
crossref pmid


ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
#1001, Hyundai Kirim Officetel, 42 Seocho-daero 78-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06626, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3473-2231    Fax: +82-70-4156-2230    E-mail: jbm@ksbmr.org                

Copyright © 2025 by The Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next