A View of Current Options for Treating Osteoporosis

Bone weakens with age, a condition known as osteoporosis. Like many aspects of aging it appears that this can be partially slowed by means of calorie restriction, but prevention is going to require new medical technology. Patching over the underlying causes, such as by interfering in the behavior of cells that create and destroy bone tissue, is the focus of the research mainstream. The better approach is to repair the underlying damage that causes aging, as detailed in the SENS proposals, and thereby eliminate the changes in our cell populations that cause bone to weaken.

One of the interesting aspects of presently available treatments for osteoporosis is the outcome of bisphosphonate use: one study showed an unusually large increase in life expectancy for patients undergoing biphosphonate therapy, and I've been waiting to see if this is replicated in other data. Here is a review article that surveys the present and near future options for treating osteoporosis:

Osteoporosis is caused by an uncoupling of bone resorption from bone formation such that the activities of osteoclasts far outweigh those of the osteoblasts. Peak bone mass is achieved in early adulthood and, following this point, both women and men lose bone with increasing age. As a stepping stone to determining a genetic link in osteoporosis, twin and family studies have shown that up to 85% variation in bone mass density (BMD) can be attributed to genes. Although initially genome-wide scans revealed no significant association to individual genes due to low sensitivity, later genome-wide association studies showed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with variation in BMD. Many of these genes are associated with regulation of bone mineral homeostasis.

Bisphosphonates are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of osteoporosis. They avidly bind to bone and are internalized by osteoclasts to inhibit resorption. They are administered both orally and intravenously and are divided into two classes - the low potency non-nitrogen containing bisphosphonates and the potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. These two classes have distinct intracellular targets and molecular mechanisms of action that lead to inhibition of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. As bisphosphonates have an apparent half-life of more than 10 years due to selective adherence to the bone surface, successive treatment over years would not only have a cumulative effect, but may actually be detrimental for bone health by preventing the cyclical changes required to maintain normal bone architecture.

Over recent years, stem cell therapy in musculoskeletal research has exploded, and there is a wide range of possible clinical applications for such technologies, many focusing on tissue repair following damage, including bone fractures, cartilage lesions, or ligament and tendon injuries. One hurdle in the development of therapies exploiting endogenous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is their lack of capacity to home to bone surfaces. A recent study indicated the possibility of directing endogenous MSCs to the bone surface using piggyback technology in which LLPA2, the ligand for integrin α4β1 expressed by MSCs, is administered in vivo, piggybacked onto [an existing bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis]. When LLPA2 binds to MSCs, the bisphosphonate directs those stem cells to the bone surface where osteoblastic differentiation and subsequent bone regeneration takes place.

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686324/


Biphosphonates sometimes cause bone problems like AVN. This sounds wacky bc it's sometimes used to treat it.

AVN is avascular necrosis or osteonecrosis (ON). Anyways biphosphonates actually eliminates the resorption process and it seems that the osteoblasts (that are never resorbed) actually die out or something strange.

Basically if someone takes biphosphonates for an extended period of time they have an increased rate of spontaneous femur fracture (no resorption = no bone recycling), jaw osteonecrosis and a lot of people nausea and symptoms from taking this stuff.

Forteo (contains parathyroid hormone and actually builds up bone versus biphosphonates mechanism--prevent the taking away of bone)seems more promising.

If there males they may want to consider TRT (although this may/does have side effects--but at low dosages may be worth it) or something like HGH? What is your opinion on that supplementation.

I saw a thing with Jeffrey Life some doctor who uses it and states it eliminates a lot of the aches and pains of aging when taken at a low dose.

A lot of this scaffolding stuff (that home stem cells; sort of like what your talking about) seems promising.

Seems like Forteo/ HGH/ TRT seems better to prevent any fractures/osteoporosis and scaffolding/stem cells/ other regenerative techniques are best for isolated injuries.

Bone morphogenic protein also seems to be in the wave of the future. Although it has some apparent bad side effects--being used a lot in spinal fusion (infuse). It's probably overblown but I have yet to really look into it.

Cool post.

Posted by: JOHN at July 3rd, 2013 7:29 AM

After some years of relatively useless biophosphonate medication ( and lots of side effects), I discovered calcium aspartate anhydrous as an effective treatment for advanced osteoporosis. Within 4 months time my spinal bone showed notable remodeling that was confirmed by both scan and xray. There are studies showing comparisons with other osteoporosis meds. This one seems superior. Check
it out.

Posted by: Gina at July 9th, 2013 7:29 PM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.