Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41701231›Full record

ReviewOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2026

Clarifying clinically treatment-naive status for osteoporosis patients.

David L Kendler, Jeffrey Habert, Aliya A Khan, Raheem B Kherani, Sandra Kim, Christopher S Kovacs, Jooho Lee, Jane Purvis, Jodie Reis, Lubomira Slatkovska and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

David L KendlerDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 150-943 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E1, Canada. davidkendler@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-3965
Jeffrey HabertUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Aliya A KhanMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Raheem B KheraniDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 150-943 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E1, Canada.
Sandra KimUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Christopher S KovacsMemorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Jooho LeeUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jane PurvisQueen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Jodie ReisUniversity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Lubomira SlatkovskaIndependent Researcher, Haliburton, ON, Canada.
Jenny ThainWestern University, London, ON, Canada.
Jonathan D AdachiMcMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

clinical relevanceAlthough patients with remote or brief prior exposure to osteoporosis treatments are strictly not "treatment naive," osteoporosis treatment effects on bone mineral density and bone turnover resolve over time. It would therefore be useful to categorize patients with remote or brief prior exposure to osteoporosis treatment as "clinically treatment naive." This lack of clarity of who can be categorized as clinically treatment naive may disadvantage patients at very high fracture risk with brief or remote prior exposure who may face barriers to bone-building therapies. Access may be restricted to those who have never received treatment, based on the mistaken assumption that brief or remote prior exposure significantly impairs treatment response. Here, we summarize how clinically treatment-naive has been defined in protocols for pivotal trials of approved osteoporosis therapies and recent practice guidelines in North America. Consistent definitions are proposed for initial therapies for patients at high-to-very-high fracture risk. Bisphosphonates are discussed in greater detail owing to their unique bone-binding properties, leading to more persistent, albeit finite, antiresorptive activity after discontinuation. A discussion of possible lingering effects of long-term bisphosphonates on bone strength and predisposition to atypical femoral fractures was beyond the scope of this report. In contrast, non-bisphosphonate therapies resolve relatively rapidly after discontinuation, necessitating timely transition to another agent to prevent reversal of anti-fracture efficacy. OBSERVATIONS: Proposed definitions of treatment-naive for the therapies discussed here are treated with oral bisphosphonate for ≥ 1 year or received ≥ 1 annual IV bisphosphonate dose and discontinued ≥ 2 years ago; treated with oral bisphosphonate for > 3 months and < 1 year and discontinued 1-2 years ago; discontinued oral bisphosphonate after ≤ 3 months; received last denosumab injection ≥ 12 months ago; and discontinued abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide ≥ 12 months ago.

conclusionsIn conclusion, a unified definition could aid multidisciplinary care teams and healthcare decision-makers in making treatment sequencing decisions.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsOsteoporosisBone DensityBone RemodelingDiphosphonatesHumansOsteoporotic FracturesPractice Guidelines as TopicBone Density Conservation AgentsDiphosphonatesAbaloparatideBisphosphonateDenosumabRomosozumabTeriparatideTreatment naive

Identifiers

PMID41701231

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.