The potential value of monitoring bone turnover markers among women on alendronate
Access status:
Open Access
Type
ArticleAuthor/s
Bell, Katy J.L.Hayen, Andrew
Irwig, Les
Hochberg, Marc C
Ensrud, Kristine E
Cummings, Steven R
Bauer, Douglas C
Abstract
Biochemical markers of bone turnover have been proposed to monitor the response to bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis, but this requires true between-person differences in the response to therapy.. Using mixed models we analysed 3 annual measurements of two markers (bone ...
See moreBiochemical markers of bone turnover have been proposed to monitor the response to bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis, but this requires true between-person differences in the response to therapy.. Using mixed models we analysed 3 annual measurements of two markers (bone alkaline phosphatise (BAP) and cross linked N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTX)) from the Fracture Intervention Trial. We compared marker variation among women allocated to alendronate with that among women allocated to placebo to estimate how much variation was due to true between-person differences in response to treatment, and how much was due to random within-person fluctuations unrelated to treatment. For both markers we found that the mean effect of treatment differed by the baseline level of marker. After allowing for this and other effects, we found large true between-person differences in response to treatment for both markers, with a coefficient of variation for NTX of 25.1% and for BAP of 21.2%. However random within-person fluctuation was even larger, with a coefficient of variation for change in NTX of 42.5% and for change in BAP of 25.8%. Although repeated measurements have the potential to reduce within person variability, even triplicate baseline marker measurements resulted in an averaged value that was only within 30% of the true value with 95% certainty. In summary, although bone turn-over markers appear promising for monitoring between person differences in response to treatment, their use in clinical practice is currently limited by large random within-person variation.
See less
See moreBiochemical markers of bone turnover have been proposed to monitor the response to bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis, but this requires true between-person differences in the response to therapy.. Using mixed models we analysed 3 annual measurements of two markers (bone alkaline phosphatise (BAP) and cross linked N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTX)) from the Fracture Intervention Trial. We compared marker variation among women allocated to alendronate with that among women allocated to placebo to estimate how much variation was due to true between-person differences in response to treatment, and how much was due to random within-person fluctuations unrelated to treatment. For both markers we found that the mean effect of treatment differed by the baseline level of marker. After allowing for this and other effects, we found large true between-person differences in response to treatment for both markers, with a coefficient of variation for NTX of 25.1% and for BAP of 21.2%. However random within-person fluctuation was even larger, with a coefficient of variation for change in NTX of 42.5% and for change in BAP of 25.8%. Although repeated measurements have the potential to reduce within person variability, even triplicate baseline marker measurements resulted in an averaged value that was only within 30% of the true value with 95% certainty. In summary, although bone turn-over markers appear promising for monitoring between person differences in response to treatment, their use in clinical practice is currently limited by large random within-person variation.
See less
Date
2012Source title
Journal of Bone and Mineral ResearchVolume
27Issue
1Publisher
WileyLicence
Copyright All Rights ReservedRights statement
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: "The potential value of monitoring bone turnover markers among women on alendronate. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 27(1):195-201. 2012", which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.525. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.Faculty/School
Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public HealthShare