Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bone remodeling markers: so easy to measure, so difficult to interpret

  • Letter
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Naylor KE, Jacques RM, Paggiosi M, Gossiel F, Peel NFA, McCloskey EV, Walsh JS, Eastell R (2015) Response of bone turnover markers to three oral bisphosphonate therapies in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the TRIO study. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3145-7

    Google Scholar 

  2. Paggiosi MA, Peel N, McCloskey E, Walsh JS, Eastell R (2014) Comparison of the effects of three oral bisphosphonate therapies on the peripheral skeleton in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the TRIO study. Osteoporos Int 25:2729–2741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Russell RG (2006) Bisphosphonates: from bench to bedside. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1068:367–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dunford JE, Thompson K, Coxon FP, Luckman SP, Hahn FM, Poulter CD et al (2001) Structure–activity relationships for inhibition of farnesyl diphosphate synthase in vitro and inhibition of bone resorption in vivo by nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 296:235–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunford JE, Kwaasi AA, Rogers MJ, Barnett BL, Ebetino FH, Russell RG et al (2008) Structure–activity relationships among the nitrogen containing bisphosphonates in clinical use and other analogues: time-dependent inhibition of human farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase. J Med Chem 51:2187–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith SY, Recker RR, Hannan M, Muller R, Bauss F (2003) Intermittent intravenous administration of the bisphosphonate ibandronate prevents bone loss and maintains bone strength and quality in ovariectomized cynomolgus monkeys. Bone 32:45–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Leu CT, Luegmayr E, Freedman LP, Rodan GA, Reszka AA (2006) Relative binding affinities of bisphosphonates for human bone and relationship to antiresorptive efficacy. Bone 38:628–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Roelofs AJ, Stewart CA, Sun S, Błazewska KM, Kashemirov BA, McKenna CE, Russell GG, Rogers MJ, Lundy MW, Ebetino FH, Coxon FP (2012) Influence of bone affinity on the skeletal distribution of fluorescently labeled bisphosphonates in vivo. J Bone Miner Res 27:835–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zebaze RM, Libanati C, Austin M et al (2014) Differing effects of denosumab and alendronate on cortical and trabecular bone. Bone 59:173–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Allen MR, Turek JJ, Phipps RJ, Burr DB (2011) Greater magnitude of turnover suppression occurs earlier after treatment initiation with risedronate than alendronate. Bone 49:128–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fuchs RK, Phipps RJ, Burr DB (2008) Recovery of trabecular and cortical bone turnover following discontinuation of risedronate and alendronate therapy in ovariectomized rats. J Bone Miner Res 23:1689–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Allen MR, Iwata K, Phipps R, Burr DB (2006) Alterations in canine vertebral bone turnover, microdamage accumulation, and biomechanical properties following 1-year treatment with clinical treatment doses of risedronate or alendronate. Bone 39:872–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Iglesias N, Petersen PH, Ricós C (2005) Power function of the reference change value in relation to cut-off points, reference intervals and index of individuality. Clin Chem Lab Med 43:441–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weaver CM, Peacock M, Martin BR, McCabe GP, Zhao J, Smith DL, Wastney ME (1997) Quantification of biochemical markers of bone turnover by kinetic measures of bone formation and resorption in young healthy females. J Bone Miner Res 12:1714–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Eriksen EF, Charles P, Melsen F, Mosekilde L, Risteli L, Risteli J (1993) Serum markers of type I collagen formation and degradation in metabolic bone disease: correlation with bone histomorphometry. J Bone Miner Res 8:127–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Seeman E, Martin (2015) Combined antiresorptive and anabolic therapy: a missed opportunity. J Bone Miner Res 30:753–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Baron R (1977) Importance of the intermediate phase between resorption and formation in the understanding and measurement of the bone remodeling sequence. In: Meunier PJ (ed) Bone Histomurphometry. Laboratory Armour-Montagu, Paris, pp 179–183

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eastell R, Robins SP, Colwell T, Assiri AMA, Riggs BL, Russell RGG (1993) Evaluation of bone turnover in type I osteoporosis using biochemical markers specific for both bone formation and bone resorption. Osteoporos Int 3:255–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bieglmayer C, Kudlacek S (2009) The bone marker plot: an innovative method to assess bone turnover in women. Eur J Clin Investig 39:230–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine and Endocrinology, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    E. Seeman

  2. Osteoporosis and Bone Biology Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia

    T. V. Nguyen

  3. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia

    T. V. Nguyen

  4. Center for Health Technologies, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    T. V. Nguyen

Authors
  1. E. Seeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. V. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Seeman.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Ego Seeman and Tuan Nguyen declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

A reply to these comments can be found at doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3389-2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seeman, E., Nguyen, T.V. Bone remodeling markers: so easy to measure, so difficult to interpret. Osteoporos Int 27, 33–35 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3374-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3374-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation