Antiresorptive Versus Anabolic Therapy in Managing Osteoporosis in People with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Abstract

AbstractDiabetes is characterized by hyperglycemia, but the two main types, type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), have distinct pathophysiology and epidemiological profiles. Individuals with T1D and T2D have an increased risk of fractures, particularly of the hip, upper arm, ankle, and nonvertebral sites. The risk of fractures is higher in T1D compared to T2D. The diagnosis of osteoporosis in individuals with T1D and T2D follows similar criteria as in the general population, but treatment thresholds may differ. Antiresorptive therapies, the first‐line treatment for osteoporosis, are effective in individuals with T2D. Observational studies and post hoc analyses of previous trials have indicated that antiresorptive drugs, such as bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators, are equally effective in reducing fracture risk and increasing bone mineral density (BMD) in individuals with and without T2D. Denosumab has shown similar effects on vertebral fracture risk but increases the risk of nonvertebral fractures. Considering the low bone turnover observed in T1D and T2D, anabolic therapies, which promote bone formation and resorption, have emerged as a potential treatment option for bone fragility in this population. Data from observational studies and post hoc analyses of previous trials also showed similar results in increasing BMD and reducing the risk of fractures in people with or without T2D. However, no evidence suggests that anabolic therapy has greater efficacy than antiresorptive drugs. In conclusion, there is an increased risk of fractures in T1D and T2D. Reductions in BMD cannot solely explain the relationship between T1D and T2D and fractures. Bone microarchitecture and other factors play a role. Antiresorptive and anabolic therapies have shown efficacy in reducing fracture risk in individuals with T2D, but the evidence is more robust for antiresorptive drugs. Evidence in T1D is scant. Further research is needed to fully understand the underlying mechanisms and optimize management strategies for bone fragility in T1D and T2D. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.