Moving Beyond the 2018 Minimum International Care Considerations for Osteoporosis Management in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD): Meeting Report from the 3rd International Muscle-Bone Interactions Meeting 7th and 14th November 2022
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Individuals living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are at significant risk of bone fragility due to osteoporosis, with the most potent drivers of fragility fractures in this context stemming from the aggressive myopathy and long term oral glucocorticoid therapy. Young people with DMD have a high fracture burden, with reported total and vertebral fracture rates that are four [1, 2] and 535 times [1] higher than those of healthy growing boys, respectively. Vertebral fractures can occur as early as six months following daily glucocorticoid initiation [3]. Up to 75% of young people with DMD sustain at least one fracture after eight years of glucocorticoid therapy [4]. Fractures in DMD can lead to devastating outcomes, including steeper rates of functional decline, premature and permanent loss of ambulation, chronic pain, and even death from fat embolism syndrome or adrenal crisis following long bone fractures [2, 5–8]. The potential for serious consequences and medical complications linked to fractures has driven efforts to develop effective guidelines for timely bone health surveillance and treatment with more recent efforts to develop fracture prevention strategies.<br/><br/>To guide clinicians in the management of DMD and its related co-morbidities (including skeletal health), the first internationally-endorsed, minimum standards of care were published in 2010 under the moniker “Clinical Care Considerations” [9, 10]. This document recommends that osteoporosis monitoring include spine x-rays if back pain or kyphosis is present, followed by initiation of intravenous bisphosphonate therapy if vertebral fractures are identified [10]. In the years following the inaugural 2010 Clinical Care Considerations, studies were published showing that vertebral fractures, a key manifestation of bone fragility among children and adults living with glucorticoid-treated chronic conditions, were frequently asymptomatic, necessitating routine surveillance for early detection [3, 11]. It was also better appreciated that even a single long bone fracture can signal osteoporosis in a persistently high-risk setting such as DMD, and prompt initiation of bone protection therapy is important.<br/><br/>With this new knowledge, the latest international, minimum standards of clinical care for DMD published in 2018, known as Care Considerations [12–14], recommended routine, standardized spine imaging for early detection of vertebral fractures, combined with more timely bone-targeted (bisphosphonate) intervention in the presence of vertebral or low trauma long bone fractures [12]. At the same time, the ever-changing therapeutic landscape for the treatment of the underlying condition calls for ongoing examination of the intimate relationship between muscle and bone development in DMD, including the effect of different DMD treatment approaches on the skeletal and endocrine systems. The overall goal of such focus is to harvest discussions about optimal management that will foster bone strength and prevent fractures in this high-risk setting across all underlying disease-targeted treatment paradigms for people with DMD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».