Cardiovascular Safety and Effectiveness of Bisphosphonates: From Intervention Trials to Real-Life Data

Both osteoporosis with related fragility fractures and cardiovascular diseases are rapidly outspreading worldwide. Since they are often coexistent in elderly patients and may be related to possible common pathogenetic mechanisms, the possible reciprocal effects of drugs employed to treat these diseases have to be considered in clinical practice. Bisphosphonates, the agents most largely employed to decrease bone fragility, have been shown to be overall safe with respect to cardiovascular diseases and even capable of reducing cardiovascular morbidity in some settings, as mainly shown by real life studies. No randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints are available. While contradictory results have emerged about a possible BSP-mediated reduction of overall mortality, it is undeniable that these drugs can be employed safely in patients with high fracture risk, since no increased mortality has ever been demonstrated. Although partial reassurance has emerged from meta-analysis assessing the risk of cardiac arrhythmias during bisphosphonates treatment, caution is warranted in administering this class of drugs to patients at risk for atrial fibrillation, possibly preferring other antiresorptives or anabolics, according to osteoporosis guidelines. This paper focuses on the complex relationship between bisphosphonates use and cardiovascular disease and possible co-management issues.     

Validation of the Italian Version of the SARC-F Questionnaire to Assess Sarcopenia in Older Adults

Background: SARC-F is a simple sarcopenia screening tool. This study aimed to examine the validity of the Italian version of SARC-F. Methods: A total of 97 elderly individuals (37/60 males/females, 65 years and older) who met the study’s selection criteria were included. SARC-F was translated into the Italian language in a culturally responsive manner. The total score was calculated by adding the scores on the five items. The participants were divided into two groups according to the total score (SARC-F < 4 vs. SARC-F ≥ 4), and their associations with various factors (handgrip test, chair stand test, and Skeletal Muscle Index assessed by DXA) have been examined by gender. In addition, the tool’s validity was analyzed by comparing it with different international working group diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia. Results: The total prevalence of sarcopenia according to the SARC-F was 14.2% and, specifically, 12.8% among men and 14.3% in women. The sensitivity of the SARC-F was (male (M): 11–50% and female (F): 22–36%) medium-low compared with the European, international, and Asian criteria of sarcopenia; however, SARC-F showed a high specificity (M: 77.3–100% and F: 79.5–100%) and a moderate Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of (0.669 (CI95%: 0.358–0.830). The participants in the SARC-F ≥ 4 group had poorer handgrip for EWGSOP2 (p < 0.001) and chair stand (p < 0.001) than the participants in the SARC-F < 4 group. Conclusions: The Italian language version of SARC-F showed high specificity, moderate reliability, and good associations with other predictive tests. The Italian version of SARC-F appears to be a useful screening tool for the diagnosis of sarcopenia in Italian elderly populations.