Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Should we be concerned about giant osteoclasts
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Recker, Robert Roy |
| Copyright Year | 2009 |
| Abstract | Since the introduction of alendronate in 1995, aminobisphosphonates have become the most widely used therapy for osteoporosis. They are potent inhibitors of bone resorption, and clinical trials demonstrate increases in bone mass, a reduction in indices of bone resorption and a reduction in fractures. Early on, investigators were surprised that osteoclasts did not disappear during treatment (1). In fact, their numbers were actually increased (1;2). Now, 14 years after the introduction of aminobisphosphonates, another osteoclast surprise is reported by Weinstein et al. (3) who find that not only are osteoclast numbers increased 2.6fold, but also that there seems to be a cumulative, dose-related increase in osteoclast size and numbers of nuclei, with many showing features of apoptosis (the authors did not specify whether all, or a portion, of the nuclei in the giant osteoclasts were apoptotic). What is the significance of this finding? Are these cells innocently lingering in areas close to trabecular surfaces (the authors did not report seeing them in cortices of iliac biopsies)? |
| Starting Page | 157 |
| Ending Page | 158 |
| Page Count | 2 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.1138/20090373 |
| Volume Number | 6 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://triggered.stanford.clockss.org/ServeContent?url=https://knowledgeenvironment.stanford.clockss.org/2009/bonekey_2009_bonekey20090373_xml_pdf/bonekey20090373.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1138/20090373 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
