1. Scope

Covered: Fracture-risk assessment and diagnosis in adults; guideline-based pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis and low bone mass; drug sequencing; monitoring; and a clearly quarantined appraisal of emerging/geroscience interventions (senolytics, hyperbaric oxygen, whole-body vibration) as they relate to bone ageing.

Not covered: Paediatric bone disease, secondary osteoporosis management beyond screening (e.g. myeloma, primary hyperparathyroidism), Paget’s disease, and fracture surgical management. All content is adjunctive to conventional care — nothing here displaces NHS/secondary-care fracture liaison pathways.

Key framing: In a longevity setting the temptation is to treat bone density as a modifiable “ageing biomarker.” The only outcomes that matter clinically are fractures and their downstream morbidity/mortality. BMD and bone-turnover markers are surrogates; extrapolation to hard outcomes is made only where robust linkage exists.



2. Background and pathophysiology

– Age-related bone loss results from an uncoupling of remodelling: osteoclastic resorption outpaces osteoblastic formation, accelerated at menopause by oestrogen withdrawal (RANKL disinhibition) and continuing more gradually in men and later life.[1][2]

– Cortical porosity, trabecular thinning and loss of connectivity reduce bone strength beyond what areal BMD captures, which is why fracture history and FRAX add independent predictive value.[2]

– Mechanisms relevant to ageing biology (robust human evidence): oestrogen/androgen decline, secondary hyperparathyroidism from vitamin D insufficiency and reduced calcium absorption, sarcopenia and falls, and glucocorticoid exposure. These are the mechanistically- and outcome-validated targets.[1][2]

Preclinical / mechanistic-only (not validated for human fracture outcomes):

– Cellular senescence: senescent osteocytes/osteoprogenitors accumulate with age and express a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP); genetic or pharmacological senolysis reduces age-related bone loss in mice, in some models with apparent advantages over antiresorptives. This remains mechanistic plausibility only in humans (see §3, §10).[3][4]

– Osteovascular/Wnt–sclerostin and OPG/RANKL modulation underlies interest in HBOT and vibration, but supporting data are rodent/in-vitro.[5][6]



3. Evidence base and grading

The osteoporosis pharmacotherapy evidence base is unusually strong: multiple large placebo-controlled RCTs with fracture endpoints, network meta-analyses (ACP living review) and consistent international guidelines. The geroscience/anti-ageing bone literature is, by contrast, almost entirely preclinical or limited to surrogate endpoints.

Outcome / intervention	Evidence statement	GRADE certainty	Strength of recommendation
Bisphosphonates → vertebral & hip fracture reduction	Multiple large RCTs + ACP network meta-analysis; consistent, direct, precise	High	Strong (first-line) [1], [7]
Denosumab → vertebral/hip/any clinical fracture reduction	RCT (FREEDOM) vs placebo; RD −48/1000 py vertebral; moderate–high certainty	Moderate–High	Strong, with mandatory exit strategy [8]
Anabolics (teriparatide, abaloparatide, romosozumab) → fracture reduction, superior to antiresorptive in high/very-high risk	Head-to-head RCTs (VERO, ARCH); anabolic-first superior for BMD/fracture	Moderate–High	Strong in very-high-risk [1], [9]
Anabolic-first-then-antiresorptive sequencing	RCT-supported BMD gains maintained/enhanced; fracture-sequencing data sparse	Moderate	Conditional [7], [10], [11]
Whole-body vibration → ↑ lumbar spine BMD	SR/MA of RCTs; surrogate endpoint only, heterogeneous; no fracture data	Low–Moderate (BMD); Very low (fracture)	Only in research / adjunct at most [12], [13]
Senolytics (D+Q) → bone turnover/BMD	Single phase 2 RCT (n=60): primary endpoint negative; subgroup signal only	Very low	Only in research [14]
Hyperbaric oxygen → bone	Rodent studies only (systematic review)	Very low (preclinical)	Recommend against outside trials [5]

GRADE domain notes for emerging interventions: high risk of bias (unblinded WBV trials, observational senolytic subgroups), substantial inconsistency (WBV protocol heterogeneity), serious indirectness (surrogate BMD/turnover markers rather than fractures; rodent models for HBOT), and imprecision (small n, wide CIs, e.g. the D+Q trial’s exploratory subgroups). Publication bias is a realistic concern across the small-trial geroscience literature.



4. Patient selection and indications

Who to assess/treat (guideline-based):

– DXA screening: all women ≥65 and men ≥70; younger postmenopausal women/men ≥50 with clinical risk factors (prior fragility fracture, glucocorticoids, parental hip fracture, low BMI, smoking, excess alcohol, RA, early menopause).[1][15][2]

– Treat if: prior hip or vertebral fragility fracture (irrespective of BMD); T-score ≤ −2.5 at spine/total hip/femoral neck; or osteopenia with FRAX 10-year risk ≥3% hip or ≥20% major osteoporotic fracture (US thresholds) or above the age-dependent NOGG intervention threshold (UK).[1][8][2]

– Very-high-risk (favours anabolic-first): T-score < −3.0, recent fracture (<12–24 months), multiple vertebral fractures, or fracture on therapy.[9][1]

Longevity-specific inclusion scenarios: perimenopausal/early-postmenopausal women optimising trajectory; older adults with frailty/sarcopenia and falls; and — a common longevity-clinic pitfall — the lean, high-performing athlete whose low BMI and (in women) relative energy deficiency raise genuine fracture risk despite a “healthy” phenotype.

Exclusion / specialist-input groups: untreated hypocalcaemia, significant CKD (eGFR <35 for many bisphosphonates; hypocalcaemia risk with denosumab in advanced CKD), pregnancy/breastfeeding, active dental disease before antiresorptives (ONJ), and any suspicion of secondary osteoporosis warranting endocrine/metabolic-bone referral.[1][8]

Regulatory/ethical status: Bisphosphonates, denosumab and anabolic agents are on-label for their approved osteoporosis indications.[16] Senolytics, HBOT and whole-body vibration for bone ageing are off-label/experimental and should be framed as research-only or, at most, adjuncts under explicit informed consent — never as substitutes for indicated therapy.



5. Assessment and baseline work-up

History/examination: fracture history, height loss/kyphosis (occult vertebral fracture), falls, glucocorticoid/aromatase-inhibitor/androgen-deprivation exposure, menstrual/menopause history, nutrition and alcohol, family history. Consider gait/balance testing (e.g. timed up-and-go) given falls drive fractures.[15]

Investigations:

– DXA (lumbar spine + hip); consider vertebral fracture assessment/lateral spine imaging where height loss or ≥ high risk.

– FRAX (UK-calibrated) ± BMD for risk stratification.[8][2]

– Bloods: calcium (corrected), phosphate, ALP, U&E/eGFR, 25-OH vitamin D, PTH, TFTs, coeliac serology, testosterone (men); myeloma screen/further work-up if indicated to exclude secondary causes before antiresorptives.[1]

– Bone-turnover markers (CTX, P1NP): useful for monitoring adherence/response and — importantly — for tracking rebound after denosumab; not for diagnosis.[17][18]

Risk stratification: categorise as low / moderate / high / very-high using FRAX ± T-score and fracture history (§4). Stratify harm in parallel: renal function (bisphosphonate/denosumab), dental status (ONJ), prior atypical femoral symptoms, and fall risk.

Baseline documentation for meaningful follow-up: DXA T-scores by site (spine, total hip, femoral neck) with scanner/technique, FRAX inputs and score, 25-OH D and calcium, baseline CTX/P1NP if planning antiresorptive/anabolic therapy or anticipating a future denosumab exit, and vertebral fracture status.



6. Dosing regimens and practical implementation

Robustly supported (guideline/RCT-based):

– Oral bisphosphonates (first-line): alendronate 70 mg weekly or risedronate 35 mg weekly; take fasting with water, remain upright ≥30 min. Duration typically 5 years oral, then reassess for holiday.[7][1]

– IV zoledronate: 5 mg annually (3 years then reassess). Correct vitamin D/calcium first to avoid hypocalcaemia; acute-phase reaction common with first infusion.[1]

– Denosumab: 60 mg SC every 6 months. Critical: must not be delayed >1 month or stopped without a bisphosphonate exit strategy (see §7). Requires replete vitamin D/calcium.[16][8]

– Anabolics: teriparatide 20 µg SC daily (up to 2 years) or abaloparatide 80 µg SC daily (up to 2 years); romosozumab 210 mg SC monthly for 12 months. Each must be followed by an antiresorptive, because gains are rapidly lost otherwise.[16][1][10][11]

Sequencing (RCT-supported): the optimal order is anabolic first, then antiresorptive — this maximises BMD gains (particularly hip) versus the reverse. Antiresorptive-then-anabolic blunts and delays the anabolic response and, from denosumab→teriparatide, can cause transient bone loss.[10][11][7][9] In very-high-risk patients this argues against reflexive “bisphosphonate step-therapy first.”

– Adjuncts: calcium (preferably dietary, ~1000–1200 mg/day total) and vitamin D sufficiency (25-OH D >50 nmol/L). Note: calcium/vitamin D supplementation above repletion has not reduced fractures in community-dwelling adults and should not be presented as fracture-preventive on its own.[17][15]

Non-pharmacological (supported by human data): progressive resistance and weight-bearing/impact exercise plus balance training (UK consensus supports this for bone strength and falls, though direct fracture-RCT evidence is limited). Smoking cessation and alcohol moderation.[17][15]

Extrapolated / requires caution (surrogate or preclinical only — do not present as fracture-reducing):

– Whole-body vibration: SR/MA suggest the most consistent BMD signal at ~30 Hz, low magnitude (~0.3 g), high cumulative dose (~7000 min) for lumbar spine; effect sizes small, no fracture outcomes. Reasonable adjunct in appropriately selected patients, not a substitute.[12][13]

– Senolytics (dasatinib + quercetin), HBOT: no validated human dosing for bone; research settings only (§10).[14][5]



7. Monitoring, safety and follow-up

Monitoring plan:

– DXA every 1–3 years depending on agent/risk (guidelines vary: BHOF ~2 years, Endocrine Society 1–3 years).[8]

– CTX/P1NP to confirm response/adherence, and essential for surveillance during a denosumab-to-bisphosphonate transition.[18]

– Calcium and renal function before each zoledronate/denosumab dose.

Suggested intervals: short-term (baseline calcium/vitamin D repletion before starting); medium-term (turnover markers at 3–6 months to confirm response); long-term (DXA 1–3 years; reassessment of holiday/continuation at 3 years IV / 5 years oral bisphosphonate).[8][1]

Adverse effects:

– Bisphosphonates: GI upset/oesophagitis (oral), acute-phase reaction (IV, common first dose), rare osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fracture (risk rises with duration — rationale for holidays).[1]

– Denosumab: hypocalcaemia (especially advanced CKD/vitamin D deficiency), rare ONJ/atypical fracture, and — the key hazard — rebound bone loss with multiple vertebral fractures in up to 8–10% if discontinued/delayed without bisphosphonate cover.[11][8][18]

– Anabolics: transient hypercalcaemia, orthostasis, injection-site reactions; romosozumab carries a cardiovascular caution (avoid within 12 months of MI/stroke).[1]

Required actions for abnormal findings: correct hypocalcaemia/vitamin D before dosing; investigate new thigh/groin pain (atypical fracture); dental assessment for ONJ symptoms; for significant BMD loss or fracture on therapy, reassess adherence, exclude secondary causes and escalate (consider anabolic switch / specialist referral).[19]

Denosumab exit strategy (must be planned at initiation): on discontinuation, transition to a potent bisphosphonate — zoledronate preferred, typically ~6 months after the last denosumab dose, often with a repeat dose guided by CTX; oral alendronate is an alternative but incompletely protective, particularly after >2 years of denosumab. Refer patients with >2 years’ use to a metabolic-bone specialist. Even aggressive transition does not reliably eliminate rebound risk.[11][20][8][19]

Interactions/comorbidity: bisphosphonates and denosumab contraindicated/cautioned in significant renal impairment and hypocalcaemia; concurrent glucocorticoids raise fracture risk and lower treatment thresholds. Experimental agent caution: dasatinib (a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor) carries myelosuppression, QT and bleeding risks and multiple drug interactions — a strong reason to confine senolytic use to trials.

Special populations: avoid antiresorptives/anabolics in pregnancy and breastfeeding; renal impairment limits bisphosphonates and raises denosumab hypocalcaemia risk; in frailty/extreme age, prioritise fall prevention and agents not requiring strict oral-dosing posture (e.g. IV zoledronate, denosumab) while weighing the exit-strategy burden of denosumab.



8. Contraindications and cautions

Absolute:

– Uncorrected hypocalcaemia (all antiresorptives; anabolics differ but correct disturbances first).

– Pregnancy/breastfeeding.

– Oral bisphosphonates: inability to sit/stand upright or oesophageal abnormalities delaying emptying.

– Romosozumab: MI or stroke within the preceding 12 months.[1]

Relative / specialist advice:

– eGFR <35 mL/min (bisphosphonates; denosumab needs careful calcium monitoring).

– Active dental disease/planned invasive dentistry (ONJ) — defer antiresorptive if feasible.

– Prior atypical femoral fracture.

– Denosumab in any patient unable to guarantee adherence to 6-monthly dosing (rebound risk).[8][18]

Harm likely to outweigh benefit with current evidence: using experimental bone-ageing interventions (senolytics, HBOT) in place of, or to justify deferring, indicated osteoporosis therapy in an at-risk patient. This is the central safety message of this summary.



9. Practical management scenarios

Scenario A — 54-year-old early-postmenopausal woman, cardiometabolic risk, T-score −1.8, FRAX below intervention threshold.

– Recommendation: do not offer pharmacotherapy; offer lifestyle optimisation. Conditional/Strong for exercise + risk-factor modification.

– Steps: confirm vitamin D repletion and adequate dietary calcium/protein; prescribe progressive resistance + impact + balance exercise; address smoking/alcohol; document baseline DXA/FRAX; reassess in ~3 years. Whole-body vibration only as an optional adjunct, framed as unproven for fractures.[17][15][13]

Scenario B — 82-year-old frail woman, prior hip fragility fracture, multimorbidity, eGFR 40.

– Recommendation: Offer treatment — Strong (prior hip fracture = treat regardless of BMD).[1]

– Steps: correct calcium/vitamin D; given frailty and dosing reliability, consider denosumab or IV zoledronate (check eGFR/calcium); integrate falls prevention; enrol in fracture liaison service. If denosumab chosen, document the mandatory bisphosphonate exit plan and dosing-adherence safeguards up front. Escalate to metabolic-bone specialist for very-high-risk features or treatment failure.[8][19]

Scenario C — 68-year-old man on long-term glucocorticoids, recent vertebral fracture, T-score −3.2, under rheumatology.

– Recommendation: Offer anabolic-first therapy — Strong (very-high-risk: recent fracture + very low T-score).[9][1]

– Steps: coordinate with rheumatology; initiate teriparatide/romosozumab (screen CV risk for romosozumab) then transition to an antiresorptive to lock in gains; monitor P1NP/CTX and DXA; this is adjunctive to specialist care, with shared decision-making and documented consent.[10][11]

For each scenario: assess → shared decision-making/consent → initiation with repletion of calcium/vitamin D → monitoring (DXA 1–3 y, turnover markers) → predefined criteria to escalate/refer (fracture on therapy, significant BMD loss, secondary cause, or need for denosumab exit).

The following algorithm from a Nature Reviews Endocrinology review maps FRAX-based risk categories to treatment selection and sequential/transition strategy, and is a useful bedside decision aid:

Figure 1 Schematic overview of osteoporosis therapy transition in postmenopausal women in various fracture risk categories. a, Assessment of risk of major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) in postmenopausal women using the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool. Risk thresholds are specified. b, A clinical algorithm for osteoporosis management in postmenopausal women according to fracture risk category. Very high risk is assumed if one or more of the following criteria are met: fracture within the past 12 months; multiple fractures have previously occurred; fracture has occurred during osteoporosis therapy; fracture has occurred owing to medication; very low T-score (standard deviation from healthy young adults) (less than −3.0); FRAX risk (calculated 10-year probability of MOF) 10–30% dependent on age, or MOF >4.5% at the hip. Risk assessment should be done by FRAX score in the absence of BMD measurement. In case of high or very high risk, treatment should start immediately and BMD can be measured as baseline reference (dashed arrow). DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; i.v., intravenous administration; MHT, menopausal hormone treatment; p.o., oral administration; SERM, selective oestrogen receptor modulator; VTE, venous thromboembolism. Part a adapted from ref., Springer Nature Limited.



10. Research gaps and future directions

– Optimal denosumab exit regimen (agent, timing, frequency, role of CTX-guided dosing) remains unresolved even in recent prospective studies — a priority given the 8–10% rebound multiple-vertebral-fracture risk.[11][20][18]

– Sequential therapy with fracture (not just BMD) endpoints: most sequencing evidence rests on BMD surrogates; head-to-head fracture-outcome trials are lacking.[7]

– Senolytics for bone: the phase 2 D+Q trial missed its primary endpoint; only exploratory subgroups (high senescent-cell burden) showed signal. Confirmatory, adequately powered, fracture-endpoint RCTs — with biomarker-based patient selection — are needed. Research-only.[14]

– Whole-body vibration: protocol standardisation and a properly powered fracture-outcome trial are required before it can be recommended beyond an adjunct.[12][13]

– Hyperbaric oxygen: no human osteoporosis trials exist; current evidence is rodent-only and should not inform practice.[5]

Where practice should be confined to trials/registries: all senolytic, HBOT and other “senotherapeutic” bone interventions, and any strategy that would substitute an experimental agent for guideline-indicated therapy. Longevity clinicians adopting these should do so only within ethically approved research or structured registries with informed consent.

References

1. Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Walker MD, Shane E. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2023;389(21):1979-1991. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp2307353.
2. Osteoporosis. Compston JE, McClung MR, Leslie WD. Lancet (London, England). 2019;393(10169):364-376. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32112-3.
3. Cellular Senescence in Bone. Farr JN, Khosla S. Bone. 2019;121:121-133. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2019.01.015.
4. Deconstructing Cellular Senescence in Bone and Beyond. Hofbauer LC, Lademann F, Rauner M. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2023;133(8):e169069. doi:10.1172/JCI169069.
5. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review of Preclinical Evidence and Mechanisms. Wang H, Ma X, Sun Y, et al. Bone. 2026;205:117772. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2025.117772.
6. Bone Physiological Adaptations to Whole-Body Vibration in Mouse Models: A Systematic Review. Bonanni R, Cariati I, Caprioli L, et al. PloS One. 2026;21(7):e0353776. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0353776.
7. Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for the American College of Physicians. Ayers C, Kansagara D, Lazur B, et al. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2023;176(2):182-195. doi:10.7326/M22-0684.
8. Osteoporosis. Morin SN, Leslie WD, Schousboe JT. JAMA. 2025;334(10):894-907. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.6003.
9. Goal-Directed Osteoporosis Treatment: ASBMR/BHOF Task Force Position Statement 2024. Cosman F, Lewiecki EM, Eastell R, et al. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research : The Official Journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. 2024;39(10):1393-1405. doi:10.1093/jbmr/zjae119.
10. Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline. Eastell R, Rosen CJ, Black DM, et al. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2019;104(5):1595-1622. doi:10.1210/jc.2019-00221.
11. Osteoporosis. Ye C, Ebeling P, Kline G. Lancet (London, England). 2025;406(10514):2003-2016. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01385-6.
12. Therapeutic Effects of Whole-Body Vibration on Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Li Q, Liang L, Gao C, Zong B. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research = Revista Brasileira De Pesquisas Medicas E Biologicas. 2024;57:e13996. doi:10.1590/1414-431X2024e13996.
13. Effectiveness of Whole-Body Vibration on Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. de Oliveira RDJ, de Oliveira RG, de Oliveira LC, et al. Osteoporosis International : A Journal Established as Result of Cooperation Between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2023;34(1):29-52. doi:10.1007/s00198-022-06556-y.
14. Effects of Intermittent Senolytic Therapy on Bone Metabolism in Postmenopausal Women: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial. Farr JN, Atkinson EJ, Achenbach SJ, et al. Nature Medicine. 2024;30(9):2605-2612. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03096-2.
15. Health Maintenance in Postmenopausal Women. Plesa M, Wong A, Katsaggelos E. American Family Physician. 2025;111(5):407-418.
16. FDA Orange Book. FDA Orange Book.
17. Management of Menopause: A View Towards Prevention. Lobo RA, Gompel A. The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2022;10(6):457-470. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00269-2.
18. Strategies for Denosumab Discontinuation in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Degboé Y, Couture G. Joint Bone Spine. 2026;93(2):105954. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2025.105954.
19. Denosumab and Fracture Prevention in Primary Care Practice. Bauer DC, Ensrud KE. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2025;:2834322. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.1488.
20. Alendronate for 6 or 12 Months Following Denosumab Discontinuation in Women With Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Prospective Observational Study. Makras P, Anastasilakis AD, Palermo A, et al. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research : The Official Journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. 2026;:zjag103. doi:10.1093/jbmr/zjag103.
21. Long-term and sequential treatment for osteoporosis. Foessl I, Dimai HP, Obermayer-Pietsch B. Nature Reviews. Endocrinology. 2023;19(9):520-533. doi:10.1038/s41574-023-00866-9.