Pharmacologic Adjuncts for Bone Stress Injuries in Athletes: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Clinical...

Bone stress injuries (BSIs) are common in athletes, carry substantial time-loss and recurrence risk, and are increasingly managed with bone-active drugs despite a limited evidence base. This narrative review appraises the evidence for pharmacologic adjuncts in BSI, distinguishes the separate clinical indications for which they are proposed, and defines where current evidence does and does not support their use.

This is a narrative review; therefore ethical approval was not required. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 2026 combining terms for BSI, stress fracture and athletes. Evidence is summarized in an evidence table that states whether each source is directly applicable to BSI in athletes or extrapolated from osteoporosis, traumatic fracture, spinal surgery, military, or animal studies. Greatest weight is given to controlled studies conducted in patients with BSI. Contemporary practice is illustrated by a previously published survey of 126 clinicians working in professional football and by the 2025 international Delphi consensus.

The evidence base for treatment options in BSI varies substantially based on the clinical context. Correction of a documented abnormality of energy availability, calcium or protein intake, vitamin D status is a key initial step, but there is no clear evidence that supplementation of replete athletes accelerates healing of an established injury. Evidence for bisphosphonates in BSI is limited to small uncontrolled case series and may even impair bone healing or risk reinjury. Teriparatide data derive predominantly from osteoporotic, fragility fracture, and spinal fusion populations, with a single randomized controlled trial in stress fracture in progress. Newer agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab have no direct evidence in BSI, likely because of their novelty. Across all agents, apparent benefit may represent analgesia and earlier controlled loading rather than accelerated biological healing, given that return-to-play timing is determined by numerous clinical, occupational, and organizational factors.

There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of bisphosphonates or osteoanabolic agents as treatment for an uncomplicated acute BSI in an otherwise healthy athlete. Assessment and correction of nutritional, and metabolic abnormalities, together with load management and rehabilitation, remain the foundation of care. Off-label treatment adjuncts discussed should be considered in recurrent, high-risk or delayed-healing BSI, with shared decision-making focus. Prospective outcome collection is likely to be the most pragmatic way to advance available evidence.