The risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures is decreased in subjects experiencing fracture while on denosumab: results from the FREEDOM and FREEDOM Extension studies

Beyond Bone Remodeling: Denosumab's Multisystemic Benefits in Musculoskeletal Health, Metabolism, and Age-Related Diseases-A Narrative Review

Background: Denosumab, a receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (RANKL) inhibitor, demonstrates therapeutic effects beyond traditional osteoporosis management through the RANK/RANKL/osteoprotegerin pathway. Methods: This narrative review analyzed 37 studies (2018-2024) examining denosumab's broader physiological effects and clinical applications. Results: Long-term safety data spanning 10 years showed sustained fracture prevention efficacy with a favorable benefit/risk profile. Compared to bisphosphonates, denosumab demonstrated superior outcomes in bone mineral density improvement and fracture risk reduction, particularly in elderly and frail populations. It enhanced muscular function by improving appendicular lean mass and grip strength while reducing fall risk. The drug showed potential cardiovascular benefits through its effects on cardiac and smooth muscle function. Notably, denosumab use was associated with reduced Type II diabetes mellitus risk through improved glucose metabolism. Additionally, it demonstrated promise in osteoarthritis treatment by suppressing osteoclast activity and chondrocyte apoptosis. While there are multisystem benefits, vigilance is required regarding adverse events, including hypocalcemia, infection risk, cutaneous reactions, and osteonecrosis of the jaw. Conclusions: Denosumab exhibits potential benefits in bone and systemic metabolism. Further research is needed to fully understand its therapeutic potential beyond osteoporosis and optimize clinical applications across different populations.

The Portuguese state of the art on osteoporosis and fracture risk: an update on the treatment options

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are serious public health problems, which greatly impact individual health and the economy of other health services. Pharmacological treatment is still one of the main elements of clinical intervention, combined with non-pharmacological measures, in preventing the occurrence of fragility fractures. The emergence of promising new pharmacological options in the treatment of osteoporosis seems to renew expectations in the prevention of complications and a subsequent reduction in morbidity and mortality, including symptomatic treatment, improved physical function and a better quality of life. This review aims to provide updated information on the pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis in the adult population. A comprehensive PubMed search was performed to review the current evidence on osteoporosis treatment. Of the 378 articles identified from the initial queries, the final review included 80 articles. Currently, the following pharmacological options are available: antiresorptive (bisphosphonates, denosumab, postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy and selective oestrogen receptor modulators), bone-forming agents (essentially, teriparatide and abaloparatide) and the new dual-action therapy (romosozumab), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, but which is not yet an option in Portugal. Therapeutic selection is essentially based on assessment of cost-effectiveness, since current evidence does not suggest any differences between the distinctive classes in reducing the risk of fractures, but this analysis is limited by the scarcity of comparative intraclass studies. Notwithstanding, romosozumab, as a dual effect therapy, is promising in resolving the physiological limitations resulting from the merely unilateral action of antiresorptive agents and bone-forming agents in the inseparable relationship between bone formation and resorption. However, its cardiovascular safety raises some concerns, and this topic is still being debated. The underdiagnosis and the undertreatment of osteoporosis remain one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Over the years, new drugs have appeared that have tried to address these problems with a direct impact on the health of populations, but a long way remains to be come in optimising their effectiveness, safety and tolerability.

Goal-directed osteoporosis treatment: ASBMR/BHOF task force position statement 2024

The overarching goal of osteoporosis management is to prevent fractures. A goal-directed approach to long-term management of fracture risk helps ensure that the most appropriate initial treatment and treatment sequence is selected for individual patients. Goal-directed treatment decisions require assessment of clinical fracture history, vertebral fracture identification (using vertebral imaging as appropriate), measurement of bone mineral density (BMD), and consideration of other major clinical risk factors. Treatment targets should be tailored to each patient's individual risk profile and based on the specific indication for beginning treatment, including recency, site, number and severity of prior fractures, and BMD levels at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. Instead of first-line bisphosphonate treatment for all patients, selection of initial treatment should focus on reducing fracture risk rapidly for patients at very high and imminent risk, such as in those with recent fractures. Initial treatment selection should also consider the probability that a BMD treatment target can be attained within a reasonable period of time and the differential magnitude of fracture risk reduction and BMD impact with osteoanabolic versus antiresorptive therapy. This position statement of the ASBMR/BHOF Task Force on Goal-Directed Osteoporosis Treatment provides an overall summary of the major clinical recommendations about treatment targets and strategies to achieve those targets based on the best evidence available, derived primarily from studies in older postmenopausal women of European ancestry.

A Real-world Study of Denosumab For Reducing Refracture Risk after Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of anti-osteoporotic agents and refracture incidence in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) following percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) and to evaluate the real-world treatment of patients using denosumab following PVA. This study aims to provide spine surgeons with empirical insights derived from real-world scenarios to enhance the management of bone health in OVCF patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was based on data from the MarketScan and Optum databases from the USA. Female patients aged 55-90 years who underwent PVA for OVCF between January 2013 and March 2020 were included and followed up from the day after surgery. Patients who received at least one dose of denosumab were included in the denosumab cohort and were further divided into the on-treatment and off-treatment groups according to whether they received a second dose of denosumab, with follow-up beginning on the index day (225 days after the first denosumab dose). In this study, the off-treatment group was considered as the control group. Refracture incidence after PVA, the proportion of patients using anti-osteoporotic agents in the total study population, and refracture incidence after the index day in the denosumab cohort were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,451 and 21,420 patients from the MarketScan and Optum databases, respectively, were included. In the denosumab cohort, the cumulative incidence of clinical osteoporotic fractures within 3 years after the index day was significantly lower in the on-treatment group than in the off-treatment group (MarketScan database: 23.0% vs 39.0%, p = 0.002; Optum database: 28.2% vs 40.0%, p = 0.023). The cumulative incidence of clinical vertebral fractures was also lower in the on-treatment group than in the off-treatment group, with a significant difference in the MarketScan database (14.4% vs 25.5%, p = 0.002) and a numerical difference was found in the Optum database (20.2% vs 27.5%, p = 0.084).The proportion of patients using anti-osteoporotic agents was low at 6 months postoperatively, with only approximately 7% using denosumab and 13%-15% taking oral bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSION

Postmenopausal women have a high refracture rate and a low proportion of anti-osteoporotic drug use after PVA. Continued denosumab treatment after PVA is associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic and clinical vertebral fractures. Therefore, denosumab may be a treatment option for patients with osteoporosis after PVA.

Romosozumab in patients who experienced an on-study fracture: post hoc analyses of the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials

Post hoc analysis of FRAME and ARCH revealed that on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 were less common in women initially treated with romosozumab versus placebo or alendronate. Recurrent fracture risk was also lower in romosozumab‑treated patients, and there were no fracture‑related complications. Results support continuing romosozumab treatment post‑fracture.

PURPOSE

Post hoc analysis evaluating efficacy and safety of romosozumab, administered in the immediate post‑fracture period, in the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials.

METHODS

In FRAME (NCT01575834) and ARCH (NCT01631214), postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to romosozumab 210 mg monthly or comparator (FRAME, placebo; ARCH, alendronate 70 mg weekly) for 12 months, followed by antiresorptive therapy (FRAME, denosumab; ARCH, alendronate). In patients who experienced on-study nonvertebral or new/worsening vertebral fracture by Month 12, we report the following: fracture and treatment‑emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence through 36 months, bone mineral density changes (BMD), and romosozumab timing. Due to the sample sizes employed, meaningful statistical comparisons between treatments were not possible.

RESULTS

Incidence of on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 was numerically lower in romosozumab- versus comparator-treated patients (FRAME, 1.6% and 0.5% versus 2.1% and 1.6%; ARCH, 3.4% and 3.3% versus 4.6% and 4.9%, respectively). In those who experienced on-study nonvertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent nonvertebral and subsequent vertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower in patients initially treated with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 3.6% [2/56] and 1.8% [1/56] versus 9.2% [7/76] and 3.9% [3/76]; ARCH, 10.0% [7/70] and 5.7% [4/70] versus 12.6% [12/95] and 8.4% [8/95], respectively). Among those with on-study vertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent vertebral and subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 0.0% [0/17] and 0.0% [0/17] versus 11.9% [7/59] and 8.5% [5/59]; ARCH, 9.0% [6/67] and 7.5% [5/67] versus 15.0% [15/100] and 16.0% [16/100], respectively). In patients with fracture by Month 12, no fracture‑related complications were reported in romosozumab-treated patients. BMD gains were numerically greater with romosozumab than comparators.

CONCLUSION

Data suggest support for the efficacy and safety of continuing romosozumab treatment following fracture.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT01575834; NCT01631214.

Effect of Hyperprolactinemia on Bone Metabolism: Focusing on Osteopenia/Osteoporosis

Prolactin is a hormone secreted from lactotroph cells in the anterior pituitary gland to induce lactation after birth. Hyperprolactinemia unrelated to lactation is a common cause of amenorrhea in women of a childbearing age, and a consequent decrease in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) by a high prolactin level can result in decreased bone mineral density. Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disorder characterized by decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and quality, which results in decreased bone strength. In patients with hyperprolactinemia, changes in BMD can be induced indirectly by the inhibition of the GnRH-gonadal axis due to increased prolactin levels or by the direct action of prolactin on osteoblasts and, possibly, osteoclast cells. This review highlights the recent work on bone remodeling and discusses our knowledge of how prolactin modulates these interactions, with a brief literature review on the relationship between prolactin and bone metabolism and suggestions for new possibilities.

Biologic Antiresorptive: Denosumab

Background

Osteoporosis is an age-related common bone disorder characterized by low bone mineral density and increased fragility fracture risk. Various Antiresorptive medications are being used to target osteoclast mediated bone resorption to prevent bone loss and reduce fracture risk.

About Denosumab

Denosumab is a novel biological antiresorptive drug that belongs to the class of monoclonal antibodies. It binds to and inhibits the cytokine receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), which is requisite for osteoclast differentiation, function and survival.

Effectiveness

Denosumab has been shown to be a potent and effective therapy for osteoporosis, with clinical trial data demonstrating significant improvement in bone mineral density (BMD) and reductions in fracture risk at various skeletal sites for more than 10 years of treatment.

Safety Profile

Denosumab has a favourable benefit/risk profile, with low rates of complications such as infection, atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jawbone.

Challenges

However, denosumab treatment requires continuous administration, as discontinuation leads to rapid bone mineral loss and increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures due to rebound of bone turnover. Therefore, modification to another anti-osteoporosis drug therapy after denosumab discontinuation is required to maintain bone health.

Conclusion

Denosumab is a promising biological antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis that offers high efficacy and safety, but also poses challenges for long-term management.

Approach to the Patient With Bone Fracture: Making the First Fracture the Last

The global burden of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures will increase significantly as we enter a rapidly aging population. Osteoporotic fractures lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and risk of subsequent fractures if left untreated. However, studies have shown that the majority of patients who suffer an osteoporotic fracture are not investigated or treated for osteoporosis, leading to an inexcusable "osteoporosis care gap." Systematic and coordinated models of care in secondary fracture prevention known as fracture liaison services (FLS) have been established to streamline and improve the care of patients with osteoporotic fractures, and employ core principles of identification, investigation, and initiation of treatment. Our approach to the multifaceted care of secondary fracture prevention at a hospital-based FLS is illustrated through several case vignettes.

Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors.

DESIGN

Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events.

RESULTS

The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019128391.

Executive summary: Italian guidelines for diagnosis, risk stratification, and care continuity of fragility fractures 2021

Background

Fragility fractures are a major public health concern owing to their worrying and growing burden and their onerous burden upon health systems. There is now a substantial body of evidence that individuals who have already suffered a fragility fracture are at a greater risk for further fractures, thus suggesting the potential for secondary prevention in this field.

Purpose

This guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for recognizing, stratifying the risk, treating, and managing patients with fragility fracture. This is a summary version of the full Italian guideline.

Methods

The Italian Fragility Fracture Team appointed by the Italian National Health Institute was employed from January 2020 to February 2021 to (i) identify previously published systematic reviews and guidelines on the field, (ii) formulate relevant clinical questions, (iii) systematically review literature and summarize evidence, (iv) draft the Evidence to Decision Framework, and (v) formulate recommendations.

Results

Overall, 351 original papers were included in our systematic review to answer six clinical questions. Recommendations were categorized into issues concerning (i) frailty recognition as the cause of bone fracture, (ii) (re)fracture risk assessment, for prioritizing interventions, and (iii) treatment and management of patients experiencing fragility fractures. Six recommendations were overall developed, of which one, four, and one were of high, moderate, and low quality, respectively.

Conclusions

The current guidelines provide guidance to support individualized management of patients experiencing non-traumatic bone fracture to benefit from secondary prevention of (re)fracture. Although our recommendations are based on the best available evidence, questionable quality evidence is still available for some relevant clinical questions, so future research has the potential to reduce uncertainty about the effects of intervention and the reasons for doing so at a reasonable cost.

Romosozumab efficacy and safety in European patients enrolled in the FRAME trial

In this post hoc analysis, we assessed romosozumab efficacy and safety in European patients enrolled in FRAME. Romosozumab treatment through 12 months, followed by denosumab for a further 24 months, resulted in early and sustained risk reduction for major fracture categories, associated with large gains in bone mineral density.

INTRODUCTION

In the multinational FRAME phase 3 trial of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, marked differences between clinical and non-vertebral fracture outcomes were observed among patients from Central and Southern America versus rest of world. This post hoc analysis assessed romosozumab efficacy and safety in European patients enrolled in the FRAME trial and extension study.

METHODS

In FRAME (NCT01575834), patients were randomised 1:1 to romosozumab 210 mg or placebo monthly (QM) for 12 months, followed by open-label denosumab 60 mg Q6M to month 36, including a 12-month extension study. We report incidence of major fracture outcomes, bone mineral density (BMD) change from baseline and safety for European patients enrolled in FRAME.

RESULTS

In FRAME, 3013/7180 (41.96%) patients were European; 1494 received romosozumab and 1519 received placebo. Through 12 months, romosozumab reduced fracture risk versus placebo for non-vertebral fracture (1.4% versus 3.0%; p = 0.004), clinical fracture (1.4% versus 3.6%; p < 0.001), new vertebral fracture (0.4% versus 2.1%; p < 0.001) and major osteoporotic fracture (0.9% versus 2.8%; p < 0.001), with results sustained through 36 months following transition to denosumab. Hip fractures were numerically reduced with romosozumab at month 12 (0.2% versus 0.6%; p = 0.092). Romosozumab increased BMD versus placebo at month 12; all patients in the romosozumab and placebo groups experienced further increases by month 36 after transition to denosumab. Adverse events were balanced between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among European patients in FRAME, romosozumab resulted in early and sustained risk reduction for all major fracture categories, associated with large BMD gains that continued after transition to denosumab.

Osteoporosis Medications Prevent Subsequent Fracture in Frail Older Adults

Frailty is common in older adults with fractures. Osteoporosis medications reduce subsequent fracture, but limited data exist on medication efficacy in frail individuals. Our objective was to determine whether medications reduce the risk of subsequent fracture in frail, older adults. A retrospective cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries was conducted (2014-2016). We included adults aged ≥65 years who were hospitalized with fractures without osteoporosis treatment. Pre-fracture frailty was defined using claims-based frailty index (≥0.2 = frail). Exposure to any osteoporosis treatment (oral or intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide) was ascertained using Part B and D claims and categorized according to the cumulative duration of exposure: none, 1-90 days, and >90 days. Subsequent fractures were ascertained from Part A or B claims. Cause-specific hazard models with time-varying exposure were fit to examine the association between treatment and fracture outcomes, controlling for relevant covariates. Among 29,904 patients hospitalized with fractures, 15,345 (51.3%) were frail, and 2148 (7.2%) received osteoporosis treatment (median treatment duration 183.0 days). Patients who received treatment were younger (80.2 versus 82.2 years), female (86.5% versus 73.0%), and less frail (0.20 versus 0.22) than patients without treatment. During follow-up, 5079 (17.0%) patients experienced a subsequent fracture. Treatment with osteoporosis medications for >90 days compared with no treatment reduced the risk of fracture (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-1.00) overall. Results were similar in frail (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.65-1.12) and non-frail (HR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.61-1.04) patients but not significant. In conclusion, osteoporosis treatment >90 days was associated with similar trends in reduced risk of subsequent fracture in frail and non-frail persons. Treatment rates were very low, particularly among the frail. When weighing treatment options in frail older adults with hospitalized fractures, clinicians should be aware that drug therapy does not appear to lose its efficacy. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Denosumab in the Treatment of Osteoporosis: 10 Years Later: A Narrative Review

The fully human monoclonal antibody denosumab was approved for treatment of osteoporosis in 2010 on the basis of its potent antiresorptive activity, which produces clinically meaningful increases in bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk at key skeletal sites. At that time, questions remained regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of this receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) inhibitor; and with clinical experience, new questions have arisen regarding its optimal use. Here, we examine these questions through the lens of data from the FREEDOM trial program and other studies to determine where denosumab fits in the osteoporosis treatment landscape. Clinical consensus and evidentiary support have grown for denosumab as a highly effective anti-osteoporosis therapy for patients at high risk of fracture. In the 10-year FREEDOM Extension study, denosumab treatment produced progressive incremental increases in BMD, sustained low rates of vertebral fracture, and further reduction in nonvertebral fracture risk without increased risk of infection, cancer, or immunogenicity. There was no evidence that suppression of bone turnover or mineralization was excessive, and rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fracture (AFF) were very low. It is now recognized, however, that transitioning to another anti-osteoporosis therapy after denosumab discontinuation is essential to mitigate a transient rebound of bone turnover causing rapid BMD loss and increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures (MVFs). Taken together, the available data show that denosumab has a favorable benefit/risk profile and is a versatile agent for preventing osteoporotic fractures in the short and long term.

Should denosumab treatment for osteoporosis be continued indefinitely?

Denosumab was approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in 2010, based on the FREEDOM study, which indicated a benefit in terms of increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of major osteoporotic fracture. In the initial clinical studies it was noted that discontinuation of denosumab can lead to a rebound of bone turnover markers and loss of accrued bone mineral density. An increased risk of fractures (multiple vertebral fractures in particular) associated with discontinuation was noted after approval and marketing of denosumab. For many patients experiencing gain in bone mineral density and fracture prevention while taking denosumab, there is no reason to stop therapy. However, discontinuation of denosumab may happen due to non-adherence; potential lack of efficacy in an individual; where reimbursement for therapy is limited to those with bone mineral density in the osteoporosis range, when assessment reveals this has been exceeded; or patient or physician concern regarding side effects. This review paper aims to discuss these concerns and to summarize the data available to date regarding sequential osteoporosis therapy following denosumab cessation to reduce the risk of multiple vertebral fracture.

A Review on the Role of Denosumab in Fracture Prevention

Denosumab is a receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand inhibitor, which suppresses the bone resorption process to preserve bone mass. It is usually recommended to postmenopausal women and men with high fracture risk. With the recent publication of the results from FREEDOM study and its extension, the long-term effect of denosumab in preventing fragility fractures has been put forward. This review aims at summarising the evidence of denosumab in reducing fracture risk and its safety derived from clinical studies. Most of the evidence are derived from FREEDOM trials up to 10 years of exposure. Denosumab is reported to prevent vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. It is also proven effective in Japanese women, patients with chronic kidney diseases and breast cancer patients receiving antineoplastic therapy. Denosumab discontinuation leads to high remodeling, loss of bone mineral density and increased fracture risk. These negative effects might be preventable by bisphosphonate treatment. The safety profile of denosumab is consistent with increased years of exposure. In conclusion, denosumab is a safe and effective option for reducing fracture risk among patients with osteoporosis.

Effects of denosumab treatment in chronic liver disease patients with osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Effective treatment of osteoporosis is essential for improving morbidity and health-related quality of life in chronic liver disease (CLD) patients. Denosumab has been shown to increase bone mineral density (BMD) and decrease the risk of osteoporotic fracture in the general population. However, there are few reports evaluating the efficacy of denosumab in CLD patients.

AIM

To investigated the effects and safety of denosumab in CLD patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Sixty CLD patients with osteoporosis were subcutaneously administered denosumab once every 6 mo. The study period for evaluating efficacy and safety was 12 mo. Changes from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip were evaluated at 12 mo of denosumab treatment. Bone turnover and quality were assessed by measuring serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b (bone resorption marker), serum total procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (bone formation maker), and plasma pentosidine (bone quality marker).

RESULTS

Among the 405 CLD patients, 138 (34.1%) patients were diagnosed with osteoporosis; among these, 78 patients met the exclusion criteria and thus 60 patients were finally included in the present study. The median percentage changes from baseline to 12 mo of denosumab treatment in BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip were +4.44%, +3.71%, and +4.03%, respectively. Denosumab significantly improved BMD, regardless of sex, patient age, and presence of liver cirrhosis. Serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide levels constantly and significantly declined after denosumab treatment (P < 0.001). Plasma pentosidine levels were also significantly lower at 12 mo of treatment (P = 0.010). No patients experienced fractures and moderate-to-severe adverse events, except for transient hypocalcemia.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab treatment was safe and increased BMD, suppressed bone turnover, and improved bone quality marker levels in CLD patients with osteoporosis, irrespective of differences in baseline characteristics.