Romosozumab efficacy on fracture outcomes is greater in patients at high baseline fracture risk: a post hoc analysis of the first year of the frame study

Update on fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The assessment of fracture risk is playing an ever-increasing role in osteoporosis clinical management and informing international guidelines for osteoporosis. FRAX, a fracture risk calculator that provides individualized 10-year probabilities of hip and major osteoporotic fracture, has been widely used since 2008. In this review, we recap the development and limitations of intervention thresholds and the role of absolute fracture risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is an increasing awareness of disparities and inequities in the setting of intervention thresholds in osteoporosis. The limitations of the simple use of prior fracture or the DXA-derived BMD T -score threshold are increasingly being discussed; one solution is to use fracture risk or probabilities in the setting of such thresholds. This approach also permits more objective assessment of high and very high fracture risk to enable physicians to make choices not just about the need to treat but what agents to use in individual patients.

SUMMARY

Like all clinical tools, FRAX has limitations that need to be considered, but the use of fracture risk in deciding who to treat, when to treat and what agent to use is a mechanism to target treatment equitably to those at an increased risk of fracture.

An overview of the use of the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) in osteoporosis

FRAX®, a simple-to-use fracture risk calculator, was first released in 2008 and since then has been used increasingly worldwide. By calculating the 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, it assists clinicians when deciding whether further investigation, for example a bone mineral density measurement (BMD), and/or treatment is needed to prevent future fractures. In this review, we explore the literature around osteoporosis and how FRAX has changed its management. We present the characteristics of this tool and describe the use of thresholds (diagnostic and therapeutic). We also present arguments as to why screening with FRAX should be considered. FRAX has several limitations which are described in this review. This review coincides with the release of a version, FRAXplus, which addresses some of these limitations.

Effectiveness of romosozumab in patients with osteoporosis at high fracture risk: a Japanese real-world study

INTRODUCTION

To describe the real-world use of romosozumab in Japan, we conducted a chart review of > 1000 Japanese patients with osteoporosis (OP) at high risk of fracture, across multiple medical institutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment-naïve and prior OP-treatment patients who received romosozumab for 12 months followed by ≥ 6 months of sequential OP treatment were included. The primary objective described the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics; secondary objectives evaluated changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers in all patients and effectiveness of romosozumab in a sub-group of treatment-naïve patients using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®).

RESULTS

Of the 1027 patients (92.4% female), 45.0% were treatment-naïve. The mean ± SD age of treatment-naïve versus prior OP-treatment patients was 76.8 ± 8.5 and 77.1 ± 8.5 years. The most frequent prior OP treatment was bisphosphonates (45.0%). Romosozumab treatment for 12 months increased BMD at the lumbar spine in all groups; the median percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was higher in the treatment-naïve (13.4%) versus prior OP-treatment group (bisphosphonates [9.2%], teriparatide [11.3%], denosumab [DMAb, 4.5%]). DMAb, bisphosphonates, or teriparatide after romosozumab maintained the BMD gains at all skeletal sites at month 18 in treatment-naïve patients. Most treatment-naïve patients were at high risk of fracture, BMD increased consistently with romosozumab regardless of the baseline fracture risk assessed by FRAX.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale, multicenter chart review provides clinically relevant insights into the profiles of patients initiating romosozumab, effectiveness of real-world romosozumab use, and sequential therapy in Japanese patients at high risk of fracture.

New Insights in the Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, and Response to Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures

CONTEXT

Vertebral fractures (VFs) make up an important but challenging group of fractures often caused by osteoporosis. Osteoporotic fractures pose unique diagnostic challenges in generally requiring imaging for diagnosis. The objective of this narrative mini-review is to provide an overview of these recent advances in our knowledge of VF pathophysiology and epidemiology with particular focus on endocrine diseases, prevention, and treatment.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched PubMed on May 23, 2022, for studies of VFs in humans. Results were limited to papers available as full-text publications in English, published from 2020 and onward. This yielded 3457 citations. This was supplemented by earlier publications selected to add context to the recent findings.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Studies addressed VF risk in hyperthyreosis, hyperparathyroidism, acromegaly, Cushing syndrome, primary aldosteronism, and diabetes. For pharmaceutical treatment, new studies or analyses were identified for romosozumab and for weekly teriparatide. Several studies, including studies in the immediate pipeline, were intervention studies with vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty, including combination with stem cells or pharmaceuticals.

CONCLUSIONS

Endocrinologists should be aware of the high likelihood of osteoporotic VFs in patients with endocrine diseases. Though licensed treatments are able to substantially reduce the occurrence of VFs in patients with osteoporosis, the vast majority of recent or ongoing randomized controlled trials in the VF area focus on advanced invasive therapy of the fracture itself.

Romosozumab Efficacy in Postmenopausal Women With No Prior Fracture Who Fulfill Criteria for Very High Fracture Risk

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the efficacy of romosozumab in women from FRAME who had no prior fracture but met other criteria for very high fracture risk (VHFR).

METHODS

In FRAME, postmenopausal women received romosozumab or placebo for 12 months (year 1) followed by denosumab for 12 months (year 2). In this post hoc analysis, we applied the following criteria from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology to define VHFR: lumbar spine or total hip T-score <-3.0 and/or Fracture Risk Assessment Tool probability of major osteoporotic fracture >30% or hip fracture >4.5% to women with no fracture history at baseline (no fracture-VHFR [NF-VHFR]). Incidence of new vertebral, clinical, and nonvertebral fractures and mean bone mineral density (BMD) percentage change from baseline were assessed at years 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Of the 7180 women in FRAME, 2825 were included in the NF-VHFR subgroup analysis. At year 1, romosozumab versus placebo reduced the incidence of new vertebral fracture (relative risk reduction [RRR]: 76%), clinical fracture (RRR: 60%), and nonvertebral fracture (RRR: 54%) (all P <.05). This fracture reduction was maintained through year 2 in women receiving the romosozumab-to-denosumab sequence versus the placebo-to-denosumab sequence for new vertebral, clinical, and nonvertebral fractures (RRR: 77%, 54%, and 46%, respectively; all P <.05). The mean BMD changes in both treatment groups were similar to those in the overall FRAME population at years 1 and 2.

CONCLUSION

Romosozumab significantly reduced vertebral, clinical, and nonvertebral fracture risk and increased the BMD more than placebo in women at VHFR.

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.

The Importance of Recent Prevalent Fracture Site for Imminent Risk of Fracture - A Retrospective, Nationwide Cohort Study of Older Swedish Men and Women

There is limited evidence regarding which fracture types carry the highest risk for subsequent fracture. The aim of this study was to investigate how the risk of imminent fracture depends on index fracture site. This nationwide retrospective cohort study utilized national registers in Sweden to determine the risk of fracture according to recent (≤2 years) index fracture site and according to an old (>2 years) prevalent fracture compared with the risk observed in controls without a fracture. All Swedes 50 years or older between 2007 and 2010 were included in the study. Patients with a recent fracture were designated a specific fracture group depending on the type of previous fracture. Recent fractures were classified as major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), including fractured hip, vertebra, proximal humerus, and wrist, or non-MOF. Patients were followed until December 31, 2017, censored for death and emigration, and the risk of any fracture and hip fracture was assessed. A total of 3,423,320 persons were included in the study, 70,254 with a recent MOF, 75,526 with a recent non-MOF, 293,051 with an old fracture, and 2,984,489 persons with no previous fracture. The median time of follow-up for the four groups was 6.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 3.0-8.8), 7.2 (5.6-9.4), 7.1 (5.8-9.2), and 8.1 years (7.4-9.7), respectively. Patients with a recent MOF, recent non-MOF, and old fracture had a substantially increased risk of any fracture (hazard ratio [HR] adjusted for age and sex 2.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-2.14; HR 2.24, 95% CI 2.21-2.27; and HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.76-1.78, respectively) compared with controls. All recent fractures, MOFs, and non-MOFs, as well as older fractures, increase the risk of subsequent fracture, suggesting that all recent fractures should be included in fracture liaison services and that case-finding strategies for those with older fractures may be warranted to prevent subsequent fractures. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Real-World Management of Patients With Osteoporosis at Very High Risk of Fracture

INTRODUCTION

Lack of consideration for risk-based assessments that inform osteoporosis treatment decisions may contribute to disease burden. In this study, we examined the prevalence of patients at very high risk of fracture and evaluated real-world treatment practices for these patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study used real-world data linked to commercial and Medicare medical claims from Symphony Health PatientSource. Patients 50 years and older with osteoporosis (determined by the presence of a diagnosis code) and at very high risk of fracture according to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) (AACE/ACE) 2020 guidelines between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, were included. The number and proportion of patients treated with any osteoporosis medication were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 10,739,286 patients with osteoporosis, 5,078,111 (47.3%) were identified as meeting the AACE criteria for very high risk of fracture and were selected for the analysis. Most (5,033,106 [99.1%]) had a high risk of falls and/or a history of falls resulting in injury. Among the 1,667,794 patients (32.8%) eligible for treatment, 280,777 (16.8%) received treatment. Of these, 63.6% received alendronate, an alternative therapy, and 21.2% received a risk-based guideline-recommended medicine (teriparatide, zoledronic acid, denosumab, abaloparatide, or romosozumab). A greater proportion of men were untreated, 161,978 (90.5) compared with 1,185,003 women (81.8).

DISCUSSION

Most patients at very high risk of fracture remain untreated. Most of those treated do not receive the appropriate recommended treatments for patients at high risk. Risk-based treatment decisions may allow for more appropriate medication selection.

Romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture

INTRODUCTION

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to sclerostin (an inhibitor of the Wingless-related integration site (Wnt) signaling pathway). It is a new osteoanabolic drug that simultaneously increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption. It has recently been approved by the US and EU authorities in postmenopausal women with at high risk of fractures.

AREAS COVERED

The literature on romosozumab in preclinical and in phase II and III clinical studies has been reviewed about the effect on bone, bone markers, and fracture reduction and its safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Compared to antiresorptive agents, its unique mechanism of action results in a quicker and greater increase in bone mineral density, it repairs and restores trabecular and cortical bone microarchitecture, and reduces fracture risk more rapidly and more effectively than alendronate, with persisting effects for at least two years after transition to antiresorptive agents. This finding has introduced the concept that, in patients at very high risk of fractures, the optimal sequence of treatment is to start with an osteoanabolic agent, followed by a potent AR drug. Recent national and international guidelines recommend the use of romosozumab as an initial treatment in patients at very high fracture risk without a history of stroke or myocardial infarction.

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 &lt; 0.001), new vertebral fracture (0.4% versus 2.1%; p &lt; 0.001) and major osteoporotic fracture (0.9% versus 2.8%; p &lt; 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.

Definition and management of very high fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a position statement from the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism (ABRASSO)

Several drugs are available for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Over the last decades, most patients requiring pharmacological intervention were offered antiresorptive drugs as first-line therapy, while anabolic agents were considered a last resource for those with therapeutic failure. However, recent randomized trials in patients with severe osteoporosis have shown that anabolic agents reduce fractures to a greater extent than antiresorptive medications. Additionally, evidence indicates that increases in bone mineral density (BMD) are maximized when patients are treated with anabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive therapy. This evidence is key, considering that greater increases in BMD during osteoporosis treatment are associated with a more pronounced reduction in fracture risk. Thus, international guidelines have recently proposed an individualized approach to osteoporosis treatment based on fracture risk stratification, in which the stratification risk has been refined to include a category of patients at very high risk of fracture who should be managed with anabolic agents as first-line therapy. In this document, the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism and the Brazilian Association of Bone Assessment and Metabolism propose the definition of very high risk of osteoporotic fracture in postmenopausal women, for whom anabolic agents should be considered as first-line therapy. This document also reviews the factors associated with increased fracture risk, trials comparing anabolic versus antiresorptive agents, efficacy of anabolic agents in patients who are treatment naïve versus those previously treated with antiresorptive agents, and safety of anabolic agents.

Management of patients at very high risk of osteoporotic fractures through sequential treatments

Osteoporosis care has evolved markedly over the last 50 years, such that there are now an established clinical definition, validated methods of fracture risk assessment and a range of effective pharmacological agents. Currently, bone-forming (anabolic) agents, in many countries, are used in those patients who have continued to lose bone mineral density (BMD), patients with multiple subsequent fractures or those who have fractured despite treatment with antiresorptive agents. However, head-to-head data suggest that anabolic agents have greater rapidity and efficacy for fracture risk reduction than do antiresorptive therapies. The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) convened an expert working group to discuss the tools available to identify patients at high risk of fracture, review the evidence for the use of anabolic agents as the initial intervention in patients at highest risk of fracture and consider the sequence of therapy following their use. This position paper sets out the findings of the group and the consequent recommendations. The key conclusion is that the current evidence base supports an "anabolic first" approach in patients found to be at very high risk of fracture, followed by maintenance therapy using an antiresorptive agent, and with the subsequent need for antiosteoporosis therapy addressed over a lifetime horizon.

Fracture risk assessment by the FRAX model

The introduction of the FRAX algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. FRAX integrates the influence of several well-validated risk factors for fracture with or without the use of bone mineral density. Since age-specific rates of fracture and death differ across the world, FRAX models are calibrated with regard to the epidemiology of hip fracture (preferably from national sources) and mortality (usually United Nations sources). Models are currently available for 73 nations or territories covering more than 80% of the world population. FRAX has been incorporated into more than 80 guidelines worldwide, although the nature of this application has been heterogeneous. The limitations of FRAX have been extensively reviewed. Arithmetic procedures have been proposed in order to address some of these limitations, which can be applied to conventional FRAX estimates to accommodate knowledge of dose exposure to glucocorticoids, concurrent data on lumbar spine bone mineral density, information on trabecular bone score, hip axis length, falls history, type 2 diabetes, immigration status and recency of prior fracture.

Anabolic Agents for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: How Do You Choose?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman's life is unknown. We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40-50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.