Serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and the risk of fractures in the teriparatide versus risedronate VERO clinical trial

Efficacy and safety of denosumab and teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Design

A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab and teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Summary of Background Data

While bisphosphonates have historically been the cornerstone of pharmacological management for bone protection in patients, emerging evidence suggests that teriparatide and denosumab warrant further investigation as potential first-line treatments. The optimal choice among denosumab, teriparatide, and oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis remains a subject of ongoing debate and controversy within the scientific community.

Methods

This systematic review adhered meticulously to the rigorous standards outlined by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines as well as the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Additionally, it employed the AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) criteria to ensure methodological robustness and enhance the credibility of the findings. A systematic electronic search was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases from their inception dates up to February 2024.

Results

In this meta-analysis of studies, our findings suggest that compared to bisphosphonates, both teriparatide and denosumab demonstrated notable increases in percentage changes in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) among postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Furthermore, denosumab exhibited superiority over teriparatide and oral bisphosphonates in enhancing percentage changes in both femoral neck and total hip BMD, indicating its potential as a more efficacious option. Regarding safety outcomes, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events among patients treated with teriparatide, denosumab, and bisphosphonates. However, teriparatide showed superiority over oral bisphosphonates in terms of a lower risk of general adverse events, suggesting a favorable safety profile.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study suggests that teriparatide and denosumab demonstrate comparable or potentially superior efficacy and safety profiles compared to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024508382.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.

PURPOSE

To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies (n ≥1000) for harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).

LIMITATION

Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.

Decrease in serum calcitriol (but not free 25-hydroxyvitamin D) concentration in hip fracture healing

OBJECTIVE

To assess the decrease in serum calcitriol concentrations after hip fracture.

METHODS

Serum concentrations of calcitriol, 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), directly measured free 25(OH)D, and indices of bone formation were measured in elderly patients with hip fracture (HF) and patients with elective hip replacement (EHR) at admission and after 7 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients with HF and 17 patients with EHR completed this prospective study. Baseline serum calcitriol levels were ≤ 60 pmol/l in 26% of the HF patients. After 7 weeks, they significantly decreased (p < 0.001). In patients with EHR, serum calcitriol was within the reference range in all but one patient and did not change during the 7-week recovery phase. Seven weeks after HF, a significant positive relationship was observed between the change in calcitriol and serum 25(OH)D concentration (r = 0.385, p = 0.009) and free 25(OH)D (r = 0.296, p = 0.048), and a decrease in calcitriol during recovery was associated with a decrease in serum PTH (p = 0.038). Seven weeks after HF, changes in both serum PTH and serum 25(OH)D concentrations contributed to the prediction of changes in serum calcitriol (R² = 0.190, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike patients with EHR, subjects with HF had low serum 25(OH)D and low free 25(OH)D concentrations at admission, while their serum 1,25D levels were relatively elevated. Decreases in circulating calcitriol levels in the 7 weeks following hip surgery were associated with a resolution of secondary hyperparathyroidism and low availability of free 25(OH)D.

Update on the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in the treatment of osteoporosis

Following the completion of the Fracture Prevention Trial, teriparatide was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency as the first therapeutic anabolic agent for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. It subsequently received additional approval for the treatment of osteoporosis in men, and for the treatment of osteoporosis associated with glucocorticoid therapy in men and women at risk of fracture. In this review, we summarize the most important data concerning PTH 1-34 therapy before 2016 in the treatment of osteoporosis, and report some outstanding results published in the last 2 years. New data on safety will also discussed, together with the state of art of nonclassical utilization. Finally, in view of the recent approval of biosimilars, possible future landscapes are discussed.