Denosumab versus alendronate in long-term glucocorticoid users: A 12-month randomized controlled trial

Effects of Denosumab and Bisphosphonates on Glucocorticoid-induced Osteoporosis in Patients with Neuroimmunological Disorders

Objective Although patients with neuroimmunological disorders often need to be treated with glucocorticoids and are at risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, no research has focused on the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in such patients. Methods We compared the efficacy of denosumab and bisphosphonates in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in neuroimmunological diseases. In 57 patients with neuroimmunological disorders treated with corticosteroids (34 with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders, 16 with myasthenia gravis, and 7 with others), we retrospectively studied the long-term effects of denosumab (n=23) and bisphosphonates (n=34) on spine and total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results There were no significant differences in the age, lumbar spine BMD, or mean dose or duration of prednisolone administration at baseline between the denosumab and bisphosphonate groups. During the follow-up period of up to 6 years, the increase in the lumbar spine and total hip BMD was greater in the denosumab group than in the bisphosphonate group (p<0.01). Insufficient bone fractures were observed in 2 (9%) of the 23 patients in the denosumab group and in 2 (6%) of the 34 patients in the bisphosphonate group (not significant). Conclusion Denosumab is more effective than bisphosphonates in increasing the BMD of patients with neuroimmunological disorders receiving glucocorticoids.

The effect of denosumab on minimum 3-years BMD changes in patients with osteoporotic hip fractures: a propensity score matching analysis

Denosumab significantly increased lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density in patients with hip fractures, with comparable efficacy to that in other than hip fracture patients. Its effect was more pronounced in medication-naïve patients, suggesting its efficacy regardless of hip fracture status.

PURPOSE

Denosumab, a potent antiresorptive agent, has been recognised to increase bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce fracture risk in vertebrae and hips. Despite its widespread use, no sequential follow-up studies have investigated its effects on BMD in patients with hip fractures. This study aimed to analyse the effect of denosumab on BMD gain in patients with hip fractures and investigate the incidence of subsequent hip fractures.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed 371 patients treated with denosumab for at least 3 years, including 122 patients with hip fractures. 1:1 propensity score matching was used to compare BMD changes in the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, as well as additional hip fracture incidence between the hip fracture and the other than hip fracture group. Ultimately, 122 patients in each group were compared. Subgroup analysis compared osteoporosis medication-naïve patients with those with prior medication use.

RESULTS

The hip fracture and other than hip fracture group exhibited significant annual increases in lumbar spine and total hip BMD, with no significant differences between them after matching. The femoral neck BMD increased significantly only in the first year. The incidence of additional hip fractures did not differ significantly between the groups. Moreover, the effect of denosumab on BMD increase was more pronounced in patients without a previous medication history for anti-osteoporosis treatment than in those with such a history.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab significantly increased lumbar spine and total hip BMD in patients with hip fractures, with comparable efficacy to that in other than hip fracture patients. Its effect was more pronounced in medication-naïve patients, suggesting its efficacy regardless of hip fracture status.

Superiority of denosumab over bisphosphonates in preventing and treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE quality assessment

Background

The increasing prevalence of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) due to long-term glucocorticoid therapy underscores the need for effective treatment options. Denosumab and bisphosphonates, both key in managing GIOP, require further comparative evaluation to determine their relative efficacy and safety profiles.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Our analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing denosumab with bisphosphonates in GIOP management. The outcomes were percent changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at various sites, bone turnovers markers (BTMs) and the incidence of adverse events.

Results

Our study comprised five RCTs with 1,043 participants. The results showed a significant mean difference in BMD percentage change from baseline at LS of 2.87% (95% CI: 1.86 to 3.87, p<0.001) and at TH of 1.39% (95% CI: 0.15 to 2.64, p=0.03). Additionally, the safety profile of denosumab was found to be comparable to bisphosphonates, with no significant increase in the incidence of adverse events or serious adverse reactions.

Conclusions

Denosumab proved more effective in enhancing BMD than bisphosphonates in GIOP, maintaining a comparable safety profile. However, the study's limitations, including heterogeneity and the need for longer-term research, were noted.

Prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in adults: recommendations from the European Calcified Tissue Society

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the recommendations of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS) for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) in adults. Our starting point was that the recommendations be evidence based, focused on non-bone specialists who treat patients with glucocorticoid (GC) and broadly supported by ECTS.

METHODS

The recommendations were developed by global experts. After a comprehensive review of the literature, 25 recommendations were formulated, based on quality evidence. For stratifying fracture risk and the most appropriate first line of treatment, we have classified patients into 3 categories: those at medium risk of fractures, ie, adults without a recent (in the last 2 years) history of fracture; those at high risk of fractures, ie, adults with recent history of fracture, and/or at least one vertebral fracture (grade ≥ 2 according to Genant classification); and those at very high risk of fractures, ie, adults aged ≥70 years with a recent hip fracture, pelvis fracture, and/or at least one vertebral fracture (grade ≥ 2 according to Genant classification). The subtopics in the recommendations include who to assess, how to assess, who to treat, how to treat, and follow-up and monitoring.

RESULTS

General measures are recommended for all patients who are being prescribed GCs for ≥3 months, ie, calcium and protein intake should be normalized, a 25(OH) vitamin D concentration of 50-125 nmol/L should be attained, and the risk of falls be minimized. (1) Who to assess? (R1-2) A preliminary assessment of fracture risk should be routinely performed in patients likely to receive oral GCs for ≥3 months: (i) women and men ≥ 50 years and (ii) patients at increased risk of fracture (history of fragility fracture and/or have comorbidities or are on medications that are frequently associated with osteoporosis. (2) How to assess (fracture risk)? (R3-6) Clinical risk factors include history of fragility fracture, systematic vertebral imaging, and GC dose-adjusted FRAX, measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), fall risk, and biochemical testing. (3) Who to treat? (R7-12) Anti-osteoporosis treatment is indicated for women and men ≥ 50 years with (i) the presence of a recent history of vertebral and/or non-vertebral fracture (less than 2 years), (ii) and/or a GC dosage ≥ 7.5 mg/day, (iii) and/or age ≥ 70 years, (iv) and/or a T-score ≤ -1.5, (v) and/or 10-year probability risk above the country specific GC dose-adjusted FRAX® thresholds. In premenopausal women and men < 50 years with a Z-score ≤ -2 and/or a history of fragility fracture, it is recommended to refer the patient to a bone specialist. (4) How to treat? (R13-18) In women and men ≥ 50 years, (i) alendronate or risedronate is preferred as the first line of treatment in patients at medium risk of fractures, (ii) zoledronic acid or denosumab in patients at high risk of fractures, and (iii) teriparatide in patients at very high risk of fractures. It is imperative that sequential therapy be implemented in individuals receiving denosumab or teriparatide as their first-line treatment regimen. (5) Follow-up and monitoring (R19-25): in patients receiving anti-osteoporosis treatment, monitoring of clinical risk factors (eg, history of fragility fracture), systematic vertebral imaging, fall risk, BMD measurement using DXA, and biochemical testing should be performed regularly during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The new, evidence-based recommendations by the ECTS for the prevention and treatment of GIOP provide clear and pragmatic advice to all health practitioners especially those who are not bone specialists.

Denosumab, teriparatide and bisphosphonates for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background: Several medications have been used for glucocorticoids-induced osteoporosis (GIO). However, the best therapeutic option for GIO is still controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab, teriparatide and bisphosphonates for patients with GIO. Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 2023 were searched. The following efficiency and safety outcomes were extracted for comparison: bone mineral density (BMD) percentage changes in lumbar spine, femur neck and total hip, and incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), vertebrae and non-vertebrae fracture. Bayesian random effects models were used for multiple treatment comparisons. Results: 11 eligible RCTs involving 2,877 patients were identified. All the six medications including alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, zoledronate, teriparatide, and denosumab and were effective in increasing BMD. Teriparatide and denosumab were more effective in improving lumbar spine and femur neck BMD, and reducing vertebrae fracture. Alendronate and denosumab were more effective in improving total hip BMD. Alendronate and teriparatide had the lowest incidences of AEs and SAEs. Conclusion: Teriparatide denosumab and the bisphosphonates are all effective in improving BMD for GIO patients. Based on this network meta-analysis, teriparatide and denosumab have higher efficiency in improving lumbar spine and femur neck BMD, and reducing vertebrae fracture. Systematic Review Registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/2G8YA, identifier CRD42023456305.

Bone Mineral Density is Related to CD4+ T Cell Counts and Muscle Mass is Associated with B Cells in Common Variable Immunodeficiency Patients

BACKGROUND

Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is a primary immunodeficiency characterized by chronic/recurrent respiratory infections, bronchiectasis, autoimmunity, inflammatory, gastrointestinal diseases and malignancies associated with a chronic inflammatory state and increased risk of osteoporosis and muscle loss.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate bone mineral density (BMD), body composition and their relationship with lymphocyte subpopulations in CVID patients.

METHODS

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was performed to assess BMD, lean mass, and fat mass in CVID patients. Peripheral blood CD4+, CD8+, and CD19+ cells were measured using flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (37.3 ± 10.8 years old) were examined. Although only 11.8% of the individuals were malnourished (BMI <18.5 kg/m2), 27.7% of them had low skeletal muscle mass index (SMI), and 57.6% of them had low BMD. Patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis presented lower weight (p = 0.007), lean mass (p = 0.011), appendicular lean mass (p = 0.011), SMI (p = 0.017), and CD4+ count (p = 0.030). Regression models showed a positive association between CD4+ count and bone/muscle parameters, whereas CD19+ B cell count was only associated with muscle variables. Analysis of ROC curves indicated a cutoff value of CD4+ count (657 cells/mm3; AUC: 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.90) which was related to low BMD. Weight (p = 0.004), lean mass (p = 0.027), appendicular lean mass (p = 0.022), SMI (p = 0.029), total bone mineral content (p = 0.005), lumbar (p = 0.005), femoral neck (p = 0.035), and total hip BMD (p<0.001) were found to be lower in patients with CD4+ count below the cutoff.

CONCLUSION

CVID patients presented with low BMD, which was associated with CD4+ count. Moreover, low muscle parameters were correlated with B cell count.

Clinical efficacy of denosumab, teriparatide, and oral bisphosphonates in the prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Continuous use of glucocorticoids (GCs) has become the primary cause of secondary osteoporosis. Bisphosphonate drugs were given priority over denosumab and teriparatide in the 2017 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines but have a series of shortcomings. This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of teriparatide and denosumab compared with those of oral bisphosphonate drugs.

METHODS

We systematically searched studies included in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library databases and included randomized controlled trials that compared denosumab or teriparatide with oral bisphosphonates. Risk estimates were pooled using both fixed and random effects models.

RESULTS

We included 10 studies involving 2923 patients who received GCs for meta-analysis, including two drug base analyses and four sensitivity analyses. Teriparatide and denosumab were superior to bisphosphonates in increasing the bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar vertebrae [teriparatide: mean difference [MD] 3.98%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.61-4.175%, P = 0.00001; denosumab: MD 2.07%, 95% CI 0.97-3.17%, P = 0.0002]. Teriparatide was superior to bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures and increasing hip BMD [MD 2.39%, 95% CI 1.47-3.32, P < 0.00001]. There was no statistically significant difference between serious adverse events, adverse events, and nonvertebral fracture prevention drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Teriparatide and denosumab exhibited similar or even superior characteristics to bisphosphonates in our study, and we believe that they have the potential to become first-line GC-induced osteoporosis treatments, especially for patients who have previously received other anti-osteoporotic drugs with poor efficacy.

Comparison of denosumab and oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both denosumab and bisphosphonates have been demonstrated effective for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. However, evidence-based medicine is still lacking to prove the clinical results between denosumab and bisphosphonates. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety between denosumab and oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis through evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library databases were searched up to June 2022 for randomized controlled trials that compared denosumab and oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: percentage change in bone mineral density from baseline at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and ultra-distal radius; percentage change from baseline in serum concentration of bone turnover markers; and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials involving 714 patients were included. The pooled results showed that denosumab was superior to bisphosphonates in improving bone mineral density in lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.30; P < 0.001) and ultra-distal radius (MD 0.87; 95% CI 0.29-1.45; P = 0.003), and in suppressing C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (MD -34.83; 95% CI -67.37--2.28; P = 0.04) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (MD -14.29; 95% CI -23.65- -4.94; P = 0.003) at 12 months. No significant differences were found in percentage change in total hip or femoral neck bone mineral density at 12 months, or in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or osteoporosis-related fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with bisphosphonates, denosumab is superior in improving bone mineral density in lumbar spine and ultra-distal radius for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to prove the efficacy of denosumab.

Comparable long-term retention rates and effects on bone mineral density of denosumab treatment in patients with osteoporosis with or without autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: real-life data

Objectives:

To investigate whether concomitant autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) represent a risk factor for denosumab discontinuation and to explore other possible predictors.

Design:

This is a real-life retrospective study conducted at our centre on consecutive patients who started treatment with denosumab from January 2014 to October 2021.

Methods:

Data on patients’ characteristics, denosumab prescriptions and reason for discontinuation were collected from their medical electronic records. A log-rank test was run to assess differences in the denosumab retention rate between the not AIIRD and AIIRD patients. A backward stepwise logistic regression was used to identify possible predictors of denosumab discontinuation. When available, BMD data of the lumbar spine and total hip were collected.

Results:

Three hundred and sixty-three patients were included (265 not AIIRD and 98 AIIRD; median follow-up, 44 months). Sixty-nine patients discontinued denosumab at any time point (4 due to patient’s decision, 3 due to medical decision, 62 were lost in follow-up). The log-rank test did not find a statistically significant difference for denosumab persistence between the two subgroups. In the binary logistic regression analysis, only older age at initiation and lower baseline serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D were confirmed as predictors for discontinuation. BMD significantly increased from baseline to the last prescription visit at both the lumbar spine and the total hip, without statistically significant differences in the not AIIRD and AIIRD patients.

Conclusion:

The present data seem to suggest that AIIRDs do not represent a risk factor for denosumab discontinuation. Furthermore, the presence of AIIRDs does not seem to impair its effectiveness in terms of BMD.

Prevention and Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis in Adults: Consensus Recommendations From the Belgian Bone Club

Glucocorticoids are effective immunomodulatory drugs used for many inflammatory disorders as well as in transplant recipients. However, both iatrogenic and endogenous glucocorticoid excess are also associated with several side effects including an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is a common secondary cause of osteoporosis in adults. Despite availability of clear evidence and international guidelines for the prevention of GIOP, a large treatment gap remains. In this narrative review, the Belgian Bone Club (BBC) updates its 2006 consensus recommendations for the prevention and treatment of GIOP in adults. The pathophysiology of GIOP is multifactorial. The BBC strongly advises non-pharmacological measures including physical exercise, smoking cessation and avoidance of alcohol abuse in all adults at risk for osteoporosis. Glucocorticoids are associated with impaired intestinal calcium absorption; the BBC therefore strongly recommend sufficient calcium intake and avoidance of vitamin D deficiency. We recommend assessment of fracture risk, taking age, sex, menopausal status, prior fractures, glucocorticoid dose, other clinical risk factors and bone mineral density into account. Placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate, denosumab and teriparatide in GIOP. We suggest monitoring by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and vertebral fracture identification one year after glucocorticoid initiation. The trabecular bone score might be considered during DXA monitoring. Extended femur scans might be considered at the time of DXA imaging in glucocorticoid users on long-term (≥ 3 years) antiresorptive therapy. Bone turnover markers may be considered for monitoring treatment with anti-resorptive or osteoanabolic drugs in GIOP. Although the pathophysiology of solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation-induced osteoporosis extends beyond GIOP alone, the BBC recommends similar evaluation, prevention, treatment and follow-up principles in these patients. Efforts to close the treatment gap in GIOP and implement available effective fracture prevention strategies into clinical practice in primary, secondary and tertiary care are urgently needed.