Abaloparatide followed by alendronate in women ≥80 years with osteoporosis: post hoc analysis of ACTIVExtend

Assessment of trabecular bone Hounsfield units in the lumbar spine for osteoporosis evaluation in individuals aged 65 and above: a review

Osteoporosis is a prevalent condition that significantly increases fracture risk, particularly in the elderly population. Despite its widespread occurrence, osteoporosis is often underdiagnosed and inadequately managed. Traditional diagnostic methods, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), have limitations in terms of accessibility and accuracy, necessitating exploration of alternative diagnostic approaches.This review aims to evaluate the diagnostic potential of Hounsfield Unit (HU) values derived from abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans, specifically focusing on the trabecular bone of the lumbar spine, for osteoporosis assessment in individuals aged 65 and older. The review seeks to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic performance of HU values in distinguishing between normal bone density, osteopenia, and osteoporosis, and to identify areas for further investigation to establish standardized diagnostic criteria.This review compiles existing studies on the use of HU values from abdominal CT scans for osteoporosis diagnosis. It examines the relationship between HU values and DXA T-scores, analyzes optimal HU thresholds for classifying bone density categories, and explores the potential of CT scans as a viable alternative to DXA.The findings indicate that HU values from abdominal CT scans show strong correlations with DXA T-scores, suggesting a promising diagnostic tool for assessing bone density and quality. HU values have demonstrated the ability to differentiate between osteopenia, osteoporosis, and normal bone density, with varying sensitivity and specificity depending on the established HU threshold. CT scans are identified as a scalable, cost-effective alternative to DXA, with the added benefit of utilizing routine abdominal CT scans, which are often conducted for other clinical reasons, thereby reducing additional costs and radiation exposure.HU values derived from abdominal CT scans represent a promising approach for osteoporosis screening, offering a potential solution for routine, cost-effective, and accurate diagnosis, especially in older adults. However, there is a need for standardized HU thresholds and further research to refine diagnostic criteria and enhance the accuracy of osteoporosis detection. Establishing standardized guidelines would improve diagnostic consistency and facilitate early intervention, potentially improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare burdens.

Can Bisphosphonate Therapy Reduce Overall Mortality in Patients With Osteoporosis? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

For patients with osteoporosis, bisphosphonate therapy can reduce the risk of fractures, but its effect on reducing mortality remains unclear. Previous studies on this topic have produced conflicting results and generally have been too small to definitively answer the question of whether bisphosphonate therapy reduces mortality. Therefore, a meta-analysis may help us arrive at a more conclusive answer.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a large meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we asked: (1) Does bisphosphonate use reduce mortality? (2) Is there a subgroup effect based on whether different bisphosphonate drugs were used (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), different geographic regions where the study took place (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), whether the study was limited to postmenopausal female patients, or whether the trials lasted 3 years or longer?

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with each database searched up to November 20, 2023 (which also was the date of our last search), following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with participants diagnosed with osteoporosis and receiving bisphosphonate treatment. We excluded papers posted to preprint servers, other unpublished work, conference abstracts, and papers that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov but were not yet published. We collected 2263 records. After excluding records due to study type, study content not meeting the inclusion criteria, and duplicates, our meta-analysis included 47 placebo-controlled RCTs involving 59,437 participants. Data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analyses were performed. The evaluation of randomized trials for potential bias was conducted using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This assessment encompassed factors such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, subject blinding, outcome assessor blinding, incomplete outcome data, and reporting bias. Some studies did not provide explicit details regarding random sequence generation, leading to a high risk of selection bias. A few studies, due to their open-label nature, were unable to achieve double-blind conditions for both the subjects and the researchers, resulting in intermediate performance bias. Nevertheless, the overall study quality was high. Due to the low heterogeneity among the studies, as evidenced by the low statistical heterogeneity (that is, a low I 2 statistic), we opted for a fixed-effects model, indicating that the effect size is consistent across the studies. In such cases, the fixed-effects model can provide more precise estimates. According to the results of the funnel plot, we did not find evidence of publication bias.

RESULTS

The use of bisphosphonates did not reduce the overall risk of mortality in patients with osteoporosis (risk ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.03]). Subgroup analyses involving different bisphosphonate drugs (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), regions (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), diverse populations (postmenopausal female patients and other patients), and trials lasting 3 years or longer revealed no associations with reduced overall mortality.

CONCLUSION

Based on our comprehensive meta-analysis, there is high-quality evidence suggesting that bisphosphonate therapy for patients with osteoporosis does not reduce the overall risk of mortality despite its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fractures. The primary consideration for prescribing bisphosphonates to individuals with osteoporosis should continue to be centered on reducing fracture risk, aligning with clinical guidelines. Long-term studies are needed to investigate potential effects on mortality during extended treatment periods.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

The Safety and Efficacy of Abaloparatide on Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aging of the population increases the incidence of postmenopausal osteoporosis, which threatens the health of elderly women. Abaloparatide is a synthetic peptide analogue of the human parathyroid hormone-related protein that has recently been approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Its efficacy and safety have not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, studies on the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide could be of assistance in the clinical medication of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of abaloparatide in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched from inception to July 6, 2023, for relevant randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently conducted the study screening, quality assessment (based on the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool recommended in the Cochrane handbook), and data extraction. Outcome measures included bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover and metabolic markers, incidence of fractures, and adverse events. Data analyses were processed by using Stata SE15.

FINDINGS

Ultimately, 8 randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 3705 postmenopausal women, were included. Meta-analysis showed that abaloparatide administration significantly increased the BMD of the lumbar vertebrae (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.28 [95% CI, 0.81-1.76); I2 = 78.5%]), femoral neck (SMD, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.17-1.23; I2 = 75.7%]), and hip bone (SMD, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.53-1.20; I2 = 60.4%]) in postmenopausal women compared with the control group. Type I procollagen N-terminal propeptide, a bone formation marker, was also elevated after abaloparatide administration. The incidence of vertebral fracture was lower in the abaloparatide group than in the control group (risk ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06-0.26; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the abaloparatide and the placebo groups (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06; I2 = 0%).

IMPLICATIONS

Abaloparatide has a protective effect on women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. It could reduce their risk for vertebral fracture; increase their BMD of the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and hip; and alleviate symptoms and complications of postmenopausal osteoporosis with considerable safety. Limitations of this study include not searching the gray literature and not performing a subgroup analysis. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42022370944.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mass to Prevent Fractures in Adults: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

This guideline updates the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations on pharmacologic treatment of primary osteoporosis or low bone mass to prevent fractures in adults.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of evidence and graded them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system.

AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The audience for this guideline includes all clinicians. The patient population includes adults with primary osteoporosis or low bone mass.

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests that clinicians use bisphosphonates for initial pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2A

ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2B

ACP suggests that clinicians use the RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) as a second-line pharmacologic treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects of bisphosphonates (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests that clinicians use the sclerostin inhibitor (romosozumab, moderate-certainty evidence) or recombinant PTH (teriparatide, low-certainty evidence), followed by a bisphosphonate, to reduce the risk of fractures only in females with primary osteoporosis with very high risk of fracture (conditional recommendation).

RECOMMENDATION 4

ACP suggests that clinicians take an individualized approach regarding whether to start pharmacologic treatment with a bisphosphonate in females over the age of 65 with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Pharmacologic Interventions for Fracture Risk Reduction in the Oldest Old: What Is the Evidence?

With an increasingly older population, the proportion of patients 85 years or older seeking interventions to protect their musculoskeletal health is growing. Osteoporosis in the geriatric population presents unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Multimorbidity, frailty, falls, polypharmacy, and other neurobehavioral factors influence our approach to fracture prevention in this population. The vast majority of the evidence from clinical trials establish pharmacologic fracture efficacy in postmenopausal women. The evidence is scarce for the oldest old men and women, a population also at risk for adverse events and mortality. Most studies show continued efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in this age group, although they are largely limited by small sample sizes. We herein review the available evidence of pharmacologic interventions for fracture risk reduction in this population and explore the emerging senotherapeutic interventions in the pipeline. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Abaloparatide: A review of preclinical and clinical studies

Osteoporosis is a debilitating disease characterized by reduced bone mineral density and an increased risk of fractures. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of, and map current knowledge, obtained from preclinical and clinical studies of the osteoanabolic agent abaloparatide. PubMed and Embase were meticulously searched from inception to May 4, 2021.178 titles and abstracts were screened, and 57 full-text articles were assessed for inclusion. A total of 55 articles were included; 5 (9%) in vitro studies, 21 (38%) in vivo studies, and 29 (53%) clinical studies. Preclinical in vitro studies have demonstrated receptor conformation preferability, structural insights into the receptor-agonist complex, and proliferative effects of abaloparatide on osteoblasts. Preclinical studies have shown abaloparatide to be similarly effective to teriparatide using comparable doses in both ambulating mice and rats challenged by disuse. Other animal studies have reported that abaloparatide effectively mitigates or prevents bone loss from ovariectomy, orchiectomy, and glucocorticoids and improves fracture healing. The pivotal clinical study ACTIVE demonstrated 18 months of treatment with abaloparatide substantially increase bone mineral density and reduce fracture risk in post-menopausal women compared with placebo. The extension study ACTIVExtend highlighted that subsequent treatment with alendronate sustained the bone gained by abaloparatide treatment and the reduced fracture risk for up to two years. Post-hoc sub-group analyses have also supported the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide treatment independent of various baseline risk factors. In conclusion, mounting evidence from preclinical and clinical studies has uniformly reported that abaloparatide increases bone mineral density and reduces fracture risk.

Abaloparatide: an anabolic treatment to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Fractures due to osteoporosis represent a serious burden on patients and healthcare systems. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the anabolic agent abaloparatide (ABL) for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using PubMed to identify articles focused on ABL published prior to February 10, 2020, using the search term "abaloparatide".

RESULTS

ABL, a synthetic analog of human parathyroid hormone-related protein, increased bone mineral density (BMD), improved bone microarchitecture, and increased bone strength in preclinical and clinical studies. The pivotal phase 3 trial ACTIVE and its extension (ACTIVExtend) demonstrated the efficacy of initial treatment with ABL for 18 months followed by sequential treatment with alendronate (ALN) for an additional 24 months to reduce the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, clinical, and major osteoporotic fractures and to increase BMD in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Discontinuations from ACTIVE were slightly more common in ABL-treated patients due to dizziness, palpitations, nausea, and headache. Post hoc analyses of ACTIVE and ACTIVExtend support the efficacy and safety of ABL in relevant subpopulations including postmenopausal women with various baseline risk factors, women ≥80 years, women with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and women with renal impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

ABL is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. Its therapeutic effects are sustained with subsequent ALN therapy.