Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia^®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista^®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity^®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo^®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture^® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX^® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.

LIMITATIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The use of bisphosphonates in the management of bone involvement from solid tumours and haematological malignancies - a European survey

Bone metastases in patients with solid tumours (ST) and bone lesions in patients with haematological malignancies (HM) are common. Associated skeletal-related events (SREs) cause severe pain, reduced quality of life and place a burden on health care resources. Bone-targeted agents can reduce the risk of SREs. We evaluated the management of bone metastasis/lesions in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK) by an observational chart audit. In total, 881 physicians completed brief questionnaires on 17 193 patients during the observation period, and detailed questionnaires for a further 9303 individuals. Patient cases were weighted according to the probability of inclusion. Although a large proportion of patients with bone metastases/lesions were receiving bisphosphonates, many had their treatment stopped (ST, 19%; HM, 36%) or will never be treated (ST, 18%; HM, 13%). The results were generally similar across the countries, although German patients were more likely to have asymptomatic bone lesions detected during routine imaging. In conclusion, many patients who could benefit from bone-targeted agents do not receive bisphosphonates and many have their treatment stopped when they could benefit from continued treatment. Developing treatment guidelines, educating physicians and increasing the availability of new agents could benefit patients and reduce costs.

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis comparing bone-targeted agents for the prevention of skeletal-related events in cancer patients with bone metastasis

BACKGROUND

Complications from skeletal-related events (SREs) constitute a challenge in the care of cancer patients with bone metastasis (BM).

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of pamidronate, ibandronate, zoledronate, and denosumab in reducing the morbidity of SREs in cancer patients with BM.

METHODS

Medline (1948 to January 2014), Embase (1980 to January 2014), the Cochrane Library (2014 issue 1), and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to January 2014) were searched. Only randomized controlled trials assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates, or placebo in cancer patients with BM were included. The primary outcomes were SREs and SREs by type. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed with a random-effects Bayesian model.

RESULTS

The NMA included 14 trials with 10,192 patients. Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of SREs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.75), followed by zoledronate (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.77) and pamidronate (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.72). Ibandronate compared with placebo could not reduce the risk of SREs. Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of pathologic fractures (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.32-0.79), followed by zoledronate (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43-0.86). Denosumab was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of radiation (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), followed by pamidronate (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.52-0.86) and zoledronate (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.96).

CONCLUSION

This NMA showed that denosumab, zoledronate, and pamidronate were generally effective in preventing SREs in cancer patients with BM. Denosumab and zoledronate were also associated with reductions in the risk of pathologic fractures and radiation compared with placebo. Denosumab was shown to be the most effective of the bone-targeted agents.

The development of denosumab for the treatment of diseases of bone loss and cancer-induced bone destruction

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANK ligand (RANKL), an essential cytokine for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts. The role of excessive RANKL as a contributor to conditions characterized by bone loss or bone destruction has been well studied. With its novel mechanism of action, denosumab offers a significant advance in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis; bone loss associated with hormone ablation therapy in women with breast cancer and men with prostate cancer; and the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors by offering clinical benefit to these patients in need.

Bench to bedside: elucidation of the OPG-RANK-RANKL pathway and the development of denosumab

Bone is a complex tissue that provides mechanical support for muscles and joints, protection for vital organs, a mineral reservoir that is essential for calcium homeostasis, and the environment and niches required for haematopoiesis. The regulation of bone mass in mammals is governed by a complex interplay between bone-forming cells termed osteoblasts and bone-resorbing cells termed osteoclasts, and is guided physiologically by a diverse set of hormones, cytokines and growth factors. The balance between these processes changes over time, causing an elevated risk of fractures with age. Osteoclasts may also be activated in the cancer setting, leading to bone pain, fracture, spinal cord compression and other significant morbidities. This Review chronicles the events that led to an increased understanding of bone resorption, the elucidation of the signalling pathway mediated by osteoprotegerin, receptor activator of NF-κB (RANK) and RANK ligand (RANKL) and its role in osteoclast biology, as well as the evolution of recombinant RANKL antagonists, which culminated in the development of the therapeutic RANKL-targeted antibody denosumab.

Drug development for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: current status and future perspectives

Prostate cancer represents a third of all newly diagnosed cancers in men in the USA with an estimated incidence of 192,280 cases and 27,360 deaths in 2009. It continues to be a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality, and there is an urgent need for new treatments. Historically, systemic therapy options were limited after progression on docetaxel-based chemotherapy. This article reviews current data on the novel therapeutics demonstrating activity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and their future role in the treatment of this disease with a poor prognosis.

The role of RANK-ligand inhibition in cancer: the story of denosumab

The diagnosis of bone metastases is an event with certain consequences for the patient. They often mean pain and can also mean pathological fractures, hypercalcemia, and spinal cord compression, all synonymous with a diminished quality of life and often also hospitalization. Since the advent of the intravenous bisphosphonates, things began to look a bit brighter for patients with bone metastases-bone destruction was kept at bay a little longer. The next generation of bone metastasis treatments is well on its way in clinical development, and among them, the most advanced drug is denosumab. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits osteoclast maturation, activation, and function by binding to receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand, with the final result being a reduced rate of bone resorption. In this review, we give an overview of relevant preclinical and clinical data regarding the use of denosumab in patients with solid tumors in general and prostate cancer in particular.