Treatment satisfaction in postmenopausal women suboptimally adherent to bisphosphonates who transitioned to denosumab compared with risedronate or ibandronate

Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials

Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.

A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis

Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health.

PURPOSE

To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.

RESULTS

Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

Non-Adherence to Anti-Osteoporosis Medication: Factors Influencing and Strategies to Overcome It. A Narrative Review

To evaluate the reasons for inadequate adherence to osteoporosis therapy and to describe the strategies for improving adherence to and persistence with regular medications, we conducted a review of the literature. The primary outcome of the study was the determination of the factors adverse to the onset and maintenance of anti-osteoporosis therapies. Secondly, we focused on studies whose efforts led to finding different strategies to improve adherence and persistence. We identified a total of 26 articles. The most recurrent and significant factors identified were aging, polypharmacy, and smoking habits. Different strategies to guide patients in their osteoporosis care have been identified, such as monitoring and follow-up via telephone calls, email, and promotional meetings, and proactive care interventions such as medication monitoring, post-fracture care programs, and decision aids. Changes in the drugs regimen and dispensation are strategies tried to lead to better adherence and persistence, but also improved satisfaction of patients undergoing anti-osteoporosis treatment. Patient involvement is an important factor to increase medication persistence while using a flexible drugs regimen.

Treatment satisfaction in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis initiated on teriflunomide in routine clinical practice: Australian observational data

Background

Adherence and persistence are critical to optimising therapeutic benefit from disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). This prospective, open-label, multicentre, observational study (AubPRO), conducted in 13 hospital-based neurology clinics around Australia, describes treatment satisfaction in patients newly initiated on teriflunomide (Aubagio) and evaluates the use of an electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool.

Methods

Patients (≥18 years) newly initiated on teriflunomide (14 mg/day) were followed up at 24 and 48 weeks. Patients completed questionnaires and pill counts electronically using MObile Data in Multiple Sclerosis. The primary endpoint was treatment satisfaction, measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM, V.1.4), at week 48. Secondary endpoints included treatment satisfaction at week 24, other PRO scales, clinical outcomes, medication adherence and safety.

Results

Patients (n=103; 54 (52.4%) treatment naive) were mostly female (n=82 (79.6%)), aged 49.5 (11.8) years, with MS duration since symptom onset of 9.1 (11.8) years and a median Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 1.0. Mean treatment satisfaction scores were high (≥60%) across all domains of the TSQM V.1.4 at week 24 and at week 48. Compared with week 24, week 48 treatment satisfaction increased for patients who were treatment naïve and for those previously on another oral or injectable DMT. Over 48 weeks, PROs remained stable across a range of measures including disability, physical health, emotional health and mobility, and there were improvements in work capacity and daily life activity. Adherence was high throughout the study with mean compliance (pill counts) of 93.2%±6.26%, and 98 of 103 (95.1%) patients remained relapse-free.

Conclusion

This cohort of Australian patients with RRMS, newly initiated on teriflunomide, and treated in a real-world clinical practice setting, reported high treatment satisfaction and adherence at 24 and 48 weeks. Patient-reported measures of disability remained stably low, work capacity and daily life activity improved, and most patients remained relapse-free.

Effect of drugs on bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk with associated disability, morbidity and mortality. This Bayesian network meta-analysis compared the effects of current anti-osteoporosis drugs on bone mineral density.

Methods

The present systematic review and network meta-analysis follows the PRISMA extension statement to report systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions. The literature search was performed in June 2021. All randomised clinical trials that have investigated the effects of two or more drug treatments on BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. The network comparisons were performed through the STATA Software/MP routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method with standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for analysis.

Results

Data from 64 RCTs involving 82,732 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 29.7 ± 19.6 months. Denosumab resulted in a higher spine BMD (SMD −0.220; SE 3.379), followed by pamidronate (SMD −5.662; SE 2.635) and zoledronate (SMD −10.701; SE 2.871). Denosumab resulted in a higher hip BMD (SMD −0.256; SE 3.184), followed by alendronate (SMD −17.032; SE 3.191) and ibandronate (SMD −17.250; SE 2.264). Denosumab resulted in a higher femur BMD (SMD 0.097; SE 2.091), followed by alendronate (SMD −16.030; SE 1.702) and ibandronate (SMD −17.000; SE 1.679).

Conclusion

Denosumab results in higher spine BMD in selected women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab had the highest influence on hip and femur BMD.

Level of evidence

Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Malay Satisfaction Questionnaire for Osteoporosis Prevention in Malaysia

PURPOSE

The English Satisfaction Questionnaire for Osteoporosis Prevention (SQOP) is validated in Malaysia. However, Malay is the national language of Malaysia spoken by the majority of Malaysians. The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt and validate the Malay Satisfaction Questionnaire for Osteoporosis Prevention (SQOP-M) in Malaysia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was carried out from March to October 2018 at a tertiary hospital in Kuala Lumpur. The SQOP was translated from English to Malay according to international guidelines. Malay-speaking postmenopausal women ≥50 years were recruited and randomized into control and intervention groups. The intervention group received an osteoporosis prevention information booklet and a 15-minute pharmacist counselling session. All patients were asked to answer the SQOP-M questionnaire at baseline and two weeks later. The control group received the intervention after the study was completed.

RESULTS

Overall, 230/348 patients were recruited (C=115, I=115, response rate=66.1%). Exploratory factor analysis extracted four domains. Cronbach's α ranged from 0.230 to 0.938. Kappa measurement of agreement values ranged from 0.124 to 0.627, where 10/23 (43.5%) items were in moderate to substantial agreement. Wilcoxon signed rank test values were statistically significant (p<0.005) for 4/23 items. Item 17 was an optional question and excluded from analysis. Total satisfaction score was significantly higher for intervention group patients [76.9 (47.6-53.9) vs 50.4 (47.6-53.9), p<0.001] indicating higher satisfaction compared to control group.

CONCLUSION

The SQOP-M was found to be valid and reliable in assessing patient satisfaction of osteoporosis screening and prevention services provided to Malay-speaking patients in Malaysia.

Efficacy of Denosumab Therapy Following Treatment with Bisphosphonates in Women with Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RANKL, a cytokine able to interact with the RANK receptor on preosteoclasts and osteoclasts, decreasing their recruitment and differentiation, leading to a decreased bone resorption. The aim of this observational real-life study was to analyze adherence to denosumab therapy and assess its efficacy in increasing bone mineral density (BMD) and modulating biochemical skeletal markers following previous treatments with bisphosphonates in a group of post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. Women were recruited in the specialized center from March 2012 to September 2019. Biochemical markers were recorded at baseline and every six months prior to subsequent drug injection. Dual X-ray absorptiometry was requested at baseline and after 18/24 months. Comparing BMD at baseline and after denosumab therapy in naive patients and in those previously treated with bisphosphonates, a positive therapeutic effect was observed in both groups. The results of our real-life study demonstrate, as expected, that BMD values significantly increased upon denosumab treatment. Interestingly, denosumab showed an increased efficacy in patients previously treated with bisphosphonates. Moreover, biochemical markers data indicate that osteoporotic patients, without other concomitant unstable health conditions, could be evaluated once a year, decreasing the number of specialistic center access.

Suboptimal medication adherence may favor the progression of vertebral fractures in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis treated with denosumab

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence is a determinant of therapeutic outcomes in osteoporotic patients treated with bisphosphonates. In this monocentric study, we evaluated whether the regular drug administration may influence the effectiveness of denosumab in preventing vertebral fractures (VFs) in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Two-hundred and four women (median age 75 years, range: 54-90 years) under treatment with denosumab for post-menopausal osteoporosis were longitudinally evaluated for incident radiological VFs and changes in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) in relationship with medication adherence. All patients were persistent with denosumab treatment (i.e., maximum delay in administration of a single denosumab dose: 90 days). Patients were defined adherent to denosumab therapy when the drug was administered every 6 months ±28 days.

RESULTS

One-hundred-seventy-three patients (84.4%) were adherent to denosumab therapy, whereas the remaining 31 patients (15.6%) received in delay one or more denosumab doses (cumulative delay: 52 days, range 29-183 days). Fourteen patients (6.9%) experienced incident VFs during the follow-up (median duration: 30 months, range: 18-48 months), in relationship with non-adherence to denosumab therapy (hazard ratio 4.44; 95% CI: 1.01-19.47) and smaller increase in lumbar spine BMD (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In post-menopausal women at high risk of fractures, the small delay in the administration of denosumab (i.e., not uncommon in clinical practice) was associated with a significant increase in incidence of VFs. Preservation of standard dosing schedule appears to be an important determinant of denosumab effectiveness in the real-life clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of denosumab compared to bisphosphonates in improving bone strength in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is the main cause of fractures among women after menopause. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared to bisphosphonates in treating postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared denosumab and bisphosphonates. RCTs that studied both denosumab and bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and had a Jadad score ≥ 3 were included.

RESULTS

Nine studies were eligible for inclusion. They were further categorised into six cohort groups. All studies had denosumab with oral bisphosphonates as the active comparator. Four out of six cohort studies showed significant improvements in bone strength (p < 0.001) at the distal radius, tibia, total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine and trochanter at 12 months for patients on denosumab compared to the bisphosphonate group. Serum C-telopeptide of cross-linked collagen, a bone turnover marker, was consistently lower in the denosumab group in all studies. There were no significant differences in hypocalcaemia, atypical fractures, fragility fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw, all infections (including fever or influenza-like symptoms), gastrointestinal side effects or dermatological conditions in all studies, except for one that did not document side effects.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab can be used both as a first-line agent and an alternative to bisphosphonate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. There is currently insufficient data to show that denosumab is not inferior to bisphosphonates in fracture prevention.

GRAND-4: the German retrospective analysis of long-term persistence in women with osteoporosis treated with bisphosphonates or denosumab

This retrospective database study assessed 2-year persistence with bisphosphonates or denosumab in a large German cohort of women with a first-time prescription for osteoporosis treatment. Compared with intravenous or oral bisphosphonates, 2-year persistence was 1.5-2 times higher and risk of discontinuation was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) with denosumab.

INTRODUCTION

Persistence with osteoporosis therapies is critical for fracture risk reduction. Detailed data on long-term persistence (≥2 years) with bisphosphonates and denosumab are sparse.

METHODS

From the German IMS® database, we included women aged 40 years or older with a first-time prescription for bisphosphonates or denosumab between July 2010 and August 2014; patients were followed up until December 2014. The main outcome was treatment discontinuation, with a 60-day permissible gap between filled prescriptions. Two-year persistence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with treatment discontinuation as the failure event. Denosumab was compared with intravenous (i.v.) and oral bisphosphonates separately. Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) for the 2-year risk of discontinuation were calculated, with adjustment for age, physician specialty, health insurance status, and previous medication use.

RESULTS

Two-year persistence with denosumab was significantly higher than with i.v. or oral bisphosphonates (39.8 % [n = 21,154] vs 20.9 % [i.v. ibandronate; n = 20,472] and 24.8 % [i.v. zoledronic acid; n = 3966] and 16.7-17.5 % [oral bisphosphonates; n = 114,401]; all P < 0.001). Patients receiving i.v. ibandronate, i.v. zoledronic acid, or oral bisphosphonates had a significantly increased risk of treatment discontinuation than did those receiving denosumab (HR = 1.65, 1.28, and 1.96-2.02, respectively; all P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year persistence with denosumab was 1.5-2 times higher than with i.v. or oral bisphosphonates, and risk of discontinuation was significantly lower with denosumab than with bisphosphonates. A more detailed understanding of factors affecting medication-taking behavior may improve persistence and thereby reduce rates of fracture.

A Review of Patient Preferences for Osteoporosis Drug Treatment

Poor medication adherence is a major problem in chronic diseases such as osteoporosis that may partially be due to unaddressed patient values and preferences. Data on patient preferences could help clinicians to improve medication adherence and could also be useful in policy decisions and guideline development. This paper aims to identify literature reporting on the preferences of patients for osteoporosis drug medications. Several methods have been used to elicit patient preferences for medications and their characteristics including qualitative research, survey with ranking/rating exercises, discrete-choice experiments and clinical studies (crossover designs, open-label study). All these studies revealed that osteoporotic patients have preferences for medications and their attributes, in particular for less-frequent dosing regimens. Interestingly, variations in the preferences of patients were observed in most studies, suggesting the importance to take into account individual preference in decision-making to improve osteoporosis care.

Treatment of osteoporosis after alendronate or risedronate

Alendronate (ALN) and risedronate (RIS) are ideal as first-choice therapy options in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. What to do for patients who do not respond adequately to bisphosphonates has not been conclusively determined, but transitioning to other therapies should be considered. The aim of this article is to describe potential alternatives for patients switching from ALN or RIS to other therapies for osteoporosis. A systematic search of PubMed was conducted to find papers that evaluate the effects of switching therapies on fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), or bone turnover markers. Results from 11 studies that prospectively assessed treatment after ALN or RIS in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were reviewed. All studies are of short duration (all 24 months or less) and assess the topic of transitioning therapy from ALN or RIS. None of the studies had the statistical power to assess fracture-reduction efficacy. Transitioning from ALN to zoledronic acid maintains therapeutic effects for 12 months. Switching to strontium ranelate, denosumab, or teriparatide causes further increases in BMD. Specifically, transitioning to teriparatide could be used for a limited time for select patients but needs to be followed up with anti-resorptive treatment to prevent a loss of the bone gained. There are only few studies-of short duration-that assess the topic of transitioning therapy from ALN or RIS, although this is a very frequent occurrence in clinical practice. This is especially true if the patient has not reached his/her therapy goal. Further long-term studies are needed.

Changes in serum vitamin D and PTH values using denosumab with or without bisphosphonate pre-treatment in osteoporotic patients: a short-term study

BACKGROUND

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-β ligand (RANKL). Previous reports have shown that denosumab treatment of osteoporotic patients decreases bone resorption and fracture risk, but there have been no clinical studies on changes in bone turnover markers, 1,25(OH)2D3, or parathyroid hormone (PTH) in denosumab therapy with or without bisphosphonate (BP) pre-treatment in Japan.

METHODS

Here, we report such findings in 22 patients (11 in the denosumab alone group and 11 in the BP pre-treated group) with osteoporosis following 4 months of treatment. Bone metabolism had been inhibited by prior BP administration in the BP pre-treated group.

RESULTS

The bone resorption markers serum tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase type 5b and urinary type I collagen cross-linked N-telopeptide were significantly decreased from baseline values for the entire study period in both groups. The bone formation marker bone alkaline phosphatase was significantly decreased at 4 months in the denosumab alone group only, and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen was significantly decreased at 2 and 4 months in the denosumab alone group versus no remarkable change in the BP pre-treated group. In the denosumab alone group, 1,25(OH)2D3 and PTH were significantly increased at 1 week and decreased gradually thereafter, but these did not change notably in the BP pre-treated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that treatment with denosumab causes a strong inhibitory effect on bone resorption markers and mild inhibitory effect on bone formation markers. 1,25(OH)2D3 and PTH were significantly increased by denosumab but these did not change in the BP pre-treated group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials NCT02156960. Registered 31 May 2014.

Update on denosumab in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis: patient preference and adherence

Patient adherence to many osteoporosis treatments, primarily bisphosphonates, is generally poor, thus leading to a significant reduction in antifracture efficacy. Patient perceptions about the necessity of the prescribed medication to treat osteoporosis and the concerns about the potential adverse effects are important and potentially modifiable determinants of adherence, in addition to other factors, such as difficult dosing regimens and high dosing frequency. Denosumab (Dmab) is a fully human monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), which, through the prevention of the RANKL/RANK interaction, inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and significantly reduces the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. It is administered subcutaneously every 6 months for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Preference and adherence to Dmab treatment were assessed in various clinical trials. Although with some limitations, available data suggest that Dmab is preferred to bisphosphonates, produces greater satisfaction than bisphosphonates, and would be preferentially chosen for long-term treatment. Moreover, patient perceptions about the necessity of Dmab treatment clearly outweigh the concerns about the injections, and positive beliefs about treatment positively influence medication-taking behavior. According to these data, Dmab may represent a reasonable alternative to bisphosphonates, particularly for osteoporotic women in whom a suboptimal or even poor adherence to oral treatments is expected.