Two-year treatment with denosumab (AMG 162) in a randomized phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with low BMD

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.

Current perspectives on the multiple roles of osteoclasts: Mechanisms of osteoclast-osteoblast communication and potential clinical implications

Bone remodeling is a complex process involving the coordinated actions of osteoblasts and osteoclasts to maintain bone homeostasis. While the influence of osteoblasts on osteoclast differentiation is well established, the reciprocal regulation of osteoblasts by osteoclasts has long remained enigmatic. In the past few years, a fascinating new role for osteoclasts has been unveiled in promoting bone formation and facilitating osteoblast migration to the remodeling sites through a number of different mechanisms, including the release of factors from the bone matrix following bone resorption and direct cell-cell interactions. Additionally, considerable evidence has shown that osteoclasts can secrete coupling factors known as clastokines, emphasizing the crucial role of these cells in maintaining bone homeostasis. Due to their osteoprotective function, clastokines hold great promise as potential therapeutic targets for bone diseases. However, despite long-standing work to uncover new clastokines and their effect in vivo, more substantial efforts are still required to decipher the mechanisms and pathways behind their activity in order to translate them into therapies. This comprehensive review provides insights into our evolving understanding of the osteoclast function, highlights the significance of clastokines in bone remodeling, and explores their potential as treatments for bone diseases suggesting future directions for the field.

Amoli M, Fana SE, Dimai HP, Obermayer-Pietsch B, Luegger B, Rivadeneira F, Nabipour I, Larijani B, Khashayar P. Protocol for preliminary, multicenteric validation of "PoCOsteo device": A point of care tool for proteomic and genomic study of osteoporosis

One of the goals of the HORIZON 2020 project PoCOsteo was to develop a medical device, which would measure and/or quantify proteomic as well as genomic factors as present in whole blood samples collected through finger prick. After validating the tool in the clinical setting, the next step would be its clinical validation based on the existing guidelines. This article presents the protocol of a validation study to be carried out independently at two different centers (Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology at the Medical University of Graz as a clinic-based cohort, and the Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences as a population-based cohort). It aims to assess the tool according to the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines, confirming if the proteomics and genomics measurements provided by the tool are accurate and reproducible compared with the existing state-of-the-art tests. This is the first time that such a detailed protocol for lab validation of a medical tool for proteomics and genomic measurement is designed based on the existing guidelines and thus could be used as a template for clinical validation of future point-of-care tools. Moreover, the multicentric cohort design will allow the study of a large number of diverse individuals, which will improve the validity and generalizability of the results for different settings.

Incidence rate of osteonecrosis of jaw after cancer treated with bisphosphonates and denosumab: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the overall incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) caused by bisphosphonates and denosumab when used for controlling bone cancer metastasis or as adjuvant therapy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and major meetings' proceedings as of July 30, 2022, identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials that evaluated ONJ caused by denosumab or bisphosphonates. The total incidence and risk ratio (RR) for ONJ were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 42 003 patients with various solid tumors reported in 23 RCTs were included. The overall ONJ incidence in cancer patients receiving denosumab or bisphosphonates was 2.08% (95% CI 1.37-2.91; p < .01; I2  = 94.99%). Patients receiving denosumab had a higher ONJ incidence than those receiving bisphosphonates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.10-2.44; p < .05; I2  = 65.4%). Subgroup analyses showed that prostate cancer patients receiving denosumab and receiving zoledronic acid had the highest ONJ incidences, 5.0% and 3.0%, respectively. The incidence of ONJ induced by different doses was also different.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of ONJ caused by denosumab and bisphosphonates is low, the dose of the drug and the type of cancer have certain influence on ONJ. Therefore, clinicians should use the drug reasonably to improve the quality of life of patients.

A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, phase 1 study comparing the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of denosumab biosimilar CT‑P41 and reference denosumab in healthy males

BACKGROUND

This study's objective was to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity and safety of denosumab biosimilar, CT‑P41, and United States-licensed reference denosumab (US-denosumab) in healthy male Asian adults, considering also pharmacodynamic (PD) outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This double-blind, two-arm, parallel-group, Phase 1 study randomized (1:1) healthy males to a single (60-mg) subcutaneous dose of CT‑P41 or US-denosumab. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration - time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf), AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last), and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). PK equivalence was determined if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for ratios of geometric least-squares means (gLSMs) were within the predefined 80-125% equivalence margin. Secondary PK, PD, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 154 participants randomized (76 CT‑P41; 78 US-denosumab), 151 received study drug (74 CT‑P41; 77 US-denosumab). Primary and secondary PK results, PD results, safety, and immunogenicity were comparable between groups. Ninety percent CIs for ratios of gLSMs were within the predefined equivalence margin for AUC0-inf (100.4-114.7), AUC0-last (99.9-114.3), and Cmax (95.2-107.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Following a single dose in healthy males, CT‑P41 demonstrated PK equivalence with US-denosumab.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06037395.

Reduced osteoprotegerin expression by osteocytes may contribute to rebound resorption after denosumab discontinuation

Denosumab is an anti-RANKL Ab that potently suppresses bone resorption, increases bone mass, and reduces fracture risk. Discontinuation of denosumab causes rapid rebound bone resorption and bone loss, but the molecular mechanisms are unclear. We generated humanized RANKL mice and treated them with denosumab to examine the cellular and molecular conditions associated with rebound resorption. Denosumab potently suppressed both osteoclast and osteoblast numbers in cancellous bone in humanized RANKL mice. The decrease in osteoclast number was not associated with changes in osteoclast progenitors in bone marrow. Long-term, but not short-term, denosumab administration reduced osteoprotegerin (OPG) mRNA in bone. Localization of OPG expression revealed that OPG mRNA is produced by a subpopulation of osteocytes. Long-term denosumab administration reduced osteocyte OPG mRNA, suggesting that OPG expression declines as osteocytes age. Consistent with this, osteocyte expression of OPG was more prevalent near the surface of cortical bone in humans and mice. These results suggest that new osteocytes are an important source of OPG in remodeling bone and that suppression of remodeling reduces OPG abundance by reducing new osteocyte formation. The lack of new osteocytes and the OPG they produce may contribute to rebound resorption after denosumab discontinuation.

Toxic hepatitis in metastatic breast cancer patient using ribociclib and denosumab

INTRODUCTION

Hepatotoxicity is observed due to cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK4/6) inhibitors used to treat hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, it should not be ignored that denosumab may be hepatotoxic, although it is rare.

CASE REPORT

A 73-year-old female patient with breast cancer with axillary lymph node, adrenal gland and bone metastases was started on ribociclib letrozole and denosumab treatment. Ribociclib treatment was discontinued due to grade 4 hepatotoxicity during treatment, but liver function tests did not decrease. After discontinuation of denosumab treatment, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase values regressed to baseline values.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

Despite the discontinuation of ribociclib treatment, other causes of liver toxicity were investigated due to persistence of hepatic transaminases and elevation. Autoimmune hepatitis markers were negative. Hepatobiliary USG did not reveal any pathological findings except hepatosteatosis. Liver biopsy was performed to determine the etiology. Pathology result was compatible with acute hepatocellular damage (in favor of toxic hepatitis). A decrease in liver values was detected after discontinuation of denosumab treatment.

DISCUSSION

Although cases with improvement in liver enzymes have been reported after discontinuation of ribociclib, no improvement in hepatotoxicity was observed in our case. Since the liver biopsy was toxic hepatitis, it was thought that other drugs used by the patient might cause this toxicity, and a significant decrease was observed in liver values after discontinuation of denosumab. Denosumab-induced liver toxicity is very rare, and there are only a limited number of cases in the literature.

A phase I, randomized, double-blind, single-dose pharmacokinetic study to evaluate the biosimilarity of SB16 (proposed denosumab biosimilar) with reference denosumab in healthy male subjects

BACKGROUND

SB16 is a biosimilar to reference denosumab (DEN). This study assessed pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence and evaluated pharmacodynamic (PD), safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity between SB16, European Union-sourced DEN (EU-DEN), and United States-sourced DEN (US-DEN).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel group, and single-dose study, healthy male subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single 60 mg dose of either SB16, EU-DEN, or US-DEN subcutaneously. PK, PD, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated for 197 days. Primary PK endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity, AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration, and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). Equivalence was determined if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric least squares means (LS Means) were within the equivalence margin of 0.80 to 1.25.

RESULTS

A total of 168 subjects (56 per treatment group) were randomized. All of the corresponding 90% CI of geometric LS Means ratio of primary PK parameters were within the pre-defined equivalence margin. PD, safety, and immunogenicity profiles were also comparable between the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated PK bioequivalence between SB16, EU-DEN, and US-DEN in healthy male subjects.

TRIALREGISTRATION

CT.gov identifier: NCT04621318.

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.

Effect of low dose denosumab on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis after a transition from 60 mg dose: a prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Denosumab is an effective antiresorptive molecule and reduces the risk of fracture in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Cessation of denosumab therapy however is associated with rapid declines in bone mineral density (BMD), rises in bone remodeling, and an increased risk of fracture. We evaluated the effect of low dose denosumab (30 mg every 6 months) on the prevention of bone loss following a switch from standard dose (60 mg of denosumab every 6 months) in a prospective observational study.

METHODS

We recruited 114 women 50-90 years of age with postmenopausal osteoporosis at a moderate fracture risk without prior fragility fractures, who had been on denosumab 60 mg every 6 month. These women switched to low dose denosumab 30 mg every 6 months. Mean percentage change in lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), total hip (TH) and 1/3 distal radius (1/3RAD) BMD at 12 and 24 months were evaluated. Predictors for change in BMD were explored. Subgroup analysis for patients on denosumab 60 mg every 6 months for <3 years and for ≥3 years before switching to low dose denosumab 30 mg was evaluated.

RESULTS

At 12 months following a switch from 60 mg to 30 mg of denosumab every 6 months we observed an increase in LS BMD mean percentage change (+2.03%, 95% CI 1.18-2.88, p < 0.001). BMD was stable at the hip and radial sites. Age was found to be a predictor of the mean percentage change in LS BMD for the overall sample. At 24 months, there was a further increase in LS BMD mean percentage change (+3.44%, 95% CI 1.74-5.12, p < 0.001), with stable BMD at other skeletal sites. The 12 month mean BMD percentage change at the LS (p = 0.015), FN (p < 0.001), TH (p < 0.001), and 1/3 RAD (p < 0.001) were found to be predictors of the 24 month mean BMD percentage change. No clinical fractures were reported during 24 months of follow up.

CONCLUSION

We observed stable BMD following a switch from denosumab 60 mg every 6 months to 30 mg every 6 months in this prospective observational study conducted in postmenopausal women at a moderate fracture risk.

Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools

BACKGROUND

To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.

METHODS

For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I² = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I² = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I² = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I² = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.

CONCLUSION

An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.

Denosumab's Therapeutic Effect for Future Osteosarcopenia Therapy : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteosarcopenia, a combination of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia, is a common condition among older adults. While numerous studies and meta-analyses have been conducted on the treatment of osteoporosis, the pharmacological treatment of osteosarcopenia still lacks evidence. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, has shown encouraging results for the treatment of osteosarcopenia. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the potential dual role of denosumab as an anti-resorptive agent and for other beneficial muscle-related effects in patients with osteosarcopenia, and to evaluate whether denosumab can be a treatment of choice compared to bisphosphonate.

METHODS

Relevant literature was collated from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. The primary outcome was denosumab's effect on lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS BMD), handgrip strength, and gait speed change. The secondary outcome was the effect of denosumab on appendicular lean mass (ALM). The outcomes were presented as mean difference (MD). A random effects model was used in the analysis to represent the population. The risk of bias was assessed using funnel plots.

RESULTS

Out of the 3,074 studies found, four full-text studies met the inclusion criteria, including 264 and 244 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Regarding a primary outcome, our meta-analysis showed that denosumab showed no significant differences in LS BMD and gait speed changes compared to other agents-MD=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.35 to 0.79; p=0.09 and MD=0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.40; p=0.46, respectively. Denosumab had a significant effect on handgrip strength change compared to standard agents-MD=5.16; 95% CI, 1.38 to 18.94; p=0.007, based on the random effects model.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab was better than bisphosphonate and placebo in improving muscle strength (handgrip strength). Therefore, denosumab may be favored in individuals with osteosarcopenia to improve muscular performance and reduce fall risk.

Denosumab treatment is associated with decreased cortical porosity and increased bone density and strength at the proximal humerus of ovariectomized cynomolgus monkeys

Upper extremity fractures, including those at the humerus, are common among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab was shown to reduce humeral fractures in this population; however, no clinical or preclinical studies have quantified the effects of denosumab on humerus bone mineral density or bone microarchitecture changes. This study used micro-computed tomography (μCT) and computed tomography (CT), alongside image-based finite element (FE) models derived from both modalities, to quantify the effects of denosomab (DMAb) and alendronate (ALN) on humeral bone from acutely ovariectomized (OVX) cynomolgus monkeys. Animals were treated with 12 monthly injections of s.c. vehicle (VEH; n = 10), s.c. denosumab (DMAb; 25 mg/kg, n = 9), or i.v. alendronate (ALN; 50 μg/kg, n = 10). Two more groups received 6 months of VEH followed by 6 months of DMAb (VEH-DMAb; n = 7) or 6 months of ALN followed by 6 months of DMAb (ALN-DMAb; n = 9). After treatment, humeri were harvested and μCT was used to quantify tissue mineral density, trabecular morphology, and cortical porosity at the humeral head. Clinical CT imaging was also used to quantify trabecular and cortical bone mineral density (BMD) at the ultra-proximal, proximal, 1/5 proximal and midshaft of the bone. Finally, μCT-based FE models in compression, and CT-based FE models in compression, torsion, and bending, were developed to estimate differences in strength. Compared to VEH, groups that received DMAb at any time demonstrated lower cortical porosity and/or higher tissue mineral density via μCT; no effects on trabecular morphology were observed. FE estimated strength based on μCT was higher after 12-months DMAb (p = 0.020) and ALN-DMAb (p = 0.024) vs. VEH; respectively, FE predicted mean (SD) strength was 4649.88 (710.58) N, and 4621.10 (1050.16) N vs. 3309.4 (876.09) N. All antiresorptive treatments were associated with higher cortical BMD via CT at the 1/5 proximal and midshaft of the humerus; however, no differences in CT-based FE predicted strength were observed. Overall, these results help to explain the observed reductions in humeral fracture rate following DMAb treatment in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

The pathophysiology of immunoporosis: innovative therapeutic targets

BACKGROUND

The physiological balance between bone resorption and bone formation is now known to be mediated by a cascade of events parallel to the classic osteoblast-osteoclast interaction. Thus, osteoimmunology now encompasses the role played by other cell types, such as cytokines, lymphocytes and chemokines, in immunological responses and how they help modulate bone metabolism. All these factors have an impact on the RANK/RANKL/OPG pathway, which is the major pathway for the maturation and resorption activity of osteoclast precursor cells, responsible for osteoporosis development. Recently, immunoporosis has emerged as a new research area in osteoimmunology dedicated to the immune system's role in osteoporosis.

METHODS

The first part of this review presents theoretical concepts on the factors involved in the skeletal system and osteoimmunology. Secondly, existing treatments and novel therapeutic approaches to treat osteoporosis are summarized. These were selected from to the most recent studies published on PubMed containing the term osteoporosis. All data relate to the results of in vitro and in vivo studies on the osteoimmunological system of humans, mice and rats.

FINDINGS

Treatments for osteoporosis can be classified into two categories. They either target osteoclastogenesis inhibition (denosumab, bisphosphonates), or they aim to restore the number and function of osteoblasts (romozumab, abaloparatide). Even novel therapies, such as resolvins, gene therapy, and mesenchymal stem cell transplantation, fall within this classification system.

CONCLUSION

This review presents alternative pathways in the pathophysiology of osteoporosis, along with some recent therapeutic breakthroughs to restore bone homeostasis.

Efficacy and Safety of Denosumab in Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mineral Density Postmenopausal Women

Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, acts against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand and is a promising antiresorptive agent in patients with osteoporosis. This study aimed to update the efficacy and safety of denosumab vs. placebo in osteoporosis or low bone mineral density (BMD) postmenopausal women. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy and safety data of denosumab vs. placebo in osteoporosis or low BMD postmenopausal women. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled weight mean differences (WMDs) or relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment effectiveness of denosumab vs. placebo. Eleven RCTs including 12,013 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD were preferred for the final meta-analysis. The summary results indicated that the percentage change of BMD in the denosumab group was greater than that of BMD in placebo at 1/3 radius (WMD: 3.43; 95%CI: 3.24–3.62; p < 0.001), femoral neck (WMD: 3.05; 95%CI: 1.78–4.33; p < 0.001), lumbar spine (WMD: 6.25; 95%CI: 4.59–7.92; p < 0.001), total hip (WMD: 4.36; 95%CI: 4.07–4.66; p < 0.001), trochanter (WMD: 6.00; 95%CI: 5.95–6.05; p < 0.001), and total body (WMD: 3.20; 95%CI: 2.03–4.38; p < 0.001). Moreover, denosumab therapy significantly reduced the risk of clinical fractures (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.51–0.63; p < 0.001), nonvertebral fracture (RR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.70–0.97; p = 0.018), vertebral fracture (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.25–0.40; p < 0.001), and hip fracture (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.37–0.98; p = 0.042). Finally, denosumab did not cause excess risks of adverse events. These findings suggested that postmenopausal women receiving denosumab had increased BMDs and reduced fractures at various sites without inducing any adverse events.

Denosumab is not associated with risk of malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The immunomodulatory effects of denosumab have raised concerns for risk of malignancy. This meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials (21,523 patients) shows similar risk of malignancy between denosumab (60 mg every 6 months, up to 48 months) and any comparator. Post-marketing surveillance may detect rare or late-occurring drug effects. Possible increased risk of malignancy in patients treated with denosumab has been concerned due to inhibition of the immune modulator receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-Β ligand (RANKL). We aimed to assess the risk of malignancy associated with denosumab treatment. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to May 27, 2019 to include all randomized controlled trials of denosumab (60 mg every 6 months) versus any comparator. Trials using higher drug doses for prevention of skeletal-related events were excluded. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and analyzed using a fixed-effect model to pool risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Twenty-five trials (21,523 patients) were included. The risk of malignancy was similar between denosumab and other comparators (absolute risk difference 0%, RR 1.08 [95% CI, 0.93-1.24], I² = 0%). Sensitivity analysis based on adequate allocation concealment showed similar results. The risk of malignancy did not differ between groups in any of the subgroup analyses, including stratification by race, individual comparators, indications for treatment, and longer drug exposure (≥ 24 months, 9 studies). The risk ratio of malignancy-related death was similar between groups. Early concerns about a potential increased risk of malignancy resulting from an immunomodulatory effect of denosumab are not supported by evidence from this meta-analysis of 25 RCTs with drug exposure of up to 48 months. Since RCTs with longer observation for safety outcomes are not expected, post-marketing surveillance will be the main means for detection of rare or late-occurring events.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Denosumab Discontinuers with Multiple Vertebral Fractures in the Real-World: A Case Series

Denosumab discontinuation is associated with rapid reversal of bone turnover suppression and with a considerable increase in fracture risk, including a risk for multiple vertebral fractures (MVF). Long-term follow-up of patients who sustained MVF after denosumab discontinuation has not been reported. This case-series was aimed to provide a long-term follow-up on the management and outcome of denosumab discontinuers who initially presented with multiple vertebral fractures. Denosumab discontinuers were identified from a computerized database of a large healthcare provider. Baseline and follow-up clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were obtained from the computerized database and electronic medical records. The post-denosumab discontinuers MVF patients consisted of 12 women aged 71±12. Osteoporotic fractures were prevalent before denosumab discontinuation in 6 of the patients. The majority received bisphosphonates before denosumab. MVF occurred 134±76 days after denosumab discontinuation. The patients were followed for a median of 36.5 (IQR 28.2, 42.5) months after MVF. Two patients passed-away. Two patients suffered recurrent vertebral fractures. Following MVF, patients were treated inconsistently with denosumab, teriparatide, oral, and intravenous bisphosphonates, in various sequences. Two patients underwent vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty. This long-term follow-up of real-world patients with MVF following denosumab discontinuation reveals that management is inconsistent, and recurrent fractures are not uncommon. It calls for clear management guidelines for patients with MVF after denosumab discontinuation and for special attention to this high-risk group.

Denosumab-Induced Immune Hepatitis

Denosumab–Prolia®, Xgeva® (Amgen) is a fully human antibody to the receptor activator of the nuclear factor-K ligand (RANKL). Hepatotoxicity is extremely rare, with only one reported case of immune origin. We present a second case of hepatotoxicity resulting from an immune reaction to denosumab. A 43-year-old female was referred to the Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Department for treatment of low bone mineral density (BMD) following endocrine therapy with letrozole and lucrin because of breast cancer. She developed premature menopause at the age of 36 years when she underwent a left lumpectomy due to an infiltrating duct carcinoma of the breast (T1 NO MO) and was subsequently started on endocrine therapy. Denosumab was started to prevent osteoporosis. On the third year after starting on denosumab and one month after she received the last injection, she became ill. The routine biochemical analysis showed that the levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) rose appreciatively to 10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN). The gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) level was elevated slightly to 67 U/L (0–38 U/L). The serum gamma-globulin level was elevated to 1.72 g/dL (0.7–1.6 gr/dl), while the total bilirubin (TB) and serum albumin levels were normal. A liver biopsy revealed a moderate to severe chronic inflammatory infiltrate containing MUM-1 positive plasma cells. In addition, numerous CD-3 positive small T lymphocytes and few CD-20 positive B lymphocytes and eosinophils were seen in the portal tracts. Moderate to severe interface hepatitis, bile duct proliferation and mild portal fibrosis were also identified. The results could be consistent with the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI).

RANKL as a target for the treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is characterized by compromised bone strength, predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. Because bone is constantly remodeled, and bone mass and structure are determined by the balance between bone resorption and bone formation, it is important to maintain normal bone turnover. Therefore, therapies that reduce bone resorption have been the mainstream of osteoporosis treatment. Receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-RANK signaling was found to play a pivotal role in the regulation of osteoclastic bone resorption, and inhibition of RANKL-RANK system has become an important therapeutic target for the treatment of osteoporosis. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-RANKL neutralizing antibody, is developed as a drug for the treatment of osteoporosis. This review summarized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of denosumab, clinical studies including phase 2 dose-ranging and its extension study, phase 3 fracture prevention study (FREEDOM) with extension up to 10 years, studies on male osteoporosis (ADAMO study), and on glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, along with relevant clinical studies in Japan. In addition, mechanism of denosumab action that can explain its long-term sustained effects, combination and sequential treatment as well as the problems in discontinuation of denosumab, and finally safety of denosumab therapy is discussed.

Cardiovascular Safety of Denosumab Across Multiple Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

The cardiovascular safety of denosumab has not yet been evaluated in a systematic review. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to quantify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of denosumab (against comparators) reporting cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs) and examine the balance of CAEs between treatment arms. MEDLINE, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to October 26, 2019, for RCTs of denosumab versus comparators for any indication. Included trials were randomized, enrolled ≥100 participants, and reported bone-related outcomes. Primary outcome for analysis was all CAEs, a composite endpoint representing summation of all CAEs as reported by included trials. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Data were pooled using a fixed effects model to determine relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Of 554 records screened, 49 were included, while 36 reported CAEs. Twenty-seven included trials (12 eligible for meta-analysis) were conducted in 13,202 postmenopausal women. Compared with bisphosphonates, there was a 46% (95% CI 1.05 to 2.02) increase in CAEs (85/2136 events in denosumab-treated versus 58/2131 events in bisphosphonate-treated; seven trials). There was a similar imbalance in a five-point (stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) MACE endpoint (28/2053 versus 12/2050; RR = 2.33 [1.19 to 4.56]). Compared with placebo-treated women, there was no imbalance in total CAEs (439/4725 events in denosumab versus 399/4467 in placebo; RR = 0.79 [0.41 to 1.52]; seven trials). No imbalance in total AEs (versus bisphosphonates: 0.98 [0.92 to 1.04]; versus placebo: 0.99 [0.98 to 1.01]) occurred. Other indications showed no statistically significant results. The excess CAEs in postmenopausal women treated with denosumab compared with bisphosphonates, but not placebo, indirectly supports claims that bisphosphonates may suppress CAEs. Future trials should use standardized CAE reporting to better describe cardiovascular effects of bone active medications. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135414.) © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Denosumab-induced severe hypocalcaemia in a patient with vitamin D deficiency

Postmenopausal women are at increased risk of osteoporosis. Osteoporotic fractures carry an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis by inhibiting osteoclast-induced bone resorption. Hypocalcaemia is a known side-effect of denosumab treatment. The majority of such cases have been described in patients with underlying metastatic cancer or chronic kidney disease. We present a patient who developed severe hypocalcaemia after administration of denosumab in the context of severe vitamin D deficiency and a normal kidney function. The management was further complicated by hypophosphatemia. Following replacement of vitamin D, the patient's calcium and phosphate levels stabilised. The patient required intensive care monitoring for replacement of electrolytes. This case report emphasises the importance of screening and ongoing monitoring of risk factors for iatrogenic hypocalcaemia with denosumab treatment.

The efficacy and safety of denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis previously treated with bisphosphonates: A review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab therapy in osteoporotic postmenopausal women who were previously treated with bisphosphonates.

METHODS

Meta-analyses of four available randomised controlled trials that compared osteoporotic patients who switched to denosumab from bisphosphonates (n ​= ​1416) and those who continued bisphosphonates therapy (n ​= ​1411) were included.

RESULTS

The increase in bone mineral density (BMD) of both the spine and hip was significantly higher in patients who shifted to denosumab than in those who continued bisphosphonates. Despite the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and fractures being comparable, treatment withdrawal owing to AEs was significantly less frequent in the denosumab group.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes and treatment compliance were improved in postmenopausal osteoporotic women who shifted to denosumab from bisphosphonates.

THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE

The replacement of bisphosphonates with denosumab may lead to better therapeutic efficacy and fewer adherence barriers ​than those with continued usage of bisphosphonates, which in the future may guide the choice of drug therapy in clinics.

Risk for Infections During Treatment With Denosumab for Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Denosumab inhibits the receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-Β ligand, an immune system modulator. Safety endpoints including risk for infections were assessed as secondary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the drug.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of serious adverse events of infections (SAEI) in denosumab-treated patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to May 27, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

All RCTs of denosumab (60 mg every 6 months) versus any comparator were included. We excluded trials in cancer patients for prevention of skeletal-related events.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria and extracted the data. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using a fixed effect model. Sensitivity analysis was based on risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-three studies (22 253 patients) were included. There was a higher incidence of SAEI during denosumab treatment versus any comparator (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40; I2 = 0%), mainly of ear, nose, and throat (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.20-5.91) and gastrointestinal origin (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.01). RR was similar in a sensitivity analysis based on adequate allocation concealment. The RR of any infection (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06) and infection-related mortality (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.23) was comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher incidence of SAEI is demonstrated during treatment with denosumab in an osteoporosis dose. Nevertheless, the overall risk for any infection or related mortality is similar to comparator groups. These findings merit consideration before therapy initiation.

Comparison of the clinical effectiveness and safety between the use of denosumab vs bisphosphonates in renal transplant patients

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 85 renal transplant patients aged 19-88 years, treated with denosumab or bisphosphonate therapy. Bone densitometry measures were compared between treatment groups at baseline; at years 1, 2, and 3; and at final follow-up (average of 3.4 years). Both bisphosphonate and denosumab treatments increased lumbar spine bone density; however, the effect of denosumab was greater compared with that of bisphosphonate treatment. Denosumab treatment increased femoral neck BMD, whereas bisphosphonate treatment had a mean decrease in femoral neck BMD at final follow-up. Thus, our study provides evidence for the efficacy of denosumab treatment in renal transplant patients. Caution around hypocalcemia is warranted. We recommend more prospective studies to analyze the effects of long-term antiresorptive therapy in patients with a renal transplant.

INTRODUCTION

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety between the use of denosumab and bisphosphonates on bone density and incidence of adverse events in renal transplant patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 85 renal transplant patients aged 19-88 years, treated with denosumab or bisphosphonate therapy. Bone densitometry measures were compared between treatment groups at baseline; years 1, 2, and 3; and at final follow-up (average of 3.4 years).

RESULTS

Absolute change in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD over the treatment period was 0.029 ± 0.075 g/cm² and - 0.003 ± 0.064 g/cm², respectively, in the bisphosphonate group. Absolute change in lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD at final follow-up was 0.072 ± 0.094 g/cm² and 0.025 ± 0.063 g/cm², respectively, in the denosumab group. Denosumab resulted in significantly greater increases in lumbar spine BMD (0.045 g/cm² greater in the denosumab group). Similarly, the absolute change in BMD at the femoral neck was 0.022 g/cm² greater in the denosumab group as compared with the bisphosphonate group. The denosumab group had one event of severe hypocalcemia following first injection and one report of hospitalized pneumonia. No serious adverse events were reported in the bisphosphonate group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatments increased lumbar spine BMD; however, the effect of denosumab was greater compared with that of bisphosphonate treatment. Our study provides evidence for the efficacy of denosumab treatment in renal transplant patients. Caution around hypocalcemia is warranted. We recommend more prospective studies to analyze the effects of long-term antiresorptive therapy in patients with a renal transplant.

Persistence of Denosumab Therapy among Patients with Osteoporosis

Study Design

Retrospective study in a single center.

Purpose

To examine denosumab persistence in patients of different ages with severe osteoporosis in Japan.

Overview of Literature

Denosumab is an antibody drug used for the treatment of osteoporosis. It is mainly used in patients with severe osteoporosis who might have high motivation for treatment, and the need for only semi-annual subcutaneous injection might improve the continuation rate. However, no English-language articles have reported on denosumab persistence in the Japanese population, including young people, despite the importance of this issue in a super-aging society.

Methods

The subjects started treatment with subcutaneous denosumab in our department from July 2013 until December 2017. Persistence rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were defined as “persistent” or “non-persistent” according to the use of therapy after 60 months.

Results

The study included 101 patients (84 females) with a median follow-up period of 23.6±14.2 months. The persistence rate declined to 85.3%, 78.3%, 74.1%, 71.3%, and 69.3% at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, respectively. Age at the initiation of denosumab therapy differed significantly between non-persistent (n=31) and persistent (n=70) patients (81.3 vs. 72.8 years, p<0.01). Persistence was significantly lower in patients aged ≥80 years than in those aged <60 and 60–79 years (both p<0.01). The reasons for non-persistence of denosumab therapy were transfer to another hospital (n=13), interruption of outpatient visits (n=11), dental treatment (n=4), adverse events (n=2), and patient request (n=1).

Conclusions

Persistence was significantly lower in patients aged ≥80 years than in patients of other ages, and strategies promoting persistence are needed for these elderly patients.

Fracture incidence after denosumab discontinuation: Real-world data from a large healthcare provider

BACKGROUND

Vertebral fractures (VF) upon Denosumab (DMAB) discontinuation were first described as a distinct phenomenon in 2015, yet the magnitude of this event remains undetermined.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate fracture risk after DMAB discontinuation, in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The computerized database of a 2.3-million members' state-mandated health organization was utilized to detect osteoporotic patients with at least two DMAB dispenses. Treatment discontinuation was defined as a refill gap of 3 months or more, while the discontinuation date was defined as an anticipated missed purchase date. Fractures were identified by an osteoporosis registry and individually adjudicated by an expert's review. Fractures occurring within one year from discontinuation among DMAB discontinuers (DD) and from the 2nd year of treatment onwards for persistent users (PU) were included.

RESULTS

A total of 1500 DD (92% females, mean ± SD age = 71.8 ± 9.5y), and 1610 PU (91%, 71.7 ± 8.8) were identified. At baseline, the groups were comparable in fracture- history, bisphosphonate exposure, smoking, and bone density. Multiple VF occurred in 12 (0.8%) DD vs. 2 (0.1%) PU (p = 0.006). The overall rate of fractures per 100 patient-years of follow-up was significantly higher in DD than PU (RR 3.2, 95% CI 2.2-4.8), as well as the rate of VF (RR 4.7, 95% CI 2.3-9.6) and multiple VF (RR 14.6, 95% CI 3.3-65.3, effect size 1.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who discontinue DMAB are at greater risk of major OP fractures than those who persist with treatment. Same is true for clinical multiple vertebral fractures, yet the incidence of the latter was low. These findings demonstrate a need for greater awareness and thoughtful management of DMAB discontinuation.

Follow-Up of Bone Mineral Density Changes in de novo Kidney Transplant Recipients Treated with Two Doses of the Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor κB Ligand Inhibitor Denosumab

BACKGROUND

Studies in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis have shown that discontinuation of treatment with denosumab leads to an increased risk of vertebral fractures because of rebound bone turnover and rapid loss of bone mineral density (BMD).

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis of the Prolia for Osteoporosis of Transplant Operated Patient study, we analyzed the effect of denosumab withdrawal on BMD changes. Twenty-five de novo kidney transplant recipients (KTR) who were treated for 1 year with 2 six-monthly doses of denosumab on top of standard treatment (daily calcium and vitamin D) were compared to a control group of 29 KTR who received standard treatment alone. BMD changes were analyzed by repeated dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry shortly after transplantation (baseline), after 6 and 12 months (active treatment phase) and after 2-6.5 years (follow-up phase).

RESULTS

The average BMD at the lumbar spine declined markedly after discontinuation of treatment with denosumab but increased again thereafter. Thus, the average monthly change in lumbar spine BMD from month 12 onward was only 0.1 ± 2.8‰ in the denosumab group but 1.5 ± 1.9‰ in the control group (p = 0.021). The average monthly change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline to follow-up was similar in the control and denosumab group (1.1 ± 1.2‰ vs. 1.5 ± 2.4‰, p = 0.788). Similar results were seen at the total hip.

CONCLUSIONS

In de novo KTR treated with 2 doses of denosumab, we detect a marked decrease in lumbar spine and hip BMD when denosumab is discontinued. Denosumab treatment should therefore not be discontinued without considering an alternative antiresorptive treatment.

A comparison of the cone beam computed tomography findings in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws related to denosumab versus bisphosphonates: an observational pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic abnormalities on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in patients with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) related to denosumab use versus bisphosphonate use.

STUDY DESIGN

The study included 34 consecutive patients with MRONJ who had a history of exclusive use of denosumab (n = 17) or bisphosphonates (n = 17) and had undergone CBCT for determination of extent of disease. Demographic data of the patients were collected. Differences in radiologic characteristics between patients with denosumab-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (DRONJ) and those with bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) were scored and studied on CBCT.

RESULTS

In patients with DRONJ, sequestra (P = .015) and lysis of the cortical border of the jaw (P = .033) were significantly less common than in patients with BRONJ. Subperiosteal bone formation did not differ between the groups (P = .545). There was no association between stage of disease and duration of drug therapy or duration of symptoms for either medication group.

CONCLUSIONS

The radiologic features of DRONJ may be different from those of BRONJ with regard to the presence of sequestra and cortical lysis and might, therefore, be improperly diagnosed. Underestimation and undertreatment of DRONJ may potentially lead to progression of disease and, thus, make treatment more difficult.

Denosumab utilization among older adults in Ontario: patient characteristics, persistence with therapy, and return to therapy after an extended gap

We studied 46,797 older adults who initiated denosumab in Ontario, Canada. Patient characteristics remained relatively stable over time and aligned with public reimbursement restrictions. Almost half of patients persisted with therapy for at least 3 years. Fifty-nine percent of patients who discontinued denosumab returned to treatment within 3.6 years.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients who initiated denosumab and estimate persistence with therapy.

METHODS

We identified older adults (aged ≥ 66 years) in Ontario who initiated denosumab between 2012/02 and 2015/03 and followed them to 2016/03. Patient characteristics were summarized using medical and pharmacy claims in the year before starting denosumab and osteoporosis drug use considered since 1996/10. Persistence with denosumab and return after discontinuation (> 90-day gap) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Analyses were stratified by community and long-term care (LTC) residence.

RESULTS

We identified 46,797 patients (monthly mean = 1263, SD = 187); 97% female, 13% LTC. Community-dwelling patients had a higher prevalence of bone mineral density testing (62% vs. 5%), yet were younger (mean age 78.5 vs. 86.6 years) and had lower prevalence of hip fractures (3% vs. 10%) compared to LTC patients. Eighty-two percent of patients had used osteoporosis medications in the past; 99% of whom took an oral bisphosphonate. Persistence was similar between community-dwelling and LTC patients: 59% persisted ≥ 2 years, 48% ≥ 3 years, and 38% ≥ 4 years, yet a larger proportion of LTC patients returned to denosumab after discontinuation (76% vs. 57%).

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab utilization is increasing at a steady rate in Ontario. However, persistence remains a concern given the highly reversible pharmacokinetic profile of denosumab that results in a rapid increased fracture risk following discontinuation. Over 80% of patients had a history of oral bisphosphonate therapy, which may persist in bone despite discontinuing denosumab. Consequently, better understanding of denosumab safety and effectiveness among real-world users is important.

Microsphere controlled drug delivery for local control of tooth movement

Background

Because orthodontic tooth movement is dependent upon osteoclast-mediated resorption of alveolar bone adjacent to the pressure side of tooth roots, biologic mediators that regulate osteoclasts can be utilized to control tooth movement.

Objectives

To develop a novel method to locally enhance orthodontic anchorage.

Methods

We encapsulated osteoprotegerin (OPG) in polymer microspheres and tested the effectiveness of microsphere encapsulated versus non-encapsulated OPG for enhancing orthodontic anchorage in a rodent model of tooth movement. A single injection of 1 mg/kg non-encapsulated or microsphere encapsulated OPG was delivered into the palatal mucosa mesial to the first maxillary molar 1 day prior to tooth movement. A positive control group received injections of 5 mg/kg non-encapsulated OPG every 3 days during tooth movement. After 28 days of tooth movement, hemi-maxillae and femurs were dissected. Molar mesial and incisor distal tooth movement was measured using stone casts that were scanned and magnified. Local alveolar, distant femur bone, and tooth root volumes were analyzed by micro computed tomography. Serum OPG levels were measured by ELISA. Osteoclast numbers were quantified by histomorphometry.

Results

The single injection of microsphere encapsulated OPG significantly enhanced orthodontic anchorage, while the single injection of non-encapsulated OPG did not. Injection of encapsulated OPG inhibited molar mesial movement but did not inhibit incisor tooth movement, and did not alter alveolar or femur bone volume fraction, density, or mineral content. Multiple injections of 5 mg/kg non-encapsulated OPG enhanced orthodontic anchorage, but also inhibited incisor retraction and altered alveolar and femur bone quality parameters. Increased OPG levels were found only in animals receiving multiple injections of non-encapsulated 5 mg/kg OPG. Osteoclast numbers were higher upon tooth movement in animals that did not receive OPG. Osteoclast numbers in OPG injected animals were variable within groups.

Conclusions

Microsphere encapsulation of OPG allows for controlled drug release, and enhances site-specific orthodontic anchorage without systemic side effects. With additional refinements, this drug delivery system could be applicable to a broad array of potential biologic orthodontic therapeutics.

Comparison of Risk of Osteoporotic Fracture in Denosumab vs Alendronate Treatment Within 3 Years of Initiation

IMPORTANCE

Head-to-head randomized clinical trials showed greater efficacy of denosumab vs alendronate in improving bone mineral density. Although there is an association of changes in bone mineral density with reductions in fracture risk, the magnitude of the association is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of hip and any fracture in patients treated with denosumab and alendronate in routine practice settings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This Danish nationwide, population-based, historical cohort study of a population with universal access to health care used prospectively collected, individually linked data from Danish health registries with complete follow-up. Cohorts consisted of 92 355 individuals 50 years or older who were new users of denosumab (n = 4624) or alendronate (n = 87 731) from May 2010 to December 2017 after at least 1 year without an antiosteoporosis medication dispensing.

EXPOSURES

Initiation of denosumab or alendronate.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was hospitalization for hip fracture, and the secondary outcome was hospitalization for any fracture. Inverse probability of treatment weights and the intention-to-treat approach were used to calculate cumulative incidences and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of the 92 355 included patients, 75 046 (81.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 71 (10) years. The denosumab cohort had a lower proportion of men than the alendronate cohort (12.7% [589] vs 19.0% [16 700]), while age distributions were similar in the 2 cohorts. Within 3 years of follow-up, initiation of denosumab or alendronate was associated with cumulative incidences of 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, for hip fracture and 9.0% and 9.0%, respectively, for any fracture. Overall, the aHRs for denosumab vs alendronate were 1.08 (95% CI, 0.92-1.28) for hip fracture and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02) for any fracture. The aHR of denosumab vs alendronate for hip fracture was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) among patients with a history of any fracture and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.83-1.32) among patients without history of fracture. The aHR for any fracture for denosumab vs alendronate was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71-0.98) among patients with a history of any fracture and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.93) among patients with no history of fracture.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment with denosumab and alendronate was associated with similar risks of hip or any fracture over a 3-year period, regardless of fracture history.

Reduction of Cortical Bone Turnover and Erosion Depth After 2 and 3 Years of Denosumab: Iliac Bone Histomorphometry in the FREEDOM Trial

Denosumab, a RANKL inhibitor, reduced the risk of vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral fractures in the Fracture REduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis compared with placebo. Previous bone histomorphometric analysis in FREEDOM showed decreased bone resorption and turnover in cancellous bone after 2 and 3 years. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of denosumab compared with placebo in the cortical compartment from transiliac bone biopsies obtained during FREEDOM. A total of 112 specimens were evaluable for cortical histomorphometry, including 67 obtained at month 24 (37 placebo, 30 denosumab) and 45 at month 36 (25 placebo, 20 denosumab). Eroded surface, osteoclast surface, erosion depth, and wall thickness were measured on the endocortical surface. Cortical thickness and cortical porosity were also measured. Dynamic parameters of bone formation were assessed for endocortical, periosteal, and intracortical envelopes. Endocortical osteoclast surface, eroded surface, and mean and maximum erosion depth were significantly lower in the denosumab group versus placebo at months 24 and 36 (p < 0.0001 to p = 0.04). Endocortical wall thickness and intracortical measures (cortical porosity and cortical thickness) were not different between the two groups. Dynamic parameters were low with tetracycline labels in cortical bone observed in 13 (43%) and 10 (50%) of denosumab biopsies at months 24 and 36, respectively, reflecting a marked decrease in bone turnover. In conclusion, our data reveal the mechanism of action of denosumab on cortical bone: inhibition of osteoclastic resorption and reduced activation of new remodeling sites. In addition, reduced endocortical erosion depth with no change of wall thickness may contribute to increased bone strength by reducing the bone loss and fragility associated with deep resorption cavities and may likely contribute to the greater BMD gain with denosumab than with other antiresorptive agents. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.

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.

Treatment of Osteoporosis, with a Focus on 2 Monoclonal Antibodies

Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disease characterized by bone loss and subsequent increased risk of fragility fractures. Recent advances in our mechanistic understanding of molecular communications among osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and osteocytes give insight into the important roles of the canonical Wnt/β-catenin pathway and the RANK/RANKL/OPG pathway in the process of bone remodeling. Due to the translation of the canonical Wnt/β-catenin pathway and the RANK/RANKL/OPG pathway in the regulation of osteoblasts and osteoclasts, new targets have been studied in recent years, such as sclerostin and receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL). In this review, we first introduce the signaling pathways involved in interactions among osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and osteocytes. Next, we describe clinical trials of denosumab and romosozumab, which are monoclonal antibodies that target RANKL and sclerostin, respectively. We analyze the efficacy of these drugs and provide a profile for the management of osteoporosis.

Integrative modeling of drug therapy and the bone turnover

BACKGROUND

Denosumab has been successfully used for the postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment. This research is focused on the computational analysis of the effect of denosumab on bone remodeling.

METHODS

Inspired by the advancement in the field of multiscale modeling , this research encompasses on the cellular and molecular bone remodeling key players. The model is designed to cover all the dominant interacting factors and their respective gradients. During this research, we have performed numerical experiments to validate our mathematical model, by interfacing it with the parametric values available in the literature.

FINDINGS

The novelty of our work relies in the fact that we have considered the effect of estrogen, sclerostin and NFATc1 during osteoporosis and their combined effect with the variable effect of denosumab during therapy.

INTERPRETATIONS

From our analysis, we have concluded that denosumab suppresses osteoclast differentiation, that results in reduced bone resorption. These results are in agreement with the experimental findings.

Efficacy and Safety of Denosumab Therapy for Osteogenesis Imperfecta Patients with Osteoporosis-Case Series

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a connective tissue disorder that is characterized by low bone density leading to recurrent fractures. The efficacy of the anti-resorption drug denosumab for OI with osteoporosis is still largely unknown. We herein describe the clinical outcomes of eight osteoporotic cases of OI to examine the effects and safety of denosumab. This retrospective, consecutive case series included eight patients respectively aged 42, 40, 14, 22, 3, 51, 37, and 9 years. We measured the bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar 1⁻4 spine (L-BMD) and bilateral hips (H-BMD), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, urinary type I collagen amino-terminal telopeptide, and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b before and during denosumab therapy. Despite multiple pretreatment fractures in the cohort, no fractures or severe side effects, such as hypocalcemia, were observed during the observational period apart from a fracture in a young pediatric girl. Both L-BMD and H-BMD were increased by denosumab in seven of eight cases. Bone turnover markers were inhibited in most cases by denosumab therapy. Denosumab treatment could generally raise BMD without any adverse effects. The agent therefore represents a good therapeutic option for OI with osteoporosis.

New and emerging concepts in the use of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), a cytokine expressed by cells of the osteoblast lineage that is a key regulator of osteoclastic bone resorption. By binding and neutralizing RANKL, denosumab inhibits osteoclast differentiation, activity, and survival. Clinical trials in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have shown that it reduces the risk of vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fractures, and hip fractures, with a generally favorable safety profile. With a dose of 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months, it is approved for: treatment of postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis, and for women and men with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture; treatment to increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer; and treatment to increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer. Atypical femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw have been reported in patients treated with denosumab. Discontinuation of denosumab is followed by rapidly rising bone turnover markers, decreasing bone density, and vertebral fracture risk that returns to baseline, with a possible increase in the risk of multiple vertebral fractures. Further study is needed to clarify this potential risk. After stopping long-term denosumab, patients should be switched to another antiresorptive agent to maintain the benefit achieved with denosumab.

Effects of osteoporosis drug treatments on cortical and trabecular bone in the femur using DXA-based 3D modeling

Effects of osteoporosis drugs on proximal femur cortical and trabecular bone were studied using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-based 3D modeling method. Changes observed in this head-to-head study were consistent with those obtained using computed tomography in the literature.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of osteoporosis drugs on cortical and trabecular bone at the proximal femur using DXA-based 3D modeling.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 155 patients stratified by treatments: naive of treatment (NAIVE), alendronate (AL), denosumab (DMAB), and teriparatide (TPTD). DXA scans were performed at baseline and after treatment, and areal bone mineral density at spine and femur were measured. A software algorithm (3D-SHAPER) was used to derive 3D models from hip DXA scans and compute: trabecular and cortical volumetric BMD (vBMD), cortical thickness (Cth), and cortical surface BMD (cortical sBMD). Changes from baseline were normalized at 24 months and evaluated in terms or percentage.

RESULTS

After 24 months, a non-significant decrease was observed for trabecular vBMD, Cortical sBMD, Cth, and cortical vBMD (- 2.3, - 0.8, - 0.3, and - 0.5%) in the NAIVE group. Under AL and DMAB, significant increases were observed in trabecular vBMD (3.8 and 7.3%), cortical vBMD (1.4 and 2.0%), and cortical sBMD (1.5 and 3.6%). An increase in Cth was observed in patients under DMAB (1.8%). Under TPTD, a significant increase in Trabecular vBMD was observed (5.9%) associated with a non-significant increase of Cth (+ 1%) concomitant with a decrease in cortical vBMD (- 1.1%).

CONCLUSION

Results obtained in this head-to-head study are consistent with those obtained using computed tomography in the literature. DXA-based modeling techniques could complement standard DXA examination to monitor treatment effects on trabecular and cortical compartments.

Update on the Comprehensive Approach to Fragility Fractures

The prevention and treatment of fragility fractures continuously evolve. Adequate fracture care should involve treating the fracture itself and the underlying bone disease. Although effective treatments of osteoporosis are available, a large proportion of patients with fragility fractures are not prescribed antiosteoporotic medications after their injury. Recent advances in diagnostic tools, medications, and implementation of Fracture Liaison Services allow for more effective and comprehensive treatment or fragility fractures. In the Fracture Liaison Service model, a physician and physician extenders coordinate care. This includes a thorough medical and surgical history, metabolic bone disease laboratory testing, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening, treatment, and long-term follow-up. Treatment options include nonpharmacologic treatment with calcium and vitamin D and antiresorptive and anabolic agents. Antiresorptive agents such as bisphosphonates and denosumab are first-line treatments for osteoporosis and anabolic agents such as teriparatide are effective in reducing bone density loss and have implications in fracture healing. In addition, new anabolic agents including antisclerostin antibodies and parathyroid hormone-related protein show promise as potential treatments to increase bone density.

Denosumab compared to bisphosphonates to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for osteoporosis was controversial. Denosumab and bisphosphonates were two most common drugs. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab with bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis.

METHODS

Published literatures, only including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were searched in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google database from inception to April 20 2018. Studies that compared denosumab with bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis were included. Random-effect model was used for meta-analysis due to the unavoidable clinical heterogeneity. We used the risk of fracture as the primary outcome. Stata 12.0 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 5446 patients (denosumab = 2873, bisphosphonates = 2573) were included in the present meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the risk of fracture (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.55; P = 0.466), adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.04; P = 0.957) and withdrawn due to AEs (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34-137; P = 0.280). Denosumab compared with bisphosphonates significantly increased change in total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and one-third radius bone mineral density (BMD) for postmenopausal osteoporosis patients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggested that denosumab but not bisphosphonates significantly increased change in total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and one-third radius BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Current evidence suggested no benefit of denosumab for reducing risk of fracture than bisphosphonates. More long-term follow-up RCTs are needed to identify the potential complications of denosumab.

Vertebral Fractures Following Denosumab Discontinuation in Patients with Prolonged Exposure to Bisphosphonates

Denosumab (DMAB) efficacy for treatment of osteoporosis was demonstrated in a pivotal trial with a reduction in vertebral and hip fractures during 3 years, and fracture risk reduction was sustained up to 10 years in an extension study. DMAB causes potent yet reversible inhibition of bone resorption. Bone density declines rapidly upon discontinuation and bone turnover markers increase above baseline in a rebound fashion. Spontaneous multiple vertebral fractures after DMAB discontinuation were recently reported. Prior treatment with bisphosphonates (BP) was postulated to decrease the risk for this alarming phenomenon. We aimed to describe our experience of fractures following DMAB withdrawal with special attention to past history of osteoporosis treatment. A phone survey of physicians engaged in bone metabolism from nine hospitals in Israel was performed. Clinical data of the patients presenting with vertebral fractures upon DMAB discontinuation were summarized and compared to the previously published cases. Nine elderly (74.2 ± 5.3 years) female patients were identified. Most patients had a prolonged prior exposure to BP (7.4 ± 3.2 years). All but one sustained osteoporotic fractures prior to DMAB initiation and their FRAX scores were high. Thirty-six vertebral fractures were identified in nine patients. Eight patients presented with multiple fractures, and most fractures were spontaneous. In line with the previous reports, the timing and severity of the fractures raise concern of DMAB discontinuation effect. Prolonged BP exposure in most of our patients challenges the protective effect hypothesis. Care providers, patients, and regulatory authorities should be aware of the possible risk of DMAB treatment interruption.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of single-dose denosumab in healthy Chinese volunteers: A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand, a cytokine essential for the formation, function and survival of osteoclasts. This study assessed the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of single-dose denosumab (60 and 120 mg) in healthy Chinese volunteers.

Methods

This randomized (3:3:2), single-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled healthy Chinese volunteers to receive single subcutaneous injection of denosumab 60 mg, 120 mg, or placebo. Study consisted of screening period (up to 21 days), treatment and assessment period (19 weeks), and an end-of-study visit (at week 26). Denosumab pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics parameters were estimated using non-compartmental analysis. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study.

Results

A total of 63 volunteers received the study treatment and 62 (98.4%) completed the study. Denosumab serum concentrations peaked at around Day 10 with dose-proportional increase from 60 mg to 120 mg. The mean terminal half-life of denosumab 60 mg and 120 mg was 15 days and 26 days, respectively. The serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen concentration-time profiles were similar (>80% decrease within 5 days) between denosumab 60 mg and 120 mg groups. The most commonly reported adverse event (AE) was decreased blood calcium levels (denosumab 60 mg, n = 13; denosumab 120 mg, n = 13; placebo, n = 1); however only one volunteer had calcium level below the abnormality value of potential clinical importance and none of the volunteers developed symptoms of hypocalcemia. The majority of AEs were of mild to moderate intensity. There were no deaths, serious AEs, or withdrawal from study due to AEs. No clinically significant findings in vital signs or electrocardiogram were observed.

Conclusions

Both denosumab 60 mg and 120 mg were well tolerated with no new safety concerns identified in healthy Chinese volunteers with similar pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics profiles to that of Caucasians.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT02135640

Effect of denosumab on fasting glucose in women with diabetes or prediabetes from the FREEDOM trial

BACKGROUND

RANKL is a key regulator of bone resorption that may also modulate glucose metabolism. Denosumab (DMAb) is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds RANKL and was associated with fracture risk reduction in the FREEDOM trial. We hypothesized that DMAb treatment decreased fasting serum glucose (FSG) relative to placebo in women with diabetes or prediabetes enrolled in FREEDOM trial.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of FREEDOM, in which 7808 postmenopausal osteoporotic women were randomized to receive DMAb or placebo every 6 months for 36 months. All diabetes group included subjects with a self-report of diabetes, use of antidiabetic medication (ADM), or an FSG ≥ 126 mg/dL at baseline. The diabetes group without prior ADM use included subjects with a self-reported history of diabetes or FSG level ≥ 126 mg/dL at baseline. Prediabetes was defined as an FSG of 100 to 125 mg/dL on no ADM. Average postbaseline FSG across visits was estimated and compared between DMAb and placebo. Main outcome measures are the difference in average postbaseline FSG across follow-up visits between DMAb and placebo.

RESULTS

Estimated average postbaseline FSG across visits was not different between DMAb and placebo in either all diabetes group (P = .20) or those with prediabetes (P = .42); in diabetic women not on ADM, estimated average postbaseline FSG across visits was lower with DMAb than placebo (-6.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, -12.6 to -1.0; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

DMAb did not affect FSG in postmenopausal osteoporotic women with prediabetes or diabetes. There was evidence of modest FSG lowering with DMAb in those with diabetes who were not on ADM. It remains to be determined whether blockade of RANKL has a clinically important effect on glucose metabolism.

Non-BMD DXA measurements of the hip

Hip fracture is one of the most serious complications of osteoporosis. More than 50% of hip and other fractures occur in patients without densitometric osteoporosis. Therefore, areal bone mineral density (aBMD) may not be the best way to assess fracture risk. In order to improve assessment of fracture risk, many other approaches have been taken. At the present time, the Fracture Risk Algorithm (FRAX©) is one of the most notable ways to improve assessment of fracture risk. However, since early in the initiation of the dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) era, several non-BMD DXA approaches to the assessment of hip fracture risk have been proposed. This review will cover some of those methodologies, including hip-axis length (HAL), hip-structural analysis (HSA), finite element analysis (FEA) by DXA, and body composition of the thigh by DXA (BCT). These methods have been utilized in models of hip fracture occurrence and in pharmacological clinical trials. How they should be used in clinical practice or if they should be used in clinical practice is more of an issue. In addition, we will discuss the recent proposal of the use of Long Femur Scan Field in the effort to diagnose atypical femoral fractures.

Unexpected Bone Formation Produced by RANKL Blockade

Denosumab (Dmab) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks RANKL (receptor activator for nuclear factor κB ligand), thereby exerting a potent bone antiresorptive action. Dmab treatment leads to a dramatic and sustained increase in bone mass through mechanisms that are currently under debate. It is also a matter of controversy whether this potent action of Dmab could lead to intrabone dystrophic mineralization. Recent research has uncovered a possible anabolic role of Dmab involving RANKL-dependent reverse signaling in osteoblasts, and that bone marrow adipocytes can modulate osteoclastogenesis through the production of RANKL. We comment here on potential pathways which might account for the anabolic action of Dmab. The impact of this proposed mechanism needs to be addressed in further research.

Observations following discontinuation of long-term denosumab therapy

Stopping denosumab after 8 years of continued treatment was associated with bone loss during a 1-year observation study in patients who were not prescribed osteoporosis treatment. Bone loss was attenuated in patients who began another osteoporosis therapy. Treatment to prevent bone loss upon stopping denosumab should be considered.

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to understand osteoporosis management strategies during a 1-year observational follow-up after up to 8 years of denosumab treatment in a phase 2 study.

METHODS

During the observational year, patients received osteoporosis management at the discretion of their physician and returned to the clinic for BMD assessment and completion of an osteoporosis management questionnaire. Incidence of serious adverse events and fractures was collected. Analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Of 138 eligible patients, 82 enrolled in and completed the observation study. Most (65 [79%]) did not receive prescription osteoporosis medication, with "my doctor felt I no longer needed a medication" being the most common reason (23 [35%]). Of the 17 patients who took osteoporosis medications, 8 discontinued therapy during the observation study. In patients treated with denosumab for 8 years (N = 52), BMD decreased during the 1-year observation study (6.7% [lumbar spine], 6.6% [total hip]). Those who took osteoporosis medication during the observation study showed a smaller decline in BMD than those who did not. No new safety concerns were identified. Eight patients (9.8%), all of whom had at least one predisposing risk factor, experienced 17 fractures. This included seven patients who experienced one or more vertebral fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with denosumab's mechanism of action, treatment cessation led to reversal of the drug's effect on BMD and perhaps fracture risk. For patients who took osteoporosis therapy, bone loss was attenuated. For patients at high fracture risk, switching to another osteoporosis therapy if denosumab is discontinued seems appropriate.

Denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis

Denosumab, a specific inhibitor of RANK ligand, is a novel therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis and related disorders. An extensive clinical development program has evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of denosumab with several thousand patients being followed for up to 10 years. Combined with more than six years of postmarketing experience, these studies provide substantial confidence that denosumab is a convenient and appropriate treatment for patients, including Asians, at high risk for fracture. This review will summarize the clinical development of denosumab and lessons learned since its approval for clinical use in 2010.