Search

Summary: To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence. Introduction: Teriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively). Methods: We evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available). Results: With 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab). Conclusion: In this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence.

The number of patients on long-term anti-osteoporotic drug therapy is rising. Unfortunately, there are few data to guide decisions about duration of pharmacologic therapy for osteoporosis. Many practitioners discontinue therapy after a period of 5 years because of the risk of rare but severe side effects that may occur in long-term users. The objective of this narrative review was to describe the effects of discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drugs and to investigate what is not yet known on this topic. For each anti-osteoporotic agent, PubMed was searched for evidence from randomized clinical trials in patients with osteoporosis on osteoporotic drugs lasting ≥ 3 years, followed by ≥ 1 year of follow-up after discontinuation of therapy and reported at least one item of the following: changes in bone mineral density, bone turnover markers and/or the risk of vertebral and/or nonvertebral fractures after discontinuation of therapy. The% change in bone mineral density (BMD) after 1 year of discontinuation of therapy is − 0.4% or less at the hip and femoral neck in both alendronate- and zoledronic acid-treated patients. In the other reported agents (risedronate, ibandronate, raloxifene, teriparatide, denosumab and romosozumab) this percentage of bone loss at the femoral neck and total hip was at least 1%, with the largest decrease in BMD after discontinuation of denosumab and romosozumab. In all studies reporting bone turnover markers, a substantial rapid rise in these markers was observed after discontinuation of therapy, with a large rebound increase to far above baseline levels in the denosumab-treated patients. There were few data on fracture risk after discontinuation of therapy; data showed that discontinuing alendronate, zoledronic acid and especially denosumab significantly increases the risk of vertebral fractures. In conclusion, osteoporosis should be considered more as a chronic condition. Therefore, in modern fracture risk management, continuous monitoring and treatment is required, as is the case with other chronic diseases, to sustain the benefits of therapy, especially in denosumab- and romosozumab-treated patients. The exception is alendronate and zoledronic acid, in these patients a discontinuation of drug therapy of 1 year or more might be acceptable.

The study was conducted to illustrate the effect of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Romosozumab decreased the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and clinical fractures significantly. In addition, decreased incidence of falls and increased bone mineral density at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck was observed. Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts against the sclerostin pathway leading to enhanced bone formation and reduced bone resorption in patients with osteoporosis. Electronic search was performed on Medline (via PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov, till May 2020, for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis. RCTs evaluating the effect of Romosozumab on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Meta-analysis was performed by Cochrane review manager 5 (RevMan) version 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and GRADE pro-GDT were applied for methodological quality and overall evidence quality, respectively. One hundred seventy-nine studies were screened, and 10 eligible studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 6137 patients in romosozumab group and 5732 patients in control group. Romosozumab significantly reduced the incidence of vertebral fractures [OR = 0.43 (95%CI = 0.35–0.52), High-quality evidence], nonvertebral fractures [OR = 0.78 (95%CI = 0.66–0.92), High quality], and clinical fractures [OR = 0.70 (95%CI = 0.60–0.82), High quality] at 24 months. Significant reduction in incidence risk of falls [OR = 0.87 (95%CI = 0.78–0.96), High quality] was observed with romosozumab. Bone mineral density was significantly increased in the romosozumab treated groups at lumbar spine [MD = 12.66 (95%CI = 12.66–12.67), High quality], total hip [MD = 5.69 (95%CI = 5.68 – 5.69), Moderate quality], and femoral neck [MD = 5.18 (95%CI = 5.18–5.19), Moderate quality] at 12 months. The total adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.96–1.01), Moderate quality] and serious adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.88–1.08), Moderate quality] with romosozumab were comparable to the control group. The current analysis with evidence on efficacy and safety of Romosozumab, authors opine to recommend the use of Romosozumab treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019112196

Romosozumab reportedly increases bone mineral density (BMD) potently but might adversely affect cardiovascular disease (CVD). We evaluated the efficacy of romosozumab in osteoporotic HD patients with a high risk of fracture. This was a single-center 1-year study in Japanese HD patients. Among 96 HD romosozumab-treated HD patients with high risk of fracture, 76 HD patients completed 1 year of subcutaneous administration of romosozumab (210 mg/4 weeks) for 1 year. Romosozumab-untreated HD patients (n = 55) were also included. Changes in BMD and serum markers, together with fracture occurrence, and CVD events, were monitored. During romosozumab treatment of 76 HD patients, BMD time-dependently increased significantly by 15.3% ± 12.9% at the lumbar spine (L1–4), and 7.2% ± 8.3% at the femoral neck at 1 year. Serum BAP and total P1NP increased significantly and serum TRACP-5b decreased at 4 weeks. Fragility fractures occurred in three (3.8%) patients. Hypocalcemia occurred at 4–48 weeks despite the increased dosing of active vitamin-D derivatives, but without any symptom. New CVD events occurred in 5.2% of romosozumab-treated HD patients and10.9% in romosozumab-untreated HD patients. BMD was increased significantly during romosozumab treatment at the lumbar spine, and the femoral neck, respectively, at 1 year in HD patients. Hypocalcemia occurred but without any intolerable event. There was no apparent increase in CVD events during 1 year of study, suggesting romosozumab as a promising agent for HD patients with severe osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: New bone-directed therapies, including denosumab, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, emerged during the past decade, and recent trends in use of these therapies are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine temporal trends in bone-directed therapies. DESIGN: An open cohort study in a US commercial insurance database, January 2009 to March 2020. PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTIONS: All-users of bone-directed therapies age >50 years, users with osteoporosis, users with malignancies, and patients with recent (within 180 days) fractures at key osteoporotic sites. MAIN MEASURES: The percentage of each cohort with prescription dispensing or medication administration claims for each bone-directed therapy during each quarter of the study period. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 15.48 million prescription dispensings or medication administration claims from 1.46 million unique individuals (89% women, mean age 69 years). Among all users of bone-directed therapies, alendronate, and zoledronic acid use increased modestly (49 to 63% and 2 to 4%, respectively, during the study period). In contrast, denosumab use increased rapidly after approval in 2010, overtaking use of all other medications except alendronate by 2017 and reaching 16% of users by March 2020. Similar trends were seen in cohorts of osteoporosis, malignancy, and recent fractures. Importantly, use of any bone-directed therapy after fractures was low and declined from 15 to 8%. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of denosumab use outpaced growth of all other bone-directed therapies over the past decade. Treatment rates after osteoporotic fractures were low and declined over time, highlighting major failings in osteoporosis treatment in the US. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06938-8.

Summary This study assessed the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan, using bone mineral density (BMD) efficacy data. Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower cost than teriparatide/alendronate. Introduction This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japanese women previously treated with bisphosphonates. Methods A Markov model was used to assess the relative cost effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab versus 2 years of teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Outcomes for a cohort of women with a mean age of 78 years, a T-score ≤−2.5 and a previous fragility fracture were simulated over a lifetime horizon. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and used a discount rate of 2% per annum. To inform relative fracture incidence, the bone mineral density (BMD) advantage of romosozumab over teriparatide was translated into relative risks of fracture, using relationships provided by a meta-regression of osteoporosis therapy trials. Outcomes were assessed in terms of lifetime costs (2020 US dollars) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results Base case results showed that, compared with teriparatide/alendronate, romosozumab/alendronate reduced costs by $5134 per patient and yielded 0.045 additional QALYs. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that results are robust to uncertainty in model assumptions and inputs. Conclusion Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower total cost than teriparatide/alendronate.

Summary Romosozumab is an effective treatment for spine osteoporosis because it reduces the incidence of new fractures and significantly increases the percent change in the spine BMD at 12 months. The percent change in the spine BMD is higher in patients not previously treated with other anti-osteoporosis medications. Introduction Romosozumab appeared as a new osteoporosis medication in Japan in 2019. It is an anti-sclerostin antibody, which increases bone formation and suppresses bone resorption. The aim of our study was to elucidate the clinical effects, safety, and predictors of the effects of one-year romosozumab treatment. Methods This study was an observational study designed as a pre–post study in 262 patients. Romosozumab (210 mg) was administered subcutaneously once every 4 weeks during 12 months. We focused on incidence of new fractures, safety, bone mineral density (BMD) at the spine and total hip, and bone metabolism markers. Results There were five cases of new fractures during one-year romosozumab treatment. There were no fatal adverse events. Percent changes from baseline in the spine and total hip BMD after 12 months of romosozumab treatment were 10.67% and 2.04%, respectively. Romosozumab had better effects in cases of severe osteoporosis with low spine BMD, high TRACP-5b, and high iP1NP at the start of romosozumab treatment. The percent change in the spine BMD at 12 months was significantly lower in the group transitioning from bisphosphonates than in the group not previously treated with other anti-osteoporosis medications. Conclusion Romosozumab is an effective treatment for spine osteoporosis because it significantly increases the percent change in the spine BMD at 12 months. The percent change in the spine BMD is higher in patients not previously treated with other anti-osteoporosis medications.

There are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings. Studies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman’s life is unknown. We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40–50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.

In recent years, new treatment options for both common and rare bone diseases have become available. The sclerostin antibody romosozumab is the most recently approved drug for the therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Its anabolic capacity makes it a promising treatment option for severe osteoporosis. Other sclerostin antibodies for the treatment of rare bone diseases such as osteogenesis imperfecta are currently being investigated. For rare bone diseases such as X‑linked hypophosphatemia (XLH) and hypophosphatasia (HPP), specific therapies are now also available, showing promising data in children and adults with a severe disease course. However, long-term data are needed to assess a sustained benefit for patients.Neue therapeutische Möglichkeiten zur Therapie der Osteoporose, aber auch seltener Knochenerkrankungen stehen neuerdings zu Verfügung. Der Sclerostin-Antikörper Romosozumab wurde unlängst zur Behandlung der postmenopausalen Osteoporose zugelassen. Durch seine osteoanabole Wirkung scheint Romosozumab eine vielversprechende Therapieoption der schweren Osteoporose zu sein. Andere Sclerostin-Antikörper werden derzeit bei seltenen Knochenerkrankungen wie der Osteogenesis imperfecta untersucht. Für den Phosphatdiabetes („X-linked hypophosphatemia“, XLH) und die Hypophosphatasie (HPP) stehen nun spezifische Therapien zur Verfügung, die in den bisherigen Studien überzeugende Ergebnisse zeigten. Langzeitdaten sind jedoch erforderlich, um das Risiko-Nutzen-Profil abschätzen zu können.

Authors review the safety and efficacy of romosozumab for the treatment of osteoporosis as demonstrated in three phase III clinical trials and offer insights into the potential cardiovascular risk associated with its use. Incidence of new vertebral fracture is dramatically reduced with 12 months of romosozumab use in comparison to both placebo and active bisphosphonate control groups in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Significant non-vertebral anti-fracture benefit was also demonstrated in patients with more severe osteoporosis. Numerical increases in cardiovascular events call into question the safety of romosozumab use, particularly in patients with cardiovascular history or at high cardiovascular risk. Romosozumab has impressive anti-fracture effects in postmenopausal women with high risk for fragility fracture. Despite no significant differences in baseline cardiovascular risk factors between groups, a numerical increase in serious cardiovascular adverse events was demonstrated with romosozumab in randomized trials with no discernable etiology. Until more real-world evidence is available, romosozumab should not be used in patients with a recent cardiovascular event and should be used cautiously in patients with high cardiovascular risk. Romosozumab’s place in therapy is likely patients with severe postmenopausal osteoporosis and low cardiovascular risk.

This post-hoc analysis of the FRAME study investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of romosozumab followed by denosumab in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis at high fracture risk. Data from Japanese women with a high fracture risk participating in the international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 FRAME study were analysed. High risk of fracture was defined as ≥ 1 fragility fracture with bone mineral density (BMD) ≤ − 2.5 standard deviations [SD], > 2 prevalent vertebral fractures, prevalent semiquantitative grade 3 vertebral fracture, or lumbar spine BMD

Our 6-month study showed the usefulness of romosozumab for preventing fractures and its safety. It was effective in patients with low baseline spine BMD, high TRACP-5b, and high iP1NP. Percent change from baseline of TRACP-5b and iP1NP after 1 month correlated with that from baseline of BMD after four to 6-month treatment. Romosozumab appeared as a new osteoporosis medication in Japan in 2019. It is an anti-sclerostin antibody which increases bone formation and suppresses bone resorption. In this study, we analyzed the actual clinical effects, adverse effects, and the optimal way to evaluate the treatment. Romosozumab was administered as subcutaneous injection of 210 mg once every 4 weeks. We conducted pre-post study in 185 patients treated for 6 months. We focused on the incidence of new vertebral fractures, safety, bone mineral density (BMD) at the spine and total hip, and bone metabolism markers. We evaluated BMD before romosozumab treatment and after 4 to 6 months and performed the serum analysis before romosozumab treatment, after 1, 3, and 6 months. There was no new fracture during treatment, and there was no fatal adverse event including cardiovascular disease. Since percent changes from baseline of the spine and total hip BMD were 6.34% and 1.53% after 4- to 6-month treatment, the treatment was effective for spine osteoporosis. Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) and intact type I procollagen N-terminal propeptide (iP1NP) had significant changes during romosozumab treatment (p

Summary This phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of transitioning to zoledronate following romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. A single dose of 5 mg zoledronate generally maintained the robust BMD gains accrued with romosozumab treatment and was well tolerated. Introduction Follow-on therapy with an antiresorptive agent is necessary to maintain the skeletal benefits of romosozumab therapy. We evaluated the use of zoledronate following romosozumab treatment. Methods This phase 2, dose-finding study enrolled postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD). Subjects who received various romosozumab doses or placebo from months 0–24 were rerandomized to denosumab (60 mg SC Q6M) or placebo for 12 months, followed by open-label romosozumab (210 mg QM) for 12 months. At month 48, subjects who had received active treatment for 48 months were assigned to no further active treatment and all other subjects were assigned to zoledronate 5 mg IV. Efficacy (BMD, P1NP, and β-CTX) and safety were evaluated for 24 months, up to month 72. Results A total of 141 subjects entered the month 48–72 period, with 51 in the no further active treatment group and 90 in the zoledronate group. In subjects receiving no further active treatment, lumbar spine (LS) BMD decreased by 10.8% from months 48–72 but remained 4.2% above the original baseline. In subjects receiving zoledronate, LS BMD was maintained (percentage changes: − 0.8% from months 48–72; 12.8% from months 0–72). Similar patterns were observed for proximal femur BMD in both groups. With no further active treatment, P1NP and β-CTX decreased but remained above baseline at month 72. Following zoledronate, P1NP and β-CTX levels initially decreased but approached baseline by month 72. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion A zoledronate follow-on regimen can maintain robust BMD gains achieved with romosozumab treatment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00198-020-05502-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Osteoporosis is a chronic skeletal disease with an increasing prevalence. Romosozumab, as a monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody with a dual function, has been produced. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the efficacy of Romosozumab in patients with low bone mineral density. A systematic search was conducted in the most important electronic search engines like Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov at the end of July 2019 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which evaluated the effect of Romosozumab in patients with osteoporosis and/or low bone mineral density. After evaluating the quality of articles with the Cochrane checklist, data related to the outcomes of bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, risk of clinical, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, and risk of adverse events were extracted. Quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated by I2 and Q statistics. The meta-analysis was performed using CMA v.2.0 software. Of all the 671 initially retrieved articles, seven articles were entered into the meta-analysis after removing duplicates and reviewing papers with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis showed that Romosozumab 210, 140, and 70 mg compared with Alendronate, Teriparatide, and placebo can increase the bone mineral density in the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip. The risk of adverse events like adjudicated cardiovascular serious adverse events and adjudicated cardiovascular death was more in Romosozumab 210 mg in comparison with placebo. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Treatment with anti-sclerostin antibodies can be a proper therapeutic option in patients with osteoporosis and low bone mineral density. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, it seems that Romosozumab, with its dual function, has a positive role in the treatment of osteoporosis and low bone mineral density.

Summary Romosozumab, a sclerostin antibody, exerts dual effect to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption. Among high-risk postmenopausal East Asian women, romosozumab followed by alendronate was associated with lower incidences of fractures vs alendronate alone. Romosozumab demonstrates potential to address an unmet need in osteoporosis management in Asia. Introduction Romosozumab, a sclerostin antibody, exerts dual effect to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption. The global ARCH study demonstrated superiority of romosozumab followed by alendronate in reducing fracture risk in high-risk postmenopausal osteoporotic women vs alendronate alone. We report outcomes among ARCH East Asian patients. Methods In ARCH, 4093 postmenopausal osteoporotic women with fragility fracture were randomized 1:1 to monthly romosozumab 210 mg or weekly alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, both followed by open-label alendronate. Primary endpoints were incidence of new vertebral fracture (VF) at 24 months and clinical fracture at primary analysis (confirmed fractures in ≥ 330 patients and all patients had opportunity to attend month 24 visit). This post hoc analysis was not powered to detect fracture-rate differences. Results This analysis included 275 patients from Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan. Romosozumab followed by alendronate reduced risk of new VFs at 24 months by 60% (P = 0.11) and clinical fractures at primary analysis by 44% (P = 0.15) vs alendronate alone. Romosozumab followed by alendronate significantly increased mean bone mineral density at 24 months from baseline by a further 9.0%, 3.3%, and 3.0% at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck vs alendronate alone. Adverse event (AE) rates, including positively adjudicated serious cardiovascular AEs (1.6% vs 1.4% at 12 months for romosozumab vs alendronate), were similar across treatment groups. Conclusions Consistent with the global analysis, romosozumab followed by alendronate was associated with lower incidences of new vertebral, clinical, non-vertebral, and hip fractures vs alendronate alone among East Asian patients.

By Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis stratified by prevalent vertebral fracture (PVF), we conclude that different effective drugs should be used to prevent fragility fractures according to postmenopausal women with or without PVF and that there are two drugs (i.e., parathyroid hormone (1-84) and abaloparatide) less tolerated than placebo. No studies have compared various osteoporosis drugs in postmenopausal women (PMW) either with or without prevalent vertebral fracture (PVF). We aimed to compare them in the two different subgroups. We searched different databases to select relevant studies. We performed Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis to synthesize hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for clinical fracture stratified by PVF and to synthesize risk ratio (RR) for tolerability and vertebral fracture. We included 33 trials involving 79,144 PMW. In the PVF ≥ 50% subgroup, teriparatide (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28–0.57), romosozumab (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29–0.75), risedronate (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.79), zoledronate (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.96), and alendronate (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47–0.97) reduced clinical fracture risk. In the other subgroup, abaloparatide (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33–0.92), romosozumab (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.95), and denosumab (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50–0.85) reduced clinical fracture risk. Five drugs reduced vertebral fracture risk in the PVF ≥ 50% subgroup whereas seven did in the other subgroup. All drugs did not increase withdrawal risk except for parathyroid hormone (1-84) (PTH) (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4–2.6) and abaloparatide (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.3). Different effective drugs should be used to prevent fragility fractures according to PMW with or without PVF, and romosozumab is the only one which can reduce clinical and vertebral fractures in both of the two populations. PTH and abaloparatide are less tolerated than placebo whereas the eight other drugs assessed in the study have the same tolerability as placebo.

Procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), a bone formation marker, reportedly predicts bone mineral density (BMD) response to teriparatide treatment in treatment-naive patients with osteoporosis. Results from a randomized, phase 3, open-label, active-controlled trial— STRUCTURE—showed that in patients previously treated with bisphosphonates, romosozumab led to gains in hip BMD, which were not observed with teriparatide. This post hoc analysis investigated the comparative utility of early changes in P1NP in predicting BMD response in patients who participated in the STRUCTURE trial, which enrolled patients who switched treatment from bisphosphonates to romosozumab/teriparatide. Postmenopausal women (aged 55–90 years) with osteoporosis who had previously taken bisphosphonates were randomized to receive open-label subcutaneous romosozumab (210 mg once monthly; n = 218) or teriparatide (20 µg once daily; n = 218) for 12 months. BMD was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at the proximal femur and lumbar spine (LS) at baseline and months 6 and 12. To assess the utility of P1NP, the positive predictive value of increase from baseline in P1NP of > 10 µg/L at month 1 and achievement of various thresholds of percent change from baseline in BMD at month 12 were evaluated. Overall, 95% (191/202) of patients in the romosozumab group and 91% (183/201) in the teriparatide group demonstrated an increase in P1NP of > 10 µg/L from baseline at month 1. Among these patients, 18% and 3% of romosozumab-treated patients versus 60% and 12% of teriparatide-treated patients showed no increase from baseline (i.e., ≤ 0%) in total hip and LS BMD, respectively, at month 12. These data indicate that in patients switching from bisphosphonates to a bone-forming therapy, increases in P1NP do not help predict the hip BMD response. Although most patients treated with either teriparatide or romosozumab showed an increase in P1NP, the majority of patients on romosozumab showed an increase in hip BMD, while more than half of the patients on teriparatide did not. Teriparatide therapy did not increase total hip BMD in the majority of patients who transitioned from bisphosphonates to teriparatide. Thus, increases in P1NP were not predictive of BMD response in the teriparatide group because in approximately 60% of the patients who were administered teriparatide, the hip BMD decreased independent of the change in P1NP levels.

Summary Romosozumab is a therapy that stimulates bone formation and reduces bone resorption. In this study of postmenopausal women with low BMD, a second course of romosozumab following a period off treatment or on denosumab increased or maintained BMD, respectively, and was well tolerated, providing insight into treatment sequence options. Introduction In patients with high fracture risk, therapies that stimulate bone formation provide rapid BMD gains; currently available agents, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, are limited to a 2-year lifetime exposure and generally used for a single treatment course. However, for long-term osteoporosis management, a second treatment course may be appropriate. Romosozumab, a therapy with the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, reduces fracture risk within 12 months. Here, we report efficacy and safety of a second romosozumab course. Methods In this phase 2, dose-finding study, postmenopausal women with low bone mass (T-score ≤ − 2.0 and ≥ − 3.5) received romosozumab or placebo (month 0–24) followed by placebo or denosumab (month 24–36); participants then received a year of romosozumab (month 36–48). Results Of 167 participants who entered the month 36–48 period, 35 had been initially randomized to romosozumab 210 mg monthly. In participants who received romosozumab 210 mg monthly followed by placebo, a second romosozumab course (n = 19) increased BMD by amounts similar to their initial treatment (month 0–12) at the lumbar spine (12.4%; 12.0%, respectively) and total hip (6.0%; 5.5%, respectively). Following denosumab, a second romosozumab course (n = 16) increased BMD at the lumbar spine (2.3%) and maintained BMD at the total hip. Safety profiles were similar between first and second romosozumab courses. Conclusions After 12 months off-treatment, a second romosozumab course again led to rapid and large BMD gains. Following denosumab, BMD gains with romosozumab were smaller than with initial treatment. No new safety findings were observed during the second course. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00198-019-05146-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Romosozumab (EVENITY™) is a humanised monoclonal antibody against sclerostin being developed by Amgen and UCB for the treatment of osteoporosis. On the basis of favourable results from several phase III trials in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, and a single trial in men with osteoporosis, romosozumab is being considered for marketing approval in the US, EU and Canada, and was recently approved for marketing in Japan. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of romosozumab leading to this first approval for the treatment of osteoporosis in patients at high risk of fracture.

We propose a mathematical model describing the dynamics of osteoblasts and osteoclasts in bone remodeling. The goal of this work is to develop an integrated modeling framework for bone remodeling and bone cell signaling dynamics that could be used to explore qualitatively combination treatments for osteoporosis in humans. The model has been calibrated using 57 checks from the literature. Specific global optimization methods based on qualitative objectives have been developed to perform the model calibration. We also added pharmacokinetics representations of three drugs to the model, which are teriparatide (PTH(1-34)), denosumab (a RANKL antibody) and romosozumab (a sclerostin antibody), achieving excellent goodness-of-fit of human clinical data. The model reproduces the paradoxical effects of PTH on the bone mass, where continuous administration of PTH results in bone loss but intermittent administration of PTH leads to bone gain, thus proposing an explanation of this phenomenon. We used the model to simulate different categories of osteoporosis. The main attributes of each disease are qualitatively well captured by the model, for example changes in bone turnover in the disease states. We explored dosing regimens for each disease based on the combination of denosumab and romosozumab, identifying adequate ratios and doses of both drugs for subpopulations of patients in function of categories of osteoporosis and the degree of severity of the disease.

Osteoporosis is a major health concern for men in our aging population. The incidence of osteoporotic fractures in men is expected to rise as life expectancy increases. When adjusted for age, one half of all hip fractures occur in men and of all osteoporotic fractures; hip fractures account for the highest morbidity and mortality. Several factors contribute to bone loss in men. Sex steroid deficiency plays an important role in male age-related bone loss. Careful evaluation for secondary causes of bone loss (including lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and risk medications) is warranted. Osteoporosis guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) testing in men over age 70, earlier in men with other risk factors. As in women, adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, regular weight-bearing exercise, smoking cessation, limiting excessive alcohol, and fall prevention strategies are recommended. Available clinical data support efficacy of bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid), denosumab, and anabolic therapy (teriparatide) in men with osteoporosis as well as in women. Abaloparatide, a parathyroid hormone-related peptide analog with demonstrated anti-fracture efficacy in women, awaits the conclusion of clinical trials in men. Romosozumab shows similar BMD and bone turnover marker effects in osteoporotic men compared to women; evaluation of safety concerns is ongoing. Recent insights into osteoporosis pathophysiology and bone cell biology provide promising direction for effective therapeutic strategies for the management of male osteoporosis.

To summarize existing evidence on the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Despite increased interest in new targets for osteoporosis therapy, the mainstay of treatment remains to be bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide. Abaloparatide is a new parathyroid hormone-related peptide analog that has similar efficacy as teriparatide, but with monthly doses and a lower risk of hypercalcemia. This medication is approved in the USA for severe osteoporosis, but approval is pending in other countries. Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin that has superior fracture protection compared with alendronate, but it may increase the risk of cardiovascular events based on the recent ARCH trial. A combination of falls prevention, exercise, and adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D is recommended for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Pharmacologic therapy should be added to patients at high risk of fractures.

Osteoporosis is characterized by low bone mass and qualitative structural abnormalities of bone tissue, leading to increased bone fragility that results in fractures. Pharmacological therapy is aimed at decreasing the risk of fracture, mainly correcting the imbalance between bone resorption and formation at the level of bone remodeling units. Anabolic therapy has the capability to increase bone mass to a greater extent than traditional antiresorptive agents. The only currently available drug licensed is parathyroid hormone 1-34 (teriparatide); new drugs are on the horizon, targeting the stimulation of bone formation, and therefore improving bone mass, structure and ultimately skeletal strength. These are represented by abaloparatide (a 34-amino acid peptide which incorporates critical N-terminal residues, shared by parathyroid hormone and parathyroid hormone-related protein, followed by sequences unique to the latter protein) and romosozumab (an antibody to sclerostin). In the future, the availability of new anabolic treatment will allow a more extensive utilization of additive and sequential approach, with the goal of both prolonging the period of treatment and, more importantly, avoiding the side effects consequent to long-term use of traditional drugs.

Since its discovery 15 years ago, inhibition of sclerostin has come to be identified as a potent anabolic agent. The sclerostin neutralizing antibody, romosozumab, is a promising treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Animal studies also show a role of sclerostin in regulating hematopoietic cells and, more recently, adipocytes. This review will summarize the newly discovered effects of sclerostin on white, beige, and bone marrow adipocytes. Sclerostin treatment of a preadipocytic cell line shows dose-dependent increase in differentiation of white adipocytes. The supraphysiological increase in circulating sclerostin in mice shows an increase in beige adipocytes, i.e., brown adipocyte-like cells in white adipose tissue depots. Sclerostin treatment also increases bone marrow adipogenesis. Moreover, sclerostin-deficient mice show decreased whole body fat due to increased fatty acid oxidation. These recent findings show that circulating sclerostin could affect the development of all types of adipocytes. However, sclerostin levels vary significantly depending on age, gender, and disease conditions. Moreover, significant variation is present among adipocytes depending on developmental stage and tissue location. Further studies are needed to determine the more precise role of sclerostin on adipocytes.

Treatment with sclerostin antibody (romosozumab) increases bone formation while reducing bone resorption, leading to increases in bone volume and bone mineral density. Sclerostin antibody treatment may also provide beneficial changes in trabecular microarchitecture and strength that are not reflected in bone volume and density. Here we use three-dimensional dynamic histomorphometry to determine longitudinal changes in vertebral trabecular microarchitecture in adolescent male cynomolgus monkeys (4–5 years old) treated with sclerostin antibody. Animals were treated bi-weekly with either sclerostin antibody (30 mg/kg, sc, n = 6) or vehicle (n = 6) for 10 weeks. Animals were administered fluorochrome bone formation labels on days 14 and 24 (tetracycline) and on days 56 and 66 (calcein), followed by necropsy on day 70. Cylindrical specimens of cancellous bone from the 5th lumbar vertebrae were used to generate high-resolution, three-dimensional images of bone and fluorescent labels of bone formation (0.7 × 0.7 × 5.0 µm/voxel). The three-dimensional images of the bone formation labels were used to determine the bone volume formed between days 14 and 66 and the resulting alterations in trabecular microarchitecture within each bone. Treatment with sclerostin antibody resulted in a conversion of rod-like trabeculae into plate-like trabeculae at a higher rate than in vehicle-treated animals (p = 0.01). Plate bone volume fraction was greater in the sclerostin antibody group relative to vehicle (mean 43 vs. 30%, p

Wnt signaling is an important osteogenic pathway regulating skeletal development and maintenance, and sclerostin is a potent extracellular inhibitor of this process. New anabolic skeletal therapies are needed to treat osteoporosis in the aging population, and pre-clinical and clinical studies demonstrate that targeting sclerostin with neutralizing antibodies releases an inhibitory brake on osteogenic Wnt signaling, promoting new bone formation and suppressing bone resorption to ultimately increase net bone mass. In this article, we review recent evidence regarding the regulation of sclerostin production in vivo under normal and disease states and summarize recent findings regarding the efficacy, mechanism of action, and potential complications of sclerostin-targeting therapies (i.e., sclerostin-neutralizing antibodies) in the treatment of skeletal disorders. While recent studies have revealed a great deal of information regarding sclerostin’s biological effects and regulatory patterns, much remains to be learned about the role of this molecule in the skeleton and other body systems.

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was the first imaging tool widely utilized by clinicians to assess fracture risk, especially in postmenopausal women. The development of DXA nearly coincided with the availability of effective osteoporosis medications. Although osteoporosis in adults is diagnosed based on a T-score equal to or below − 2.5 SD, most individuals who sustain fragility fractures are above this arbitrary cutoff. This incongruity poses a challenge to clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from osteoporosis treatments. DXA scanners generate 2 dimensional images of complex 3 dimensional structures, and report bone density as the quotient of the bone mineral content divided by the bone area. An obvious pitfall of this method is that a larger bone will convey superior strength, but may in fact have the same bone density as a smaller bone. Other imaging modalities are available such as peripheral quantitative CT, but are largely research tools. Current osteoporosis medications increase bone density and reduce fracture risk but the mechanisms of these actions vary. Anti-resorptive medications (bisphosphonates and denosumab) primarily increase endocortical bone by bolstering mineralization of endosteal resorption pits and thereby increase cortical thickness and reduce cortical porosity. Anabolic medications (teriparatide and abaloparatide) increase the periosteal and endosteal perimeters without large changes in cortical thickness resulting in a larger more structurally sound bone. Because of the differences in the mechanisms of the various drugs, there are likely benefits of selecting a treatment based on a patient’s unique bone structure and pattern of bone loss. This review retreats to basic principles in order to advance clinical management of fragility fractures by examining how skeletal biomechanics, size, shape, and ultra-structural properties are the ultimate predictors of bone strength. Accurate measurement of these skeletal parameters through the development of better imaging scanners is critical to advancing fracture risk assessment and informing clinicians on the best treatment strategy. With this information, a “treat to target” approach could be employed to tailor current and future therapies to each patient’s unique skeletal characteristics.

An overview of selected papers related to bone published in 2017 is provided. This paper accompanies a lecture at the 2018 Belgian Bone Club annual Clinical Update Symposium held in Brussels on January 20th, discussing the best papers (in the opinion of the author) published in the previous year. A PubMed search using the keyword “bone” and articles published in 2017. Hot topics include screening for osteoporosis, novel anabolic drugs such as romosozumab and abaloparatide for osteoporosis and rare metabolic bone diseases, as well as long-term efficacy of denosumab and possible risk of multiple vertebral fractures following its discontinuation. Other selected articles cover effectiveness of bisphosphonates and changes in mineralization after long-term use, new guidelines for glucocorticoid- and aromatase inhibitor-induced osteoporosis, increasing use of high-dose vitamin D supplements despite lack of evidence for their widespread high-dose use, and cardiovascular safety concerns surrounding the use of calcium supplements. Other topics discussed are effects of diabetes on bone health, reciprocal crosstalk between bone cells and adipose tissue, and resistance exercise training to prevent bone loss and sarcopenia. These papers offer a hopeful outlook for a better treatment and management of patients with osteoporosis and other metabolic bone diseases anno 2018.

Sclerostin is a cysteine-knot glycoprotein product of the SOST gene, predominately expressed by osteocytes, that is a regulator of osteoblastic bone formation. When sclerostin binds to its low-density lipoprotein receptor-related proteins 5 and 6 on the cell membrane of osteoblasts, it inhibits canonical Wnt/β-catenin signaling and reduces osteoblastic bone formation. Sclerostin was first identified in the study of two rare autosomal recessive disorders, sclerosteosis and van Buchem disease, which are associated with absent or reduced levels of sclerostin. Although homozygote patients with these disorders have serious adverse clinical consequences due to excessive bone growth, heterozygote patients have a normal phenotype, high bone mass, and very low risk of fractures. This has led to the concept that downregulation of sclerostin might be effective in the treatment of osteoporosis. Several humanized monoclonal antibodies to sclerostin, including romosozumab and blosozumab, are now in clinical development. Preliminary data show that these agents result in a transient increase in bone formation markers, a sustained decrease in bone resorption markers, and a robust increase in bone mineral density. If any of these agents are found to reduce fracture risk with a favorable safety profile, it will expand the options for osteoanabolic therapy for patients at high risk for fractures.

Romosozumab, a recently developed sclerostin inhibitor, stimulates bone formation and inhibits bone resorption, thereby markedly increasing bone mass and reducing fracture risk. But will a red flag regarding possible adverse cardiovascular events derail this promising new drug for osteoporosis?

Biologic agents targeting key proteins involved in bone homeostasis are revolutionizing the management of osteoporosis. New clinical data support the use of these novel therapies to rapidly increase bone mass and decrease the risk of fractures.

Sclerosteosis and Van Buchem disease are two rare bone sclerosing disorders characterized by increased bone mineral density, tall stature and entrapment of cranial nerves due to overgrowth of a highly dense bone. Recent advances in human genetics have revealed the genetic background of these disorders by cloning the SOST gene, which is localized on chromosome region 17q12-q21 and codes for sclerostin. Sclerostin is a protein produced almost exclusively from osteocytes inhibiting bone formation by both osteoblasts and osteocytes. At the molecular level, sclerostin inhibits the Wnt signaling pathway, which plays a critical role in osteoblast development and function. Induced sclerostin deficiency in mice reproduces the bone sclerosing human diseases, while sclerostin excess leads to bone loss and reduced bone strength. The extracellular nature of sclerostin has rendered it a promising target for the development of novel anti-osteoporotic treatment. Otherwise healthy carriers of the SOST mutation present with increased bone mass and low levels of sclerostin in serum in contrast to patients with sclerosteosis, who exhibit undetectable levels, thus pointing to the possibility of titration of sclerostin levels in the circulation. Based on these unique characteristics, human anti-sclerostin antibodies have been developed and tested in ovariectomized rats and monkeys, demonstrating very promising results in bone formation. Clinical phase II and III trials are currently underway thereby translating human genetics to drug development.

In a recent study by Cosman and colleagues, romosozumab — a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting sclerostin — is shown to reduce the risk of vertebral and clinical fractures at 12 months compared with placebo. However, the low fracture risk of study participants necessitates the completion of an on-going clinical trial before romosozumab can be fully adopted into clinical practice.