Search

Patients with osteoporosis and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk of fracture and associated negative outcomes, including increased mortality. The present post hoc analysis of two randomized, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trials-Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis (FRAME) and Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH)-investigated the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and mild-to-moderate CKD. The analysis included data from 7147 patients from FRAME and 4077 from ARCH. Eighty-one percent of patients from FRAME and 85% from ARCH had mild or moderate reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at baseline, and part of this reduction is likely age related. During the 1-year double-blind phases of the trials, patients received romosozumab 210 mg sc or placebo monthly in FRAME and romosozumab 210 mg sc monthly or alendronate 70 mg po weekly in ARCH. Bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck and vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were assessed at baseline and month 12. In both trials, the least-square mean percent change from baseline BMD was significantly greater in the romosozumab groups versus controls across all kidney function categories at month 12. Romosozumab reduced the relative risk of new vertebral fractures at month 12 among patients with eGFR of 30-59, 60-89, and ≥90 mL/min by 72% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-91; p = 0.017), 70% (40-85; p < 0.001), and 84% (30-96; p = 0.005), respectively, in FRAME versus placebo, and by 51% (5-75; p = 0.04), 19% (-28 to 49; p = 0.39), and 57% (1-81, p = 0.04), respectively, in ARCH versus alendronate. Incidences of adverse events, asymptomatic decreases in serum calcium, and evolution of kidney function during the studies were similar across all baseline kidney function groups. Romosozumab is an effective treatment option for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and mild-to-moderate reduction in kidney function, with a similar safety profile across different levels of kidney function. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).)

Recent studies suggest that the RANK/RANKL system impacts muscle function and/or mass. In the pivotal placebo-controlled fracture trial of the RANKL inhibitor denosumab in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, treatment was associated with a lower incidence of non-fracture-related falls (p = 0.02). This ad hoc exploratory analysis pooled data from five placebo-controlled trials of denosumab to determine consistency across trials, if any, of the reduction of fall incidence. The analysis included trials in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis and low bone mass, men with osteoporosis, women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer, and men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. The analysis was stratified by trial, and only included data from the placebo-controlled period of each trial. A time-to-event analysis of first fall and exposure-adjusted subject incidence rates of falls were analyzed. Falls were reported and captured as adverse events. The analysis comprised 10,036 individuals; 5030 received denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously once every 6 months for 12 to 36 months and 5006 received placebo. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed an occurrence of falls in 6.5% of subjects in the placebo group compared with 5.2% of subjects in the denosumab group (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.93; p = 0.0061). Heterogeneity in study designs did not permit overall assessment of association with fracture outcomes. In conclusion, denosumab may reduce the risk of falls in addition to its established fracture risk reduction by reducing bone resorption and increasing bone mass. These observations require further exploration and confirmation in studies with muscle function or falls as the primary outcome. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Persistence with osteoporosis therapy is vital for fracture prevention. This non-interventional study of postmenopausal women receiving denosumab in Germany, Austria, Greece, and Belgium found that persistence with denosumab remains consistently high after 24 months in patients at high risk of fracture., Purpose: Continued persistence with osteoporosis therapy is vital for fracture prevention. This non-interventional study of clinical practice evaluated medication-taking behavior of postmenopausal women receiving denosumab in Germany, Austria, Greece, and Belgium and factors influencing persistence., Methods: Subcutaneous denosumab (60 mg every 6 months) was assigned according to prescribing information and local guidelines before and independently of enrollment; outcomes were recorded during routine practice for up to 24 months. Persistence was defined as receiving the subsequent injection within 6 months + 8 weeks of the previous injection and adherence as administration of subsequent injections within 6 months ± 4 weeks of the previous injection. Medication coverage ratio (MCR) was calculated as the proportion of time a patient was covered by denosumab. Associations between pre-specified baseline covariates and 24-month persistence were assessed using multivariable logistic regression., Results: The 24-month analyses included 1479 women (mean age 66.3-72.5 years) from 140 sites; persistence with denosumab was 75.1-86.0%, adherence 62.9-70.1%, and mean MCR 87.4-92.4%. No covariate had a significant effect on persistence across all four countries. For three countries, a recent fall decreased persistence; patients were generally older with chronic medical conditions. In some countries, other covariates (e.g., older age, comorbidity, immobility, and prescribing reasons) decreased persistence. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 2.3-6.9% patients., Conclusions: Twenty-four-month persistence with denosumab is consistently high among postmenopausal women in Europe and may be influenced by patient characteristics. Further studies are needed to identify determinants of low persistence.

Osteoporosis may be a lifelong condition. Robust data regarding the efficacy and safety of both long-term osteoporosis therapy and therapy discontinuation are therefore important. A paucity of clinical trial data regarding the long-term antifracture efficacy of osteoporosis therapies necessitates the use of surrogate endpoints in discussions surrounding long-term use and/or discontinuation. Long-term treatment (beyond 3-4 years) may produce further increases in bone mineral density (BMD) or BMD stability, depending on the specific treatment and the skeletal site. Bisphosphonates, when discontinued, are associated with a prolonged reduction in bone turnover markers (BTMs), with a very gradual increase to pretreatment levels within 3 to 60 months of treatment cessation, depending on the bisphosphonate used and the prior duration of therapy. In contrast, with nonbisphosphonate antiresorptive agents, such as estrogen and denosumab, BTMs rebound to above pretreatment values within months of discontinuation. The pattern of BTM change is generally mirrored by a more or less rapid decrease in BMD. Although the prolonged effect of some bisphosphonates on BTMs and BMD may contribute to residual benefit on bone strength, it may also raise safety concerns. Adequately powered postdiscontinuation fracture studies and conclusive evidence on maintenance or loss of fracture benefit is lacking for bisphosphonates. Similarly, the effects of rapid reversal of bone turnover upon discontinuation of denosumab on fracture risk remain unknown. Ideally, studies evaluating the effects of long-term treatment and treatment discontinuation should be designed to provide head-to-head "offset" data between bisphosphonates and nonbisphosphonate antiresorptive agents. In the absence of this, a clinical recommendation for physicians may be to periodically assess the benefits/risks of continuation versus discontinuation versus alternative management strategies., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Background: Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that presents a large economic burden both on the affected individual and on society. Osteoporotic fractures are a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. Given the high prevalence of osteoporosis and related costs, understanding the factors that determine the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis therapy is important for physicians and managed-care organizations. Bisphosphonates are considered first-line therapy for osteoporosis, and pharmacological differences between them relate not only to differences in efficacy and safety, but also have an impact on health economics. Efficacy and persistence with therapy influence fracture risk-reduction and should be considered when determining the best osteoporosis therapy for each patient., Scope: This article synthesizes recent health economic data, assessing the impact of drug efficacy and persistence or dosing frequency on the cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonates as therapeutic agents for osteoporosis treatment. The author's interpretation of the available evidence is also discussed, from the perspective of a 'Commentary' article., Findings: Although treatment persistence is an important factor in reducing fracture risk, when comparing the health economic data of several treatment options, studies have shown that the cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapy is mainly dependent on drug efficacy rather than persistence or dosing frequency. It should also be noted that fractures at different skeletal sites have different economic impacts. Non-vertebral fractures (and particularly those of the hip) are more costly than vertebral fractures., Conclusions: Although persistence with osteoporosis therapy is an important factor in reducing fracture risk, it has less of an impact on cost-effectiveness than treatment efficacy, in particular efficacy at non-vertebral sites.

Male osteoporosis is increasingly recognized as a major public health issue. This multinational, 2-yr, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of 35 mg once-a-week risedronate in men with osteoporosis. Patients had to be men >or=30 yr old, with lumbar spine T-score

Intravenous bisphosphonates reduce fracture risk but have been associated in rare cases with deteriorating renal-function in cancer patients. The renal effects of zoledronic acid were assessed in osteoporotic postmenopausal women from 27 countries who received three annual infusions of zoledronic acid or a placebo in a randomized, double-blind trial. Serum creatinine, estimated creatinine clearance and urinary protein were measured before and after at least one infusion in a predefined renal safety cohort of 5035 equally divided patients. This group was compared to 7714 patients whose parameters were measured annually. Significantly more transient pre- to post-infusion increases in serum creatinine occurred in zoledronic acid than placebo-treated patients with significant elevations, relative to pre-infusion, only in the second year. All 31 zoledronic acid and 8 of 10 patients on placebo recovered their pre-infusion serum creatinine value within 12 months. No differences in mean changes in serum creatinine, estimated creatinine clearance or adverse renal events were found. We found that transient changes in renal function can occur following an annual zoledronic acid infusion but, in the long term, renal function was not different from control patients.

Introduction: EUROFORS was a 2-yr prospective, randomized trial of postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, designed to investigate various sequential treatments after teriparatide 20 microg/d for 1 yr. The present secondary analysis examined the effects of 2 yr of open-label teriparatide in women previously treated with antiresorptive drugs for at least 1 yr., Methods: A subgroup of 245 women with osteoporosis who had 2 yr of teriparatide treatment were stratified by previous predominant antiresorptive treatment into four groups: alendronate (n=107), risedronate (n=59), etidronate (n=30), and non-bisphosphonate (n=49). Bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and hip was determined after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and bone formation markers were measured after 1 and 6 months., Results: Significant increases in bone formation markers occurred in all groups after 1 month of teriparatide treatment. Lumbar spine BMD increased at all visits, whereas a transient decrease in hip BMD, which was subsequently reversed, was observed in all groups. BMD responses were similar in all previous antiresorptive groups. Previous etidronate users showed a higher increase at the spine but not at the hip BMD. Duration of previous antiresorptive therapy and lag time between stopping previous therapy and starting teriparatide did not affect the BMD response at any skeletal site. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar to those reported in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with teriparatide., Conclusions: Teriparatide induces positive effects on BMD and markers of bone formation in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, regardless of previous long-term exposure to antiresorptive therapies.

Combined calcium and vitamin D supplementation is an essential component of the management of osteoporosis, supported by a strong scientific rationale. The types of individuals who should receive calcium and vitamin D supplements are those: (i) patients with documented osteoporosis receiving antiresorptive or anabolic treatment; (ii) patients receiving glucocorticoids; and (iii) individuals with or at high risk of calcium and/or vitamin D insufficiencies, in particular older women and men. This article describes the evidence base that supports targeting these groups. Benefits are most apparent when 800 IU day(-1) vitamin D is complemented with a dose of 1000-1200 mg day(-1) elemental calcium. Compliance is also key to optimizing clinical efficacy.

Patients with osteoporosis need a safe and effective treatment that reduces the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, leading to clinical benefits such as reduced back pain and height loss. Strontium ranelate corrects bone turnover, producing a more physiological state. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in postmenopausal osteoporosis show it to be effective in reducing vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risks. Treatment efficacy has been documented across a wide range of patient profiles, and appears to be independent of all the major determinants of fracture risk, including the severity of the disease at baseline, the number of prevalent fractures, and the age of the patient. This antifracture efficacy translates into clinical benefits, such as a 20% reduction in the rate of height loss and a 29% increase in the number of patients free of back pain. The effect of treatment with strontium ranelate on well-being has been assessed using the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Osteoporosis, which is a supplement to the 36-question Short-Form Health Survey. Treatment with strontium ranelate had a significant beneficial effect on the emotional, physical, and global Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in Osteoporosis scores compared with placebo. The rates of compliance with treatment were over 80% in phase III studies, reflecting the tolerability and safety profile and the ease of administration of this agent. Together with the antifracture data, the clinical benefits and quality of life data endorse the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with strontium ranelate.

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in patients aged 75 and older and compare these findings with those of women younger than 75 using data from the Fracture Prevention Trial (FPT)., Design: The FPT was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study., Setting: The FPT multicenter international study., Participants: Postmenopausal women aged 42 to 86 were randomized to placebo (N=544) or teriparatide 20 mug (N=541) by daily self-injection for a median of 19 months. Patients received daily oral supplements of 1,000 mg calcium and 400 to 1,200 IU vitamin D. For this analysis, subgroups were defined according to patient age younger than 75 (N=841) and 75 and older (N=244)., Measurements: The effects of teriparatide on bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine and femoral neck; the incidence of new vertebral and new nonvertebral fragility fractures; bone turnover markers, including bone-specific alkaline phosphatase; and urinary deoxypyridinoline corrected for creatinine clearance, as well as the safety of teriparatide, were investigated., Results: There were no significant treatment-by-age interactions for the bone turnover markers, femoral neck BMD, vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fragility fractures, height loss, hyperuricemia, or hypercalcemia. A significant treatment-by-age interaction for lumbar spine BMD (P=.08) was due to an increase in BMD observed in the placebo group aged 75 and older. There were no treatment-by-age interactions for important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including back pain, nausea, leg cramps, and dizziness. The most important TEAEs in women aged 80 and older (23 patients from the placebo group and 25 patients from the teriparatide group) were also reviewed; no unexpected TEAEs were found in the patients treated with teriparatide. These results indicate that the clinical effects of teriparatide were consistent in the older and younger women., Conclusion: Age does not affect the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Most osteoporosis treatments have proven efficacy in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, whereas evidence is less straightforward for prevention of non-vertebral fractures. Conclusions as to the efficacy of a treatment should be based primarily on analyses of the intention to treat (ITT) population rather than on exploratory subgroup analyses; however, non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy has been largely derived by post-hoc subgroup analyses. This review and meta-analysis was performed to assess non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy of several osteoporosis therapies, including a more stringent assessment of the ITT populations. Data on non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy, a defined endpoint of the ITT analyses and confirmed by radiographs, were obtained from randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trials of at least 3-year duration. Meta-analyses were performed for the two bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate. Relative risks (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and statistical significance for active treatment compared with placebo were calculated. Eleven clinical trials met the criteria for review, three of which showed statistically significant ( P < or =0.05) non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in the ITT population: two trials with risedronate and one trial with strontium. A meta-analysis showed significant reductions in the relative risk of non-vertebral fracture for both alendronate (RR=0.86; 95% CI: 0.76-0.97, P =0.012) and risedronate (RR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.71-0.92, P =0.001). Risedronate and strontium ranelate were the only treatments to show non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in this robust assessment of anti-fracture efficacy of osteoporosis therapy using ITT populations in trials of 3 years or more in duration. Risedronate was the only agent shown to demonstrate efficacy in more than one trial. Meta-analysis showed that both alendronate and risedronate provide non-vertebral anti-fracture efficacy.