Search

Introduction: The optimal duration of osteoporosis treatment is controversial. As opposed to bisphosphonates, denosumab does not incorporate into bone matrix and bone turnover is not suppressed after its cessation. Recent reports imply that denosumab discontinuation may lead to an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures., Methods: The European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS) formed a working group to perform a systematic review of existing literature on the effects of stopping denosumab and provide advice on management., Results: Data from phase 2 and 3 clinical trials underscore a rapid decrease of bone mineral density (BMD) and a steep increase in bone turnover markers (BTMs) after discontinuation of denosumab. Clinical case series report multiple vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab and a renewed analysis of FREEDOM and FREEDOM Extension Trial suggests, albeit does not prove, that the risk of multiple vertebral fractures may be increased when denosumab is stopped due to a rebound increase in bone resorption., Conclusion: There appears to be an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab although strong evidence for such an effect and for measures to prevent the occurring bone loss is lacking. Clinicians and patients should be aware of this potential risk. Based on available data, a re-evaluation should be performed after 5years of denosumab treatment. Patients considered at high fracture risk should either continue denosumab therapy for up to 10years or be switched to an alternative treatment. For patients at low risk, a decision to discontinue denosumab could be made after 5years, but bisphosphonate therapy should be considered to reduce or prevent the rebound increase in bone turnover. However, since the optimal bisphosphonate regimen post-denosumab is currently unknown continuation of denosumab can also be considered until results from ongoing trials become available. Based on current data, denosumab should not be stopped without considering alternative treatment in order to prevent rapid BMD loss and a potential rebound in vertebral fracture risk., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Several guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL). Patients and methods A systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety. Results Several fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL. Conclusions In all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score<−2.0 or with a T-score of <–1.5 SD with one additional RF, or with ≥2 risk factors (without BMD) for the duration of AI treatment. Patients with T-score>−1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Osteoanabolic therapy with parathyroid hormone (PTH(1–84)) or the PTH analogues teriparatide (PTH(1–34), TPTD) and abaloparatide induces a positive remodeling balance and increases modeling and remodeling activity on bone surfaces. As the anabolic action of PTH is primarily remodeling based increased bone turnover maximizes bone accrual. Increased remodeling, however, also increases cortical porosity and reduces mineralization of newly formed bone, which may cause initial reductions in BMD, particularly at sites rich in cortical bone. Increased cortical porosity may also have negative consequences for bone strength. Consequently, an interest developed in concurrent therapies offsetting the potential early negative cortical bone effects developed, and several studies using varying concurrent combinations of TPTD or PTH(1–84) with various antiresorptive (anti-catabolic) agents (estrogen, SERMs, bisphosphonates and denosumab) have been published. This commentary addresses the discrepancy between changes in areal bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) in concurrent therapy studies leading to possible misinterpretations of the results. In studies of concurrent therapies increases in BMD are generally accompanied by decreases in biochemical markers of bone turnover. This includes Procollagen Type I N-Terminal Propetide (PINP), which has emerged as a reliable marker of bone formation during osteoanabolic therapy. We therefore want to submit, that the larger increases in BMD seen initially in patients on concurrent therapy mask the potential for later reduced osteoanabolic action of PTH. This notion is corroborated by: 1) the lesser impairment of bone anabolism seen with milder antiresorptive modalities like hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs); 2) the changes in BMD seen in extension studies where treatment naïve patients previously treated with PTH alone are crossed over to antiresorptive drugs. We therefore advise against a general use of concurrent therapy with PTH and antiresorptive agents, as it entails blunting of osteoanabolic action of PTH in the long run. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]