Search

Anabolic therapies, recommended for patients at very high fracture risk, are administered subcutaneously (SC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the abaloparatide microstructured transdermal system (abaloparatide-sMTS) as an alternative to the SC formulation. This phase 3, noninferiority study (NCT04064411) randomly assigned postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (N = 511) 1:1 to open-label abaloparatide administered daily via abaloparatide-sMTS or SC injection for 12 months. The primary comparison between treatment groups was the percentage change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) at 12 months, with a noninferiority margin of 2.0%. Secondary endpoints included percentage change in total hip and femoral neck BMD, bone turnover markers, dermatologic safety, and new clinical fracture incidence. At 12 months, percentage increase from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was 7.14% (SE: 0.46%) for abaloparatide-sMTS and 10.86% (SE: 0.48%) for abaloparatide-SC (treatment difference: -3.72% [95% confidence interval: -5.01%, -2.43%]). Percentage change in total hip BMD was 1.97% for abaloparatide-sMTS and 3.70% for abaloparatide-SC. Median changes from baseline at 12 months in serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) were 52.6% for abaloparatide-sMTS and 74.5% for abaloparatide-SC. Administration site reactions were the most frequently reported adverse events (abaloparatide-sMTS, 94.4%; abaloparatide-SC, 70.5%). Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between groups. Mild or moderate skin reactions occurred with abaloparatide-sMTS with no identifiable risk factors for sensitization reactions. Few new clinical fractures occurred in either group. Noninferiority of abaloparatide-sMTS to abaloparatide-SC for percentage change in spine BMD at 12 months was not demonstrated; however, clinically meaningful increases from baseline in lumbar spine and total hip BMD were observed in both treatment groups. © 2023 Radius Health, Inc and The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)., (© 2023 Radius Health, Inc and The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).)

Abaloparatide significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD) in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis and decreased risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and clinical fractures compared with placebo. The Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men with Osteoporosis (ATOM; NCT03512262) study evaluated the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide compared with placebo in men. Eligible men aged 40 to 85 years with osteoporosis were randomized 2:1 to daily subcutaneous injections of abaloparatide 80 μg or placebo for 12 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD. Key secondary endpoints included BMD change from baseline at the total hip and femoral neck. A total of 228 men were randomized (abaloparatide, n = 149; placebo, n = 79). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups (mean age, 68.3 years; mean lumbar spine BMD T-score, -2.1). At 12 months, BMD gains were greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine (least squares mean percentage change [standard error]: 8.48 [0.54] versus 1.17 [0.72]), total hip (2.14 [0.27] versus 0.01 [0.35]), and femoral neck (2.98 [0.34] versus 0.15 [0.45]) (all p < 0.0001). The most common (≥5%) treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site reaction, dizziness, nasopharyngitis, arthralgia, bronchitis, hypertension, and headache. During 12 months of abaloparatide treatment, men with osteoporosis exhibited rapid and significant improvements in BMD with a safety profile consistent with previous studies. These results suggest abaloparatide can be considered as an effective anabolic treatment option for men with osteoporosis. © 2022 Radius Health Inc and 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 Radius Health Inc and The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).)

Romosozumab monoclonal antibody treatment works by binding sclerostin and causing rapid stimulation of bone formation while decreasing bone resorption. The location and local magnitude of vertebral bone accrual by romosozumab and how it compares to teriparatide remains to be investigated. Here we analyzed the data from a study collecting lumbar computed tomography (CT) spine scans at enrollment and 12 months post-treatment with romosozumab (210 mg sc monthly, n = 17), open-label daily teriparatide (20 μg sc, n = 19), or placebo (sc monthly, n = 20). For each of the 56 women, cortical thickness (Ct.Th), endocortical thickness (Ec.Th), cortical bone mineral density (Ct.bone mineral density (BMD)), cancellous BMD (Cn.BMD), and cortical mass surface density (CMSD) were measured across the first lumbar vertebral surface. In addition, color maps of the changes in the lumbar vertebrae structure were statistically analyzed and then visualized on the bone surface. At 12 months, romosozumab improved all parameters significantly over placebo and resulted in a mean vertebral Ct.Th increase of 10.3% versus 4.3% for teriparatide, an Ec.Th increase of 137.6% versus 47.5% for teriparatide, a Ct.BMD increase of 2.1% versus a -0.1% decrease for teriparatide, and a CMSD increase of 12.4% versus 3.8% for teriparatide. For all these measurements, the differences between romosozumab and teriparatide were statistically significant (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the romosozumab-associated Cn.BMD gains of 22.2% versus 18.1% for teriparatide, but both were significantly greater compared with the change in the placebo group (-4.6%, p < 0.05). Cortical maps showed the topographical locations of the increase in bone in fracture-prone areas of the vertebral shell, walls, and endplates. This study confirms widespread vertebral bone accrual with romosozumab or teriparatide treatment and provides new insights into how the rapid prevention of vertebral fractures is achieved in women with osteoporosis using these anabolic agents. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).)

The Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH) trial (NCT01631214; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01631214) showed that romosozumab for 1 year followed by alendronate led to larger areal bone mineral density (aBMD) gains and superior fracture risk reduction versus alendronate alone. aBMD correlates with bone strength but does not capture all determinants of bone strength that might be differentially affected by various osteoporosis therapeutic agents. We therefore used quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and finite element analysis (FEA) to assess changes in lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), bone volume, bone mineral content (BMC), and bone strength with romosozumab versus alendronate in a subset of ARCH patients. In ARCH, 4093 postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis received monthly romosozumab 210 mg sc or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by open-label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for ≥12 months. Of these, 90 (49 romosozumab, 41 alendronate) enrolled in the QCT/FEA imaging substudy. QCT scans at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 24 were assessed to determine changes in integral (total), cortical, and trabecular lumbar spine vBMD and corresponding bone strength by FEA. Additional outcomes assessed include changes in aBMD, bone volume, and BMC. Romosozumab caused greater gains in lumbar spine integral, cortical, and trabecular vBMD and BMC than alendronate at months 6 and 12, with the greater gains maintained upon transition to alendronate through month 24. These improvements were accompanied by significantly greater increases in FEA bone strength (p < 0.001 at all time points). Most newly formed bone was accrued in the cortical compartment, with romosozumab showing larger absolute BMC gains than alendronate (p < 0.001 at all time points). In conclusion, romosozumab significantly improved bone mass and bone strength parameters at the lumbar spine compared with alendronate. These results are consistent with greater vertebral fracture risk reduction observed with romosozumab versus alendronate in ARCH and provide insights into structural determinants of this differential treatment effect. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).)

Anabolic osteoporosis drugs improve bone mineral density by increasing bone formation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early effects of abaloparatide on indices of bone formation and to assess the effect of abaloparatide on modeling-based formation (MBF), remodeling-based formation (RBF), and overflow MBF (oMBF) in transiliac bone biopsies. In this open-label, single-arm study, 23 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were treated with 80 μg abaloparatide daily. Subjects received double fluorochrome labels before treatment and before biopsy collection at 3 months. Change in dynamic histomorphometry indices in four bone envelopes were assessed. Median mineralizing surface per unit of bone surface (MS/BS) increased to 24.7%, 48.7%, 21.4%, and 16.3% of total surface after 3 months of abaloparatide treatment, representing 5.5-, 5.2-, 2.8-, and 12.9-fold changes, on cancellous, endocortical, intracortical, and periosteal surfaces (p < .001 versus baseline for all). Mineral apposition rate (MAR) was significantly increased only on intracortical surfaces. Bone formation rate (BFR/BS) was significantly increased on all four bone envelopes. Significant increases versus baseline were observed in MBF on cancellous, endocortical, and periosteal surfaces, for oMBF on cancellous and endocortical surfaces, and for RBF on cancellous, endocortical, and intracortical surfaces. Overall, modeling-based formation (MBF + oMBF) accounted for 37% and 23% of the increase in bone-forming surface on the endocortical and cancellous surfaces, respectively. Changes from baseline in serum biomarkers of bone turnover at either month 1 or month 3 were generally good surrogates for changes in histomorphometric endpoints. In conclusion, treatment with abaloparatide for 3 months stimulated bone formation on cancellous, endocortical, intracortical, and periosteal envelopes in transiliac bone biopsies obtained from postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. These increases reflected stimulation of both remodeling- and modeling-based bone formation, further elucidating the mechanisms by which abaloparatide improves bone mass and lowers fracture risk. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).)

In clinical practice, the frequency of patients achieving improved T-scores and the expected change in bone mineral density (BMD) according to osteoporosis drugs is unknown. We found that osteoporosis medications infrequently achieve improved femoral neck T-scores over 1.2 years. BMD increases were more often seen with IV bisphosphonates and denosumab., Purpose: To determine the frequency of osteoporosis patients achieving improvement in T-scores and quantify the change in bone mineral density (BMD) over time according to osteoporosis medication use., Methods: The study included all patients receiving clinical care at United Osteoporosis Centers, Gainesville, GA, 1995-2015, who had at least two measures of femoral neck BMD (N = 1232). We evaluated successive pairs of BMD tests to describe the distribution of transitions between T-score categories. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate %BMD change between successive pairs of BMD tests according to osteoporosis medication, adjusted for age, sex, height, weight, baseline BMD, previous fracture, and follow-up time., Results: Mean (±SD) age was 68 (±10) years, and 90% of patients were women. Mean baseline T-score was - 2.04 (± 0.85). In total, 1232 patients had 4918 pairs of successive BMD tests, with a mean 1.2 years (± 0.9) between assessments. Frequency of transition to an improved T-score category was 41% when prior T-score ≤ - 3.5, and 15% when prior T-score - 1.99 to - 1.50. Most individuals (69%) remained in the same T-score category. BMD increased 0.54% (95% CI 0.23-0.85%) with IV bisphosphonates and 1.23% (95% CI 0.56-1.90%) with denosumab, whereas no significant change was seen with oral bisphosphonates, teriparatide, or raloxifene., Conclusions: Osteoporosis patients are unlikely to improve femoral neck T-scores over 1.2 years. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal time to repeat BMD testing while receiving osteoporosis treatment and to determine whether fracture risk is reduced in patients who achieve target T-scores.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab to ibandronate in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD) previously treated with a bisphosphonate., Methods: In a randomized, open-label study, postmenopausal women received 60 mg denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months (n=417) or 150 mg ibandronate orally every month (n=416) for 12 months. End points included percentage change from baseline in total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD at month 12 and percentage change from baseline in serum C-telopeptide at months 1 and 6 in a substudy., Results: At month 12, significantly greater BMD gains from baseline were observed with denosumab compared with ibandronate at the total hip (2.3% compared with 1.1%), femoral neck (1.7% compared with 0.7%), and lumbar spine (4.1% compared with 2.0%; treatment difference P<.001 at all sites). At month 1, median change in serum C-telopeptide from baseline was -81.1% with denosumab and -35.0% with ibandronate (P<.001); the treatment difference remained significant at month 6 (P<.001). Adverse events occurred in 245 (59.6%) denosumab-treated women and 230 (56.1%) ibandronate-treated women (P=.635). The incidence of serious adverse events was 9.5% for denosumab-treated women and 5.4% for ibandronate-treated women (P=.046). No clustering of events in any organ system accounted for the preponderance of these reports. The incidence rates of serious adverse events involving infection and malignancy were similar between treatment groups., Conclusion: In postmenopausal women previously treated with a bisphosphonate and low BMD, denosumab treatment resulted in greater BMD increases than ibandronate at all measured sites. No new safety risks with denosumab treatment were identified.

Osteoporosis is a chronic disease and requires long-term treatment with pharmacologic therapy to ensure sustained antifracture benefit. Denosumab reduced the risk for new vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures over 36 months in the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial. Whereas discontinuation of denosumab has been associated with transient increases in bone remodeling and declines in bone mineral density (BMD), the effect on fracture risk during treatment cessation is not as well characterized. To understand the fracture incidence between treatment groups after cessation of investigational product, we evaluated subjects in FREEDOM who discontinued treatment after receiving two to five doses of denosumab or placebo, and continued study participation for ≥7 months. The off-treatment observation period for each individual subject began 7 months after the last dose and lasted until the end of the study. This subgroup of 797 subjects (470 placebo, 327 denosumab), who were evaluable during the off-treatment period, showed similar baseline characteristics for age, prevalent fracture, and lumbar spine and total hip BMD T-scores. During treatment, more placebo-treated subjects as compared with denosumab-treated subjects sustained a fracture and had significant decreases in BMD. During the off-treatment period (median 0.8 years per subject), 42% versus 28% of placebo- and denosumab-treated subjects, respectively, initiated other therapy. Following discontinuation, similar percentages of subjects in both groups sustained a new fracture (9% placebo, 7% denosumab), resulting in a fracture rate per 100 subject-years of 13.5 for placebo and 9.7 for denosumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-1.38), adjusted for age and total hip BMD T-score at baseline. There was no apparent difference in fracture occurrence pattern between the groups during the off-treatment period. In summary, there does not appear to be an excess in fracture risk after treatment cessation with denosumab compared with placebo during the off-treatment period for up to 24 months., (Copyright © 2013 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Osteoporosis-related fractures are associated with reductions in health-related quality of life (HRQL). We examined the benefits of zoledronic acid (ZOL) on HRQL in patients sustaining vertebral and clinical fractures from HORIZON-Pivotal Fracture Trial using mini-Osteoporosis quality of life Questionnaire (OQLQ). In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 1434 patients from a cohort of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (mean age 73years) were randomized to receive annual infusions of ZOL 5mg or placebo for 3years. Baseline HRQL scores were comparable between ZOL and placebo groups based on the presence or absence of fractures, with exception of prevalent vertebral fractures where patients (irrespective of the treatment group) had lower baseline HRQL scores than those without prevalent vertebral fractures. Greater number of prevalent vertebral fractures was associated with lower baseline HRQL (p<0.001). No significant difference between ZOL and placebo in the overall summary score was observed but a significant benefit was noted in certain domains with ZOL, especially in patients sustaining incident clinical fractures. Improvements in HRQL were marked at first assessment after a morphometric vertebral fracture with significant differences favouring ZOL in pain (p=0.0115), standing pain (p=0.0125)), physical (lifting, p=0.0333) and emotional function (fear of fractures, p=0.0243; fear of falls, p=0.0075) but not for activities of daily living or leisure domains. HRQL is reduced in patients with vertebral fractures. Treatment with ZOL over 3years was associated with improvements in specific domains of quality of life vs. placebo, particularly in patients sustaining incident fractures., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Osteoporosis (OP) is associated with a high risk of fracture and disability and with substantial medical costs. This paper is a review of the intravenous (i.v.) bisphosphonate zoledronic acid 5 mg (ZOL), used in the treatment and prevention of OP., Areas Covered: This is a review of the scientific literature, between 2003 and 2010, on the use of ZOL in patients with low bone mass or OP., Expert Opinion: ZOL, given as a single infusion once yearly, has proven efficacy in reducing risk of vertebral and hip fractures in postmenopausal women with OP. In men and women with a recent hip fracture, ZOL has been shown to reduce the incidence of future clinical fractures. Data also demonstrate an increase in bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteopenia, in men with OP, and in patients at risk for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. The ZOL clinical program has shown this agent to be safe and generally well tolerated. Acute flu-like symptoms may occur following the first infusion of ZOL, but these are generally mild and transient, and decrease in frequency with subsequent infusions. Patients must have adequate renal function (creatinine clearance ≥ 35 ml/min) and be adequately hydrated prior to infusion. With orally administered bisphosphonates, patient compliance and persistence with weekly or monthly dosing are frequently suboptimal. The ability to administer i.v. ZOL once yearly over 15 min for the treatment of OP provides the advantage of guaranteeing medication compliance for the duration of the dosing interval.

Objective: This post-hoc analysis studied the effect of baseline glucocorticoid dose on the 18-month bone mineral density (BMD) response to teriparatide 20 microg/day or alendronate 10 mg/day in 387 patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) from a randomized, double-blind trial., Methods: Lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) BMD were measured at baseline and 18 months. Mean baseline glucocorticoid dose was categorized as low (< or = 5 mg/day), medium (> 5 and < 15 mg/day), or high (> or = 15 mg/day)., Results: Baseline LS, FN, and TH BMD were similar between groups, and between glucocorticoid dose categories within each group. LS BMD increases at the low, medium, and high glucocorticoid doses were 8.1%, 6.6%, and 4.6%, respectively, with teriparatide, and 3.6%, 2.8%, and 2.3% with alendronate. Analyzed as a continuous variable, higher glucocorticoid doses had a negative, but non-significant, effect on the percentage increase in LS BMD in both groups. Glucocorticoid dose did not significantly affect FN or TH BMD increases in either group. Across the 3 glucocorticoid dose categories, the overall LS BMD increases were different for both treatments combined (p = 0.033), but the relative differences between the treatment groups were not different (interaction, p = 0.52)., Conclusion: Teriparatide and alendronate increased LS and hip BMD across a range of baseline glucocorticoid doses. LS BMD increases with teriparatide were greater in the low-dose category than in the high-dose category. Overall LS BMD increases were significantly greater with teriparatide compared with alendronate, which may reflect the respective anabolic and antiresorptive mechanisms of action. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT00051558.

Summary: Managing osteoporotic patients suboptimally adherent to bisphosphonates (BPs) is difficult. Such patients who remained at higher risk for fracture (≥1 risk factor) were transitioned to denosumab or a monthly oral BP. Denosumab-treated subjects had significantly greater increases in bone mineral density and decreases in bone turnover in this 12-month study. Introduction: A clinical need exists to manage patients who are suboptimally adherent to oral BPs and remain at higher risk for fracture. Here, we compare the effects on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover of transitioning such patients to denosumab or monthly oral BP (ibandronate or risedronate). Methods: In two previous multicenter, open-label studies, postmenopausal women ≥55 years previously treated with, though suboptimally adherent to, a daily or weekly BP were randomized to denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months ( N = 852) or oral BP 150 mg monthly ( N = 851) for 12 months. In this combined post-hoc analysis, a subset of higher risk subjects was identified, and the percentage changes from baseline in BMD and serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen (sCTX-1) were assessed. Results: In the overall population, denosumab was associated with greater gains in BMD at 12 months than monthly oral BP at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine ( p < 0.0001 for all). In higher risk subjects, denosumab led to greater gains in BMD than oral BPs at the total hip (2.2 vs 0.8 %), femoral neck (1.8 vs 0.3 %), and lumbar spine (3.7 vs 1.4 %) ( p < 0.0001 for all). Denosumab also led to greater decreases in sCTX-1 in the overall population and higher risk subjects at months 1 and 6 ( p < 0.0001 for both). Adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: Transitioning to denosumab was well tolerated and more effective in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover than cycling to a monthly oral BP treatment in subjects who remained at higher fracture risk despite suboptimal BP treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Patients treated with intravenous zoledronic acid 5 mg for osteoporosis may experience post-dose influenza-like symptoms. Oral acetaminophen/paracetamol or ibuprofen administered 4 h post-infusion reduced the proportion of patients with increased oral temperature and worsening post-infusion symptom scores vs. placebo, thus providing an effective strategy for the treatment of such symptoms. Introduction: Once-yearly intravenous zoledronic acid 5 mg is a safe and effective treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. This study assessed whether transient influenza-like post-dose symptoms associated with intravenous infusion of zoledronic acid can be reduced by post-dose administration of acetaminophen/paracetamol or ibuprofen. Methods: In an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel-group study, bisphosphonate-naïve postmenopausal women with osteopenia ( n = 481) were randomized to receive zoledronic acid 5 mg + acetaminophen/paracetamol ( n = 135), ibuprofen ( n = 137) or placebo ( n = 137), or placebo + placebo ( n = 72). Acetaminophen/paracetamol and ibuprofen were administered every 6 h for 3 days beginning 4 h post-infusion. Results: The proportion of patients with increased oral temperature (≥1°C above 37.5°C) and with worsening post-infusion symptom scores over 3 days was significantly lower in patients receiving ibuprofen (36.8% and 48.5%) or acetaminophen/paracetamol (37.3% and 46.3%) vs. those receiving placebo (63.5% and 75.9%, respectively; all p < 0.0001) compared with background rates of 11.1% and 16.7%, respectively, in the absence of any active treatment. Overall incidence of adverse events was comparable for patients receiving acetaminophen/paracetamol or ibuprofen. Conclusion: Oral acetaminophen/paracetamol or ibuprofen effectively managed the transient influenza-like symptoms associated with zoledronic acid 5 mg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]