Search

Most osteoporosis drugs act by inhibiting bone resorption. A need exists for osteoporosis therapies that stimulate new bone formation. 2-Methylene-19-nor-(20S)-1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) (2MD) is a vitamin D analogue that potently stimulates bone formation activity in vitro and in the ovariectomized rat model. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of osteopenic women, the effect of daily oral treatment with 2MD on bone mineral density (BMD), serum markers of bone turnover, and safety were assessed over 1 year. Volunteers were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: placebo (n = 50), 220 ng of 2MD (n = 54), and 440 ng of 2MD (n = 53). In general, 2MD was well tolerated. Although 2MD caused a marked increase in markers of bone formation, it did not significantly increase BMD. Since 2MD also shows marked activity on bone resorption (as revealed by dose-dependent increases in serum C-telopeptide cross-links of type I collagen in this study), 2MD likely stimulated both bone formation and bone resorption, thereby increasing bone remodeling., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Introduction: Arzoxifene, a benzothiophene estrogen agonist/antagonist, is being developed for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and for risk reduction of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women., Methods: The effects of arzoxifene 20 mg/d on bone mineral density (BMD), uterine safety, and overall safety were studied in the FOUNDATION study, a 2-yr randomized, placebo-controlled trial including 331 postmenopausal women with normal to low bone mass., Results: Compared to placebo, arzoxifene significantly increased lumbar spine (+2.9%) and total hip (+2.2%) BMD. Arzoxifene decreased biochemical markers of bone metabolism compared to placebo. Changes in breast density were neutral or slightly decreased in the arzoxifene vs. placebo group. There was no evidence of endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma in the arzoxifene group as assessed by central review of baseline and follow-up endometrial biopsies. There was no significant change between the groups in endometrial thickness assessed by transvaginal ultrasound. The incidence of uterine polyps and vaginal bleeding was not significantly different between the groups. Vulvovaginal mycotic infection was the only adverse event significantly increased in the arzoxifene vs. placebo group. Hot flushes were not significantly different between the groups., Conclusion: In postmenopausal women with normal to low bone mass, arzoxifene 20 mg/d increased BMD at the spine and hip and had a neutral effect on the uterus and endometrium.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: In a phase 2 study, continued denosumab treatment for up to 8 years was associated with continued gains in bone mineral density and persistent reductions in bone turnover markers. Denosumab treatment was well tolerated throughout the 8-year study. Introduction: The purpose of this study is to present the effects of 8 years of continued denosumab treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTM) from a phase 2 study. Methods: In the 4-year parent study, postmenopausal women with low BMD were randomized to receive placebo, alendronate, or denosumab. After 2 years, subjects were reallocated to continue, discontinue, or discontinue and reinitiate denosumab; discontinue alendronate; or maintain placebo for two more years. The parent study was then extended for 4 years where all subjects received denosumab. Results: Of the 262 subjects who completed the parent study, 200 enrolled in the extension, and of these, 138 completed the extension. For the subjects who received 8 years of continued denosumab treatment, BMD at the lumbar spine ( N = 88) and total hip ( N = 87) increased by 16.5 and 6.8 %, respectively, compared with their parent study baseline, and by 5.7 and 1.8 %, respectively, compared with their extension study baseline. For the 12 subjects in the original placebo group, 4 years of denosumab resulted in BMD gains comparable with those observed during the 4 years of denosumab in the parent study. Reductions in BTM were sustained over the course of continued denosumab treatment. Reductions also were observed when the placebo group transitioned to denosumab. Adverse event profile was consistent with previous reports and an aging cohort. Conclusion: Continued denosumab treatment for 8 years was associated with progressive gains in BMD, persistent reductions in BTM, and was well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]