Time to onset of antifracture efficacy and year-by-year persistence of effect of zoledronic acid in women with osteoporosis

Call to action: a five nations consensus on the use of intravenous zoledronate after hip fracture

Currently in the UK and Ireland, after a hip fracture most patients do not receive bone protection medication to reduce the risk of refracture. Yet randomised controlled trial data specifically examining patients with hip fracture have shown that intravenous zoledronate reduces refracture risk by a third. Despite this evidence, use of intravenous zoledronate is highly variable following a hip fracture; many hospitals are providing this treatment, whilst most are currently not. A range of clinical uncertainties, doubts over the evidence base and practical concerns are cited as reasons. This paper discusses these concerns and provides guidance from expert consensus, aiming to assist orthogeriatricians, pharmacists and health services managers establish local protocols to deliver this highly clinically and cost-effective treatment to patients before they leave hospital, in order to reduce costly re-fractures in this frail population.

Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.

PURPOSE

To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies (n ≥1000) for harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).

LIMITATION

Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).

New national osteoporosis guidance-implications for geriatricians

Fragility fractures are painful, debilitating, often life-changing and accounted for an estimated 2.4% of pre-pandemic health care spending in the UK. Those who are older, frail and multimorbid have the highest fracture risk and therefore the most to gain from anti-osteoporosis treatments to reduce this risk. Currently, an unacceptable treatment gap exists between those eligible for and those who receive treatment. This commentary discusses the major changes to the new, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence accredited, UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) guidance (published March 2022) most relevant to the management of older people's bone health. Changes include intervention thresholds; using fracture probabilities from FRAX; for patients too frail to undergo DXA; greater emphasis on vertebral fracture detection and the use of intravenous zoledronate as a first-line anti-osteoporosis therapy; the new concept of 'very high fracture risk' which should prompt consideration of use of parenteral anti-osteoporosis therapy; new guidance regarding anabolic treatment options; concerns regarding denosumab cessation; and the urgent need to get patients with a fragility fracture onto treatment to reduce re-fracture risk with follow-up to check tolerance and ensure adherence.

Risk of New Vertebral Fracture and Combination Therapy with Zoledronic Acid and Teriparatide in Diabetic Patients after Percutaneous Kyphoplasty

Study Design

This was a retrospective clinical study.

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of combination therapy with zoledronic acid and teriparatide on the risk of new vertebral fracture (NVF) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients after percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP).

Overview of Literature

Although T2DM had been associated with bone fragility and increased fracture risk, it remains unknown whether patients with T2DM could expect similar benefit from the combination therapy with zoledronic acid and teriparatide following PKP.

Methods

Total 106 diabetic patients who had undergone PKP and had received anti-osteoporosis treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture were enrolled and allocated into the following two groups: group I (n=52, zoledronic acid) and group II (n=54, zoledronic acid plus teriparatide). The operating time, bone cement volume, and complications related to anti-osteoporosis treatment or PKP, if any, were recorded. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed at admission, at discharge, and at the final follow-up. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan of the hip for the measurement of the bone mineral density (BMD) was performed preoperatively and at the final follow-up for all the patients.

Results

There was no significant difference in the age, body mass index, bone cement volume, or follow-up time of the groups. The mean follow-up duration was 22.5±1.6 months. All the patients had improved VAS and ODI, and group II had significantly better clinical outcomes than group I. All the patients had increased BMD at the latest follow-up, while group II exhibited significantly more improvement. The prevalence of NVF was lower in group II (11.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.523). Male patients had a higher prevalence of NVF although the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Combination therapy with zoledronic acid and teriparatide could improve the clinical outcomes, and BMD and had the potential to reduce NVF in diabetic patients following PKP.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.

LIMITATIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of single-dose zoledronic acid for nursing home residents with osteoporosis in the USA

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine administration of single-dose zoledronic acid for nursing home residents with osteoporosis in the USA.

DESIGN

Markov cohort simulation model based on published literature from a healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime horizon.

SETTING

Nursing homes.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical cohort of nursing home residents aged 85 years with osteoporosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Two strategies were compared: (1) a single intravenous dose of zoledronic acid 5 mg and (2) usual care (supplementation of calcium and vitamin D only).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as measured by cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Compared with usual care, zoledronic acid had an ICER of $207 400 per QALY gained and was not cost-effective at a conventional willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. The results were robust to a reasonable range of assumptions about incidence, mortality, quality-of-life effects and the cost of hip fracture and the cost of zoledronic acid. Zoledronic acid had a potential to become cost-effective if a fracture risk reduction with zoledronic acid was higher than 23% or if 6-month mortality in nursing home residents was lower than 16%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the zoledronic acid would be cost-effective in 14%, 27% and 44% of simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000, $100 000 or $200 000 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine administration of single-dose zoledronic acid in nursing home residents with osteoporosis is not a cost-effective use of resources in the USA but could be justifiable in those with a favourable life expectancy.

Single-level vertebral kyphoplasty is not associated with an increased risk of symptomatic secondary adjacent osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a matched case-control analysis

This matched case-control study compared the rate of symptomatic adjacent-level vertebral compression fractures (VCF) within 1 year in patients operatively treated with kyphoplasty to a control group of non-operatively treated VCFs. The adjacent-level fracture rate did not show a significant difference between groups.

PURPOSE

To compare the rate of new symptomatic adjacent-level fractures within 1 year after an isolated osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF) treated by either kyphoplasty or non-operative treatment.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 50 years with an isolated, fresh, and symptomatic osteoporotic VCF who were treated by kyphoplasty were compared to patients of similar age, gender, vertebral segment, and bone mineral density who were treated non-operatively (n = 98). A matched case-control analysis was conducted by retrospective chart review, and the rate of new adjacent-level symptomatic vertebral fractures, defined as occurring within two segments of the index fracture, within the first year was determined.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (66 female, aged 73.5, SD 9.7 years) were analyzed in this matched case-control study. The adjacent fracture rate within 1 year was not different between the kyphoplasty group and the non-operative group (20.4 vs 18.4%; McNemar, p = 1.0). The time to a new adjacent fracture after the index fracture was significantly shorter in the kyphoplasty (7, SD 8 weeks) versus non-operative group (22, SD 13 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with osteoporotic VCFs treated with kyphoplasty did not show an increased rate of additional symptomatic adjacent-level VCFs when compared to a non-operative control group matched for age, gender, fracture level, and bone mineral density.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Secondary prevention of fractures after hip fracture: a qualitative study of effective service delivery

There is variation in how services to prevent secondary fractures after hip fracture are delivered and no consensus on best models of care. This study identifies healthcare professionals' views on effective care for the prevention of these fractures. It is hoped this will provide information on how to develop services.

INTRODUCTION

Hip fracture patients are at high risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures. Whilst fracture prevention services are recommended, there is variation in delivery and no consensus on best models of care. This study aims to identify healthcare professionals' views on effective care for prevention of secondary fracture after hip fracture.

METHODS

Forty-three semi-structured interviews were undertaken with healthcare professionals involved in delivering fracture prevention across 11 hospitals in one English region. Interviews explored views on four components of care: (1) case finding, (2) osteoporosis assessment, (3) treatment initiation, and (4) monitoring and coordination. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVivo software.

RESULTS

Case finding: a number of approaches were discussed. Multiple methods ensured there was a 'backstop' if patients were overlooked. Osteoporosis assessment: there was no consensus on who should conduct this. The location of the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner influenced the likelihood of patients receiving a scan. Treatment initiation: it was felt this was best done in inpatients rather request initiation in the post-discharge/outpatients period. Monitoring (adherence): adherence was a major concern, and participants felt more monitoring could be conducted by secondary care. Coordination of care: participants advocated using dedicated coordinators and formal and informal methods of communication. A gap between primary and secondary care was identified and strategies suggested for addressing this.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of ways of organising effective fracture prevention services after hip fracture were identified. It is hoped that this will help professionals identify gaps in care and provide information on how to develop services.

Unmet needs and current and future approaches for osteoporotic patients at high risk of hip fracture

This review provides a critical analysis of currently available approaches to increase bone mass, structure and strength through drug therapy and of possible direct intra-osseous interventions for the management of patients at imminent risk of hip fracture.

PURPOSE

Osteoporotic hip fractures represent a particularly high burden in morbidity-, mortality- and health care-related costs. There are challenges and unmet needs in the early prevention of hip fractures, opening the perspective of new developments for the management of osteoporotic patients at imminent and/or at very high risk of hip fracture. Amongst them, preventive surgical intervention needs to be considered.

METHODS

A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)/International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) working group reviewed the presently available intervention modalities including preventive surgical options for hip fragility. This paper represents a summary of the discussions.

RESULTS

Prevention of hip fracture is currently based on regular physical activity; prevention of falls; correction of nutritional deficiencies, including vitamin D repletion; and pharmacological intervention. However, efficacy of these various measures to reduce hip fractures is at most 50% and may need months or years before becoming effective. To face the challenges of early prevention of hip fractures for osteoporotic patients at imminent and/or at very high risk of hip fracture, preventive surgical intervention needs further investigation.

CONCLUSION

Preventive surgical intervention needs to be appraised for osteoporotic patients at imminent and/or at very high risk of hip fracture.

Clinical update on nursing home medicine: 2013

This is the seventh article in the series of Clinical Updates on Nursing Home Care. The topics covered are antiresorptive drugs, hip fracture, hypertension, orthostatic hypotension, depression, undernutrition, anorexia, cachexia, sarcopenia, exercise, pain, and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.