Cardiovascular Safety of Denosumab Across Multiple Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Efficacy and safety of romosozumab: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to comprehensively compile placebo-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of romosozumab (210 mg, subcutaneously, once monthly) in postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant placebo-controlled trials (as of January 1, 2024). Percent change in bone mineral density (BMD), falls, fractures, and adverse events (AEs) after drug administration were collected. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Six trials (7990 patients; follow-up period, 6-12 months) were included. Compared with placebo, romosozumab significantly increased lumbar spine BMD (MD = 12.69; 95% CI 11.10-14.29), total hip BMD (MD = 4.42; 95% CI 3.03-5.80), and femoral neck BMD (MD = 3.99; 95% CI 2.42-5.57) at 12 months. Romosozumab significantly decreased falls (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.68-0.93) and major osteoporotic fractures (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.25-0.54), but increased injection-site reactions (RR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.46-2.30) within 12 months. No significant differences were observed in other AEs (including cardiovascular AEs) within 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Romosozumab treatment resulted in a significant BMD gain, reduced falls and major osteoporotic fractures. It was generally well-tolerated, including the cardiovascular aspects. However, clinicians should consider the occurrence of minor AEs (e.g., injection-site reactions).

Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials

Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.

The Bone-Vascular Axis in Chronic Kidney Disease: From Pathophysiology to Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to describe the pathogenic factors involved in bone-vessel anomalies in CKD which are the object of numerous experimental and clinical research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Knowledge on the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in the regulation of vascular calcification and mineral-bone disorders is evolving. Specific bone turnover anomalies influence the vascular health while recent studies demonstrate that factors released by the calcified vessels also contribute to bone deterioration in CKD. Current therapies used to control mineral dysregulations will impact both the vessels and bone metabolism. Available anti-osteoporotic treatments used in non-CKD population may negatively or positively affect vascular health in the context of CKD. It is essential to study the bone effects of the new therapeutic options that are currently under investigation to reduce vascular calcification. Our paper highlights the complexity of the bone-vascular axis and discusses how current therapies may affect both organs in CKD.

Antiosteoporosis medications and cardiovascular disease: a population-based nationwide nested case-control study

Purpose: Patients with osteoporosis are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Several antiosteoporosis medications have been demonstrated with the benefit of preventing osteoporosis. Our aim is to assess the CVD risks associated with antiosteoporosis medications using the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan between 2000 and 2016. Methods: Among 41,102 patients of 40+ years old with newly diagnosed osteoporosis, 69.1% (N = 28,387) of patients were included in the user cohort of antiosteoporosis medicines, of whom 13, 472 developed CVD by the end of 2016, while 14,915 did not. Using the nested case-control analysis in the user cohort (88.0% women and 77.4% elderly), we applied conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of eight types of CVD for the users of denosumab, bisphosphonate, teriparatide, and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Results: The adjusted ORs of overall CVDs were 0.13 (95% CI: 0.12-0.15) for denosumab users, 0.52 (95% CI: 0.45-0.61) for teriparatide users, and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76-0.85) for bisphosphonate users. The HRT users were at higher odds of coronary artery and peripheral artery diseases, heart failure, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis. Conclusion: Denosumab, teriparatide, and bisphosphonate may have more protective effects against CVD than hormone therapy. Physicians may take subsequent cardiovascular risks into account when choosing an adequate antiosteoporosis medication for patients with osteoporosis.

Cardiovascular Safety in Postmenopausal Women and Men With Osteoporosis Treated With Denosumab and Zoledronic Acid: A Post-Authorization Safety Study

Osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease are common in older adults. Treatment of osteoporosis reduces the burden of debilitating fractures; however, it is important to understand the benefit versus risk of treatment. This study evaluates the risk of stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and myocardial infarction (MI) among postmenopausal women and men initiating osteoporosis treatment with denosumab (receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand [RANKL] inhibitor) or zoledronic acid (bisphosphonate) between October 2010 and June 2019. A retrospective cohort study employing the new user/active comparator design was conducted. Analyses were conducted separately in two national US commercial databases, MarketScan® and Optum® for reproducibility. Inverse probability of treatment and censoring weighting was employed to control for confounding and informative censoring. Cumulative risks at 6-month, 12-month, and 36-month time points were calculated and adjusted risk ratios and differences (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated. In MarketScan® and Optum® databases, 96,611 and 73,127 patients met all study eligibility criteria, respectively. At 36 months, the risk ratio estimates (zoledronic acid referent group) were 1.22 (95% CI, 0.77-1.66) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.63-1.32) for MI and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.61-1.40) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.56-1.17) for stroke in MarketScan and Optum, respectively. Most of the treatment associations across the other time periods and outcomes also had 95% CIs including the null value. In these large samples of real-world US patients, no increased risk in MI and stroke were identified for up to 36 months of treatment in denosumab users compared with zoledronic acid users. © 2023 Amgen. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Antiresorptive Medication Use Is not Associated With Acute Cardiovascular Risk: An Observational Study

CONTEXT

Bisphosphonates have been reported to be cardioprotective in some, but not all, studies. It is unknown whether denosumab (Dmab) use protects against cardiovascular events (CVEs).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether oral bisphosphonate (oBP) or Dmab use is associated with CVEs in persons with incident fracture.

METHODS

Participants with an incident minimal trauma fracture from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study, a population-based cohort from NSW, Australia, were followed between 2005/2009 and 2017. Questionnaire data were linked to hospital admissions (Admitted Patients Data Collection [APDC]) by the Centre for Health Record Linkage). Medicare Benefit Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data sets were provided by Services Australia. Data was stored in a secure computing environment (Secure Unified Research Environment). Fractures, CVEs, and comorbidities were identified from the APDC and oBP and Dmab medication from the PBS. oBP and Dmab users were matched to never users (NoRx) by propensity scores. The main outcome measures were association between oBP and Dmab with CVE (acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, cerebrovascular accident, and transient ischemic attack) and were determined using a stratified Cox's proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

There were 880 pairs of oBP and NoRx (616 women) and 770 pairs of Dmab and NoRx (615 women) followed for ∼4.3 years. CVE risk was similar for oBP and NoRx Hazard Ratios (HR) women, 0.88 [95% CI 0.65-1.18]; men, 1.07 [95% CI 0.72-1.57]). Similar findings were obtained for Dmab (Hazard Ratios (HR) women, 1.08 [95% CI 0.78-1.50]; men, 1.55 [95% CI 0.96-2.48]).

CONCLUSION

oBP and Dmab use was not associated with CVEs.

Evidence for the cardiovascular effects of osteoporosis treatments in randomized trials of post-menopausal women: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Osteoporosis medications have been reported to have beneficial and harmful cardiovascular effects. Much of this evidence stems from single reports and as such, a comprehensive examination of the evidence is needed. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of cardiovascular adverse event (CAE) data from randomized trials of osteoporosis medications in postmenopausal women. Trials were identified from recent NMAs of osteoporosis treatment for fracture reduction with an updated literature search (December 2020). Included studies were randomized, included over 100 participants, and reported skeletal primary outcomes. We investigated three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE3), four- (MACE4) and five-point MACE (MACE5), as well as myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Data were synthesized in a random-effects network meta-analysis using Bayesian modelling. Probabilistic ranking of treatment safety was performed. Relative to placebo, point estimates for the odds ratios (OR) with 95 % credible intervals (CrI) were also generated. We identified 75 trials (n = 136,940 women), of which 27 (68,699 women, nine arms) reported CAEs. In women randomized to placebo, the overall event rate for the MACE3 outcome was 2.58 % compared with 1.99 % in those randomized to all other active comparators. Probabilistic ranking found abaloparatide, oral bisphosphonates, teriparatide, and menopausal hormone therapy were less likely to have increased risk of CAEs than placebo, while romosozumab ranked more likely to have increased risk of CAEs than placebo for all outcomes. Compared with placebo, abaloparatide (one trial, n = 1642) was associated with a reduced odds for MACE3 (OR = 0·31; 95%CrI: 0·06 to 0·99), MACE4 (0·28; 0·06 to 0·88) and MACE5 (0·25; 0·06 to 0·79). When all PTH analogues were grouped together, magnitude and direction of effects were consistent but no longer statistically significant. We did not find pooled direct and indirect evidence that osteoporosis treatments significantly increased the risk of adverse cardiovascular events relative to placebo. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178702).

Alkaline Phosphatase: An Old Friend as Treatment Target for Cardiovascular and Mineral Bone Disorders in Chronic Kidney Disease

Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an evolutionary conserved enzyme and widely used biomarker in clinical practice. Tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase (TNALP) is one of four human isozymes that are expressed as distinct TNALP isoforms after posttranslational modifications, mainly in bone, liver, and kidney tissues. Beyond the well-known effects on bone mineralization, the bone ALP (BALP) isoforms (B/I, B1, B1x, and B2) are also involved in the pathogenesis of ectopic calcification. This narrative review summarizes the recent clinical investigations and mechanisms that link ALP and BALP to inflammation, metabolic syndrome, vascular calcification, endothelial dysfunction, fibrosis, cardiovascular disease, and mortality. The association between ALP, vitamin K, bone metabolism, and fracture risk in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is also discussed. Recent advances in different pharmacological strategies are highlighted, with the potential to modulate the expression of ALP directly and indirectly in CKD–mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD), e.g., epigenetic modulation, phosphate binders, calcimimetics, vitamin D, and other anti-fracture treatments. We conclude that the significant evidence for ALP as a pathogenic factor and risk marker in CKD-MBD supports the inclusion of concrete treatment targets for ALP in clinical guidelines. While a target value below 120 U/L is associated with improved survival, further experimental and clinical research should explore interventional strategies with optimal risk–benefit profiles. The future holds great promise for novel drug therapies modulating ALP.

Case report: Denosumab-associated acute heart failure in patients with cardiorenal insufficiency

Denosumab is a pivotal treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Although its clinical use is generally well tolerated by patients, denosumab in patients with renal insufficiency may increase the risk of hypocalcemia. Thus, we have to consider the population of denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis and preventive measures for related complications. In a patient with cardiorenal insufficiency, we reported a case of denosumab-induced hypocalcemia complicated by acute left heart failure due to delayed administration of active vitamin D and calcium supplements. The patient's symptoms did not improve after anti-heart failure treatment. However, after adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation subsequently, the patient's symptoms of heart failure were rapidly relieved, and the serum calcium level returned to normal within three weeks. Therefore, our case showed that the application of denosumab in patients requires assessment of cardiac and renal function, timely calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and enhanced monitoring of serum calcium levels to prevent acute left heart failure induced by denosumab-related hypocalcemia.

Cardiovascular Safety of Antifracture Medications in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Narrative Review of Evidence From Randomized Studies

Osteoporosis and cardiovascular (CV) disease share common risk factors and pathophysiology. Low bone mineral density (BMD) and fractures appear to increase the risk for multiple CV diseases. Equally, prevalent CV disease appears to predispose to bone loss and increase fracture rates. This relationship has naturally provoked the hypothesis that stopping bone loss may result in some CV benefit. Secondary analyses of safety and adverse event data from many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have attempted to clarify this putative association. Recently, the discontinuation of odanacatib (anti-cathepsin K monoclonal antibody) over stroke concerns and the imbalance in ischemic events in romosozumab-treated (anti-sclerostin monoclonal antibody) women compared to bisphosphonate-treated women, has provided further justification to better characterize potential CV benefits and harms of osteoporosis medications. This review delves into the seminal, and other major RCTs of osteoporosis medications and, using both published data and additional information provided on trial registration pages, examines the evidence for CV safety and harms of these medications. Accepted and emerging "off-target" effects are explored for validity, biological plausibility, and clinical importance. A brief research agenda is provided to stimulate the next wave of clinical development and CV understanding of osteoporosis medications. © 2021 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Cardiovascular Safety and Sclerostin Inhibition

Sclerostin, which is primarily produced by the osteocytes, inhibits the canonical Wnt pathway and thereby the osteoblasts and stimulates RANKL release by the osteocytes and thereby osteoclast recruitment. Inhibition of sclerostin therefore causes stimulation of bone formation and inhibition of resorption. In clinical trials, romosozumab, an antibody against sclerostin, increases bone mineral density and reduces the risk of fractures compared with placebo and alendronate. The cardiovascular safety of romosozumab was adjudicated in 2 large clinical osteoporosis trials in postmenopausal women. Compared with placebo, the incidence of cardiovascular events was similar in the 2 treatment groups. Compared with alendronate, the incidence of serious cardiovascular events was higher in women treated with romosozumab. The incidence of serious cardiovascular adverse events was low and post hoc analyses should therefore be interpreted with caution; however, the relative risk seemed unaffected by preexisting cardiovascular disease or risk factors. Sclerostin is expressed in the vasculature, predominantly in vascular smooth muscle cells in the media. However, preclinical and genetic studies have not demonstrated any increased cardiovascular risk with continuously low sclerostin levels or inhibition of sclerostin. Furthermore, no potential mechanisms for such an effect have been identified. In conclusion, while there is no preclinical or genetic evidence of a harmful effect of sclerostin inhibition on cardiovascular safety, the evidence from the large clinical trials in postmenopausal women is conflicting. Romosozumab should therefore be used for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture after careful consideration of the cardiovascular risk and the balance between benefits and risks.