Effects of prior osteoporosis treatment on the treatment response of romosozumab followed by denosumab in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis

Comparative effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of romosozumab versus teriparatide in patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study

This study compared the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of romosozumab and teriparatide. The main finding was that there were no significant differences between the two drugs in fracture prevention and risk of major adverse cardiac events. This suggests that romosozumab and teriparatide are comparable options for treating osteoporosis.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the preventive effects of romosozumab versus teriparatide on fractures and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients initiating these drugs.

METHODS

We conducted an active comparator, a new user cohort design, with confounding controlled by inverse probability of treatment weighting using a Japanese administrative claims database (March 2019 to October 2022). This cohort study included 49,104 patients aged 50 years or older who initiated romosozumab (n = 16,125) or teriparatide (n = 32,979) for osteoporosis. The study exposure was the initiation of romosozumab or teriparatide. Effectiveness outcomes were nonvertebral fracture and hip fracture. The safety outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Follow-up period was 365 days.

RESULTS

The weighted incidence rate difference (IRD) for nonvertebral fracture between romosozumab versus teriparatide was -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.34 to 0.17) events per 100 person-years (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.12]); weighted IRD for hip fracture was 0.00 (95% CI, -0.16 to 0.16) events per 100 person-years (weighted HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29]); and weighted IRD for MACE was -0.06 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.09) events per 100 person-years (weighted HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.19]).

CONCLUSION

In patients with osteoporosis, there was no significant difference in the prevention of nonvertebral fracture and hip fracture between romosozumab and teriparatide. In addition, the risk of MACE was comparable between the two drugs.

Denosumab discontinuation: COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic triggered significant disruptions in health care systems around the world, with a particularly heavy impact on patients with chronic diseases. A number of studies have shown an immediate decrease in on-time denosumab therapy at the start of COVID-19 pandemic. However, independent of the "emergency" that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are other situations in which denosumab is discontinued. In such situations, it is important to have a programmed strategy to optimize care while limiting the risk for unwanted outcomes.

An investigation of the differential therapeutic effects of romosozumab on postmenopausal osteoporosis patients with or without rheumatoid arthritis complications: a case-control study

The impact of ROMO on the width of anabolic windows and the increase in BMD was reduced in the RA group compared to the non-RA group, and this reduction was associated with correlations to RA-related factors.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of romosozumab (ROMO) in postmenopausal osteoporosis, with and without comorbid rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In this retrospective, case-controlled, multicenter study, 171 postmenopausal patients who did not receive oral glucocorticoid, comprising 59 in the RA group and 121 in the non-RA group, received uninterrupted ROMO treatment for 12 months. Propensity score matching was employed to ensure comparability in clinical backgrounds, resulting in 41 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics were as follows: overall (mean age, 76.3 years; T-score of lumbar spine (LS), - 3.0; 45.1% were treatment-naive for osteoporosis); RA group (anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) positivity, 80.5%; titer, 206.2 U/ml; clinical disease activity index (CDAI), 13.6; health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI), 0.9). Bone mineral density (BMD) and serum bone turnover markers were monitored over a 12-month period.

RESULTS

The rate of increase in the bone formation marker, PINP, and the rates of decrease in the bone resorption marker, TRACP-5b, exhibited a trend toward smaller changes in the RA group compared to the non-RA group, implying a smaller anabolic window. After 12 months, the RA group displayed lower BMD increases in the LS (9.1% vs. 12.6%; P = 0.013) and total hip (2.4% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.025) compared to the non-RA group. Multiple regression analysis in the all RA group (n = 59) for the association between RA-specific factors and 12-month BMD changes revealed negative correlations between ACPA titer and LS BMD and between HAQ-DI and femoral neck BMD.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of ROMO may be attenuated by RA-related factors.

Bone loss and new vertebral fractures during treatment with romosozumab: a case-report

PURPOSE

This study aimed to illustrate the possibility of an unfavorable response to treatment with the anabolic agent romosozumab for patients with severe osteoporosis and to discuss explanations for treatment failure.

METHODS

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) including vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and X-rays of the thoracolumbar spine was used to assess bone mineral density (BMD) and the presence of vertebral fractures before and after treatment with romosozumab.

RESULTS

Our patient developed a decrease in the BMD of the hip, two incident new vertebral fractures, and worsening of one prevalent vertebral fracture during 1 year treatment with romosozumab. We have not detected non-adherence, there was no pretreatment with anti-resorptives, and we observed no signs of secondary osteoporosis and/or comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

As the number of patients treated with romosozumab is rising, it becomes more likely that more patients will be found with new fractures and/or an unfavorable BMD response. Probably, the unfavorable response is a (bad) chance finding, but we think it is crucial for clinicians and patients to exclude nonadherence, new comorbidities and pretreatment with anti-resorptives as explanation in these patients.

Effectiveness of romosozumab in patients with osteoporosis at high fracture risk: a Japanese real-world study

INTRODUCTION

To describe the real-world use of romosozumab in Japan, we conducted a chart review of > 1000 Japanese patients with osteoporosis (OP) at high risk of fracture, across multiple medical institutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment-naïve and prior OP-treatment patients who received romosozumab for 12 months followed by ≥ 6 months of sequential OP treatment were included. The primary objective described the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics; secondary objectives evaluated changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers in all patients and effectiveness of romosozumab in a sub-group of treatment-naïve patients using the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®).

RESULTS

Of the 1027 patients (92.4% female), 45.0% were treatment-naïve. The mean ± SD age of treatment-naïve versus prior OP-treatment patients was 76.8 ± 8.5 and 77.1 ± 8.5 years. The most frequent prior OP treatment was bisphosphonates (45.0%). Romosozumab treatment for 12 months increased BMD at the lumbar spine in all groups; the median percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was higher in the treatment-naïve (13.4%) versus prior OP-treatment group (bisphosphonates [9.2%], teriparatide [11.3%], denosumab [DMAb, 4.5%]). DMAb, bisphosphonates, or teriparatide after romosozumab maintained the BMD gains at all skeletal sites at month 18 in treatment-naïve patients. Most treatment-naïve patients were at high risk of fracture, BMD increased consistently with romosozumab regardless of the baseline fracture risk assessed by FRAX.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale, multicenter chart review provides clinically relevant insights into the profiles of patients initiating romosozumab, effectiveness of real-world romosozumab use, and sequential therapy in Japanese patients at high risk of fracture.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Zoledronate Acid or Denosumab After Switching from Romosozumab in Japanese Postmenopausal Patients

We aimed to compare the efficacy of switching from romosozumab (RMAb) to denosumab (DMAb) or zoledronic acid (Zol) with respect to changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone metabolism. We also aimed to determine predictors of changes in BMD among patients who received sequential therapy from RMAb. One hundred patients who received RMAb therapy were recruited for this study. A total 49 patients received bisphosphonate (BP) pre-treatment and 51 received active vitamin D3 analog pre-treatment or no treatment. Forty-two patients were switched to Zol (BP-RMAb-Zol; 20 and RMAb-Zol; 22), and 58 patients were switched to DMAb (BP-RMAb-DMAb; 29 and RMAb-DMAb; 29). Longitudinal changes in bone metabolic markers (P1NP and TRACP-5b) and BMD were also evaluated. In the BP-RMAb-Zol group, TRACP-5b increased after administration of Zol, and the mean BMD of the lumbar spine (LS) was significantly lower than those in the BP-RMAb-DMAb, RMAb-Zol and RMAb-DMAb groups at 24 months. The % changes in BMD of the LS after 24 months were associated with TRACP-5b values at baseline and at 12 months in patients who received Zol therapy, and with TRACP-5b value at baseline in patients who received DMAb therapy. The DMAb follow-on regimen could be considered more effective than Zol as a sequential agent for the enhancement of BMD after RMAb in patients with BP pretreatment. TRACP-5b, especially the baseline value, may predict the efficacy of sequential therapy from RMAb, as well as previous treatments.

Baseline serum PINP level is associated with the increase in hip bone mineral density seen with Romosozumab treatment in previously untreated women with osteoporosis

Baseline serum PINP value was significantly and independently associated with the increased bone mineral density (≥ 3%) in both total hip and femoral necks by 12 months of romosozumab treatment in patients with treatment-naive postmenopausal osteoporosis.

PURPOSE

Some patients fail to obtain a sufficiently increased hip bone mineral density (BMD) by romosozumab (ROMO) treatment. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic factor for increased hip BMD with ROMO in patients with treatment-naive postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

This prospective, observational, and multicenter study included patients (n = 63: mean age, 72.6 years; T-scores of the lumbar spine [LS], - 3.3; total hip [TH], - 2.6; femoral neck [FN], - 3.3; serum type I procollagen N-terminal propeptide [PINP], 68.5 µg/L) treated by ROMO for 12 months. BMD and serum bone turnover markers were evaluated at each time point. A responder analysis was performed to assess the patient percentage, and both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the factors associated with clinically significant increased BMD (≥ 3%) in both TH and FN.

RESULTS

Percentage changes of BMD from baseline in the LS, TH, and FN areas were 17.5%, 4.9%, and 4.3%, respectively. In LS, 96.8% of patients achieved ≥ 6% increased LS-BMD, although 57.1% could not achieve ≥ 3% increased BMD in either TH or FN. Multiple regression analysis revealed that only the baseline PINP value was significantly and independently associated with ≥ 3% increased BMD in both TH and FN (p = 0.019, 95% confidence interval = 1.006-1.054). The optimal cut-off PINP value was 53.7 µg/L with 54.3% sensitivity and 92.3% specificity (area under the curve = 0.752).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, baseline PINP value was associated with the increased BMD of TH and FN by ROMO treatment in treatment-naive patients.

One-Year Romosozumab Treatment Followed by One-Year Denosumab Treatment for Osteoporosis in Patients on Hemodialysis: An Observational Study

There is limited evidence on the use of romosozumab (ROMO) in the treatment of osteoporosis in patients on hemodialysis (HD); thus, we aimed to investigate this topic. This prospective, observational, single-center cohort study included 13 prior osteoporosis treatment-naïve patients on HD with osteoporosis. They first received ROMO once monthly for 12 months (210 mg; subcutaneously once every month). Thereafter, they received denosumab (DENO) for an additional 12 months (60 mg; subcutaneously once every 6 months). We examined the incidence of new fractures; treatment safety; and temporal changes in the bone mineral density (BMD), bone metabolism markers, and vascular calcification. No new cases of fractures were noted. The median one-year percentage changes (from the baseline) in the BMDs at the lumbar spine (LS), total hip (TH), and femoral neck (FN) were + 9.0%, + 2.5%, and + 4.7%, respectively. These changes were maintained for 24 months. The corresponding relative changes from the baseline to 24 months thereafter were + 14.9%, + 5.4%, and + 6.5%, respectively. The percentage changes in TH BMD and FN BMD were negatively correlated with baseline BMD. Coronary artery and thoracic aorta calcification scores increased slightly from baseline to 12 months thereafter. However, fatal events (cardiovascular disease-associated and all-cause deaths) did not occur during ROMO treatment. Effectiveness of ROMO was better in patients who had severe osteoporosis with low TH BMD, low FN BMD, and high tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b level at ROMO initiation.

Verification of efficacy and safety of ibandronate or denosumab for postmenopausal osteoporosis after 12-month treatment with romosozumab as sequential therapy: The prospective VICTOR study

Romosozumab is a potent drug for treating postmenopausal osteoporosis but has a limited dosing period of 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) decreases soon after romosozumab discontinuation, thus emphasizing the importance of appropriate sequential treatment. The present VICTOR randomized controlled study compared the efficacy of ibandronate and denosumab as sequential therapy options following 12-month romosozumab treatment. Subjects completing 12 months of romosozumab administration for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive either ibandronate or denosumab for an additional 12 months. The primary outcome of interest was the percentage changes in BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck from 12 months (completion of romosozumab) to 18 and 24 months of total treatment (6 and 12 months, respectively, after the conversion to sequential therapy). Secondary outcomes included alterations in serum bone turnover markers and the incidence of adverse events. Sixty-two subjects each in the ibandronate and denosumab groups completed the sequential therapy. The respective percentage changes in BMD at the lumbar spine from 12 months to 24 months were 2.5 % in the ibandronate group and 5.4 % in the denosumab group. At 24 months, we observed significant differences versus 12 months for both groups as well as between the groups (all P < 0.01), showing a superior ability to increase BMD at the lumbar spine for denosumab over ibandronate. BMD gains at the total hip and femoral neck exhibited comparably favorable trends. P1NP and TRACP-5b were significantly decreased from 12 to 24 months (-64.9 % and - 26.8 % in the ibandronate group and - 67.4 % and - 36.3 % in the denosumab group, respectively; all P < 0.001 versus 12 months). Several minor adverse events were recorded in both groups, none of which led to the discontinuation of the trial. The VICTOR study revealed that denosumab could be considered more effective than ibandronate, with few severe adverse events, for the enhancement of BMD as a sequential agent after romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients.