Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between denosumab and alendronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a meta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of denosumab vs alendronate among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

Although clinical trials have shown that denosumab significantly increases bone mineral density at key skeletal sites more than oral bisphosphonates, evidence is lacking from head-to-head randomized trials evaluating fracture outcomes. This retrospective cohort study uses administrative claims data from Medicare fee-for service beneficiaries to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of denosumab vs alendronate in reducing fracture risk among women with PMO in the US. Women with PMO ≥ 66 yr of age with no prior history of osteoporosis treatment, who initiated denosumab (n = 89 115) or alendronate (n = 389 536) from 2012 to 2018, were followed from treatment initiation until the first of a specific fracture outcome, treatment discontinuation or switch, end of study (December 31, 2019), or other censoring criteria. A doubly robust inverse-probability of treatment and censoring weighted function was used to estimate the risk ratio associated with the use of denosumab compared with alendronate for hip, nonvertebral (NV; includes hip, humerus, pelvis, radius/ulna, other femur), non-hip nonvertebral (NHNV), hospitalized vertebral (HV), and major osteoporotic (MOP; consisting of NV and HV) fractures. Overall, denosumab reduced the risk of MOP by 39%, hip by 36%, NV by 43%, NHNV by 50%, and HV fractures by 30% compared with alendronate. Denosumab reduced the risk of MOP fractures by 9% at year 1, 12% at year 2, 18% at year 3, and 31% at year 5. An increase in the magnitude of fracture risk reduction with increasing duration of exposure was also observed for other NV fracture outcomes. In this cohort of almost half-a-million treatment-naive women with PMO, we observed clinically significant reductions in the risk of MOP, hip, NV, NHNV, and HV fractures for patients on denosumab compared with alendronate. Patients who remained on denosumab for longer periods of time experienced greater reductions in fracture risk.

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.

Mechanistic Insights and Therapeutic Strategies in Osteoporosis: A Comprehensive Review

Osteoporosis, a metabolic bone disorder characterized by decreased bone mass per unit volume, poses a significant global health burden due to its association with heightened fracture risk and adverse impacts on patients' quality of life. This review synthesizes the current understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying osteoporosis, with a focus on key regulatory pathways governing osteoblast and osteoclast activities. These pathways include RANK/RANKL/OPG, Wingless-int (Wnt)/β-catenin, and Jagged1/Notch1 signaling, alongside the involvement of parathyroid hormone (PTH) signaling, cytokine networks, and kynurenine in bone remodeling. Pharmacotherapeutic interventions targeting these pathways play a pivotal role in osteoporosis management. Anti-resorptive agents, such as bisphosphonates, estrogen replacement therapy/hormone replacement therapy (ERT/HRT), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), calcitonin, anti-RANKL antibodies, and cathepsin K inhibitors, aim to mitigate bone resorption. Conversely, anabolic agents, including PTH and anti-sclerostin drugs, stimulate bone formation. In addition to pharmacotherapy, nutritional supplementation with calcium, vitamin D, and vitamin K2 holds promise for osteoporosis prevention. However, despite the availability of therapeutic options, a substantial proportion of osteoporotic patients remain untreated, highlighting the need for improved clinical management strategies. This comprehensive review aims to provide clinicians and researchers with a mechanistic understanding of osteoporosis pathogenesis and the therapeutic mechanisms of existing medications. By elucidating these insights, this review seeks to inform evidence-based decision-making and optimize therapeutic outcomes for patients with osteoporosis.

Long-term effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and turnover markers in patients undergoing hemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Denosumab, a fully human anti-RANKL monoclonal antibody, is a widely used osteoporosis treatment that is increasingly being used in patients undergoing dialysis; however, its long-term efficacy and safety in these patients remain unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational study comprised individuals aged ≥ 20 years undergoing hemodialysis and receiving denosumab. After denosumab administration, we analyzed the long-term changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and levels of bone turnover markers (BTMs) and calcium.

RESULTS

The study included 45 patients who have been receiving denosumab for a median duration of 3.8 (interquartile range, 2.5-6.7) years. Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) levels decreased from a median of 595 (434-778) mU/dL at baseline to 200 (141-430) mU/dL after 6 months of denosumab administration (P < 0.001) and remained low thereafter. Similarly, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP) levels decreased from a median of 18.2 (15.9-25.8) μg/L at baseline to 12.4 (9.9-15.6) μg/L after 6 months (P < 0.001) and remained low thereafter. Meanwhile, BMD, as assessed with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and measured at the distal 1/3 of the radius, did not decrease (0.465 ± 0.112 g/cm2 at baseline vs. 0.464 ± 0.112 g/cm2 after administration; P = 0.616). Regarding hypocalcemia, corrected calcium levels reached were the lowest at 7 days after administration and normalized within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

The study showed long-term suppression of TRACP-5b and BAP levels and sustaining BMD after denosumab administration over an extended period in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

The role of bone modifying agents for secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control in post-menopausal osteopenic breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant aromatase inhibitors

Introduction

Hormonal therapy (HT) blocks the hormone-mediated growth signal dramatically reducing estrogenic levels with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) becoming a crucial component of the treatment mainstay in patients with early breast cancer (BC). Postmenopausal BC patients receiving HT present with a significant risk of secondary osteoporosis with AIs further reducing estrogen levels and ultimately leading to an accelerated rate of bone resorption and thus decreased bone mineral density (BMD). This was an observational retrospective clinical study that consecutively enrolled early BC patients with osteopenia to compare the impact of alendronate versus denosumab on secondary osteoporosis prevention and pain control.

Methods

We identified two groups of patients treated with denosumab 60 mg by subcutaneous injection once every six months or alendronate 70 mg orally once a week. All the patients underwent a baseline physiatric evaluation (T0) and underwent a follow-up visit after 18 months (T1) together with femoral and vertebral Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) exam evaluating T-Score marks. From September 2015 to December 2019 a total of 50 early (stage I-III) BC patients were considered eligible and consecutively enrolled in our study if they met pre-specified inclusion criteria.

Results

In the entire observed population, the addition of treatment with alendronate or denosumab led to a significant T-score improvement at the lumbar spine level (-1.92 vs -1.52, p=0.03), with a comparable contribution from alendronate (-1.60 vs -1.45, p=0.07) and denosumab (-2.26 vs -1.58, p=0.07). Regarding the femoral region, neither alendronate (-0.98 vs -1.07, p=0.23) nor denosumab (-1.39 vs -1.34, p=0.81) were able to produce any statistically relevant effect. However, concerning pain control, BMAs had a significant impact on reducing NRS scoresin the general population (T1 3.94 vs. baseline 4.32, p=0.007), with a likelyspecific contribution from alendronate (T1 3.52 vs. baseline 3.88, p=0.004) compared to denosumab (T1 4.36 vs baseline 4.76, p=0.12), without any differences in analgesic therapy assumption over time (p=0.93).

Discussion

Both alendronate and denosumab significantly contributed to preventing secondary osteoporosis in early BC patients with low BMD undergoing AIs, mostly at the lumbar spine level. Moreover, alendronate seemed to significantly impact pain control in such patients further supporting alendronate as a cost-effective option in this frail setting, although BMAs particularities should be carefully considered on an individual basis according to specific clinical contexts.

Comparison of anti-fracture effectiveness of zoledronate, ibandronate and alendronate versus denosumab in a registry-based cohort study

This registry-based study of 3068 patients with osteoporosis compared the anti-fracture effectiveness of denosumab versus bisphosphonates. Denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral and any fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab.

PURPOSE

To analyse the fracture risk of patients with osteoporosis receiving bisphosphonates or denosumab in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This registry-based cohort study evaluated patients taking denosumab, bisphosphonates or both sequentially. Fractures were analysed using rates, rate ratios and hazard ratios (HR), including both therapies as time-varying co-variates. Fracture risk hazards were adjusted (aHR) for baseline T-Scores and trabecular bone score (TBS) and were additionally analysed with inverse probability treatment weighting.

RESULTS

A total of 3068 patients (89% female; median age at treatment onset, 69 years [63 to 76]) received denosumab (median duration 2.8 years, [2.2 to 4.7]), bisphosphonates (3.4 years, [2.1 to 5.7]) or both sequentially. Thus, 11,078 subject-years were assessed for bisphosphonates (41% alendronate, 36% ibandronate, 23% zoledronate) and 4216 for denosumab. Moreover, 48,375 subject-years were observed before treatment onset, in addition to 2593 years of drug holidays. A total of 1481 vertebral fractures (435 under therapy), 1508 non-vertebral fractures (499 under therapy) and 202 hip fractures (67 under therapy) occurred after age 50. The risks of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures were significantly lower under all bisphosphonates, denosumab and drug holidays than before treatment onset (all p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, baseline T-scores and TBS, denosumab was associated with lower risk than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral fractures (aHR 0.47 (0.35 to 0.64) and 0.70 [0.53 to 0.91], p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively) and any fractures (aHR 0.62 [0.51 to 0.76] and 0.77 [0.64 to 0.92], p < 0.001 and p = 0.004). With propensity weighting, denosumab was associated with a lower hip fracture risk compared to alendronate (HR 0.54 [0.29 to 0.98], p = 0.044). No difference in fracture risk reduction (vertebral, non-vertebral or hip) was found between zoledronate and denosumab.

CONCLUSIONS

When adjusting for disease severity, denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate and ibandronate for vertebral fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab.

Using sequential pharmacotherapy for the treatment of osteoporosis: an update of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis, which is characterized by compromised bone density and heightened susceptibility to fractures, is a substantial public health concern, especially among the aging population. Underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and therapy non-adherence contribute to its impact. Anabolic and dual-action agents like teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab have emerged as effective treatments, allowing rapid gains in bone mineral density (BMD) and reducing fracture risk. However, administering treatments in the correct order is paramount, with an 'anabolic first' approach gaining traction for patients at high risk of fractures. This strategy involves starting anabolic therapies, followed by antiresorptive agents as maintenance therapy. It is important to note that the effectiveness of anabolic agents differs between treatment-naive and previously treated patients: tailored treatment approaches are therefore necessary. This comprehensive strategy adheres to clinical guidelines, emphasizing individualized care, early intervention, and patient-centered management to mitigate the burden of osteoporosis and enhance patients' quality of life.

AREA COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize recent evidence on the sequential treatment of osteoporosis and to provide recommendations on the best treatment strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

Effective treatments, such as anabolic agents, are key in high-risk patients, who require an 'anabolic first' approach. Sequential therapy, specifically tailored to a patient's history, can help to optimize prevention and management of fractures.

Clinical efficacy of bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies on bone mineral density following skeletal fractures

Background

Bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibodies are drugs primarily developed to inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and are used to treat an array of skeletal pathologies. Their use is aimed at increasing bone health and therefore reducing fracture risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of bone protection therapy on improving bone mineral density (BMD) in patients following a fracture.

Methods

Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who sustained a skeletal fracture and were subsequently commenced on bone protection therapy. Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) scans were performed at baseline and following a consented period of drug therapy. Bone health data included T-Scores, Z-Scores, FRAX Major, FRAX Hip and BMD. The clinical effectiveness of four bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, pamidronate and zoledronate) and one monoclonal antibody (denosumab) were evaluated.

Results

A total of 100 patients were included in the study. Overall, bone protection therapy significantly improved Z-score Hip, Z-score Spine, T-score Spine and BMD Spine (p < 0.05). There was a marked difference between drug therapies. Denosumab and zoledronate were associated with the greatest treatment effect size. Alendronate only improved Z-score Spine and Z-score Hip (p < 0.05). Pamidronate and risedronate did not demonstrate any statistically significant improvement across any DEXA parameter.

Conclusion

Overall, bisphosphonates/monoclonal antibodies confer beneficial effects on bone health as measured by DEXA scans in patients following skeletal fractures. However, the magnitude of improvement varies among the commonly used drugs. Alendronate, zoledronate and denosumab were associated with greatest therapeutic benefit. Bone protection therapy did not improve fracture risk of patients (FRAX scores).

Interactions between central nervous system and peripheral metabolic organs

According to Descartes, minds and bodies are distinct kinds of "substance", and they cannot have causal interactions. However, in neuroscience, the two-way interaction between the brain and peripheral organs is an emerging field of research. Several lines of evidence highlight the importance of such interactions. For example, the peripheral metabolic systems are overwhelmingly regulated by the mind (brain), and anxiety and depression greatly affect the functioning of these systems. Also, psychological stress can cause a variety of physical symptoms, such as bone loss. Moreover, the gut microbiota appears to play a key role in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases. Mechanistically, as the command center of the body, the brain can regulate our internal organs and glands through the autonomic nervous system and neuroendocrine system, although it is generally considered to be outside the realm of voluntary control. The autonomic nervous system itself can be further subdivided into the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. The sympathetic division functions a bit like the accelerator pedal on a car, and the parasympathetic division functions as the brake. The high center of the autonomic nervous system and the neuroendocrine system is the hypothalamus, which contains several subnuclei that control several basic physiological functions, such as the digestion of food and regulation of body temperature. Also, numerous peripheral signals contribute to the regulation of brain functions. Gastrointestinal (GI) hormones, insulin, and leptin are transported into the brain, where they regulate innate behaviors such as feeding, and they are also involved in emotional and cognitive functions. The brain can recognize peripheral inflammatory cytokines and induce a transient syndrome called sick behavior (SB), characterized by fatigue, reduced physical and social activity, and cognitive impairment. In summary, knowledge of the biological basis of the interactions between the central nervous system and peripheral organs will promote the full understanding of how our body works and the rational treatment of disorders. Thus, we summarize current development in our understanding of five types of central-peripheral interactions, including neural control of adipose tissues, energy expenditure, bone metabolism, feeding involving the brain-gut axis and gut microbiota. These interactions are essential for maintaining vital bodily functions, which result in homeostasis, i.e., a natural balance in the body's systems.

Yaşlı yetişkinlerde osteoporoz tedavisinde antirezorptif ajanların karşılaştırılması

Purpose: There are few studies comparing the effectiveness of anti-osteoporotic drugs among elderly population. In this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of alendronate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab in older adults. Materials and Methods: A total of 350 older adults with osteoporosis, aged 65 and over were included in this retrospective study. The number of patients receiving alendronate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab was 111, 121, and 118, respectively. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured at baseline and 24th month by performing dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Results: The age, comorbidities, and laboratory analysis results of the patients were similar. While there was no statistically significant difference in BMD response at the femoral neck between the treatment groups (Baseline BMDs for alendronate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab were 0.61, 0.59, and 0.58, respectively, while 24th month BMDs were 0.62, 0.60, and 0.59, respectively), alendronate and zoledronic acid improved lumbar spine BMD more than denosumab (Baseline BMDs for alendronate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab were 0.74, 0.74, and 0.71, respectively, while 24th month BMDs were 0.77, 0.78, and 0.73). Conclusion: This study has shown that, like parenteral antiresorptive agents, alendronate can elicit a desirable BMD response in older osteoporotic adults. The results of our study may guide osteoporosis treatment in older individuals.

Romosozumab and antiresorptive treatment: the importance of treatment sequence

To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence.

INTRODUCTION

Teriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively).

METHODS

We evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available).

RESULTS

With 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab).

CONCLUSION

In this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence.

Effect of systemic bisphosphonate administration on patients with periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Periodontal disease is a chronic oral infectious disease affecting adults worldwide as well as a lifestyle-related disease related to diabetes. Bisphosphonate is a drug often taken by patients with osteoporosis; however, it reportedly can cause jawbone necrosis. Due to its mechanism of action on bone tissue, bisphosphonate has been used topically on periodontal tissue to treat periodontal disease. However, the long-term systemic effects of bisphosphonates on periodontal tissues are unclear. This paper describes a protocol evaluating the effects of systemic bisphosphonate administration to prevent periodontal tissue destruction in patients with periodontal disease. No systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for systemic bisphosphonates in periodontal therapy. The results of the proposed systematic review will inform the practice and design of future clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytic research using an aggregative thematic approach according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, LILACS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. Formal ethics approval is not necessary because researchers will not identify individuals in the report.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020212698 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).

The Efficacy of Alendronate Versus Denosumab on Major Osteoporotic Fracture Risk in Elderly Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Danish Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective

Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of fractures; however, the underlying mechanism is largely unknown. We aimed to investigate whether the risk of major osteoporotic fractures in diabetes patients differs between subjects initiated with alendronate and denosumab, respectively.

Methods and Research Design

We conducted a retrospective nationwide cohort study through access to all discharge diagnoses (ICD-10 system) from the National Danish Patient Registry along with all redeemed drug prescriptions (ATC classification system) from the Health Service Prescription Registry. We identified all subjects with a diabetes diagnosis between 2000 and 2018 and collected data on the first new prescription of anti-osteoporotic treatment between 2011 and 2018. Exposure was defined as either alendronate or denosumab treatment initiated after diabetes diagnosis. Outcome information was collected by identification of all major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) diagnoses, i.e., hip, spine, forearm, and humerus, from exposure until 2018 or censoring by emigration or death. The risk of fracture was calculated as hazard ratios (HR) using multiply adjusted Cox proportional models with death as a competing risk.

Results

We included 8,745 subjects initiated with either alendronate (n = 8,255) or denosumab (n = 490). The cohort consisted of subjects with a mean age of 73.62 (SD ± 9.27) years, primarily females (69%) and suffering mainly from type 2 diabetes (98.22%) with a median diabetes duration at baseline of 5.45 years (IQR 2.41-9.19). Those in the denosumab group were older (mean 75.60 [SD ± 9.72] versus 73.51 [SD ± 9.23] years), had a higher proportion of women (81% versus 68%, RR 1.18 [95% CI 1.13-1.24], and were more comorbid (mean CCI 2.68 [95% CI 2.47-2.88] versus 1.98 [95% CI 1.93-2.02]) compared to alendronate initiators. In addition, denosumab users had a higher prevalence of previous fractures (64% versus 46%, RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.28-1.48]). The adjusted HR for any MOF after treatment initiation with denosumab was 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.02) compared to initiation with alendronate.

Conclusion

The risk of incident MOF among subjects with diabetes was similar between those initially treated with alendronate and denosumab. These findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equally effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures in subjects with diabetes.

Is denosumab associated with an increased risk for infection in patients with low bone mineral density? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Denosumab increases bone mineral density through inhibition of the receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-Β ligand (RANKL). RANKL has known immunomodulatory effect. The largest study to date that reviewed denosumab efficacy in osteoporosis demonstrated an increased incidence of serious adverse events of infection (SAEI). We aimed to further evaluate risk of infection and SAEI in denosumab-treated patients.

METHOD

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials. Studies comparing denosumab 60 mg every 6 months with placebo or bisphosphonate for treatment of low bone mineral density were included. Trials were excluded for use of denosumab in cancer patients treated for skeletal-related events, immunosuppressed patient populations, or for comparison to teriparatide. Risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using a fixed effects model, or a random effects model if heterogeneity occurred.

RESULTS

Twenty-four randomized controlled trials (20 470 patients) were analyzed. An increased incidence of any infection (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02-1.20; P = 0.02) was observed in denosumab-treated patients compared with bisphosphonates, but not when compared with placebo. In contrast, a higher incidence of SAEI (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.03-1.43; P = 0.02) was seen with denosumab when compared with placebo, but not compared with bisphosphonates.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab-treated patients with low bone mineral density have slightly increased incidence of SAEI compared with placebo, but not when compared with bisphosphonates. Application of these results requires consideration of the entire body of data available regarding denosumab safety.

Denosumab is not associated with risk of malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The immunomodulatory effects of denosumab have raised concerns for risk of malignancy. This meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials (21,523 patients) shows similar risk of malignancy between denosumab (60 mg every 6 months, up to 48 months) and any comparator. Post-marketing surveillance may detect rare or late-occurring drug effects. Possible increased risk of malignancy in patients treated with denosumab has been concerned due to inhibition of the immune modulator receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-Β ligand (RANKL). We aimed to assess the risk of malignancy associated with denosumab treatment. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to May 27, 2019 to include all randomized controlled trials of denosumab (60 mg every 6 months) versus any comparator. Trials using higher drug doses for prevention of skeletal-related events were excluded. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and analyzed using a fixed-effect model to pool risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Twenty-five trials (21,523 patients) were included. The risk of malignancy was similar between denosumab and other comparators (absolute risk difference 0%, RR 1.08 [95% CI, 0.93-1.24], I² = 0%). Sensitivity analysis based on adequate allocation concealment showed similar results. The risk of malignancy did not differ between groups in any of the subgroup analyses, including stratification by race, individual comparators, indications for treatment, and longer drug exposure (≥ 24 months, 9 studies). The risk ratio of malignancy-related death was similar between groups. Early concerns about a potential increased risk of malignancy resulting from an immunomodulatory effect of denosumab are not supported by evidence from this meta-analysis of 25 RCTs with drug exposure of up to 48 months. Since RCTs with longer observation for safety outcomes are not expected, post-marketing surveillance will be the main means for detection of rare or late-occurring events.

All-on-4 Concept Update

Over the past 17 years, the All-on-4 treatment concept has been a reliable and predictable modality to rehabilitate edentulous jaws with immediate function as full-arch prostheses. This article highlights clinically relevant data compiled by numerous All-on-4 investigators including complications and their remedies, occlusion and cantilever trends, implant size utilization, and controversial topics. We provide insights for navigating the complexities of medically diverse populations, faced by our daily practice, with a focus on patient avoidance, risk factors for implant and prosthetic failures, in hopes to minimize complications so clinicians would choose this treatment with confidence.

Molecular Mechanisms and Emerging Therapeutics for Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is the most common chronic metabolic bone disease. It has been estimated that more than 10 million people in the United States and 200 million men and women worldwide have osteoporosis. Given that the aging population is rapidly increasing in many countries, osteoporosis could become a global challenge with an impact on the quality of life of the affected individuals. Osteoporosis can be defined as a condition characterized by low bone density and increased risk of fractures due to the deterioration of the bone architecture. Thus, the major goal of treatment is to reduce the risk for fractures. There are several treatment options, mostly medications that can control disease progression in risk groups, such as postmenopausal women and elderly men. Recent studies on the basic molecular mechanisms and clinical implications of osteoporosis have identified novel therapeutic targets. Emerging therapies targeting novel disease mechanisms could provide powerful approaches for osteoporosis management in the future. Here, we review the etiology of osteoporosis and the molecular mechanism of bone remodeling, present current pharmacological options, and discuss emerging therapies targeting novel mechanisms, investigational treatments, and new promising therapeutic approaches.

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.

Efficacy and safety of Romosozumab in treatment for low bone mineral density: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Osteoporosis is a chronic skeletal disease with an increasing prevalence. Romosozumab, as a monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody with a dual function, has been produced. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the efficacy of Romosozumab in patients with low bone mineral density. A systematic search was conducted in the most important electronic search engines like Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov at the end of July 2019 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which evaluated the effect of Romosozumab in patients with osteoporosis and/or low bone mineral density. After evaluating the quality of articles with the Cochrane checklist, data related to the outcomes of bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, risk of clinical, vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, and risk of adverse events were extracted. Quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated by I2 and Q statistics. The meta-analysis was performed using CMA v.2.0 software. Of all the 671 initially retrieved articles, seven articles were entered into the meta-analysis after removing duplicates and reviewing papers with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis showed that Romosozumab 210, 140, and 70 mg compared with Alendronate, Teriparatide, and placebo can increase the bone mineral density in the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip. The risk of adverse events like adjudicated cardiovascular serious adverse events and adjudicated cardiovascular death was more in Romosozumab 210 mg in comparison with placebo. However, this difference was not statistically significant. Treatment with anti-sclerostin antibodies can be a proper therapeutic option in patients with osteoporosis and low bone mineral density. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, it seems that Romosozumab, with its dual function, has a positive role in the treatment of osteoporosis and low bone mineral density.

Risk for Infections During Treatment With Denosumab for Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Denosumab inhibits the receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-Β ligand, an immune system modulator. Safety endpoints including risk for infections were assessed as secondary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the drug.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of serious adverse events of infections (SAEI) in denosumab-treated patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to May 27, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

All RCTs of denosumab (60 mg every 6 months) versus any comparator were included. We excluded trials in cancer patients for prevention of skeletal-related events.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria and extracted the data. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using a fixed effect model. Sensitivity analysis was based on risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-three studies (22 253 patients) were included. There was a higher incidence of SAEI during denosumab treatment versus any comparator (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40; I2 = 0%), mainly of ear, nose, and throat (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.20-5.91) and gastrointestinal origin (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.01). RR was similar in a sensitivity analysis based on adequate allocation concealment. The RR of any infection (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06) and infection-related mortality (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.23) was comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher incidence of SAEI is demonstrated during treatment with denosumab in an osteoporosis dose. Nevertheless, the overall risk for any infection or related mortality is similar to comparator groups. These findings merit consideration before therapy initiation.

Denosumab or romosozumab therapy and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with primary osteoporosis: Systematic review and meta- analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis and cardiovascular (CV) diseases are closely correlated. RANKL/RANK/OPG pathway and Wnt signalling pathway both implicated in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis and cardiovascular diseases. We aimed to investigate the effect of denosumab or romosozumab therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with primary osteoporosis.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to June 4, 2019. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the effect of denosumab or romosozumab versus active comparators or placebo for at least 6 months in patients with primary osteoporosis or osteopenia were included. Two investigators independently extracted data for study characteristics, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

17 relevant studies (denosumab: n=11, 13615 participants; romosozumab: n=6, 12219 participants) were included. No associations between denosumab therapy and risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome (1.06 [95 % CI, 0.88-1.28], p=0.54), three-point major adverse cardiovascular event (3P MACE, 1.01 [95 % CI, 0.83-1.23], p=0.93), and four-point major adverse cardiovascular event (4P MACE, 0.99 [95 % CI, 0.83-1.18], p=0.89) were identified. Romosozumab therapy did not increase the risk of composite cardiovascular outcome (1.26 [95 % CI, 0.95-1.68], p=0.11), and 3P MACE (1.41 [95 % CI, 0.99-2.02], p=0.06), while increased the risk of 4P MACE (1.39 [95 % CI, 1.01-1.90], p=0.04) among elderly men and postmenopausal woman with osteoporosis over a period of 12-36 months. Denosumab or romosozumab did not increase or reduce specific cardiovascular outcomes, including CV death or death, myocardial infarction, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, aortic and intracranial aneurysm, aortic dissection, aortic valve disease and hypertension (all p＞0.05). Sensitivity analysis conducted by random effects model altered the result of 4P MACE in romosozumab (1.36 [0.99-1.87], p=0.06). No other significant difference was detected in the sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Denosumab therapy was not associated with any risk of composite and specific cardiovascular outcomes among patients with primary osteoporosis than active comparators or placebo, while romosozumab therapy might increase the risk of 4P MACE.

Potential risks of rare serious adverse effects related to long-term use of bisphosphonates: An overview of systematic reviews

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

There have been concerns about a potential link between long-term use of bisphosphonates (BPs) for the treatment of osteoporosis and rare serious adverse effects, such as atypical femoral fractures. However, many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about this issue. The aim of this overview of reviews was to systematically evaluate the risk of rare serious adverse effects of long-term use of BPs for the treatment of osteoporosis.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and (or) observational studies published in English or Chinese that evaluated the safety of BPs through to December 2018. The Cochrane library, PubMed, Web of Science and hand-searching of reference lists and clinical practice guidelines were electronically searched for data sources. Carcinogenicity, atypical fracture, osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ) and fracture union time were specified as the primary outcomes. The methodological quality of each systematic review was assessed by two reviewers using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and the quality of evidence for key outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In total, 1376 potentially relevant citations were identified, of which only 8 systematic reviews with meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria. All the included reviews were published between 2012 and 2015 and documented the pooled estimates of effect size (relative risk [RR], odds ratio [OR] or hazard ratio [HR] and their 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]) for the incidence of adverse events. All included systematic reviews were of moderate or high quality. The median AMSTAR score was 7.5 (interquartile range, 5-10). However, evidence of the key outcomes was mainly of very low or moderate quality. BP treatment only increased the risk of atypical fracture and ONJ, and prolonged union time compared with placebo or other anti-osteoporosis drugs (P ＜ .05).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This study indicated that long-term use of BPs could increase the risk of rare serious adverse effects, but the relationship between long-term use of BPs and carcinogenicity was often uncertain. Therefore, high-quality research and more complete inclusion criteria are needed.

Molecular-Based Treatment Strategies for Osteoporosis: A Literature Review

Osteoporosis is an unavoidable public health problem in an aging or aged society. Anti-resorptive agents (calcitonin, estrogen, and selective estrogen-receptor modulators, bisphosphonates, anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand antibody along with calcium and vitamin D supplementations) and anabolic agents (parathyroid hormone and related peptide analogs, sclerostin inhibitors) have major roles in current treatment regimens and are used alone or in combination based on the pathological condition. Recent advancements in the molecular understanding of bone metabolism and in bioengineering will open the door to future treatment paradigms for osteoporosis, including antibody agents, stem cells, and gene therapies. This review provides an overview of the molecular mechanisms, clinical evidence, and potential adverse effects of drugs that are currently used or under development for the treatment of osteoporosis to aid clinicians in deciding how to select the best treatment option.

Comparison of Denosumab and Bisphosphonates in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

CONTEXT

It is uncertain which osteoporosis therapy is more effective: bisphosphonates or denosumab.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether denosumab therapy increases bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk more so than bisphosphonates in patients with low BMD or osteoporosis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched through November 2018 for head-to-head, randomized, controlled trials comparing denosumab and bisphosphonates among adult patients with low BMD or osteoporosis. Random-effects models were used.

RESULTS

We identified 10 eligible trials including 5361 participants. Denosumab increased BMD more than bisphosphonate at 12 months (mean difference, 1.42%; 95% CI, 0.95% to 1.89%; P < 0.001) at lumbar spine, 1.11% (95% CI, 0.91% to 1.30%; P < 0.001) at total hip, and 1.00% (95% CI, 0.78% to 1.22%; P < 0.001) at femoral neck. At 24 months, the respective increase differences were 1.74% (95% CI, 1.05% to 2.43%; P < 0.001), 1.22% (95% CI, 0.66% to 1.77%; P < 0.001), and 1.19% (95% CI, 0.65% to 1.72%; P < 0.001). There was no difference in fracture end point at 12 months, but denosumab had a lower osteoporotic fracture incidence than alendronate at 24 months (risk ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.97).

CONCLUSION

Denosumab improved BMD significantly more than bisphosphonate treatment at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 12 and 24 months. Only one study demonstrated greater osteoporotic fracture reduction with denosumab treatment. Longitudinal studies with longer follow-up and large sample size are needed to confirm the efficacy difference.

Comparison of Risk of Osteoporotic Fracture in Denosumab vs Alendronate Treatment Within 3 Years of Initiation

IMPORTANCE

Head-to-head randomized clinical trials showed greater efficacy of denosumab vs alendronate in improving bone mineral density. Although there is an association of changes in bone mineral density with reductions in fracture risk, the magnitude of the association is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of hip and any fracture in patients treated with denosumab and alendronate in routine practice settings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This Danish nationwide, population-based, historical cohort study of a population with universal access to health care used prospectively collected, individually linked data from Danish health registries with complete follow-up. Cohorts consisted of 92 355 individuals 50 years or older who were new users of denosumab (n = 4624) or alendronate (n = 87 731) from May 2010 to December 2017 after at least 1 year without an antiosteoporosis medication dispensing.

EXPOSURES

Initiation of denosumab or alendronate.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was hospitalization for hip fracture, and the secondary outcome was hospitalization for any fracture. Inverse probability of treatment weights and the intention-to-treat approach were used to calculate cumulative incidences and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of the 92 355 included patients, 75 046 (81.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 71 (10) years. The denosumab cohort had a lower proportion of men than the alendronate cohort (12.7% [589] vs 19.0% [16 700]), while age distributions were similar in the 2 cohorts. Within 3 years of follow-up, initiation of denosumab or alendronate was associated with cumulative incidences of 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, for hip fracture and 9.0% and 9.0%, respectively, for any fracture. Overall, the aHRs for denosumab vs alendronate were 1.08 (95% CI, 0.92-1.28) for hip fracture and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02) for any fracture. The aHR of denosumab vs alendronate for hip fracture was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) among patients with a history of any fracture and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.83-1.32) among patients without history of fracture. The aHR for any fracture for denosumab vs alendronate was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71-0.98) among patients with a history of any fracture and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.93) among patients with no history of fracture.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment with denosumab and alendronate was associated with similar risks of hip or any fracture over a 3-year period, regardless of fracture history.

Efficacy and safety of denosumab compared to bisphosphonates in improving bone strength in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Osteoporosis is the main cause of fractures among women after menopause. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared to bisphosphonates in treating postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared denosumab and bisphosphonates. RCTs that studied both denosumab and bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and had a Jadad score ≥ 3 were included.

RESULTS

Nine studies were eligible for inclusion. They were further categorised into six cohort groups. All studies had denosumab with oral bisphosphonates as the active comparator. Four out of six cohort studies showed significant improvements in bone strength (p < 0.001) at the distal radius, tibia, total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine and trochanter at 12 months for patients on denosumab compared to the bisphosphonate group. Serum C-telopeptide of cross-linked collagen, a bone turnover marker, was consistently lower in the denosumab group in all studies. There were no significant differences in hypocalcaemia, atypical fractures, fragility fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw, all infections (including fever or influenza-like symptoms), gastrointestinal side effects or dermatological conditions in all studies, except for one that did not document side effects.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab can be used both as a first-line agent and an alternative to bisphosphonate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. There is currently insufficient data to show that denosumab is not inferior to bisphosphonates in fracture prevention.

Brain to bone: What is the contribution of the brain to skeletal homeostasis?

The brain, which governs most, if not all, physiological functions in the body, from the complexities of cognition, learning and memory, to the regulation of basal body temperature, heart rate and breathing, has long been known to affect skeletal health. In particular, the hypothalamus - located at the base of the brain in close proximity to the medial eminence, where the blood-brain-barrier is not as tight as in other regions of the brain but rather "leaky", due to fenestrated capillaries - is exposed to a variety of circulating body cues, such as nutrients (glucose, fatty acids, amino acids), and hormones (insulin, glucagon, leptin, adiponectin) [1-3].Information collected from the body via these peripheral cues is integrated by hypothalamic sensing neurons and glial cells [4-7], which express receptors for these nutrients and hormones, transforming these cues into physiological outputs. Interestingly, many of the same molecules, including leptin, adiponectin and insulin, regulate both energy and skeletal homeostasis. Moreover, they act on a common set of hypothalamic nuclei and their residing neurons, activating endocrine and neuronal systems, which ultimately fine-tune the body to new physiological states. This review will focus exclusively on the brain-to-bone pathway, highlighting the most important anatomical sites within the brain, which are known to affect bone, but not covering the input pathways and molecules informing the brain of the energy and bone metabolic status, covered elsewhere [8-10]. The discussion in each section will present side by side the metabolic and bone-related functions of hypothalamic nuclei, in an attempt to answer some of the long-standing questions of whether energy is affected by bone remodeling and homeostasis and vice versa.

Denosumab: A Review in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Denosumab (Prolia^®; Pralia^®) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the key bone resorption mediator RANKL. The drug is administered via subcutaneous injection once every 6 months and is approved for various indications, including the treatment of postmenopausal (PM) women with osteoporosis at increased/high risk of fracture or failure/intolerance of other osteoporosis therapies (indications featured in this review). Denosumab showed benefit in several phase 3 or 4 studies in PM women with osteoporosis or low bone mineral density (BMD), including the pivotal 3-year double-blind FREEDOM trial and its 7-year open-label extension. Denosumab reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral and hip fractures and increased BMD across skeletal sites versus placebo in FREEDOM, with these benefits maintained over up to 10 years' therapy in the extension. The drug was also more effective in improving BMD than bisphosphonates, including in women switched from a bisphosphonate regimen, in 1-year trials; however, whether these differences translate into differences in anti-fracture efficacy is unclear. Denosumab was generally well tolerated over up to 10 years' treatment, although an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures was observed after discontinuation of the drug. Thus, denosumab is a key treatment option for PM women with osteoporosis who have an increased/high risk of fracture or failure/intolerance of other osteoporosis therapies, although the potential for multiple vertebral fractures to occur after discontinuation of the drug requires consideration of subsequent management options.

Denosumab compared to bisphosphonates to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for osteoporosis was controversial. Denosumab and bisphosphonates were two most common drugs. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab with bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis.

METHODS

Published literatures, only including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were searched in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google database from inception to April 20 2018. Studies that compared denosumab with bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis were included. Random-effect model was used for meta-analysis due to the unavoidable clinical heterogeneity. We used the risk of fracture as the primary outcome. Stata 12.0 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 5446 patients (denosumab = 2873, bisphosphonates = 2573) were included in the present meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the risk of fracture (risk ratio (RR), 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.55; P = 0.466), adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.04; P = 0.957) and withdrawn due to AEs (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.34-137; P = 0.280). Denosumab compared with bisphosphonates significantly increased change in total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and one-third radius bone mineral density (BMD) for postmenopausal osteoporosis patients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggested that denosumab but not bisphosphonates significantly increased change in total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and one-third radius BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Current evidence suggested no benefit of denosumab for reducing risk of fracture than bisphosphonates. More long-term follow-up RCTs are needed to identify the potential complications of denosumab.

What are we paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of patented denosumab and generic alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Zoledronic acid and denosumab were funded by the Australian government for the management of osteoporosis at an equivalent price to alendronate. The price of alendronate has declined by around 65 %, but the price of the other two therapies has remained stable. Using data published since the listing, this paper reports current estimates of the value of denosumab compared to alendronate from an Australian health system perspective.

METHODS

A cohort-based state transition model was developed that predicted changes in bone mineral density (BMD), and calibrated fracture probabilities as a function of BMD, age and previous fracture to estimate differences in costs and QALYs gained over a 10-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The base-case incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab versus alendronate was $246,749. There is a near zero probability that denosumab is cost-effective at a threshold value of $100,000 per QALY gained. If the price of denosumab was reduced by 50 %, the incremental cost per QALY gained falls to $50,068.

DISCUSSION

Current Australian legislation precludes price reviews when comparator therapies come off patent. The presented analysis illustrates a review process, incorporating clinical data collected since the original submission to inform a price at which denosumab would provide value for money.

Denosumab compared to other treatments to prevent or treat osteoporosis in individuals at risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab over other treatments for osteoporosis. The results of this study suggest that the safety of denosumab and its efficacy in reducing fractures is not significantly different from bisphosphonates. Denosumab was, however, more effective in increasing bone mineral density.

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab over other pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis in individuals at risk of fracture.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials comparing denosumab with another pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Identified articles were screened by two independent reviewers and assessed for inclusion. Data from included studies were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies including a total of 4890 postmenopausal women were identified. The follow-up period varied from 12 to 24 months. In all studies except one, the comparator treatment was a bisphosphonate. There was no statistically significant difference between patients receiving denosumab and those receiving a bisphosphonate in terms of fracture risk (RR[95 % CI] = 1.15 [0.84-1.58]), adverse events (RR[95 % CI] = 0.99 [0.96-1.02]) or deaths (OR[95 % CI] = 0.58 [0.12-2.71]). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less frequent in denosumab than in other treatment groups but the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR[95 % CI] = 0.68 [0.45-1.04]). The percent change in bone mineral density at the total hip, lumbar spine, femoral neck and one-third radius was significantly higher in participants who received denosumab (e.g. mean difference [95 % CI] at the total hip: 1.06 [0.86-1.25]).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that, after 12 to 24 months, the safety and efficacy of denosumab for reducing fracture risk is not significantly different from bisphosphonates despite higher gains in bone mineral density. In a clinical setting, denosumab may demonstrate greater effectiveness.

Efficacy and Safety of Denosumab in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until October 30, 2014 using combinations of the following search terms: osteoporosis, postmenopause, postmenopausal, women, denosumab. The primary outcome was bone mineral density (BMD) change, and secondary outcomes were change in the bone turnover markers β-isomerized carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and serum procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP), and adverse events.Patients treated with denosumab had significantly increased BMD of the lumbar spine (7.58%), total hip (4.86%), and distal third of the radius (2.92%) than those treated with placebo (all, P < 0.001). Patients treated with denosumab had a significant decrease of CTX (-66.16%) and P1NP (-64.65%) as compared with those treated with placebo (both, P < 0.001). Adverse events were similar between the 2 groups (pooled odds ratio = 1.04, P = 0.625).Denosumab increases BMD and decreases markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, and is not associated with significant side-effects.

Connecting the Dots: Linking Osteocyte Activity and Therapeutic Modulation of Sclerostin by Extending a Multiscale Systems Model

The goal of this work was to extend a mathematical, multiscale systems model of bone function, remodeling, and health in order to explore hypotheses related to therapeutic modulation of sclerostin and quantitatively describe purported osteocyte activity within bone remodeling events. A pharmacokinetic model with first-order absorption and dual elimination pathways was used to describe the kinetics of romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody (mAb) against sclerostin. To describe total circulating sclerostin, an extended indirect response model of inhibition of offset was developed. These models were subsequently linked to the systems model, with sclerostin signaling changes in resorption and formation through established osteocyte-mediated mechanisms. The model proposes relative contributions of the osteocyte to the RANKL pool, a major player in feedback signaling, and is used to explore hypotheses surrounding attenuation of anabolic activity after multiple doses of sclerostin mAbs, a phenomenon whose mechanism is poorly understood.

LRP5 polymorphisms and response to alendronate treatment in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

AIM

To investigate the association between LRP5 gene polymorphisms and response to alendronate in Chinese osteoporotic women.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Six hundred and thirty nine Chinese postmenopausal women with osteopenia or osteoporosis were included and received alendronate treatment. The A1330V polymorphism of LRP5 was investigated. Bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (ALP and β-isomerized carboxy-telopeptide of type I collagen [β-CTX]) were measured before and after treatment. The correlation of LRP5 polymorphisms with changes in BMD and bone turnover biomarkers were analyzed after treatment.

RESULTS

After 12 months of treatment, participants with CC and CT genotypes had a larger increase in lumbar spine BMD and a larger decrease in serum β-CTX and ALP levels than those with TT genotype (all p < 0.001). No significant genotype-treatment interaction was found in hip BMD.

CONCLUSION

The A1330V polymorphism of LRP5 is possibly correlated with response to alendronate treatment in Chinese women with osteoporosis, and the TT genotype could possibly predict a weak response to alendronate.

Potential increased risk of cancer from commonly used medications: an umbrella review of meta-analyses

Several commonly used medications have been associated with increased cancer risk in the literature. Here, we evaluated the strength and consistency of these claims in published meta-analyses. We carried out an umbrella review of 74 meta-analysis articles addressing the association of commonly used medications (antidiabetics, antihyperlipidemics, antihypertensives, antirheumatics, drugs for osteoporosis, and others) with cancer risk where at least one meta-analysis in the medication class included some data from randomized trials. Overall, 51 articles found no statistically significant differences, 13 found some decreased cancer risk, and 11 found some increased risk (one reported both increased and decreased risks). The 11 meta-analyses that found some increased risks reported 16 increased risk estimates, of which 5 pertained to overall cancer and 11 to site-specific cancer. Six of the 16 estimates were derived from randomized trials and 10 from observational data. Estimates of increased risk were strongly inversely correlated with the amount of evidence (number of cancer cases) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.77, P < 0.001). In 4 of the 16 topics, another meta-analysis existed that was larger (n = 2) or included better controlled data (n = 2) and in all 4 cases there was no statistically significantly increased risk of malignancy. No medication or class had substantial and consistent evidence for increased risk of malignancy. However, for most medications we cannot exclude small risks or risks in population subsets. Such risks are unlikely to be possible to document robustly unless very large, collaborative studies with standardized analyses and no selective reporting are carried out.

Randomized trial comparing monthly ibandronate and weekly alendronate for osteoporosis in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis

Osteoporosis resulting in bone fractures is a complication in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). Once-weekly alendronate improves bone mass and is well tolerated in these patients, but there is a concern because of poor compliance. Therefore, the efficacy, adherence, and safety of monthly ibandronate (150 mg) with weekly alendronate (70 mg) were compared in a randomized, 2-year study in 42 postmenopausal women with PBC and osteoporosis. Bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine and proximal femur (by DXA), liver function, and bone markers were measured at entry and every 6 months over 2 years. Adherence to therapy was assessed by the Morisky-Green score. At enrollment, the two groups were similar with respect to age, BMD, severity of cholestasis, previous fractures, and bone markers. Thirty-three patients, 14 in the ibandronate group and 19 in the alendronate group, completed the trial. At 2 years both treatments resulted in a significant increase in BMD at the lumbar spine (from 0.875 ± 0.025 to 0.913 ± 0.026 g/cm(2), P < 0.001 with alendronate, and from 0.898 ± 0.024 to 0.949 ± 0.027 g/cm(2), P < 0.001 with ibandronate). The mean percentage change was 4.5% and 5.7%, respectively (P = not significant). BMD increased at the total hip by 2.0% and 1.2%, respectively. Changes in bone markers were similar in both groups and one patient with alendronate developed a new vertebral fracture. Adherence to therapy was higher with ibandronate (P = 0.009). Neither treatment impaired liver function or cholestasis.

CONCLUSION

Both regimens, weekly alendronate and monthly ibandronate, improve bone mass and are comparable in safety for osteoporosis therapy in patients with PBC, although adherence is higher with the monthly regimen. Further larger studies are needed to assess fracture prevention.

Treating osteoporosis by targeting parathyroid hormone to bone

Osteoporosis is a major public health problem despite widespread use of bisphosphonate therapy. PTH(1-34) is a more effective treatment; but its use has been limited by side effects (hypercalcemia, tumor risk) and inconvenient dosing (daily injection). Long-acting forms of PTH are also effective but cause severe hypercalcemia, presumably from effects in kidney. We hypothesized that targeted delivery of PTH to bone using a collagen binding domain (PTH-CBD) could reduce hypercalcemia. PTH-CBD is cleared from serum within 12hours after subcutaneous administration. In ovariectomized rats, monthly administration of PTH-CBD increased spinal BMD by 14.2% with no associated hypercalcemia. Such bone-targeted anabolic agents may ultimately allow the superior efficacy of anabolic therapy to be obtained with the dosing convenience of bisphosphonates.

Risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw in cancer patients receiving denosumab: a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the overall incidence and risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in cancer patients receiving denosumab.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials identified in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Abstracts presented at the conferences were also searched. Overall incidence rates, relative risk (RR), and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated employing fixed- or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included trials.

RESULTS

A total of 8963 patients with a variety of solid tumors from 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of ONJ in cancer patients receiving denosumab was 1.7 % [95 % CI: 0.9-3.1 %]. Also, the use of denosumab was associated with significantly increased risk of ONJ in comparison with bisphosphonates (BPs)/placebo treatment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI: 1.05-2.48, P = 0.029). Subgroup analysis based on controlled therapies demonstrated an increased risk of ONJ in denosumab therapy, when compared with BPs (RR 1.48, 95 % CI: 0.96-2.29, P = 0.078) or placebo (RR 16.28, 95 % CI: 1.68-158.05, P = 0.017). Similar results were observed in prostate cancer (RR 3.358, 95 % CI: 1.573-7.166, P = 0.002) while there was a non-significantly increased risk of denosumab-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (DONJ) in non-prostate cancers (RR 1.142, 95 % CI: 0.678-1.921, P = 0.618).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of denosumab is associated with an increased risk of developing ONJ when compared with BP treatment or placebo, although the increased risk was not statistically significant between denosumab and BP treatment. Further studies are still needed to establish guidelines for the prevention and effective treatment of ONJ.

Denosumab, a new pharmacotherapy option for postmenopausal osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

According to the 2010 Osteoporosis Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines, denosumab is a first-line option for the pharmacological management of postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), along with several therapeutics that may be more familiar to family practice doctors: bisphosphonates, raloxifene, teriparatide, and hormone therapy. Denosumab is indicated for postmenopausal patients at high risk for fracture or others who have failed, or are intolerant to, other osteoporosis therapies.

SCOPE

We undertook a review of the efficacy and safety of denosumab in PMO, searching the English-language literature on this drug via PubMed queries as of July 2012.

FINDINGS

Although established treatments reduce fracture risk among osteoporotic postmenopausal women in trials, their effectiveness in clinical practice is limited by patient adherence. Twice-yearly denosumab treatment is associated with markedly improved bone mineral density (BMD) and cortical and trabecular bone strength, and significantly reduced osteoporotic fracture. Inhibition of bone resorption is fully reversible following discontinuation. Placebo-controlled and open-label extension studies showed similar adverse event (AE) and serious AE rates, relative to placebo, over up to 5 years. Data indicate a potential advantage of denosumab over the bisphosphonate alendronate for BMD and patient adherence and preference.

CONCLUSION

Owing to its efficacy, safety, and potential to improve adherence rates, denosumab is an appropriate first-line pharmacologic option for PMO management.