Further Nonvertebral Fracture Reduction Beyond 3 Years for Up to 10 Years of Denosumab Treatment

Mechanisms underlying the long-term and withdrawal effects of denosumab therapy on bone

Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), is a potent inhibitor of osteoclast differentiation and activity. As the first biologic drug used to treat osteoporosis, denosumab has shown potent anti-resorptive properties and anti-fracture efficacy. The effects of this drug are also unique compared with the effects of bisphosphonates: namely, long-term treatment with this drug results in a continuous gain of bone mineral density, whereas withdrawal of the drug results in a transient overshoot in bone turnover and rapid bone loss. Although the mechanisms for these specific effects remain incompletely understood, emerging experimental and clinical data have started to highlight potential biological and pharmacological mechanisms by which denosumab might affect osteoclasts, as well as osteoblasts, and cause both sustained bone gain and bone loss upon treatment cessation. This Perspective discusses those potential mechanisms and the future studies and clinical implications that might ensue from these findings.

Long-term effect of denosumab on bone microarchitecture as assessed by tissue thickness-adjusted trabecular bone score in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from FREEDOM and its open-label extension

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, up to 10 years of denosumab treatment significantly and continuously improved bone microarchitecture assessed by tissue thickness-adjusted trabecular bone score, independently of bone mineral density. Long-term denosumab treatment decreased the number of high fracture-risk patients and shifted more patients to lower fracture-risk categories.

PURPOSE

To investigate the long-term effect of denosumab on bone microarchitecture assessed by tissue thickness-adjusted trabecular bone score (TBS_TT) in post-hoc subgroup analysis of FREEDOM and open-label extension (OLE).

METHODS

Postmenopausal women with lumbar spine (LS) or total hip BMD T-score <-2.5 and ≥-4.0 who completed the FREEDOM DXA substudy and continued in OLE were included. Patients received either denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months for 3 years and same-dose open-label denosumab for 7 years (long-term denosumab; n=150) or placebo for 3 years and open-label denosumab for 7 years (crossover denosumab; n=129). BMD and TBS_TT were assessed on LS DXA scans at FREEDOM baseline, month 1, and years 1-6, 8, and 10.

RESULTS

In long-term denosumab group, continued increases from baseline to years 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 in BMD (11.6%, 13.7%, 15.5%, 18.5%, and 22.4%) and TBS_TT (3.2%, 2.9%, 4.1%, 3.6%, and 4.7%) were observed (all P < 0.0001). Long-term denosumab treatment decreased the proportion of patients at high fracture-risk (according to TBS_TT and BMD T-score) from baseline up to year 10 (93.7 to 40.4%), resulting in increases in the proportions at medium-risk (6.3 to 53.9%) and low-risk (0 to 5.7%) (P < 0.0001). Similar responses were observed in crossover denosumab group. Changes in BMD and TBS_TT were poorly correlated during denosumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, up to 10 years of denosumab significantly and continuously improved bone microarchitecture assessed by TBS_TT, independently of BMD, and shifted more patients to lower fracture-risk categories.

Updated trabecular bone score accounting for the soft tissue thickness (TBSTT) demonstrated significantly improved bone microstructure with denosumab in the FREEDOM TBS post hoc analysis

TBS algorithm has been updated to account for regional soft tissue noise. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab improved tissue thickness-adjusted TBS vs placebo independently of bone mineral density over 3 years, with the magnitude of changes from baseline or placebo numerically greater than body mass index-adjusted TBS.

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effect of denosumab on bone microarchitecture assessed by trabecular bone score (TBS) in the FREEDOM study using the updated algorithm that accounts for regional soft tissue thickness (TBS_TT) in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images and to compare percent changes from baseline and placebo with classical body mass index (BMI)-adjusted TBS (TBS_BMI).

METHODS

Postmenopausal women with lumbar spine or total hip bone mineral density (BMD) T score <  - 2.5 and ≥  - 4.0 received placebo or denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months. TBS_BMI and TBS_TT were assessed on lumbar spine DXA scans at baseline and months 1, 12, 24, and 36 in a subset of 279 women (129 placebo, 150 denosumab) who completed the 3-year FREEDOM DXA substudy and rolled over to open-label extension study.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. TBS_TT in the denosumab group showed numerically greater changes from both baseline and placebo than TBS_BMI at months 12, 24, and 36. Denosumab led to progressive increases in BMD (1.2, 5.6, 8.1, and 10.5%) and TBS_TT (0.4, 2.3, 2.6, and 3.3%) from baseline to months 1, 12, 24, and 36, respectively. Both TBS changes were significant vs baseline and placebo from months 12 to 36 (p < 0.0001). As expected, BMD and TBS_TT were poorly correlated both at baseline and for changes during treatment.

CONCLUSION

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly improved bone microstructure assessed by TBS_TT over 3 years. TBS_TT seemed more responsive to denosumab treatment than TBS_BMI and was independent of BMD.

Gaps and alternative surgical and non-surgical approaches in the bone fragility management: an updated review

Osteoporotic fractures are one of the major problems facing healthcare systems worldwide. Undoubtedly, fragility fractures of the hip represent a far greater burden in terms of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs than other fracture sites. However, despite the significant impact on the health and quality of life of older adults, there is a general lack of awareness of osteoporosis, which results in suboptimal care. In fact, most high-risk individuals are never identified and do not receive adequate treatment, leading to further fragility fractures and worsening health status. Furthermore, considering the substantial treatment gap and the proven cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention programs such as Fracture Liaison Services, urgent action is needed to ensure that all individuals at high risk of fragility fracture are adequately assessed and treated. Based on this evidence, the aim of our review was to (i) provide an overview and comparison of the burden and management of fragility fractures, highlighting the main gaps, and (ii) highlight the importance of using alternative approaches, both surgical and non-surgical, with the aim of implementing early prevention of osteoporotic fractures and improving the management of osteoporotic patients at imminent and/or very high risk of fracture.

Denosumab in the Treatment of Osteoporosis: 10 Years Later: A Narrative Review

The fully human monoclonal antibody denosumab was approved for treatment of osteoporosis in 2010 on the basis of its potent antiresorptive activity, which produces clinically meaningful increases in bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk at key skeletal sites. At that time, questions remained regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of this receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) inhibitor; and with clinical experience, new questions have arisen regarding its optimal use. Here, we examine these questions through the lens of data from the FREEDOM trial program and other studies to determine where denosumab fits in the osteoporosis treatment landscape. Clinical consensus and evidentiary support have grown for denosumab as a highly effective anti-osteoporosis therapy for patients at high risk of fracture. In the 10-year FREEDOM Extension study, denosumab treatment produced progressive incremental increases in BMD, sustained low rates of vertebral fracture, and further reduction in nonvertebral fracture risk without increased risk of infection, cancer, or immunogenicity. There was no evidence that suppression of bone turnover or mineralization was excessive, and rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fracture (AFF) were very low. It is now recognized, however, that transitioning to another anti-osteoporosis therapy after denosumab discontinuation is essential to mitigate a transient rebound of bone turnover causing rapid BMD loss and increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures (MVFs). Taken together, the available data show that denosumab has a favorable benefit/risk profile and is a versatile agent for preventing osteoporotic fractures in the short and long term.

Long-Term Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is an incurable chronic condition, like heart disease, diabetes, or hypertension. A large gap currently exists in the primary prevention of fractures, and studies show that an estimated 80% to 90% of adults do not receive appropriate osteoporosis management even in the secondary prevention setting. Case finding strategies have been developed and effective pharmacological interventions are available. This publication addresses how best to use the pharmacological options available for postmenopausal osteoporosis to provide lifelong fracture protection in patients at high and very high risk of fracture. The benefit of osteoporosis therapies far outweighs the rare risks.

Bone fragility in patients with diabetes mellitus: A consensus statement from the working group of the Italian Diabetes Society (SID), Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE), Italian Society of Gerontology and Geriatrics (SIGG), Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (SIOT)

Bone fragility is one of the possible complications of diabetes, either type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D). Bone fragility can affect patients of different age and with different disease severity depending on type of diabetes, disease duration and the presence of other complications. Fracture risk assessment should be started at different stages in the natural history of the disease depending on the type of diabetes and other risk factors. The risk of fracture in T1D is higher than in T2D, imposing a much earlier screening and therapeutic intervention that should also take into account a patient's life expectancy, diabetes complications etc. The therapeutic armamentarium for T2D has been enriched with drugs that may influence bone metabolism, and clinicians should be aware of these effects. Considering the complexity of diabetes and osteoporosis and the range of variables that influence treatment choices in a given individual, the Working Group on bone fragility in patients with diabetes mellitus has identified and issued recommendations based on the variables that should guide screening of bone fragility and management of diabetes and bone fragility: (A)ge, (B)MD, (C)omplications, (D)uration of disease, & (F)ractures (ABCD&F). Consideration of these parameters may help clinicians identify the best time for screening, the appropriate glycaemic target and anti-osteoporosis drug for patients with diabetes at risk of or with bone fragility.

RANKL as a target for the treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is characterized by compromised bone strength, predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. Because bone is constantly remodeled, and bone mass and structure are determined by the balance between bone resorption and bone formation, it is important to maintain normal bone turnover. Therefore, therapies that reduce bone resorption have been the mainstream of osteoporosis treatment. Receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-RANK signaling was found to play a pivotal role in the regulation of osteoclastic bone resorption, and inhibition of RANKL-RANK system has become an important therapeutic target for the treatment of osteoporosis. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-RANKL neutralizing antibody, is developed as a drug for the treatment of osteoporosis. This review summarized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of denosumab, clinical studies including phase 2 dose-ranging and its extension study, phase 3 fracture prevention study (FREEDOM) with extension up to 10 years, studies on male osteoporosis (ADAMO study), and on glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, along with relevant clinical studies in Japan. In addition, mechanism of denosumab action that can explain its long-term sustained effects, combination and sequential treatment as well as the problems in discontinuation of denosumab, and finally safety of denosumab therapy is discussed.

Should denosumab treatment for osteoporosis be continued indefinitely?

Denosumab was approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in 2010, based on the FREEDOM study, which indicated a benefit in terms of increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of major osteoporotic fracture. In the initial clinical studies it was noted that discontinuation of denosumab can lead to a rebound of bone turnover markers and loss of accrued bone mineral density. An increased risk of fractures (multiple vertebral fractures in particular) associated with discontinuation was noted after approval and marketing of denosumab. For many patients experiencing gain in bone mineral density and fracture prevention while taking denosumab, there is no reason to stop therapy. However, discontinuation of denosumab may happen due to non-adherence; potential lack of efficacy in an individual; where reimbursement for therapy is limited to those with bone mineral density in the osteoporosis range, when assessment reveals this has been exceeded; or patient or physician concern regarding side effects. This review paper aims to discuss these concerns and to summarize the data available to date regarding sequential osteoporosis therapy following denosumab cessation to reduce the risk of multiple vertebral fracture.

Preventing, identifying, and managing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: a practical guide for nurses and other allied healthcare professionals

Background

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is an infrequent, but potentially serious, adverse event that can occur after exposure to bone-modifying agents (BMAs; e.g., bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic therapies). BMAs are typically used at higher doses to prevent skeletal-related events in cancer patients and at lower doses for osteoporosis/bone loss. MRONJ can cause significant pain, reduce quality of life, and can be difficult to treat, requiring a multiprofessional approach to care.

Methods

We reviewed the literature and guidelines to summarize a practical guide on MRONJ for nurses and other allied healthcare professionals.

Results

While there is a risk of MRONJ with BMAs, this should be considered in relation to the benefits of treatment. Nurses and other allied healthcare professionals can play a key role alongside physicians and dentists in assessing MRONJ risk, identifying MRONJ, counseling the patient on the benefit–risk of BMA treatment, preventing MRONJ, and managing the care pathway of these patients. Assessing patients for MRONJ risk factors before starting BMA treatment can guide preventative measures to reduce the risk of MRONJ. Nurses can play a pivotal role in facilitating multiprofessional management of MRONJ by communicating with patients to ensure compliance with preventative measures, and with patients’ physicians and dentists to ensure early detection and referral for prompt treatment of MRONJ.

Conclusions

This review summarizes current evidence on MRONJ and provides practical guidance for nurses, from before BMA treatment is started through to approaches that can be taken to prevent and manage MRONJ in patients receiving BMAs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05440-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Osteoporosis Therapeutics 2020

Numerous safe and efficient drug therapies are currently available to decrease risk of low trauma fractures in patients with osteoporosis including postmenopausal, male, and secondary osteoporosis. In this chapter, we give first an overview of the most important outcomes regarding fracture risk reduction, change in bone mineral density (BMD by DXA) and/or bone markers of the phase III clinical studies of well-established therapies (such as Bisphosphonates, Denosumab or Teriparatide) and also novel therapies (such as Romosozumab or Abaloparatide) and highlight their mechanisms of action at bone tissue/material level. The latter understanding is not only essential for the choice of drug, duration and discontinuation of treatment but also for the interpretation of the clinical outcomes (in particular of eventual changes in BMD) after drug administration. In the second part of this chapter, we focus on the management of different forms of osteoporosis and give a review of the respective current guidelines for treatment. Adverse effects of treatment such as atypical femoral fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw or influence of fracture healing are considered also in this context.

Spinal Cord Injury as a Model of Bone-Muscle Interactions: Therapeutic Implications From in vitro and in vivo Studies

Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) represent a variety of conditions related to the damage of the spinal cord with consequent musculoskeletal repercussions. The bone and muscle tissues share several catabolic pathways that lead to variable degrees of disability in SCI patients. In this review article, we provide a comprehensive characterization of the available treatment options targeting the skeleton and the bone in the setting of SCI. Among the pharmacological intervention, bisphosphonates, anti-sclerostin monoclonal antibodies, hydrogen sulfide, parathyroid hormone, and RANKL pathway inhibitors represent valuable options for treating bone alterations. Loss phenomena at the level of the muscle can be counteracted with testosterone, anabolic-androgenic steroids, and selective androgen receptor modulators. Exercise and physical therapy are valuable strategies to increase bone and muscle mass. Nutritional interventions could enhance SCI treatment, particularly in the setting of synergistic and multidisciplinary interventions, but there are no specific guidelines available to date. The development of multidisciplinary recommendations is required for a proper clinical management of SCI patients.