Assessment of Denosumab in Korean Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial with Open-Label Extension

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.

Adherence of denosumab treatment for low bone mineral density in Japanese people living with HIV: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Long-term care issues, specifically metabolic bone disorders, are a concern for people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) who undergo life-long antiretroviral therapy (ART). Previous clinical trials with denosumab, an anti-RANKL antibody inhibitor, have revealed its effectiveness in increasing bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with osteoporosis. However, there are limited data on adherence and effectiveness of denosumab treatment for osteoporosis in PLWH. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the adherence and effectiveness of denosumab treatment for osteoporosis in Japanese PLWH.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective exploratory analysis of 29 Japanese PLWH who initiated denosumab treatment for osteoporosis, between 2013 and 2021. The study included patients who received at least one dose of denosumab every 6 months. Adherence and persistence were defined as receiving two consecutive injections of denosumab 6 months ± 4 weeks apart and 6 months + 8 weeks apart, respectively. The primary outcome measure of the study was the adherence of denosumab treatment for 24 months. The secondary outcome measures included treatment persistence and BMD. The period after January 2020 was defined as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period, and its impact on adherence was investigated.

RESULTS

The treatment adherence rates at 12 and 24 months were 89.7% and 60.7%, respectively. By contrast, the treatment persistence at 12 and 24 months was 100% and 85.7%, respectively. More patients in the group who initiated denosumab treatment after the COVID-19 pandemic reached non-adherence than in the group who initiated denosumab treatment before the pandemic. BMD at the lumbar spine and femoral neck significantly increased compared to that at baseline, with median percentage changes of 8.7% (p < 0.001) and 3.5% (p = 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that patients in the study had a high rate of non-adherence but a lower rate of non-persistence. Additionally, PLWH on ongoing ART experienced increased BMD with denosumab treatment. This study provides an opportunity to improve future strategies for denosumab treatment in the Japanese PLWH.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the denosumab biosimilar QL1206 in postmenopausal Chinese women with osteoporosis and high fracture risk

The current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a denosumab biosimilar, QL1206 (60 mg), compared to placebo in postmenopausal Chinese women with osteoporosis and high fracture risk. At 31 study centers in China, a total of 455 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and high fracture risk were randomly assigned to receive QL1206 (60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months) or placebo. From baseline to the 12-month follow-up, the participants who received QL1206 showed significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD) values (mean difference and 95% CI) in the lumbar spine: 4.780% (3.880%, 5.681%), total hip :3.930% (3.136%, 4.725%), femoral neck 2.733% (1.877%, 3.589%) and trochanter: 4.058% (2.791%, 5.325%) compared with the participants who received the placebo. In addition, QL1206 injection significantly decreased the serum levels of C-terminal crosslinked telopeptides of type 1 collagen (CTX): -77.352% (-87.080%, -66.844%), and N-terminal procollagen of type l collagen (P1NP): -50.867% (-57.184%, -45.217%) compared with the placebo over the period from baseline to 12 months. No new or unexpected adverse events were observed. We concluded that compared with placebo, QL1206 effectively increased the BMD of the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck and trochanter in postmenopausal Chinese women with osteoporosis and rapidly decreased bone turnover markers. This study demonstrated that QL1206 has beneficial effects on postmenopausal Chinese women with osteoporosis and high fracture risk.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Denosumab in Patients with Osteoporosis: A Prospective, Observational Study in South Korea

BACKGRUOUND

The efficacy and safety of denosumab have been established in a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Korean postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. This postmarketing surveillance study was aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of denosumab in Korean real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients with osteoporosis who had received denosumab per the Korean approved indications in the postmarketing setting between September 2014 and September 2019 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The secondary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck.

RESULTS

Of the 3,221 patients enrolled, 3,185 were included in the safety analysis set; 2,973 (93.3%) were female, and the mean± standard deviation (SD) age was 68.9±9.9 years. The mean±SD study period was 350.0±71.4 days. AEs, fatal AEs, and ADRs occurred in 19.3%, 0.8%, and 1.6%, respectively. The most frequent AEs, occurring in >0.5% of patients, were dizziness (0.7%), arthralgia (0.7%), back pain (0.6%), and myalgia (0.6%). Hypocalcemia occurred in 0.3% of patients. There were no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture. Mean±SD percent change from baseline in BMD of the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck was 7.3%±23.6%, 3.6%±31.4%, and 3.2%±10.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The safety and effectiveness of denosumab in Korean patients with osteoporosis in this study were comparable with those in the Korean randomized controlled trial, with no new safety findings.

A Novel Case Study of the Use of Real-World Evidence to Support the Registration of an Osteoporosis Product in China

On June 23, 2020, Prolia^® (denosumab) was approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in the People’s Republic of China as the first monoclonal antibody for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fractures. Its brand name in Chinese is 普罗力, a transliteration from the English name “Prolia”, which has an implied meaning of “to give strength to everyone”— a suitable name for a potent anti-resorptive therapy. The approval was supported by a novel marketing authorization application (MAA) that included data from Prolia’s global clinical trial program establishing favorable efficacy and safety, augmented by results from a real-world evidence (RWE) study confirming the effectiveness and safety of Prolia in clinical practice within Taiwan and Hong Kong. Key constructs for this registration-quality RWE study included the fit-for-purpose assessment of data quality, methodology and quantitative assessment of potential biases, good practices of study conduct, and reproducibility of results. Using data from clinical practice in Taiwan and Hong Kong to evaluate the benefits versus risks of Prolia treatment in ethnic Chinese women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, the RWE study results for effectiveness were comparable to efficacy demonstrated in the global clinical trial program and results for safety were consistent with the incidence observed in global post-marketing safety studies. While RWE is often used to monitor postmarket safety of drug products, support health insurance coverage decisions, and inform clinicians on real-world use of medicines, it has not been widely used to support regulatory approval for new medicines in lieu of clinical bridging studies in countries where such studies are required. Well-conducted registrational RWE studies can play a pivotal role in complementing the totality of evidence presented in an MAA. The benefits of such an approach include avoiding the collection of additional placebo-controlled trial data in populations where adequate ethnic characterization of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety may already exist from postmarketing sources, and accelerate access for patients to innovative medicines in important regions. Here, we describe a regulatory case study of a novel MAA incorporating RWE that provided important evidence to confirm the benefit:risk of a new drug and facilitated a label expansion to a new patient population.

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 Denosumab in Osteoporosis or Low Bone Mineral Density Postmenopausal Women

Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, acts against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand and is a promising antiresorptive agent in patients with osteoporosis. This study aimed to update the efficacy and safety of denosumab vs. placebo in osteoporosis or low bone mineral density (BMD) postmenopausal women. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy and safety data of denosumab vs. placebo in osteoporosis or low BMD postmenopausal women. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled weight mean differences (WMDs) or relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment effectiveness of denosumab vs. placebo. Eleven RCTs including 12,013 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD were preferred for the final meta-analysis. The summary results indicated that the percentage change of BMD in the denosumab group was greater than that of BMD in placebo at 1/3 radius (WMD: 3.43; 95%CI: 3.24–3.62; p < 0.001), femoral neck (WMD: 3.05; 95%CI: 1.78–4.33; p < 0.001), lumbar spine (WMD: 6.25; 95%CI: 4.59–7.92; p < 0.001), total hip (WMD: 4.36; 95%CI: 4.07–4.66; p < 0.001), trochanter (WMD: 6.00; 95%CI: 5.95–6.05; p < 0.001), and total body (WMD: 3.20; 95%CI: 2.03–4.38; p < 0.001). Moreover, denosumab therapy significantly reduced the risk of clinical fractures (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.51–0.63; p < 0.001), nonvertebral fracture (RR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.70–0.97; p = 0.018), vertebral fracture (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.25–0.40; p < 0.001), and hip fracture (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.37–0.98; p = 0.042). Finally, denosumab did not cause excess risks of adverse events. These findings suggested that postmenopausal women receiving denosumab had increased BMDs and reduced fractures at various sites without inducing any adverse events.

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.

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

The cardiovascular safety of denosumab has not yet been evaluated in a systematic review. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to quantify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of denosumab (against comparators) reporting cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs) and examine the balance of CAEs between treatment arms. MEDLINE, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to October 26, 2019, for RCTs of denosumab versus comparators for any indication. Included trials were randomized, enrolled ≥100 participants, and reported bone-related outcomes. Primary outcome for analysis was all CAEs, a composite endpoint representing summation of all CAEs as reported by included trials. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Data were pooled using a fixed effects model to determine relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Of 554 records screened, 49 were included, while 36 reported CAEs. Twenty-seven included trials (12 eligible for meta-analysis) were conducted in 13,202 postmenopausal women. Compared with bisphosphonates, there was a 46% (95% CI 1.05 to 2.02) increase in CAEs (85/2136 events in denosumab-treated versus 58/2131 events in bisphosphonate-treated; seven trials). There was a similar imbalance in a five-point (stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) MACE endpoint (28/2053 versus 12/2050; RR = 2.33 [1.19 to 4.56]). Compared with placebo-treated women, there was no imbalance in total CAEs (439/4725 events in denosumab versus 399/4467 in placebo; RR = 0.79 [0.41 to 1.52]; seven trials). No imbalance in total AEs (versus bisphosphonates: 0.98 [0.92 to 1.04]; versus placebo: 0.99 [0.98 to 1.01]) occurred. Other indications showed no statistically significant results. The excess CAEs in postmenopausal women treated with denosumab compared with bisphosphonates, but not placebo, indirectly supports claims that bisphosphonates may suppress CAEs. Future trials should use standardized CAE reporting to better describe cardiovascular effects of bone active medications. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135414.) © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Bone Disease Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: An International, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Phase 3 Study-Asian Subgroup Analysis

Introduction

The primary analysis of a global phase 3 study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events (SREs) in adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) indicated that denosumab was noninferior to zoledronic acid for time to first on-study SREs. Here we present a subgroup analysis to evaluate efficacy and safety in Asian patients.

Methods

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously or zoledronic acid intravenously 4 mg every 4 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion. All patients received standard-of-care first-line antimyeloma treatment. Each patient received either study drug until an estimated 676 patients experienced at least one on-study SRE and the primary efficacy and safety analyses were completed.

Results

Of 1718 total enrolled patients, 196 Asian patients (denosumab, n = 103; zoledronic acid, n = 93) were included in this subgroup analysis. Fewer patients in the denosumab group developed first on-study SRE compared with the zoledronic acid group; the crude incidence of SREs at the primary analysis cutoff was 38.8% and 50.5%, respectively (HR [95% CI], 0.77 [0.48–1.26]). All 194 patients receiving at least one dose of study drug experienced at least one treatment-emergent AE. The most common AEs reported in either group (denosumab, zoledronic acid) were diarrhea (51.0%, 51.1%), nausea (42.2%, 46.7%), and pyrexia (38.2%, 41.3%). Treatment-emergent renal toxicity occurred in 9/102 (8.8%) and 20/92 (21.7%) patients, respectively. Similar rates of positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw (7 [6.9%] vs 5 [5.4%]) and treatment-emergent hypocalcemia (19 [18.6%] vs 17 [18.5%]) were reported in the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Efficacy and safety outcomes from this Asian subgroup were comparable to those of the full study population. Overall, this analysis supports denosumab as an additional treatment option for standard of care for Asian patients with newly diagnosed MM with lytic bone lesions.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345019.

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.

No impact of anti-Rank ligand and PTH analogs on cardiovascular risk in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

The mutual effects of drugs used in osteoporosis and cardiovascular diseases are a point of interest. A literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to address the impact of PTH analogs and anti-Rank ligand on cardiovascular events and overall mortality in individuals with idiopathic osteoporosis; these treatments do not appear to have any effect.

INTRODUCTION

Two meta-analyses have been conducted to explore the cardiovascular effects of bisphosphonates. There is no review for other osteoporosis treatments. A literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to address the impact of PTH analogs and anti-Rank ligand on cardiovascular events and overall mortality in individuals with idiopathic osteoporosis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in December 2017 in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and updated on PubMed in July 2019, selecting trials with a treatment and a control group. We also conducted a search for abstracts of the French Rheumatology Society, American College of Rheumatology, and European League Against Rheumatism's annual meetings over the past 4 years. The main endpoint was the occurrence of cardiovascular events; the secondary was mortality (all causes).

RESULTS

Of the 2782 reports initially found, 16 articles were used for the meta-analysis (6 for the anti-Rank ligand and 10 for the PTH analog group). After meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between the placebo group and the anti-Rank ligand group for overall mortality (p = 0.13), the combined endpoint (overall mortality, coronary artery disease, and stroke; p 0.77), and the individual risk of coronary artery disease (p 0.53), arrhythmia (p 0.95), and stroke (p 0.62). After meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between the placebo group and the PTH analogs group for overall mortality (p 0.77), the combined endpoint (p = 0.95), and the individual risk of coronary artery disease (p = 0.74), arrhythmia (p = 0.28), and stroke (p = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The anti-Rank ligand and PTH analogs have no impact on cardiovascular risk and overall mortality in idiopathic osteoporosis. To better answer the question whether these treatments can reduce the long-term cardiovascular risk, further comparative studies with longer duration are required.

Inflammation induces osteoclast differentiation from peripheral mononuclear cells in chronic kidney disease patients: crosstalk between the immune and bone systems

Background

Inflammation and immune system alterations contribute to bone damage in many pathologies by inducing the differentiation of osteoclasts (OCs), the bone resorbing cells. This link is largely unexplored in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and haemodialysis (HD) patients, in which reduced renal function is accompanied by an increased inflammatory state and skeletal abnormality.

Methods

We used ex vivo culture experiments to investigate the osteoclastogenic potential of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of CKD and HD patients, focusing on immune cell subsets and inflammatory cytokines such as LIGHT and receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL).

Results

We observed spontaneous osteoclastogenesis with a significant increase in OC formation and bone resorbing activity in late-stage CKD and HD patients when compared with early-stage CKD patients and healthy donors, likely due to an increased expression of RANKL and LIGHT (homologous to Lymphotoxins exhibiting Inducible expression and competing with herpes simplex virus Glycoprotein D for herpes virus entry mediator [HVEM], a receptor expressed by T lymphocytes) in PBMCs. Specific inhibition of these cytokines in PBMCs isolated from CKD stages 3b-5 and HD patients induced the reduction of OC formation in vitro. The phenotypic characterization of peripheral blood cells revealed a significant increase of OC precursors (CD14+CD11b+CD51/61+) and CD14+CD16+ monocytes in advanced CKD and HD patients compared with the control group.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that circulating inflammatory monocytes from advanced CKD or HD patients trans differentiate into OCs in vitro and play a relevant role in mineral bone disorders and that LIGHT and RANKL represent new potential therapeutic targets in these settings.

Celastrol inhibits glucocorticoid‑induced osteoporosis in rat via the PI3K/AKT and Wnt signaling pathways

Modern pharmacological studies revealed that Celastrol exhibits anti‑inflammation, anti‑bacteria, anti‑virus, anti‑fertility, insect‑resistance functions and has been used for the treatment of rheumatism, rheumatoid arthritis, blood diseases, skin diseases and agricultural insecticide. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of Celastrol on glucocorticoid‑induced osteoporosis (GIOP) and the underlying molecular mechanisms. The findings of the current study revealed that Celastrol reduced body weight, urine calcium/creatinine, tartrate‑resistant acid phosphatase 5b, C‑terminal telopeptide of type I collagen, and induced osteocalcin in GIOP rats. In addition, alkaline phosphatase, triiodothyronine receptor auxiliary protein and cathepsin K mRNA expression levels were effectively suppressed, and osteocalcin, bone morphogenetic protein 2, type I collagen and runt‑related transcription factor 2 mRNA expression levels were effectively induced in osteoporosis rats treated with Celastrol. Celastrol inhibited prostaglandin E2 and caspase‑3 protein expression levels, and induced phosphoinositol 3‑kinase (PI3K), phosphorylated‑protein kinase B (AKT) and glycogen synthase kinase‑3 phosphorylation, Wnt and β‑catenin protein expression in GIOP rats. The present study demonstrated that Celastrol may inhibit GIOP in rats via the PI3K/AKT and Wnt signaling pathways.

Denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis

Denosumab, a specific inhibitor of RANK ligand, is a novel therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis and related disorders. An extensive clinical development program has evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of denosumab with several thousand patients being followed for up to 10 years. Combined with more than six years of postmarketing experience, these studies provide substantial confidence that denosumab is a convenient and appropriate treatment for patients, including Asians, at high risk for fracture. This review will summarize the clinical development of denosumab and lessons learned since its approval for clinical use in 2010.