Effects of Denosumab in Japanese Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated With Conventional Antirheumatic Drugs: 36-month Extension of a Phase III Study

Safety and effectiveness of denosumab in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A 2-year post-marketing surveillance study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the 2 year safety and effectiveness of denosumab 60 mg in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice in Japan.

METHODS

This 2 year, prospective, observational cohort study included patients who initiated treatment with denosumab 60 mg for the progression of bone erosion associated with RA. Key endpoints were adverse drug reactions (ADRs), progression of bone erosion, and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the risk factors for ADRs and the progression of bone erosion.

RESULTS

In the safety analysis set (n = 1239), the incidence of ADRs was 3.0%; the most common ADRs were hypocalcaemia (1.2%) and osteonecrosis of jaw-related events (0.6%). A history of any drug allergy was a statistically significant risk factor associated with the occurrence of ADRs. In the effectiveness analysis set (n = 815), the incidence of progression of bone erosion was 8.7%. Steinbrocker stage and initial steroid dose were statistically significant risk factors associated with the progression of bone erosion.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab demonstrated safety and effectiveness over a 2 year period in RA patients without any new safety concerns.

Indication and adverse event profiles of denosumab and zoledronic acid: based on U.S. FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS)

Objective: To investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with denosumab (Dmab) and zoledronic acid (ZA), compare their association strengths, and explore potential applications to provide clinical reference. Methods: We collected data from FAERS from January 2004 to November 2022 and mined AE signals for Dmab and ZA using ROR values. We compared signal intensity for same AEs and investigated off-label use. We also examined their AEs in adjuvant therapy for breast and prostate cancer. Results: 154,735 reports of primary suspect drugs were analyzed in the FAERS database (Dmab: 117,857; ZA: 36,878). Dmab and ZA had 333 and 1,379 AE signals, with 189 overlaps. The AEs of Dmab included death (ROR:3.478), osteonecrosis of jaw (ROR:53.025), back pain (ROR:2.432), tooth disorder (ROR:16.18), bone pain (ROR:6.523). For ZA, the AEs included osteonecrosis (ROR:104.866), death (ROR: 3.645), pain (ROR:3.963), osteonecrosis of jaw (ROR: 91.744), tooth extraction (ROR: 142.143). Among overlap signals, Dmab showed higher strength in exostosis of the jaw (ROR: 182.66 vs. 5.769), atypical fractures (ROR: 55.589 vs. 9.123), and atypical femur fractures (ROR:49.824 vs. 4.968). And ZA exhibited stronger associations in abscess jaw (ROR: 84.119 vs. 11.12), gingival ulceration (ROR: 74.125 vs. 4.827), increased bone formation (ROR: 69.344 vs. 3.218). Additionally, we identified 528 off-label uses for Dmab and 206 for ZA, with Dmab mainly used in prostate cancer (1.04%), breast cancer (1.03%), and arthritis (0.42%), while ZA in breast cancer (3.21%), prostate cancer (2.48%), and neoplasm malignant (0.52%). For Dmab in breast cancer treatment, AEs included death (11.6%), disease progression (3.3%), and neutropenia (2.7%), while for ZA included death (19.8%), emotional disorder (12.9%), osteomyelitis (11.7%). For prostate cancer treatment, Dmab`s AEs were death (8.9%), prostate cancer metastatic (1.6%), renal impairment (1.7%), while ZA`s included death (34.4%), general physical health deterioration (19.9%), and hemoglobin decreased (18.9%). Conclusion: Our analysis of FAERS database provided postmarketing surveillance data and revealed different strengths of reported AE signals between Dmab and ZA in some of their common AEs. It's also worth noting that both drugs have potential off-label applications, which could introduce new AEs. This highlights the necessity for safety monitoring when using Dmab and ZA off-label.

Role of denosumab in bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic inflammation and synovitis which evolve into joint destruction and deformity. Bone abnormalities are represented by marginal bone erosions and iuxta-articular and generalized osteoporosis. Overactivation of osteoclasts along with dysregulation of osteoblasts are the key events. Bone resorption is mediated by the receptor activator of nuclear factor (NF)-κB (RANK) ligand (RANK-L), responsible for the differentiation, proliferation, and activation of osteoclasts. RANK-L binds its receptor RANK, localized on the surface of preosteoclasts and mature osteoclasts promoting osteoclastogenesis. High levels of RANK-L were demonstrated in active RA patients. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, binds RANK-L and suppresses the RANK-RANK-L signaling pathway leading to the inhibition of osteoclastogenesis. A retrospective analysis of published studies such as clinical trials evidenced the efficacy of denosumab in preventing bone erosion progression in RA patients. Key messages Key questions to answer in future include the following: Could denosumab be associated with other biologic therapies in RA patients? Could denosumab block the progression of bone damage in RA? Could denosumab be used for the prevention of bone erosion in RA?

Role of reactive oxygen species and mitochondrial damage in rheumatoid arthritis and targeted drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by synovial inflammation, pannus formation, and bone and cartilage damage. It has a high disability rate. The hypoxic microenvironment of RA joints can cause reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation and mitochondrial damage, which not only affect the metabolic processes of immune cells and pathological changes in fibroblastic synovial cells but also upregulate the expression of several inflammatory pathways, ultimately promoting inflammation. Additionally, ROS and mitochondrial damage are involved in angiogenesis and bone destruction, thereby accelerating RA progression. In this review, we highlighted the effects of ROS accumulation and mitochondrial damage on inflammatory response, angiogenesis, bone and cartilage damage in RA. Additionally, we summarized therapies that target ROS or mitochondria to relieve RA symptoms and discuss the gaps in research and existing controversies, hoping to provide new ideas for research in this area and insights for targeted drug development in RA.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic(s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention in RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments yet without, or limited, registry data, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine observational studies addressed the safety of DMARDs. Two studies (unclear risk of bias (RoB)) showed an increased risk of serious infections with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Herpes zoster infections occurred more with JAKi than csDMARDs (adjusted HR (aHR): 3.66) and bDMARDs (aHR: 1.9-2.3) (four studies, two low RoB). The risk of malignancies was similar across bDMARDs (five studies) and with tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs (one study, low RoB). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar with bDMARDs and tofacitinib (two studies, one low RoB). Thirty studies reported safety from RCTs, with one, designed to evaluate safety, showing that malignancies (HR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.04 to 2.09)) and MACE (HR (95% CI): 1.33 (0.91 to 1.94)) occurred numerically more frequently with tofacitinib (5 mg and 10 mg doses combined) than with TNFi in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. In this study, the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg than with TNFi.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of bDMARDs was further demonstrated. Whether the difference in incidence of malignancies, MACE and VTE between tofacitinib and TNFi applies to other JAKi needs further evaluation.

Comparable long-term retention rates and effects on bone mineral density of denosumab treatment in patients with osteoporosis with or without autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: real-life data

Objectives:

To investigate whether concomitant autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) represent a risk factor for denosumab discontinuation and to explore other possible predictors.

Design:

This is a real-life retrospective study conducted at our centre on consecutive patients who started treatment with denosumab from January 2014 to October 2021.

Methods:

Data on patients’ characteristics, denosumab prescriptions and reason for discontinuation were collected from their medical electronic records. A log-rank test was run to assess differences in the denosumab retention rate between the not AIIRD and AIIRD patients. A backward stepwise logistic regression was used to identify possible predictors of denosumab discontinuation. When available, BMD data of the lumbar spine and total hip were collected.

Results:

Three hundred and sixty-three patients were included (265 not AIIRD and 98 AIIRD; median follow-up, 44 months). Sixty-nine patients discontinued denosumab at any time point (4 due to patient’s decision, 3 due to medical decision, 62 were lost in follow-up). The log-rank test did not find a statistically significant difference for denosumab persistence between the two subgroups. In the binary logistic regression analysis, only older age at initiation and lower baseline serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D were confirmed as predictors for discontinuation. BMD significantly increased from baseline to the last prescription visit at both the lumbar spine and the total hip, without statistically significant differences in the not AIIRD and AIIRD patients.

Conclusion:

The present data seem to suggest that AIIRDs do not represent a risk factor for denosumab discontinuation. Furthermore, the presence of AIIRDs does not seem to impair its effectiveness in terms of BMD.

Comparison of Romosozumab Versus Denosumab Treatment on Bone Mineral Density After One Year in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Severe Osteoporosis: A Randomized Clinical Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of romosozumab versus denosumab treatment on bone mineral density (BMD), disease activity, and joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and severe osteoporosis.

METHODS

Fifty-one postmenopausal women were enrolled and randomized equally into two groups to receive either romosozumab or the denosumab. Changes (Δ) in the BMD (at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck), disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score (TSS) from baseline to 12 months after treatment were evaluated.

RESULTS

The ΔBMD at 12 months in the romosozumab and denosumab groups were 10.2 ± 5.6% and 5.0 ± 3.1% (p = 0.002) for the lumbar spine, 3.7 ± 4.9% and 3.5 ± 3.0% (p = 0.902) for total hip, and 3.6 ± 4.7% and 3.2 ± 4.9% (p = 0.817) for femoral neck, respectively. The ΔDAS28-ESR at 12 months in the romosozumab and denosumab groups was 0.14 and 0.22 (p = 0.643), respectively, whereas, the ΔTSS at 12 months was 0.33 and 0.29 (p = 0.927), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that romosozumab treatment was more effective in increasing the BMD at the lumbar spine than denosumab, and may be selected for patients who require a significant increase in the lumbar spine BMD. Moreover, romosozumab may be not affect disease activity and joint damage in patients with RA.

Personalized Therapeutic Strategies in the Management of Osteoporosis in Patients with Autoantibody-Positive Rheumatoid Arthritis

Bone mineral density (BMD) reduction and fragility fractures still represent a major source of morbidity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, despite adequate control of the disease. An increasing number of clinical and experimental evidence supports the role of autoantibodies, especially anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), in causing localized and generalised bone loss in ways that are both dependent on and independent of inflammation and disease activity. The human receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B and its ligand—the so-called RANK-RANKL pathway—is known to play a key role in promoting osteoclasts’ activation and bone depletion, and RANKL levels were shown to be higher in ACPA-positive early untreated RA patients. Thus, ACPA-positivity can be considered a specific risk factor for systemic and periarticular bone loss. Through the inhibition of the RANK-RANKL system, denosumab is the only antiresorptive drug currently available that exhibits both a systemic anti-osteoporotic activity and a disease-modifying effect when combined with conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Thus, the combination of DMARD and anti-RANKL therapy could be beneficial in the prevention of fragility fractures and structural damage in the subset of RA patients at risk of radiographic progression, as in the presence of ACPAs.

Therapeutic efficacy of denosumab for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Denosumab is used for osteoporosis because it inhibits osteoclast maturation and suppresses bone resorption. Although denosumab is expected to inhibit the bone erosion in RA, its therapeutic efficacy is not well established. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of denosumab on RA through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for original studies providing information on BMD, joint destruction and disease activity in denosumab-treated RA. A random-effects model was used in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 367 studies identified, 18 met the selection criteria. The BMDs of the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck at 12 months after denosumab treatment increased by 5.27% (95% CI: 4.37, 6.18), 2.82% (2.46, 3.18) and 3.07% (2.66, 3.48), respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, age and sex tended to influence the effect of denosumab therapy on the rate of variation of BMD, but not glucocorticoid use. The changes in the modified total sharp, erosion and joint space narrowing scores at 12 months after denosumab treatment were significantly smaller with denosumab than with placebo, although the DAS did not change after denosumab treatment.

CONCLUSION

Although denosumab has an inhibitory effect on the bone resorption in RA, its effects might be influenced by the age and sex of RA patients, but not by glucocorticoid use.

Inhibition of bone erosion, determined by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT), in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) plus denosumab vs csDMARD therapy alone: an open-label, randomized, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

This exploratory study compared the inhibition of bone erosion progression in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) plus denosumab versus csDMARD therapy alone and investigated the effects of denosumab on bone micro-architecture and other bone-related parameters using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT).

METHODS

In this open-label, randomized, parallel-group study, patients with RA undergoing treatment with a csDMARD were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue csDMARD therapy alone or to continue csDMARDs with denosumab (60-mg subcutaneous injection once every 6 months) for 12 months. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the depth of bone erosion, measured by HR-pQCT, in the second and third metacarpal heads at 6 months after starting treatment. Exploratory endpoints were also evaluated, and adverse events (AEs) were monitored for safety.

RESULTS

In total, 46 patients were enrolled, and 43 were included in the full analysis set (csDMARDs plus denosumab, N = 21; csDMARD therapy alone, N = 22). Most patients were female (88.4%), and the mean age was 65.3 years. The adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) change from baseline in the depth of bone erosion, measured by HR-pQCT, in the 2-3 metacarpal heads at 6 months was - 0.57 mm (- 1.52, 0.39 mm) in the csDMARDs plus denosumab group vs - 0.22 mm (- 0.97, 0.53 mm) in the csDMARD therapy alone group (between-group difference: - 0.35 mm [- 1.00, 0.31]; P = 0.2716). Similar results were shown for the adjusted mean between-group difference in the width and volume of bone erosion of the 2-3 metacarpal heads. Significant improvements in bone micro-architecture parameters were shown. The incidence of AEs and serious AEs was similar between the csDMARDs plus denosumab and the csDMARD therapy alone groups (AEs: 52.2% vs 56.5%; serious AEs: 4.3% vs 8.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the addition of denosumab to csDMARDs did not find statistically significant improvements in bone erosion after 6 months of treatment, numerical improvements in these parameters suggest that the addition of denosumab to csDMARDs may be effective in inhibiting the progression of bone erosion and improving bone micro-architecture.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000030575. Japan Registry for Clinical Trials, jRCTs071180018.