Explore the vast range of titles available.

Fragility fractures are increasingly recognized as a complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with fracture risk that increases with disease duration and poor glycemic control. Yet the identification and management of fracture risk in these patients remains challenging. This review explores the clinical characteristics of bone fragility in adults with diabetes and highlights recent studies that have evaluated bone mineral density (BMD), bone microstructure and material properties, biochemical markers, and fracture prediction algorithms (i.e., FRAX) in these patients. It further reviews the impact of diabetes drugs on bone as well as the efficacy of osteoporosis treatments in this population. We finally propose an algorithm for the identification and management of diabetic patients at increased fracture risk.

SummaryRomosozumab is a therapy that stimulates bone formation and reduces bone resorption. In this study of postmenopausal women with low BMD, a second course of romosozumab following a period off treatment or on denosumab increased or maintained BMD, respectively, and was well tolerated, providing insight into treatment sequence options.IntroductionIn patients with high fracture risk, therapies that stimulate bone formation provide rapid BMD gains; currently available agents, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, are limited to a 2-year lifetime exposure and generally used for a single treatment course. However, for long-term osteoporosis management, a second treatment course may be appropriate. Romosozumab, a therapy with the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, reduces fracture risk within 12 months. Here, we report efficacy and safety of a second romosozumab course.MethodsIn this phase 2, dose-finding study, postmenopausal women with low bone mass (T-score ≤ − 2.0 and ≥ − 3.5) received romosozumab or placebo (month 0–24) followed by placebo or denosumab (month 24–36); participants then received a year of romosozumab (month 36–48).ResultsOf 167 participants who entered the month 36–48 period, 35 had been initially randomized to romosozumab 210 mg monthly. In participants who received romosozumab 210 mg monthly followed by placebo, a second romosozumab course (n = 19) increased BMD by amounts similar to their initial treatment (month 0–12) at the lumbar spine (12.4%; 12.0%, respectively) and total hip (6.0%; 5.5%, respectively). Following denosumab, a second romosozumab course (n = 16) increased BMD at the lumbar spine (2.3%) and maintained BMD at the total hip. Safety profiles were similar between first and second romosozumab courses.ConclusionsAfter 12 months off-treatment, a second romosozumab course again led to rapid and large BMD gains. Following denosumab, BMD gains with romosozumab were smaller than with initial treatment. No new safety findings were observed during the second course.

Summary The FREEDOM study and its Extension provide long-term information about the effects of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Treatment for up to 8 years was associated with persistent reduction of bone turnover, continued increases in bone mineral density, low fracture incidence, and a favorable benefit/risk profile. Introduction This study aims to report the results through year 5 of the FREEDOM Extension study, representing up to 8 years of continued denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods Women who completed the 3-year FREEDOM study were eligible to enter the 7-year open-label FREEDOM Extension in which all participants are scheduled to receive denosumab, since placebo assignment was discontinued for ethical reasons. A total of 4550 women enrolled in the Extension (2343 long-term; 2207 cross-over). In this analysis, women in the long-term and cross-over groups received denosumab for up to 8 and 5 years, respectively. Results Throughout the Extension, sustained reduction of bone turnover markers (BTMs) was observed in both groups. In the long-term group, mean bone mineral density (BMD) continued to increase significantly at each time point measured, for cumulative 8-year gains of 18.4 and 8.3 % at the lumbar spine and total hip, respectively. In the cross-over group, mean BMD increased significantly from the Extension baseline for 5-year cumulative gains of 13.1 and 6.2 % at the lumbar spine and total hip, respectively. The yearly incidence of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures remained low in both groups. The incidence of adverse and serious adverse events did not increase over time. Through Extension year 5, eight events of osteonecrosis of the jaw and two events of atypical femoral fracture were confirmed. Conclusions Denosumab treatment for up to 8 years was associated with persistent reductions of BTMs, continued BMD gains, low fracture incidence, and a consistent safety profile.

Summary Limited data exist on the efficacy of long-term therapies for osteoporosis. In osteoporotic postmenopausal women receiving denosumab for 7 years, nonvertebral fracture rates significantly decreased in years 4–7 versus years 1–3. This is the first demonstration of a further benefit on fracture outcomes with long-term therapy for osteoporosis. Introduction This study aimed to evaluate whether denosumab treatment continued beyond 3 years is associated with a further reduction in nonvertebral fracture rates. Methods Participants who completed the 3-year placebo-controlled F racture RE duction E valuation of D enosumab in O steoporosis every 6 M onths (FREEDOM) study were invited to participate in an open-label extension. The present analysis includes 4,074 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis ( n  = 2,343 long-term; n  = 1,731 cross-over) who enrolled in the extension, missed ≤1 dose during their first 3 years of denosumab treatment, and continued into the fourth year of treatment. Comparison of nonvertebral fracture rates during years 1–3 of denosumab with that of the fourth year and with the rate during years 4–7 was evaluated. Results For the combined group, the nonvertebral fracture rate per 100 participant-years was 2.15 for the first 3 years of denosumab treatment (referent) and 1.36 in the fourth year (rate ratio [RR] = 0.64; 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.48 to 0.85, p  = 0.003). Comparable findings were observed in the groups separately and when nonvertebral fracture rates during years 1–3 were compared to years 4–7 in the long-term group (RR = 0.79; 95 % CI = 0.62 to 1.00, p  = 0.046). Fracture rate reductions in year 4 were most prominent in subjects with persisting low hip bone mineral density (BMD). Conclusions Denosumab treatment beyond 3 years was associated with a further reduction in nonvertebral fracture rate that persisted through 7 years of continuous denosumab administration. The degree to which denosumab further reduces nonvertebral fracture risk appears influenced by the hip bone density achieved with initial therapy.

Summary The final analysis of this 2-year, randomized, crossover study showed that postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with subcutaneous denosumab injections every 6 months than with once-weekly alendronate tablets. After receiving both treatments, women reported greater satisfaction with injectable denosumab and preferred it over oral alendronate. Introduction Osteoporosis patients who are non-compliant or non-persistent with therapy may have suboptimal clinical outcomes. This 2-year, randomized, open-label, crossover study compared treatment adherence between subcutaneous denosumab, 60 mg every 6 months, and oral alendronate, 70 mg once weekly. Methods Postmenopausal women at 25 centers in the USA and Canada with bone mineral density T-scores −4.0 to −2.0 and no prior bisphosphonate use received alendronate then denosumab, or denosumab then alendronate, over successive 12-month periods. Adherence required both compliance (denosumab injections 6 months apart or ≥80% of alendronate tablets) and persistence (both denosumab injections or ≥2 alendronate doses in the last month and completion of the treatment period). Results Of the 250 women enrolled (124 alendronate, 126 denosumab), 221 entered the second year (106 denosumab, 115 alendronate). Denosumab was associated with less non-adherence than alendronate (first year, 11.9% vs 23.4%; second year, 7.5% vs 36.5%). Risk ratios for non-adherence, non-compliance, and non-persistence favored denosumab in both years ( p  < 0.05). Of 198 subjects expressing treatment preference, 183 (92.4%) preferred the injections over the oral therapy. BMD improved further when subjects received denosumab after alendronate and remained stable when they received alendronate after denosumab. Conclusion Based on the final results of this crossover study after women had received each treatment for up to 1 year, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with subcutaneous denosumab injections every 6 months than with once-weekly alendronate tablets and reported increased treatment preference and satisfaction with injectable denosumab over oral alendronate.

SummaryEconomic evaluations are increasingly used to assess the value of health interventions, but variable quality and heterogeneity limit the use of these evaluations by decision-makers. These recommendations provide guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards.IntroductionThis paper aims to provide recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis in order to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards.MethodsA working group was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis to make recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, to define an osteoporosis-specific reference case to serve a minimum standard for all economic analyses in osteoporosis, to discuss methodologic challenges and initiate a call for research. A literature review, a face-to-face meeting in New York City (including 11 experts), and a review/approval by a larger group of experts worldwide (including 23 experts in total) were conducted.ResultsRecommendations on the type of economic evaluation, methods for economic evaluation, modeling aspects, base-case analysis and population, excess mortality, fracture costs and disutility, treatment characteristics, and model validation were provided. Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in osteoporosis were also made and an osteoporosis-specific checklist was designed that includes items to report when performing an economic evaluation in osteoporosis. Further, 12 minimum criteria for economic evaluations in osteoporosis were identified and 12 methodologic challenges and need for further research were discussed.ConclusionWhile the working group acknowledges challenges and the need for further research, these recommendations are intended to supplement general and national guidelines for economic evaluations, improve transparency, quality, and comparability of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, and maintain methodologic standards to increase their use by decision-makers.

SummaryThis post-hoc analysis queried whether women experiencing fracture on denosumab indicates inadequate treatment response or whether the risk of subsequent fracture remains low with continuing denosumab. Results showed that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response.IntroductionThis analysis assessed whether a fracture sustained during denosumab therapy indicates inadequate treatment response and if the risk of a subsequent fracture decreases with continuing denosumab treatment.MethodsIn FREEDOM, a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of denosumab, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized to placebo or denosumab for 3 years. In the 7-year FREEDOM Extension, all participants were allocated to receive denosumab. Here we compare subsequent osteoporotic fracture rates between denosumab-treated subjects during FREEDOM or the Extension and placebo-treated subjects in FREEDOM.ResultsDuring FREEDOM, 438 placebo- and 272 denosumab-treated subjects had an osteoporotic fracture. Exposure-adjusted subject incidence per 100 subject-years was lower for denosumab (6.7) vs placebo (10.1). Combining all subjects on denosumab from FREEDOM and the Extension for up to 10 years (combined denosumab), 794 (13.7%) had an osteoporotic fracture while on denosumab. Of these, one or more subsequent fractures occurred in 144 (18.1%) subjects, with an exposure-adjusted incidence of 5.8 per 100 subject-years, similar to FREEDOM denosumab (6.7 per 100 subject-years) and lower than FREEDOM placebo (10.1 per 100 subject-years). Adjusting for prior fracture, the risk of having a subsequent on-study osteoporotic fracture was lower in the combined denosumab group vs placebo (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.43–0.81]; P = 0.0012).ConclusionsThese data demonstrate that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and a fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response.

Summary In this study, 250 women with osteoporosis were randomized to 12 months with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly, then crossed over to the other treatment. The primary endpoint, treatment adherence at 12 months, was 76.6% for alendronate and 87.3% for denosumab. Introduction The purpose of this study is to evaluate treatment adherence with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-year, crossover study, 250 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density received denosumab or alendronate for 12 months, then the other treatment for 12 months. The alendronate bottle had a medication event monitoring system cap to monitor administration dates. Definitions were as follows: compliance, receiving both denosumab doses 6 (±1) months apart or 80–100% of alendronate doses; persistence, receiving both denosumab doses and completing the month 12 visit within the visit window or ≥2 alendronate doses in the final month; adherence, achieving both compliance and persistence. This report includes data from the first 12 months. Results The primary study endpoint, adherence in the first 12 months, was 76.6% (95/124) for alendronate and 87.3% (110/126) for denosumab. Risk ratios for denosumab compared with alendronate at 12 months were 0.58 ( p  = 0.043) for non-adherence, 0.48 ( p  = 0.014) for non-compliance, and 0.54 ( p  = 0.049) for non-persistence. Subject ratings for treatment necessity, preference, and satisfaction were significantly greater for denosumab and ratings for treatment bother were significantly greater for alendronate. Adverse events were reported by 64.1% of alendronate-treated subjects and 72.0% of denosumab-treated subjects ( p  = 0.403). The most common adverse events were arthralgia, back pain, pain in extremity, cough, and headache (each in <10% of subjects in each group). Conclusions Significantly greater treatment adherence was observed for subcutaneous administration of denosumab every 6 months than for oral alendronate once weekly.

SummaryFRAX® calculates the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which are considered to have a greater clinical impact than other fractures. Our results suggest that, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, those treated with teriparatide had a 60% lower risk of FRAX®-defined MOF compared with those treated with risedronate.IntroductionThe VERO trial was an active-controlled fracture endpoint clinical trial that enrolled postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. After 24 months, a 52% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) of clinical fractures was reported in patients randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. We examined fracture results restricted to FRAX®-defined major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which include clinical vertebral, hip, humerus, and forearm fractures.MethodsIn total, 1360 postmenopausal women (mean age 72.1 years) were randomized to receive subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20 μg) or oral weekly risedronate (35 mg). Patient cumulative incidence of ≥ 1 FRAX®-defined MOF and of all clinical fractures were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses, and the comparison between treatments was based on the stratified log-rank test. Additionally, an extended Cox model was used to estimate HRs at different time points. Incidence fracture rates were estimated at each 6-month interval.ResultsAfter 24 months, 16 (2.6%) patients in the teriparatide group had ≥ 1 low trauma FRAX®-defined MOF compared with 40 patients (6.4%) in the risedronate group (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23–0.68; p = 0.001). Clinical vertebral and radius fractures were the most frequent FRAX®-defined MOF sites. The largest difference in incidence rates of both FRAX®-defined MOF and all clinical fractures between treatments occurred during the 6- to 12-month period. There was a statistically significant reduction in fractures between groups as early as 7 months for both categories of clinical fractures analyzed.ConclusionIn postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, treatment with teriparatide was more efficacious than risedronate, with a 60% lower risk of FRAX®-defined MOF during the 24-month treatment period. Fracture risk was statistically significantly reduced at 7 months of treatment.Clinical trial informationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41

SummaryWe pilot-tested a trial of home exercise on individuals with osteoporosis and spine fracture.Our target enrollment was met, though it took longer than expected. Participants stayed in the study and completed the exercise program with no safety concerns.Future trials should expand the inclusion criteria and consider other changes.PurposeOsteoporotic fragility fractures create a substantial human and economic burden. There have been calls for a large randomized controlled trial examining the effect of exercise on fracture incidence. The B3E pilot trial was designed to evaluate the feasibility of a large trial examining the effects of home exercise on individuals at high risk of fracture.MethodsCommunity-dwelling women ≥ 65 years with radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fractures were recruited at seven sites in Canada and Australia. We randomized participants in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-month home exercise program or equal attention control group, both delivered by a physiotherapist (PT). Participants received six PT home visits in addition to monthly phone calls from the PT and a blinded research assistant. The primary feasibility outcomes of the study were recruitment rate (20 per site in 1 year), retention rate (75% completion), and intervention adherence rate (60% of weeks meeting exercise goals). Secondary outcomes included falls, fractures and adverse events.ResultsOne hundred forty-one participants were recruited; an average of 20 per site, though most sites took longer than anticipated. Retention and adherence met the criteria for success: 92% of participants completed the study; average adherence was 66%. The intervention group did not differ significantly in the number of falls (IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.63) or fragility fractures (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.05) compared to the control group. There were 18 serious adverse events in the intervention group and 12 in the control group.ConclusionAn RCT of home exercise in women with vertebral fractures is feasible but recruitment was a challenge. Suggestions are made for the conduct of future trials.