Explore the vast range of titles available.

Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85–1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. Amgen.

Summary This 78-week (18-month) study conducted in 479 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis evaluated the efficacy, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of candidate biosimilar CT-P41 relative to US reference denosumab. CT-P41 had equivalent efficacy and pharmacodynamics to US-denosumab, with similar pharmacokinetics and comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles. Purpose To demonstrate equivalence of candidate biosimilar CT-P41 and US reference denosumab (US-denosumab) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods This 78-week (18-month), double-blind, randomized, active-controlled Phase 3 study (NCT04757376) comprised two treatment periods (TPs). In TPI, patients ( N  = 479) were randomized 1:1 to 60 mg subcutaneous CT-P41 or US-denosumab. At Week 52, those who had received CT-P41 in TPI continued to do so. Those who had received US-denosumab were randomized (1:1) to continue treatment or switch to CT-P41 in TPII. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density at Week 52. Efficacy equivalence was concluded if associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for least squares (LS) mean group differences fell within ± 1.503%. The primary pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoint was area under the effect curve for serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen through the first 26 weeks, with an equivalence margin of 80–125% (for 95% CIs associated with geometric LS mean ratios). Results Equivalence was demonstrated for CT-P41 and US-denosumab with respect to primary efficacy (LS mean difference [95% CI]: − 0.139 [− 0.826, 0.548] in the full analysis set and − 0.280 [− 0.973, 0.414] in the per-protocol set) and PD (geometric LS mean ratio [95% CI]: 94.94 [90.75, 99.32]) endpoints. Secondary efficacy, PD, pharmacokinetics, and safety results were comparable among all groups up to Week 78, including after transitioning to CT-P41 from US-denosumab. Conclusions CT-P41 was equivalent to US-denosumab in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, with respect to primary efficacy and PD endpoints.

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.

SummaryStopping denosumab after 8 years of continued treatment was associated with bone loss during a 1-year observation study in patients who were not prescribed osteoporosis treatment. Bone loss was attenuated in patients who began another osteoporosis therapy. Treatment to prevent bone loss upon stopping denosumab should be considered.IntroductionThis study aimed to understand osteoporosis management strategies during a 1-year observational follow-up after up to 8 years of denosumab treatment in a phase 2 study.MethodsDuring the observational year, patients received osteoporosis management at the discretion of their physician and returned to the clinic for BMD assessment and completion of an osteoporosis management questionnaire. Incidence of serious adverse events and fractures was collected. Analyses were descriptive.ResultsOf 138 eligible patients, 82 enrolled in and completed the observation study. Most (65 [79%]) did not receive prescription osteoporosis medication, with “my doctor felt I no longer needed a medication” being the most common reason (23 [35%]). Of the 17 patients who took osteoporosis medications, 8 discontinued therapy during the observation study. In patients treated with denosumab for 8 years (N = 52), BMD decreased during the 1-year observation study (6.7% [lumbar spine], 6.6% [total hip]). Those who took osteoporosis medication during the observation study showed a smaller decline in BMD than those who did not. No new safety concerns were identified. Eight patients (9.8%), all of whom had at least one predisposing risk factor, experienced 17 fractures. This included seven patients who experienced one or more vertebral fractures.ConclusionsConsistent with denosumab’s mechanism of action, treatment cessation led to reversal of the drug’s effect on BMD and perhaps fracture risk. For patients who took osteoporosis therapy, bone loss was attenuated. For patients at high fracture risk, switching to another osteoporosis therapy if denosumab is discontinued seems appropriate.

Erosive hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and disabling disease with limited treatment options. Here we present the results of a monocentric, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase 2a clinical trial with denosumab, a receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand inhibitor, evaluating the effects on structure modification in erosive hand OA. Patients were randomized to 48 weeks treatment with denosumab 60 mg every 3 months ( n  = 51, 41 females) or placebo ( n  = 49, 37 females). The primary (radiographic) endpoint was the change in the total Ghent University Scoring System (GUSS) at week 24, where positive changes correspond to remodeling and negative changes to erosive progression. Secondary endpoints were the change in the GUSS at week 48 and the number of new erosive joints at week 48 by the anatomical phase scoring system. Baseline mean GUSS (standard deviation) of target joints was 155.9 (69.3) in the denosumab group and 158.7 (46.8) in the placebo group. The primary endpoint was met with an estimated difference between groups of 8.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 16.9; P  = 0.024) at week 24. This effect was confirmed at week 48 (baseline adjusted GUSS (standard error of the mean) denosumab and placebo were 163.5 (2.9) and 149.2 (3.9), respectively; with an estimated difference between groups of 14.3 (95% CI 4.6 to 24.0; P  = 0.003)). At patient level, more new erosive joints were developed in the placebo group compared with denosumab at week 48 (odds ratio 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.72); P  = 0.009). More adverse events occurred in the placebo group (125 events in 44 patients (90%)) compared with the denosumab group (97 events in 41 patients (80%)). These results demonstrate that denosumab has structure modifying effects in erosive hand OA by inducing remodeling and preventing new erosive joints. EU Clinical Trials Register identifier 2015-003223-53 . Denosumab, a receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand inhibitor, previously developed for osteoporosis, was shown to be effective at inducing structural modification in patients with erosive hand osteoarthritis after 24 weeks.

We compared the efficacy of romosozumab and denosumab in elderly women with primary osteoporosis and knee osteoarthritis in a randomized controlled trial. A total of 112 participants aged 75–90 years were randomized equally into the romosozumab and denosumab groups. Among these, 49 and 52 participants, respectively, who received their initial dose were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was change in lumbar spine (LS)-bone mineral density (BMD) at 12 months in the romosozumab group versus the denosumab group. Secondary outcomes were changes in knee osteophyte development, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and the incidence of serious adverse events. Mean age of participants was 80.9 years. There was no difference in baseline LS-BMD between the two groups, with a T-score of -2.6. The mean percentage change in LS-BMD at 12 months was significantly higher in the romosozumab group (13.7%) than in the denosumab group (8.5%; p  = 0.0035). No significant differences were observed in knee osteophyte development and PROs between the two groups. Serious adverse events included a case of mitral regurgitation in the romosozumab group. These findings emphasize the need for refined treatment strategies in high-risk populations, highlighting romosozumab’s benefits and the need to monitor cardiovascular risks.

Abstract Context Antiresorptive therapy has been associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), an infrequent but potentially serious adverse event. Objective To assess information on invasive oral procedures and events (OPEs)—dental implants, tooth extraction, natural tooth loss, scaling/root planing, and jaw surgery—during the 7-year Fracture REduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis every 6 Months (FREEDOM) Extension study and to present details of positively adjudicated ONJ cases. Design Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-year trial (FREEDOM) followed by 7 years of open-label denosumab (FREEDOM Extension). At Extension Year 3, women were asked to record their history of invasive OPEs since the start of the Extension to Year 2.5 and oral events in the prior 6 months. The questionnaire was then administered every 6 months until the end of the Extension. Setting Multicenter, multinational clinical trial. Patients Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Interventions Subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg or placebo every 6 months for 3 years, then 7 years of open-label denosumab. Main Outcome Measures Self-reports of OPEs and adjudicated cases of ONJ. Results Of respondents, 45.1% reported at least one invasive OPE. The exposure-adjusted ONJ rate in FREEDOM Extension was 5.2 per 10,000 person-years. ONJ incidence was higher in those reporting an OPE (0.68%) than not (0.05%). Conclusions Although invasive OPEs were common in these denosumab-treated women and were associated with an increased ONJ incidence, the overall rate of ONJ was low, and all cases with complete follow-up resolved with treatment. Self-reported invasive OPEs were common in women treated with denosumab up to 10 years and were associated with increased ONJ incidence; however, the overall rate of ONJ was low.

Purpose Zoledronic acid (ZA) or denosumab treatment reduces skeletal-related events; however, the safety of prolonged therapy has not been adequately studied. Here, we describe safety results of extended denosumab therapy in patients with bone metastases from the open-label extension phase of two phase 3 trials. Methods Patients with metastatic breast or prostate cancer received subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg Q4W or intravenous ZA 4 mg Q4W in a double-blinded fashion. Denosumab demonstrated superior efficacy in the blinded treatment phase; thus, patients were offered open-label denosumab for up to an additional 2 years. Results Cumulative median (Q1, Q3) denosumab exposure was 19.1 (9.2, 32.2) months in the breast cancer trial ( n  = 1019) and 12.0 (5.6, 21.3) months in the prostate cancer trial ( n  = 942); 295 patients received denosumab for >3 years. No new safety signals were identified during the open-label phase, or among patients who switched from ZA to denosumab. During the blinded treatment phase, exposure-adjusted subject incidences of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) were 49 (1.9 %) and 31 (1.2 %) in the denosumab and ZA groups, respectively. In total, 32 (6.9 %) and 25 (5.5 %) new cases of ONJ (not adjusted for exposure) were reported for patients continuing and switching to denosumab, respectively. The incidences of hypocalcemia were 4.3 and 3.1 %, in patients continuing and switching to denosumab, respectively. Conclusion These results describe the safety profile of denosumab after long-term exposure, or after switching to denosumab from ZA. No new safety signals were identified. Hypocalcemia rates were similar in the blinded treatment and open-label phases. ONJ rates increased with increasing exposure to antiresorptives, consistent with previous reports.

Summary Post hoc analysis of FRAME and ARCH revealed that on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 were less common in women initially treated with romosozumab versus placebo or alendronate. Recurrent fracture risk was also lower in romosozumab‑treated patients, and there were no fracture‑related complications. Results support continuing romosozumab treatment post‑fracture. Purpose Post hoc analysis evaluating efficacy and safety of romosozumab, administered in the immediate post‑fracture period, in the FRAME and ARCH phase 3 trials. Methods In FRAME (NCT01575834) and ARCH (NCT01631214), postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to romosozumab 210 mg monthly or comparator (FRAME, placebo; ARCH, alendronate 70 mg weekly) for 12 months, followed by antiresorptive therapy (FRAME, denosumab; ARCH, alendronate). In patients who experienced on-study nonvertebral or new/worsening vertebral fracture by Month 12, we report the following: fracture and treatment‑emergent adverse event (TEAE) incidence through 36 months, bone mineral density changes (BMD), and romosozumab timing. Due to the sample sizes employed, meaningful statistical comparisons between treatments were not possible. Results Incidence of on-study nonvertebral and vertebral fractures by Month 12 was numerically lower in romosozumab- versus comparator-treated patients (FRAME, 1.6% and 0.5% versus 2.1% and 1.6%; ARCH, 3.4% and 3.3% versus 4.6% and 4.9%, respectively). In those who experienced on-study nonvertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent nonvertebral and subsequent vertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower in patients initially treated with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 3.6% [2/56] and 1.8% [1/56] versus 9.2% [7/76] and 3.9% [3/76]; ARCH, 10.0% [7/70] and 5.7% [4/70] versus 12.6% [12/95] and 8.4% [8/95], respectively). Among those with on-study vertebral fracture by Month 12, recurrent vertebral and subsequent nonvertebral fracture incidences were numerically lower with romosozumab versus comparator (FRAME, 0.0% [0/17] and 0.0% [0/17] versus 11.9% [7/59] and 8.5% [5/59]; ARCH, 9.0% [6/67] and 7.5% [5/67] versus 15.0% [15/100] and 16.0% [16/100], respectively). In patients with fracture by Month 12, no fracture‑related complications were reported in romosozumab-treated patients. BMD gains were numerically greater with romosozumab than comparators. Conclusion Data suggest support for the efficacy and safety of continuing romosozumab treatment following fracture. Trial registrations NCT01575834; NCT01631214.

SummaryTransitioning postmenopausal women with osteoporosis from a bisphosphonate to denosumab appears to be safe and more effective at improving BMD than continuing treatment with a bisphosphonate.IntroductionWe conducted a patient-level pooled analysis of four studies to estimate the efficacy and safety of transitioning to denosumab vs. continuing bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women who previously received oral bisphosphonates.MethodsPatients received 60 mg denosumab once every 6 months or a bisphosphonate (oral alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, or intravenous zoledronic acid). Endpoints were change from baseline in lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius BMD at month 12, change from baseline in serum CTX-1 and P1NP, and incidence of adverse events.ResultsA total of 2850 randomized patients (1424 bisphosphonate:1426 denosumab) were included in the analysis. Percentage change in BMD was significantly greater (p < 0.001) for denosumab vs. bisphosphonate at each skeletal site; differences in BMD changes ranged from 0.6 to 2.0%. Percentage decrease in serum CTX-1 and P1NP was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) for denosumab vs. bisphosphonate at months 1, 6, and 12; in the denosumab group only, percentage change in serum CTX-1 at month 1 was significantly correlated with percentage change in lumbar spine and total hip BMD at month 12. The incidences of adverse events were similar between treatment groups. Three patients (one bisphosphonate and two denosumab) had atypical femoral fractures, all from the denosumab vs. zoledronic acid study.ConclusionPostmenopausal women can safely transition from a bisphosphonate to denosumab, which is more effective at improving BMD than continuing with a bisphosphonate.Clinical trials registrationNCT00377819, NCT00919711, NCT00936897, NCT01732770.