Explore the vast range of titles available.

No clinical trials have compared osteoporosis drugs with incident fractures as the primary outcome. We compared the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide with risedronate in patients with severe osteoporosis. In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, we enrolled post-menopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a bone mineral density T score of less than or equal to −1·50. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 μg of teriparatide once daily plus oral weekly placebo or 35 mg of oral risedronate once weekly plus daily injections of placebo for 24 months. The primary outcome was new radiographic vertebral fractures. Secondary, gated outcomes included new and worsened radiographic vertebral fractures, clinical fractures (a composite of non-vertebral and symptomatic vertebral), and non-vertebral fractures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01709110) and EudraCT (2012-000123-41). We enrolled 680 patients in each group. At 24 months, new vertebral fractures occurred in 28 (5·4%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group and 64 (12·0%) of 680 patients in the risedronate group (risk ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·29–0·68; p<0·0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4·8%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group compared with 61 (9·8%) of 680 in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·32–0·74; p=0·0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 (4·0%) patients in the teriparatide group and 38 (6·1%) in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·39–1·10; p=0·10). Among post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures is significantly lower in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving risedronate. Lilly.

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.

Menopause predisposes women to osteoporosis due to declining estrogen levels. This results in a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in fractures. Osteoporotic fractures lead to substantial morbidity and mortality, and are considered one of the largest public health priorities by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is therefore essential for menopausal women to receive appropriate guidance for the prevention and management of osteoporosis. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) randomized controlled trial first proved hormonal therapy (HT) reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women. However, the study concluded that the adverse effects outweighed the potential benefits on bone, leading to a significant decrease in HT use for menopausal symptoms. Additionally, HT was not used as first-line therapy for osteoporosis and fractures. Subsequent studies have challenged these initial conclusions and have shown significant efficacy of HT in various doses, durations, regimens, and routes of administration. These studies support that HT improves BMD and reduces fracture risk in women with and without osteoporosis. Furthermore, the studies suggest that low-dose and transdermal HT are less likely associated with the adverse effects of breast cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, coronary artery disease (CAD), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) previously observed in standard-dose oral HT regimens. Given the need for estrogen in menopausal women and evidence supporting the cost effectiveness, safety, and efficacy of HT, we propose that HT should be considered for the primary prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in appropriate candidates. HT should be individualized and the once “lowest dose for shortest period of time” concept should no longer be used. This review will focus on the prior and current studies for various HT formulations used for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, exploring the safety profile of low-dose and transdermal HT that have been shown to be safer than oral standard-dose HT.

Unlike most chronic diseases, osteoporosis treatments are generally limited to a single drug at a fixed dose and frequency. Nonetheless, no approved therapy is able to restore skeletal integrity in most osteoporotic patients and the long-term use of osteoporosis drugs is controversial. Thus, many patients are treated with the sequential use of two or more therapies. The DATA study showed that combined teriparatide and denosumab increased bone mineral density more than either drug alone. Discontinuing teriparatide and denosumab, however, results in rapidly declining bone mineral density. In this DATA-Switch study, we aimed to assess the changes in bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporotic women who transitioned between treatments. This randomised controlled trial (DATA-Switch) is a preplanned extension of the denosumab and teriparatide administration study (DATA), in which 94 postmenopausal osteoporotic women were randomly assigned to receive 24 months of teriparatide (20 mg daily), denosumab (60 mg every 6 months), or both drugs. In DATA-Switch, women originally assigned to teriparatide received denosumab (teriparatide to denosumab group), those originally assigned to denosumab received teriparatide (denosumab to teriparatide group), and those originally assigned to both received an additional 24 months of denosumab alone (combination to denosumab group). Bone mineral density at the spine, hip, and wrist were measured 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months after the drug transitions as were biochemical markers of bone turnover. The primary endpoint was the percent change in posterior-anterior spine bone mineral density over 4 years. Between-group changes were assessed by one-way analysis of variance in our modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00926380. Between Sept 27, 2011, and Jan 28, 2013, eligible women from the DATA study were enrolled into DATA-Switch. Of 83 potential enrollees from the DATA study, 77 completed at least one post-baseline visit. After 48 months, the primary outcome of mean spine bone mineral density increased by 18·3% (95% CI 14·9–21·8) in 27 women in the teriparatide to denosumab group, 14·0% (10·9–17·2) in 27 women the denosumab to teriparatide group, and 16·0% (14·0–18·0) in 23 women in the combination to denosumab group, although this increase did not differ significantly between groups (for between-group comparisons, p=0·13 for the teriparatide to denosumab group vs the denosumab to teriparatide group, p=0·30 for the teriparatide to denosumab group vs the combination to denosumab group, and p=0·41 for the denosumab to teriparatide group vs the combination to denosumab group). For the bone mineral density secondary outcomes, total hip bone mineral density increased more in the teriparatide to denosumab group (6·6% [95% CI 5·3–7·9]) than in the denosumab to teriparatide group (2·8% [1·3–4·2], p=0·0002), but had the greatest increase in the combination to denosumab group (8·6% [7·1–10·0]; p=0·0446 vs the teriparatide to denosumab group, p<0·0001 vs the denosumab to teriparatide group). Similarly, femoral neck bone mineral density increased more in the teriparatide to denosumab group (8·3% [95% CI 6·1–10·5]) and the combination to denosumab group (9·1% [6·1–12·0]) than in the denosumab to teriparatide group (4·9% [2·2–7·5]; p=0·0447 for teriparatide to denosumab vs denosumab to teriparatide, p=0·0336 for combination to denosumab vs denosumab to teriparatide). Differences between the combination to denosumab group and the teriparatide to denosumab group did not differ significantly (p=0·67). After 48 months, radius bone mineral density was unchanged in the teriparatide to denosumab group (0·0% [95% CI −1·3 to 1·4]), whereas it decreased by −1·8% (−5·0 to 1·3) in the denosumab to teriparatide group, and increased by 2·8% (1·2–4·4) in the combination to denosumab group (p=0·0075 for the teriparatide to denosumab group vs the combination to denosumab group; p=0·0099 for the denosumab to teriparatide group vs the combination to denosumab group). One participant in the denosumab to teriparatide group had nephrolithiasis, classified as being possibly related to treatment. In postmenopausal osteoporotic women switching from teriparatide to denosumab, bone mineral density continued to increase, whereas switching from denosumab to teriparatide results in progressive or transient bone loss. These results should be considered when choosing the initial and subsequent management of postmenopausal osteoporotic patients. Amgen, Eli Lilly, and National Institutes of Health.

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 The association of renal function with fracture incidence during teriparatide or alendronate treatment in elderly Japanese women was examined. Fracture incidence differed by fracture type, renal function, and treatment protocol. The results provide important information on pharmacotherapy in clinical practice for osteoporosis. Purpose Incidence rate of morphometric vertebral fracture was lower under treatment with once-weekly teriparatide (TPTD) followed by alendronate (ALN) than under treatment with ALN throughout the study among elderly Japanese women at high fracture risk in JOINT-05. This is an exploratory subgroup analysis according to chronic kidney disease (CKD) status at baseline. Methods Participants received sequential therapy with TPTD for 72 weeks, followed by ALN for 48 weeks (TPTD-ALN group, N  = 483) or ALN monotherapy for 120 weeks (ALN group, N  = 496). Baseline CKD status was classified by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and categorized as: CKD 1/2 (eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), CKD 3a (eGFR 45–59 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), or CKD 3b/4 (eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). Incidences of vertebral fractures including morphometric fractures, non-vertebral fractures, and all fractures were evaluated during follow-up. Results Baseline characteristics were not different between treatment groups. Higher stages of CKD were associated with age and number of prevalent vertebral fracture. In CKD 1/2 patients ( N  = 556 with 90 incidents of morphometric vertebral fracture), the incidence of vertebral fractures was lower in the TPTD-ALN group than in the ALN group ( p  = 0.01). In CKD 3b/4 patients ( N  = 112 with 10 incidents of non-vertebral fracture), the incidence of non-vertebral fractures was lower in the ALN group than in the TPTD-ALN group, although the number of fractures was small. In the ALN group, the incidences of vertebral fractures, non-vertebral fractures, and all fractures remained constant across CKD stages. Conclusion This exploratory analysis showed that fracture incidence on ALN was constant regardless of renal function. It also suggested that the incidence of vertebral fractures on TPTD-ALN was lower than ALN monotherapy in CKD 1/2 patients. These results provide important information for drug selection in the clinical practice of osteoporosis.

Abstract Context The ACTIVE study demonstrated the antifracture efficacy of abaloparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. ACTIVExtend demonstrated sustained fracture risk reduction with alendronate in abaloparatide-treated participants from ACTIVE. A direct comparison of the efficacy of abaloparatide and antiresorptive therapies has not been performed. Objective The objective of this analysis is to compare the antifracture efficacy of abaloparatide in ACTIVE with that of alendronate in ACTIVExtend. Design In this post hoc analysis, the rate of new vertebral fractures for women in ACTIVExtend (N = 1139) was calculated based on baseline and endpoint radiographs for placebo or abaloparatide in ACTIVE and alendronate in ACTIVExtend. Vertebral fracture rates between abaloparatide and alendronate were compared in a Poisson regression model. Fracture rates for nonvertebral and clinical fractures were compared based on a Poisson model during 18 months of abaloparatide or placebo treatment in ACTIVE and 18 months of alendronate treatment in ACTIVExtend. Results The vertebral fracture rate was lower during abaloparatide treatment in ACTIVE (0.47 fractures/100 patient-years) than alendronate treatment in ACTIVExtend (1.66 fractures/100 patient-years) (relative risk reduction 71%; P = .027). Although the comparisons did not meet statistical significance, after switching from placebo (ACTIVE) to alendronate (ACTIVExtend), the rate of new vertebral fractures decreased from 2.49 to 1.66 fractures per 100 patient-years, and after switching from abaloparatide to alendronate from 0.47 to 0.19 fractures per 100 patient-years. The rates of nonvertebral fractures and clinical fractures were not significantly different. Conclusion Initial treatment with abaloparatide may result in greater vertebral fracture reduction compared with alendronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis include estrogens, selective estrogen-receptor modulators, bisphosphonates, calcitonin, vitamin D, and calcitriol. These treatments reduce bone resorption (and formation) and moderately increase bone density; some agents reduce the risk of fracture, but none routinely restore normal bone mass or strength. Treatments that stimulate bone formation may overcome these limitations. Parathyroid hormone stimulates bone formation and resorption and can increase or decrease bone mass, depending on the mode of administration. Continuous infusions and daily subcutaneous injections of parathyroid hormone stimulate bone formation similarly but have different effects on bone resorption and bone mass. 1 , 2 Continuous infusions, . . .

Summary Odanacatib is a cathepsin K inhibitor investigated for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Phase 2 data indicate that 50 mg once weekly inhibits bone resorption and increases bone mineral density, with only a transient decrease in bone formation. We describe the background, design and participant characteristics for the phase 3 registration trial. Introduction Odanacatib (ODN) is a selective cathepsin K inhibitor being evaluated for the treatment of osteoporosis. In a phase 2 trial, ODN 50 mg once weekly reduced bone resorption while preserving bone formation and progressively increased BMD over 5 years. We describe the phase III Long-Term ODN Fracture Trial (LOFT), an event-driven, randomized, blinded placebo-controlled trial, with preplanned interim analyses to permit early termination if significant fracture risk reduction was demonstrated. An extension was planned, with participants remaining on their randomized treatment for up to 5 years, then transitioning to open-label ODN. Methods The three primary outcomes were radiologically determined vertebral, hip, and clinical non-vertebral fractures. Secondary end points included clinical vertebral fractures, BMD, bone turnover markers, and safety and tolerability, including bone histology. Participants were women, 65 years or older, with a BMD T-score ≤−2.5 at the total hip (TH) or femoral neck (FN) or with a prior radiographic vertebral fracture and a T-score ≤−1.5 at the TH or FN. They were randomized to ODN or placebo tablets. All received weekly vitamin D 3 (5600 international units (IU)) and daily calcium supplements as needed to ensure a daily intake of approximately 1200 mg. Results Altogether, 16,713 participants were randomized at 387 centers. After a planned interim analysis, an independent data monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped early due to robust efficacy and a favorable benefit/risk profile. Following the base study closeout, 8256 participants entered the study extension. Conclusions This report details the background and study design of this fracture end point trial and describes the baseline characteristics of its participants.