-
Physiological Reviews Jul 2021Skeletal metastases are frequent complications of many cancers, causing bone complications (fractures, bone pain, disability) that negatively affect the patient's... (Review)
Review
Skeletal metastases are frequent complications of many cancers, causing bone complications (fractures, bone pain, disability) that negatively affect the patient's quality of life. Here, we first discuss the burden of skeletal complications in cancer bone metastasis. We then describe the pathophysiology of bone metastasis. Bone metastasis is a multistage process: long before the development of clinically detectable metastases, circulating tumor cells settle and enter a dormant state in normal vascular and endosteal niches present in the bone marrow, which provide immediate attachment and shelter, and only become active years later as they proliferate and alter the functions of bone-resorbing (osteoclasts) and bone-forming (osteoblasts) cells, promoting skeletal destruction. The molecular mechanisms involved in mediating each of these steps are described, and we also explain how tumor cells interact with a myriad of interconnected cell populations in the bone marrow, including a rich vascular network, immune cells, adipocytes, and nerves. We discuss metabolic programs that tumor cells could engage with to specifically grow in bone. We also describe the progress and future directions of existing bone-targeted agents and report emerging therapies that have arisen from recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of bone metastases. Finally, we discuss the value of bone turnover biomarkers in detection and monitoring of progression and therapeutic effects in patients with bone metastasis.
Topics: Animals; Biomarkers; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Bone and Bones; Denosumab; Humans
PubMed: 33356915
DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00012.2019 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2023The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.
PURPOSE
To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies ( ≥1000) for harms.
DATA EXTRACTION
Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).
LIMITATION
Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Aged; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Teriparatide; Alendronate; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Denosumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Fractures, Bone; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Physicians
PubMed: 36592455
DOI: 10.7326/M22-0684 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2022The fully human monoclonal antibody denosumab was approved for treatment of osteoporosis in 2010 on the basis of its potent antiresorptive activity, which produces... (Review)
Review
The fully human monoclonal antibody denosumab was approved for treatment of osteoporosis in 2010 on the basis of its potent antiresorptive activity, which produces clinically meaningful increases in bone mineral density (BMD) and reduces fracture risk at key skeletal sites. At that time, questions remained regarding the long-term safety and efficacy of this receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) inhibitor; and with clinical experience, new questions have arisen regarding its optimal use. Here, we examine these questions through the lens of data from the FREEDOM trial program and other studies to determine where denosumab fits in the osteoporosis treatment landscape. Clinical consensus and evidentiary support have grown for denosumab as a highly effective anti-osteoporosis therapy for patients at high risk of fracture. In the 10-year FREEDOM Extension study, denosumab treatment produced progressive incremental increases in BMD, sustained low rates of vertebral fracture, and further reduction in nonvertebral fracture risk without increased risk of infection, cancer, or immunogenicity. There was no evidence that suppression of bone turnover or mineralization was excessive, and rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fracture (AFF) were very low. It is now recognized, however, that transitioning to another anti-osteoporosis therapy after denosumab discontinuation is essential to mitigate a transient rebound of bone turnover causing rapid BMD loss and increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures (MVFs). Taken together, the available data show that denosumab has a favorable benefit/risk profile and is a versatile agent for preventing osteoporotic fractures in the short and long term. Video abstract: Denosumab in the Treatment of Osteoporosis-10 Years Later (MP4 62727 KB).
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures
PubMed: 34762286
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-021-01936-y -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2023To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE
To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events.
RESULTS
The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019128391.
Topics: Humans; Female; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Postmenopause; Denosumab; Receptor, Parathyroid Hormone, Type 1; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Risk Reduction Behavior; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37130601
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068033 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2021Denosumab and romosozumab, a recently approved new drug, are effective and widely known molecular-targeted drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment. However, no... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Denosumab and romosozumab, a recently approved new drug, are effective and widely known molecular-targeted drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment. However, no studies have directly compared their therapeutic effects or safety in postmenopausal osteoporosis. This retrospective observational registry study compared the efficacy of 12-month denosumab or romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. The primary outcome was the change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine. Secondary outcomes included BMD changes at the total hip and femoral neck, changes in bone turnover markers, and adverse events. Propensity score matching was employed to assemble patient groups with similar baseline characteristics. Sixty-nine patients each received either denosumab or romosozumab for 12 months. The mean 12-month percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD was 7.2% in the denosumab group and 12.5% in the romosozumab group, indicating a significant difference between the groups. The percentage changes in BMD at both the total hip and femoral neck were also significantly higher at 12 months in the romosozumab group than in the denosumab group. In denosumab patients, bone formation and bone resorption markers were significantly decreased at 6 and 12 months from baseline. In the romosozumab group, the bone formation marker was significantly increased at 6 months and then returned to baseline, while the bone resorption marker was significantly decreased at both time points. Adverse events were few and predominantly minor in both groups, with no remarkable difference in the incidence of new vertebral fractures. Romosozumab showed a higher potential for improving BMD than denosumab in this clinical study of postmenopausal osteoporosis patient treatment.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Biomarkers; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Propensity Score; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34083636
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91248-6 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Apr 2023To estimate the effect of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates on reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes in adults with osteoporosis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the effect of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates on reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes in adults with osteoporosis.
DESIGN
Population based study involving emulation of a randomized target trial using electronic health records.
SETTING
IQVIA Medical Research Data primary care database in the United Kingdom, 1995-2021.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults aged 45 years or older who used denosumab or an oral bisphosphonate for osteoporosis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was incident type 2 diabetes, as defined by diagnostic codes. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, comparing denosumab with oral bisphosphonates using an as treated approach.
RESULTS
4301 new users of denosumab were matched on propensity score to 21 038 users of an oral bisphosphonate and followed for a mean of 2.2 years. The incidence rate of type 2 diabetes in denosumab users was 5.7 (95% confidence interval 4.3 to 7.3) per 1000 person years and in oral bisphosphonate users was 8.3 (7.4 to 9.2) per 1000 person years. Initiation of denosumab was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.89). Participants with prediabetes appeared to benefit more from denosumab compared with an oral bisphosphonate (hazard ratio 0.54, 0.35 to 0.82), as did those with a body mass index ≥30 (0.65, 0.40 to 1.06).
CONCLUSIONS
In this population based study, denosumab use was associated with a lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes compared with oral bisphosphonate use in adults with osteoporosis. This study provides evidence at a population level that denosumab may have added benefits for glucose metabolism compared with oral bisphosphonates.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cohort Studies; Denosumab; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diphosphonates; Incidence; Osteoporosis; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over
PubMed: 37072150
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-073435 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jun 2022To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an...
UNLABELLED
To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence.
INTRODUCTION
Teriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively).
METHODS
We evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available).
RESULTS
With 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab).
CONCLUSION
In this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence.
Topics: Alendronate; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Teriparatide
PubMed: 35165774
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06174-0 -
International Journal of Implant... May 2021Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), which was first reported as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) in bisphosphonate users, is a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), which was first reported as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) in bisphosphonate users, is a rare but severe soft and hard tissue disease induced by several types of medications. There has been a deluge of information about MRONJ, such as epidemiology, risk factors, clinical recommendations for dental treatment to prevent it, and treatment strategies in medication-prescribed users. The aim of this study was to comprehensively review recent articles and provide the current scientific information about MRONJ, especially clinical considerations or recommendations for dental treatment to prevent its occurrence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The current literature review was mainly based on 14 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, 4 position papers, 1 consensus statement, 1 clinical guideline, and 2 clinical reviews regarding MRONJ after a PubMed database and manual searches according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Moreover, 53 articles were selected by manual search in regard to all references from selected articles and other articles identified on the PubMed search, irrespective of publication date, and inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
The incidence and prevalence of MRONJ are relatively low, although they are clearly higher in cancer patients receiving high-dose antiresorptive agents or angiogenesis inhibitors rather than osteoporosis patients receiving oral bisphosphonates or denosumab. There are many types of local, systemic, and other risk factors for the development of MRONJ. Clinical recommendations are provided for each clinical situation of patients to prevent MRONJ. There are also treatment strategies for MRONJ in each stage.
CONCLUSIONS
General dentists should perform appropriate dental treatment to prevent MRONJ in the patients prior to or when receiving medications that could induce MRONJ. Moreover, there are treatment strategies for MRONJ in each stage that oral surgeons could follow. Adequate and updated clinical information regarding MRONJ based on scientific data is required whenever possible.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 33987769
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00323-0 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Mar 2022We have previously reported that teriparatide is associated with substantial increases in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (LS), total hip (TH), and...
CONTEXT
We have previously reported that teriparatide is associated with substantial increases in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (LS), total hip (TH), and femoral neck (FN) and small declines at the distal radius in 41 premenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis (IOP), all severely affected with low trauma fractures and/or very low BMD. Effects of teriparatide dissipate if not followed by antiresorptives.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of 12 and 24 months of denosumab in premenopausal women with IOP completing 24 months of teriparatide.
METHODS
This was a preplanned phase 2B extension study. Premenopausal women with IOP who had completed a course of teriparatide received denosumab 60 mg every 6 months over 24 months. The main outcome measure was within-group change in BMD at the LS at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include change in 12-month BMD at other sites, 24-month BMD at all sites, trabecular bone score (TBS), and bone turnover markers (BTMs).
RESULTS
After completing teriparatide, 32 participants took denosumab for 12 months and 29 for 24 months, with statistically significant increases in BMD at the LS (5.2 ± 2.6% and 6.9 ± 2.6%), TH (2.9 ± 2.4% and 4.6 ± 2.8%), and FN (3.0 ± 3.8% and 4.7 ± 4.9%). Over the entire 24-month teriparatide and 24-month denosumab treatment period, BMD increased by 21.9 ± 7.8% at the LS, 9.8 ± 4.6% at the TH, and 9.5 ± 4.7% at the FN (all P < .0001). TBS increased by 5.8 ± 5.6% (P < .001). Serum BTM decreased by 75% to 85% by 3 months and remained suppressed through 12 months of denosumab. Denosumab was generally well tolerated.
CONCLUSION
These data support the use of sequential teriparatide and denosumab to increase BMD in premenopausal women with severe osteoporosis.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Female; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Teriparatide
PubMed: 34849989
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgab850 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2021Osteoporosis is a metabolic disease of the skeletal system which currently affects over 200 million patients worldwide. The WHO criteria define osteoporosis as low bone... (Review)
Review
Osteoporosis is a metabolic disease of the skeletal system which currently affects over 200 million patients worldwide. The WHO criteria define osteoporosis as low bone mineral density, with a T-score ≤ -2.5 found in the spine, the neck of the femur, or during a full hip examination. Osteoporosis considerably reduces a patient's quality of life. QoL should be carefully evaluated before fractures occur to enable the development of an appropriate treatment plan. The progression of osteoporosis may be significantly inhibited by following a proper diet, leading a healthy lifestyle, taking dietary supplements, and receiving appropriate treatment. Education and the prevention of the disease play a major role. Potentially modifiable risk factors for osteoporosis are vitamin D deficiency, smoking, alcohol consumption, low calcium intake, low or excessive phosphorus intake, protein deficiency or a high-protein diet, excessive consumption of coffee, a sedentary lifestyle or lack of mobility, and insufficient exposure to the sun. Pharmaceutical treatment for osteoporosis involves bisphosphonates, calcium and vitamin D3, denosumab, teriparatide, raloxifene, and strontium ranelate. Data indicates that 30%-50% of patients do not take their medication correctly. Other methods of treatment include exercise, kinesitherapy, treatment at a health resort, physical therapy, and diet.
Topics: Cholecalciferol; Denosumab; Dietary Supplements; Diphosphonates; Exercise; Humans; Kinesiology, Applied; Osteoporosis; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Risk Factors; Teriparatide; Thiophenes
PubMed: 34002830
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202105_25838