RESUMEN
Background: Osteoporosis is an age-related common bone disorder characterized by low bone mineral density and increased fragility fracture risk. Various Antiresorptive medications are being used to target osteoclast mediated bone resorption to prevent bone loss and reduce fracture risk. About Denosumab: Denosumab is a novel biological antiresorptive drug that belongs to the class of monoclonal antibodies. It binds to and inhibits the cytokine receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), which is requisite for osteoclast differentiation, function and survival. Effectiveness: Denosumab has been shown to be a potent and effective therapy for osteoporosis, with clinical trial data demonstrating significant improvement in bone mineral density (BMD) and reductions in fracture risk at various skeletal sites for more than 10 years of treatment. Safety Profile: Denosumab has a favourable benefit/risk profile, with low rates of complications such as infection, atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jawbone. Challenges: However, denosumab treatment requires continuous administration, as discontinuation leads to rapid bone mineral loss and increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures due to rebound of bone turnover. Therefore, modification to another anti-osteoporosis drug therapy after denosumab discontinuation is required to maintain bone health. Conclusion: Denosumab is a promising biological antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis that offers high efficacy and safety, but also poses challenges for long-term management.
RESUMEN
Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that often requires long-term treatment for many years. The clinician should know about all the drugs that are currently being used for treatment in osteoporosis and their mechanism of action, efficacy, safety profile, mode of administration and number of years they can be given safely without causing significant adverse effects. The categories of drugs that are currently being used for osteoporosis are antiresorptives such as oral and intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, and anabolics like teriparatide. This article will focus on the combination therapy of denosumab and teriparatide and will discuss how this combination is better than other class of drugs when given alone or in combination in osteoporosis patients especially those who are at high risk of fragility fractures.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: One year, prospective, observational study in an Indian subpopulation to assess back pain in patients with severe osteoporosis treated with teriparatide or antiresorptives in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and nineteen teriparatide-naοve Indian men and postmenopausal women (mean age 68.0 years) with previous osteoporotic vertebral fracture participated. Patients were assessed at baseline, 6-and 12-months to evaluate relative risk (RR) of new/worsening back pain using the Back Pain Questionnaire. The incidence of back pain and changes in back pain severity were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS); Health outcomes were assessed using the euroquol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. All tests were conducted with a two-sided alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: Of 562 overall patients, 57, 60, and 2 Indian patients received teriparatide, antiresorptive, or teriparatide and antiresorptive, respectively. Baseline disease characteristics were slightly worse for antiresorptive-treated patients, whereas teriparatide-treated patients were older with more comorbidities. At 6-months, the incidence of new/worsening back pain was 5.3% for teriparatide-treated patients versus 4.4% for antiresorptive-treated patients (RR: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.68, 1.48); the incidence of severe back pain was 0% versus 12.5% (P = 0.017); in these treatment groups, respectively. Mean VAS change scores (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) were - 1.9 ± 1.73 versus - 1.4 ± 1.77, and mean EQ-5D change scores were 4.2 ± 27.20 versus 9.9 ± 26.23 at 6-months. At 6 months, more teriparatide-treated patients felt better (89% vs. 61%; P = 0.001) and were at least very satisfied with their treatment (30% vs. 9%; P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Teriparatide-treated Indian patients had similar new/worsening back pain risk and minimal risk of severe back pain compared with antiresorptive-treated patients at 6-months.
