Osteoclasts recycle via osteomorphs during RANKL-stimulated bone resorption.

Osteoclasts are large multinucleated bone-resorbing cells formed by the fusion of monocyte/macrophage-derived precursors that are thought to undergo apoptosis once resorption is complete. Here, by intravital imaging, we reveal that RANKL-stimulated osteoclasts have an alternative cell fate in which they fission into daughter cells called osteomorphs. Inhibiting RANKL blocked this cellular recycling and resulted in osteomorph accumulation. Single-cell RNA sequencing showed that osteomorphs are transcriptionally distinct from osteoclasts and macrophages and express a number of non-canonical osteoclast genes that are associated with structural and functional bone phenotypes when deleted in mice. Furthermore, genetic variation in human orthologs of osteomorph genes causes monogenic skeletal disorders and associates with bone mineral density, a polygenetic skeletal trait. Thus, osteoclasts recycle via osteomorphs, a cell type involved in the regulation of bone resorption that may be targeted for the treatment of skeletal diseases.

Bone metastasis: mechanisms, therapies, and biomarkers.

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.

RANKL and RANK in Cancer Therapy.

Receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK) and its ligand (RANKL) are key regulators of mammalian physiology such as bone metabolism, immune tolerance and antitumor immunity, and mammary gland biology. Here, we explore the multiple functions of RANKL/RANK in physiology and pathophysiology and discuss underlying principles and strategies to modulate the RANKL/RANK pathway as a therapeutic target in immune-mediated cancer treatment.

Clinicopathologic and prognostic characteristics of tumor budding-like in giant cell tumor of bone.

BACKGROUND: Currently, tumor budding (TB) is defined as an important factor for a poor prognosis in various types of cancers. The authors identified a significant presence of TB-like structures at the tumor invasive front in giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB), which may have the same biologic function as TB. The objective of this report was to describe the distribution of TB in GCTB and investigate its correlation with clinicopathologic characteristics, the immune microenvironment, survival prognosis, and response to denosumab treatment. METHODS: This multicenter cohort study included 426 patients with GCTB who received treatment between 2012 and 2021 at four centers. Two independent pathologists performed visual assessments of TBL structures in hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained tumor sections. Immunohistochemistry was used to evaluate tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte subtypes (CD3-positive, CD4-positive, CD8-positive, CD20-positive, programmed cell death protein-1-positive, programmed cell death-ligand 1positive, and FoxP3-positive) as well as Ki-67 expression levels in 426 tissue samples. These parameters were then analyzed for associations with patient outcomes (local recurrence-free survival [LRFS] and overall survival [OS]), clinicopathologic characteristics, and response to denosumab treatment. RESULTS: High-grade TB was associated with poorer LRFS and OS in both patient groups. In addition, TB was correlated with various clinicopathologic features, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte expression, and response to denosumab treatment. TB outperformed the traditional Enneking and Campanacci staging systems in predicting patient LRFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: The current data support the assessment of TBL structures as a reliable prognostic tool in GCTB, potentially aiding in the development of personalized treatment strategies for patients.

Real-World Evaluation of Primary Versus Secondary Prevention of Skeletal-Related Events in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-osteoclast treatment with denosumab or zoledronate is known to effectively reduce the need for radiotherapy to bone and other skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we analyze primary versus secondary initiation of bone-targeting agents (BTAs) relative to first palliative bone radiotherapy in patients dying of mCRPC. METHODS: Provincial administrative databases from Ontario, Canada identified patients with prostate cancer (2007-2018, n = 98 646) who received continuous androgen deprivation therapy (n = 29 453), died of prostate cancer (2013-2018, n = 3864), and received life-prolonging therapy for mCRPC (n = 1850). Variables were collected looking back 3 years from death. Multivariable analysis explored the relationship between clinical variables and BTAs. RESULTS: Of the 58% (1066/1850) patients with mCRPC who received BTA, only 289 (25.4%) started BTA prior to first palliative bone radiotherapy as primary prevention. Eight hundred and forty-eight (74.6%) patients either never received BTA before death (n = 447) or started BTA only after first bone radiotherapy (n = 401). More patients received denosumab (n = 825, 77%) than zoledronic acid (n = 241, 23%). 51.2% (582/1137) of palliative bone radiotherapy was initiated in the last 12 months of life. Factors associated with the use of BTA included elevated alkaline phosphatase (OR = 1.0, P = .023), de novo metastases (OR = 1.4, P = .005), medical oncologist involvement (OR = 2.0, P = .007), diagnosis 2012-2017 versus 2007-2011 (OR = 0.75, P = .034), and academic center (OR = 0.061, P = .007). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients with mCRPC never receive BTAs prior to first SRE, despite universal access and availability of these agents in Ontario. These results highlight an opportunity to improve outcomes by emphasizing early introduction of BTA in patients with mCRPC being started on systemic therapy.

The comparison of alendronate and raloxifene after denosumab (CARD) study: A comparative efficacy trial.

Denosumab discontinuation results in accelerated bone remodeling, decreased bone mineral density (BMD), and an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates are at least partially effective at inhibiting these consequences but there have been no randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of alternative antiresorptives. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of alendronate and the SERM, raloxifene, in preventing the post-denosumab high-turnover bone loss. METHODS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in which 51 postmenopausal women at increased risk of fracture were randomized with equal probability to receive 12-months of denosumab 60-mg 6-monthly followed by 12-months of either alendronate 70-mg weekly or raloxifene 60-mg daily. Serum bone remodeling markers were measured at 0,6,12,15,18, and 24 and areal BMD of the distal radius, spine, and hip were measured at 0,12,18 and 24 months. RESULTS: After denosumab discontinuation, serum markers of bone remodeling remained suppressed when followed by alendronate, but gradually increased to baseline when followed by raloxifene. In the denosumab-to-alendronate group, denosumab-induced BMD gains were maintained at all sites whereas in the denosumab-to-raloxifene group, BMD decreased at the spine by 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to -0.8, P = 0.003) and at the total hip by 1.2% (-2.1 to -0.4%, P = 0.008), but remained stable at the femoral neck and distal radius and above the original baseline at all sites. The decreases in spine and total hip BMD in the denosumab-to-raloxifene group (but not the femoral neck or distal radius) were significant when compared to the denosumab-to-alendronate group. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that after one year of denosumab, one year of alendronate is better able to maintain the inhibition of bone remodeling and BMD gains than raloxifene.

One versus 2 years of alendronate following denosumab: the CARD extension.

When denosumab is discontinued, antiresorptive therapy is critical to reduce high-turnover bone loss. The ideal duration of antiresorptive therapy after denosumab is uncertain. This study demonstrates that both 1 and 2 years of alendronate maintained bone density gains achieved with 1 year of denosumab. BACKGROUND: When denosumab is discontinued, antiresorptive therapy is critical to attenuate high-turnover bone loss. The ideal choice and duration of antiresorptive therapy are not yet defined, however. In the Comparison of Alendronate or Raloxifene following Denosumab (CARD) study, we demonstrated that 12 months of alendronate was better able to maintain the bone mineral density (BMD) gains achieved with 12 months of denosumab versus 12 months of raloxifene. In this extension, we wished to determine if 12 months of alendronate would be sufficient in maintaining these denosumab-induced BMD gains. METHODS: In the CARD study, postmenopausal osteoporotic women aged 60-79 at high fracture risk received 12 months of denosumab 60-mg SC every 6 months followed by 12 months of either alendronate 70 mg weekly (N = 26) or raloxifene (N = 25). All subjects in the alendronate arm were then offered participation in a 1-year extension in which they were randomized to continue alendronate for an additional 12 months (N = 10) or to receive calcium and vitamin D alone (N = 8). The primary outcome was change in spine BMD between months 24 and 36. Exploratory endpoints included changes in areal BMD (aBMD) at other anatomic sites as well as changes in serum bone turnover markers. RESULTS: The CARD study demonstrated the effectiveness of 12 months alendronate in preserving denosumab-induced BMD gains. In the extension, aBMD was maintained at the spine, total hip, and femoral neck in both those randomized to an additional year of alendronate and those randomized to calcium/vitamin D alone. We did, however, observe a transient comparative decrease between months 24-30 in the calcium/vitamin D group at the total hip (P = 0.008) and femoral neck (P = 0.040). At the end of 24 months of the CARD study, bone turnover markers serum c-telopeptide (CTX) and procollagen N-propeptide of type I collagen (PINP) were suppressed in both groups and then increased more between months 24-36 in the calcium/vitamin D group than the alendronate group (P = 0.051 for CTX, P = 0.030 for P1NP). Both CTX and PINP remained below the month 0 baseline in both groups (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of our small sample size, these data suggest that both 1 and 2 years of alendronate effectively maintain BMD gains achieved with 1 year of denosumab and prevented any rebound in bone turnover marker levels above pre-denosumab baseline. This is the first randomized trial to assess minimum duration of bisphosphonate after short-term denosumab and may be helpful to guide clinical care. Similar studies performed after longer durations of denosumab would be helpful to further define optimal management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03623633.

Treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis with concurrent denosumab and romosozumab: a case report.

Osteoporosis is a metabolic bone disorder for which treatment options include antiresorptive therapies (e.g., bisphosphonates, denosumab); anabolics (e.g., teriparatide, abaloparatide); and dual mechanisms (e.g., romosozumab). Management of osteoporosis with concurrent antiresorptive and anabolic agents may be superior to monotherapy, as demonstrated in the DATA trial with the combination of denosumab and teriparatide. However, there is limited experience with the combination of denosumab and romosozumab, which may be an alternative antiresorptive/anabolic regimen for individuals who are not candidates for PTH receptor agonists. In this case, we present a young man with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis who could not tolerate a daily injectable anabolic and who experienced improvement in bone mineral density with concurrent denosumab and off-label romosozumab administration.

Denosumab-associated symptomatic hypophosphatemia in normal kidney function: two case reports.

We report two cases of symptomatic severe hypophosphatemia requiring hospitalization and intravenous phosphate supplementation following denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. The two patients had normal kidney function and no previously reported risk factors for hypophosphatemia, both presented neurological symptoms and severe fatigue. After hospital admission, they were treated with intravenous phosphate: serum phosphate improved to normal levels and the patients were discharged with oral phosphate supplements and-in one patient-with oral calcitriol therapy. As prescription rates of denosumab therapy increase, attention should be paid to the risk of developing hypophosphatemia: the risk of such complication may be lower by early and regular monitoring of Ca, Pi, and PTH, as well as early supplementation of phosphate and/or vitamin D as needed. Whenever a patient receiving denosumab therapy complains otherwise unexplained fatigue, exercise intolerance, muscle pain, cramping, and paresthesias, we suggest hypophosphatemia as a potential complication to be ruled out.

Treatment for Gorham-Stout syndrome with a combination of teriparatide and denosumab.

Gorham-Stout syndrome is an aggressive, non-hereditary, and rare disease affecting bone metabolism. Its etiology and pathogenesis remain elusive. The syndrome manifests with diverse clinical symptoms, often leading to frequent misdiagnoses and presenting challenges in treatment. In this study, we report a case of cranial and maxillary osteolysis in a 47-year-old female patient with somatic mutations in the VEGF-A, VEGF-B, and VEGF-C genes and the EPHB4 gene. After treatment with bisphosphonates, this patient still had persistent resorption of the mandible, but switching to a teriparatide and denosumab combination yielded substantial improvement. This study is the first report to show that teriparatide combined with denosumab can be used to treat Gorham-Stout syndrome.

A novel sequential treatment approach between denosumab and romosozumab in patients with severe osteoporosis.

In severe osteoporosis, the optimal approach for sequential treatment between denosumab and romosozumab is unclear. We utilised a novel overlapping strategy in three patients with very-high fracture risk despite long-term denosumab which led to greater bone density improvements than previously reported with standard approaches. Larger confirmatory prospective studies are needed. PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION: In patients with severe osteoporosis, the optimal approach for sequential treatment between denosumab and romosozumab has not been established. The ideal strategy would maximise gains in bone mineral density (BMD) with romosozumab and effectively mitigate the risk of rebound increased bone turnover when sequencing from denosumab. Limited studies exploring the sequence from denosumab to romosozumab report only modest-to-no improvement in BMD and inadequate suppression of rebound bone turnover. METHODS: We describe three patients with severe osteoporosis and multiple fragility fractures despite long-term denosumab. A novel overlapping sequential treatment approach was utilised to maximise therapeutic benefit given these patients had a very high fracture risk. Romosozumab was commenced 3 months after the last denosumab dose. Instead of waiting until completion of romosozumab, denosumab was recommenced 6 months after commencing romosozumab in response to rising bone turnover markers. RESULTS: Patients experienced a ~ 5-22% increase in lumbar spine BMD, and one patient had an 8% increase in total hip BMD after 12 months romosozumab. Serum bone turnover markers demonstrated an anabolic effect of romosozumab occurred despite overlapping treatment with denosumab. Recommencement of denosumab suppressed an increase in bone resorption in all cases. No new vertebral fractures occurred during this treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A novel overlapping sequential treatment approach between denosumab and romosozumab produced greater improvements in lumbar spine and hip BMD than previously reported with standard approaches. Larger prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings and establish the optimal use of romosozumab in patients pre-treated with denosumab to maximise BMD gains and minimise fracture risk.

Comparison of radiological and functional outcomes of conservative treatment with teriparatide and denosumab in thoracolumbar osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

Teriparatide and denosumab, anti-osteoporosis medications with different mechanisms, have been widely used in the patients with osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) considered as advanced osteoporosis. Teriparatide has been shown to enhance bone formation and fracture healing in OVF, but there are still no sufficient evidences discussing about the role of denosumab in newly developed OVF. In this study, we found the similar radiological deformation and functional outcomes of conservative treatment with teriparatide and denosumab in thoracolumbar (TL) OVF, and teriparatide showed a more frequent incidence of fracture union with paravertebral bone bridge formation compared to denosumab. INTRODUCTION: Teriparatide and denosumab have been widely used to treat advanced osteoporosis and prevent subsequent fractures in patients with OVCF. Unlike teriparatide, which is considered to be effective in fracture healing, there is still no clear role and evidence for the effect of denosumab in acute OVCF. This study compared the radiological and functional outcomes of conservative treatment with teriparatide and denosumab in TL-OVF. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 78 women with mean age of 74.69 ± 7.66 (60-92) years diagnosed as a TL-OVF with no neurological deficits. All patients were treated conservatively with teriparatide (34 of group T, once-daily 20 µg) or denosumab (44 of group D, once-6 months 60 mg) for 6 months. We evaluated the radiological deformation (kyphotic angle, segmental vertebral kyphotic angle, and compression ratio) and the incidence of fracture union with paravertebral bone bridge formation (FUPB) and functional outcomes using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 0, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: In the radiological deformation and functional outcomes, there were no significant differences at 0, 3, and 6 months between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the incidence of FUPB at 6 months was higher in group T (20/34, 58.8%) compared to group D (11/44, 25.0%) (P = 0.004), and teriparatide was the most statistically significant factor for achieving FUPB (OR 4.486, P = 0.012) in multivariable logistic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Teriparatide and denosumab, despite of their different pharmacological mechanisms, showed similar radiological deformation and functional outcomes in the conservative treatment of TL-OVF. However, teriparatide showed a significantly higher incidence of fracture union with paravertebral bone bridge formation.

The relationship between length of denosumab treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis and serum TRAcP5b measured six months after the last injection.

To test the hypothesis that during treatment with denosumab osteomorphs and precursors recycle to higher number of osteoclasts with time, we measured TRAcP5b in serum taken 6 months after the last injection in postmenopausal women treated for 1-10 years. Serum TRAcP5b values were not related to time of exposure to denosumab. PURPOSE: In women with postmenopausal osteoporosis the aetiology of the observed inverse relationship between duration of denosumab (Dmab) therapy and bone loss after its discontinuation is currently unknown. In studies in mice inhibition of RANKL is associated with an increase in osteomorphs and osteoclast precursors that recycle into osteoclasts and may accumulate with time. We hypothesized that longer inhibition of RANKL by Dmab will be followed by the synchronous formation of a larger number of osteoclasts after stopping treatment. To test this hypothesis, we measured serum TRAcP5b, a marker of osteoclast numbers, in postmenopausal women treated with Dmab for different periods of time up to 10 years. METHODS: TRAcP5b, C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) were measured at 6.0 months ± 15 days after last Dmab injection in 59 women who had received Dmab for 4.0 ± 2.3 years (range 1-10 years). Of these, 38 were treatment naïve (group 1) and 21 had received other treatments prior Dmab (group 2). RESULTS: Duration of Dmab treatment was not related to serum TRAcP5b values or to TRAcP5b/CTX ratio either in the whole cohort or in each of the two groups separately. In contrast, serum TRAcP5b values were significantly correlated with serum CTX values (rs = 0.619; p < 0.001), but not with serum P1NP values or BMD at all skeletal sites. CONCLUSION: Our observations indicate that serum TRAcP5b, measured at 6 months after a Dmab injection, is not a useful early marker for time-dependent increased accumulation of osteoclasts in humans and for identification of patients at risk for a higher rebound increase in bone resorption.

Improvement of proportion of days covered for denosumab under implementation of clinical pharmacist adherence management system: normal and COVID-19 period.

We established a clinical pharmacist adherence management system (CPAMS) led by clinical pharmacists to examine whether denosumab adherence could be improved. The results showed that CPAMS could effectively improve adherence to denosumab and the treatment of osteoporosis. However, this effect weakened during the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. PURPOSE: Denosumab is currently one of the drugs that can effectively reduce the risk of clinical fracture. However, as a drug requiring long-term subcutaneous injection, patient adherence to denosumab is the most important factor affecting its therapeutic efficacy. Therefore, we established a clinical pharmacist adherence management system (CPAMS) led by clinical pharmacists and examined whether denosumab adherence could be improved. METHODS: Data were collected from patients receiving denosumab in our hospital between March 2021 and May 2022. The patients who participated in the CPAMS were in the intervention group, and the rest were in the control group. We analysed the proportion of days covered (PDC) value of denosumab, distribution of subsequent visits, and proportion of patients who continued participating during the normal and coronavirus (COVID-19) periods. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled in this retrospective study: 32 in the intervention group and 53 in the control group. The PDC values were significantly higher in the intervention group (0.9875, 0.9025-1) than in the control group (0.5, 0.5-0.5) after 1 year. The subsequent visit rate in the intervention group was 93.80%. However, none of the patients in the control group returned. In the intervention group, the ratio of timely to delayed subsequent visits was 11:19. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the PDC value of the intervention group (0.957, 0.5-1) was lower than that before COVID-19, and the ratio of timely to delayed subsequent visits was 9:13. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pharmacist-led CPAMS could effectively improve adherence to denosumab and the treatment of osteoporosis.

Effectiveness of fracture liaison service in reducing the risk of secondary fragility fractures in adults aged 50 and older: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To determine and appraise the certainty of fracture liaison service (FLS) in reducing the risk of secondary fragility fractures in older adults aged ≥ 50 years and to examine the nature of the FLS and the roles of various disciplines involved in the delivery of the FLS. Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 1st, 2010, to May 31st, 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted data. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the PEDro scale for randomized trials, while the GRADE approach established the certainty of the evidence. Thirty-seven studies were identified of which 34 (91.9%) were rated as having a low risk of bias and 22 (59.5%) were meta-analyzed. Clinically important low certainty evidence at 1 year (RR 0.26, CI 0.13 to 0.52, 6 pooled studies) and moderate certainty evidence at ≥ 2 years (RR 0.68, CI 0.55 to 0.83, 13 pooled studies) indicate that the risk of secondary fragility fracture was lower in the FLS intervention compared to the non-FLS intervention. Sensitivity analyses with no observed heterogeneity confirmed these findings. This review found clinically important moderate certainty evidence showing that the risk of secondary fragility fracture was lower in the FLS intervention at ≥ 2 years. More high-quality studies in this field could improve the certainty of the evidence. Review registration: PROSPERO-CRD42021266408.

Efficacy and safety of candidate biosimilar CT-P41 versus reference denosumab: a double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, Phase 3 trial in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

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.

Type 2 diabetes incidence in patients initiating denosumab or alendronate treatment: a primary care cohort study.

Denosumab initiation is related to a lower risk of type 2 diabetes than alendronate in anti-osteoporotic treatment-naïve users in primary care practices. PURPOSE: Links have been suggested between bone metabolism and glucose tolerance. Downregulation of the receptor activator of nuclear factor κ B ligand (RANKL) signaling improves glucose metabolism. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, may be associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim was to compare incidence rates of T2DM in primary care patients initiating denosumab or alendronate, which is a first-line therapy of osteoporosis. Alendronate as comparator enhances comparability of the two cohorts. METHOD: The IQVIA Disease Analyzer comprises a representative panel of general and specialist practices (Germany). A new-user comparative study was conducted among patients with denosumab or alendronate treatment (2010-2021) without history of diabetes and age ≥ 45 years. Incidence rates (per 1,000 person-years) and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR; 95%CI) for T2DM were estimated. RESULTS: The cohorts consisted of 3,354 denosumab (age: 75 years; women: 87%) and 27,068 alendronate (76 years; 86%) users. Overall, 1,038 persons developed T2D during 54,916 person-years. T2DM incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 11.9 (9.5-14.4) for denosumab and 20.1 (18.8-21.3) for alendronate users, respectively. Denosumab was associated with a reduced risk of T2DM compared to alendronate, adjusting for age, sex, index year, visits, obesity, comorbidities and statins (HR: 0.73; 0.58-0.89). CONCLUSION: In this comparative study of older patients seen in routine practices, denosumab was associated with a lower risk of developing T2DM than alendronate.

Efficacy of denosumab in the treatment of hypercalcemic renal dysfunction in sarcoidosis: a case report.

A 70-year-old female patient was admitted for close examination and treatment of hypercalcemia (corrected serum calcium levels: 3.04 mmol/L) and renal dysfunction (serum creatinine levels: 254.59 µmol/L). The patient had a history of sarcoidosis, diagnosed based on epithelioid cell granulomas in subcutaneous nodule biopsies, uveitis, and bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy, which had spontaneously remitted 10 years before admission. Because the patient was diagnosed with hypercalcemia associated with recurrent sarcoidosis, prednisone (20 mg/day) was initiated, and its dose was tapered following the decrease in serum calcium and creatinine levels. However, the levels of these parameters increased again when the prednisone dose was reduced to ≤ 4 mg/day. We were concerned about glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in the patient but hesitated to use first-line bisphosphonates because of renal dysfunction. Therefore, denosumab was initiated to reduce the risk of hypercalcemia, renal dysfunction, and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Serum creatinine and corrected serum calcium levels subsequently decreased. The prednisone dose could be reduced following repeated denosumab administration.Thus, denosumab can be a multifaceted, beneficial option for sarcoidosis-induced hypercalcemia, as it alleviates renal dysfunction indirectly by normalizing serum calcium levels, facilitates reduction of the glucocorticoid dose, and ameliorates glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Twenty-four months of follow-up in women with rebound-associated vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab: a single-centre case series.

Evidence on the management of rebound-associated vertebral fractures after denosumab discontinuation is scarce. This study describes seven patients retreated with denosumab, teriparatide or zoledronate for 24 months. Their bone mineral density remained stable or improved and no new fractures occurred suggesting that all three options might be adequate for their treatment. PURPOSE: To describe the densitometric and biochemical changes achieved with osteoactive treatment after 24 months of follow-up in patients who suffered rebound-associated vertebral fractures (RAVFs) after Dmab discontinuation, and to report the occurrence of new vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. METHODS: Patients with RAVFs who received retreatment (RT) for 24 months were included. Bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN) and total hip (TH), along with C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide of type I collagen, osteocalcin, and bone alkaline phosphatase. Data were collected at the start of the RT and after 24 months. RESULTS: Seven female patients were included. RT consisted in Dmab (n = 3), teriparatide (TPT) (n = 3) and zoledronate (Zol) (n = 1). At 24 months, the mean BMD change was 2.2% at LS, 6.8% at FN and 3.8% at TH in the Dmab group, 7.5% at LS, 1.4% at FN and 3.7% at TH in the TPT group and, 5.0% at LS, 0.6% at FN and 3.9% at TH in the patient with Zol. After 24 months of follow-up, no patient suffered new fractures. CONCLUSION: In this series of patients with RAVFs, we did not observe any new fractures and the BMD remained stable after 24 months of RT. Future studies are needed to evaluate the most suitable treatment approach after RAVFs but these preliminary data suggest that all denosumab, zoledronate and teriparatide might be adequate options.

Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.