A single dose of zoledronate preserves bone mineral density for up to 2 years after a second course of romosozumab.

This phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of transitioning to zoledronate following romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. A single dose of 5 mg zoledronate generally maintained the robust BMD gains accrued with romosozumab treatment and was well tolerated. INTRODUCTION: Follow-on therapy with an antiresorptive agent is necessary to maintain the skeletal benefits of romosozumab therapy. We evaluated the use of zoledronate following romosozumab treatment. METHODS: This phase 2, dose-finding study enrolled postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD). Subjects who received various romosozumab doses or placebo from months 0-24 were rerandomized to denosumab (60 mg SC Q6M) or placebo for 12 months, followed by open-label romosozumab (210 mg QM) for 12 months. At month 48, subjects who had received active treatment for 48 months were assigned to no further active treatment and all other subjects were assigned to zoledronate 5 mg IV. Efficacy (BMD, P1NP, and ß-CTX) and safety were evaluated for 24 months, up to month 72. RESULTS: A total of 141 subjects entered the month 48-72 period, with 51 in the no further active treatment group and 90 in the zoledronate group. In subjects receiving no further active treatment, lumbar spine (LS) BMD decreased by 10.8% from months 48-72 but remained 4.2% above the original baseline. In subjects receiving zoledronate, LS BMD was maintained (percentage changes: - 0.8% from months 48-72; 12.8% from months 0-72). Similar patterns were observed for proximal femur BMD in both groups. With no further active treatment, P1NP and ß-CTX decreased but remained above baseline at month 72. Following zoledronate, P1NP and ß-CTX levels initially decreased but approached baseline by month 72. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: A zoledronate follow-on regimen can maintain robust BMD gains achieved with romosozumab treatment.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a glycine antagonist in neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: Nerve injury results in increases in spinal glutamate, which opens the NMDA ionophore channel, causing an influx of calcium. A glycine-binding site must be occupied for the channel to open. GV196771 is a selective antagonist of the glycine-binding site of the NMDA ionophore. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of GV196771 in subjects with chronic neuropathic pain in a proof-of-concept study. METHODS: With informed consent, 63 subjects (31 placebo, 32 GV196771) with neuropathic pain (diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or peripheral nerve injury), a visual analogue score averaging > or =30 mm during the screening period, and a well-defined primary area of mechanical allodynia were recruited for the study. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study design was utilized. Subjects came to the research center for a total of five visits over a 21-day period, which consisted of a 14-day treatment period followed by a 7-day washout period. Spontaneous and evoked pain scores, mechanical sensory testing, quantitative sensory testing, Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, patient global satisfaction, and safety assessments were made during the study. RESULTS: There was no significant effect of GV196771 on spontaneous or evoked pain, quantitative sensory testing, or patient global satisfaction. There was a significant effect of GV196771 on the area of dynamic and static allodynia on days 7 and 14. The overall incidence of adverse events during treatment was similar for GV196771 (56%) and placebo (71%). The incidence of drug-related adverse events during treatment was higher for placebo (42%) than GV196771 (28%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the glycine antagonists show anti-hyperalgesic action in animal models of neuropathic pain, GV196771 does not appear to be an effective treatment in subjects with chronic neuropathic pain. This may be due to insufficient penetration of GV196771 to central sites of action, differences between the human and animal glycine receptors, or differences between neuropathic pain in animal models and humans.