Denosumabe e teriparatida para o tratamento indivíduos com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no Sistema Único de Saúde / Denosumab and teriparatide for the treatment of individuals with severe osteoporosis and therapeutic failure to the drugs available in the Unified Health System

INTRODUÇÃO: A osteoporose, doença que aumenta da fragilidade óssea e suscetibilidade à fratura, afeta cerca de 200 milhões de pessoas no mundo. No geral, a prevalência de osteoporose em estudos brasileiros varia de 6% a 33% dependendo da população e outras variáveis avaliadas. Entre os indivíduos com osteoporose, aqueles que apresentaram fratura osteoporótica têm duas vezes o risco para nova fratura. Para evitar novas fraturas, o tratamento preconizado deve incluir estratégias medicamentosas e não medicamentosas. Entre as medicamentosas, suplementação de cálcio e colecalciferol, alendronato, risedronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno, calcitonina e estrógenos conjugados são opções disponíveis no Protocolo Clínico de Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) de Osteoporose do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Apesar da disponibilidade de tratamentos, estima-se que 25% dos pacientes continuam a apresentar falha terapêutica aos tratamentos disponíveis. Nesse contexto, as diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais de sociedade médicas, recomendam o uso de denosumabe ou teriparatida a pacientes com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). Entretanto, há incerteza se os benefícios identificados para população em tratamento de primeira linha, principal população incluída nos estudos, são sustentados em população com osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica em vigência de tratamento; e se a escolha, por estas opções terapêuticas, pode valer a pena e ser viável economicamente para o SUS. Assim, o objetivo do presente relatório é analisar as evidências científicas sobre eficácia, efetividade, segurança, bem como evidências econômicas do denosumabe e da teriparatida para o tratamento de pacientes com osteoporose grave com falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS (alendronato, pamidronato, raloxifeno e risedronato). TECNOLOGIAS: Denosumabe (Prolia®) e teriparatida (Fortéo®). PERGUNTA: Os medicamentos denosumabe e

The selective estrogen receptor modulators in breast cancer prevention.

BACKGROUNDS: Persistently increased blood levels of estrogens are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) are a class of compounds that act on the estrogen receptor (ER). METHODS: Several clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of its prophylactic administration. Incidence of invasive ER-positive breast cancer was reduced by SERMs treatment, especially for those women with high risk of developing breast cancer. In this study, we reviewed the clinical application of SERMs in breast cancer prevention. RESULTS: To date, four prospective randomized clinical trials had been performed to test the efficacy of tamoxifen for this purpose. Concerning on the benefit and cost of tamoxifen, various studies from different countries demonstrated that chemoprevention with tamoxifen seemed to be cost-effective for women with a high risk of invasive breast cancer. Based above, tamoxifen was approved for breast cancer prevention by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1998. Raloxifene was also approved for postmenopausal women in 2007 for breast cancer prevention which reduces the risk of invasive breast cancer with a lower risk of unwanted stimulation of endometrium. Thus, raloxifene is considered to have a better clinical possesses as prophylactic agent. Several other agents, such as arzoxifene and lasofoxifene, are currently being investigated in clinic. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network had published guidelines on breast cancer chemoprevention by SERMs. However, use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for primary breast cancer prevention was still low. CONCLUSION: A broader educational effort is needed to alert women and primary care physicians that SERMs are available to reduce breast cancer risk.

The use of raloxifene in osteoporosis treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis is a common disease characterized by the occurrence of fragility fractures. Major osteoporotic fractures are associated with decreased quality of life and high costs. AREAS COVERED: This review summarizes clinical data on raloxifene (RLX), a second generation selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM), currently approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. RLX has estrogen effects on bone and lipid profile, whereas it has anti-estrogen effects on uterus and breast cells. Its main side effects are hot flushes and venous thromboembolism. Literature searches were conducted to retrieve articles reporting RLX clinical trial data. For comparison of safety and efficacy, post-marketing studies on RLX were included. EXPERT OPINION: RLX is effective in reducing vertebral fracture risk in osteoporotic women, it is safe and its ability to prevent breast cancer has to be considered in the analyses of cost/effect and of the ideal candidate to this treatment. RLX has to be avoided in patients with previous history of venous thromboembolism.

Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older.

PURPOSE: The Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) demonstrated that raloxifene was as effective as tamoxifen in reducing the risk of invasive breast cancer (IBC) in postmenopausal women and had lower risks of thromboembolic events, endometrial cancer, and cataracts but had a nonstatistically significant higher risk of noninvasive breast cancer. There is a need to summarize the risks and benefits of these agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline incidence rates of IBC and other health outcomes, absent raloxifene and tamoxifen, were estimated from breast cancer chemoprevention trials; the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program; and the Women's Health Initiative. Effects of raloxifene and tamoxifen were estimated from STAR and the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. We assigned weights to health outcomes to calculate the net benefit from raloxifene compared with placebo and tamoxifen compared with placebo. RESULTS: Risks and benefits of treatment with raloxifene or tamoxifen depend on age, race, breast cancer risk, and history of hysterectomy. Over a 5-year period, postmenopausal women with an intact uterus had a better benefit/risk index for raloxifene than for tamoxifen. For postmenopausal women without a uterus, the benefit/risk ratio was similar. The benefits and risks of raloxifene and tamoxifen are described in tables that can help identify groups of women for whom the benefits outweigh the risks. CONCLUSION: We developed a benefit/risk index to quantify benefits from chemoprevention with tamoxifen or raloxifene. This index can complement clinical evaluation in deciding whether to initiate chemoprevention and in comparing the benefits and risks of raloxifene versus tamoxifen.

A comparison between bisphosphonates and other treatments for osteoporosis.

Since their development 30 years ago, bisphosphonates are now one of the standard therapy in the management of osteoporosis. Improvements in terms of anti-resorptive potency have leaded to new molecules available either orally or intravenously, from weekly to yearly administration. Overall tolerance of bisphosphonates is good with regards to the risk of mandibular necrosis, not comparable with those observed in cancer treatment, and with no causal link yet established in osteoporotic patients. Compliance remains poor and should be improved by a better education of the patients about their treatment. Other treatments like teriparatide, raloxifene or strontium ranelate are now also available and give more therapeutic options but also more questions on the best molecule to choose for each patient. There is currently no valid basis for distinguishing in a formal and objective manner the different new-generation bisphosphonates, in terms of efficacy against either vertebral, peripheral or hip fractures. In a same way, comparison between bisphosphonates and the other treatments available for osteoporosis is hard in absence of proper randomised controlled study. This review gives an overview of the recent data on the efficacity and tolerance of bisphosphonates in the different forms of osteoporosis and compares them to the other treatments currently available.

Assessment of adherence to treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with raloxifene and/or alfacalcidol in postmenopausal Japanese women.

Patients who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and beginning treatment often discontinue their osteoporosis medication relatively early after the start of treatment because of their poor recognition of fracture risk and the asymptomatic nature of osteoporosis. In this study we aimed to assess adherence to treatment with 1 microg alfacalcidol (D), 60 mg raloxifene (R) or a combination of both (D + R) for 1 year in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis or osteopenia. We defined persistence of D and R as continuing to take tablets for more than 7 of any 14 days immediately before the 1-year visit. A total of 137 subjects aged 49-81 years [64.9 +/- 7.0 years, 16.0 +/- 12.7 years since menopause (YSM)] were randomly assigned to each treatment group. The proportions persisting with each treatment group at 1 year were 61.4, 65.3, 55.1% for D, R and D + R groups, respectively whereas the compliance to each therapy as judged by the medical possession ratio (MPR) at 1 year were 77.5, 93.8, 78.4%, respectively. There were no significant differences in persistence, compliance and the number of subjects who discontinued treatment due to adverse events among each group. We found significant inverse correlations in percent changes at 1 year between compliance and serum BAP in R and D + R groups or urinary (u-) CTX in the R group. The changes in the level of serum BAP and u-CTX were significantly higher in high-compliance patients (MPR > 80%) treated with raloxifene alone or concomitantly with alfacalcidol compared to those in low-compliance patients.

Cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the cost-effectiveness of preventative therapies for postmenopausal women with osteopenia. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene, alendronate and conservative care in this population. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to assess the incremental cost and effectiveness of raloxifene and alendronate relative to conservative care. We assumed a societal perspective and a lifetime time horizon. We examined clinical scenarios involving postmenopausal women from 55 to 75 years of age with bone mineral density T-scores ranging from -1.0 to -2.4. Modeled health events included vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, invasive breast cancer, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Raloxifene and alendronate were assumed to reduce the incidence of vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures; raloxifene was assumed to decrease the incidence of breast cancer and increase the incidence of VTEs. Cost-effectiveness is reported in $/QALYs gained. RESULTS: For women 55 to 60 years of age with a T-score of -1.8, raloxifene cost approximately $50,000/QALY gained relative to conservative care. Raloxifene was less cost-effective for women 65 and older. At all ages, alendronate was both more expensive and less effective than raloxifene. In most clinical scenarios, raloxifene conferred a greater benefit (in QALYs) from prevention of invasive breast cancer than from fracture prevention. Results were most sensitive to the population's underlying risk of fracture and breast cancer, assumed efficacy and costs of treatment, and the discount rate. CONCLUSION: For 55 and 60 year old women with osteopenia, treatment with raloxifene compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective.

Safety assessment of raloxifene over eight years in a clinical trial setting.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder that warrants long-term therapy. If benefits are to outweigh risks, the long-term safety profiles of these therapies must be favorable. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of raloxifene over 8 years in 4011 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in a clinical trial setting through adverse event reporting. METHODS: Data analyzed comprised all reported adverse events collected at each visit of both the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial, and the subsequent Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial. MORE was an international, 4-year double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, designed to assess the effect of raloxifene on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture incidence in 7705 (placebo, 2576; raloxifene, 5129) postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Breast cancer was a secondary endpoint. Based on the breast cancer findings of MORE, the CORE trial, a 4-year double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a subset of MORE participants, was subsequently conducted. CORE enrolled 4011 (placebo, 1286; raloxifene, 2725) participants and was designed to examine raloxifene's effect on breast cancer incidence. Safety analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle, and comparison between therapies was analyzed using a two-sided Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Over the 8 years of follow-up of 4011 women, there was no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization incidence between raloxifene and placebo groups (p > 0.1). Excluding breast cancer and non-melanoma skin cancer, cancer incidence was 4.6% and 6.3% in the raloxifene and placebo group, respectively (p = 0.027). Raloxifene was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in venous thromboembolism incidence (95% confidence interval 0.93-3.14), with an absolute risk difference of 0.9 per 1000 woman-years. There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, uterine cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, ovarian cancer or postmenopausal bleeding between the raloxifene and placebo treatment groups (p > 0.5). Uterine polyps, hot flushes and muscle cramps were more common in those receiving raloxifene versus placebo (p = 0.028, p < 0.001, and p = 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSION: These 8-year data support the known clinical safety profile of raloxifene, established in the MORE trial.

Benefit-risk assessment of raloxifene in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Raloxifene, a nonsteroidal benzothiophene, is a second-generation selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that is an antiresorptive agent. Raloxifene is a non-hormonal agent that binds to the estrogen receptor and results in estrogen agonist effects on bone and the cardiovascular system and estrogen antagonist effects on endometrial and breast tissue. Raloxifene has diverse pharmacodynamic properties due to its differential interactions with the estrogen receptor and tissue selectivity. Raloxifene was the first SERM to be approved for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. In this review, we conducted a systematic search of the literature for trials that evaluated the following outcomes: bone density, fractures, quality of life, cardiovascular outcomes, safety and adverse events. Raloxifene at the approved dosage of 60 mg/day increased lumbar spine bone density by 2.5% relative to control after 2 years of therapy. A large fracture prevention trial confirmed that treatment with raloxifene 60 mg/day for 3 years decreased the relative risk of incident vertebral fractures by 30-50% in women with prevalent fractures or osteoporosis. Extraskeletal effects of raloxifene include a reduction in total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Assessment of the safety profile revealed that raloxifene was not associated with endometrial hyperplasia and that there was a 72% reduction in the incidence of invasive breast cancer in raloxifene-treated postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Adverse events associated with raloxifene included an increase in the absolute risk of venous thromboembolism and an increase in the risk of hot flashes and leg cramps. In comparison to other osteoporosis therapies, raloxifene has a lesser impact on bone mineral density, a similar effect on the occurrence of vertebral fractures, but no effect on the frequency of non-vertebral fractures. Raloxifene can be recommended for the prevention of vertebral fractures in women with osteopenia/osteoporosis who are not at high risk of non-vertebral fractures and who do not have a past history of venous thromboembolism.

Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs.

BACKGROUND: Patients routinely cite the media, after physicians and pharmacists, as a key source of information on new drugs, but there has been little research on the quality of drug information presented. We assessed newspaper descriptions of drug benefits and harms, the nature of the effects described and the presence or absence of other important information that can add context and balance to a report about a new drug. METHODS: We looked at newspaper coverage in the year 2000 of 5 prescription drugs launched in Canada between 1996 and 2001 that received a high degree of media attention: atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir and raloxifene. We searched 24 of Canada's largest daily newspapers for articles reporting at least one benefit or harm of any of these 5 drugs. We recorded the benefits and harms reported and analyzed how such information was presented; we also determined whether clinical or surrogate outcomes were mentioned; if and how drug effects were quantified; whether contraindications, other treatment options and costs were mentioned; and whether any information on affiliations of quoted interviewees and potential conflicts of interest was presented. RESULTS: Our search yielded 193 articles reporting at least one benefit or harm for 1 of the 5 drugs. All of the articles mentioned at least one benefit, but 68% (132/193) made no mention of possible side effects or harms. Only 24% (120/510) of mentions of drug benefits and harms presented quantitative information. In 26% (31/120) of cases in which drug benefits and harms were quantified, the magnitude was presented only in relative terms, which can be misleading. Overall, 62% (119/193) of the articles gave no quantification of the benefits or harms. Thirty-seven (19%) of the 193 articles reported only surrogate benefits. Other information needed for informed drug-related decisions was often lacking: only 7 (4%) of the articles mentioned contraindications, 61 (32%) mentioned drug costs, 89 (46%) mentioned drug alternatives, and 30 (16%) mentioned nondrug treatment options (such as exercise or diet). Sixty-two percent (120/193) of the articles quoted at least one interviewee. After exclusion of industry and government spokespeople, for only 3% (5/164) of interviewees was there any mention of potential financial conflicts of interest. Twenty-six percent (15/57) of the articles discussing a study included information on study funding. INTERPRETATION: Our results raise concerns about the completeness and quality of media reporting about new medications.

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on breast cancer risk reduction strategies: tamoxifen and raloxifene.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evidence-based technology assessment to determine whether tamoxifen and raloxifene as breast cancer risk-reduction strategies are appropriate for broad-based conventional use in clinical practice. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: Tamoxifen and raloxifene. OUTCOME: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefits. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for tamoxifen and raloxifene on the following topics: breast cancer risk reduction; tamoxifen side effects and toxicity, including endometrial cancer risk; tamoxifen influences on nonmalignant diseases, including coronary heart disease and osteoporosis; and decision making by women at risk for breast cancer. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. VALUES: More weight was given to publications that described randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS/COSTS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Working Group acknowledges that a woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk-reduction strategies will depend on the importance and weight attributed to the information provided regarding both cancer and non-cancer-related risks. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a defined 5-year projected risk of breast cancer of >/= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for up to 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. It is premature to recommend raloxifene use to lower the risk of developing breast cancer outside of a clinical trial setting. On the basis of available information, use of raloxifene should currently be reserved for its approved indication to prevent bone loss in postmenopausal women. Conclusions are based on single-agent use of the drugs. At the present time, the effect of using tamoxifen or raloxifene with other medications (such as hormone replacement therapy), or using tamoxifen and raloxifene in combination or sequentially, has not been studied adequately. The continuing use of placebo-controlled trials in other risk-reduction trials highlights the current unanswered issues concerning the use of such interventions, especially when the influence on net health benefit remains to be determined. Breast cancer risk reduction is a rapidly evolving area. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process with existing plans to monitor and review data and to update recommendations in a timely matter. (See VALIDATION: The conclusions of the Working Group were evaluated by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and by the ASCO Board of Directors. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology.