A scorecard for osteoporosis in Canada and seven Canadian provinces.

The scorecard evaluates the burden and management of osteoporosis in Canada and how care pathways differ across Canadian provinces. The results showed there are inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and post-fracture care programs in Canada. Interventions are needed to close the osteoporosis treatment gap and minimize these inequities. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to develop a visual scorecard that assesses the burden of osteoporosis and its management within Canada and seven Canadian provinces. METHODS: We adapted the Scorecard for Osteoporosis in Europe (SCOPE) to score osteoporosis indicators for Canada and seven provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland). We obtained data from a comprehensive literature review and interviews with osteoporosis experts. We scored 20 elements across four domains: burden of disease, policy framework, service provision, and service uptake. Each element was scored as red, yellow, or green, indicating high, intermediate, or low risk, respectively. Elements with insufficient data were scored black. RESULTS: Canada performed well on several elements of osteoporosis care, including high uptake of risk assessment algorithms and minimal wait times for hip fracture surgery. However, there were no established fracture registries, and reporting on individuals with high fracture risk who remain untreated was limited. Furthermore, osteoporosis was not an official health priority in most provinces. Government-backed action plans and other osteoporosis initiatives were primarily confined to Ontario and Alberta. Several provinces (Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland) did not have any registered fracture liaison service (FLS) programs. Access to diagnosis and treatment was also inconsistent and reimbursement policies did not align with clinical guidelines. CONCLUSION: Government-backed action plans are needed to address provincial inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and FLS programs in Canada. Further characterization of the treatment gap and the establishment of fracture registries are critical next steps in providing high-quality osteoporosis care.

Efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate on FRAX®-defined major osteoporotic fractures: results of the VERO clinical trial.

FRAX® calculates the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which are considered to have a greater clinical impact than other fractures. Our results suggest that, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, those treated with teriparatide had a 60% lower risk of FRAX®-defined MOF compared with those treated with risedronate. INTRODUCTION: The VERO trial was an active-controlled fracture endpoint clinical trial that enrolled postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. After 24 months, a 52% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) of clinical fractures was reported in patients randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. We examined fracture results restricted to FRAX®-defined major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which include clinical vertebral, hip, humerus, and forearm fractures. METHODS: In total, 1360 postmenopausal women (mean age 72.1 years) were randomized to receive subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20 µg) or oral weekly risedronate (35 mg). Patient cumulative incidence of ≥ 1 FRAX®-defined MOF and of all clinical fractures were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses, and the comparison between treatments was based on the stratified log-rank test. Additionally, an extended Cox model was used to estimate HRs at different time points. Incidence fracture rates were estimated at each 6-month interval. RESULTS: After 24 months, 16 (2.6%) patients in the teriparatide group had ≥ 1 low trauma FRAX®-defined MOF compared with 40 patients (6.4%) in the risedronate group (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68; p = 0.001). Clinical vertebral and radius fractures were the most frequent FRAX®-defined MOF sites. The largest difference in incidence rates of both FRAX®-defined MOF and all clinical fractures between treatments occurred during the 6- to 12-month period. There was a statistically significant reduction in fractures between groups as early as 7 months for both categories of clinical fractures analyzed. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, treatment with teriparatide was more efficacious than risedronate, with a 60% lower risk of FRAX®-defined MOF during the 24-month treatment period. Fracture risk was statistically significantly reduced at 7 months of treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Bone mineral density gains with a second 12-month course of romosozumab therapy following placebo or denosumab.

Romosozumab is a therapy that stimulates bone formation and reduces bone resorption. In this study of postmenopausal women with low BMD, a second course of romosozumab following a period off treatment or on denosumab increased or maintained BMD, respectively, and was well tolerated, providing insight into treatment sequence options. INTRODUCTION: In patients with high fracture risk, therapies that stimulate bone formation provide rapid BMD gains; currently available agents, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, are limited to a 2-year lifetime exposure and generally used for a single treatment course. However, for long-term osteoporosis management, a second treatment course may be appropriate. Romosozumab, a therapy with the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, reduces fracture risk within 12 months. Here, we report efficacy and safety of a second romosozumab course. METHODS: In this phase 2, dose-finding study, postmenopausal women with low bone mass (T-score ≤ - 2.0 and ≥ - 3.5) received romosozumab or placebo (month 0-24) followed by placebo or denosumab (month 24-36); participants then received a year of romosozumab (month 36-48). RESULTS: Of 167 participants who entered the month 36-48 period, 35 had been initially randomized to romosozumab 210 mg monthly. In participants who received romosozumab 210 mg monthly followed by placebo, a second romosozumab course (n = 19) increased BMD by amounts similar to their initial treatment (month 0-12) at the lumbar spine (12.4%; 12.0%, respectively) and total hip (6.0%; 5.5%, respectively). Following denosumab, a second romosozumab course (n = 16) increased BMD at the lumbar spine (2.3%) and maintained BMD at the total hip. Safety profiles were similar between first and second romosozumab courses. CONCLUSIONS: After 12 months off-treatment, a second romosozumab course again led to rapid and large BMD gains. Following denosumab, BMD gains with romosozumab were smaller than with initial treatment. No new safety findings were observed during the second course.

The risk of subsequent osteoporotic fractures is decreased in subjects experiencing fracture while on denosumab: results from the FREEDOM and FREEDOM Extension studies.

This post-hoc analysis queried whether women experiencing fracture on denosumab indicates inadequate treatment response or whether the risk of subsequent fracture remains low with continuing denosumab. Results showed that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response. INTRODUCTION: This analysis assessed whether a fracture sustained during denosumab therapy indicates inadequate treatment response and if the risk of a subsequent fracture decreases with continuing denosumab treatment. METHODS: In FREEDOM, a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of denosumab, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized to placebo or denosumab for 3 years. In the 7-year FREEDOM Extension, all participants were allocated to receive denosumab. Here we compare subsequent osteoporotic fracture rates between denosumab-treated subjects during FREEDOM or the Extension and placebo-treated subjects in FREEDOM. RESULTS: During FREEDOM, 438 placebo- and 272 denosumab-treated subjects had an osteoporotic fracture. Exposure-adjusted subject incidence per 100 subject-years was lower for denosumab (6.7) vs placebo (10.1). Combining all subjects on denosumab from FREEDOM and the Extension for up to 10 years (combined denosumab), 794 (13.7%) had an osteoporotic fracture while on denosumab. Of these, one or more subsequent fractures occurred in 144 (18.1%) subjects, with an exposure-adjusted incidence of 5.8 per 100 subject-years, similar to FREEDOM denosumab (6.7 per 100 subject-years) and lower than FREEDOM placebo (10.1 per 100 subject-years). Adjusting for prior fracture, the risk of having a subsequent on-study osteoporotic fracture was lower in the combined denosumab group vs placebo (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.43-0.81]; P = 0.0012). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and a fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response.

Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis: outcomes of an experts' consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the US branch of the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to assess the value of health interventions, but variable quality and heterogeneity limit the use of these evaluations by decision-makers. These recommendations provide guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards. INTRODUCTION: This paper aims to provide recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis in order to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards. METHODS: A working group was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis to make recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, to define an osteoporosis-specific reference case to serve a minimum standard for all economic analyses in osteoporosis, to discuss methodologic challenges and initiate a call for research. A literature review, a face-to-face meeting in New York City (including 11 experts), and a review/approval by a larger group of experts worldwide (including 23 experts in total) were conducted. RESULTS: Recommendations on the type of economic evaluation, methods for economic evaluation, modeling aspects, base-case analysis and population, excess mortality, fracture costs and disutility, treatment characteristics, and model validation were provided. Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in osteoporosis were also made and an osteoporosis-specific checklist was designed that includes items to report when performing an economic evaluation in osteoporosis. Further, 12 minimum criteria for economic evaluations in osteoporosis were identified and 12 methodologic challenges and need for further research were discussed. CONCLUSION: While the working group acknowledges challenges and the need for further research, these recommendations are intended to supplement general and national guidelines for economic evaluations, improve transparency, quality, and comparability of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, and maintain methodologic standards to increase their use by decision-makers.

Diagnosis and management of bone fragility in diabetes: an emerging challenge.

Fragility fractures are increasingly recognized as a complication of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with fracture risk that increases with disease duration and poor glycemic control. Yet the identification and management of fracture risk in these patients remains challenging. This review explores the clinical characteristics of bone fragility in adults with diabetes and highlights recent studies that have evaluated bone mineral density (BMD), bone microstructure and material properties, biochemical markers, and fracture prediction algorithms (i.e., FRAX) in these patients. It further reviews the impact of diabetes drugs on bone as well as the efficacy of osteoporosis treatments in this population. We finally propose an algorithm for the identification and management of diabetic patients at increased fracture risk.

Bone management in hematologic stem cell transplant recipients.

Autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the treatment of choice for patients with some malignant and non-malignant hematological diseases. Advances in transplantation techniques and supportive care measures have substantially increased the number of long-term HSCT survivors. This has led to an increasing patient population suffering from the late effects of HSCT, of which, bone loss and its consequent fragility fractures lead to substantial morbidity. Altered bone health, with consequent fragility fractures, and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are factors affecting long-term quality of life after HSCT. Hypogonadism, HSCT preparative regimens, nutritional factors, and glucocorticoids all contribute to accelerated bone loss and increased fracture risk. Management strategies should include bone mineral density examination, evaluation of clinical risk factors, and general dietary and physical activity measures. Evidence has accumulated permitting recommendations for more attentiveness to evaluation and monitoring of bone health, with appropriate application of osteoporosis pharmacotherapies to patients at increased risk of bone loss and fracture.

Build better bones with exercise (B3E pilot trial): results of a feasibility study of a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 12 months of home exercise in older women with vertebral fracture.

We pilot-tested a trial of home exercise on individuals with osteoporosis and spine fracture. Our target enrollment was met, though it took longer than expected. Participants stayed in the study and completed the exercise program with no safety concerns. Future trials should expand the inclusion criteria and consider other changes. PURPOSE: Osteoporotic fragility fractures create a substantial human and economic burden. There have been calls for a large randomized controlled trial examining the effect of exercise on fracture incidence. The B3E pilot trial was designed to evaluate the feasibility of a large trial examining the effects of home exercise on individuals at high risk of fracture. METHODS: Community-dwelling women ≥ 65 years with radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fractures were recruited at seven sites in Canada and Australia. We randomized participants in a 1:1 ratio to a 12-month home exercise program or equal attention control group, both delivered by a physiotherapist (PT). Participants received six PT home visits in addition to monthly phone calls from the PT and a blinded research assistant. The primary feasibility outcomes of the study were recruitment rate (20 per site in 1 year), retention rate (75% completion), and intervention adherence rate (60% of weeks meeting exercise goals). Secondary outcomes included falls, fractures and adverse events. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one participants were recruited; an average of 20 per site, though most sites took longer than anticipated. Retention and adherence met the criteria for success: 92% of participants completed the study; average adherence was 66%. The intervention group did not differ significantly in the number of falls (IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.63) or fragility fractures (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.05) compared to the control group. There were 18 serious adverse events in the intervention group and 12 in the control group. CONCLUSION: An RCT of home exercise in women with vertebral fractures is feasible but recruitment was a challenge. Suggestions are made for the conduct of future trials.

A case report of osteomalacia unmasking primary biliary cirrhosis.

Osteomalacia, a metabolic bone disease characterized by the inability to mineralize new osteoid, can be caused by vitamin D deficiency. We report a patient with symptomatic, biochemical, and imaging evidence of osteomalacia due to vitamin D deficiency, who as a result of work up for bone disease was diagnosed with early primary biliary cirrhosis. Osteomalacia was treated with high-dose vitamin D and serial bone density scans showed evidence of increasing bone mineral density suggesting osteoid mineralization in response to treatment. The diagnosis of cholestatic liver disease should be considered in all patients presenting with osteomalacia due to vitamin D deficiency, particularly if other cholestatic liver enzymes are elevated in addition to alkaline phosphatase.

Persistence at 12 months with denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: interim results from a prospective observational study.

UNLABELLED: To determine persistence with subcutaneous denosumab every 6 months in women being treated for osteoporosis, we conducted a single-arm prospective, observational study in the United States and Canada. Among 935 patients enrolled, 12-month persistence was 82%, with 66 patients (7%) reporting serious adverse events and 19 patients (2%) reporting fractures. INTRODUCTION: Increased persistence with osteoporosis therapy is associated with reduced fracture risk. Denosumab reduced fracture risk in clinical trials; persistence in community settings is undetermined. This study evaluates persistence with denosumab in community practice in the United States (US) and Canada. METHODS: In a 24-month multicenter, prospective, single-arm, observational study, women being treated for osteoporosis were enrolled ≤4 weeks after the first subcutaneous injection of denosumab. For this 12-month prespecified interim analysis, endpoints include persistence (one injection at study entry and another within 6 months + 8 weeks), attributes associated with persistence (univariate analysis), and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: Among 935 patients (mean age 71 years), mean baseline T-scores were -2.18 (femoral neck) and -2.00 (lumbar spine); 50% of patients had experienced osteoporotic fracture(s). At 12 months, 82 % of patients were persistent with denosumab. Baseline factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with higher persistence included use of osteoporosis medications >5 years previously, lumbar spine T-score > -2.5, and treatment by female physicians (US). Lower persistence was associated (p < 0.05) with psychiatric diagnoses including depression, southern US residence, being divorced, separated, or widowed (US), and prior hip fracture (Canada). SAEs were reported in 66 patients (7%); no SAEs of osteonecrosis of the jaw, atypical femoral fracture, fracture healing complications, hypocalcemia, eczema, or hypersensitivity were reported. Nineteen patients (2%) reported osteoporotic fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-month persistence observed in this single-arm open-label study of US and Canadian community practice extends the evidence regarding denosumab's potential role in reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Further reductions in nonvertebral fracture rate with long-term denosumab treatment in the FREEDOM open-label extension and influence of hip bone mineral density after 3 years.

UNLABELLED: Limited data exist on the efficacy of long-term therapies for osteoporosis. In osteoporotic postmenopausal women receiving denosumab for 7 years, nonvertebral fracture rates significantly decreased in years 4-7 versus years 1-3. This is the first demonstration of a further benefit on fracture outcomes with long-term therapy for osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate whether denosumab treatment continued beyond 3 years is associated with a further reduction in nonvertebral fracture rates. METHODS: Participants who completed the 3-year placebo-controlled Fracture REduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis every 6 Months (FREEDOM) study were invited to participate in an open-label extension. The present analysis includes 4,074 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 2,343 long-term; n = 1,731 cross-over) who enrolled in the extension, missed ≤1 dose during their first 3 years of denosumab treatment, and continued into the fourth year of treatment. Comparison of nonvertebral fracture rates during years 1-3 of denosumab with that of the fourth year and with the rate during years 4-7 was evaluated. RESULTS: For the combined group, the nonvertebral fracture rate per 100 participant-years was 2.15 for the first 3 years of denosumab treatment (referent) and 1.36 in the fourth year (rate ratio [RR] = 0.64; 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.48 to 0.85, p = 0.003). Comparable findings were observed in the groups separately and when nonvertebral fracture rates during years 1-3 were compared to years 4-7 in the long-term group (RR = 0.79; 95 % CI = 0.62 to 1.00, p = 0.046). Fracture rate reductions in year 4 were most prominent in subjects with persisting low hip bone mineral density (BMD). CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab treatment beyond 3 years was associated with a further reduction in nonvertebral fracture rate that persisted through 7 years of continuous denosumab administration. The degree to which denosumab further reduces nonvertebral fracture risk appears influenced by the hip bone density achieved with initial therapy.

The effect of 8 or 5 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the FREEDOM Extension study.

UNLABELLED: The FREEDOM study and its Extension provide long-term information about the effects of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Treatment for up to 8 years was associated with persistent reduction of bone turnover, continued increases in bone mineral density, low fracture incidence, and a favorable benefit/risk profile. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to report the results through year 5 of the FREEDOM Extension study, representing up to 8 years of continued denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: Women who completed the 3-year FREEDOM study were eligible to enter the 7-year open-label FREEDOM Extension in which all participants are scheduled to receive denosumab, since placebo assignment was discontinued for ethical reasons. A total of 4550 women enrolled in the Extension (2343 long-term; 2207 cross-over). In this analysis, women in the long-term and cross-over groups received denosumab for up to 8 and 5 years, respectively. RESULTS: Throughout the Extension, sustained reduction of bone turnover markers (BTMs) was observed in both groups. In the long-term group, mean bone mineral density (BMD) continued to increase significantly at each time point measured, for cumulative 8-year gains of 18.4 and 8.3 % at the lumbar spine and total hip, respectively. In the cross-over group, mean BMD increased significantly from the Extension baseline for 5-year cumulative gains of 13.1 and 6.2 % at the lumbar spine and total hip, respectively. The yearly incidence of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures remained low in both groups. The incidence of adverse and serious adverse events did not increase over time. Through Extension year 5, eight events of osteonecrosis of the jaw and two events of atypical femoral fracture were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab treatment for up to 8 years was associated with persistent reductions of BTMs, continued BMD gains, low fracture incidence, and a consistent safety profile.

Treatment with denosumab reduces secondary fracture risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVES: A history of prior fracture is one of the strongest predictors of a future fragility fracture. In FREEDOM, denosumab significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral, non-vertebral, and hip fractures. We carried out a post-hoc analysis of FREEDOM to characterize the efficacy of denosumab in preventing secondary fragility fractures in subjects with a prior fracture. METHODS: A total of 7808 women aged 60-90 years with a bone mineral density T-score of less than - 2.5 but not less than - 4.0 at either the lumbar spine or total hip were randomized to subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg or placebo every 6 months for 36 months. The anti-fracture efficacy of denosumab was analyzed by prior fracture status, to assess secondary fragility fracture, and by subject age, prior fracture site and history of prior osteoporosis medication use. RESULTS: A prior fragility fracture was reported for 45% of the overall study population. Compared with placebo, denosumab significantly reduced the risk of a secondary fragility fracture by 39% (incidence, 17.3% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed regardless of age or prior fracture site. In the overall population, denosumab significantly reduced the risk of a fragility fracture by 40% (13.3% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.0001), with similar results observed regardless of history of prior osteoporotic medication use. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab reduced the risk of fragility fractures to a similar degree in all risk subgroups examined, including those with prior fragility fractures. Identifying and treating high-risk individuals could help to close the current care gap in secondary fracture prevention.

Arzoxifene versus raloxifene: effect on bone and safety parameters in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

UNLABELLED: Arzoxifene increased bone mineral density and decreased bone turnover to a significantly greater extent than raloxifene. The hot flush incidence was lower with arzoxifene than raloxifene. INTRODUCTION: To assess the effect of arzoxifene versus raloxifene on change in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: In this 12-month study (NEXT trial), participants were randomly assigned to arzoxifene 20 mg/day (N = 158) or raloxifene 60 mg/day (N = 162). All received daily calcium and vitamin D. Change in LS BMD was assessed by DXA. Secondary objectives included assessment of femoral neck (FN) and total hip BMD, serum bone turnover markers, and safety. RESULTS: Treatment groups were similar at baseline (mean age 63 years, mean LS BMD T-score -2.9). At 12 months, the increase in LS BMD with arzoxifene was greater than with raloxifene (+2.75% vs. +1.66%), as was FN and total hip BMD (P < 0.05). For LS and FN, this effect was also evident at 6 months. Arzoxifene reduced bone turnover to a greater extent than raloxifene at 3, 6, and 12 months (P < 0.05). The proportion of women reporting ≥ 1 adverse event did not differ between treatment groups, nor did vaginal bleeding. No cases of endometrial polyps, hyperplasia, or cancer were reported. Nasopharyngitis and bronchitis were reported more frequently with arzoxifene versus raloxifene (10.1% vs. 2.5%, and 5.1% vs. 0%, respectively) and new/worsening hot flushes were reported less frequently with arzoxifene (7.0% vs. 16.7%) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Arzoxifene increased BMD and suppressed bone turnover to a greater extent than raloxifene and resulted in a lower incidence of new/worsening hot flushes. Based on subsequent findings from a fracture outcome study, this difference did not translate into improved fracture efficacy.

Final results of the DAPS (Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction) study: a 24-month, randomized, crossover comparison with alendronate in postmenopausal women.

UNLABELLED: The final analysis of this 2-year, randomized, crossover study showed that postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with subcutaneous denosumab injections every 6 months than with once-weekly alendronate tablets. After receiving both treatments, women reported greater satisfaction with injectable denosumab and preferred it over oral alendronate. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis patients who are non-compliant or non-persistent with therapy may have suboptimal clinical outcomes. This 2-year, randomized, open-label, crossover study compared treatment adherence between subcutaneous denosumab, 60 mg every 6 months, and oral alendronate, 70 mg once weekly. METHODS: Postmenopausal women at 25 centers in the USA and Canada with bone mineral density T-scores -4.0 to -2.0 and no prior bisphosphonate use received alendronate then denosumab, or denosumab then alendronate, over successive 12-month periods. Adherence required both compliance (denosumab injections 6 months apart or ≥ 80% of alendronate tablets) and persistence (both denosumab injections or ≥ 2 alendronate doses in the last month and completion of the treatment period). RESULTS: Of the 250 women enrolled (124 alendronate, 126 denosumab), 221 entered the second year (106 denosumab, 115 alendronate). Denosumab was associated with less non-adherence than alendronate (first year, 11.9% vs 23.4%; second year, 7.5% vs 36.5%). Risk ratios for non-adherence, non-compliance, and non-persistence favored denosumab in both years (p < 0.05). Of 198 subjects expressing treatment preference, 183 (92.4%) preferred the injections over the oral therapy. BMD improved further when subjects received denosumab after alendronate and remained stable when they received alendronate after denosumab. CONCLUSION: Based on the final results of this crossover study after women had received each treatment for up to 1 year, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more adherent, compliant, and persistent with subcutaneous denosumab injections every 6 months than with once-weekly alendronate tablets and reported increased treatment preference and satisfaction with injectable denosumab over oral alendronate.

Sustained efficacy and safety of bazedoxifene in preventing fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results of a 5-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

UNLABELLED: In this 2-year extension of a 3-year study, bazedoxifene showed sustained efficacy in preventing new vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in preventing non-vertebral fractures in higher-risk women. Bazedoxifene significantly increased bone mineral density and reduced bone turnover versus placebo and was generally safe and well tolerated. INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of bazedoxifene for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis over 5 years. METHODS: A total of 4,216 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were enrolled in this 2-year extension of a 3-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. In the core study (N = 7,492), subjects received bazedoxifene 20 or 40 mg/day, raloxifene 60 mg/day, or placebo. The raloxifene arm was discontinued after 3 years; subjects receiving bazedoxifene 40 mg were transitioned to bazedoxifene 20 mg after 4 years. Five-year findings are reported for bazedoxifene 20 and 40/20 mg and placebo. Endpoints included incidence of new vertebral fractures (primary) and non-vertebral fractures, and changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers. RESULTS: At 5 years, the incidence of new vertebral fractures in the intent-to-treat population was significantly lower with bazedoxifene 20 mg (4.5%) and 40/20 mg (3.9%) versus placebo (6.8%; P < 0.05), with relative risk reductions of 35% and 40%, respectively. Non-vertebral fracture incidence was similar among groups. In a subgroup of higher-risk women (n = 1,324; femoral neck T-score ≤-3.0 and/or ≥ 1 moderate or severe or ≥ 2 mild vertebral fracture[s]), bazedoxifene 20 mg reduced non-vertebral fracture risk versus placebo (37%; P = 0.06); combined data for bazedoxifene 20 and 40/20 mg reached statistical significance (34% reduction; P < 0.05). Bazedoxifene significantly increased BMD and reduced bone turnover versus placebo (P < 0.05) and was generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support a sustained anti-fracture effect of bazedoxifene on new vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporotic women and on non-vertebral fractures in the higher-risk subgroup of women.

Trends in osteoporotic fracture and related in-hospital complications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada.

Fragility fractures (i.e., low-energy fractures) account for most fractures among older Canadians and are associated with significant increases in morbidity and mortality. Study results suggest that low-energy fracture rates (associated with surgical intervention and outcomes) declined slightly, but largely remained stable in the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic. PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION: This study describes rates of low-energy fractures, time-to-surgery, complications, and deaths post-surgery in patients with fractures during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Alberta, Canada, compared to the three years prior. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional study was conducted using provincial-level administrative health data. Outcomes were assessed in 3-month periods in the 3 years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic and in the first two 3-month periods after restrictions were implemented. Patterns of fracture- and hospital-related outcomes over the control years (2017-2019) and COVID-19 restrictions periods (2020) were calculated. RESULTS: Relative to the average from the control periods, there was a slight decrease in the absolute number of low-energy fractures (n = 4733 versus n = 4308) during the first COVID-19 period, followed by a slight rise in the second COVID-19 period (n = 4520 versus n = 4831). While the absolute number of patients with low-energy fractures receiving surgery within the same episode of care decreased slightly during the COVID-19 periods, the proportion receiving surgery and the proportion receiving surgery within 24 h of admission remained stable. Across all periods, hip fractures accounted for the majority of patients with low-energy fractures receiving surgery (range: 58.9-64.2%). Patients with complications following surgery and in-hospital deaths following fracture repair decreased slightly during the COVID-19 periods. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that low-energy fracture rates, associated surgeries, and surgical outcomes declined slightly, but largely remained stable in the first few months of the pandemic. Further investigation is warranted to explore patterns during subsequent COVID-19 waves when the healthcare system experienced severe strain.

Trends in osteoporosis care patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada.

PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to describe osteoporosis-related care patterns during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Alberta, Canada, relative to the 3-year preceding. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional study design encompassing 3-month periods of continuous administrative health data between March 15, 2017, and September 14, 2020, described osteoporosis-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment patterns. Outcomes included patients with osteoporosis-related healthcare encounters, physician visits, diagnostic and laboratory test volumes, and treatment initiations and disruptions. The percent change between outcomes was calculated, averaged across the control periods (2017-2019), relative to the COVID-19 periods (2020). RESULTS: Relative to the average control March to June period, all HCRU declined during the corresponding COVID-19 period. There was a reduction of 14% in patients with osteoporosis healthcare encounters, 13% in general practitioner visits, 9% in specialist practitioner visits, 47% in bone mineral density tests, and 13% in vitamin D tests. Treatment initiations declined 43%, 26%, and 35% for oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and denosumab, respectively. Slight increases were observed in the proportion of patients with treatment disruptions. In the subsequent June to September period, HCRU either returned to or surpassed pre-pandemic levels, when including telehealth visits accounting for 33-45% of healthcare encounters during the COVID periods. Oral bisphosphonate treatment initiations remained lower than pre-pandemic levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding public health lockdowns further heightened the "crisis" around the known gap in osteoporosis care and altered the provision of care (e.g., use of telehealth and initiation of treatment). Osteoporosis has a known substantial care and management disparity, which has been classified as a crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic created additional burden on osteoporosis patient care with healthcare encounters, physician visits, diagnostic and laboratory tests, and treatment initiations all declining during the initial pandemic period, relative to previous years.

Adherence, preference, and satisfaction of postmenopausal women taking denosumab or alendronate.

UNLABELLED: In this study, 250 women with osteoporosis were randomized to 12 months with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly, then crossed over to the other treatment. The primary endpoint, treatment adherence at 12 months, was 76.6% for alendronate and 87.3% for denosumab. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to evaluate treatment adherence with subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-year, crossover study, 250 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density received denosumab or alendronate for 12 months, then the other treatment for 12 months. The alendronate bottle had a medication event monitoring system cap to monitor administration dates. Definitions were as follows: compliance, receiving both denosumab doses 6 (± 1) months apart or 80-100% of alendronate doses; persistence, receiving both denosumab doses and completing the month 12 visit within the visit window or ≥ 2 alendronate doses in the final month; adherence, achieving both compliance and persistence. This report includes data from the first 12 months. RESULTS: The primary study endpoint, adherence in the first 12 months, was 76.6% (95/124) for alendronate and 87.3% (110/126) for denosumab. Risk ratios for denosumab compared with alendronate at 12 months were 0.58 (p = 0.043) for non-adherence, 0.48 (p = 0.014) for non-compliance, and 0.54 (p = 0.049) for non-persistence. Subject ratings for treatment necessity, preference, and satisfaction were significantly greater for denosumab and ratings for treatment bother were significantly greater for alendronate. Adverse events were reported by 64.1% of alendronate-treated subjects and 72.0% of denosumab-treated subjects (p = 0.403). The most common adverse events were arthralgia, back pain, pain in extremity, cough, and headache (each in <10% of subjects in each group). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly greater treatment adherence was observed for subcutaneous administration of denosumab every 6 months than for oral alendronate once weekly.

Osteoporosis management in hematologic stem cell transplant recipients: Executive summary.

BACKGROUND: Treatment advances have reduced the adverse events associated with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and led to an increased number of transplants performed. HSCT patients are living longer with concerns on long-term outcomes. Bone fragility and fracture are at the forefront for long-term morbidities post-HSCT. RESULTS: In HSCT recipients, evidence has accumulated to support recommendations for more extensive monitoring of bone fragility and more appropriate administration of osteoporosis pharmacotherapies for patients at high risk of bone loss and/or fracture. CONCLUSION: This executive summary reports and summarizes the main recommendations published previously, including bone assessment, dietary and lifestyle recommendations and osteoporosis medication.