Romosozumab or Alendronate for Fracture Prevention in Women with Osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to and inhibits sclerostin, increases bone formation, and decreases bone resorption. METHODS: We enrolled 4093 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and a fragility fracture and randomly assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to receive monthly subcutaneous romosozumab (210 mg) or weekly oral alendronate (70 mg) in a blinded fashion for 12 months, followed by open-label alendronate in both groups. The primary end points were the cumulative incidence of new vertebral fracture at 24 months and the cumulative incidence of clinical fracture (nonvertebral and symptomatic vertebral fracture) at the time of the primary analysis (after clinical fractures had been confirmed in ≥330 patients). Secondary end points included the incidences of nonvertebral and hip fracture at the time of the primary analysis. Serious cardiovascular adverse events, osteonecrosis of the jaw, and atypical femoral fractures were adjudicated. RESULTS: Over a period of 24 months, a 48% lower risk of new vertebral fractures was observed in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group (6.2% [127 of 2046 patients]) than in the alendronate-to-alendronate group (11.9% [243 of 2047 patients]) (P<0.001). Clinical fractures occurred in 198 of 2046 patients (9.7%) in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group versus 266 of 2047 patients (13.0%) in the alendronate-to-alendronate group, representing a 27% lower risk with romosozumab (P<0.001). The risk of nonvertebral fractures was lower by 19% in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group than in the alendronate-to-alendronate group (178 of 2046 patients [8.7%] vs. 217 of 2047 patients [10.6%]; P=0.04), and the risk of hip fracture was lower by 38% (41 of 2046 patients [2.0%] vs. 66 of 2047 patients [3.2%]; P=0.02). Overall adverse events and serious adverse events were balanced between the two groups. During year 1, positively adjudicated serious cardiovascular adverse events were observed more often with romosozumab than with alendronate (50 of 2040 patients [2.5%] vs. 38 of 2014 patients [1.9%]). During the open-label alendronate period, adjudicated events of osteonecrosis of the jaw (1 event each in the romosozumab-to-alendronate and alendronate-to-alendronate groups) and atypical femoral fracture (2 events and 4 events, respectively) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who were at high risk for fracture, romosozumab treatment for 12 months followed by alendronate resulted in a significantly lower risk of fracture than alendronate alone. (Funded by Amgen and others; ARCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01631214 .).

Reducing Immunogenicity of Pegloticase With Concomitant Use of Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients With Refractory Gout: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pegloticase is used for the treatment of severe gout, but its use is limited by immunogenicity. This study was undertaken to evaluate whether mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) prolongs the efficacy of pegloticase. METHODS: Participants were randomized 3:1 to receive 1,000 mg MMF twice daily or placebo for 14 weeks, starting 2 weeks before receiving pegloticase and continuing while receiving intravenous pegloticase 8 mg biweekly for 12 weeks. Participants then received pegloticase alone from week 12 to week 24. The primary end points were the proportion of patients who sustained a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl at 12 weeks and the rate of adverse events (AEs). Secondary end points included 24-week durability of serum urate level ≤6 mg/dl. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's 2-sample test were used for analyses, along with Kaplan-Meier estimates and log rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants received ≥1 dose of pegloticase. Participants were predominantly men (88%), with a mean age of 55.2 years, mean gout duration of 13.4 years, and mean baseline serum urate level of 9.2 mg/dl. At 12 weeks, a serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl was achieved in 19 (86%) of 22 participants in the MMF arm compared to 4 (40%) of 10 in the placebo arm (P = 0.01). At week 24, the serum urate level was ≤6 mg/dl in 68% of MMF-treated patients versus 30% of placebo-treated patients (P = 0.06), and rates of AEs were similar between groups, with more infusion reactions occurring in the placebo arm (30% versus 0%). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that MMF therapy with pegloticase is well tolerated and shows a clinically meaningful improvement in targeted serum urate level of ≤6 mg/dl at 12 and 24 weeks. This study suggests an innovative approach to pegloticase therapy in gout.

Evaluation of a Multimodal, Direct-to-Patient Educational Intervention Targeting Barriers to Osteoporosis Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Osteoporosis treatment rates are declining, even among those with past fractures. Novel, low-cost approaches are needed to improve osteoporosis care. We conducted a parallel group, controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating a behavioral intervention for improving osteoporosis medication use. A total of 2684 women with self-reported fracture history after age 45 years not using osteoporosis therapy from US Global Longitudinal Study of Osteoporosis in Women (GLOW) sites were randomized 1:1 to receive a multimodal, tailored, direct-to-patient, video intervention versus usual care. The primary study outcome was self-report of osteoporosis medication use at 6 months. Other outcomes included calcium and vitamin D supplementation, bone mineral density (BMD) testing, readiness for behavioral change, and barriers to treatment. In intent-to-treat analyses, there were no significant differences between groups (intervention versus control) in osteoporosis medication use (11.7% versus 11.4%, p = 0.8), calcium supplementation (31.8% versus 32.6%, p = 0.7), vitamin D intake (41.3% versus 41.9%, p = 0.8), or BMD testing (61.8% versus 57.1%, p = 0.2). In the intervention group, fewer women were in the precontemplative stage of behavior change, more women reported seeing their primary care provider, had concerns regarding osteonecrosis of the jaw, and difficulty in taking/remembering to take osteoporosis medications. We found differences in BMD testing among the subgroup of women with no prior osteoporosis treatment, those who provided contact information, and those with no past BMD testing. In per protocol analyses, women with appreciable exposure to the online intervention (n = 257) were more likely to start nonbisphosphonates (odds ratio [OR] = 2.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-5.79) compared with the usual care group. Although our intervention did not increase the use of osteoporosis therapy at 6 months, it increased nonbisphosphonate medication use and BMD testing in select subgroups, shifted participants' readiness for behavior change, and altered perceptions of barriers to osteoporosis treatment. Achieving changes in osteoporosis care using patient activation approaches alone is challenging. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

A multi-modal intervention for Activating Patients at Risk for Osteoporosis (APROPOS): Rationale, design, and uptake of online study intervention material.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an innovative and effective educational intervention to inform patients about the need for osteoporosis treatment and to determine factors associated with its online uptake. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with a prior fracture and not currently using osteoporosis therapy were eligible to be included in the Activating Patients at Risk for OsteoPOroSis (APROPOS). Four nominal groups with a total of 18 racially/ethnically diverse women identified osteoporosis treatment barriers. We used the Information, Motivation, Behavior Skills conceptual model to develop a direct-to-patient intervention to mitigate potentially modifiable barriers to osteoporosis therapy. The intervention included videos tailored by participants' race/ethnicity and their survey responses: ranked barriers to osteoporosis treatment, deduced barriers to treatment, readiness to behavior change, and osteoporosis treatment history. Videos consisted of "storytelling" narratives, based on osteoporosis patient experiences and portrayed by actresses of patient-identified race/ethnicity. We also delivered personalized brief phone calls followed by an interactive voice-response phone messages aimed to promote uptake of the videos. RESULTS: To address the factors associated with online intervention uptake, we focused on participants assigned to the intervention arm (n = 1342). These participants were 92.9% Caucasian, with a mean (SD) age 74.9 (8.0) years and the majority (77.7%) had some college education. Preference for natural treatments was the barrier ranked #1 by most (n = 130; 27%), while concern about osteonecrosis of the jaw was the most frequently reported barrier (at any level; n = 322; 67%). Overall, 28.1% (n = 377) of participants in the intervention group accessed the videos online. After adjusting for relevant covariates, the participants who provided an email address had 6.07 (95% CI 4.53-8.14) higher adjusted odds of accessing their online videos compared to those who did not. CONCLUSION: We developed and implemented a novel tailored multi-modal intervention to improve initiation of osteoporosis therapy. An email address provided on the survey was the most important factor independently associated with accessing the intervention online. The design and uptake of this intervention may have implications for future studies in osteoporosis or other chronic diseases.

The Validity of Claims-Based Algorithms to Identify Serious Hypersensitivity Reactions and Osteonecrosis of the Jaw.

Validation of claims-based algorithms to identify serious hypersensitivity reactions and osteonecrosis of the jaw has not been performed in large osteoporosis populations. The objective of this project is to estimate the positive predictive value of the claims-based algorithms in older women with osteoporosis enrolled in Medicare. Using the 2006-2008 Medicare 5% sample data, we identified potential hypersensitivity and osteonecrosis of the jaw cases based on ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Potential hypersensitivity cases had a 995.0, 995.2, or 995.3 diagnosis code on emergency department or inpatient claims. Potential osteonecrosis of the jaw cases had ≥1 inpatient or outpatient physician claim with a 522.7, 526.4, 526.5, or 733.45 diagnosis code or ≥2 claims of any type with a 526.9 diagnosis code. All retrieved records were redacted and reviewed by experts to determine case status: confirmed, not confirmed, or insufficient information. We calculated the positive predictive value as the number of confirmed cases divided by the total number of retrieved records with sufficient information. We requested 412 potential hypersensitivity and 304 potential osteonecrosis of the jaw records and received 174 (42%) and 84 (28%) records respectively. Of 84 potential osteonecrosis of the jaw cases, 6 were confirmed, resulting in a positive predictive value (95% CI) of 7.1% (2.7, 14.9). Of 174 retrieved potential hypersensitivity records, 95 were confirmed. After exclusion of 25 records with insufficient information for case determination, the overall positive predictive value (95% CI) for hypersensitivity reactions was 76.0% (67.5, 83.2). In a random sample of Medicare data, a claim-based algorithm to identify serious hypersensitivity reactions performed well. An algorithm for osteonecrosis of the jaw did not, partly due to the inclusion of diagnosis codes that are not specific for osteoporosis of the jaw.

Long-term safety concerns of antiresorptive therapy.

Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of major osteoporotic fractures and are the most commonly used medications for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Although these medications are well tolerated and safe during large-scale clinical trials, several rare and serious adverse events are suspected to be associated with long-term bisphosphonate use. These adverse events include osteonecrosis of the jaw, atypical fractures, and esophageal cancer. This review summarizes studies examining the association between bisphosphonate use and these adverse outcomes, with a focus on large case series and controlled epidemiologic studies.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis. What have we learned since the introduction of bisphosphonates?

Over the past 12 years bisphosphonates have become a mainstay of treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. As a class, bisphosphonates significantly suppress bone turnover and increase BMD at the lumbar spine and other site through their direct inhibitory effects on osteoclasts. Alendronate and risedronate reduce the incidence of clinical vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Etidronate and both oral and intravenous ibandronate reduce the incidence of clinical vertebral fractures, but data from primary analyses for reduction in non-vertebral fractures are currently less robust. Intravenous administration of zoledronate is under late-stage investigation for use in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Combinations of alendronate with estrogen or raloxifene provide a greater reduction in bone turnover markers and greater increases in BMD, but fracture risk reduction has not been determined. Overall, bisphosphonates are well tolerated. The most common side effects of oral bisphosphonates are upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Newer safety concerns about the use of bisphosphonates include osteonecrosis of the jaw and oversuppression of bone turnover. The optimal duration of bisphosphonate treatment has not been clearly established.