Treatment Sequence for Osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a chronic progressive disease that requires lifelong monitoring and treatment. Sequencing from one treatment to another at different ages and stages of disease is an approach that can maximize benefits and avoid potential risks from long-term treatment with a single agent. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews clinical trial data in postmenopausal women that evaluate the effects of antiresorptive agents followed by other antiresorptives, osteoanabolic agents followed by antiresorptives, and antiresorptives followed by osteoanabolic medications. METHODS: Literature review and discussion. RESULTS: When medications are discontinued, in the absence of sequential therapy, bone turnover rates return to baseline or above baseline, and bone loss occurs. The rate of bone loss differs for different treatments, with a very slow decline after stopping bisphosphonates and a particularly rapid decline after stopping denosumab. Careful attention to osteoporosis medication transitions can mitigate bone density loss and its consequences. For women who remain at high risk, switching from bisphosphonates to the more potent antiresorptive, denosumab, will result in further improvement in bone mineral density (BMD). When indicated, stopping denosumab can be accomplished safely by transition to an adequate bisphosphonate regimen. For high- and very-high-risk patients, treating with osteoanabolic agents first, followed by antiresorptive agents, produces substantially larger BMD gains than the reverse treatment sequence, with the biggest differences seen for BMD of the hip. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the importance of treatment sequences can help improve osteoporosis care across the postmenopausal lifespan.

Romosozumab Followed by Denosumab Versus Denosumab Only: A Post Hoc Analysis of FRAME and FRAME Extension.

Osteoanabolic-first treatment sequences are superior to oral bisphosphonates for fracture reduction and BMD gain. However, data comparing osteoanabolic medications with the more potent antiresorptive, denosumab (DMAb), are limited. We analyzed FRAME and FRAME Extension data to assess BMD and fracture incidence in patients treated with romosozumab (Romo) followed by DMAb (Romo/DMAb) versus DMAb (DMAb/DMAb) for 24 months. In FRAME, women aged ≥55 years (total hip [TH] or femoral neck [FN] T-score: -2.5 to. -3.5) were randomized to Romo or placebo for 12 months followed by DMAb for 12 months. In FRAME Extension, both cohorts received DMAb for another 12 months. This post-hoc analysis compared BMD change and fracture incidence in patients on Romo/DMAb (months 0-24) versus DMAb/DMAb (months 12-36). Patient characteristics were balanced by propensity score weighting (PSW) and sensitivity analyses were conducted using PSW with multiple imputation (PSW-MI) and propensity score matching (PSM). Unmeasured confounding was addressed using E-values. After PSW, over 24 months, compared with DMAb/DMAb, treatment with Romo/DMAb produced significantly greater BMD increases at the lumbar spine [LS], TH, and FN (mean differences: 9.3%, 4.4%, and 4.1%, respectively; all p < 0.001). At month 24, in women with a baseline T-score of -3.0, the probability of achieving a T-score > -2.5 was higher with Romo/DMAb versus DMAb/DMAb (LS:92% versus 47%; TH:50% versus 5%). In the Romo/DMAb versus DMAb/DMAb cohorts, new vertebral fractures were significantly reduced (0.62% versus 1.26% [odds ratio = 0.45; p = 0.003]) and rates of clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were lower (differences not significant). Similar BMD and fracture outcomes were observed with PSW-MI and PSM sensitivity analyses. The sequence of Romo/DMAb resulted in greater BMD gains and higher probability of achieving T-scores > -2.5, significantly reduced new vertebral fracture incidence, and numerically lowered the incidence (not significant) of clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures versus DMAb only through 24 months.

In patients with very high fracture risk, a treatment sequence with a bone-forming agent, followed by a bisphosphonate (one type of antiresorptive that reduces bone loss) is more effective in increasing bone mineral density (BMD) and reducing fracture risk compared to treatment with bisphosphonates alone. Here, we utilized patient data from the FRAME and FRAME Extension clinical trials to compare changes in BMD and fracture incidence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with the bone-forming agent, romosozumab (Romo), for 12 months followed by the most potent antiresorptive, denosumab (DMAb), for 12 months (Romo/DMAb) versus patients treated with DMAb alone for 24 months. Propensity score weighting was used to balance the patient characteristics between the two groups. We found that BMD gains were significantly higher in patients treated with the Romo/DMAb sequence versus DMAb alone; these patients also had a higher probability of achieving a T-score above the osteoporosis range (>­2.5). In addition, new vertebral fractures were significantly lower and rates of clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures trended lower in patients treated with the Romo/DMAb sequence versus DMAb alone. Thus, a 24-months treatment sequence of Romo/DMAb compared with DMAb alone, resulted in higher BMD gains and lower fracture risk.

Oral daily PTH(1-34) tablets (EB613) in postmenopausal women with low BMD or osteoporosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-month, phase 2 study.

Anabolic treatment is indicated for high and very-high risk patients with osteoporosis, but acceptance is limited because current anabolic medications require subcutaneous injections. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a novel orally administered PTH tablet on serum markers of bone formation (PINP and osteocalcin), bone resorption (crosslinked C-telopeptide [CTX]), BMD, and safety in postmenopausal women with low BMD or osteoporosis. In this 6-mo, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 161 patients were randomized to oral PTH tablets containing 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, or 2.5 mg or placebo daily. Biochemical markers were assessed at 1, 2, 3, and 6 mo and BMD of LS, TH, and FN was measured at 6 mo. Biochemical marker changes were dose dependent with minimal or no effect at the 2 lowest doses. At the highest dose (2.5 mg once daily), serum PINP and OC levels increased 30% within 1 mo after oral PTH initiation (P < .0001), remained elevated through 3 mo, and were back to baseline at 6 mo. In contrast, serum CTX levels declined 16% and 21% below baseline at 3 and 6 mo, respectively (both P ≤ .02). At 6 mo, 2.5 mg tablets increased mean BMD vs placebo of the LS by 2.7%, TH by 1.8%, and FN by 2.8% (all P ≤ .01). There were no drug-related serious adverse events. The most common adverse events were headache, nausea, and dizziness. In contrast to subcutaneous PTH, the oral PTH tablet appears to increase BMD rapidly by the dual mechanism of stimulating formation and inhibiting bone resorption. This might be the first effective oral anabolic alternative to subcutaneous administration for the treatment of low BMD or osteoporosis.

Despite the superior benefits of bone-building (anabolic) agents and guidelines supporting their use, these medications are used in a minority of patients for whom they are appropriate, in part because they require daily or monthly injections, which limit patient acceptance. An oral anabolic tablet has potential to address this substantial treatment gap. In this double-blind, placebo controlled, dose-finding randomized study, 161 postmenopausal women with low BMD or osteoporosis were treated with varying doses of the active part of PTH(1-34) or placebo given in daily oral tablets for 6 mo. The highest oral PTH tablet dose (2.5 mg) produced an increase in markers of bone formation while simultaneously decreasing the markers of bone breakdown. Significant gains in BMD of the spine and hip were observed at the end of the 6-mo study and there were no significant safety concerns. The 2.5 mg oral PTH tablet dose was well tolerated when patients were instructed to titrate up to the full dose. We conclude that this PTH tablet might be the first effective orally administered bone building medication and should be studied further in treatment of women with osteoporosis.

Goal-Directed Osteoporosis Treatment: ASBMR/BHOF Task Force Position Statement 2024.

The overarching goal of osteoporosis management is to prevent fractures. A goal-directed approach to long-term management of fracture risk helps ensure that the most appropriate initial treatment and treatment sequence is selected for individual patients. Goal-directed treatment decisions require assessment of clinical fracture history, vertebral fracture identification (using vertebral imaging as appropriate), measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) and consideration of other major clinical risk factors. Treatment targets should be tailored to each patient's individual risk profile and based on the specific indication for beginning treatment, including recency, site, number and severity of prior fractures, and BMD levels at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine. Instead of first-line bisphosphonate treatment for all patients, selection of initial treatment should focus on reducing fracture risk rapidly for patients at very high and imminent risk, such as in those with recent fractures. Initial treatment selection should also consider the probability that a BMD treatment target can be attained within a reasonable period of time and the differential magnitude of fracture risk reduction and BMD impact with osteoanabolic versus antiresorptive therapy. This position statement of the ASBMR/BHOF Task Force on Goal-Directed Osteoporosis Treatment provides an overall summary of the major clinical recommendations about treatment targets and strategies to achieve those targets based on the best evidence available, derived primarily from studies in older postmenopausal women of European ancestry.

Goal-directed treatment can help healthcare providers recommend the best treatments for individual patients to prevent fractures. The goal-directed strategy considers the site, number and recency of prior fractures. This may require imaging for spine fractures, which may not have caused pain. Treatment decisions also require bone mineral density (BMD) measurement and consideration of other major risk factors. In contrast to the standard approach, same first treatment for all, treatment selection is tailored to an individual's risk. In patients with recent fractures of the spine, hip or pelvis, fracture risk is very high and treatment should rapidly reduce that risk. For others, the target is a specific BMD level and should consider the likelihood that the treatment target can be attained within a reasonable period of time, which differs for osteoporosis medications. After initial therapy, BMD should be assessed to determine if the target has been achieved. If so, strategies should focus on maintaining BMD. If the target is not yet achieved, treatment should be intensified, or continued if it is already the most potent option. This position statement represents a consensus of expert recommendations about treatment targets and strategies to achieve those targets based on the best available evidence.