Regulatory Issues of Platform Trials: Learnings from EU-PEARL.

Although platform trials have many benefits, the complexity of these designs may result not only in increased methodological but also regulatory and ethical challenges. These aspects were addressed as part of the IMI project EU Patient-Centric Clinical Trial Platforms (EU-PEARL). We reviewed the available guidelines on platform trials in the European Union and the United States. This is supported and complemented by feedback received from regulatory interactions with the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Throughout the project we collected the needs of all relevant stakeholders including ethics committees, regulators, and health technology assessment bodies through active dialog and dedicated stakeholder workshops. Furthermore, we focused on methodological aspects and where applicable identified the corresponding guidance. Learnings from the guideline review, regulatory interactions, and workshops are provided. Based on these, a master protocol template was developed. Issues that still need harmonization or clarification in guidelines or where further methodological research is needed are also presented. These include questions around clinical trial submissions in Europe, the need for multiplicity control across the whole master protocol, the use of non-concurrent controls, and the impact of different randomization schemes. Master protocols are an efficient and patient-centered clinical trial design that can expedite drug development. However, they can also introduce additional operational and regulatory complexities. It is important to understand the different requirements of stakeholders upfront and address them in the trial. While relevant guidance is increasing, early dialog with relevant stakeholders can help to further support such designs.

Developing generic templates to shape the future for conducting integrated research platform trials.

BACKGROUND: Interventional clinical studies conducted in the regulated drug research environment are designed using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory guidance documents: ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice-scientific guideline, first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016. This document provides an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing and conducting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Recently, there has been heightened awareness of the importance of integrated research platform trials (IRPs) designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously. The use of a single master protocol as a key source document to fulfill trial conduct obligations has resulted in a re-examination of the templates used to fulfill the dynamic regulatory and modern drug development environment challenges. METHODS: Regulatory medical writing, biostatistical, and other members of EU Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms (EU-PEARL) developed the suite of templates for IRPs over a 3.5-year period. Stakeholders contributing expertise included academic hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, non-governmental organizations, patient representative groups, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). RESULTS: The suite of templates for IRPs based on TransCelerate's Common Protocol Template (CPT) and statistical analysis plan (SAP) should help authors navigate relevant guidelines as they create study design content relevant for today's IRP studies. It offers practical suggestions for adaptive platform designs which offer flexible features such as dropping treatments for futility or adding new treatments to be tested during a trial. The EU-PEARL suite of templates for IRPs comprises a preface, followed by the actual resource. The preface clarifies the intended use and underlying principles that inform resource utility. The preface lists references contributing to the development of the resource. The resource includes TransCelerate CPT guidance text, and EU-PEARL-derived guidance text, distinguished from one another using shading. Rationale comments are used throughout for clarification purposes. In addition, a user-friendly, functional, and informative Platform Trials Best Practices tool to support the setup, design, planning, implementation, and conduct of complex and innovative trials to support multi-sourced/multi-company platform trials is also provided. Together, the EU-PEARL suite of templates and the Platform Trials Best Practices tool constitute the reference user manual. CONCLUSIONS: This publication is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the EU-PEARL suite of templates for designing IRPs. The reference user manual and the associated website ( http://www.eu-pearl ) should facilitate the designing of IRP trials.

Machine learning approaches to enhance diagnosis and staging of patients with MASLD using routinely available clinical information.

AIMS: Metabolic dysfunction Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) outcomes such as MASH (metabolic dysfunction associated steatohepatitis), fibrosis and cirrhosis are ordinarily determined by resource-intensive and invasive biopsies. We aim to show that routine clinical tests offer sufficient information to predict these endpoints. METHODS: Using the LITMUS Metacohort derived from the European NAFLD Registry, the largest MASLD dataset in Europe, we create three combinations of features which vary in degree of procurement including a 19-variable feature set that are attained through a routine clinical appointment or blood test. This data was used to train predictive models using supervised machine learning (ML) algorithm XGBoost, alongside missing imputation technique MICE and class balancing algorithm SMOTE. Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were added to determine relative importance for each clinical variable. RESULTS: Analysing nine biopsy-derived MASLD outcomes of cohort size ranging between 5385 and 6673 subjects, we were able to predict individuals at training set AUCs ranging from 0.719-0.994, including classifying individuals who are At-Risk MASH at an AUC = 0.899. Using two further feature combinations of 26-variables and 35-variables, which included composite scores known to be good indicators for MASLD endpoints and advanced specialist tests, we found predictive performance did not sufficiently improve. We are also able to present local and global explanations for each ML model, offering clinicians interpretability without the expense of worsening predictive performance. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed a series of ML models of accuracy ranging from 71.9-99.4% using only easily extractable and readily available information in predicting MASLD outcomes which are usually determined through highly invasive means.

Designing an exploratory phase 2b platform trial in NASH with correlated, co-primary binary endpoints.

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the progressive form of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a disease with high unmet medical need. Platform trials provide great benefits for sponsors and trial participants in terms of accelerating drug development programs. In this article, we describe some of the activities of the EU-PEARL consortium (EU Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms) regarding the use of platform trials in NASH, in particular the proposed trial design, decision rules and simulation results. For a set of assumptions, we present the results of a simulation study recently discussed with two health authorities and the learnings from these meetings from a trial design perspective. Since the proposed design uses co-primary binary endpoints, we furthermore discuss the different options and practical considerations for simulating correlated binary endpoints.

Platform trials to overcome major shortcomings of traditional clinical trials in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis? Pros and cons.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is a condition that affects 25% of the population. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a progressive form of the disease that can lead to severe complications such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite its high prevalence, no drugs are currently approved for the treatment of NASH. The drug development pipeline in NASH is very active, yet most assets do not progress to phase III trials and those that do reach phase III often fail to achieve the endpoints necessary for approval by regulatory agencies. Amongst other reasons, the methodological and operational features of traditional clinical trials in NASH might impede optimal drug development. In this regard, platform trials might be an attractive complement or alternative to conventional clinical trials. Platform trials use a master protocol which enables evaluation of multiple investigational medicinal products concurrently or sequentially with a single, shared control arm. Through Bayesian interim analyses, these trials allow for early exit of drugs from the trial based on success or futility, while providing participants better chances of receiving active compounds through adaptive randomisation. Overall, platform trials represent an alternative for patients, pharmaceutical companies, and clinicians in the quest to accelerate the approval of pharmacologic treatments for NASH.

On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls.

BACKGROUND: Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several experimental treatments compared to a control. The number of experimental treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel group trials because of using shared control groups. However, for a treatment entering the trial at a later time point, the control group is divided into concurrent controls, consisting of patients randomised to control when that treatment arm is in the platform, and non-concurrent controls, patients randomised before. Using non-concurrent controls in addition to concurrent controls can improve the trial's efficiency by increasing power and reducing the required sample size, but can introduce bias due to time trends. METHODS: We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added at a later time, we assess the robustness of recently proposed model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when utilizing non-concurrent controls. In particular, we consider approaches where time trends are modeled either as linear in time or as a step function, with steps at time points where treatments enter or leave the platform trial. For trials with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error rate and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm, as well as the bias and root mean squared error of treatment effect estimates under a range of scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we investigate settings with different time trends or time trends that are not additive in the scale of the model. RESULTS: A step function model, fitted on data from all treatment arms, gives increased power while controlling the type 1 error, as long as the time trends are equal for the different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the shape of the time trend deviates from a step function when patients are allocated to arms by block randomisation. However, if time trends differ between arms or are not additive to treatment effects in the scale of the model, the type 1 error rate may be inflated. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate non-concurrent controls can outweigh potential risks of biases, especially in settings with small sample sizes. Such biases may arise if the model assumptions of equality and additivity of time trends are not satisfied. However, the specifics of the trial, scientific plausibility of different time trends, and robustness of results should be carefully considered.

Decision rules for identifying combination therapies in open-entry, randomized controlled platform trials.

Platform trials have become increasingly popular for drug development programs, attracting interest from statisticians, clinicians and regulatory agencies. Many statistical questions related to designing platform trials-such as the impact of decision rules, sharing of information across cohorts, and allocation ratios on operating characteristics and error rates-remain unanswered. In many platform trials, the definition of error rates is not straightforward as classical error rate concepts are not applicable. For an open-entry, exploratory platform trial design comparing combination therapies to the respective monotherapies and standard-of-care, we define a set of error rates and operating characteristics and then use these to compare a set of design parameters under a range of simulation assumptions. When setting up the simulations, we aimed for realistic trial trajectories, such that for example, a priori we do not know the exact number of treatments that will be included over time in a specific simulation run as this follows a stochastic mechanism. Our results indicate that the method of data sharing, exact specification of decision rules and a priori assumptions regarding the treatment efficacy all strongly contribute to the operating characteristics of the platform trial. Furthermore, different operating characteristics might be of importance to different stakeholders. Together with the potential flexibility and complexity of a platform trial, which also impact the achieved operating characteristics via, for example, the degree of efficiency of data sharing this implies that utmost care needs to be given to evaluation of different assumptions and design parameters at the design stage.

Systematic review of available software for multi-arm multi-stage and platform clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the popularity of multi-arm multi-stage, seamless adaptive, and platform trials has increased. However, many design-related questions and questions regarding which operating characteristics should be evaluated to determine the potential performance of a specific trial design remain and are often further complicated by the complexity of such trial designs. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to review existing software for the design of platform trials, whereby multi-arm multi-stage trials were also included. The results of this search are reported both on the literature level and the software level, highlighting the software judged to be particularly useful. RESULTS: In recent years, many highly specialized software packages targeting single design elements on platform studies have been released. Only a few of the developed software packages provide extensive design flexibility, at the cost of limited access due to being commercial or not being usable as out-of-the-box solutions. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that both an open-source modular software similar to OCTOPUS and a collaborative effort will be necessary to create software that takes advantage of and investigates the impact of all the flexibility that platform trials potentially provide.

The Evolution of Master Protocol Clinical Trial Designs: A Systematic Literature Review.

PURPOSE: Recent years have seen a change in the way that clinical trials are being conducted. There has been a rise of designs more flexible than traditional adaptive and group sequential trials which allow the investigation of multiple substudies with possibly different objectives, interventions, and subgroups conducted within an overall trial structure, summarized by the term master protocol. This review aims to identify existing master protocol studies and summarize their characteristics. The review also identifies articles relevant to the design of master protocol trials, such as proposed trial designs and related methods. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive systematic search to review current literature on master protocol trials from a design and analysis perspective, focusing on platform trials and considering basket and umbrella trials. Articles were included regardless of statistical complexity and classified as reviews related to planned or conducted trials, trial designs, or statistical methods. The results of the literature search are reported, and some features of the identified articles are summarized. FINDINGS: Most of the trials using master protocols were designed as single-arm (n = 29/50), Phase II trials (n = 32/50) in oncology (n = 42/50) using a binary endpoint (n = 26/50) and frequentist decision rules (n = 37/50). We observed an exponential increase in publications in this domain during the last few years in both planned and conducted trials, as well as relevant methods, which we assume has not yet reached its peak. Although many operational and statistical challenges associated with such trials remain, the general consensus seems to be that master protocols provide potentially enormous advantages in efficiency and flexibility of clinical drug development. IMPLICATIONS: Master protocol trials and especially platform trials have the potential to revolutionize clinical drug development if the methodologic and operational challenges can be overcome.

Clinical Study Design to Assess Both Short- and Long-term Efficacy in Addition to Group Sequential Test on Safety.

In clinical studies for disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, etc, sometimes the developers need to address safety concerns (eg, cardiovascular risk) in the phase III development, so that a large long-term safety study is needed before registration. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Aiming for potential regulatory approval with a single confirmatory study, the authors suggest a design that assesses short-term efficacy (eg, signs or symptoms) and long-term efficacy (eg, structure or imaging), as well as safety (eg, major adverse cardiac events), for which a group sequential test is performed applying an alpha spending function. A graphical testing procedure is suggested for the data analysis. The testing procedure controls the family-wise type I error rate. The study may reach all or part of short-term efficacy, long-term efficacy, and/or safety objectives. It is possible to get market approval with a single confirmatory study that assesses short-term efficacy, long-term efficacy, and safety.

Seamless Phase IIa/IIb and enhanced dose-finding adaptive design.

In drug development, when the drug class has a relatively well-defined path to regulatory approval and the enrollment is slow with certain patient populations, one may want to consider combining studies of different phases. This article considers combining a proof of concept (POC) study and a dose-finding (DF) study with a control treatment. Conventional DF study designs sometimes are not efficient, or do not have a high probability to find the optimal dose(s) for Phase III trials. This article seeks more efficient DF strategies that allow the economical testing of more doses. Hypothetical examples are simulated to compare the proposed adaptive design vs. the conventional design based on different models of the overall quantitative representation of efficacy, safety, and tolerability. The results show that the proposed adaptive design tests more active doses with higher power and comparable or smaller sample size in a shorter overall study duration for POC and DF, compared with a conventional design.

Subgroup variations in bone mineral density response to zoledronic acid after hip fracture.

Minimizing post-fracture bone loss is an important aspect of recovery from hip fracture, and determination of factors that affect bone mineral density (BMD) response to treatment after hip fracture may assist in the development of targeted therapeutic interventions. A post hoc analysis of the HORIZON Recurrent Fracture Trial was done to determine the effect of zoledronic acid (ZOL) on total hip (TH) and femoral neck (FN) BMD in subgroups with low-trauma hip fracture. A total of 2127 patients were randomized (1:1) to yearly infusions of ZOL 5 mg (n = 1065) or placebo (n = 1062) within 90 days of operation for low-trauma hip fracture. The 1486 patients with a baseline and at least one post-baseline BMD assessment at TH or FN (ZOL = 745, placebo = 741) were included in the analyses. Percentage change from baseline in TH and FN BMD was assessed at months 12 and 24 and compared across subgroups of hip fracture patients. Percentage change from baseline in TH and FN BMD at months 12 and 24 was greater (p < 0.05) in ZOL-treated patients compared with placebo in most subgroups. Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (p < 0.05) indicated that a greater effect on BMD was observed for TH BMD at month 12 in females, in patients in the lower tertile body mass index at baseline (≤22.6 kg/m(2) ), and in patients with baseline FN BMD T-score of ≤ -2.5; for FN BMD in patients who received ZOL for >6 weeks post-surgery; and for TH and FN BMD in patients with a history of one or more prior fractures. All interactions were limited to the first 12 months after treatment with none observed for the 24-month comparisons. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00046254.)

Time to onset of antifracture efficacy and year-by-year persistence of effect of zoledronic acid in women with osteoporosis.

Oral bisphosphonates reduce fracture risk in osteoporotic patients but are often associated with poor compliance, which may impair their antifracture effects. This post hoc analysis assessed the time to onset and persistence of the antifracture effect of zoledronic acid, a once-yearly bisphosphonate infusion, in women with osteoporosis. Data from 9355 women who were randomized in two placebo-controlled pivotal trials were included. Endpoints included reduction in the rate of any clinical fracture at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months in the zoledronic acid group compared with placebo, and the year-by-year incidence of all clinical fractures over 3 years. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the timing of onset of antifracture efficacy. A generalized estimating equation model was used to assess fracture reduction for the 3 consecutive years of treatment, thereby evaluating persistence of effect. Safety results from women in the two studies were collated. Zoledronic acid reduced the risk of all clinical fractures at 12 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.92, p = 0.0050) with significant reductions maintained at all subsequent time points. Year-by-year analysis showed that zoledronic acid reduced the risk for all clinical fractures compared with the placebo group in each of the 3 years (year 1: odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91, p = 0.0044; year 2: OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.66, p < 0.0001; year 3: OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.77, p < 0.0001). This antifracture effect was persistent over 3 years, with the reductions in years 2 and 3 slightly larger than in year 1 (p = 0.097). This analysis shows that zoledronic acid offered significant protection from clinical fractures as early as 12 months. When administered annually, its beneficial effects persisted for at least 3 years.

Effects of antiresorptive treatment on nonvertebral fracture outcomes.

Various definitions of nonvertebral fracture have been used in osteoporosis trials, precluding comparisons of efficacy. Using only subgroups of nonvertebral fractures for trial outcomes may underestimate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of treatments. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the effect of antiresorptive treatment on various nonvertebral fracture outcomes, (2) whether risk reduction from antiresorptive treatment is greater for nonvertebral fractures that have stronger associations with low BMD, and (3) sample size estimates for clinical trials of osteoporosis treatments. Study-level data were combined from five randomized fracture-prevention trials of antiresorptive agents that reduce the risk of nonvertebral fracture in postmenopausal women: alendronate, clodronate, denosumab, lasofoxifene, and zoledronic acid. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. The five trials included 30,118 women; 2997 women had at least one nonvertebral fracture. There was no significant heterogeneity between treatments for any outcome (all p > 0.10). Antiresorptive treatment had similar effects on all fractures (summary hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.81), high-trauma fractures (HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.96), low-trauma fractures (HR = 0.77, (95% CI 0.71-0.83), nonvertebral six (ie, hip, pelvis, leg, wrist, humerus, and clavicle) fractures (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.80), other than nonvertebral six fractures (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87), and all fractures other than finger, face, and toe (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.81). Risk reduction was not greater for fractures with stronger associations with low BMD (p = 0.77). A trial of all nonvertebral fractures would require fewer participants (n = 2641 per arm) than one of a subgroup of six fractures (n = 3289), for example. In summary, antiresorptive treatments reduced all nonvertebral fractures regardless of degree of trauma or special groupings, supporting the use of all nonvertebral fractures as a standard endpoint of osteoporosis trials and the basis for estimating the benefits and cost-effectiveness of treatments.

Once-yearly zoledronic acid and days of disability, bed rest, and back pain: randomized, controlled HORIZON Pivotal Fracture Trial.

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of once-yearly zoledronic acid on the number of days of back pain and the number of days of disability (ie, limited activity and bed rest) owing to back pain or fracture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 240 clinical centers in 27 countries. Participants included 7736 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Patients were randomized to receive either a single 15-minute intravenous infusion of zoledronic acid (5 mg) or placebo at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. The main outcome measures were self-reported number of days with back pain and the number of days of limited activity and bed rest owing to back pain or a fracture, and this was assessed every 3 months over a 3-year period. Our results show that although the incidence of back pain was high in both randomized groups, women randomized to zoledronic acid experienced, on average, 18 fewer days of back pain compared with placebo over the course of the trial (p = .0092). The back pain among women randomized to zoledronic acid versus placebo resulted in 11 fewer days of limited activity (p = .0017). In Cox proportional-hazards models, women randomized to zoledronic acid were about 6% less likely to experience 7 or more days of back pain [relative risk (RR) = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-0.99] or limited activity owing to back pain (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.00). Women randomized to zoledronic acid were significantly less likely to experience 7 or more bed-rest days owing to a fracture (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.72) and 7 or more limited-activity days owing to a fracture (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78). Reductions in back pain with zoledronic acid were independent of incident fracture. Our conclusion is that in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, a once-yearly infusion with zoledronic acid over a 3-year period significantly reduced the number of days that patients reported back pain, limited activity owing to back pain, and limited activity and bed rest owing to a fracture.

Efficacy and safety of a once-yearly i.v. Infusion of zoledronic acid 5 mg versus a once-weekly 70-mg oral alendronate in the treatment of male osteoporosis: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study.

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) has shown beneficial effects on bone turnover and bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal osteoporosis. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a once-yearly i.v. infusion of ZOL with weekly oral alendronate (ALN) in men with osteoporosis. In this multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study, participants (n = 302) were randomized to receive either once-yearly ZOL 5 mg i.v. or weekly oral ALN 70 mg for 24 months. Changes in BMD and bone marker levels were assessed. ZOL increased BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter and was not inferior to ALN at 24 months [least squares mean estimates of the percentage increases in lumbar spine BMD of 6.1% and 6.2%; difference approximately 0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-0.85 in the ZOL and ALN groups, respectively]. At month 12, the median change from baseline of markers for bone resorption [serum ß-C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (ß-CTx) and urine N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx)] and formation [serum N-terminal propeptide of type I collagen (P1NP) and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP)] were comparable between ZOL and ALN groups. Most men preferred i.v. ZOL over oral ALN. The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was similar in the treatment groups. It is concluded that a once-yearly i.v. infusion of ZOL 5 mg increased bone density and decreased bone turnover markers similarly to once-weekly oral ALN 70 mg in men with low bone density.

Efficacy and safety of a once-yearly intravenous zoledronic acid 5 mg for fracture prevention in elderly postmenopausal women with osteoporosis aged 75 and older.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of once-yearly intravenous zoledronic acid (ZOL) 5 mg in reducing risk of clinical vertebral, nonvertebral, and any clinical fractures in elderly osteoporotic postmenopausal women. DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of pooled data from the Health Outcome and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid One Yearly (HORIZON) Pivotal Fracture Trial and the HORIZON Recurrent Fracture Trial. SETTING: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal women (aged > or =75) with documented osteoporosis (T-score < or =-2.5 at femoral neck or >/=1 prevalent vertebral or hip fracture) or a recent hip fracture. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of ZOL 5 mg (n=1,961) or placebo (n=1,926) at baseline and 12 and 24 months. MEASUREMENTS: Primary endpoints were incidence of clinical vertebral and nonvertebral and any clinical fracture after treatment. RESULTS: At 3 years, incidence of any clinical, clinical vertebral, and nonvertebral fracture were significantly lower in the ZOL group than in the placebo group (10.8% vs 16.6%, 1.1% vs 3.7%, and 9.9% vs 13.7%, respectively) (hazard ratio (HR)=0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.54-0.78, P<.001; HR=0.34, 95% CI=0.21-0.55, P<.001; and HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.60-0.90, P=.002, respectively). The incidence of hip fracture was lower with ZOL but did not reach statistical significance. The incidence rate of postdose adverse events were higher with ZOL, although the rate of serious adverse events and deaths was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Once-yearly intravenous ZOL 5 mg was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of new clinical fractures (vertebral and nonvertebral) in elderly postmenopausal women with osteroporosis.

Potential mediators of the mortality reduction with zoledronic acid after hip fracture.

Zoledronic acid reduces the risk of death by 28% after hip fracture, but the mechanisms are not known. This exploratory analysis sought to identify potential pathways for the reduction in mortality with zoledronic acid after hip fracture. This was a retrospective analysis of a randomized, controlled trial. Patients with recent hip fracture (n = 2111) were treated with zoledronic acid or placebo infusion yearly, as well as calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Causes of death were adjudicated by a blinded central review committee. Baseline comorbidities, events occurring during the study period, including subsequent fracture, change in bone density, infections, cardiovascular events, arrhythmias, and falls, were included in multivariable analyses. In a model adjusted for baseline risk factors, zoledronic acid reduced the risk of death by 25% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.97). The effect was consistent across most subgroups. Subsequent fractures were significantly associated with death (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.17-2.51) but explained only 8% of the zoledronic acid effect. Adjusting for acute events occurring during follow-up eliminated the death benefit, and zoledronic acid-treated subjects were less likely to die from pneumonia (interaction p = .04) and arrhythmias (interaction p = .02) than placebo-treated subjects. Only 8% of zoledronic acid's death benefit is due to a reduction in secondary fractures. Zoledronic acid may have an effect on cardiovascular events and pneumonia. Further studies of zoledronic acid in other acute illnesses may be warranted.

Effect of once-yearly zoledronic acid five milligrams on fracture risk and change in femoral neck bone mineral density.

CONTEXT: In the Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly - Pivotal Fracture Trial (HORIZON-PFT), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 5 mg significantly reduced fracture risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify factors associated with greater efficacy during ZOL 5 mg treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We conducted a subgroup analysis (preplanned and post hoc) of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 36-month trial in 7765 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. INTERVENTION: A single infusion of ZOL 5 mg or placebo was administered at baseline, 12, and 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoints were new vertebral fracture and hip fracture. Secondary endpoints were nonvertebral fracture and change in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Baseline risk factor subgroups were age, BMD T-score and vertebral fracture status, total hip BMD, race, weight, geographical region, smoking, height loss, history of falls, physical activity, prior bisphosphonates, creatinine clearance, body mass index, and concomitant osteoporosis medications. RESULTS: Greater ZOL induced effects on vertebral fracture risk were seen with younger age (treatment-by-subgroup interaction, P = 0.05), normal creatinine clearance (P = 0.04), and body mass index >or= 25 kg/m(2) (P = 0.02). There were no significant treatment-factor interactions for hip or nonvertebral fracture or for change in BMD. CONCLUSIONS: ZOL appeared more effective in preventing vertebral fracture in younger women, overweight/obese women, and women with normal renal function. ZOL had similar effects irrespective of fracture risk factors or femoral neck BMD.

Effects of yearly zoledronic acid 5 mg on bone turnover markers and relation of PINP with fracture reduction in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

In patients with osteoporosis treated with antiresorptive agents, reduction in bone turnover explains much of the observed fracture risk reduction. Lower levels of bone turnover markers (BTMs) appear to be associated with a lower risk of fracture in bisphosphonate-treated patients. BTMs were measured in a subset of subjects in the HORIZON Pivotal Fracture Trial. Annual infusions of zoledronic acid 5 mg significantly reduced BTMs: median decrease of 50% for beta-C-terminal telopeptides of type 1 collagen (beta-CTX), 30% for bone alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and 56% for procollagen type 1 amino-terminal propeptide (PINP). The mean level of BTMs decreased in treated patients but remained within the premenopausal range before the next injection. The percentage of zoledronic acid-treated patients with values below the premenopausal reference range at all time points was 1.7%, 17.8%, and 19% for bone ALP, CTX, and PINP, respectively. The third injection of zoledronic acid resulted in 60% reduction of beta-CTX within 9-11 days, followed by a gradual increase, indicating the persistence of osteoclastic bone resorption. The association between changes in BTMs and fracture incidence was assessed in 1132 patients who had PINP measurements at baseline and 1 yr. There was no association between low PINP levels at 1 yr and increased fracture incidence. In summary, (1) annual injections of zoledronic acid reduced BTMs in the premenopausal range, with a significant response persisting after the third infusion; and (2) low levels of PINP were not associated with increased fracture risk.