Recommendations for the optimal use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis.

Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Monoclonal antibody anti-sclerostin for treatment of pelvic insufficiency fractures in adult hypophosphatasia: A case report.

Hypophosphatasia is a rare inherited metabolic disease leading to inhibition of bone and teeth mineralization that can be complicated by multiple insufficiency fractures. Treatment is currently limited to enzyme replacement therapy using bone-targeting recombinant human alkaline phosphatase, or asfotase alfa. Romosozumab is a monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody originally indicated for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with high-risk of fracture. Recently its indication had been expanded to other metabolic bone disorders such as osteogenesis imperfecta. We report a unique case of a 67-yer-old female with hypophosphatasia complicated by multiple delayed-union and nonunion insufficiency fractures of the pelvis. After 12-month therapy with Romosozumab to address her osteoporosis, the patient healed her fractures and increased her bone mass density. Our case report shows interesting effects of Romozumab in an adult patient with hypophosphatasia. It not only helped increase bone density, but also help in the healing process of delayed-union and nonunion insufficiency fractures of the pelvis and prevented the occurrence of new fractures during the treatment period. To our knowledge, this is the first report describing the potential effect of Romosozumab on insufficiency fractures in patients with hypophosphatasia.

Change in spinal bone mineral density as estimated by Hounsfield units following osteoporosis treatment with romosozumab, teriparatide, denosumab, and alendronate: an analysis of 318 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of osteoporosis medications on opportunistic CT-based Hounsfield units (HU). METHODS: Spine and nonspine surgery patients were retrospectively identified who had been treated with romosozumab for 3 to 12 months, teriparatide for 3 to 12 months, teriparatide for > 12 months, denosumab for > 12 months, or alendronate for > 12 months. HU were measured in the L1-4 vertebral bodies. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean change in HU among the five treatment regimens. RESULTS: In total, 318 patients (70% women) were included, with a mean age of 69 years and mean BMI of 27 kg/m2. There was a significant difference in mean HU improvement (p < 0.001) following treatment with romosozumab for 3 to 12 months (n = 32), teriparatide for 3 to 12 months (n = 30), teriparatide for > 12 months (n = 44), denosumab for > 12 months (n = 123), and alendronate for > 12 months (n = 100). Treatment with romosozumab for a mean of 10.5 months significantly increased the mean HU by 26%, from a baseline of 85 to 107 (p = 0.012). Patients treated with teriparatide for > 12 months (mean 23 months) experienced a mean HU improvement of 25%, from 106 to 132 (p = 0.039). Compared with the mean baseline HU, there was no significant difference after treatment with teriparatide for 3 to 12 months (110 to 119, p = 0.48), denosumab for > 12 months (105 to 107, p = 0.68), or alendronate for > 12 months (111 to 113, p = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with romosozumab for a mean of 10.5 months and teriparatide for a mean of 23 months experienced improved spinal bone mineral density as estimated by CT-based opportunistic HU. Given the shorter duration of effective treatment, romosozumab may be the preferred medication for optimization of osteoporotic patients in preparation for elective spine fusion surgery.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Romosozumab and Teriparatide in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this observational study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of romosozumab (ROMO) and teriparatide (TPTD) in a clinical setting. METHODS: 315 postmenopausal women were included based on the reimbursement criteria for ROMO and TPTD at the Department of Endocrinology at Aarhus University Hospital. ROMO: Bone Mineral Density (BMD) T-score <-2.5 (femoral neck (FN), total hip (TH), or lumbar spine (LS)) + a fragility fracture (hip, spine, pelvis, distal forearm, or proximal humerus) within 3 years. TPTD: Within 3 years ≥2 vertebral fractures or 1 vertebral fracture + BMD T-score (FN, TH, or LS) <-3. Data was collected from medical records. The primary end point was percentage change from baseline in BMD (FN, TH, and LS) at month 12. BMD was measured by DXA. RESULTS: At month 12 ROMO led to significantly (p<0.001) larger increases than TPTD in BMD (FN: 4.8% vs. 0.2%, TH: 5.7% vs. 0.3%, and LS: 13.7% vs. 9.3%). Discontinuation rate was lower with ROMO than with TPTD. Lower incidence of cardiovascular adverse events was observed with ROMO compared to TPTD. Treatment-naïve patients had non-significantly higher BMD increases compared to previously treated patients with both ROMO and TPTD. CONCLUSION: Treatment with romosozumab yields larger increases in bone mineral density than teriparatide after 12 months and a higher rate of completion.

Drug utilization pattern of romosozumab and other osteoporosis treatments in Japan, 2019-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Describe real-world treatment of osteoporosis and romosozumab treatment patterns in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for patients initiating romosozumab or other antiosteoporotic medications between March 01, 2018, and May 31, 2022, were extracted from the Medical Data Vision (MDV) and Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) databases. Patients were categorized into four cohorts: those who newly initiated romosozumab within the first (MDV: n = 4782; JMDC: n = 2578) or second (MDV: n = 3888; JMDC: n = 2446) year after launch and those who initiated teriparatide (TPTD; MDV: n = 14,576; JMDC: n = 8259) or non-TPTD antiosteoporotic medications within the first year of romosozumab launch (MDV: n = 352,142; JMDC: n = 185,785). RESULTS: Mean age, sex, baseline cardiovascular history, comorbidities, and concomitant medications were similar across cohorts. In the MDV database, fracture history was higher in the romosozumab year-1 (59.3%), year-2 (64.1%), and TPTD (65.5%) cohorts versus the non-TPTD cohort (24.4%). Similar rates were identified in the JMDC database: romosozumab year-1 (64.7%), year-2 (66.6%), TPTD (67.5%), and non-TPTD (27.8%). Vertebral fractures were most common in all cohorts. 12-month romosozumab discontinuation varied between the year-1 and year-2 cohorts in MDV (62.4% and 58.8%) and JMDC (57.1% and 52.7%), whereas mean number of injections remained consistent (MDV: 9.7 and 9.8; JMDC: 7.3 and 7.8). Romosozumab persistence was lower in year-1 versus year-2 (MDV: 37.6% and 42.9%; JMDC: 41.2% and 47.3%). CONCLUSION: Patients initiating romosozumab and TPTD had a high fracture history. Given the dual effects of promoting bone formation and suppressing resorption, improving romosozumab adherence and persistence over time may be important for antiosteoporotic therapy.

Efficacy and safety of romosozumab: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to comprehensively compile placebo-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of romosozumab (210 mg, subcutaneously, once monthly) in postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for relevant placebo-controlled trials (as of January 1, 2024). Percent change in bone mineral density (BMD), falls, fractures, and adverse events (AEs) after drug administration were collected. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Six trials (7990 patients; follow-up period, 6-12 months) were included. Compared with placebo, romosozumab significantly increased lumbar spine BMD (MD = 12.69; 95% CI 11.10-14.29), total hip BMD (MD = 4.42; 95% CI 3.03-5.80), and femoral neck BMD (MD = 3.99; 95% CI 2.42-5.57) at 12 months. Romosozumab significantly decreased falls (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.68-0.93) and major osteoporotic fractures (RR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.25-0.54), but increased injection-site reactions (RR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.46-2.30) within 12 months. No significant differences were observed in other AEs (including cardiovascular AEs) within 12 months. CONCLUSION: Romosozumab treatment resulted in a significant BMD gain, reduced falls and major osteoporotic fractures. It was generally well-tolerated, including the cardiovascular aspects. However, clinicians should consider the occurrence of minor AEs (e.g., injection-site reactions).

Clinical effects of teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

In the management of osteoporosis, anti-resorptive agents serve as a primary therapeutic approach. However, in cases where individuals exhibit an increased susceptibility to fractures, such as those characterized by severe low bone mass or a history of vertebral or hip fractures that markedly diminish life expectancy, the immediate reduction of fracture risk through the administration of osteoanabolic agents could be beneficial. Teriparatide, available in daily, once-weekly, or twice-weekly dosages, along with abaloparatide and romosozumab, constitutes a trio of such agents. Each of these medications is defined by unique characteristics, distinct efficacy profiles, and specific adverse effects. There is growing evidence to suggest that these agents have a superior effect on enhancing bone mineral density and reducing fracture incidence when compared to traditional bisphosphonate therapies. Nonetheless, their employment demands thorough consideration of clinical indications, which includes evaluating economic factors, the frequency of injections required, and the potential for adverse effects. The objective of this review is to consolidate the current evidence focusing primarily on the efficacy of these agents, with the goal of enhancing understanding and aiding in making more informed treatment decisions, particularly for those individuals who are at an elevated risk of fractures.

Monoclonal antibodies in patients with osteoporosis and renal insufficiency: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: There are challenges for the treatment of osteoporosis in patients with kidney failure and monoclonal antibodies (MAb) might be a suitable therapy. However, the efficacy and safety of MAb among patients with osteoporosis and renal insufficiency remains unclear. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of the use of MAb in patients with osteoporosis and renal insufficiency. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes. Mean difference (MD) was used for continuous outcomes. Results: We included 5 studies with 33,550 patients. MAb therapy decreased the risk of vertebral fractures (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.26-0.40; P < 0.01) when compared to placebo and no statistical difference was found when comparing to bisphosphonate (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.03; P = 0.07). MAb therapy also decreased the risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91; P = 0.0009). Lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) was higher in the MAb therapy when compared to both placebo (MD 10.90; 95% CI 8.00-13.80; P < 0.01) and bisphosphonate (MD 7.66; 95% CI 6.19-9.14; P < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the change of estimated glomerular filtration rate and in the incidence of hypocalcemia and serious adverse events between groups. Conclusions: There were reductions in both vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risks, alongside improvements in BMD among patients with renal insufficiency treated with MAb.

Monthly treatment with romosozumab for 1 year increases bone mineral at the hip, but not the knee, in women with chronic spinal cord injury.

Bone loss below the level of neurological lesion is a well-known complication of spinal cord injury (SCI). To date, most research has focused on pharmaceutical intervention using antiresorptives to prevent bone loss during the acute phase of SCI; however, limited research has investigated treatments for established osteoporosis during chronic SCI. Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody with both antiresorptive and anabolic effects, has demonstrated significant increases in BMD for women with established PMO. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of monthly treatment with romosozumab to improve DXA-derived areal BMD at the hip, and CT-derived BMC and strength at the hip and knee in women with chronic SCI and an inability to ambulate. Twelve female participants with chronic SCI were recruited to receive 1 yr of monthly subcutaneous injections of romosozumab (210 mg). DXA and CT scans were taken at baseline, and months 3, 6, and 12 to quantify bone mineral, and finite element (FE) analysis was used to predict bone strength. Longitudinal mixed effects models were employed to determine the impact of treatment on bone properties. After 12 mo of treatment, areal BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip were significantly increased with median changes of 10.2% (IQR: 8.3-15.2%, p<.001) and 4.2% (IQR: 3.4-7.7%, p = .009), respectively. Improvements at the hip were primarily due to increases in trabecular, not cortical, bone and effects were sufficient to significantly increase FE-predicted strength by 20.3% (IQR: 9.5-37.0%, p = .004). Treatment with romosozumab did not lead to any significant improvement in bone mineral at the distal femur or proximal tibia. These findings provide promising results for romosozumab treatment to improve bone mineral and reduce fracture risk at the hip, but not the knee, in women with chronic SCI.

A novel sequential treatment approach between denosumab and romosozumab in patients with severe osteoporosis.

In severe osteoporosis, the optimal approach for sequential treatment between denosumab and romosozumab is unclear. We utilised a novel overlapping strategy in three patients with very-high fracture risk despite long-term denosumab which led to greater bone density improvements than previously reported with standard approaches. Larger confirmatory prospective studies are needed. PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION: In patients with severe osteoporosis, the optimal approach for sequential treatment between denosumab and romosozumab has not been established. The ideal strategy would maximise gains in bone mineral density (BMD) with romosozumab and effectively mitigate the risk of rebound increased bone turnover when sequencing from denosumab. Limited studies exploring the sequence from denosumab to romosozumab report only modest-to-no improvement in BMD and inadequate suppression of rebound bone turnover. METHODS: We describe three patients with severe osteoporosis and multiple fragility fractures despite long-term denosumab. A novel overlapping sequential treatment approach was utilised to maximise therapeutic benefit given these patients had a very high fracture risk. Romosozumab was commenced 3 months after the last denosumab dose. Instead of waiting until completion of romosozumab, denosumab was recommenced 6 months after commencing romosozumab in response to rising bone turnover markers. RESULTS: Patients experienced a ~ 5-22% increase in lumbar spine BMD, and one patient had an 8% increase in total hip BMD after 12 months romosozumab. Serum bone turnover markers demonstrated an anabolic effect of romosozumab occurred despite overlapping treatment with denosumab. Recommencement of denosumab suppressed an increase in bone resorption in all cases. No new vertebral fractures occurred during this treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A novel overlapping sequential treatment approach between denosumab and romosozumab produced greater improvements in lumbar spine and hip BMD than previously reported with standard approaches. Larger prospective controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings and establish the optimal use of romosozumab in patients pre-treated with denosumab to maximise BMD gains and minimise fracture risk.

Progression of multiple vertebral fractures after denosumab discontinuation under treatment with romosozumab. A case-report.

INTRODUCTION: Denosumab (Dmab) is widely used for the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis. Its discontinuation is sometimes accompanied by multiple vertebral fractures. Romosozumab (Rmab) has not been tested for its ability to prevent the rebound phenomenon. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 68-year-old female patient with post-menopausal osteoporosis under treatment with Rmab who presented with multiple vertebral fractures after denosumab discontinuation. The addition of Rmab did not prevent new-onset rebound-associated vertebral fractures. The patient discontinued Rmab and Dmab was re-initiated. After six months, no new vertebral fractures occurred, bone mineral density increased and bone turnover markers remained suppressed. DISCUSSION: Our clinical case illustrates the ineffectiveness of Rmab to prevent the multiple vertebral fracture cascade attributable to discontinuation of Dmab. We believe that treatment with Rmab might not be enough to prevent this phenomenon. Treatment with Dmab or possibly combination treatment with Dmab and Rmab could be another treatment option.

Real-world effects, safety, and predictors of the effectiveness of romosozumab in primary and secondary osteoporosis: An observational study.

Romosozumab is an anti-sclerostin antibody that increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption. It became available for patients at high risk of osteoporotic fractures in Japan in 2019. The aim of this study was to clarify the clinical effects, safety, and predictors of the effectiveness of 12 months of romosozumab therapy. The study had an observational pre-post design and included 460 patients. Romosozumab was administered at a dose of 210 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 12 months. The incidence of new fractures, safety, and changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers were recorded. New fractures occurred in 11 cases (3.0 %). Nine patients (2.0 %) experienced cardiovascular events, which were fatal in 3 (0.65 %). Percent changes in BMD at the spine and total hip at 12 months from baseline were +7.7 % and +1.8 %, respectively. Romosozumab had better effects in patients with good renal function, low spine BMD, and high TRACP-5b at baseline and low TRACP-5b or high P1NP after 1 month of treatment. The percent change in spine BMD at 12 months was significantly lower in patients transitioning from denosumab than in those not previously treated with other anti-osteoporosis agents. Romosozumab is considered to be relatively safe in patients with primary osteoporosis compared to those with secondary osteoporosis. Romosozumab resulted in larger increases in spine BMD in patients with primary osteoporosis who were not previously treated with other anti-osteoporosis therapies and those with low spine BMD at the start of treatment.

The effect of romosozumab on bone mineral density depending on prior treatment: a prospective, multicentre cohort study in Switzerland.

This multicentre, prospective cohort study measured the effect of romosozumab for 12 months on bone mineral density, taking into account prior therapies. Prior antiresorptive therapy blunted the BMD response to romosozumab, and the duration was correlated with BMD changes at both the lumbar spine and total hip. INTRODUCTION: In Switzerland, romosozumab is administered to high-risk osteoporosis patients. Our study aimed to assess the effect of romosozumab on bone mineral density (BMD), taking into account prior therapies. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective cohort study measured the effect of romosozumab for 12 months in patients in a nationwide Swiss osteoporosis registry. BMD and bone turnover marker (P1NP and CTX) changes were measured and compared between pre-treated and treatment naïve patients. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (92 women and 7 men, median age 71 years [65, 76]) were enrolled from January 2021 to December 2023. Among them, 22 had no prior treatment before romosozumab, while 77 had previous therapy (including 23 with a history of prior teriparatide therapy), with a median duration of 6 years [4, 11] of cumulative antiresorptive treatment. Over 12 months, romosozumab led to BMD changes of 10.3% [7.5, 15.5] at the lumbar spine, 3.1% [1.1, 5.8] at the total hip and 3.1% [0.5, 5.3] at the femoral neck, indicating notable variability. Significantly lower BMD responses were observed in pre-treated patients, with the duration of prior antiresorptive therapy inversely associated with BMD increases at the lumbar spine and hip. Other predictors of BMD changes at the total hip included baseline T-scores at the hip, body mass index and baseline CTX level, while the BMD response at the lumbar spine was associated with the lumbar spine T-score at baseline, age and baseline CTX level. CONCLUSION: Prior antiresorptive therapy blunted the BMD response to romosozumab, and the duration was correlated with BMD changes at both the lumbar spine and total hip.

Romosozumab versus parathyroid hormone receptor agonists: which osteoanabolic to choose and when?

Osteoanabolic agents are used as a first line treatment in patients at high fracture risk. The PTH receptor 1 (PTH1R) agonists teriparatide (TPTD) and abaloparatide (ABL) increase bone formation, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone strength by activating PTH receptors on osteoblasts. Romosozumab (ROMO), a humanized monoclonal antibody against sclerostin, dramatically but transiently stimulates bone formation and persistently reduces bone resorption. Osteoanabolic agents increase BMD and bone strength while being more effective than antiresorptives in reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women. However, direct comparisons of the antifracture benefits of osteoanabolic therapies are limited. In a direct comparison of TPTD and ABL, the latter resulted in greater BMD increases at the hip. While no differences in vertebral or non-vertebral fracture risk were observed between the two drugs, ABL led to a greater reduction of major osteoporotic fractures. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two agents except for hypercalcemia, which occurred more often with TPTD. No direct comparisons of fracture risk reduction between ROMO and the PTH1R agonists exist. Individual studies have shown greater increases in BMD and bone strength with ROMO compared with TPTD in treatment-naive women and in women previously treated with bisphosphonates. Some safety aspects, such as a history of tumor precluding the use of PTH1R agonists, and a history of major cardiovascular events precluding the use of ROMO, should also be considered when choosing between these agents. Finally, convenience of administration, reimbursement by national health systems and length of clinical experience may influence patient choice.

Utilization of Romosozumab in Primary Care.

Objective: The objective of the study is to highlight the role and safety of romosozumab in patients at high risk of fractures in primary care. Data Sources: A systemic database search of PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library was conducted for articles with keywords romosozumab, osteoporosis, and safety between inception and July 2022. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Phase 3 trials in patients with osteoporosis were included. Data results from these trials were utilized for assessment. Data Synthesis: Romosozumab decreased vertebral fracture incidence by 73% at 12 months (P < 0.001) in osteoporotic postmenopausal women compared with placebo. In an active-controlled fracture study in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture, a 48% lower risk of new vertebral fracture was observed at 24 months in the romosozumab-alendronate group (P < 0.001) compared with alendronate group. In a study comparing romosozumab with teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture, 2.6% of the mean percentage change from baseline in the total hip (TH) areal bone mineral density (BMD) was observed with romosozumab, while teriparatide led -0.6% of change (P < 0.0001). Romosozumab significantly increased the mean percentage change from baseline in the lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD than placebo in men with osteoporosis (LS, 12.1% vs 1.2%; TH, 2.5% vs -0.5%; P < 0.001). Serious cardiovascular events were observed in the romosozumab compared with alendronate (2.5% vs 1.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85-2.00) in postmenopausal women, and placebo (4.9% vs 2.5%) in men with osteoporosis. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review discusses the role of romosozumab in patients with high fracture risk and its safety in primary care. Conclusions: Primary care physicians should consider romosozumab for patients at high fracture risk who are intolerant or have not responded to other pharmacological treatment. Further studies are needed to clarify the safety of cardiovascular events.

A practical approach for anabolic treatment of bone fragility with romosozumab.

BACKGROUND: Romosozumab, a fully humanized anti-sclerostin-antibody, is a bone-builder stimulating osteoblasts and inhibiting osteoclast by activation of the canonical Wnt-beta catenin signaling. This unique mechanism of action has the potential to address unmet needs in osteoporosis management. METHODS: The multifaceted practical clinical issues related to romosozumab are discussed, especially focusing on the rationale of employing a sclerostin inhibitor to target bone fragility as first line or second line treatment in post-menopausal osteoporosis and in males at increased risk of fractures. RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials with several post-hoc analyses and more than ten observational studies have consistently demonstrated that romosozumab is effective in rapidly increasing bone mineral density (BMD) and decreasing risk of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures in post-menopausal women at very-high risk of fractures. In male osteoporosis, only data on BMD are available. Noteworthy, romosozumab was shown to be more effective and rapid than teriparatide in improving BMD, bone structure and strength at the hip, especially in women already treated with anti-resorptive drugs. Interestingly, even if romosozumab displays best results in treatment-naïve patients, its favourable effects on BMD were observed even in women previously treated with teriparatide or denosumab, although to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, romosozumab could be proposed as ideal drug in several clinical settings, such as non-fractured post-menopausal women at very-high risk of fractures, patients with recent hip fracture, patients non responder to bisphosphonates and short-term denosumab therapy.

Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of Anabolic Agents and Bisphosphonates in the Patients With Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the clinical efficacy of anabolic agents compared with bisphosphonates (BPs) for the incidence of new osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and fracture healing of OVF in the patients with OVF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for published RCTs till December 2022. The RCTs that recruited participants with osteoporosis at high-/very high-risk of fracture (a history of osteoporotic vertebral or hip fracture) or fresh OVF were included in this study. We assessed the risk of bias on every included RCTs, estimated relative risk (RR) for the incidence of new OVF and fracture healing of OVF, and overall certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed by Cochrane review manager (RevMan) ver. 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and GRADEpro/GDT were applied for evaluating methodological quality and overall certainty of evidence, respectively. RESULTS: Five hundred eighteen studies were screened, and finally 6 eligible RCTs were included in the analysis. In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents significantly reduced the incidence of new OVF (teriparatide and romosozumab vs. alendronate and risedronate [RR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.71; p < 0.00001; high-certainty of evidence]; teriparatide vs. risedronate [RR, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.0001; high-certainty of evidence]). However, there was no evidence of teriparatide compared to alendronate in fracture healing of OVF (RR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.60; p = 0.12; low-certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents showed a significant superiority for preventing new OVF than BPs, with no significant evidence for promoting fracture healing of OVF. However, considering small number of RCTs in this study, additional studies with large-scale data are required to obtain more robust evidences.