Long-term Safety and Tolerability of NKTR-181 in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain or Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Phase 3 Multicenter, Open-Label, 52-Week Study (SUMMIT-08 LTS).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety of NKTR-181, a novel mu-opioid receptor agonist that may have reduced human abuse potential, in patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain (CLBP) or other chronic noncancer pain (CNP). DESIGN: Uncontrolled, multicenter, open-label, long-term study of NKTR-181 comprised of three periods: screening (≤21 days), treatment (52 weeks), and safety follow-up (∼14 days after the last dose of NKTR-181). SETTING: Multicenter, long-term clinical research study. METHODS: NKTR-181 administered at doses of 100-600 mg twice daily (BID) was evaluated in opioid-naïve and opioid-experienced patients. Patients were enrolled de novo or following completion of the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 efficacy study (SUMMIT-07). Safety assessments included adverse event documentation, measurements of opioid withdrawal, and clinical laboratory tests. Effectiveness was assessed using the modified Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (mBPI-SF). RESULTS: The study enrolled 638 patients. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were constipation (26%) and nausea (12%). Serious TEAEs, reported in 5% of patients, were deemed by investigators to be unrelated to NKTR-181. There were no deaths or reported cases of respiratory depression. A sustained reduction in mBPI-SF pain intensity and pain interference from baseline to study termination was observed throughout treatment. Only 2% of patients discontinued NKTR-181 due to lack of efficacy, and 11% discontinued due to treatment-related AEs. NKTR-181 doses of up to 600 mg BID were generally well tolerated, and patients experienced low rates of opioid-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The study results support the premise that NKTR-181 is a safe and effective option for patients with moderate to severe CLBP or CNP.

Measuring Opioid Withdrawal in a Phase 3 Study of a New Analgesic, NKTR-181 (Oxycodegol), in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the SUMMIT-07 trial opioid withdrawal results of NKTR-181 (oxycodegol), a new molecular entity mu-opioid receptor agonist. DESIGN: Phase 3, enriched-enrollment, double-blind, randomized-withdrawal study in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). SETTING: Conducted in the United States at multiple sites. METHODS: SUMMIT-07 was comprised of five periods: screening; NKTR-181 open-label titration (100 to 400 mg twice daily); 12-week randomized, double-blind study drug (NKTR-181 or placebo); one-week study drug taper; and two-week safety follow-up. Permitted rescue medication included hydrocodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 300 mg (two tablets daily) for two weeks after randomization, then acetaminophen 1.0 gm daily for the remainder of the trial. Signs and symptoms of drug withdrawal were evaluated using the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS); Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS); Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS); and withdrawal-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 1,190 patients entering titration, one patient had moderate withdrawal (COWS score 13/48 maximum) three days after discontinuing NKTR-181. Of 610 patients randomized (N = 309, NKTR-181; N = 301, placebo), no COWS scores indicating withdrawal at a moderate level or greater (i.e., score ≥13) were observed at any time point. At day 8 after randomization, week 12, and the end of tapering, COWS scores indicating mild withdrawal (<13) were observed in seven (2.4%), one (0.4%), and one (0.5%) placebo patients, respectively, and three (1.0%), one (0.4%), and five (2.3%) NKTR-181 patients, respectively. Mean SOWS scores in both arms were ≤2.8 of 64 possible points at all time points. During the randomized period, of 35 events identified by MADDERS, adjudicators identified 20 possible "withdrawal" events (9 [2.9%] NKTR-181 and 11 [3.7%] placebo). CONCLUSIONS: NKTR-181 exhibited a low rate and severity of opioid withdrawal in SUMMIT-07 patients with CLBP.

Human Abuse Potential of Oral NKTR-181 in Recreational Opioid Users: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the human abuse potential, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of oral NKTR-181 (oxycodegol), a novel full mu-opioid receptor agonist, relative to oral oxycodone. DESIGN: This double-blind, randomized, single-dose, crossover human abuse potential study was conducted in healthy, adult, non-physically dependent recreational opioid users. SETTING: Inpatient clinical research site. SUBJECTS: Seventy-one subjects randomized (95.7% male, 65.2% African American, mean age = 31.7 years). METHODS: The primary objective was to compare two therapeutic doses of NKTR-181 (400 and 600 mg) with 40 and 60 mg of oxycodone and a supratherapeutic dose (1200 mg) of NKTR-181 with 60 mg of oxycodone using visual analog scale (VAS) ratings for Drug Liking "at this moment" (Drug Liking). Secondary objectives included VAS ratings for other subjective measures, and central nervous system (CNS) mu-opioid effects were assessed using pupillometry. Each subject received single oral doses of five treatments and matching placebo. RESULTS: Compared with 40 and 60 mg of oxycodone, the maximum mean Drug Liking score at 400 and 600 mg NKTR-181 was significantly lower, and the rate of onset and extent of Drug Liking for all NKTR-181 doses in the first two hours postdose were also significantly lower. Delayed attenuated Drug Liking and pupillary miosis response following administration of NKTR-181 vs oxycodone were consistent with slower NKTR-181 CNS entry kinetics and mu-opioid receptor binding. No adverse events were rated as severe, and somnolence and dizziness occurred more frequently when subjects received oxycodone. CONCLUSIONS: NKTR-181 at oral doses of 400 and 600 mg showed significantly fewer and less severe subjective effects accepted as representative of opioid abuse potential, such as lower peak Drug Liking in recreational opioid users, than 40 and 60 mg of oxycodone.

Human Abuse Potential of the New Opioid Analgesic Molecule NKTR-181 Compared with Oxycodone.

Objective: Evaluate the human abuse potential, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of NKTR-181, a novel mu-opioid agonist molecule, relative to oxycodone. Design: This randomized, single-center, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled five-period crossover study enrolled healthy, adult, non-physically dependent recreational opioid users. Setting: Inpatient clinical research site. Subjects: Forty-two randomized subjects (73.8% male, 81% white, mean age = 25 years). Methods: The primary objective was to evaluate single orally administered 100, 200, and 400 mg NKTR-181 doses in solution compared with 40 mg oxycodone and placebo solutions using the Drug Liking visual analog scale. Secondary measures included the Drug Effects Questionnaire, Addiction Research Center Inventory/Morphine Benzedrine Group Subscale, Price Value Assessment Questionnaire, Global Assessment of Overall Drug Liking, and Take Drug Again Assessment. Central nervous system mu-opioid effects were assessed using pupillometry. The study included qualifying and treatment phases. Subjects received each of the five treatments using a crossover design. Results: NKTR-181 at all dose levels had significantly lower Drug Liking Emax than oxycodone (P < 0.0001). Drug Liking scores for oxycodone increased rapidly within 15 minutes and peaked at approximately one hour postdose, whereas Drug Liking (and most secondary abuse potential measures) for all doses of NKTR-181 were comparable with placebo for at least the first hour. Only the 400 mg Drug Liking scores were minimally differentiated vs placebo from one and a half to four hours, but remained significantly lower than oxycodone (P < 0.003). NKTR-181 treatment-related adverse effects were mild and occurred at a lower rate compared with oxycodone. Conclusions: NKTR-181 demonstrated delayed onset of CNS effects and significantly lower abuse potential scores compared with oxycodone in recreational opioid users.

Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL) that blocks its binding to RANK, inhibiting the development and activity of osteoclasts, decreasing bone resorption, and increasing bone density. Given its unique actions, denosumab may be useful in the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: We enrolled 7868 women between the ages of 60 and 90 years who had a bone mineral density T score of less than -2.5 but not less than -4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 60 mg of denosumab or placebo subcutaneously every 6 months for 36 months. The primary end point was new vertebral fracture. Secondary end points included nonvertebral and hip fractures. RESULTS: As compared with placebo, denosumab reduced the risk of new radiographic vertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 2.3% in the denosumab group, versus 7.2% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.41; P<0.001)--a relative decrease of 68%. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 0.7% in the denosumab group, versus 1.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.97; P=0.04)--a relative decrease of 40%. Denosumab also reduced the risk of nonvertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 6.5% in the denosumab group, versus 8.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01)--a relative decrease of 20%. There was no increase in the risk of cancer, infection, cardiovascular disease, delayed fracture healing, or hypocalcemia, and there were no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw and no adverse reactions to the injection of denosumab. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab given subcutaneously twice yearly for 36 months was associated with a reduction in the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in women with osteoporosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00089791.)

SUMMIT-07: a randomized trial of NKTR-181, a new molecular entity, full mu-opioid receptor agonist for chronic low-back pain.

NKTR-181, a new molecular entity, mu-opioid receptor agonist with an inherently slow rate of central nervous system (CNS) entry, was designed to provide analgesia while reducing abuse potential. This phase 3, enriched-enrollment, randomized-withdrawal trial evaluated the analgesic efficacy, safety, and tolerability of NKTR-181 in patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP). Adults with moderate-to-severe CLBP refractory to nonopioid analgesics achieving an analgesic NKTR-181 dosage (100-400 mg twice daily) during the open-label titration period were randomized to continued NKTR-181 treatment, double-blind, or switched to placebo. The study was conducted at 55 sites in the United States. Of 1189 patients exposed to NKTR-181 during the titration period, 610 were randomized to NKTR-181 100 to 400 mg every 12 hours or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change in weekly pain score (scale, 0-10) at 12 weeks from randomization baseline. Secondary outcome measures included responder rates defined by ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in pain score from screening to 12 weeks. Among 610 randomized patients, the mean pain score decreased from 6.73 to 2.32 during open-label titration. After randomization, the least-squares mean change in pain score was +0.92 for NKTR-181 vs +1.46 for placebo (P = 0.002). The ≥30%-improvement responder rate of NKTR-181 vs placebo was 71.2% vs 57.1% (P < 0.001), and the ≥50%-improvement responder rate was 51.1% vs 37.9% (P = 0.001). NKTR-181 was well tolerated with a low incidence (<3%) of CNS-related adverse events during the randomized treatment phase. In patients with moderate-to-severe CLBP, NKTR-181 demonstrated significant analgesic efficacy and a favorable safety/tolerability profile, with a low incidence of CNS adverse events.

Assessment of potentially abuse-related events in two phase 3 studies of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, using the MADDERS® system (Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System).

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the abuse potential of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, in two phase 3 clinical trials using a newly developed reporting system: the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS®).Methods: SUMMIT-07 was an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal study that examined the safety and efficacy of NKTR-181 across 12 weeks in opioid-naïve subjects with chronic low back pain. SUMMIT-LTS was a 52 week open-label study in opioid-naïve and experienced subjects with chronic low back pain or noncancer pain rolled over from SUMMIT-07 or enrolled de novo. System evaluations were triggered by adverse events of interest and drug accountability discrepancies signaling potentially abuse-related events. Each event was assigned a primary classification and supplementary classification(s) by investigators and by a blinded, independent committee of substance abuse experts (adjudicators). At the final study visit, investigators administered a survey to subjects to identify overlooked events of interest.Results: Seventy-nine (6.6%) of 1189 subjects were associated with 86 events in SUMMIT-07 and 51 (8.0%) of 638 subjects were associated with 59 events in SUMMIT-LTS. Most events were attributed to "Withdrawal" and, primarily in SUMMIT-07, "Therapeutic Error" (unintentional overuse) or "Misuse" (intentional overuse for a therapeutic purpose) of study medication. Adjudicators identified five possible "Abuse" events (three NKTR-181, two placebo) in SUMMIT-07 and four possible "Abuse" events (all NKTR-181) in SUMMIT-LTS.Conclusions: The MADDERS® system discerns potentially abuse-related events and identified low rates of withdrawal and a low risk of abuse potential, diversion or addiction associated with NKTR-181 in phase 3 trials.

Two-year treatment with denosumab (AMG 162) in a randomized phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with low BMD.

UNLABELLED: Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody to RANKL. In this randomized, placebo-controlled study of 412 postmenopausal women with low BMD, subcutaneous denosumab given every 3 or 6 mo was well tolerated, increased BMD, and decreased bone resorption markers for up to 24 mo. Continued study of denosumab is warranted in the treatment of low BMD in postmenopausal women. INTRODUCTION: Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits RANKL, a key mediator of osteoclastogenesis and bone remodeling. This prespecified exploratory analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of denosumab through 24 mo in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low BMD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred twelve postmenopausal women with lumbar spine BMD T-scores of -1.8 to -4.0 or femoral neck/total hip T-scores of -1.8 to -3.5 were randomly assigned to receive double-blind, subcutaneous injections of placebo; denosumab 6, 14, or 30 mg every 3 mo; denosumab 14, 60, 100, or 210 mg every 6 mo; or open-label oral alendronate 70 mg once weekly. Outcome measures included BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, distal one-third radius, and total body; bone turnover markers; and safety. RESULTS: Denosumab increased BMD at all measured skeletal sites and decreased concentrations of bone turnover markers compared with placebo at 24 mo. At the lumbar spine, BMD increases with denosumab ranged from 4.13% to 8.89%. BMD changes with denosumab 30 mg every 3 mo and > or =60 mg every 6 mo were similar to, or in some cases greater than, with alendronate. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the placebo, denosumab, and alendronate treatment groups. Exposure-adjusted adverse events over 2 yr of treatment were similar to those reported during the first year of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In these postmenopausal women with low BMD, treatment with denosumab for 2 yr was associated with sustained increases in BMD and reductions in bone resorption markers compared with placebo.

Skeletal effects of raloxifene after 8 years: results from the continuing outcomes relevant to Evista (CORE) study.

UNLABELLED: In the CORE breast cancer trial of 4011 women continuing from MORE, the incidence of nonvertebral fractures at 8 years was similar between placebo and raloxifene 60 mg/day. CORE had limitations for assessing fracture risk. In a subset of 386 women, 7 years of raloxifene treatment significantly increased lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD compared from the baseline of MORE. INTRODUCTION: The multicenter, double-blind Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial assessed the effects of raloxifene on breast cancer for 4 additional years beyond the 4-year Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) osteoporosis treatment trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In CORE, placebo-treated women from MORE continued with placebo (n = 1286), whereas those previously given raloxifene (60 or 120 mg/day) received raloxifene 60 mg/day (n = 2725). As a secondary endpoint, new nonvertebral fractures were analyzed as time-to-first event in 4011 postmenopausal women at 8 years. A substudy assessed lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD at 7 years, with the primary analysis based on 386 women (127 placebo, 259 raloxifene) who did not take other bone-active agents from the fourth year of MORE and who were > or =80% compliant with study medication in CORE. RESULTS: The risk of at least one new nonvertebral fracture was similar in the placebo (22.9%) and raloxifene (22.8%) groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; Bonferroni-adjusted CI, 0.82, 1.21). The incidence of at least one new nonvertebral fracture at six major sites (clavicle, humerus, wrist, pelvis, hip, lower leg) was 17.5% in both groups. Posthoc Poisson analyses, which account for multiple events, showed no overall effect on nonvertebral fracture risk, and a decreased risk at six major nonvertebral sites in women with prevalent vertebral fractures (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63, 0.96). At 7 years after MORE randomization, the differences in mean lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD with raloxifene were 1.7% (p = 0.30) and 2.4% (p = 0.045), respectively, from placebo. Compared with MORE baseline, after 7 years, raloxifene treatment significantly increased lumbar spine (4.3% from baseline, 2.2% from placebo) and femoral neck BMD (1.9% from baseline, 3.0% from placebo). BMDs were significantly increased from MORE baseline at all time-points at both sites with raloxifene. CONCLUSION: Raloxifene therapy had no effect on nonvertebral fracture risk after 8 years, although CORE had limitations for fracture risk assessment. BMD increases were maintained after 7 years of raloxifene.

Effects of raloxifene and low-dose simvastatin coadministration on plasma lipids in postmenopausal women with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Abstract Raloxifene and low-dose simvastatin can each reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol without affecting high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. The objective of this double-blind, 12-week study is to determine whether raloxifene and simvastatin coadministration gives added benefit beyond either monotherapy in affecting fasting lipoproteins and apolipoproteins. Ninety-five postmenopausal women with moderately elevated LDL cholesterol (mean, 146 mg/dL) were randomized to placebo, raloxifene 60 mg/d, simvastatin 10 mg/d, or raloxifene 60 mg/d coadministered with simvastatin 10 mg/d. Raloxifene, simvastatin, and coadministration therapy reduced mean LDL cholesterol by 10.5%, 23.3%, and 31.0% from baseline, respectively ( P < .003 vs baseline; P < .02 vs placebo), and mean apolipoprotein B by 10.4%, 24.2%, and 30.0% from baseline, respectively ( P < .003 vs baseline; P < .02 vs placebo). Each active treatment decreased non-HDL cholesterol compared with placebo ( P < .01). Coadministration treatment was more effective than either monotherapy in reducing LDL cholesterol ( P < .05). Coadministration treatment reduced mean apolipoprotein B ( P < .001) and non-HDL cholesterol ( P < .001) when compared with raloxifene, but was not significantly different when compared with simvastatin. Coadministration therapy increased HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A1 levels compared with placebo ( P < .02). No significant effect on triglycerides, very low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and lipoprotein (a) occurred with any active treatment. Raloxifene, simvastatin, and the coadministration therapy were generally well tolerated with clinical adverse effects similar to placebo. No woman had clinically significant elevated liver function tests requiring drug discontinuation. Further data on safety and lipid-lowering effects are needed before raloxifene and statin coadministration may be considered as therapeutic interventions for treating postmenopausal women to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III treatment guidelines.

A 24-month study evaluating the efficacy and safety of denosumab for the treatment of men with low bone mineral density: results from the ADAMO trial.

CONTEXT: One in 4 men in the United States aged >50 years will have an osteoporosis-related fracture. Fewer data are available on osteoporosis treatment in men than in women. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate denosumab therapy in men with low bone mineral density (BMD). DESIGN: This was a phase 3 study with 2 treatment periods: a previously reported 12-month double-blind, placebo-controlled phase and a 12-month open-label phase. SETTING: This was a multicenter study conducted in North America and Europe. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 228 men entered the open-label phase and 219 completed the study. INTERVENTION: Men from the original denosumab (long-term) and placebo (crossover) groups received 60 mg of denosumab sc every 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BMD, serum collagen type I C-telopeptide, and safety were measured. RESULTS: During the open-label phase, continued BMD increases occurred with long-term denosumab treatment (2.2% lumbar spine, 0.9% total hip, 1.3% femoral neck, 1.3% trochanter, and 0.2% 1/3 radius), resulting in cumulative 24-month gains from baseline of 8.0%, 3.4%, 3.4%, 4.6%, and 0.7%, respectively (all P < .01). The crossover group showed BMD gains after 12 months of denosumab treatment similar to those of the long-term denosumab group during the first treatment year. Significant reductions in serum collagen type I C-teleopeptide were observed after denosumab administration. Adverse event rates were similar between groups, and no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In men with low BMD, denosumab treatment for a second year continued to increase BMD, maintained reductions in bone resorption, and was well tolerated. BMD increased in men initiating denosumab during the second year. These effects were similar to those previously seen in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy.

Influence of raloxifene on the efficacy of an estradiol-releasing ring for treating vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential interaction of oral raloxifene 60 mg/day on the efficacy of a low-dose, estradiol-releasing vaginal ring used to treat signs and symptoms of vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel treatment trial of raloxifene and placebo with open-label 17beta-estradiol ring. At 10 sites in the United States, 91 postmenopausal women with at least two signs of vaginal atrophy were treated with a 17beta-estradiol ring and randomized to receive concomitant raloxifene 60 mg/day or placebo for 6 months. Efficacy of treatments was evaluated by comparing investigator assessments of genitourinary atrophic signs, vaginal maturation value, and participant assessments of vaginal symptoms at 6 months. Other measures included rate and severity of hot flashes and assessment of sexual function. Uterine safety was assessed by endometrial biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound. RESULTS: In women treated with a 17beta-estradiol ring, both the raloxifene and placebo treatment groups showed improvements in signs and symptoms of vaginal atrophy at 6 months, with no significant differences in degree of improvement between groups. There were no signs of endometrial proliferation in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant administration of raloxifene does not alter the effects of the 17beta-estradiol ring on alleviating signs and symptoms of genitourinary atrophy in postmenopausal women.

Effect of raloxifene on the response to conjugated estrogen vaginal cream or nonhormonal moisturizers in postmenopausal vaginal atrophy.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of raloxifene on the response to conjugated estrogen cream or nonhormonal moisturizer in postmenopausal women with preexisting signs of vaginal atrophy. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with preexisting and untreated vaginal atrophy were enrolled in this parallel, placebo-controlled, randomized study. A total of 187 women were randomized to four treatment groups: daily oral raloxifene (60 mg per day) or a placebo in a double-blind manner plus one application of conjugated estrogen cream (0.5 g) or one applicator full of nonhormonal moisturizer, open label. The conjugated estrogen cream or nonhormonal moisturizer was applied daily for the first 2 weeks, and then twice weekly thereafter for 3 months. Efficacy of treatment regimens on signs and symptoms of vaginal atrophy was evaluated by monitoring objective and subjective parameters. RESULTS: Signs and symptoms of vaginal atrophy improved in all four treatment groups. Raloxifene did not diminish the magnitude of improvement when administered with either vaginal preparation. Conjugated estrogen cream produced a statistically greater improvement in signs (P <.05) but not in individual symptoms or overall satisfaction relative to nonhormonal moisturizer. CONCLUSION: Postmenopausal women with evidence of preexisting vaginal atrophy may use either low-dose conjugated estrogen cream or nonhormonal moisturizer to treat the atrophy concurrently with raloxifene (60 mg per day).

Transition from estrogen-progestin to raloxifene in postmenopausal women: effect on vasomotor symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To compare vasomotor symptoms after transition from estrogen-progestin therapy to raloxifene 60 mg/d with and without a placebo washout. METHODS: Postmenopausal women currently taking continuous combined estrogen-progestin therapy (conjugated equine estrogen, 0.625 mg/medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 or 5 mg) daily for 5 or more months were enrolled. Women were randomized to 1 of 4 blinded regimens: 1) 12 weeks estrogen-progestin; 2) 12 weeks placebo; 3) 4 weeks placebo, then 8 weeks raloxifene; or 4) 12 weeks raloxifene. For the final 36 weeks, all subjects received raloxifene. Vasomotor symptoms were assessed by patient diaries. RESULTS: A total of 266 women (mean age 57.5) were enrolled. Mean hot flush frequency at baseline was approximately 1 per week in the entire population, with 16% of women reporting hot flushes. Mean frequency and severity of hot flushes during the first 12 weeks of the study were statistically greater in the 3 groups transitioned off estrogen-progestin (range of hot flushes per week: 4 weeks, 11-12; 8 weeks, 18-24; 12 weeks, 13-16), as compared with those continuing estrogen-progestin, with no difference between these 3 groups (P> or =.1). Approximately 50-70% of these women reported hot flushes, generally rated as mild to moderate by participants, after estrogen-progestin discontinuation. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of women discontinuing estrogen-progestin experience hot flushes. Raloxifene does not appear to increase the frequency or severity of vasomotor symptoms in women discontinuing estrogen-progestin more than that observed with placebo treatment after estrogen-progestin discontinuation. Transition from estrogen-progestin to raloxifene with no washout period therefore may be acceptable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I

Effects of oral raloxifene on serum estradiol levels and other markers of estrogenicity.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of raloxifene hydrochloride, 60 mg/d, on serum levels of E(2), estrone, sex steroid-binding globulin, thyroxine-binding globulin, and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in postmenopausal women. DESIGN: Randomized placebo-controlled study at 16 centers in the United States. PATIENT(S): Ninety three women 42 to 80 years of age who were at least 2 years postmenopausal. INTERVENTION(S): Raloxifene (n = 47) or placebo (n = 46) for 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Levels of E(2), estrone, sex steroid-binding globulin, thyroxine-binding globulin, and FSH were measured at baseline and after 3 months of therapy. RESULT(S): Raloxifene increased serum levels of sex steroid-binding globulin and thyroxine-binding globulin and decreased FSH levels compared with placebo. Levels of E(2) and estrone were unaffected. CONCLUSION(S): In postmenopausal women, raloxifene (60 mg/d) did not increase serum estrogen levels; however, it increased levels of sex steroid-binding globulin and thyroxine-binding globulin and decreased FSH levels.

Antiresorptive treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: review of randomized clinical studies and rationale for the Evista alendronate comparison (EVA) trial.

Standard pharmacological antiresorptive therapy for the prevention and/or treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis now consists of four categories of drugs: estrogens, a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), bisphosponates, and calcitonin. All of these drugs have been studied in randomized controlled trials, but meaningful comparisons of the efficacy of drugs have been difficult due to differences in baseline risks for fracture and differences in study design, including calcium and vitamin D supplementation, definition of fracture, and discontinuation rates. The current paper reviews results from pivotal studies of antiresorptive therapies with fracture as a primary endpoint, as well as head-to-head trials comparing these therapies using surrogate markers of fracture risk, and introduces the first head-to-head trial with fracture as a primary endpoint. The Evista Alendronate Comparison (EVA) trial, a multi-center, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial with two active treatment arms is currently underway to compare directly the osteoporotic fracture risk reduction efficacy of raloxifene and alendronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis as defined by bone mineral density. The results from this trial will permit more informed judgment by practitioners and provider groups concerning the relative clinical utility of these two drugs.

RANKL inhibition with denosumab does not influence 3-year progression of aortic calcification or incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and high cardiovascular risk.

Atherosclerosis and osteoporosis are chronic diseases that progress with age, and studies suggest aortic calcification, an indicator of atherosclerosis, is inversely associated with bone mineral density (BMD). The osteoprotegerin (OPG)/receptor activator of NF-κB (RANK)/RANK ligand (RANKL) system has been proposed as a shared regulatory system for bone and vasculature. Denosumab (DMAb), a monoclonal antibody against RANKL, improved BMD and reduced fracture risk in the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial. We evaluated whether or not treatment with DMAb influenced progression of aortic calcification (AC) and incidence of cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. We included 2363 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (1142 placebo, 1221 DMAb), selected from 7808 participants in the FREEDOM trial (3906 placebo, 3902 DMAb), at high risk of CV events according to modified Raloxifene Use for the Heart (RUTH) criteria. CV adverse events were reported by participants. AC scores were assessed using a semiquantitative method from lateral spine X-rays. Change in AC score from baseline to 12 (n = 1377), 24 (n = 1231), and 36 months (n = 1045) was calculated as AC score at follow-up minus AC score at baseline. AC progression was defined as change in AC score >0. Baseline characteristics, CV risk factors, and AC scores were similar between treatment groups. Mean age of participants was 74 years (range, 60-90), 88% were white, and 77% had AC score >0 at baseline. Frequency of AC progression over 3 years did not differ between women in placebo (22%) and DMAb (22%) groups (p = 0.98). AC progression did not differ between treatment groups when analyzed by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate or by baseline AC scores. Frequency of CV adverse events did not differ between placebo (40%) and DMAb (38%) groups (p = 0.26). In conclusion, DMAb treatment had no effect on progression of AC or incidence of CV adverse events compared to placebo.

Denosumab compared with ibandronate in postmenopausal women previously treated with bisphosphonate therapy: a randomized open-label trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab to ibandronate in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD) previously treated with a bisphosphonate. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label study, postmenopausal women received 60 mg denosumab subcutaneously every 6 months (n=417) or 150 mg ibandronate orally every month (n=416) for 12 months. End points included percentage change from baseline in total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD at month 12 and percentage change from baseline in serum C-telopeptide at months 1 and 6 in a substudy. RESULTS: At month 12, significantly greater BMD gains from baseline were observed with denosumab compared with ibandronate at the total hip (2.3% compared with 1.1%), femoral neck (1.7% compared with 0.7%), and lumbar spine (4.1% compared with 2.0%; treatment difference P<.001 at all sites). At month 1, median change in serum C-telopeptide from baseline was -81.1% with denosumab and -35.0% with ibandronate (P<.001); the treatment difference remained significant at month 6 (P<.001). Adverse events occurred in 245 (59.6%) denosumab-treated women and 230 (56.1%) ibandronate-treated women (P=.635). The incidence of serious adverse events was 9.5% for denosumab-treated women and 5.4% for ibandronate-treated women (P=.046). No clustering of events in any organ system accounted for the preponderance of these reports. The incidence rates of serious adverse events involving infection and malignancy were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In postmenopausal women previously treated with a bisphosphonate and low BMD, denosumab treatment resulted in greater BMD increases than ibandronate at all measured sites. No new safety risks with denosumab treatment were identified.

Effect of denosumab treatment on the risk of fractures in subgroups of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Denosumab reduces the risk of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Previous trials suggest that the efficacy of antiresorptives on fractures might differ by patients' characteristics, such as age, bone mineral density (BMD), and fracture history. In the FREEDOM study, 7808 women aged 60 to 90 years with osteoporosis were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of denosumab (60 mg) or placebo every 6 months for 3 years. New vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were radiologically confirmed. Subgroup analyses described in this article were prospectively planned before study unblinding to evaluate the effect of denosumab on new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures across various subgroups. Compared with placebo, denosumab decreased the risk of new vertebral fractures in the overall study population over 3 years. This effect did not significantly differ for any of the nine subgroups analyzed (p > 0.09 for all potential interactions). Denosumab also reduced all nonvertebral fractures by 20% in the full study cohort over 3 years. This risk reduction was statistically significant in women with a baseline femoral neck BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 but not in those with a T-score > -2.5; in those with a body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m(2) but not ≥ 25 kg/m(2); and in those without but not with a prevalent vertebral fracture. These differential treatment effects were not explained by differences in BMD responses to denosumab. Denosumab 60 mg administered every 6 months for 3 years in women with osteoporosis reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures to a similar degree in all subgroups. The effect of denosumab on nonvertebral fracture risk differed by femoral neck BMD, BMI, and prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effects of denosumab for the treatment of men with low bone mineral density.

CONTEXT: Men with low bone mineral density (BMD) were treated with denosumab. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to investigate the effects of denosumab compared with placebo in men with low BMD after 1 yr of treatment. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: This was a placebo-controlled, phase 3 study to investigate the efficacy and safety of denosumab 60 mg every 6 months vs. placebo in men with low BMD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine (LS) BMD at month 12. RESULTS: Of the 242 randomized subjects (mean age 65 yr), 228 (94.2%) completed 1 yr of denosumab therapy. After 12 months, denosumab resulted in BMD increases of 5.7% at the LS, 2.4% at the total hip, 2.1% at the femoral neck, 3.1% at the trochanter, and 0.6% at the one third radius (adjusted P ≤ 0.0144 for BMD percent differences at all sites compared with placebo). Sensitivity analyses done by controlling for baseline covariates (such as baseline testosterone levels, BMD T-scores, and 10-yr osteoporotic fracture risk) demonstrated that the results of the primary endpoint were robust. Subgroup analyses indicate that treatment with denosumab was effective across a spectrum of clinical situations. Treatment with denosumab significantly reduced serum CTX levels at d 15 (adjusted P < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: One year of denosumab therapy in men with low BMD was well tolerated and resulted in a reduction in bone resorption and significant increases in BMD at all skeletal sites assessed.