In the recent Bone Key Reports review, it was noted that combinations of anabolic and antiresorptive agents have potential to improve bone density and bone strength more than either agent as ...monotherapy. Small clinical trials have been performed evaluating combinations of PTH1-34 (TPTD) or PTH1-84 (PTH) with a variety of antiresorptives including hormone/estrogen therapy, raloxifene, alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Most of the studies evaluate dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry outcomes, and a few trials report volumetric mineral density (BMD) by quantitative computed tomography, followed by finite element modeling to calculate bone strength. None of the studies has been powered to assess differences in fracture incidence between combination therapy and monotherapy. BMD outcomes vary based on the timing of introduction of the anabolic agent (before, during, or after antiresorptive treatment), as well as the specific anabolic and antiresorptive used. Furthermore, effects of combination therapies are site-dependent. The most consistent effect of combining antiresorptive agents with PTH or TPTD is a superior hip BMD outcome compared with TPTD/PTH alone. This is most evident when TPTD/PTH is combined with a bisphosphonate or denosumab. In contrast to findings in the hip, in the majority of studies, there is no benefit to spine BMD with combination therapy vs monotherapy. The 2 exceptions to this are when TPTD is combined with denosumab and when TPTD is given as monotherapy first for 9 months, followed by the addition of alendronate (with continuation administration of TPTD). Based on what we now know, in patients previously treated with bisphosphonates who suffer hip fractures or who have very low or declining hip BMD, strong consideration should be given to starting TPTD and continuing a potent antiresorptive agent (possibly switching to zoledronic acid or denosumab) to improve hip BMD and strength quickly. Furthermore, in treatment naïve individuals with very severe osteoporosis, such as those with spine and hip fractures, combination therapy with TPTD and denosumab or TPTD followed by combination treatment with a potent bisphosphonate or denosumab should be considered to maximize early increases in BMD throughout the skeleton (Cosman BoneKEy Rep 3, 2014)
1
.
Romosozumab binds sclerostin, increases bone formation, and decreases bone resorption. Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were assigned to romosozumab or placebo for 1 year, followed by 1 year of ...denosumab. Romosozumab was associated with lower vertebral and clinical fracture risk.
Osteoporosis can lead to fragility fractures, which result in clinical burden and increased mortality.
1
,
2
Even after a fracture, fewer than 25% of patients receive pharmacologic treatment for osteoporosis.
3
–
5
After the discovery that sclerostin deficiency causes rare genetic conditions that are characterized by high bone mass and resistance to fracture,
6
,
7
sclerostin became a therapeutic target for the treatment of osteoporosis. Sclerostin, a negative regulator of bone formation that is secreted by osteocytes,
8
inhibits Wnt signaling, down-regulating this stimulus for osteoblast development and function.
9
Romosozumab (Amgen and UCB Pharma) is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, with . . .
Summary
To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or ...denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence.
Introduction
Teriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively).
Methods
We evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available).
Results
With 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab).
Conclusion
In this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence.
Purpose of Review
There are now three anabolic agents available for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture. The purpose of this review is to supply a rationale to aid in ...determining which agent should be used in which clinical settings.
Recent Findings
Studies over the last decade have shown that anabolic agents produce faster and larger effects against fracture than antiresorptive agents. Furthermore, trials evaluating anabolic antiresorptive treatment sequences have shown that anabolic first treatment strategies produce the greatest benefits to bone density, particularly in the hip region. However, there are no head-to-head evaluations of the three anabolic therapies with fracture outcomes or bone density, and these studies are not likely to occur. How to decide which agent to use at which time in a woman’s life is unknown.
Summary
We review the most significant clinical trials of anabolic agents which have assessed fracture, areal or volumetric bone density, microarchitecture, and/or bone strength, as well as information gleaned from histomorphometry studies to provide a rationale for consideration of one agent vs another in various clinical settings. There is no definitive answer to this question; all three agents increase bone strength and reduce fracture risk rapidly. Since the postmenopausal lifespan could be as long as 40–50 years, it is likely that very high-risk women will utilize different anabolic agents at different points in their lives.
Abstract
Purpose
In women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, we investigated the effects of 24 months of treatment with alendronate (ALN) following 18 months of treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) or ...placebo (PBO).
Methods
Women who completed ABL or PBO treatment in ACTIVE were eligible to receive up to 24 months of ALN. We evaluated the incidence of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures and changes in bone mineral density (BMD) during the entire 43-month period from ACTIVE baseline to the end of ACTIVExtend and for the 24-month extension only.
Results
Five hundred fifty-eight women from ACTIVE’s ABL group and 581 from its PBO group (92% of ABL and PBO completers) were enrolled. During the full 43-month treatment period, 0.9% of evaluable women in the ABL/ALN group experienced a new radiographic vertebral fracture vs 5.6% of women in the PBO/ALN group, an 84% relative risk reduction (RRR, P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier incidence rates for other reported fracture types were significantly lower for ABL/ALN vs PBO/ALN (all P < 0.05). Gains in BMD achieved during ACTIVE were further increased during ACTIVExtend. For ACTIVExtend only, RRR for vertebral fractures was 87% with ABL/ALN vs PBO/ALN (P = 0.001). Adverse events were similar between groups. A supplemental analysis for regulatory authorities found no hip fractures in the ABL/ALN group vs five in the PBO/ALN group.
Conclusions
Eighteen months of ABL followed by 24 months of ALN reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, clinical, and major osteoporotic fractures and increased BMD. Sequential ABL followed by ALN appears to be an effective treatment option for postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporosis-related fractures.
In ACTIVExtend, reductions in fracture risk and increases in BMD achieved with 18 months of abaloparatide for postmenopausal osteoporosis were sustained through 24 months of subsequent alendronate.
PDF
