Papel del Romosozumab en la práctica clínica a la luz de la evidencia

La osteoporosis es una enfermedad sistémica ósea caracterizada por un deterioro en la calidad y cantidad de hueso que determina un riesgo de fracturas. Existen múltiples opciones de tratamiento para disminuir este desenlace. Sin embargo, algunos pacientes las presentan a pesar del tratamiento y otros, tienen un riesgo muy alto de sufrirlas. En particular, los pacientes con fractura reciente, T-score <-3.0, fracturas durante el uso de glucocorticoides y pacientes mayores de 70 años tienen un mayor riesgo comparado con otros pacientes. En estos casos, las terapias osteoanabólicas brindan una mejor protección ósea y deben considerarse la primera línea de tratamiento. El descubrimiento del gen alterado de la esclerostina en la génesis de la enfermedad de Van Buchem y la esclerosteosis, permitió el desarrollo de un anticuerpo monoclonal contra esta proteína, el romosozumab. Este medicamento es un anabólico óseo que disminuye el riesgo de fracturas y es de uso recomendado en pacientes con osteoporosis de muy alto riesgo. Su uso es por 12 meses, aunque existe evidencia de re-tratamiento. Este medicamento brinda una oportunidad para los pacientes más difíciles de tratar o con osteoporosis de muy alto riesgo

Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab in the Treatment of Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis:Sixteen-Week Results From a Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients With Prior Inadequate Response to or Intolerance of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) and prior inadequate response to or intolerance of 1 or 2 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). Methods: In this phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult patients with an inadequate response to or intolerance of 1 or 2 TNFi and an established diagnosis of axial SpA (according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society [ASAS] criteria for radiographic axial SpA, with radiographic sacroiliitis defined according to the modified New York criteria and ≥1 feature of SpA) were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo or 80-mg subcutaneous ixekizumab every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or 4 weeks (IXEQ4W), with an 80-mg or 160-mg starting dose. The primary end point was 40% improvement in disease activity according to the ASAS criteria (ASAS40) at week 16. Secondary outcomes and safety were also assessed. Results: A total of 316 patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 104), IXEQ2W (n = 98), or IXEQ4W (n = 114). At week 16, significantly higher proportions of IXEQ2W patients (n = 30 [30.6%]; P = 0.003) or IXEQ4W patients (n = 29 [25.4%]; P = 0.017) had achieved an ASAS40 response versus the placebo group (n = 13 [12.5%]), with statistically significant differences reported as early as week 1 with ixekizumab treatment. Statistically significant improvements in disease activity, function, quality of life, and spinal magnetic resonance imaging–evident inflammation were observed after 16 weeks of ixekizumab treatment versus placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) with ixekizumab treatment were more frequent than with placebo. Serious AEs were similar across treatment arms. One death was reported (IXEQ2W group). Conclusion: Ixekizumab treatment for 16 weeks in patients with active radiographic axial SpA and previous inadequate response to or intolerance of 1 or 2 TNFi yields rapid and significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of radiographic axial SpA versus placebo

Risk Factors of Muscle Wasting in Women with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Relevance of the Persistent Failure of Conventional Combination Therapy

Background: Muscle wasting, also known as myopenia, is frequent in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To date, it is still unknown if the failure of pharmacologic therapies increases the risk of myopenia in RA. Objective: To identify if treatment failure with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) constitutes an independent risk factor of muscle wasting in women with RA. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. We included 277 women with RA. Assessments in RA patients included: clinical, epidemiological, and therapeutic variables. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was estimated by DXA, and myopenia was diagnosed if they had an SMI 2. Multivariable logistic regression models identified risk factors of myopenia. Results: Muscle wasting was observed in 28.2% of patients with RA. The risk factors of myopenia in RA were menopausal (OR: 4.45, 95% CI: 1.86 to 10.64) and failure of combined therapy with csDMARDs (OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.15 to 5.07). The increased body mass index was protective (OR:0.81, 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.87). Conclusions: Around one of four patients with RA presented muscle wasting. Muscle wasting is related to treatment failure of combined csDMARDs; other factors influencing the presence of muscle wasting is being postmenopausal, whereas, the body mass index was a protective factor

Ixekizumab for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-X): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Ixekizumab, a high-affinity interleukin-17A (IL-17A) monoclonal antibody, has previously shown efficacy in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (also known as ankylosing spondylitis). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab, an IL-17 inhibitor, in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Here, we report the primary results of COAST-X. Methods: COAST-X was a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study done at 107 sites in 15 countries in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with active axial spondyloarthritis without definite radiographic sacroiliitis (non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis), objective signs of inflammation (via MRI or C-reactive protein), and an inadequate response or intolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous 80 mg ixekizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W), or placebo. Changing background medications or switching to open-label ixekizumab Q2W, or both, was allowed after week 16 at investigator discretion. Primary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-40 (ASAS40) response (defined as an improvement of 40% or more and an absolute improvement from baseline of 2 units or more [range 0–10] in at least three of the four domains [patient global, spinal pain, function, and inflammation] without any worsening in the remaining one domain) at weeks 16 and 52. Patients who switched to open-label ixekizumab were imputed as non-responders in logistic regression analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02757352. Findings: Between Aug 2, 2016, and Jan 29, 2018, 303 patients were enrolled (105 to placebo, 96 to ixekizumab Q4W, and 102 to ixekizumab Q2W). Both primary endpoints were met: ASAS40 at week 16 (ixekizumab Q4W: 34 [35%] of 96, p=0·0094 vs placebo; ixekizumab Q2W: 41 [40%] of 102, p=0·0016; placebo: 20 [19%] of 105) and ASAS40 at week 52 (ixekizumab Q4W: 29 [30%] of 96, p=0·0045; ixekizumab Q2W: 32 [31%] of 102, p=0·0037; placebo: 14 [13%] of 105). 60 (57%) of 104 patients in the placebo group, 63 (66%) of 96 in the ixekizumab Q4W group, and 79 (77%) of 102 in the ixekizumab Q2W group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the ixekizumab groups were nasopharyngitis and injection site reaction. Of the treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest, there was one case of serious infection in the ixekizumab Q4W group. The frequency of serious adverse events was low (four [1%] of 302) and similar across the three groups. There were no malignancies or deaths. No new safety signals were identified. Interpretation: Ixekizumab was superior to placebo for improving signs and symptoms in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis at weeks 16 and 52. Reports of adverse events were similar to those of previous ixekizumab studies. Ixekizumab offers a potential therapeutic option for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis who had an inadequate response or were intolerant to NSAID therapy. Funding: Eli Lilly and Company

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis : Results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study

Background Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between −2·5 and −4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between −1·5 and −4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than −4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). Findings Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43–40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45–60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40–0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39–0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68–0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42–0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40–0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66–0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95–1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90–1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02–1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58–1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98–1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02–1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10–1·71; p=0·0051). Interpretation Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis