Romosozumab (sclerostin monoclonal antibody) versus teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis transitioning from oral bisphosphonate therapy : a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background: Previous bisphosphonate treatment attenuates the bone-forming effect of teriparatide. We compared the effects of 12 months of romosozumab (AMG 785), a sclerostin monoclonal antibody, versus teriparatide on bone mineral density (BMD) in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis transitioning from bisphosphonate therapy. Methods: This randomised, phase 3, open-label, active-controlled study was done at 46 sites in North America, Latin America, and Europe. We enrolled women (aged >= 55 to <= 90 years) with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had taken an oral bisphosphonate for at least 3 years before screening and alendronate the year before screening; an areal BMD T score of -2.5 or lower at the total hip, femoral neck, or lumbar spine; and a history of fracture. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive subcutaneous romosozumab (210 mg once monthly) or subcutaneous teriparatide (20 mu g once daily). The primary endpoint was percentage change from baseline in areal BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the total hip through month 12 (mean of months 6 and 12), which used a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures and represented the mean treatment effect at months 6 and 12. All randomised patients with a baseline measurement and at least one post-baseline measurement were included in the efficacy analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01796301. Findings: Between Jan 31, 2013, and April 29, 2014, 436 patients were randomly assigned to romosozumab (n=218) or teriparatide (n=218). 206 patients in the romosozumab group and 209 in the teriparatide group were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Through 12 months, the mean percentage change from baseline in total hip areal BMD was 2.6% (95% CI 2.2 to 3.0) in the romosozumab group and -0.6% (-1.0 to -0.2) in the teriparatide group; difference 3.2% (95% CI 2.7 to 3.8; p<0.0001). The frequency of adverse events was generally balanced between treatment groups. The most frequently reported adverse events were nasopharyngitis (28 [13%] of 218 in the romosozumab group vs 22 [10%] of 214 in the teriparatide group), hypercalcaemia (two [<1%] vs 22 [10%]), and arthralgia (22 [10%] vs 13 [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (8%) patients on romosozumab and in 23 (11%) on teriparatide; none were judged treatment related. There were six (3%) patients in the romosozumab group compared with 12 (6%) in the teriparatide group with adverse events leading to investigational product withdrawal. Interpretation: Transition to a bone-forming agent is common practice in patients treated with bisphosphonates, such as those who fracture while on therapy. In such patients, romosozumab led to gains in hip BMD that were not observed with teriparatide. These data could inform clinical decisions for patients at high risk of fracture

Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to &lt;90 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area and albuminuria (ratio of albumin [mg] to creatinine [g], &gt;300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of &lt;15 ml per minute per 1.73 m2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P&lt;0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P&lt;0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p&lt;0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (&lt;1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (&lt;1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

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

Kidney and Cardiovascular Effects of Canagliflozin According to Age and Sex: A Post Hoc Analysis of the CREDENCE Randomized Clinical Trial

Rationale &amp; Objective: It is unclear whether the effect of canagliflozin on adverse kidney and cardiovascular events in those with diabetic kid-ney disease varies by age and sex. We assessed the effects of canagliflozin among age group categories and between sexes in the Canagli-flozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) study.Study Design: Secondary analysis of a random-ized controlled trial. Setting &amp; Participants: Participants in the CREDENCE trial. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive canagliflozin 100 mg/d or placebo.Outcomes: Primary composite outcome of kid-ney failure, doubling of serum creatinine con-centration, or death due to kidney or cardiovascular disease. Prespecified secondary and safety outcomes were also analyzed. Out-comes were evaluated by age at baseline (&lt;60, 60-69, and &gt;_70 years) and sex in the intention-to-treat population using Cox regression models.Results: The mean age of the cohort was 63.0 &amp; PLUSMN; 9.2 years, and 34% were female. Older age and female sex were independently associ-ated with a lower risk of the composite of adverse kidney outcomes. There was no evidence that the effect of canagliflozin on the primary outcome (acomposite of kidney failure, a doubling of serum creatinine concentration, or death from kidney or cardiovascular causes) differed between age groups (HRs, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.52-0.87], 0.63 [0.4 8-0.82], and 0.89 [0.61-1.29] for ages &lt;60, 60-69, and &gt;_70 years, respectively; P = 0.3 for interaction) or sexes (HRs, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.5 4-0.95] and 0.69 [0.56-0.8 4] in women and men, respectively; P = 0.8 for interaction). No differences in safety outcomes by age group or sex were observed.Limitations: This was a post hoc analysis with multiple comparisons.Conclusions: Canagliflozin consistently reduced the relative risk of kidney events in people with diabetic kidney disease in both sexes and across age subgroups. As a result of greater background risk, the absolute reduction in adverse kidney outcomes was greater in younger participants.Funding: This post hoc analysis of the CREDENCE trial was not funded. The CREDENCE study was sponsored by Janssen Research and Development and was conducted collaboratively by the sponsor, an academic-led steering committee, and an academic research organization, George Clinical.Trial Registration: The original CREDENCE trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02065791

Effect of SGLT2 Inhibitors on Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation in Diabetic Kidney Disease: Results From the CREDENCE Trial and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Chronic kidney disease with reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate or elevated albuminuria increases risk for ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. This study assessed the effects of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on stroke and atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) from CREDENCE (Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes With Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation) and a meta-analysis of large cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of SGLT2i in type 2 diabetes mellitus.METHODS: CREDENCE randomized 4401 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease to canagliflozin or placebo. Post hoc, we estimated effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, stroke subtypes, and intermediate markers of stroke risk including AF/AFL. Stroke and AF/AFL data from 3 other completed large CVOTs and CREDENCE were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.RESULTS: In CREDENCE, 142 participants experienced a stroke during follow-up (10.9/1000 patient-years with canagliflozin, 14.2/1000 patient-years with placebo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.55-1.08]). Effects by stroke subtypes were: ischemic (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.61-1.28]; n=111), hemorrhagic (HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.19-1.32]; n=18), and undetermined (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.20-1.46]; n=17). There was no clear effect on AF/AFL (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.53-1.10]; n=115). The overall effects in the 4 CVOTs combined were: total stroke (HRpooled, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.82-1.12]), ischemic stroke (HRpooled, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.89-1.14]), hemorrhagic stroke (HRpooled, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.30-0.83]), undetermined stroke (HRpooled, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.49-1.51]), and AF/AFL (HRpooled, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.71-0.93]). There was evidence that SGLT2i effects on total stroke varied by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (P=0.01), with protection in the lowest estimated glomerular filtration rate (&lt;45 mL/min/1.73 m2]) subgroup (HRpooled, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.31-0.79]).CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no clear effect of SGLT2i on total stroke in CREDENCE or across trials combined, there was some evidence of benefit in preventing hemorrhagic stroke and AF/AFL, as well as total stroke for those with lowest estimated glomerular filtration rate. Future research should focus on confirming these data and exploring potential mechanisms. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02065791