Femoral strength in osteoporotic women treated with teriparatide or alendronate

To gain insight into the clinical effect of teriparatide and alendronate on the hip, we performed non-linear finite element analysis of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scans from 48 women who had participated in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the effects of 18-month treatment of teriparatide 20 μg/d or alendronate 10 mg/d. The QCT scans, obtained at baseline, 6, and 18 months, were analyzed for volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) of trabecular bone, the peripheral bone (defined as all the cortical bone plus any endosteal trabecular bone within 3 mm of the periosteal surface), and the integral bone (both trabecular and peripheral), and for overall femoral strength in response to a simulated sideways fall. At 18 months, we found in the women treated with teriparatide that trabecular volumetric BMD increased versus baseline (+ 4.6%, p < 0.001), peripheral volumetric BMD decreased (− 1.1%, p < 0.05), integral volumetric BMD (+ 1.0%, p = 0.38) and femoral strength (+ 5.4%, p = 0.06) did not change significantly, but the ratio of strength to integral volumetric BMD ratio increased (+ 4.0%, p = 0.04). An increase in the ratio of strength to integral volumetric BMD indicates that overall femoral strength, compared to baseline, increased more than did integral density. For the women treated with alendronate, there were small ( < 1.0%) but non-significant changes compared to baseline in all these parameters. The only significant between-treatment difference was in the change in trabecular volumetric BMD (p < 0.005); related, we also found that, for a given change in peripheral volumetric BMD, femoral strength increased more for teriparatide than for alendronate (p = 0.02). We conclude that, despite different compartmental volumetric BMD responses for these two treatments, we could not detect any overall difference in change in femoral strength between the two treatments, although femoral strength increased more than integral volumetric BMD after treatment with teriparatide

FRAX and the effect of teriparatide on vertebral and non-vertebral fracture

Background: daily administration of 20µg or 40µg teriparatide has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fracture compared with placebo. The aim of the present study was to evaluate fracture risk assessed at baseline using the FRAX® tool and to determine the efficacy of teriparatide as a function of baseline fracture risk. Methods: 1637 postmenopausal women in the pivotal phase 3 trial, randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=544), teriparatide 20 ?g per day (n=541) or teriparatide 40 ?g per day (n=552), were studied. Baseline clinical risk factors were entered into country-specific FRAX models to compute the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures with or without input of femoral neck BMD. Because there was no difference in effect of 20 and 40?g teriparatide daily on fracture occurrence, the two active groups were merged. The interaction between probability of a major fracture and treatment efficacy was examined by Poisson regression. Results: the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (with BMD) ranged from 2.2-67.2%. Treatment with teriparatide was associated with a 37% decrease in all non-vertebral fractures (95% CI:10-56 %) and a 56% decrease in low energy non-vertebral fractures (95% CI:24-75%) compared with placebo. The risk of morphometric vertebral fractures decreased significantly by 66% (95% CI:50-77%). Hazard ratios for the effect of teriparatide on the fracture outcome did not change significantly with increasing fracture probability (p&gt;0.30). Similar findings were noted for the interaction when BMD was excluded from the FRAX model, or when probability of hip fracture was used as the marker of baseline risk. Conclusion: we conclude that teriparatide significantly decreases the risk of non-vertebral and morphometric vertebral fractures in women by a similar extent, irrespective of baseline fracture probability<br/

Sustained vertebral fracture risk reduction after withdrawal of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Teriparatide (recombinant human parathyroid hormone [1-34]) reduces fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. We assessed the safety and incidence of new vertebral fractures after withdrawal of teriparatide. METHODS: This study is a follow-up to the Fracture Prevention Trial (FPT), a randomized, placebo-controlled study of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with teriparatide (20 or 40 microg) once daily for a mean of 18 months. More than 90% of the women remaining at the end of the FPT continued into the follow-up study (n = 1262). Patients and investigators were unblinded to original treatment group assignment. Women were treated according to standard clinical practice, including elective use of osteoporosis drugs. New vertebral fractures were determined by semiquantitative scoring of lateral thoracic lumbar spine radiographs 18 months after the end of the FPT. RESULTS: During the follow-up study, the reduction in fracture risk associated with previous treatment with teriparatide, 20 and 40 microg, was 41% (P = .004) and 45% (P = .001), respectively, vs placebo. The absolute reduction from the FPT baseline to the 18-month follow-up visit was 13% for both doses. Osteoporosis drugs were used by 47% of women during follow-up, with greater use in the former placebo group (P = .04); nevertheless, persistent fracture protection of previous teriparatide therapy was evident. Post hoc analysis also suggests that teriparatide treatment substantially reduced the increased risk of subsequent fracture in women who sustained a fracture during the FPT (P = .05). CONCLUSION: Vertebral fracture risk reduction by teriparatide administration persists for at least 18 months after discontinuation of therapy

Early Effects of Abaloparatide on Bone Formation and Resorption Indices in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis

Anabolic osteoporosis drugs improve bone mineral density by increasing bone formation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early effects of abaloparatide on indices of bone formation and to assess the effect of abaloparatide on modeling-based formation (MBF), remodeling-based formation (RBF), and overflow MBF (oMBF) in transiliac bone biopsies. In this open-label, single-arm study, 23 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were treated with 80 μg abaloparatide daily. Subjects received double fluorochrome labels before treatment and before biopsy collection at 3 months. Change in dynamic histomorphometry indices in four bone envelopes were assessed. Median mineralizing surface per unit of bone surface (MS/BS) increased to 24.7%, 48.7%, 21.4%, and 16.3% of total surface after 3 months of abaloparatide treatment, representing 5.5-, 5.2-, 2.8-, and 12.9-fold changes, on cancellous, endocortical, intracortical, and periosteal surfaces (p \u3c.001 versus baseline for all). Mineral apposition rate (MAR) was significantly increased only on intracortical surfaces. Bone formation rate (BFR/BS) was significantly increased on all four bone envelopes. Significant increases versus baseline were observed in MBF on cancellous, endocortical, and periosteal surfaces, for oMBF on cancellous and endocortical surfaces, and for RBF on cancellous, endocortical, and intracortical surfaces. Overall, modeling-based formation (MBF + oMBF) accounted for 37% and 23% of the increase in bone-forming surface on the endocortical and cancellous surfaces, respectively. Changes from baseline in serum biomarkers of bone turnover at either month 1 or month 3 were generally good surrogates for changes in histomorphometric endpoints. In conclusion, treatment with abaloparatide for 3 months stimulated bone formation on cancellous, endocortical, intracortical, and periosteal envelopes in transiliac bone biopsies obtained from postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. These increases reflected stimulation of both remodeling- and modeling-based bone formation, further elucidating the mechanisms by which abaloparatide improves bone mass and lowers fracture risk. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)

Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data

Background: Tamoxifen and raloxifene reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at elevated risk of disease, but the duration of the effect is unknown. We assessed the effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) on breast cancer incidence. Methods: We did a meta-analysis with individual participant data from nine prevention trials comparing four selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; tamoxifen, raloxifene, arzoxifene, and lasofoxifene) with placebo, or in one study with tamoxifen. Our primary endpoint was incidence of all breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ) during a 10 year follow-up period. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: We analysed data for 83 399 women with 306 617 women-years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 65 months (IQR 54–93). Overall, we noted a 38% reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·56–0·69) in breast cancer incidence, and 42 women would need to be treated to prevent one breast cancer event in the first 10 years of follow-up. The reduction was larger in the first 5 years of follow-up than in years 5–10 (42%, HR 0·58, 0·51–0·66; p<0·0001 vs 25%, 0·75, 0·61–0·93; p=0·007), but we noted no heterogeneity between time periods. Thromboembolic events were significantly increased with all SERMs (odds ratio 1·73, 95% CI 1·47–2·05; p<0·0001). We recorded a significant reduction of 34% in vertebral fractures (0·66, 0·59–0·73), but only a small effect for non-vertebral fractures (0·93, 0·87–0·99). Interpretation: For all SERMs, incidence of invasive oestrogen (ER)-positive breast cancer was reduced both during treatment and for at least 5 years after completion. Similar to other preventive interventions, careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to identify women who are most likely to benefit from these drugs

Recommendations for the registration of agents to be used in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: updated recommendations from the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science.

OBJECTIVES: The Group for the Respect and Excellence in Science (GREES) has reviewed and updated their recommendations for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new chemical entities to be used in the treatment and prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). METHODS: Consensus discussion of the committee. RESULTS: With the exception of steroid use posttransplantation, there is no need to differentiate between underlying diseases. Prevention and treatment for GIOP are dependent on exposure to glucocorticoids rather than T-scores as in postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). If fracture data are obtained for PMO, it need not be repeated for GIOP, relying instead on bone mineral density (BMD) trials of at least 1 year. GREES recommends several changes in the previous guidance for GIOP. The committee saw no need to repeat preclinical studies if those have been previously done to assure bone quality in PMO. Similarly, phase I and phase II trials, if careful dose selection has been done for PMO, should not be repeated. The "prevention" and "treatment" claims should remain. Since the most recent evidence suggests significant increase in fracture risk for daily doses of prednisone of 5 mg/day or equivalent, clinical trials should concentrate on patients receiving at least this daily dosage. The emergence of bisphosphonates as the reference treatment, together with the rapid bone loss and high fracture incidence in glucocorticoid users, necessitates recommending a noninferiority trial design with lumbar spine BMD as the primary endpoint after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Registration of new chemical entities to be used in the management of GIOP should be granted, based on a 1-year noninferiority trial, using BMD as primary outcome and alendronate or risedronate as comparator. Demonstration of antifracture efficacy should have been previously demonstrated in PMO

Clinical evaluation of medicinal products for acceleration of fracture healing in patients with osteoporosis.

Pre-clinical studies indicate that pharmacologic agents can augment fracture union. If these pharmacologic approaches could be translated into clinical benefit and offered to patients with osteoporosis or patients with other risks for impaired fracture union (e.g. in subjects with large defects or open fractures with high complication rate), they could provide an important adjunct to the treatment of fractures. However, widely accepted guidelines are important to encourage the conduct of studies to evaluate bioactive substances, drugs, and new agents that may promote fracture union and subsequent return to normal function. A consensus process was initiated to provide recommendations for the clinical evaluation of potential therapies to augment fracture repair in patients with meta- and diaphyseal fractures. Based on the characteristics of fracture healing and fixation, the following study objectives of a clinical study may be appropriate: a) acceleration of fracture union, b) acceleration of return to normal function and c) reduction of fracture healing complications. The intended goal(s) should determine subsequent study methodology. While an acceleration of return to normal function or a reduction of fracture healing complications in and of themselves may be sufficient primary study endpoints for a phase 3 pivotal study, acceleration of fracture union alone is not. Radiographic evaluation may either occur at multiple time points during the healing process with the aim of measuring the time taken to reach a defined status (e.g. cortical bridging of three cortices or disappearance of fracture lines), or could be obtained at a single pre-determined timepoint, were patients are expected to reach a common clinical milestone (i.e. pain free full weight-bearing in weight-bearing fracture cases). Validated Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO's) measures will need to support the return to normal function co-primary endpoints. If reduction of complication rate (e.g. non-union) is the primary objective, the anticipated complications must be defined in the study protocol, along with their possible associations with the specified fracture type and fixation device. The study design should be randomized, parallel, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, and all fracture subjects should receive a standardized method of fracture fixation, defined as Standard of Care