Controversias con los medicamentos sintomáticos de acción lenta para la Osteoartritis (SYSADOAs)

La osteoartritis es una enfermedad de patogenia compleja y etiología multifactorial, clínicamente se caracteriza por su naturaleza heterogénea con expresiones fenotípicas distintas. El diagnóstico clásicamente se ha establecido en base a la combinación de las características clínicas y los hallazgos radiológicos compatibles con cambios degenerativos en la articulación afectada. Entre los medicamentos disponibles para el manejo de la osteoartritis se cuenta con los analgésicos de acción rápida (Ej. Paracetamol, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos); los medicamentos sintomáticos de acción lenta (denominados SYSADOAs por sus siglas en inglés: Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for Osteoarthritis); y finalmente se considera un tercer grupo, los medicamentos modificadores de la enfermedad (denominados también DMOA por sus siglas en inglés: “Disease modifying OA drugsâ€), pero como grupo es inexistente, porque ningún medicamento ha demostrado el potencial para remodelar o renovar la estructura de la articulación afectada. Se reconoce que algunos de los SYSADOA podrían tener también efecto estructural.Se ha propuesto que un SYSADOA, debe de cumplir cuatro objetivos: Proporcionar alivio de los síntomas, disminuir el requerimiento de medicación sintomática concomitante (analgésicos, AINEs, etc.), prevenir el daño estructural y evitar (o retardar) el requerimiento de cirugía de reemplazo articular. Diferentes estudios clínicos y metanálisis encuentran evidencia que apoya la eficacia sobre el control del dolor de los SYSADOAs, pero con una heterogeneidad importante.El propósito de este artículo es revisar las razones por las cuales existe discrepancia sobre la eficacia sintomática de los SYSADOAs, entre las cuales se encuentran la baja calidad metodológica de algunos estudios clínicos, las características y la naturaleza de la molécula específicamente empleada, las variaciones en la molécula original, el estatus de registro (medicamentos de venta libre o bajo prescripción), el procesamiento y la fuente de financiación de los estudios clínicos entre otros.La osteoartritis es una enfermedad de patogenia compleja y etiología multifactorial, clínicamente se caracteriza por su naturaleza heterogénea con expresiones fenotípicas distintas. El diagnóstico clásicamente se ha establecido en base a la combinación de las características clínicas y los hallazgos radiológicos compatibles con cambios degenerativos en la articulación afectada. Entre los medicamentos disponibles para el manejo de la osteoartritis se cuenta con los analgésicos de acción rápida (Ej. Paracetamol, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos); los medicamentos sintomáticos de acción lenta (denominados SYSADOAs por sus siglas en inglés: Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for Osteoarthritis); y finalmente se considera un tercer grupo, los medicamentos modificadores de la enfermedad (denominados también DMOA por sus siglas en inglés: “Disease modifying OA drugsâ€), pero como grupo es inexistente, porque ningún medicamento ha demostrado el potencial para remodelar o renovar la estructura de la articulación afectada. Se reconoce que algunos de los SYSADOA podrían tener también efecto estructural.Se ha propuesto que un SYSADOA, debe de cumplir cuatro objetivos: Proporcionar alivio de los síntomas, disminuir el requerimiento de medicación sintomática concomitante (analgésicos, AINEs, etc.), prevenir el daño estructural y evitar (o retardar) el requerimiento de cirugía de reemplazo articular. Diferentes estudios clínicos y metanálisis encuentran evidencia que apoya la eficacia sobre el control del dolor de los SYSADOAs, pero con una heterogeneidad importante.El propósito de este artículo es revisar las razones por las cuales existe discrepancia sobre la eficacia sintomática de los SYSADOAs, entre las cuales se encuentran la baja calidad metodológica de algunos estudios clínicos, las características y la naturaleza de la molécula específicamente empleada, las variaciones en la molécula original, el estatus de registro (medicamentos de venta libre o bajo prescripción), el procesamiento y la fuente de financiación de los estudios clínicos entre otros

La osteoporosis: ¿Cómo y hasta cuando tratarla?

La osteoporosis se define como una enfermedad esquelética multifactorial que se caracteriza por la disminución de la fortaleza ´ósea que predispone a un incremento en el riesgo de fracturas por fragilidad. Esta enfermedad produce complicaciones que pueden tener un profundo impacto, tanto en la salud, como en la calidad de vida de las personas

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

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&lt;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&lt;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. Funding: Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck &amp; Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA