18 research outputs found

    Denosumab compared with risedronate in postmenopausal women suboptimally adherent to alendronate therapy: Efficacy and safety results from a randomized open-label study

    Get PDF
    Denosumab has been shown to reduce new vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. In subjects who were treatment-naive or previously treated with alendronate, denosumab was associated with greater gains in bone mineral density (BMD) and decreases in bone turnover markers when compared with alendronate-treated subjects. This trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab with risedronate over 12 months in postmenopausal women who transitioned from daily or weekly alendronate treatment and were considered to be suboptimally adherent to therapy. In this randomized, open-label study, postmenopausal women aged ≥55 years received denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months or risedronate 150 mg orally every month for 12 months. Endpoints included percentage change from baseline in total hip BMD (primary endpoint), femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD at month 12, and percentage change from baseline in sCTX-1 at months 1 and 6. Safety was also assessed. A total of 870 subjects were randomized (435, risedronate; 435, denosumab) who had a mean (SD) age of 67.7 (6.9) years, mean (SD) BMD T-scores of -1.6 (0.9), -1.9 (0.7), and -2.2 (1.2) at the total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine, respectively, and median sCTX-1 of 0.3 ng/mL at baseline. At month 12, denosumab significantly increased BMD compared with risedronate at the total hip (2.0% vs 0.5%), femoral neck (1.4% vs 0%), and lumbar spine (3.4% vs 1.1%; p<0.0001 at all sites). Denosumab significantly decreased sCTX-1 compared with risedronate at month 1 (median change from baseline of -78% vs -17%; p<0.0001) and month 6 (-61% vs -23%; p<0.0001). Overall and serious adverse events were similar between groups. In postmenopausal women who were suboptimally adherent to alendronate therapy, transitioning to denosumab was well tolerated and more effective than risedronate in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover

    ÁREA DE PRESIDENCIA [Material gráfico]

    Get PDF
    Forma parte del reportaje fotográfico sobre la inauguración en los años 40 del nuevo edificio institucional del Cabildo de Gran CanariaCopia digital. Madrid : Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Subdirección General de Coordinación Bibliotecaria, 201

    Observations following discontinuation of long-term denosumab therapy

    Get PDF
    Summary Stopping denosumab after 8 years of continued treatment was associated with bone loss during a 1-year observation study in patients who were not prescribed osteoporosis treatment. Bone loss was attenuated in patients who began another osteoporosis therapy. Treatment to prevent bone loss upon stopping denosumab should be considered. Introduction This study aimed to understand osteoporosis management strategies during a 1-year observational follow-up after up to 8 years of denosumab treatment in a phase 2 study. Methods During the observational year, patients received osteoporosis management at the discretion of their physician and returned to the clinic for BMD assessment and completion of an osteoporosis management questionnaire. Incidence of serious adverse events and fractures was collected. Analyses were descriptive. Results Of 138 eligible patients, 82 enrolled in and completed the observation study. Most (65 [79%]) did not receive prescription osteoporosis medication, with “my doctor felt I no longer needed a medication” being the most common reason (23 [35%]). Of the 17 patients who took osteoporosis medications, 8 discontinued therapy during the observation study. In patients treated with denosumab for 8 years (N = 52), BMD decreased during the 1-year observation study (6.7% [lumbar spine], 6.6% [total hip]). Those who took osteoporosis medication during the observation study showed a smaller decline in BMD than those who did not. No new safety concerns were identified. Eight patients (9.8%), all of whom had at least one predisposing risk factor, experienced 17 fractures. This included seven patients who experienced one or more vertebral fractures. Conclusions Consistent with denosumab’s mechanism of action, treatment cessation led to reversal of the drug’s effect on BMD and perhaps fracture risk. For patients who took osteoporosis therapy, bone loss was attenuated. For patients at high fracture risk, switching to another osteoporosis therapy if denosumab is discontinued seems appropriate

    Effect of denosumab on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover: Six-year results of a phase 2 clinical trial

    No full text
    Context: This is a study extension to evaluate the efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with denosumab in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Objective: Our objective was to describe changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers as well as safety with 6 yr of denosumab treatment. Design: We conducted an ongoing 4-yr, open-label, single-arm, extension study of a dose-ranging phase 2 trial. This paper reports a 2-yr interim analysis representing up to 6 yr of continuous denosumab treatment. Setting: This multicenter study was conducted at 23 U.S. centers. Patients:Of the 262 subjects who completed the parent study, 200 enrolled in the study extension and 178 (89%) completed the first 2 yr. Intervention: All subjects received denosumab 60 mg sc every 6 months. Main Outcome Measures: We evaluated BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and one third radius; biochemical markers of bone turnover; and safety, reported as adverse events. Results: Over a period of 6 yr, continuous treatment with denosumab resulted in progressive gains in BMD in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Reduction in bone resorption was sustained over the course of continuous treatment. Independent of past treatment and discontinuation period, subjects demonstrated responsiveness to denosumab therapy as measured by BMD and bone turnover markers. The safety profile of denosumab did not change over time. Conclusions: In this study, denosumab was well tolerated and effective through 6 yr of continuous treatment in postmenopausal women with low bone mass

    Denosumab versus risedronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, non-inferiority study

    No full text
    Background Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is the most common form of secondary osteoporosis and is associated with an estimated annual fracture rate of 5%. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with risedronate in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Methods We did a 24-month, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, non-inferiority study at 79 centres in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and were receiving glucocorticoids (&gt;= 7.5 mg prednisone daily, or equivalent) for at least 3 months (glucocorticoid continuing) or less than 3 months (glucocorticoid initiating) before screening. Patients younger than 50 years needed to have a history of osteoporosis-related fracture; glucocorticoid-continuing patients aged 50 years or older needed a lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck bone mineral density T score of -2.0 or less, or -1.0 or less if they had a history of osteoporosis-related fracture. Participants were randomly assigned (1: 1) to either 60 mg subcutaneous denosumab every 6 months and oral placebo daily for 24 months, or 5 mg oral risedronate daily and subcutaneous placebo every 6 months for 24 months. Randomisation was stratified by sex within each subpopulation, and was done with an interactive voice-response system. Active drugs and corresponding placebos had identical packaging, labels, and appearance. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of denosumab to risedronate in terms of percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density at 12 months based on non-inferiority margins (-0.7 and -1.1 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-continuing and glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulations, respectively). Superiority was also assessed as a secondary outcome. The primary efficacy set included all randomly assigned participants who had a baseline and postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density measurement, and was analysed according to randomised treatment assignment. The safety analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of investigational product, and was analysed by actual treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01575873) and is completed. Findings Between March 28, 2012, and June 30, 2015, 795 patients, 505 of whom were glucocorticoid continuing and 290 of whom were glucocorticoid initiating, were enrolled and randomly assigned (398 to denosumab, 397 to risedronate). Denosumab was both non-inferior and superior to risedronate at 12 months for effect on bone mineral density at the lumbar spine in both glucocorticoid-continuing (4.4% [95% CI 3.8-5.0] vs 2.3% [1.7-2.9]; p&lt;0.0001) and glucocorticoid-initiating (3.8% [3.1-4.5] vs 0.8% [0.2-1.5]; p&lt;0.0001) subpopulations. Incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events (including infections), and fractures was similar between treatment groups. The most common adverse events were back pain (17 [4%] patients in the risedronate group and 18 [5%] in the denosumab group) and arthralgia (21 [5%] patients in the risedronate group and 17 [4%] in the denosumab group). Serious infection occurred in 15 (4%) patients in the risedronate group and 17 (4%) patients in the denosumab group. Interpretation Denosumab could be a useful treatment option for patients newly initiating or continuing glucocorticoids who are at risk of fractures

    Further Nonvertebral Fracture Reduction Beyond 3 Years for Up to 10 Years of Denosumab Treatment

    No full text
    CONTEXT: Evidence for further nonvertebral fracture (NVF) reductions with long-term antiresorptive therapy in osteoporosis is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate NVF risk reduction in subjects receiving ≤10 years of denosumab treatment. DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-year Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial (NCT00089791) and its open-label 7-year extension (NCT00523341)
    corecore