MDedge Rheumatology

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for belimumab (Benlysta) to adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Roughly 40% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop lupus nephritis (LN), which causes inflammation in the kidneys and can lead to end-stage kidney disease.

“Benlysta is the first medicine approved to treat systemic lupus and adults with active lupus nephritis, an important treatment advance for patients with this incurable autoimmune disease,” Hal Barron, MD, GlaxoSmithKline’s chief scientific officer and president of research and development, said in a company news release.

Belimumab IV infusion was first approved in the United States in March 2011 for adults with SLE. The FDA approved belimumab IV infusion for use in children as young as age 5 years with SLE in 2019.

Both the IV and subcutaneous formulations are now indicated in the United States for adults with SLE and LN.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor that is thought to decrease the amount of abnormal B cells; the latter are thought to play a role in lupus.

The expanded indication for belimumab for patients with LN is based on findings from the BLISS-LN phase 3 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September.

“Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys” represents a “compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” the lead investigator of BLISS-LN, Richard Furie, MD, told the online annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases meeting recently.

“In the 4 decades I have been caring for people with lupus, we have not been able to achieve remission in more than just one-third of patients with lupus nephritis, and despite all of our efforts, 10%-30% of patients with lupus kidney disease still progress to end-stage kidney disease,” Dr. Furie, who is chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health, notes in the GSK statement.

“The data from the BLISS-LN study show that Benlysta added to standard therapy not only increased response rates over 2 years, but it also prevented worsening of kidney disease in patients with active lupus nephritis, compared to standard therapy alone,” he added.

BLISS-LN study: Belimumab effect seen mostly in those on MMF

BLISS-LN enrolled 448 adults with biopsy-confirmed active LN. Half were randomly allocated to receive IV belimumab (10 mg/kg) plus standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil for induction and maintenance or cyclophosphamide for induction followed by azathioprine for maintenance, with steroids) and half to receive placebo plus standard therapy.

At 2 years, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0- 2.3; P = .03).

This primary endpoint was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of ≤0.7, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the value before the renal flare or ≥60 mL per minute per 1.73 m² of body surface area, without use of rescue therapy.

The risk for a renal-related event or death was also significantly lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that observed in prior studies.

But in a commentary that accompanied the publication of BLISS-LN, editorialists noted that “most of the treatment effect was seen in patients who had received mycophenolate mofetil. No benefit was present in the subgroup of patients who received cyclophosphamide-azathioprine.”

In addition, induction treatment was not randomly assigned, editorialists Michael Ward, MD, MPH, and Maria Tektonidou, MD, PhD, noted.

“If patients with more severe nephritis were preferentially treated with cyclophosphamide, a likely inclination among most physicians, the trial may be telling us that belimumab enhances responses only among less severely affected patients,” observed Dr. Ward, who is with the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Tektonidou, of the National and Kopodistrian University, in Athens.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for belimumab (Benlysta) to adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Roughly 40% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop lupus nephritis (LN), which causes inflammation in the kidneys and can lead to end-stage kidney disease.

“Benlysta is the first medicine approved to treat systemic lupus and adults with active lupus nephritis, an important treatment advance for patients with this incurable autoimmune disease,” Hal Barron, MD, GlaxoSmithKline’s chief scientific officer and president of research and development, said in a company news release.

Belimumab IV infusion was first approved in the United States in March 2011 for adults with SLE. The FDA approved belimumab IV infusion for use in children as young as age 5 years with SLE in 2019.

Both the IV and subcutaneous formulations are now indicated in the United States for adults with SLE and LN.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor that is thought to decrease the amount of abnormal B cells; the latter are thought to play a role in lupus.

The expanded indication for belimumab for patients with LN is based on findings from the BLISS-LN phase 3 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September.

“Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys” represents a “compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” the lead investigator of BLISS-LN, Richard Furie, MD, told the online annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases meeting recently.

“In the 4 decades I have been caring for people with lupus, we have not been able to achieve remission in more than just one-third of patients with lupus nephritis, and despite all of our efforts, 10%-30% of patients with lupus kidney disease still progress to end-stage kidney disease,” Dr. Furie, who is chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health, notes in the GSK statement.

“The data from the BLISS-LN study show that Benlysta added to standard therapy not only increased response rates over 2 years, but it also prevented worsening of kidney disease in patients with active lupus nephritis, compared to standard therapy alone,” he added.

BLISS-LN study: Belimumab effect seen mostly in those on MMF

BLISS-LN enrolled 448 adults with biopsy-confirmed active LN. Half were randomly allocated to receive IV belimumab (10 mg/kg) plus standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil for induction and maintenance or cyclophosphamide for induction followed by azathioprine for maintenance, with steroids) and half to receive placebo plus standard therapy.

At 2 years, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0- 2.3; P = .03).

This primary endpoint was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of ≤0.7, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the value before the renal flare or ≥60 mL per minute per 1.73 m² of body surface area, without use of rescue therapy.

The risk for a renal-related event or death was also significantly lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that observed in prior studies.

But in a commentary that accompanied the publication of BLISS-LN, editorialists noted that “most of the treatment effect was seen in patients who had received mycophenolate mofetil. No benefit was present in the subgroup of patients who received cyclophosphamide-azathioprine.”

In addition, induction treatment was not randomly assigned, editorialists Michael Ward, MD, MPH, and Maria Tektonidou, MD, PhD, noted.

“If patients with more severe nephritis were preferentially treated with cyclophosphamide, a likely inclination among most physicians, the trial may be telling us that belimumab enhances responses only among less severely affected patients,” observed Dr. Ward, who is with the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Tektonidou, of the National and Kopodistrian University, in Athens.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for belimumab (Benlysta) to adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Roughly 40% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop lupus nephritis (LN), which causes inflammation in the kidneys and can lead to end-stage kidney disease.

“Benlysta is the first medicine approved to treat systemic lupus and adults with active lupus nephritis, an important treatment advance for patients with this incurable autoimmune disease,” Hal Barron, MD, GlaxoSmithKline’s chief scientific officer and president of research and development, said in a company news release.

Belimumab IV infusion was first approved in the United States in March 2011 for adults with SLE. The FDA approved belimumab IV infusion for use in children as young as age 5 years with SLE in 2019.

Both the IV and subcutaneous formulations are now indicated in the United States for adults with SLE and LN.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor that is thought to decrease the amount of abnormal B cells; the latter are thought to play a role in lupus.

The expanded indication for belimumab for patients with LN is based on findings from the BLISS-LN phase 3 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September.

“Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys” represents a “compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” the lead investigator of BLISS-LN, Richard Furie, MD, told the online annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases meeting recently.

“In the 4 decades I have been caring for people with lupus, we have not been able to achieve remission in more than just one-third of patients with lupus nephritis, and despite all of our efforts, 10%-30% of patients with lupus kidney disease still progress to end-stage kidney disease,” Dr. Furie, who is chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health, notes in the GSK statement.

“The data from the BLISS-LN study show that Benlysta added to standard therapy not only increased response rates over 2 years, but it also prevented worsening of kidney disease in patients with active lupus nephritis, compared to standard therapy alone,” he added.

BLISS-LN study: Belimumab effect seen mostly in those on MMF

BLISS-LN enrolled 448 adults with biopsy-confirmed active LN. Half were randomly allocated to receive IV belimumab (10 mg/kg) plus standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil for induction and maintenance or cyclophosphamide for induction followed by azathioprine for maintenance, with steroids) and half to receive placebo plus standard therapy.

At 2 years, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0- 2.3; P = .03).

This primary endpoint was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of ≤0.7, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the value before the renal flare or ≥60 mL per minute per 1.73 m² of body surface area, without use of rescue therapy.

The risk for a renal-related event or death was also significantly lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that observed in prior studies.

But in a commentary that accompanied the publication of BLISS-LN, editorialists noted that “most of the treatment effect was seen in patients who had received mycophenolate mofetil. No benefit was present in the subgroup of patients who received cyclophosphamide-azathioprine.”

In addition, induction treatment was not randomly assigned, editorialists Michael Ward, MD, MPH, and Maria Tektonidou, MD, PhD, noted.

“If patients with more severe nephritis were preferentially treated with cyclophosphamide, a likely inclination among most physicians, the trial may be telling us that belimumab enhances responses only among less severely affected patients,” observed Dr. Ward, who is with the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Tektonidou, of the National and Kopodistrian University, in Athens.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 16 million–plus people in the United States, and 72 million worldwide, who have been infected with COVID-19 – and survived – are likely asking themselves the same questions: Am I immune now? Is it over or do I have to brace myself for the possibility of a reinfection? Moreover, could the second time potentially be worse than the first?

I was diagnosed with COVID in March of this year. After spending 10 days in the hospital, and one night in the ICU, it took another 2 months for the air-hunger, headaches, and fatigue to completely resolve. Compared with many other unfortunate victims, I did all right – and I am very grateful for the care I received.

Now, as the surge in cases takes new life, I will be on the front lines taking care of patients. Having had an eventful personal encounter with the virus, I now have a unique vantage point and remain fully committed to paying my fortunate circumstances forward. Although I can’t help but have the same question faced by millions of others: Am I safe now?

It is no surprise that studies have shown health care workers comprising 6% of COVID hospital admissions, with one-third of these admissions being nurses. Recently, we heard that over 900 health care workers at Mayo Clinic had acquired the infection in the first 2 weeks of the ongoing second COVID surge. Are these frontline workers protected? Can they return to work with no fear of a rerun? Or, for that matter, anyone who has been afflicted by COVID – are they now forever immune?

There are no clear answers here. But to understand this a little, let’s quickly revisit some basic principles of immunity.
 

Innate and adaptive immunity

Simply put, there are two forms of immunity: innate and adaptive. Innate immunity encompasses our body’s natural protective mechanisms that come into play almost immediately. This enables recognition of the virus and activates an immediate antiviral defense and attempt at removal of the infective agent. This, however, does not always do the job. Accordingly, a couple weeks after the initial exposure to the pathogen, adaptive immunity is invoked. Circulating white blood cells within our body recognize the virus and set off an immune response, involving the activation of T and B cells that actively attack the infective agent. It is this T- and B-cell–mediated immunity that should protect one against a second infection with the same agent.

What about herd immunity?

Herd immunity is defined as essentially yielding to the virus and letting it spread naturally in order to develop community-wide immunity. By consequence of a large proportion of the population becoming immune after exposure to the disease, person-to-person spread can potentially be mitigated. This does not confer immunity to the virus at the individual level; rather, it reduces the risk of vulnerable people coming in contact with the pathogen.

Unfortunately, depending on herd immunity as a way to deal with COVID-19 has not worked well, even in well-contained countries like Sweden, where a disproportionate number of their most vulnerable populations have died. It is self-evident that containment strategies with vaccination may be our best way forward to achieve herd immunity. Not surrendering to the virus.
 

Am I safe from reinfection?

In all honesty, we’re not entirely sure. But it is important to recognize a few points when considering your relative safety.

• The immune system is far from perfect. Not everyone has a robust immune response. And in those who do, the immune response can wane over time, potentially allowing for reinfection. While rare, there have already been some clearly documented reinfections, four that have been confirmed and published; two patients (in Nevada and Ecuador) actually fared worse the second time around.
• The virus can mutate and escape detection by the immune system. One could still be susceptible to reinfection from a different strain. (At least, this remains the case with the influenza virus.) There is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 does not mutate rapidly, and hence this may not be a problem. But we don’t know for certain, at least as of yet.
• Even a vigorous immune response can be overwhelmed by the virus. It is unclear whether the relative length of time and the amount of virus exposure could undermine a previously primed immune system.

A prior infection and a consequent healthy immunity may help you combat a reinfection but it does not prevent you from harboring or carrying the virus. You may be asymptomatic, but you can still be a carrier and spread the infection. I am a strong advocate for limiting your exposure to others no matter your previous exposure status, in order to limit the spread of the virus.
 

So, what should I do?

I guess the answer is that you can’t be too careful. Not everyone has had their antibody levels tested, and even if positive, it is unclear how well that affords protection. It is best to presume that you are vulnerable for a reinfection and that you can still carry and spread the virus. This may be the safest approach until we actually achieve herd immunity through vaccination.

Even then, for a period of time, there will remain a sense of uncertainty. So, containment strategies inclusive of distancing and masking will and should remain a way of life at least until mid-2021, when we will be in a better position to reassess the landscape.

The surge is back. As I repay my debt and get back to the front line, I will continue to mask up and practice distancing. I am taking no chances of getting reinfected or being an asymptomatic carrier.

I had COVID, I also have antibodies, and I will be taking the vaccine. I implore you all to do the same.

Jag Singh is a physician, scientist, and professor at Harvard. He is passionate about social issues, leadership, digital health, and medical innovations. You can follow him on Twitter @JagSinghMD.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers on December 17 overwhelmingly recommended an emergency clearance to Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine, while noting concerns about potential allergic reactions and the challenges of continuing testing of this medicine.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) put Moderna’s application before its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The panel voted 20-0 on this question: “Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?” There was one abstention.

The FDA is not bound to act on the recommendations of its advisers, but the agency usually takes the panel’s advice. The FDA cleared the similar Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 11 through an emergency use authorization (EUA), following a positive vote for the product at a December 10 advisory committee meeting. In this case, the FDA staff appeared to be pushing for a broad endorsement of the Moderna vaccine, for which the agency appears likely to soon also grant an EUA.

Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, earlier rebuffed attempts by some of the panelists to alter the voting question. Some panelists wanted to make tweaks, including a rephrasing to underscore the limited nature of an EUA, compared with a more complete approval through the biologics license application (BLA) process.

FDA panelist Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health was the only panelist to abstain from voting. He said he was uncomfortable with the phrasing of the question.

“In the midst of a pandemic and with limited vaccine supply available, a blanket statement for individuals 18 years and older is just too broad,” he said. “I’m not convinced that for all of those age groups the benefits do actually outweigh the risks.”

In general, though, there was strong support for Moderna’s vaccine. FDA panelist James Hildreth Sr, MD, PhD, of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee spoke of the “remarkable achievement” seen in having two vaccines ready for clearance by December for a virus that only emerged as a threat this year.

Study data indicate the primary efficacy endpoint demonstrated vaccine efficacy (VE) of 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3% - 96.8%) for the Moderna vaccine, with 11 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 185 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group, the FDA staff noted during the meeting.

The advisers and FDA staff also honed in on several key issues with COVID-19 vaccines, including the challenge of having people in the placebo groups of studies seek to get cleared vaccines. Also of concern to the panel were early reports of allergic reactions seen with the Pfizer product.

Doran L. Fink, MD, PhD, an FDA official who has been closely involved with the COVID-19 vaccines, told the panel that two healthcare workers in Alaska had allergic reactions minutes after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, one of which was a case of anaphylactic reaction that resulted in hospitalization.

In the United Kingdom, there were two cases reported of notable allergic reactions, leading regulators there to issue a warning that people who have a history of significant allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

The people involved in these incidents have recovered or are recovering, Fink said. But the FDA expects there will be additional reports of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

“These cases underscores the need to remain vigilant during the early phase of the vaccination campaign,” Fink said. “To this end, FDA is working with Pfizer to further revise factsheets and prescribing information for their vaccine to draw attention to CDC guidelines for post- vaccination monitoring and management of immediate allergic reactions.”

mRNA vaccines in the lead

An FDA emergency clearance for Moderna’s product would be another vote of confidence in a new approach to making vaccines. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provide the immune system with a kind of blueprint in the form of genetic material, mRNA. The mRNA sets the stage for the synthesis of the signature spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells.

In a December 15 commentary for this news organization Michael E. Pichichero, MD, wrote that the “revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced.”

“This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab — and it can be done incredibly fast,” he wrote.

The FDA allowed one waiver for panelist James K. Hildreth in connection with his personal relationship to a trial participant and his university’s participation in vaccine testing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery rates continue to climb in the setting of increasing obesity throughout the world. While effective at promoting weight loss, a growing body of literature has clearly demonstrated that bone loss and increased fracture risk occurs following bariatric surgery. However, major important questions remain regarding the impact of specific types of bariatric surgery on bone metabolism. Notably, most previous studies were not performed in a randomized manner with respect to the type of weight loss surgery. As such, indication bias exists with respect to current knowledge regarding how specific weight loss surgeries impact bone. Here, a randomized, triple-blind single center study in Norway assessed skeletal endpoints in patients with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes who were randomized to receive either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy weight loss surgery. The primary focus of this study, reported elsewhere, was to assess rates of diabetes remission. Areal bone mineral density in the hip and spine decreased significantly more one year after RYGB than after sleeve gastrectomy. The authors investigated serum bone turnover markers over time in these subjects. Both forms of bariatric surgery led to increases in bone formation and resorption markers, with higher levels of both markers seen after RYGB than sleeve gastrectomy. Importantly, these effects were independently associated with surgical procedure and not resultant weight change. Findings here strongly support the emerging notion that RYGB in particular is linked to high bone turnover and bone loss. While many hypotheses exist as to the underlying mechanism linking RYBG and bone loss, this remains an active and open area of investigation.

Denosumab, a neutralizing antibody against RANKL, is a potent antiresorptive agent that increases bone density and reduces fracture risk. In addition to its major role in osteoclast development, the paracrine-acting cytokine RANKL plays an important role in development and maintenance of the adaptive immune system. As such, a concern has been raised that denosumab treatment may increase risk of malignancies kept at bay by lymphoid surveillance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, the authors assessed risk of malignancy of denosumab versus comparator in 25 prospective randomized controlled trials. In these trials, >21,000 patients were analyzed who were treated for osteoporosis with either denosumab or control. The risk of malignancy was similar between osteoporosis denosumab dosing (60 mg every 6 months) and control. Drug exposure in these studies was up to 48 months. As such, additional post-marketing surveillance safety data are needed to address longer-term risks of malignancy. Nonetheless, these data are largely reassuring and provide additional evidence of the safety of denosumab therapy for osteoporosis.

Marc Wein, M.D., Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital Endocrine Unit, Harvard Medical School

Bariatric surgery rates continue to climb in the setting of increasing obesity throughout the world. While effective at promoting weight loss, a growing body of literature has clearly demonstrated that bone loss and increased fracture risk occurs following bariatric surgery. However, major important questions remain regarding the impact of specific types of bariatric surgery on bone metabolism. Notably, most previous studies were not performed in a randomized manner with respect to the type of weight loss surgery. As such, indication bias exists with respect to current knowledge regarding how specific weight loss surgeries impact bone. Here, a randomized, triple-blind single center study in Norway assessed skeletal endpoints in patients with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes who were randomized to receive either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy weight loss surgery. The primary focus of this study, reported elsewhere, was to assess rates of diabetes remission. Areal bone mineral density in the hip and spine decreased significantly more one year after RYGB than after sleeve gastrectomy. The authors investigated serum bone turnover markers over time in these subjects. Both forms of bariatric surgery led to increases in bone formation and resorption markers, with higher levels of both markers seen after RYGB than sleeve gastrectomy. Importantly, these effects were independently associated with surgical procedure and not resultant weight change. Findings here strongly support the emerging notion that RYGB in particular is linked to high bone turnover and bone loss. While many hypotheses exist as to the underlying mechanism linking RYBG and bone loss, this remains an active and open area of investigation.

Denosumab, a neutralizing antibody against RANKL, is a potent antiresorptive agent that increases bone density and reduces fracture risk. In addition to its major role in osteoclast development, the paracrine-acting cytokine RANKL plays an important role in development and maintenance of the adaptive immune system. As such, a concern has been raised that denosumab treatment may increase risk of malignancies kept at bay by lymphoid surveillance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, the authors assessed risk of malignancy of denosumab versus comparator in 25 prospective randomized controlled trials. In these trials, >21,000 patients were analyzed who were treated for osteoporosis with either denosumab or control. The risk of malignancy was similar between osteoporosis denosumab dosing (60 mg every 6 months) and control. Drug exposure in these studies was up to 48 months. As such, additional post-marketing surveillance safety data are needed to address longer-term risks of malignancy. Nonetheless, these data are largely reassuring and provide additional evidence of the safety of denosumab therapy for osteoporosis.

Marc Wein, M.D., Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital Endocrine Unit, Harvard Medical School

Bariatric surgery rates continue to climb in the setting of increasing obesity throughout the world. While effective at promoting weight loss, a growing body of literature has clearly demonstrated that bone loss and increased fracture risk occurs following bariatric surgery. However, major important questions remain regarding the impact of specific types of bariatric surgery on bone metabolism. Notably, most previous studies were not performed in a randomized manner with respect to the type of weight loss surgery. As such, indication bias exists with respect to current knowledge regarding how specific weight loss surgeries impact bone. Here, a randomized, triple-blind single center study in Norway assessed skeletal endpoints in patients with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes who were randomized to receive either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy weight loss surgery. The primary focus of this study, reported elsewhere, was to assess rates of diabetes remission. Areal bone mineral density in the hip and spine decreased significantly more one year after RYGB than after sleeve gastrectomy. The authors investigated serum bone turnover markers over time in these subjects. Both forms of bariatric surgery led to increases in bone formation and resorption markers, with higher levels of both markers seen after RYGB than sleeve gastrectomy. Importantly, these effects were independently associated with surgical procedure and not resultant weight change. Findings here strongly support the emerging notion that RYGB in particular is linked to high bone turnover and bone loss. While many hypotheses exist as to the underlying mechanism linking RYBG and bone loss, this remains an active and open area of investigation.

Denosumab, a neutralizing antibody against RANKL, is a potent antiresorptive agent that increases bone density and reduces fracture risk. In addition to its major role in osteoclast development, the paracrine-acting cytokine RANKL plays an important role in development and maintenance of the adaptive immune system. As such, a concern has been raised that denosumab treatment may increase risk of malignancies kept at bay by lymphoid surveillance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, the authors assessed risk of malignancy of denosumab versus comparator in 25 prospective randomized controlled trials. In these trials, >21,000 patients were analyzed who were treated for osteoporosis with either denosumab or control. The risk of malignancy was similar between osteoporosis denosumab dosing (60 mg every 6 months) and control. Drug exposure in these studies was up to 48 months. As such, additional post-marketing surveillance safety data are needed to address longer-term risks of malignancy. Nonetheless, these data are largely reassuring and provide additional evidence of the safety of denosumab therapy for osteoporosis.

Marc Wein, M.D., Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital Endocrine Unit, Harvard Medical School

Key clinical point: Use of loop diuretics and nonuse of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were independently associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

Major finding: Use of loop diuretics (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; P less than .01) and nonuse of DOACs (OR for DOAC use, 0.36; P = .01) were associated with an increased risk for osteoporosis. Patients with osteoporotic BMD at 2 or 3 sites had a significantly higher rate of a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization than patients without osteoporosis (hazard ratio, 3.45; P less than .01).

Study details: The data come from a single-center, retrospective study of 303 (osteoporosis: n = 122; nonosteoporosis: n = 181) patients diagnosed with CHF.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (S Katano) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI, Tokyo, Japan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. T Miura is a member of the Circulation Journal’s editorial team.

Source: Katano S et al. Circ J. 2020 Oct 28. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0593.

Key clinical point: Use of loop diuretics and nonuse of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were independently associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

Major finding: Use of loop diuretics (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; P less than .01) and nonuse of DOACs (OR for DOAC use, 0.36; P = .01) were associated with an increased risk for osteoporosis. Patients with osteoporotic BMD at 2 or 3 sites had a significantly higher rate of a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization than patients without osteoporosis (hazard ratio, 3.45; P less than .01).

Study details: The data come from a single-center, retrospective study of 303 (osteoporosis: n = 122; nonosteoporosis: n = 181) patients diagnosed with CHF.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (S Katano) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI, Tokyo, Japan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. T Miura is a member of the Circulation Journal’s editorial team.

Source: Katano S et al. Circ J. 2020 Oct 28. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0593.

Key clinical point: Use of loop diuretics and nonuse of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were independently associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

Major finding: Use of loop diuretics (odds ratio [OR], 2.70; P less than .01) and nonuse of DOACs (OR for DOAC use, 0.36; P = .01) were associated with an increased risk for osteoporosis. Patients with osteoporotic BMD at 2 or 3 sites had a significantly higher rate of a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization than patients without osteoporosis (hazard ratio, 3.45; P less than .01).

Study details: The data come from a single-center, retrospective study of 303 (osteoporosis: n = 122; nonosteoporosis: n = 181) patients diagnosed with CHF.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (S Katano) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI, Tokyo, Japan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. T Miura is a member of the Circulation Journal’s editorial team.

Source: Katano S et al. Circ J. 2020 Oct 28. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0593.

Key clinical point: Switching to denosumab (Dmab) from bisphosphonates (BP) or selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) significantly suppressed osteoporosis progression in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: SERM-Dmab vs. SERM-SERM group showed significantly higher percentage change (P less than .04) in lumbar spine bone mineral density. BP-Dmab and SERM-Dmab groups showed a significantly lower percentage change in serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b compared with the BP-BP and SERM-SERM groups, respectively (P less than .05 for all).

Study details: The data come from a 24-week, prospective, parallel-group, observational study of 48 T2D postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who were either switched from BP or SERM to Dmab (BP-Dmab group/SERM-Dmab group, respectively) or continued BP or SERM therapy (BP-BP group/SERM-SERM group, respectively).

Disclosures: The study received no financial support. A Nakamura, T Astumi, and H Miyoshi received honoraria for lectures and research funding from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Miyoshi A et al. J Diabetes Investig. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13458.

Key clinical point: Switching to denosumab (Dmab) from bisphosphonates (BP) or selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) significantly suppressed osteoporosis progression in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: SERM-Dmab vs. SERM-SERM group showed significantly higher percentage change (P less than .04) in lumbar spine bone mineral density. BP-Dmab and SERM-Dmab groups showed a significantly lower percentage change in serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b compared with the BP-BP and SERM-SERM groups, respectively (P less than .05 for all).

Study details: The data come from a 24-week, prospective, parallel-group, observational study of 48 T2D postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who were either switched from BP or SERM to Dmab (BP-Dmab group/SERM-Dmab group, respectively) or continued BP or SERM therapy (BP-BP group/SERM-SERM group, respectively).

Disclosures: The study received no financial support. A Nakamura, T Astumi, and H Miyoshi received honoraria for lectures and research funding from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Miyoshi A et al. J Diabetes Investig. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13458.

Key clinical point: Switching to denosumab (Dmab) from bisphosphonates (BP) or selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) significantly suppressed osteoporosis progression in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: SERM-Dmab vs. SERM-SERM group showed significantly higher percentage change (P less than .04) in lumbar spine bone mineral density. BP-Dmab and SERM-Dmab groups showed a significantly lower percentage change in serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b compared with the BP-BP and SERM-SERM groups, respectively (P less than .05 for all).

Study details: The data come from a 24-week, prospective, parallel-group, observational study of 48 T2D postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who were either switched from BP or SERM to Dmab (BP-Dmab group/SERM-Dmab group, respectively) or continued BP or SERM therapy (BP-BP group/SERM-SERM group, respectively).

Disclosures: The study received no financial support. A Nakamura, T Astumi, and H Miyoshi received honoraria for lectures and research funding from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Miyoshi A et al. J Diabetes Investig. 2020 Nov 3. doi: 10.1111/jdi.13458.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of periapical lesions is significantly higher in patients with vs. without osteoporosis. Patients treated with bisphosphonates (BPs) have a lower prevalence of periapical lesions.

Major finding: The prevalence of periapical lesions in patients with osteoporosis was significantly higher compared with the general patient population in the hospital (odds ratio, 3.36; P less than .0001). Treatment with BPs was associated with a lower prevalence of periapical lesions than no treatment with BPs (P less than.0001).

Study details: Analysis of data from 1,644,953 individuals, including admitted patients as well as outpatients.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katz J et al. J Endod. 2020 Oct 28. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.10.019.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of periapical lesions is significantly higher in patients with vs. without osteoporosis. Patients treated with bisphosphonates (BPs) have a lower prevalence of periapical lesions.

Major finding: The prevalence of periapical lesions in patients with osteoporosis was significantly higher compared with the general patient population in the hospital (odds ratio, 3.36; P less than .0001). Treatment with BPs was associated with a lower prevalence of periapical lesions than no treatment with BPs (P less than.0001).

Study details: Analysis of data from 1,644,953 individuals, including admitted patients as well as outpatients.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katz J et al. J Endod. 2020 Oct 28. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.10.019.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of periapical lesions is significantly higher in patients with vs. without osteoporosis. Patients treated with bisphosphonates (BPs) have a lower prevalence of periapical lesions.

Major finding: The prevalence of periapical lesions in patients with osteoporosis was significantly higher compared with the general patient population in the hospital (odds ratio, 3.36; P less than .0001). Treatment with BPs was associated with a lower prevalence of periapical lesions than no treatment with BPs (P less than.0001).

Study details: Analysis of data from 1,644,953 individuals, including admitted patients as well as outpatients.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Katz J et al. J Endod. 2020 Oct 28. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.10.019.

Key clinical point: Patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and diabetes mellitus (DM) have a lower risk for incident osteoporosis.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis significantly decreased (P less than .001 for all) above the fourth quartile of fasting glucose levels in men and above the third quartile in women compared with the first quartile. The risk of osteoporosis was significantly lower (P less than .001 for all) with IFG (men: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; women: HR, 0.93) and DM (men: HR, 0.77; women: HR, 0.75) compared with the normal glucose group.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 96,626 patients.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Park SK et al. Bone. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115690.

Key clinical point: Patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and diabetes mellitus (DM) have a lower risk for incident osteoporosis.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis significantly decreased (P less than .001 for all) above the fourth quartile of fasting glucose levels in men and above the third quartile in women compared with the first quartile. The risk of osteoporosis was significantly lower (P less than .001 for all) with IFG (men: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; women: HR, 0.93) and DM (men: HR, 0.77; women: HR, 0.75) compared with the normal glucose group.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 96,626 patients.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Park SK et al. Bone. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115690.

Key clinical point: Patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and diabetes mellitus (DM) have a lower risk for incident osteoporosis.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis significantly decreased (P less than .001 for all) above the fourth quartile of fasting glucose levels in men and above the third quartile in women compared with the first quartile. The risk of osteoporosis was significantly lower (P less than .001 for all) with IFG (men: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; women: HR, 0.93) and DM (men: HR, 0.77; women: HR, 0.75) compared with the normal glucose group.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 96,626 patients.

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Park SK et al. Bone. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115690.

Key clinical point: Psoriasis was associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis in individuals aged 40 years or older.

Major finding: In study 1 (a follow-up study), the psoriasis group had a significantly higher risk of osteoporosis than the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; P less than .001). In study 2 (a nested case-control study), the osteoporosis group had a significantly higher prevalence of psoriasis than the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; P less than .001).

Study details: A total of 25,306 patients with psoriasis were matched (1:4) to 101,224 controls (study 1) and 79,212 patients with osteoporosis were matched (1:1) to 79,212 controls (study 2).

Disclosures: The work was supported in part by a research grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee JW et al. Osteoporos Int. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05724-2.

Key clinical point: Psoriasis was associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis in individuals aged 40 years or older.

Major finding: In study 1 (a follow-up study), the psoriasis group had a significantly higher risk of osteoporosis than the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; P less than .001). In study 2 (a nested case-control study), the osteoporosis group had a significantly higher prevalence of psoriasis than the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; P less than .001).

Study details: A total of 25,306 patients with psoriasis were matched (1:4) to 101,224 controls (study 1) and 79,212 patients with osteoporosis were matched (1:1) to 79,212 controls (study 2).

Disclosures: The work was supported in part by a research grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee JW et al. Osteoporos Int. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05724-2.

Key clinical point: Psoriasis was associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis in individuals aged 40 years or older.

Major finding: In study 1 (a follow-up study), the psoriasis group had a significantly higher risk of osteoporosis than the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; P less than .001). In study 2 (a nested case-control study), the osteoporosis group had a significantly higher prevalence of psoriasis than the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; P less than .001).

Study details: A total of 25,306 patients with psoriasis were matched (1:4) to 101,224 controls (study 1) and 79,212 patients with osteoporosis were matched (1:1) to 79,212 controls (study 2).

Disclosures: The work was supported in part by a research grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee JW et al. Osteoporos Int. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05724-2.

Key clinical point: Romosozumab followed by denosumab results in significant bone mineral density (BMD) gains and numerically lower vertebral fractures in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture vs. placebo followed by denosumab through 36 months of follow-up.

Major finding: At 12, 24, and 36 months, the incidence of new vertebral fractures was lower with romosozumab/denosumab vs. placebo/denosumab (relative risk reduction at all timepoints: 84%; P = .056). BMD increase at 12, 24, and 36 months were greater with romosozumab/denosumab vs. placebo/denosumab (lumbar spine: 16.3%, 21.5%, and 23.2% vs. 0.4%, 8.1%, and 10.4%; total hip: 4.9%, 7.9%, and 8.9% vs. 0.4%, 2.8%, and 4.1%; femoral neck: 4.8%, 7.6%, and 8.1% vs. 0.3%, 3.3%, and 3.7%, respectively; all P less than .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 FRAME study included 187 postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture (romosozumab/denosumab group, n = 91; placebo/denosumab group, n = 96).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Amgen Inc., Astellas, and UCB Pharma. A Miyauchi received consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas BioPharma K.K., and Teijin Pharma. E Hamaya, K Nishi, and J Shimauchi are employees of Amgen K.K., Japan, and E Hamaya holds stock in Amgen Inc. W Yang is an employee of Amgen Inc., USA. C Libanati is an employee of UCB Pharma, Belgium, and holds stock in UCB Pharma. C Tolman is an employee of Amgen and holds stock in Amgen.

Source: Miyauchi A et al. J Bone Miner Metab. 2020 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s00774-020-01147-5.

Key clinical point: Romosozumab followed by denosumab results in significant bone mineral density (BMD) gains and numerically lower vertebral fractures in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture vs. placebo followed by denosumab through 36 months of follow-up.

Major finding: At 12, 24, and 36 months, the incidence of new vertebral fractures was lower with romosozumab/denosumab vs. placebo/denosumab (relative risk reduction at all timepoints: 84%; P = .056). BMD increase at 12, 24, and 36 months were greater with romosozumab/denosumab vs. placebo/denosumab (lumbar spine: 16.3%, 21.5%, and 23.2% vs. 0.4%, 8.1%, and 10.4%; total hip: 4.9%, 7.9%, and 8.9% vs. 0.4%, 2.8%, and 4.1%; femoral neck: 4.8%, 7.6%, and 8.1% vs. 0.3%, 3.3%, and 3.7%, respectively; all P less than .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 FRAME study included 187 postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture (romosozumab/denosumab group, n = 91; placebo/denosumab group, n = 96).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Amgen Inc., Astellas, and UCB Pharma. A Miyauchi received consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas BioPharma K.K., and Teijin Pharma. E Hamaya, K Nishi, and J Shimauchi are employees of Amgen K.K., Japan, and E Hamaya holds stock in Amgen Inc. W Yang is an employee of Amgen Inc., USA. C Libanati is an employee of UCB Pharma, Belgium, and holds stock in UCB Pharma. C Tolman is an employee of Amgen and holds stock in Amgen.

Source: Miyauchi A et al. J Bone Miner Metab. 2020 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s00774-020-01147-5.

Key clinical point: Romosozumab followed by denosumab results in significant bone mineral density (BMD) gains and numerically lower vertebral fractures in postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture vs. placebo followed by denosumab through 36 months of follow-up.

Major finding: At 12, 24, and 36 months, the incidence of new vertebral fractures was lower with romosozumab/denosumab vs. placebo/denosumab (relative risk reduction at all timepoints: 84%; P = .056). BMD increase at 12, 24, and 36 months were greater with romosozumab/denosumab vs. placebo/denosumab (lumbar spine: 16.3%, 21.5%, and 23.2% vs. 0.4%, 8.1%, and 10.4%; total hip: 4.9%, 7.9%, and 8.9% vs. 0.4%, 2.8%, and 4.1%; femoral neck: 4.8%, 7.6%, and 8.1% vs. 0.3%, 3.3%, and 3.7%, respectively; all P less than .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 FRAME study included 187 postmenopausal Japanese women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture (romosozumab/denosumab group, n = 91; placebo/denosumab group, n = 96).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Amgen Inc., Astellas, and UCB Pharma. A Miyauchi received consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas BioPharma K.K., and Teijin Pharma. E Hamaya, K Nishi, and J Shimauchi are employees of Amgen K.K., Japan, and E Hamaya holds stock in Amgen Inc. W Yang is an employee of Amgen Inc., USA. C Libanati is an employee of UCB Pharma, Belgium, and holds stock in UCB Pharma. C Tolman is an employee of Amgen and holds stock in Amgen.

Source: Miyauchi A et al. J Bone Miner Metab. 2020 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s00774-020-01147-5.