Osteoporosis

LONDON – Bone mineral density (BMD) and estimated bone strength in the hip significantly increased during 1 year of treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody romosozumab in comparison with teriparatide in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had previous fracture history and had been taking bisphosphonates for at least the previous 3 years in an open-label, randomized trial.

The investigators in the phase III, international, multicenter STRUCTURE trial sought to compare the monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody romosozumab, which works dually to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption, against the bone-forming agent teriparatide (Forteo) to see if it would increase total hip bone mineral density to a significantly greater extent by 12 months. Teriparatide is known to take longer to build bone at the hip following bisphosphonate use.

“These results in our minds suggest that romosozumab may offer a unique benefit to patients at high risk for fracture, transitioning from bisphosphonates,” first author Bente L. Langdahl, Ph.D., of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She discussed the study results in this video interview.

When Dr. Langdahl was asked after her presentation about the foreseen role of the drug in clinical practice, she noted that ongoing phase III trials looking at fracture endpoints should indicate whether it works faster at preventing fractures. Because there does not seem to be a restriction to the repeated use of romosozumab, she suggested it might be given initially for 12 months to build bone, followed by bisphosphonates to stabilize gains made, and then it could be used again if needed in a treat-to-target fashion.

The trial randomized 436 patients to receive either subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly or subcutaneous teriparatide 20 mcg once daily for 12 months. All patients received a loading dose of 50,000-60,000 IU vitamin D3 to make sure they were vitamin D replete. The patients were postmenopausal, aged 55-90 years, and required to have taken oral bisphosphonate therapy at a dose equivalent to 70 mg weekly of alendronate for at least 3 years before enrollment (with at least 1 year of alendronate therapy prior to enrollment). They had a T score of –2.5 or less in total hip, lumbar spine, or femoral neck BMD and a history of a nonvertebral fracture after 50 years of age or a vertebral fracture at any age.

At 12 months, the primary endpoint of total hip BMD percentage change from baseline, which was calculated by averaging dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at 6 and 12 months, increased significantly by 2.6% in the romosozumab group, compared with a loss of –1.6% in the teriparatide group.

“Why did we choose this rather unusual endpoint? It’s because we wanted to capture what happened throughout the first year,” Dr. Langdahl said.

The respective changes from baseline total hip BMD at month 12 were 2.9% vs. –0.5%; in the femoral neck, the 12-month change was 3.2% vs. –0.2%; and in the lumbar spine, the change was 9.8% vs. 5.4%.

The trial participants had a mean age of about 71 years, and T scores ranging from –2.87 to –2.83 in the lumbar spine, –2.27 to –2.21 in total hip, and –2.49 to –2.43 in the femoral neck.

Secondary endpoints of volumetric BMD measured by quantitative CT at 12 months supported the results for DXA measurements at the total hip: integral BMD changed 3.4% with romosozumab vs. –0.2% with teriparatide, cortical BMD changed 1.1% with romosozumab vs. –3.6% with teriparatide, and trabecular BMD increased 15.6% vs. 9.9%, respectively. Total hip strength at 12 months as estimated by finite element analysis rose by 2.5% with romosozumab, compared with a loss of –0.7% with teriparatide. The loss in estimated bone strength at the hip occurred mainly in the first 6 months of treatment with teriparatide and had started to recover by 12 months.

The main difference between the two treatments in total hip BMD came from romosozumab’s bone-building effect on cortical bone, Dr. Langdahl said. The significant loss of total hip cortical BMD observed with teriparatide matches what has been seen in other studies, and it occurs “because the way that teriparatide works initially on cortical bone is to open up the remodeling space; therefore, a decrease in BMD is seen.”

While romosozumab’s speed in increasing BMD and building bone strength is likely to be clinically meaningful for patients at high risk of fracture, the short duration of the trial likely left out the possibility of seeing the same sort of late increases in hip BMD and bone strength during the second year of treatment with teriparatide that have been observed in other studies. Dr. Langdahl suggested that the decline in total hip cortical bone volumetric BMD may have increased had there been more time for measurement in the study; after bisphosphonate treatment, teriparatide’s mechanism of action is thought to open up the bone remodeling space by stimulating bone resorption and formation, particularly in cortical bone.

“You will see an increased porosity in the cortical bone, and I think that is what explains the initial decrease. You’ll also see that it’s kind of catching up [to romosozumab]. This is only a 12-month study, unfortunately. I’m sure if it had been continued for 24 months, there would be an increase in strength because that has been demonstrated in other studies.”

The trial’s comparison of romosozumab versus teriparatide alone also leaves open the question of whether adding teriparatide to bisphosphonate or switching to a combination of teriparatide plus denosumab or teriparatide plus zoledronic acid might have yielded results comparable with romosozumab alone.

Furthermore, The study is not large enough to determine the overall side-effect profile of romosozumab and will have to wait until the larger, ongoing phase III studies are completed, Dr. Langdahl said. In the STRUCTURE study, the overall side effect profile was well balanced between the two groups. More women who received teriparatide developed hypercalcemia, and patients who received romosozumab developed antibodies, although they did not neutralize the agent’s effects.

The study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and Amgen. One investigator is an employee of UCB, and one is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and/or honoraria from Amgen, UCB, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Orkla. Most other investigators also reported financial relationships to Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

LONDON – Bone mineral density (BMD) and estimated bone strength in the hip significantly increased during 1 year of treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody romosozumab in comparison with teriparatide in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had previous fracture history and had been taking bisphosphonates for at least the previous 3 years in an open-label, randomized trial.

The investigators in the phase III, international, multicenter STRUCTURE trial sought to compare the monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody romosozumab, which works dually to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption, against the bone-forming agent teriparatide (Forteo) to see if it would increase total hip bone mineral density to a significantly greater extent by 12 months. Teriparatide is known to take longer to build bone at the hip following bisphosphonate use.

“These results in our minds suggest that romosozumab may offer a unique benefit to patients at high risk for fracture, transitioning from bisphosphonates,” first author Bente L. Langdahl, Ph.D., of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She discussed the study results in this video interview.

When Dr. Langdahl was asked after her presentation about the foreseen role of the drug in clinical practice, she noted that ongoing phase III trials looking at fracture endpoints should indicate whether it works faster at preventing fractures. Because there does not seem to be a restriction to the repeated use of romosozumab, she suggested it might be given initially for 12 months to build bone, followed by bisphosphonates to stabilize gains made, and then it could be used again if needed in a treat-to-target fashion.

The trial randomized 436 patients to receive either subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly or subcutaneous teriparatide 20 mcg once daily for 12 months. All patients received a loading dose of 50,000-60,000 IU vitamin D3 to make sure they were vitamin D replete. The patients were postmenopausal, aged 55-90 years, and required to have taken oral bisphosphonate therapy at a dose equivalent to 70 mg weekly of alendronate for at least 3 years before enrollment (with at least 1 year of alendronate therapy prior to enrollment). They had a T score of –2.5 or less in total hip, lumbar spine, or femoral neck BMD and a history of a nonvertebral fracture after 50 years of age or a vertebral fracture at any age.

At 12 months, the primary endpoint of total hip BMD percentage change from baseline, which was calculated by averaging dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at 6 and 12 months, increased significantly by 2.6% in the romosozumab group, compared with a loss of –1.6% in the teriparatide group.

“Why did we choose this rather unusual endpoint? It’s because we wanted to capture what happened throughout the first year,” Dr. Langdahl said.

The respective changes from baseline total hip BMD at month 12 were 2.9% vs. –0.5%; in the femoral neck, the 12-month change was 3.2% vs. –0.2%; and in the lumbar spine, the change was 9.8% vs. 5.4%.

The trial participants had a mean age of about 71 years, and T scores ranging from –2.87 to –2.83 in the lumbar spine, –2.27 to –2.21 in total hip, and –2.49 to –2.43 in the femoral neck.

Secondary endpoints of volumetric BMD measured by quantitative CT at 12 months supported the results for DXA measurements at the total hip: integral BMD changed 3.4% with romosozumab vs. –0.2% with teriparatide, cortical BMD changed 1.1% with romosozumab vs. –3.6% with teriparatide, and trabecular BMD increased 15.6% vs. 9.9%, respectively. Total hip strength at 12 months as estimated by finite element analysis rose by 2.5% with romosozumab, compared with a loss of –0.7% with teriparatide. The loss in estimated bone strength at the hip occurred mainly in the first 6 months of treatment with teriparatide and had started to recover by 12 months.

The main difference between the two treatments in total hip BMD came from romosozumab’s bone-building effect on cortical bone, Dr. Langdahl said. The significant loss of total hip cortical BMD observed with teriparatide matches what has been seen in other studies, and it occurs “because the way that teriparatide works initially on cortical bone is to open up the remodeling space; therefore, a decrease in BMD is seen.”

While romosozumab’s speed in increasing BMD and building bone strength is likely to be clinically meaningful for patients at high risk of fracture, the short duration of the trial likely left out the possibility of seeing the same sort of late increases in hip BMD and bone strength during the second year of treatment with teriparatide that have been observed in other studies. Dr. Langdahl suggested that the decline in total hip cortical bone volumetric BMD may have increased had there been more time for measurement in the study; after bisphosphonate treatment, teriparatide’s mechanism of action is thought to open up the bone remodeling space by stimulating bone resorption and formation, particularly in cortical bone.

“You will see an increased porosity in the cortical bone, and I think that is what explains the initial decrease. You’ll also see that it’s kind of catching up [to romosozumab]. This is only a 12-month study, unfortunately. I’m sure if it had been continued for 24 months, there would be an increase in strength because that has been demonstrated in other studies.”

The trial’s comparison of romosozumab versus teriparatide alone also leaves open the question of whether adding teriparatide to bisphosphonate or switching to a combination of teriparatide plus denosumab or teriparatide plus zoledronic acid might have yielded results comparable with romosozumab alone.

Furthermore, The study is not large enough to determine the overall side-effect profile of romosozumab and will have to wait until the larger, ongoing phase III studies are completed, Dr. Langdahl said. In the STRUCTURE study, the overall side effect profile was well balanced between the two groups. More women who received teriparatide developed hypercalcemia, and patients who received romosozumab developed antibodies, although they did not neutralize the agent’s effects.

The study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and Amgen. One investigator is an employee of UCB, and one is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and/or honoraria from Amgen, UCB, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Orkla. Most other investigators also reported financial relationships to Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

LONDON – Bone mineral density (BMD) and estimated bone strength in the hip significantly increased during 1 year of treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody romosozumab in comparison with teriparatide in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had previous fracture history and had been taking bisphosphonates for at least the previous 3 years in an open-label, randomized trial.

The investigators in the phase III, international, multicenter STRUCTURE trial sought to compare the monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody romosozumab, which works dually to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption, against the bone-forming agent teriparatide (Forteo) to see if it would increase total hip bone mineral density to a significantly greater extent by 12 months. Teriparatide is known to take longer to build bone at the hip following bisphosphonate use.

“These results in our minds suggest that romosozumab may offer a unique benefit to patients at high risk for fracture, transitioning from bisphosphonates,” first author Bente L. Langdahl, Ph.D., of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She discussed the study results in this video interview.

When Dr. Langdahl was asked after her presentation about the foreseen role of the drug in clinical practice, she noted that ongoing phase III trials looking at fracture endpoints should indicate whether it works faster at preventing fractures. Because there does not seem to be a restriction to the repeated use of romosozumab, she suggested it might be given initially for 12 months to build bone, followed by bisphosphonates to stabilize gains made, and then it could be used again if needed in a treat-to-target fashion.

The trial randomized 436 patients to receive either subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly or subcutaneous teriparatide 20 mcg once daily for 12 months. All patients received a loading dose of 50,000-60,000 IU vitamin D3 to make sure they were vitamin D replete. The patients were postmenopausal, aged 55-90 years, and required to have taken oral bisphosphonate therapy at a dose equivalent to 70 mg weekly of alendronate for at least 3 years before enrollment (with at least 1 year of alendronate therapy prior to enrollment). They had a T score of –2.5 or less in total hip, lumbar spine, or femoral neck BMD and a history of a nonvertebral fracture after 50 years of age or a vertebral fracture at any age.

At 12 months, the primary endpoint of total hip BMD percentage change from baseline, which was calculated by averaging dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at 6 and 12 months, increased significantly by 2.6% in the romosozumab group, compared with a loss of –1.6% in the teriparatide group.

“Why did we choose this rather unusual endpoint? It’s because we wanted to capture what happened throughout the first year,” Dr. Langdahl said.

The respective changes from baseline total hip BMD at month 12 were 2.9% vs. –0.5%; in the femoral neck, the 12-month change was 3.2% vs. –0.2%; and in the lumbar spine, the change was 9.8% vs. 5.4%.

The trial participants had a mean age of about 71 years, and T scores ranging from –2.87 to –2.83 in the lumbar spine, –2.27 to –2.21 in total hip, and –2.49 to –2.43 in the femoral neck.

Secondary endpoints of volumetric BMD measured by quantitative CT at 12 months supported the results for DXA measurements at the total hip: integral BMD changed 3.4% with romosozumab vs. –0.2% with teriparatide, cortical BMD changed 1.1% with romosozumab vs. –3.6% with teriparatide, and trabecular BMD increased 15.6% vs. 9.9%, respectively. Total hip strength at 12 months as estimated by finite element analysis rose by 2.5% with romosozumab, compared with a loss of –0.7% with teriparatide. The loss in estimated bone strength at the hip occurred mainly in the first 6 months of treatment with teriparatide and had started to recover by 12 months.

The main difference between the two treatments in total hip BMD came from romosozumab’s bone-building effect on cortical bone, Dr. Langdahl said. The significant loss of total hip cortical BMD observed with teriparatide matches what has been seen in other studies, and it occurs “because the way that teriparatide works initially on cortical bone is to open up the remodeling space; therefore, a decrease in BMD is seen.”

While romosozumab’s speed in increasing BMD and building bone strength is likely to be clinically meaningful for patients at high risk of fracture, the short duration of the trial likely left out the possibility of seeing the same sort of late increases in hip BMD and bone strength during the second year of treatment with teriparatide that have been observed in other studies. Dr. Langdahl suggested that the decline in total hip cortical bone volumetric BMD may have increased had there been more time for measurement in the study; after bisphosphonate treatment, teriparatide’s mechanism of action is thought to open up the bone remodeling space by stimulating bone resorption and formation, particularly in cortical bone.

“You will see an increased porosity in the cortical bone, and I think that is what explains the initial decrease. You’ll also see that it’s kind of catching up [to romosozumab]. This is only a 12-month study, unfortunately. I’m sure if it had been continued for 24 months, there would be an increase in strength because that has been demonstrated in other studies.”

The trial’s comparison of romosozumab versus teriparatide alone also leaves open the question of whether adding teriparatide to bisphosphonate or switching to a combination of teriparatide plus denosumab or teriparatide plus zoledronic acid might have yielded results comparable with romosozumab alone.

Furthermore, The study is not large enough to determine the overall side-effect profile of romosozumab and will have to wait until the larger, ongoing phase III studies are completed, Dr. Langdahl said. In the STRUCTURE study, the overall side effect profile was well balanced between the two groups. More women who received teriparatide developed hypercalcemia, and patients who received romosozumab developed antibodies, although they did not neutralize the agent’s effects.

The study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and Amgen. One investigator is an employee of UCB, and one is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and/or honoraria from Amgen, UCB, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Orkla. Most other investigators also reported financial relationships to Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Anti-Müllerian hormone levels strongly predict the rate of perimenopausal loss of bone mineral density and might help identify women who need early intervention to prevent future osteoporotic fractures, according to data from a review of 474 perimenopausal women that was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The team matched anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements taken 2-4 years before the final menstrual period to BMD measurements taken 3 years later. The women were part of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), an ongoing multicenter study of women during their middle years.

When perimenopausal AMH “goes below 250 pg/mL, you are beginning to lose bone, and, when it goes below 200 pg/mL, you are losing bone fast, so that’s when you might want to intervene.” The finding “opens up the possibility of identifying women who are going to lose the most bone mass during the transition and targeting them before they have lost a substantial amount,” said lead investigator Dr. Arun Karlamangla of the department of geriatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

BMD loss is normal during menopause but rates of decline vary among women. AMH is a product of ovarian granulosa cells commonly used in fertility clinics to gauge ovarian reserve, but AMH levels also decline during menopause, and in a fairly stable fashion, he explained.

The women in SWAN were 42-52 years old at baseline with an intact uterus, at least one ovary, and no use of exogenous hormones. Blood was drawn during the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

The median rate of BMD decline was 1.26% per year in the lumbar spine and 1.03% per year in the femoral neck. The median AMH was 49 pg/mL but varied widely.

Adjusted for age, body mass index, smoking, race, and study site, the team found that for each 75% (or fourfold) decrement in AMH level, there was a 0.15% per year faster decline in spine BMD and 0.13% per year faster decline in femoral neck BMD. Each fourfold decrement was also associated with an 18% increase in the odds of faster than median decline in spine BMD and 17% increase in the odds of faster than median decline in femoral neck BMD. The fast losers lost more than 2% of their BMD per year in both the lumbar spine and femoral neck.

The results were the same after adjustment for follicle-stimulating hormone and estrogen levels, “so AMH provides information that cannot be obtained from estrogen and FSH,” Dr. Karlamangla said.

He cautioned that the technique needs further development and validation before it’s ready for the clinic. The team used the PicoAMH test from Ansh Labs in Webster, Tex.

The investigators had no disclosures. Ansh provided the assays for free. SWAN is funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Anti-Müllerian hormone levels strongly predict the rate of perimenopausal loss of bone mineral density and might help identify women who need early intervention to prevent future osteoporotic fractures, according to data from a review of 474 perimenopausal women that was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The team matched anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements taken 2-4 years before the final menstrual period to BMD measurements taken 3 years later. The women were part of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), an ongoing multicenter study of women during their middle years.

When perimenopausal AMH “goes below 250 pg/mL, you are beginning to lose bone, and, when it goes below 200 pg/mL, you are losing bone fast, so that’s when you might want to intervene.” The finding “opens up the possibility of identifying women who are going to lose the most bone mass during the transition and targeting them before they have lost a substantial amount,” said lead investigator Dr. Arun Karlamangla of the department of geriatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

BMD loss is normal during menopause but rates of decline vary among women. AMH is a product of ovarian granulosa cells commonly used in fertility clinics to gauge ovarian reserve, but AMH levels also decline during menopause, and in a fairly stable fashion, he explained.

The women in SWAN were 42-52 years old at baseline with an intact uterus, at least one ovary, and no use of exogenous hormones. Blood was drawn during the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

The median rate of BMD decline was 1.26% per year in the lumbar spine and 1.03% per year in the femoral neck. The median AMH was 49 pg/mL but varied widely.

Adjusted for age, body mass index, smoking, race, and study site, the team found that for each 75% (or fourfold) decrement in AMH level, there was a 0.15% per year faster decline in spine BMD and 0.13% per year faster decline in femoral neck BMD. Each fourfold decrement was also associated with an 18% increase in the odds of faster than median decline in spine BMD and 17% increase in the odds of faster than median decline in femoral neck BMD. The fast losers lost more than 2% of their BMD per year in both the lumbar spine and femoral neck.

The results were the same after adjustment for follicle-stimulating hormone and estrogen levels, “so AMH provides information that cannot be obtained from estrogen and FSH,” Dr. Karlamangla said.

He cautioned that the technique needs further development and validation before it’s ready for the clinic. The team used the PicoAMH test from Ansh Labs in Webster, Tex.

The investigators had no disclosures. Ansh provided the assays for free. SWAN is funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Anti-Müllerian hormone levels strongly predict the rate of perimenopausal loss of bone mineral density and might help identify women who need early intervention to prevent future osteoporotic fractures, according to data from a review of 474 perimenopausal women that was presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The team matched anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements taken 2-4 years before the final menstrual period to BMD measurements taken 3 years later. The women were part of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), an ongoing multicenter study of women during their middle years.

When perimenopausal AMH “goes below 250 pg/mL, you are beginning to lose bone, and, when it goes below 200 pg/mL, you are losing bone fast, so that’s when you might want to intervene.” The finding “opens up the possibility of identifying women who are going to lose the most bone mass during the transition and targeting them before they have lost a substantial amount,” said lead investigator Dr. Arun Karlamangla of the department of geriatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

BMD loss is normal during menopause but rates of decline vary among women. AMH is a product of ovarian granulosa cells commonly used in fertility clinics to gauge ovarian reserve, but AMH levels also decline during menopause, and in a fairly stable fashion, he explained.

The women in SWAN were 42-52 years old at baseline with an intact uterus, at least one ovary, and no use of exogenous hormones. Blood was drawn during the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

The median rate of BMD decline was 1.26% per year in the lumbar spine and 1.03% per year in the femoral neck. The median AMH was 49 pg/mL but varied widely.

Adjusted for age, body mass index, smoking, race, and study site, the team found that for each 75% (or fourfold) decrement in AMH level, there was a 0.15% per year faster decline in spine BMD and 0.13% per year faster decline in femoral neck BMD. Each fourfold decrement was also associated with an 18% increase in the odds of faster than median decline in spine BMD and 17% increase in the odds of faster than median decline in femoral neck BMD. The fast losers lost more than 2% of their BMD per year in both the lumbar spine and femoral neck.

The results were the same after adjustment for follicle-stimulating hormone and estrogen levels, “so AMH provides information that cannot be obtained from estrogen and FSH,” Dr. Karlamangla said.

He cautioned that the technique needs further development and validation before it’s ready for the clinic. The team used the PicoAMH test from Ansh Labs in Webster, Tex.

The investigators had no disclosures. Ansh provided the assays for free. SWAN is funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

BOSTON – The longer that estrogen therapy is delayed in girls with Turner syndrome, the lower their bone density will be in subsequent years, based on results of a retrospective, cross-sectional study from Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia.

For every year after age 11 that Turner patients went without estrogen – generally due to delayed initiation, but sometimes noncompliance – there was a significant reduction in bone mineral density in both the lumbar spine (Beta -0.582, P less than 0.001) and femoral neck (Beta -0.383, P = 0.008).

Estrogen deficiency and subsequent suboptimal bone mass accrual are known to contribute to the increased risk of osteoporosis in women with Turner syndrome, and about a doubling of the risk of fragility fractures, mostly of the forearm. About a third of the 76 women in the study had at least one fracture, explained investigator Dr. Amanda Vincent, head of the Midlife Health and Menopause Program at Monash.

“Avoiding estrogen deficiency is important to optimize bone health in Turner syndrome.” It “depends on early diagnosis, age-appropriate pubertal induction, and optimization of compliance,” Dr. Vincent said at the Endocrine Society annual meeting.

The median age of Turner syndrome diagnosis was 11 years, but estrogen treatments didn’t begin until a median age of 15. The women in the study were a median of about 30 years old, which means that they were adolescents at the time when estrogen treatment was often delayed in the mistaken belief that growth hormone therapy would be more effective before puberty was induced.

It’s now known that estrogen replacement works synergistically with, and even potentiates, the effects of growth hormone. Current guidelines recommend pubertal induction by age 13 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jan;92(1):10-25).

The women had at least one dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan at Monash since 1998. Z-scores below - 2, indicating low bone density, were found in the lumbar spines of about a quarter the subjects, and in the femoral necks of about 8%. Primary amenorrhea and premature menopause, followed by vitamin D deficiency, were the most common risk factors for low bone mass. Almost 40% of the women reported non-continuous use of estrogen. About half had undergone growth hormone therapy.

At a median height of 149 cm, the subjects were about 15 cm shorter than age-matched, healthy controls, and also had a slightly higher median body mass index of 25.6 kg/m². Lumbar spine bone area, bone mineral content, areal bone mineral density, and bone mineral apparent density were significantly lower in Turner syndrome patients. In the femoral neck, areal bone mineral density was significantly lower.

There was no relationship between bone markers and growth hormone use or Turner syndrome karyotype; the predominant karyotype was 45XO, but the study also included mosaic karyotypes.

The investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

BOSTON – The longer that estrogen therapy is delayed in girls with Turner syndrome, the lower their bone density will be in subsequent years, based on results of a retrospective, cross-sectional study from Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia.

For every year after age 11 that Turner patients went without estrogen – generally due to delayed initiation, but sometimes noncompliance – there was a significant reduction in bone mineral density in both the lumbar spine (Beta -0.582, P less than 0.001) and femoral neck (Beta -0.383, P = 0.008).

Estrogen deficiency and subsequent suboptimal bone mass accrual are known to contribute to the increased risk of osteoporosis in women with Turner syndrome, and about a doubling of the risk of fragility fractures, mostly of the forearm. About a third of the 76 women in the study had at least one fracture, explained investigator Dr. Amanda Vincent, head of the Midlife Health and Menopause Program at Monash.

“Avoiding estrogen deficiency is important to optimize bone health in Turner syndrome.” It “depends on early diagnosis, age-appropriate pubertal induction, and optimization of compliance,” Dr. Vincent said at the Endocrine Society annual meeting.

The median age of Turner syndrome diagnosis was 11 years, but estrogen treatments didn’t begin until a median age of 15. The women in the study were a median of about 30 years old, which means that they were adolescents at the time when estrogen treatment was often delayed in the mistaken belief that growth hormone therapy would be more effective before puberty was induced.

It’s now known that estrogen replacement works synergistically with, and even potentiates, the effects of growth hormone. Current guidelines recommend pubertal induction by age 13 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jan;92(1):10-25).

The women had at least one dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan at Monash since 1998. Z-scores below - 2, indicating low bone density, were found in the lumbar spines of about a quarter the subjects, and in the femoral necks of about 8%. Primary amenorrhea and premature menopause, followed by vitamin D deficiency, were the most common risk factors for low bone mass. Almost 40% of the women reported non-continuous use of estrogen. About half had undergone growth hormone therapy.

At a median height of 149 cm, the subjects were about 15 cm shorter than age-matched, healthy controls, and also had a slightly higher median body mass index of 25.6 kg/m². Lumbar spine bone area, bone mineral content, areal bone mineral density, and bone mineral apparent density were significantly lower in Turner syndrome patients. In the femoral neck, areal bone mineral density was significantly lower.

There was no relationship between bone markers and growth hormone use or Turner syndrome karyotype; the predominant karyotype was 45XO, but the study also included mosaic karyotypes.

The investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

BOSTON – The longer that estrogen therapy is delayed in girls with Turner syndrome, the lower their bone density will be in subsequent years, based on results of a retrospective, cross-sectional study from Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia.

For every year after age 11 that Turner patients went without estrogen – generally due to delayed initiation, but sometimes noncompliance – there was a significant reduction in bone mineral density in both the lumbar spine (Beta -0.582, P less than 0.001) and femoral neck (Beta -0.383, P = 0.008).

Estrogen deficiency and subsequent suboptimal bone mass accrual are known to contribute to the increased risk of osteoporosis in women with Turner syndrome, and about a doubling of the risk of fragility fractures, mostly of the forearm. About a third of the 76 women in the study had at least one fracture, explained investigator Dr. Amanda Vincent, head of the Midlife Health and Menopause Program at Monash.

“Avoiding estrogen deficiency is important to optimize bone health in Turner syndrome.” It “depends on early diagnosis, age-appropriate pubertal induction, and optimization of compliance,” Dr. Vincent said at the Endocrine Society annual meeting.

The median age of Turner syndrome diagnosis was 11 years, but estrogen treatments didn’t begin until a median age of 15. The women in the study were a median of about 30 years old, which means that they were adolescents at the time when estrogen treatment was often delayed in the mistaken belief that growth hormone therapy would be more effective before puberty was induced.

It’s now known that estrogen replacement works synergistically with, and even potentiates, the effects of growth hormone. Current guidelines recommend pubertal induction by age 13 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jan;92(1):10-25).

The women had at least one dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan at Monash since 1998. Z-scores below - 2, indicating low bone density, were found in the lumbar spines of about a quarter the subjects, and in the femoral necks of about 8%. Primary amenorrhea and premature menopause, followed by vitamin D deficiency, were the most common risk factors for low bone mass. Almost 40% of the women reported non-continuous use of estrogen. About half had undergone growth hormone therapy.

At a median height of 149 cm, the subjects were about 15 cm shorter than age-matched, healthy controls, and also had a slightly higher median body mass index of 25.6 kg/m². Lumbar spine bone area, bone mineral content, areal bone mineral density, and bone mineral apparent density were significantly lower in Turner syndrome patients. In the femoral neck, areal bone mineral density was significantly lower.

There was no relationship between bone markers and growth hormone use or Turner syndrome karyotype; the predominant karyotype was 45XO, but the study also included mosaic karyotypes.

The investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Fear of falling at 12 weeks was associated with poorer functional recovery up to 1 year after hip fracture, particularly if the person had a high level of function before the fracture, a study has shown.

Inherent in this fear is a tendency of the patient to limit his activities, which in turn affects his sense of balance, visual attention, and gait. This leads to an increased risk of further falls, according to Emily Bower, a doctoral candidate who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

The study included 241 hip fracture patients, three-quarters of whom were female, with an average age of 77 years. All of the patients lived in the community, nearly all were able to participate in basic activities of daily living, and three-quarters could walk without assistance.

Patients were assessed for their level of functionality at week 4, week 12, week 26, and week 52, as well as their fear of falling using the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I).

The investigators found that by week 52, 48% of all patients had reached full recovery of functional status. At week 12, 53% of all patients had FES-I scores indicating a lower fear of falling.

“That means that almost half of our participants were reporting high fear of falling 3 months after hip fracture, which is a substantial number when you consider that in the general population, fear of falling is reported by about one in five older adults,” Ms. Bower, who is enrolled at the San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego, joint doctoral program in clinical psychology, said in an interview.

At 1-year after fracture, for each 1 point increase in FES-I scores, the odds of reaching full recovery were lowered by 12% (P = .003). Meanwhile, in patients with low baseline levels of functioning, there was “no effect of fear of falling,” according to Ms. Bower.

The upshot is that for patients with high levels of functional independence prior to injury, more intervention may be required to bring them back to their levels of activity before the fracture, according to Ms. Bower, who suggested multicomponent activities that combine psychological, physical, and environmental factors, such as tai chi.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

WASHINGTON – Fear of falling at 12 weeks was associated with poorer functional recovery up to 1 year after hip fracture, particularly if the person had a high level of function before the fracture, a study has shown.

Inherent in this fear is a tendency of the patient to limit his activities, which in turn affects his sense of balance, visual attention, and gait. This leads to an increased risk of further falls, according to Emily Bower, a doctoral candidate who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

The study included 241 hip fracture patients, three-quarters of whom were female, with an average age of 77 years. All of the patients lived in the community, nearly all were able to participate in basic activities of daily living, and three-quarters could walk without assistance.

Patients were assessed for their level of functionality at week 4, week 12, week 26, and week 52, as well as their fear of falling using the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I).

The investigators found that by week 52, 48% of all patients had reached full recovery of functional status. At week 12, 53% of all patients had FES-I scores indicating a lower fear of falling.

“That means that almost half of our participants were reporting high fear of falling 3 months after hip fracture, which is a substantial number when you consider that in the general population, fear of falling is reported by about one in five older adults,” Ms. Bower, who is enrolled at the San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego, joint doctoral program in clinical psychology, said in an interview.

At 1-year after fracture, for each 1 point increase in FES-I scores, the odds of reaching full recovery were lowered by 12% (P = .003). Meanwhile, in patients with low baseline levels of functioning, there was “no effect of fear of falling,” according to Ms. Bower.

The upshot is that for patients with high levels of functional independence prior to injury, more intervention may be required to bring them back to their levels of activity before the fracture, according to Ms. Bower, who suggested multicomponent activities that combine psychological, physical, and environmental factors, such as tai chi.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

WASHINGTON – Fear of falling at 12 weeks was associated with poorer functional recovery up to 1 year after hip fracture, particularly if the person had a high level of function before the fracture, a study has shown.

Inherent in this fear is a tendency of the patient to limit his activities, which in turn affects his sense of balance, visual attention, and gait. This leads to an increased risk of further falls, according to Emily Bower, a doctoral candidate who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

The study included 241 hip fracture patients, three-quarters of whom were female, with an average age of 77 years. All of the patients lived in the community, nearly all were able to participate in basic activities of daily living, and three-quarters could walk without assistance.

Patients were assessed for their level of functionality at week 4, week 12, week 26, and week 52, as well as their fear of falling using the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I).

The investigators found that by week 52, 48% of all patients had reached full recovery of functional status. At week 12, 53% of all patients had FES-I scores indicating a lower fear of falling.

“That means that almost half of our participants were reporting high fear of falling 3 months after hip fracture, which is a substantial number when you consider that in the general population, fear of falling is reported by about one in five older adults,” Ms. Bower, who is enrolled at the San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego, joint doctoral program in clinical psychology, said in an interview.

At 1-year after fracture, for each 1 point increase in FES-I scores, the odds of reaching full recovery were lowered by 12% (P = .003). Meanwhile, in patients with low baseline levels of functioning, there was “no effect of fear of falling,” according to Ms. Bower.

The upshot is that for patients with high levels of functional independence prior to injury, more intervention may be required to bring them back to their levels of activity before the fracture, according to Ms. Bower, who suggested multicomponent activities that combine psychological, physical, and environmental factors, such as tai chi.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

Antisclerostin monoclonal antibodies have shown their ability to increase bone density in phase II and III trials of men and women with osteoporosis but could potentially have the opposite effect in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or other chronic inflammatory diseases in which tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) plays an important role, according to new research.

The new work, conducted by Corinna Wehmeyer, Ph.D., of the Institute of Experimental Musculoskeletal Medicine at University Hospital Muenster (Germany) and her colleagues, shows that the bone formation–inhibiting protein sclerostin is not expressed in bone only, as was previously thought, but is also expressed on the synovial cells of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

F. Rauch et al., Science Translational Medicine (2016)

Dr. Wehmeyer and her associates were surprised to find that inhibiting sclerostin in a human TNF-alpha transgenic mouse model of RA actually accelerated joint damage rather than prevented it, suggesting that sclerostin actually had a protective role in the presence of chronic TNF-alpha–mediated inflammation. They confirmed this by demonstrating that sclerostin inhibited TNF-alpha signaling in fibroblast-like synoviocytes and showing that blocking sclerostin caused less or little worsening of bone erosions in mouse models of RA that are more dependent on a robust T and B cell response accompanied by high cytokine expression within the joint, rather than damage driven by TNF-alpha.

“These findings strongly suggest that in chronic TNF-alpha–mediated inflammation, sclerostin expression is upregulated as part of an attempt to reestablish bone homeostasis, where it exerts protective functions,” the authors wrote (Sci Transl Med. 2016 Mar 16;8:330ra34. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac4351).

The research needs confirmation in humans with RA and potentially in other chronic inflammatory diseases in which TNF-alpha plays an important role. “Nevertheless, the preliminary data in three different models indicate that sclerostin antibody therapy could be contraindicated in patients with chronic TNF-alpha–dependent inflammatory conditions. The possibility of adverse pathological effects means that caution should be taken both when considering such treatment in RA or in patients with chronic TNF-alpha–dependent comorbidities. Thus, to translate these findings to patients, first strategies to use sclerostin inhibition should exclude inflammatory comorbidities and very thoroughly monitor inflammatory events in patients to which such therapies are applied,” the researchers advised.

In an editorial, Dr. Frank Rauch of McGill University, Montreal, and Dr. Rick Adachi of the department of rheumatology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., wrote that antisclerostin “treatment might accelerate joint destruction, at least when the inflammatory process is not quelled first. Patients with established RA usually undergo anti-inflammatory treatment, and it is unclear whether sclerostin inactivation would be detrimental in this context. Mouse data suggest that antisclerostin treatment might bring about regression of bone erosions when combined with TNF-alpha inhibition. The new work mirrors the situation of patients who have unrecognized RA while on antisclerostin therapy or who develop RA while receiving this treatment” (Sci Transl Med. 2016 Mar 16;8:330fs7. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf4628).

Antisclerostin antibodies in trials

Trials of the antisclerostin monoclonal antibodies romosozumab and blosozumab have been successful in treating postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis.

Romosozumab codevelopers UCB and Amgen reported that the biologic agent significantly reduced the rate of new vertebral fractures by 73% versus placebo at 12 months in the randomized, double-blind phase III FRAME (Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis) study. In the 7,180-patient trial, the reduction was 75% versus placebo at 24 months after both treatment groups had been transitioned to denosumab given every 6 months in the second year of treatment. Romosozumab also significantly lowered the relative risk of clinical fractures (composite of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures) by 36% at 12 months, but the difference was not statistically significant at 24 months.

In the initial 12-month treatment period, the most commonly reported adverse events in both arms (greater than 10%) were arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, and back pain. There were no differences in the proportions of patients who reported hearing loss or worsening of knee osteoarthritis. There were two positively adjudicated events of osteonecrosis of the jaw in the romosozumab treatment group, one after completing romosozumab dosing and the other after completing romosozumab treatment and receiving the initial dose of denosumab. There was one positively adjudicated event of atypical femoral fracture after 3 months of romosozumab treatment.

Phase III results from the 244-patient BRIDGE (Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Romosozumab in Treating Men With Osteoporosis) trial found a significant increase in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine at 12 months, which was the study’s primary endpoint. Other significant increases in femoral neck and total hip BMD were detected at 12 months. Cardiovascular severe adverse events occurred in 4.9% of men on romosozumab and 2.5% on placebo, including death in 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. At least 5% or more of patients who received romosozumab reported nasopharyngitis, back pain, hypertension, headache, and constipation. About 5% of patients who received romosozumab in each trial had injection-site reactions, most of which were mild.

A phase II trial of blosozumab in 120 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (mean lumbar spine T-score –2.8) showed that the drug increased BMD in the lumbar spine by 17.7% above baseline at 52 weeks, femoral neck by 8.4%, and total hip by 6.2%, compared with decreases of 1.6%, 0.6%, and 0.7%, respectively, with placebo (J Bone Miner Res. 2015 Feb;30[2]:216-24). However, mild injection-site reactions were reported by up to 40% of women taking blosozumab, and 35% developed antidrug antibodies after exposure to blosozumab. Eli Lilly, its developer, is looking at possible ways to reformulate the drug before it moves to phase III.

The study in Science Translational Medicine was supported by the German Research Foundation. The authors had no competing interests to disclose.

[email protected]

Antisclerostin monoclonal antibodies have shown their ability to increase bone density in phase II and III trials of men and women with osteoporosis but could potentially have the opposite effect in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or other chronic inflammatory diseases in which tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) plays an important role, according to new research.

The new work, conducted by Corinna Wehmeyer, Ph.D., of the Institute of Experimental Musculoskeletal Medicine at University Hospital Muenster (Germany) and her colleagues, shows that the bone formation–inhibiting protein sclerostin is not expressed in bone only, as was previously thought, but is also expressed on the synovial cells of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

F. Rauch et al., Science Translational Medicine (2016)

Dr. Wehmeyer and her associates were surprised to find that inhibiting sclerostin in a human TNF-alpha transgenic mouse model of RA actually accelerated joint damage rather than prevented it, suggesting that sclerostin actually had a protective role in the presence of chronic TNF-alpha–mediated inflammation. They confirmed this by demonstrating that sclerostin inhibited TNF-alpha signaling in fibroblast-like synoviocytes and showing that blocking sclerostin caused less or little worsening of bone erosions in mouse models of RA that are more dependent on a robust T and B cell response accompanied by high cytokine expression within the joint, rather than damage driven by TNF-alpha.

“These findings strongly suggest that in chronic TNF-alpha–mediated inflammation, sclerostin expression is upregulated as part of an attempt to reestablish bone homeostasis, where it exerts protective functions,” the authors wrote (Sci Transl Med. 2016 Mar 16;8:330ra34. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac4351).

The research needs confirmation in humans with RA and potentially in other chronic inflammatory diseases in which TNF-alpha plays an important role. “Nevertheless, the preliminary data in three different models indicate that sclerostin antibody therapy could be contraindicated in patients with chronic TNF-alpha–dependent inflammatory conditions. The possibility of adverse pathological effects means that caution should be taken both when considering such treatment in RA or in patients with chronic TNF-alpha–dependent comorbidities. Thus, to translate these findings to patients, first strategies to use sclerostin inhibition should exclude inflammatory comorbidities and very thoroughly monitor inflammatory events in patients to which such therapies are applied,” the researchers advised.

In an editorial, Dr. Frank Rauch of McGill University, Montreal, and Dr. Rick Adachi of the department of rheumatology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., wrote that antisclerostin “treatment might accelerate joint destruction, at least when the inflammatory process is not quelled first. Patients with established RA usually undergo anti-inflammatory treatment, and it is unclear whether sclerostin inactivation would be detrimental in this context. Mouse data suggest that antisclerostin treatment might bring about regression of bone erosions when combined with TNF-alpha inhibition. The new work mirrors the situation of patients who have unrecognized RA while on antisclerostin therapy or who develop RA while receiving this treatment” (Sci Transl Med. 2016 Mar 16;8:330fs7. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf4628).

Antisclerostin antibodies in trials

Trials of the antisclerostin monoclonal antibodies romosozumab and blosozumab have been successful in treating postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis.

Romosozumab codevelopers UCB and Amgen reported that the biologic agent significantly reduced the rate of new vertebral fractures by 73% versus placebo at 12 months in the randomized, double-blind phase III FRAME (Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis) study. In the 7,180-patient trial, the reduction was 75% versus placebo at 24 months after both treatment groups had been transitioned to denosumab given every 6 months in the second year of treatment. Romosozumab also significantly lowered the relative risk of clinical fractures (composite of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures) by 36% at 12 months, but the difference was not statistically significant at 24 months.

In the initial 12-month treatment period, the most commonly reported adverse events in both arms (greater than 10%) were arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, and back pain. There were no differences in the proportions of patients who reported hearing loss or worsening of knee osteoarthritis. There were two positively adjudicated events of osteonecrosis of the jaw in the romosozumab treatment group, one after completing romosozumab dosing and the other after completing romosozumab treatment and receiving the initial dose of denosumab. There was one positively adjudicated event of atypical femoral fracture after 3 months of romosozumab treatment.

Phase III results from the 244-patient BRIDGE (Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Romosozumab in Treating Men With Osteoporosis) trial found a significant increase in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine at 12 months, which was the study’s primary endpoint. Other significant increases in femoral neck and total hip BMD were detected at 12 months. Cardiovascular severe adverse events occurred in 4.9% of men on romosozumab and 2.5% on placebo, including death in 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. At least 5% or more of patients who received romosozumab reported nasopharyngitis, back pain, hypertension, headache, and constipation. About 5% of patients who received romosozumab in each trial had injection-site reactions, most of which were mild.

A phase II trial of blosozumab in 120 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (mean lumbar spine T-score –2.8) showed that the drug increased BMD in the lumbar spine by 17.7% above baseline at 52 weeks, femoral neck by 8.4%, and total hip by 6.2%, compared with decreases of 1.6%, 0.6%, and 0.7%, respectively, with placebo (J Bone Miner Res. 2015 Feb;30[2]:216-24). However, mild injection-site reactions were reported by up to 40% of women taking blosozumab, and 35% developed antidrug antibodies after exposure to blosozumab. Eli Lilly, its developer, is looking at possible ways to reformulate the drug before it moves to phase III.

The study in Science Translational Medicine was supported by the German Research Foundation. The authors had no competing interests to disclose.

[email protected]

Antisclerostin monoclonal antibodies have shown their ability to increase bone density in phase II and III trials of men and women with osteoporosis but could potentially have the opposite effect in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or other chronic inflammatory diseases in which tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) plays an important role, according to new research.

The new work, conducted by Corinna Wehmeyer, Ph.D., of the Institute of Experimental Musculoskeletal Medicine at University Hospital Muenster (Germany) and her colleagues, shows that the bone formation–inhibiting protein sclerostin is not expressed in bone only, as was previously thought, but is also expressed on the synovial cells of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

F. Rauch et al., Science Translational Medicine (2016)

Dr. Wehmeyer and her associates were surprised to find that inhibiting sclerostin in a human TNF-alpha transgenic mouse model of RA actually accelerated joint damage rather than prevented it, suggesting that sclerostin actually had a protective role in the presence of chronic TNF-alpha–mediated inflammation. They confirmed this by demonstrating that sclerostin inhibited TNF-alpha signaling in fibroblast-like synoviocytes and showing that blocking sclerostin caused less or little worsening of bone erosions in mouse models of RA that are more dependent on a robust T and B cell response accompanied by high cytokine expression within the joint, rather than damage driven by TNF-alpha.

“These findings strongly suggest that in chronic TNF-alpha–mediated inflammation, sclerostin expression is upregulated as part of an attempt to reestablish bone homeostasis, where it exerts protective functions,” the authors wrote (Sci Transl Med. 2016 Mar 16;8:330ra34. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac4351).

The research needs confirmation in humans with RA and potentially in other chronic inflammatory diseases in which TNF-alpha plays an important role. “Nevertheless, the preliminary data in three different models indicate that sclerostin antibody therapy could be contraindicated in patients with chronic TNF-alpha–dependent inflammatory conditions. The possibility of adverse pathological effects means that caution should be taken both when considering such treatment in RA or in patients with chronic TNF-alpha–dependent comorbidities. Thus, to translate these findings to patients, first strategies to use sclerostin inhibition should exclude inflammatory comorbidities and very thoroughly monitor inflammatory events in patients to which such therapies are applied,” the researchers advised.

In an editorial, Dr. Frank Rauch of McGill University, Montreal, and Dr. Rick Adachi of the department of rheumatology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., wrote that antisclerostin “treatment might accelerate joint destruction, at least when the inflammatory process is not quelled first. Patients with established RA usually undergo anti-inflammatory treatment, and it is unclear whether sclerostin inactivation would be detrimental in this context. Mouse data suggest that antisclerostin treatment might bring about regression of bone erosions when combined with TNF-alpha inhibition. The new work mirrors the situation of patients who have unrecognized RA while on antisclerostin therapy or who develop RA while receiving this treatment” (Sci Transl Med. 2016 Mar 16;8:330fs7. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf4628).

Antisclerostin antibodies in trials

Trials of the antisclerostin monoclonal antibodies romosozumab and blosozumab have been successful in treating postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis.

Romosozumab codevelopers UCB and Amgen reported that the biologic agent significantly reduced the rate of new vertebral fractures by 73% versus placebo at 12 months in the randomized, double-blind phase III FRAME (Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis) study. In the 7,180-patient trial, the reduction was 75% versus placebo at 24 months after both treatment groups had been transitioned to denosumab given every 6 months in the second year of treatment. Romosozumab also significantly lowered the relative risk of clinical fractures (composite of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures) by 36% at 12 months, but the difference was not statistically significant at 24 months.

In the initial 12-month treatment period, the most commonly reported adverse events in both arms (greater than 10%) were arthralgia, nasopharyngitis, and back pain. There were no differences in the proportions of patients who reported hearing loss or worsening of knee osteoarthritis. There were two positively adjudicated events of osteonecrosis of the jaw in the romosozumab treatment group, one after completing romosozumab dosing and the other after completing romosozumab treatment and receiving the initial dose of denosumab. There was one positively adjudicated event of atypical femoral fracture after 3 months of romosozumab treatment.

Phase III results from the 244-patient BRIDGE (Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Romosozumab in Treating Men With Osteoporosis) trial found a significant increase in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine at 12 months, which was the study’s primary endpoint. Other significant increases in femoral neck and total hip BMD were detected at 12 months. Cardiovascular severe adverse events occurred in 4.9% of men on romosozumab and 2.5% on placebo, including death in 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. At least 5% or more of patients who received romosozumab reported nasopharyngitis, back pain, hypertension, headache, and constipation. About 5% of patients who received romosozumab in each trial had injection-site reactions, most of which were mild.

A phase II trial of blosozumab in 120 postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (mean lumbar spine T-score –2.8) showed that the drug increased BMD in the lumbar spine by 17.7% above baseline at 52 weeks, femoral neck by 8.4%, and total hip by 6.2%, compared with decreases of 1.6%, 0.6%, and 0.7%, respectively, with placebo (J Bone Miner Res. 2015 Feb;30[2]:216-24). However, mild injection-site reactions were reported by up to 40% of women taking blosozumab, and 35% developed antidrug antibodies after exposure to blosozumab. Eli Lilly, its developer, is looking at possible ways to reformulate the drug before it moves to phase III.

The study in Science Translational Medicine was supported by the German Research Foundation. The authors had no competing interests to disclose.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) really need to be placed on bone protection therapy as soon as they start on corticosteroids because their risks of steroid-related osteoporosis and osteonecrosis are so high, Dr. Dafna D. Gladman advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Investigators for new studies of large cohorts of SLE patients seen at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic have examined numerous potential predictors of bone comorbidities, but only one independent risk factor emerged: a high cumulative dose of corticosteroids, said Dr. Gladman, professor of medicine and codirector of the clinic.

“The dose of steroids is certainly important. It’s relevant to patient management because we obviously want to try to minimize the amount of steroids that patients with lupus get,” the rheumatologist observed.

The Toronto experience underscores just how common and serious these bone comorbidities are.

Among 1,729 SLE patients in the clinic database, 13.6% developed symptomatic osteonecrosis as defined by clinical symptoms plus positive imaging findings. Overall, 86% were female. The mean age at diagnosis of SLE was 26.6 years, with a mean 8.2-year interval from SLE diagnosis to the first episode of osteonecrosis. The 235 patients with osteonecrosis had a collective 382 affected joints at the time of their first osteonecrosis diagnosis, with an additional 160 joints becoming osteonecrotic later.

Particularly noteworthy was the finding that fully 47% of patients had more than one site involved at the time of their first osteonecrotic event, according to Dr. Gladman.

By far the most frequently affected joints were the hips, followed by knees. Surgery was often required in order to manage the injuries. Indeed, surgery was performed on more than half of osteonecrotic hips, 30% of affected wrists, and 20% of knees.

In a multivariate regression analysis involving 162 SLE patients with osteonecrosis and an equal number of matched controls who had SLE but not osteonecrosis, the only independent predictor of osteonecrosis was a high cumulative dose of corticosteroids; in the osteonecrosis group, it averaged 31 g. Factors that didn’t pan out as predictors included patient age, gender, race, smoking status, current or past use of antimalarial drugs, duration of immunosuppressive therapy, disease severity as reflected by the adjusted mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 3 years prior to osteonecrosis or the last clinic visit, total serum cholesterol, and a history of Raynaud’s, vasculitis, or renal or CNS involvement.

Turning to osteoporosis in SLE patients, Dr. Gladman said that among 286 patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurement at the time they were first seen in the clinic, 31.5% had an abnormal result. Among the 173 premenopausal females, 17% had a BMD below the lower limit of normal for their age. So did 27% of men below age 50. In postmenopausal women, the prevalences of osteoporosis and osteopenia were 12% and 43%, respectively. One of 10 men over age 50 had osteoporosis, while 8 had low BMD.

Twenty patients had a symptomatic fragility fracture at the time of their BMD test, and, of note, only half of them had an abnormal BMD.

“So the BMD does not actually identify all those patients who are at risk for the adverse outcome of osteoporosis, which will be a fragility fracture,” Dr. Gladman said.

She reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) really need to be placed on bone protection therapy as soon as they start on corticosteroids because their risks of steroid-related osteoporosis and osteonecrosis are so high, Dr. Dafna D. Gladman advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Investigators for new studies of large cohorts of SLE patients seen at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic have examined numerous potential predictors of bone comorbidities, but only one independent risk factor emerged: a high cumulative dose of corticosteroids, said Dr. Gladman, professor of medicine and codirector of the clinic.

“The dose of steroids is certainly important. It’s relevant to patient management because we obviously want to try to minimize the amount of steroids that patients with lupus get,” the rheumatologist observed.

The Toronto experience underscores just how common and serious these bone comorbidities are.

Among 1,729 SLE patients in the clinic database, 13.6% developed symptomatic osteonecrosis as defined by clinical symptoms plus positive imaging findings. Overall, 86% were female. The mean age at diagnosis of SLE was 26.6 years, with a mean 8.2-year interval from SLE diagnosis to the first episode of osteonecrosis. The 235 patients with osteonecrosis had a collective 382 affected joints at the time of their first osteonecrosis diagnosis, with an additional 160 joints becoming osteonecrotic later.

Particularly noteworthy was the finding that fully 47% of patients had more than one site involved at the time of their first osteonecrotic event, according to Dr. Gladman.

By far the most frequently affected joints were the hips, followed by knees. Surgery was often required in order to manage the injuries. Indeed, surgery was performed on more than half of osteonecrotic hips, 30% of affected wrists, and 20% of knees.

In a multivariate regression analysis involving 162 SLE patients with osteonecrosis and an equal number of matched controls who had SLE but not osteonecrosis, the only independent predictor of osteonecrosis was a high cumulative dose of corticosteroids; in the osteonecrosis group, it averaged 31 g. Factors that didn’t pan out as predictors included patient age, gender, race, smoking status, current or past use of antimalarial drugs, duration of immunosuppressive therapy, disease severity as reflected by the adjusted mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 3 years prior to osteonecrosis or the last clinic visit, total serum cholesterol, and a history of Raynaud’s, vasculitis, or renal or CNS involvement.

Turning to osteoporosis in SLE patients, Dr. Gladman said that among 286 patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurement at the time they were first seen in the clinic, 31.5% had an abnormal result. Among the 173 premenopausal females, 17% had a BMD below the lower limit of normal for their age. So did 27% of men below age 50. In postmenopausal women, the prevalences of osteoporosis and osteopenia were 12% and 43%, respectively. One of 10 men over age 50 had osteoporosis, while 8 had low BMD.

Twenty patients had a symptomatic fragility fracture at the time of their BMD test, and, of note, only half of them had an abnormal BMD.

“So the BMD does not actually identify all those patients who are at risk for the adverse outcome of osteoporosis, which will be a fragility fracture,” Dr. Gladman said.

She reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) really need to be placed on bone protection therapy as soon as they start on corticosteroids because their risks of steroid-related osteoporosis and osteonecrosis are so high, Dr. Dafna D. Gladman advised at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Investigators for new studies of large cohorts of SLE patients seen at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic have examined numerous potential predictors of bone comorbidities, but only one independent risk factor emerged: a high cumulative dose of corticosteroids, said Dr. Gladman, professor of medicine and codirector of the clinic.

“The dose of steroids is certainly important. It’s relevant to patient management because we obviously want to try to minimize the amount of steroids that patients with lupus get,” the rheumatologist observed.

The Toronto experience underscores just how common and serious these bone comorbidities are.

Among 1,729 SLE patients in the clinic database, 13.6% developed symptomatic osteonecrosis as defined by clinical symptoms plus positive imaging findings. Overall, 86% were female. The mean age at diagnosis of SLE was 26.6 years, with a mean 8.2-year interval from SLE diagnosis to the first episode of osteonecrosis. The 235 patients with osteonecrosis had a collective 382 affected joints at the time of their first osteonecrosis diagnosis, with an additional 160 joints becoming osteonecrotic later.

Particularly noteworthy was the finding that fully 47% of patients had more than one site involved at the time of their first osteonecrotic event, according to Dr. Gladman.

By far the most frequently affected joints were the hips, followed by knees. Surgery was often required in order to manage the injuries. Indeed, surgery was performed on more than half of osteonecrotic hips, 30% of affected wrists, and 20% of knees.

In a multivariate regression analysis involving 162 SLE patients with osteonecrosis and an equal number of matched controls who had SLE but not osteonecrosis, the only independent predictor of osteonecrosis was a high cumulative dose of corticosteroids; in the osteonecrosis group, it averaged 31 g. Factors that didn’t pan out as predictors included patient age, gender, race, smoking status, current or past use of antimalarial drugs, duration of immunosuppressive therapy, disease severity as reflected by the adjusted mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 3 years prior to osteonecrosis or the last clinic visit, total serum cholesterol, and a history of Raynaud’s, vasculitis, or renal or CNS involvement.

Turning to osteoporosis in SLE patients, Dr. Gladman said that among 286 patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) measurement at the time they were first seen in the clinic, 31.5% had an abnormal result. Among the 173 premenopausal females, 17% had a BMD below the lower limit of normal for their age. So did 27% of men below age 50. In postmenopausal women, the prevalences of osteoporosis and osteopenia were 12% and 43%, respectively. One of 10 men over age 50 had osteoporosis, while 8 had low BMD.

Twenty patients had a symptomatic fragility fracture at the time of their BMD test, and, of note, only half of them had an abnormal BMD.

“So the BMD does not actually identify all those patients who are at risk for the adverse outcome of osteoporosis, which will be a fragility fracture,” Dr. Gladman said.

She reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

Therapeutic goals set the tone for the American College of Rheumatology National Research Agenda 2016-2020 by calling for the discovery and development of new therapies for rheumatic disease; finding predictors of response and nonresponse to, and adverse events from therapy; and improving the understanding of how therapies should be used.

Those are the top 3 out of 15 goals facilitated by the ACR’s Committee on Research, which finalized the agenda after seeking input from members of the ACR and Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP) living in the United States, and going through several rounds of refining and prioritizing the importance of goals through the input of clinicians, researchers, patients, and stakeholders. The Committee on Research uses the agenda to “set the compass for the organization in terms of research initiatives and facilitate the ACR’s advocacy for the research goals identified.”

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstock

Dr. Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, who jointly led the development of the agenda for the Committee on Research along with Dr. S. Louis Bridges, said that while the goals for 2016-2020 had a great deal of overlap with those of 2011-2015, “some of the topics that came up were different. Some of the topics were more specific than in the previous agenda. We have some idea how important these issues were to rheumatologists, given that rheumatologists (and patients) rated the importance of the items. Defining new therapeutic targets and developing new therapies for rheumatic diseases was by far the most highly rated goal by rheumatologists. Next most highly rated was to advocate for increased support for rheumatology research and rheumatology investigators – this was included as a supplementary goal that supports the rest of the agenda. Other newer items were those around determining how the changing health care landscape affects rheumatology patients and clinicians. In addition, nonpharmacologic therapy, adult outcomes of pediatric disease, and optimizing patient engagement were topics that were felt to be important. I think these highlight the input of clinicians in identifying research objectives.”

The 2016-2020 agenda is the third set of goals developed by the committee since 2005, and the first to “crowdsource” the important questions to ACR and ARHP members rather than be assembled solely by the committee.

The agenda arose from a multistage process that began with a web-based survey to the ACR/ARHP membership that asked respondents to “list the five most important research questions that need to be addressed over the next 5 years in order to improve the care for patients with rheumatic disease.” A selected group of 100 individuals representing patients, clinicians (academic and community), research (all types with diverse areas/diseases of interest), allied health professionals, pediatric and adult rheumatology, men and women, all career stages, and all regions of the country, used a Delphi exercise to rate 30 statements generated from the survey on a scale from 1 (not important) to 10 (very important). They had the option to provide comments. At a Leadership Summit, stakeholders from various nonprofit foundations associated with rheumatic diseases, the National Institutes of Health, and the president of the Rheumatology Research Foundation gave comments on a draft agenda to the Committee on Research, after which the committee discussed the results and input and then solicited further 1-10 ratings and comments on preliminary agenda goals from the same group of 100 individuals as in the second phase, plus an additional 17 clinicians.

Up next in the rank-ordering after therapeutic goals were three goals about understanding:

• The etiology, pathogenesis, and genetic basis of rheumatic diseases.

• Early disease states to improve early diagnosis, develop biomarkers for early detection, and determine how earlier treatment changes outcomes.

• The immune system and autoimmunity by defining autoimmunity triggers and determining how epigenetics affect disease susceptibility and inflammation.

The 5-year plan proposed developing improved outcome measures that incorporate patient self-reports, imaging, and measures of clinical response and disease activity. The agenda also seeks to gain better understanding of how patients with rheumatic disease, rheumatologists, and rheumatology health professionals are being affected by the changing U.S. health care landscape.

The plan calls for determining the role of nonpharmacologic therapy in the management of rheumatic disease (promoting and improving adherence to physical activity, finding optimal exercise prescriptions, and determining the role of diet on disease activity), as well as evaluating the role of regenerative medicine.

The agenda spells out the need for better engagement of patients in their care as well as for understanding how comorbidities are influenced by rheumatic disease and how pain and fatigue arise in rheumatic disease.

In two separate goals, committee members listed the importance of determining adult outcomes of pediatric rheumatic diseases and the effect of aging on the development, progression, and management of rheumatic diseases.

The Committee on Research identified three supplemental goals that support the others:

• Advocating for increased support for rheumatology research and rheumatology investigators.

• Harmonizing data from existing cohorts and registries to optimize research capabilities.

• Improving patient research partner involvement in research protocols.

[email protected]

Therapeutic goals set the tone for the American College of Rheumatology National Research Agenda 2016-2020 by calling for the discovery and development of new therapies for rheumatic disease; finding predictors of response and nonresponse to, and adverse events from therapy; and improving the understanding of how therapies should be used.

Those are the top 3 out of 15 goals facilitated by the ACR’s Committee on Research, which finalized the agenda after seeking input from members of the ACR and Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP) living in the United States, and going through several rounds of refining and prioritizing the importance of goals through the input of clinicians, researchers, patients, and stakeholders. The Committee on Research uses the agenda to “set the compass for the organization in terms of research initiatives and facilitate the ACR’s advocacy for the research goals identified.”

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstock

Dr. Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, who jointly led the development of the agenda for the Committee on Research along with Dr. S. Louis Bridges, said that while the goals for 2016-2020 had a great deal of overlap with those of 2011-2015, “some of the topics that came up were different. Some of the topics were more specific than in the previous agenda. We have some idea how important these issues were to rheumatologists, given that rheumatologists (and patients) rated the importance of the items. Defining new therapeutic targets and developing new therapies for rheumatic diseases was by far the most highly rated goal by rheumatologists. Next most highly rated was to advocate for increased support for rheumatology research and rheumatology investigators – this was included as a supplementary goal that supports the rest of the agenda. Other newer items were those around determining how the changing health care landscape affects rheumatology patients and clinicians. In addition, nonpharmacologic therapy, adult outcomes of pediatric disease, and optimizing patient engagement were topics that were felt to be important. I think these highlight the input of clinicians in identifying research objectives.”

The 2016-2020 agenda is the third set of goals developed by the committee since 2005, and the first to “crowdsource” the important questions to ACR and ARHP members rather than be assembled solely by the committee.

The agenda arose from a multistage process that began with a web-based survey to the ACR/ARHP membership that asked respondents to “list the five most important research questions that need to be addressed over the next 5 years in order to improve the care for patients with rheumatic disease.” A selected group of 100 individuals representing patients, clinicians (academic and community), research (all types with diverse areas/diseases of interest), allied health professionals, pediatric and adult rheumatology, men and women, all career stages, and all regions of the country, used a Delphi exercise to rate 30 statements generated from the survey on a scale from 1 (not important) to 10 (very important). They had the option to provide comments. At a Leadership Summit, stakeholders from various nonprofit foundations associated with rheumatic diseases, the National Institutes of Health, and the president of the Rheumatology Research Foundation gave comments on a draft agenda to the Committee on Research, after which the committee discussed the results and input and then solicited further 1-10 ratings and comments on preliminary agenda goals from the same group of 100 individuals as in the second phase, plus an additional 17 clinicians.

Up next in the rank-ordering after therapeutic goals were three goals about understanding:

• The etiology, pathogenesis, and genetic basis of rheumatic diseases.

• Early disease states to improve early diagnosis, develop biomarkers for early detection, and determine how earlier treatment changes outcomes.

• The immune system and autoimmunity by defining autoimmunity triggers and determining how epigenetics affect disease susceptibility and inflammation.

The 5-year plan proposed developing improved outcome measures that incorporate patient self-reports, imaging, and measures of clinical response and disease activity. The agenda also seeks to gain better understanding of how patients with rheumatic disease, rheumatologists, and rheumatology health professionals are being affected by the changing U.S. health care landscape.

The plan calls for determining the role of nonpharmacologic therapy in the management of rheumatic disease (promoting and improving adherence to physical activity, finding optimal exercise prescriptions, and determining the role of diet on disease activity), as well as evaluating the role of regenerative medicine.

The agenda spells out the need for better engagement of patients in their care as well as for understanding how comorbidities are influenced by rheumatic disease and how pain and fatigue arise in rheumatic disease.

In two separate goals, committee members listed the importance of determining adult outcomes of pediatric rheumatic diseases and the effect of aging on the development, progression, and management of rheumatic diseases.

The Committee on Research identified three supplemental goals that support the others:

• Advocating for increased support for rheumatology research and rheumatology investigators.

• Harmonizing data from existing cohorts and registries to optimize research capabilities.

• Improving patient research partner involvement in research protocols.

[email protected]

Therapeutic goals set the tone for the American College of Rheumatology National Research Agenda 2016-2020 by calling for the discovery and development of new therapies for rheumatic disease; finding predictors of response and nonresponse to, and adverse events from therapy; and improving the understanding of how therapies should be used.

Those are the top 3 out of 15 goals facilitated by the ACR’s Committee on Research, which finalized the agenda after seeking input from members of the ACR and Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP) living in the United States, and going through several rounds of refining and prioritizing the importance of goals through the input of clinicians, researchers, patients, and stakeholders. The Committee on Research uses the agenda to “set the compass for the organization in terms of research initiatives and facilitate the ACR’s advocacy for the research goals identified.”

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstock

Dr. Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, who jointly led the development of the agenda for the Committee on Research along with Dr. S. Louis Bridges, said that while the goals for 2016-2020 had a great deal of overlap with those of 2011-2015, “some of the topics that came up were different. Some of the topics were more specific than in the previous agenda. We have some idea how important these issues were to rheumatologists, given that rheumatologists (and patients) rated the importance of the items. Defining new therapeutic targets and developing new therapies for rheumatic diseases was by far the most highly rated goal by rheumatologists. Next most highly rated was to advocate for increased support for rheumatology research and rheumatology investigators – this was included as a supplementary goal that supports the rest of the agenda. Other newer items were those around determining how the changing health care landscape affects rheumatology patients and clinicians. In addition, nonpharmacologic therapy, adult outcomes of pediatric disease, and optimizing patient engagement were topics that were felt to be important. I think these highlight the input of clinicians in identifying research objectives.”

The 2016-2020 agenda is the third set of goals developed by the committee since 2005, and the first to “crowdsource” the important questions to ACR and ARHP members rather than be assembled solely by the committee.

The agenda arose from a multistage process that began with a web-based survey to the ACR/ARHP membership that asked respondents to “list the five most important research questions that need to be addressed over the next 5 years in order to improve the care for patients with rheumatic disease.” A selected group of 100 individuals representing patients, clinicians (academic and community), research (all types with diverse areas/diseases of interest), allied health professionals, pediatric and adult rheumatology, men and women, all career stages, and all regions of the country, used a Delphi exercise to rate 30 statements generated from the survey on a scale from 1 (not important) to 10 (very important). They had the option to provide comments. At a Leadership Summit, stakeholders from various nonprofit foundations associated with rheumatic diseases, the National Institutes of Health, and the president of the Rheumatology Research Foundation gave comments on a draft agenda to the Committee on Research, after which the committee discussed the results and input and then solicited further 1-10 ratings and comments on preliminary agenda goals from the same group of 100 individuals as in the second phase, plus an additional 17 clinicians.

Up next in the rank-ordering after therapeutic goals were three goals about understanding:

• The etiology, pathogenesis, and genetic basis of rheumatic diseases.

• Early disease states to improve early diagnosis, develop biomarkers for early detection, and determine how earlier treatment changes outcomes.

• The immune system and autoimmunity by defining autoimmunity triggers and determining how epigenetics affect disease susceptibility and inflammation.

The 5-year plan proposed developing improved outcome measures that incorporate patient self-reports, imaging, and measures of clinical response and disease activity. The agenda also seeks to gain better understanding of how patients with rheumatic disease, rheumatologists, and rheumatology health professionals are being affected by the changing U.S. health care landscape.

The plan calls for determining the role of nonpharmacologic therapy in the management of rheumatic disease (promoting and improving adherence to physical activity, finding optimal exercise prescriptions, and determining the role of diet on disease activity), as well as evaluating the role of regenerative medicine.

The agenda spells out the need for better engagement of patients in their care as well as for understanding how comorbidities are influenced by rheumatic disease and how pain and fatigue arise in rheumatic disease.

In two separate goals, committee members listed the importance of determining adult outcomes of pediatric rheumatic diseases and the effect of aging on the development, progression, and management of rheumatic diseases.

The Committee on Research identified three supplemental goals that support the others:

• Advocating for increased support for rheumatology research and rheumatology investigators.

• Harmonizing data from existing cohorts and registries to optimize research capabilities.

• Improving patient research partner involvement in research protocols.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The investigational bone-building agent romosozumab provided the therapeutic highlight in the field of osteoporosis during the past year, Dr. Martin J. Bergman said at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin, a glycoprotein that prevents mesenchymal cells from becoming osteoblasts. By inhibiting sclerostin, romosozumab promotes osteoblast production. The result is increased bone mineral density and bone formation coupled with decreased bone resorption, providing physicians with a promising new avenue for rapidly building strong bone, explained Dr. Bergman of Drexel University in Philadelphia and chief of the section of rheumatology at Taylor Hospital in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Romosozumab caught his eye in a 12-month randomized trial presented last fall at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The 430 postmenopausal participants were assigned to blinded romosozumab at 210 mg delivered by subcutaneous injection once per month, blinded placebo, or open-label teriparatide (Forteo). The primary endpoint in this secondary analysis was change in bone strength as measured using the Food and Drug Administration–approved method of finite element analysis based upon quantitative CT imaging.

Romosozumab boosted bone strength at the spine by 27.3% at 12 months, compared with a 3.9% reduction from baseline with placebo and an 18.5% increase with teriparatide. At the hip, romosozumab delivered a 3.6% increase in bone strength versus no significant change from baseline in the other two study arms. Thus, romosozumab increased bone strength both in the cortical and trabecular compartments even more than did teriparatide, the most potent drug currently available for building bone mass.

“The numbers are very impressive,” Dr. Bergman observed. “Trabecular bone, cortical bone, whole bone – across the board, we haven’t seen similar numbers before. I think this is going to be a very exciting new approach to the treatment of osteoporosis. We need to keep an eye on this.”

Romosozumab, which is being codeveloped by Amgen and UCB, is now in phase III testing.

The other big news in osteoporosis is that later this year the ACR will undertake a revision of its 2010 guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2010 Nov;62[11]:1515-26).

Among the actions that need to be taken are the incorporation of denosumab (Prolia) and ibandronate (Boniva) into the treatment recommendations, as well as clarification of the recommendation for supplemental calcium in light of recent evidence of an association between high serum calcium and increased cardiovascular risk. Most of the lifestyle modification recommendations in the current guidelines are supported by a weak level of evidence C, meaning “expert opinion,” and the hope is that the evidence has become stronger since 2010, he said.

Dr. Bergman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The investigational bone-building agent romosozumab provided the therapeutic highlight in the field of osteoporosis during the past year, Dr. Martin J. Bergman said at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin, a glycoprotein that prevents mesenchymal cells from becoming osteoblasts. By inhibiting sclerostin, romosozumab promotes osteoblast production. The result is increased bone mineral density and bone formation coupled with decreased bone resorption, providing physicians with a promising new avenue for rapidly building strong bone, explained Dr. Bergman of Drexel University in Philadelphia and chief of the section of rheumatology at Taylor Hospital in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Romosozumab caught his eye in a 12-month randomized trial presented last fall at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The 430 postmenopausal participants were assigned to blinded romosozumab at 210 mg delivered by subcutaneous injection once per month, blinded placebo, or open-label teriparatide (Forteo). The primary endpoint in this secondary analysis was change in bone strength as measured using the Food and Drug Administration–approved method of finite element analysis based upon quantitative CT imaging.

Romosozumab boosted bone strength at the spine by 27.3% at 12 months, compared with a 3.9% reduction from baseline with placebo and an 18.5% increase with teriparatide. At the hip, romosozumab delivered a 3.6% increase in bone strength versus no significant change from baseline in the other two study arms. Thus, romosozumab increased bone strength both in the cortical and trabecular compartments even more than did teriparatide, the most potent drug currently available for building bone mass.

“The numbers are very impressive,” Dr. Bergman observed. “Trabecular bone, cortical bone, whole bone – across the board, we haven’t seen similar numbers before. I think this is going to be a very exciting new approach to the treatment of osteoporosis. We need to keep an eye on this.”

Romosozumab, which is being codeveloped by Amgen and UCB, is now in phase III testing.

The other big news in osteoporosis is that later this year the ACR will undertake a revision of its 2010 guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2010 Nov;62[11]:1515-26).

Among the actions that need to be taken are the incorporation of denosumab (Prolia) and ibandronate (Boniva) into the treatment recommendations, as well as clarification of the recommendation for supplemental calcium in light of recent evidence of an association between high serum calcium and increased cardiovascular risk. Most of the lifestyle modification recommendations in the current guidelines are supported by a weak level of evidence C, meaning “expert opinion,” and the hope is that the evidence has become stronger since 2010, he said.

Dr. Bergman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The investigational bone-building agent romosozumab provided the therapeutic highlight in the field of osteoporosis during the past year, Dr. Martin J. Bergman said at the 2016 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin, a glycoprotein that prevents mesenchymal cells from becoming osteoblasts. By inhibiting sclerostin, romosozumab promotes osteoblast production. The result is increased bone mineral density and bone formation coupled with decreased bone resorption, providing physicians with a promising new avenue for rapidly building strong bone, explained Dr. Bergman of Drexel University in Philadelphia and chief of the section of rheumatology at Taylor Hospital in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Romosozumab caught his eye in a 12-month randomized trial presented last fall at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The 430 postmenopausal participants were assigned to blinded romosozumab at 210 mg delivered by subcutaneous injection once per month, blinded placebo, or open-label teriparatide (Forteo). The primary endpoint in this secondary analysis was change in bone strength as measured using the Food and Drug Administration–approved method of finite element analysis based upon quantitative CT imaging.

Romosozumab boosted bone strength at the spine by 27.3% at 12 months, compared with a 3.9% reduction from baseline with placebo and an 18.5% increase with teriparatide. At the hip, romosozumab delivered a 3.6% increase in bone strength versus no significant change from baseline in the other two study arms. Thus, romosozumab increased bone strength both in the cortical and trabecular compartments even more than did teriparatide, the most potent drug currently available for building bone mass.

“The numbers are very impressive,” Dr. Bergman observed. “Trabecular bone, cortical bone, whole bone – across the board, we haven’t seen similar numbers before. I think this is going to be a very exciting new approach to the treatment of osteoporosis. We need to keep an eye on this.”

Romosozumab, which is being codeveloped by Amgen and UCB, is now in phase III testing.

The other big news in osteoporosis is that later this year the ACR will undertake a revision of its 2010 guidelines for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2010 Nov;62[11]:1515-26).

Among the actions that need to be taken are the incorporation of denosumab (Prolia) and ibandronate (Boniva) into the treatment recommendations, as well as clarification of the recommendation for supplemental calcium in light of recent evidence of an association between high serum calcium and increased cardiovascular risk. Most of the lifestyle modification recommendations in the current guidelines are supported by a weak level of evidence C, meaning “expert opinion,” and the hope is that the evidence has become stronger since 2010, he said.

Dr. Bergman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Both short and long sleep duration during pregnancy are associated with extremes of gestational weight gain, according to findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study.

Among 760 nulliparous women with a singleton gestation who were part of the nuMoM2b (Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring mothers-to-be) network – a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development cohort of more than 10,000 women – the 2.1% with average sleep duration of fewer than 6 hours and the 5.2% with sleep duration greater than 9 hours had the highest rates of low gestational weight gain (z less than –1). The differences were statistically significant, compared with those with average sleep duration of 7 to fewer than 9 hours, at visits between 16 and 21 weeks and between 22 and 29 weeks (P less than .0001, P = .04, respectively), Dr. Francesca Facco reported at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

For example, at visit 2, the rate of low gestational weight gain was 18.8% and 35.5% for those with sleep duration fewer than 6 hours and more than 9 hours, respectively, vs. 8.2% for those with sleep duration of 6 to fewer than 7 hours, and 12% for those with 7 to fewer than 8 hours.

The differences were similar in magnitude at the last weight measure prior to delivery but did not reach statistical significance, said Dr. Facco of Magee-Women’s Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh.

“Nonlinear relationships were observed between sleep duration and gestational weight gain,” she said, adding that at all gestational weight gain assessments, high gestational weight gain occurred more frequently as sleep duration shortened.

“We found a U-shaped relationship between sleep and low gestational weight gain; women with the shortest and the longest sleep duration had the highest rates of low gestational weight gain,” she said.

The findings suggest that both long and short sleep duration are associated with extremes of gestational weight gain.

Study subjects were enrolled in the nuMoM2b study and were recruited at the second study visit (16-21 weeks) to wear an actigraph to measure sleep activity for 7 consecutive days. The women, who had a mean age of 27 years, also kept a sleep diary. A little over half (51.5%) were normal weight, 3% were underweight, and 45.5% were overweight or obese. Gestational weight gain was examined using age-standardized z scores, which are a measure of gestational weight gain uncorrelated with gestational age and body mass index.

Sleep is getting more and more attention as an important health behavior, especially in relation to weight and metabolism, Dr. Facco said, noting that short sleep duration has consistently been associated with higher body mass index, and studies show that short sleep duration hinders weight loss efforts.

Data on long sleep duration are less clear but suggest an age-dependent relationship, she said.

The current study was undertaken to evaluate whether the findings in nonpregnant women also apply during pregnancy.

Data from the same cohort, which were presented at the 2015 Pregnancy Meeting, showed that women with sleep duration of fewer than 7 hours had twice the rate of gestational diabetes, compared with those who slept 7 or more hours. The finding remained significant even after adjusting for age and body mass index. Those findings are congruous with the current findings, Dr. Facco said, explaining that the short sleepers were those most likely to have the greatest weight gain, thus putting them at higher risk of gestational diabetes.

“Poor sleep in pregnancy has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this association between sleep and gestational weight gain suggests one possible mechanism for this association,” she concluded.

The nuMoM2b study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Facco reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Both short and long sleep duration during pregnancy are associated with extremes of gestational weight gain, according to findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study.

Among 760 nulliparous women with a singleton gestation who were part of the nuMoM2b (Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring mothers-to-be) network – a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development cohort of more than 10,000 women – the 2.1% with average sleep duration of fewer than 6 hours and the 5.2% with sleep duration greater than 9 hours had the highest rates of low gestational weight gain (z less than –1). The differences were statistically significant, compared with those with average sleep duration of 7 to fewer than 9 hours, at visits between 16 and 21 weeks and between 22 and 29 weeks (P less than .0001, P = .04, respectively), Dr. Francesca Facco reported at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

For example, at visit 2, the rate of low gestational weight gain was 18.8% and 35.5% for those with sleep duration fewer than 6 hours and more than 9 hours, respectively, vs. 8.2% for those with sleep duration of 6 to fewer than 7 hours, and 12% for those with 7 to fewer than 8 hours.

The differences were similar in magnitude at the last weight measure prior to delivery but did not reach statistical significance, said Dr. Facco of Magee-Women’s Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh.

“Nonlinear relationships were observed between sleep duration and gestational weight gain,” she said, adding that at all gestational weight gain assessments, high gestational weight gain occurred more frequently as sleep duration shortened.

“We found a U-shaped relationship between sleep and low gestational weight gain; women with the shortest and the longest sleep duration had the highest rates of low gestational weight gain,” she said.

The findings suggest that both long and short sleep duration are associated with extremes of gestational weight gain.

Study subjects were enrolled in the nuMoM2b study and were recruited at the second study visit (16-21 weeks) to wear an actigraph to measure sleep activity for 7 consecutive days. The women, who had a mean age of 27 years, also kept a sleep diary. A little over half (51.5%) were normal weight, 3% were underweight, and 45.5% were overweight or obese. Gestational weight gain was examined using age-standardized z scores, which are a measure of gestational weight gain uncorrelated with gestational age and body mass index.

Sleep is getting more and more attention as an important health behavior, especially in relation to weight and metabolism, Dr. Facco said, noting that short sleep duration has consistently been associated with higher body mass index, and studies show that short sleep duration hinders weight loss efforts.

Data on long sleep duration are less clear but suggest an age-dependent relationship, she said.

The current study was undertaken to evaluate whether the findings in nonpregnant women also apply during pregnancy.

Data from the same cohort, which were presented at the 2015 Pregnancy Meeting, showed that women with sleep duration of fewer than 7 hours had twice the rate of gestational diabetes, compared with those who slept 7 or more hours. The finding remained significant even after adjusting for age and body mass index. Those findings are congruous with the current findings, Dr. Facco said, explaining that the short sleepers were those most likely to have the greatest weight gain, thus putting them at higher risk of gestational diabetes.

“Poor sleep in pregnancy has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this association between sleep and gestational weight gain suggests one possible mechanism for this association,” she concluded.

The nuMoM2b study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Facco reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Both short and long sleep duration during pregnancy are associated with extremes of gestational weight gain, according to findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study.

Among 760 nulliparous women with a singleton gestation who were part of the nuMoM2b (Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring mothers-to-be) network – a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development cohort of more than 10,000 women – the 2.1% with average sleep duration of fewer than 6 hours and the 5.2% with sleep duration greater than 9 hours had the highest rates of low gestational weight gain (z less than –1). The differences were statistically significant, compared with those with average sleep duration of 7 to fewer than 9 hours, at visits between 16 and 21 weeks and between 22 and 29 weeks (P less than .0001, P = .04, respectively), Dr. Francesca Facco reported at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

For example, at visit 2, the rate of low gestational weight gain was 18.8% and 35.5% for those with sleep duration fewer than 6 hours and more than 9 hours, respectively, vs. 8.2% for those with sleep duration of 6 to fewer than 7 hours, and 12% for those with 7 to fewer than 8 hours.

The differences were similar in magnitude at the last weight measure prior to delivery but did not reach statistical significance, said Dr. Facco of Magee-Women’s Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh.

“Nonlinear relationships were observed between sleep duration and gestational weight gain,” she said, adding that at all gestational weight gain assessments, high gestational weight gain occurred more frequently as sleep duration shortened.

“We found a U-shaped relationship between sleep and low gestational weight gain; women with the shortest and the longest sleep duration had the highest rates of low gestational weight gain,” she said.

The findings suggest that both long and short sleep duration are associated with extremes of gestational weight gain.

Study subjects were enrolled in the nuMoM2b study and were recruited at the second study visit (16-21 weeks) to wear an actigraph to measure sleep activity for 7 consecutive days. The women, who had a mean age of 27 years, also kept a sleep diary. A little over half (51.5%) were normal weight, 3% were underweight, and 45.5% were overweight or obese. Gestational weight gain was examined using age-standardized z scores, which are a measure of gestational weight gain uncorrelated with gestational age and body mass index.

Sleep is getting more and more attention as an important health behavior, especially in relation to weight and metabolism, Dr. Facco said, noting that short sleep duration has consistently been associated with higher body mass index, and studies show that short sleep duration hinders weight loss efforts.

Data on long sleep duration are less clear but suggest an age-dependent relationship, she said.

The current study was undertaken to evaluate whether the findings in nonpregnant women also apply during pregnancy.

Data from the same cohort, which were presented at the 2015 Pregnancy Meeting, showed that women with sleep duration of fewer than 7 hours had twice the rate of gestational diabetes, compared with those who slept 7 or more hours. The finding remained significant even after adjusting for age and body mass index. Those findings are congruous with the current findings, Dr. Facco said, explaining that the short sleepers were those most likely to have the greatest weight gain, thus putting them at higher risk of gestational diabetes.

“Poor sleep in pregnancy has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this association between sleep and gestational weight gain suggests one possible mechanism for this association,” she concluded.

The nuMoM2b study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Facco reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Twice-yearly denosumab effectively increased bone mineral density in kidney transplant recipients, but was associated with more frequent episodes of urinary tract infections and hypocalcemia, results from a randomized trial showed.

“Kidney transplant recipients lose bone mass and are at increased risk for fractures, more so in females than in males,” Dr. Rudolf P. Wuthrich said at Kidney Week 2015, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology. Results from previous studies suggest that one in five patients may develop a fracture within 5 years after kidney transplantation.

Considering that current therapeutic options to prevent bone loss are limited, Dr. Wuthrich, director of the Clinic for Nephrology at University Hospital Zurich, and his associates assessed the efficacy and safety of receptor activator of nuclear factor–kappaB ligand (RANKL) inhibition with denosumab to improve bone mineralization in the first year after kidney transplantation. They recruited 108 patients from June 2011 to May 2014. Of these, 90 were randomized within 4 weeks after kidney transplant surgery in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous injections of 60 mg denosumab at baseline and after 6 months, or no treatment. The study’s primary endpoint was the percentage change in bone mineral density measured by DXA at the lumbar spine at 12 months. The study, known as Denosumab for Prevention of Osteoporosis in Renal Transplant Recipients (POSTOP), was limited to adults who had undergone kidney transplantation within 28 days and who were on standard triple immunosuppression, including a calcineurin antagonist, mycophenolate, and steroids.

Dr. Wuthrich reported results from 46 patients in the denosumab group and 44 patients in the control group. At baseline, their mean age was 50 years, 63% were male, and 96% were white. After 12 months, the total lumbar spine BMD increased by 4.6% in the denosumab group and decreased by 0.5% in the control group, for a between-group difference of 5.1% (P less than .0001). Denosumab also significantly increased BMD at the total hip by 1.9% (P = .035) over that in the control group at 12 months.

High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography in a subgroup of 24 patients showed that denosumab also significantly increased BMD and cortical thickness at the distal tibia and radius (P less than .05). Two biomarkers of bone resorption in beta C-terminal telopeptide and urine deoxypyridinoline markedly decreased in the denosumab group, as did two biomarkers of bone formation in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (P less than .0001).

In terms of adverse events, there were significantly more urinary tract infections in the denosumab group, compared with the control group (15% vs. 9%, respectively), as well as more episodes of diarrhea (9% vs. 5%), and transient hypocalcemia (3% vs. 0.3%). The number of serious adverse events was similar between groups, at 17% and 19%, respectively.

“We had significantly increased bone mineral density at all measured skeletal sites in response to denosumab,” Dr. Wuthrich concluded. “We had a significant increase in bone biomarkers and we can say that denosumab was generally safe in a complex population of immunosuppressed kidney transplant recipients. But it was associated with a higher incidence of urinary tract infections. At this point we have no good explanation as to why this is. We also had a few episodes of transient and asymptomatic hypocalcemia.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Twice-yearly denosumab effectively increased bone mineral density in kidney transplant recipients, but was associated with more frequent episodes of urinary tract infections and hypocalcemia, results from a randomized trial showed.

“Kidney transplant recipients lose bone mass and are at increased risk for fractures, more so in females than in males,” Dr. Rudolf P. Wuthrich said at Kidney Week 2015, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology. Results from previous studies suggest that one in five patients may develop a fracture within 5 years after kidney transplantation.

Considering that current therapeutic options to prevent bone loss are limited, Dr. Wuthrich, director of the Clinic for Nephrology at University Hospital Zurich, and his associates assessed the efficacy and safety of receptor activator of nuclear factor–kappaB ligand (RANKL) inhibition with denosumab to improve bone mineralization in the first year after kidney transplantation. They recruited 108 patients from June 2011 to May 2014. Of these, 90 were randomized within 4 weeks after kidney transplant surgery in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous injections of 60 mg denosumab at baseline and after 6 months, or no treatment. The study’s primary endpoint was the percentage change in bone mineral density measured by DXA at the lumbar spine at 12 months. The study, known as Denosumab for Prevention of Osteoporosis in Renal Transplant Recipients (POSTOP), was limited to adults who had undergone kidney transplantation within 28 days and who were on standard triple immunosuppression, including a calcineurin antagonist, mycophenolate, and steroids.

Dr. Wuthrich reported results from 46 patients in the denosumab group and 44 patients in the control group. At baseline, their mean age was 50 years, 63% were male, and 96% were white. After 12 months, the total lumbar spine BMD increased by 4.6% in the denosumab group and decreased by 0.5% in the control group, for a between-group difference of 5.1% (P less than .0001). Denosumab also significantly increased BMD at the total hip by 1.9% (P = .035) over that in the control group at 12 months.

High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography in a subgroup of 24 patients showed that denosumab also significantly increased BMD and cortical thickness at the distal tibia and radius (P less than .05). Two biomarkers of bone resorption in beta C-terminal telopeptide and urine deoxypyridinoline markedly decreased in the denosumab group, as did two biomarkers of bone formation in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (P less than .0001).

In terms of adverse events, there were significantly more urinary tract infections in the denosumab group, compared with the control group (15% vs. 9%, respectively), as well as more episodes of diarrhea (9% vs. 5%), and transient hypocalcemia (3% vs. 0.3%). The number of serious adverse events was similar between groups, at 17% and 19%, respectively.

“We had significantly increased bone mineral density at all measured skeletal sites in response to denosumab,” Dr. Wuthrich concluded. “We had a significant increase in bone biomarkers and we can say that denosumab was generally safe in a complex population of immunosuppressed kidney transplant recipients. But it was associated with a higher incidence of urinary tract infections. At this point we have no good explanation as to why this is. We also had a few episodes of transient and asymptomatic hypocalcemia.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Twice-yearly denosumab effectively increased bone mineral density in kidney transplant recipients, but was associated with more frequent episodes of urinary tract infections and hypocalcemia, results from a randomized trial showed.

“Kidney transplant recipients lose bone mass and are at increased risk for fractures, more so in females than in males,” Dr. Rudolf P. Wuthrich said at Kidney Week 2015, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology. Results from previous studies suggest that one in five patients may develop a fracture within 5 years after kidney transplantation.

Considering that current therapeutic options to prevent bone loss are limited, Dr. Wuthrich, director of the Clinic for Nephrology at University Hospital Zurich, and his associates assessed the efficacy and safety of receptor activator of nuclear factor–kappaB ligand (RANKL) inhibition with denosumab to improve bone mineralization in the first year after kidney transplantation. They recruited 108 patients from June 2011 to May 2014. Of these, 90 were randomized within 4 weeks after kidney transplant surgery in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous injections of 60 mg denosumab at baseline and after 6 months, or no treatment. The study’s primary endpoint was the percentage change in bone mineral density measured by DXA at the lumbar spine at 12 months. The study, known as Denosumab for Prevention of Osteoporosis in Renal Transplant Recipients (POSTOP), was limited to adults who had undergone kidney transplantation within 28 days and who were on standard triple immunosuppression, including a calcineurin antagonist, mycophenolate, and steroids.

Dr. Wuthrich reported results from 46 patients in the denosumab group and 44 patients in the control group. At baseline, their mean age was 50 years, 63% were male, and 96% were white. After 12 months, the total lumbar spine BMD increased by 4.6% in the denosumab group and decreased by 0.5% in the control group, for a between-group difference of 5.1% (P less than .0001). Denosumab also significantly increased BMD at the total hip by 1.9% (P = .035) over that in the control group at 12 months.

High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography in a subgroup of 24 patients showed that denosumab also significantly increased BMD and cortical thickness at the distal tibia and radius (P less than .05). Two biomarkers of bone resorption in beta C-terminal telopeptide and urine deoxypyridinoline markedly decreased in the denosumab group, as did two biomarkers of bone formation in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (P less than .0001).

In terms of adverse events, there were significantly more urinary tract infections in the denosumab group, compared with the control group (15% vs. 9%, respectively), as well as more episodes of diarrhea (9% vs. 5%), and transient hypocalcemia (3% vs. 0.3%). The number of serious adverse events was similar between groups, at 17% and 19%, respectively.

“We had significantly increased bone mineral density at all measured skeletal sites in response to denosumab,” Dr. Wuthrich concluded. “We had a significant increase in bone biomarkers and we can say that denosumab was generally safe in a complex population of immunosuppressed kidney transplant recipients. But it was associated with a higher incidence of urinary tract infections. At this point we have no good explanation as to why this is. We also had a few episodes of transient and asymptomatic hypocalcemia.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]