Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: UNLABELLED:Daily teriparatide injections have been shown to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Here, we demonstrate that the magnitude of fracture risk reduction is independent of baseline fracture probability assessed by FRAX. INTRODUCTION:Daily administration of 20 or 40 ?g teriparatide has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fracture compared with placebo. The aim of the present study was to evaluate fracture risk assessed at baseline using the FRAX® tool and to determine the efficacy of teriparatide as a function of baseline fracture risk. METHODS:One thousand six hundred thirty-seven postmenopausal women in the pivotal phase three trial, randomly assigned to receive placebo (n?=?544), teriparatide 20 ?g per day (n?=?541) or teriparatide 40 ?g per day (n?=?552), were studied. Baseline clinical risk factors were entered into country-specific FRAX models to compute the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures with or without input of femoral neck BMD. Because there was no difference in effect of 20 and 40 ?g teriparatide daily on fracture occurrence, the two active groups were merged. The interaction between probability of a major fracture and treatment efficacy was examined by Poisson regression. RESULTS:The 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (with BMD) ranged from 2.2-67.2 %. Treatment with teriparatide was associated with a 37 % decrease in all non-vertebral fractures (95 % CI 10-56 %) and a 56 % decrease in low-energy non-vertebral fractures (95 % CI 24-75 %) compared with placebo. The risk of morphometric vertebral fractures decreased significantly by 66 % (95 % CI 50-77 %). Hazard ratios for the effect of teriparatide on the fracture outcome did not change significantly with increasing fracture probability (p?>?0.30). Similar findings were noted for the interaction when BMD was excluded from the FRAX model, or when probability of hip fracture was used as the marker of baseline risk. CONCLUSION:We conclude that teriparatide significantly decreases the risk of non-vertebral and morphometric vertebral fractures in women by a similar extent, irrespective of baseline fracture probability.

SUBMITTER: Harvey NC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4913866 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Harvey N C NC Kanis J A JA Odén A A Burge R T RT Mitlak B H BH Johansson H H McCloskey E V EV

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA 20150620 11

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>Daily teriparatide injections have been shown to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Here, we demonstrate that the magnitude of fracture risk reduction is independent of baseline fracture probability assessed by FRAX.<h4>Introduction</h4>Daily administration of 20 or 40 μg teriparatide has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fracture compared with placebo. The aim of the present study was to evaluate fracture risk assessed at ...[more]

PMID: 26092063

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal treatment of osteoporosis after reconstruction surgery for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) remains unclear. In this multicentre retrospective study, we investigated the effects of typically used agents for osteoporosis, namely, bisphosphonates (BP) and teriparatide (TP), on surgical results in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.MethodsRetrospectively registered data were collected from 27 universities and affiliated hospitals in Japan. We compared the effects of BP vs TP on postoperative mechanical complication rates, implant-related reoperation rates, and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion for OVF. Data were analysed according to whether the osteoporosis was primary or glucocorticoid-induced.ResultsA total of 159 patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion for OVF were included. The overall mechanical complication rate was significantly lower in the TP group than in the BP group (BP vs TP: 73.1% vs 58.2%, p = 0.045). The screw backout rate was significantly lower and the rates of new vertebral fractures and pseudoarthrosis tended to be lower in the TP group than in the BP group. However, there were no significant differences in lumbar functional scores and visual analogue scale pain scores or in implant-related reoperation rates between the two groups. The incidence of pseudoarthrosis was significantly higher in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) than in those with primary osteoporosis; however, the pseudoarthrosis rate was reduced by using TP. The use of TP also tended to reduce the overall mechanical complication rate in both primary osteoporosis and GIOP.ConclusionsThe overall mechanical complication rate was lower in patients who received TP than in those who received a BP postoperatively, regardless of type of osteoporosis. The incidence of pseudoarthrosis was significantly higher in patients with GIOP, but the use of TP reduced the rate of pseudoarthrosis in GIOP patients. The use of TP was effective to reduce postoperative complications for OVF patients treated with posterior fusion.

Project description:BackgroundKidney transplantation (KT) recipients are at increased risk of low bone density (LBD) and fractures. In this retrospective study, we investigated bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral fractures, calculated risk for major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), and hip fractures in the KT recipients.Patients-methodPatients who completed at least one year after KT were included in the analysis. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were recorded. Measurements of BMD were performed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Vertebral fractures were assessed using semi-quantitative criteria with conventional radiography. The ten-year risk for MOF and hip fracture were calculated using the FRAX@ tool with BMD.ResultsOne hundred fifty-three KT recipients were included in the study. The population included 77 women. The mean age at evaluation was 46,5±11,9 years. Seventy-eight (50.9%) patients had normal femoral neck BMD while osteoporosis and osteopenia at the femoral neck were present in 12 (7.8%) and 63 (41.1%) of the patients, respectively. Age at evaluation was the risk factor for LBD (OR 1.057; 95% CI 1.024-1.091; p = 0.001). In female KT recipients, LBD was principally affected by menopausal status whereas in males, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor use and lower BMI levels were the risk factors. The prevalent vertebral fracture was found in 43.4% of patients. In multivariate analysis, only steroid use (OR 0.121; 95% CI 0.015-0.988; p = 0.049) was found to be associated with prevalent fracture. Among all KT recipients, 1.9% had a high MOF probability (≥20% risk of fracture), and 23.5% had high hip fracture probability (≥3% risk of hip fracture) according to FRAX.ConclusionExploring the prevalence of LBD and vertebral fracture and the risk factors would help clinicians to modify long-term follow-up strategies. Furthermore, the high hip fracture risk probability in our cohort suggested that there is a need for longitudinal studies to confirm the validity of the FRAX tool in the transplant population.

Project description:We evaluated the efficacy of abaloparatide in women who were at increased risk for fracture, based on CHMP recommended risk thresholds, at the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) study baseline. Among patients at high risk based on FRAX probabilities, 18 months of abaloparatide significantly decreased risk for all fracture endpoints compared with placebo.PurposeAbaloparatide, a novel anabolic agent for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, significantly reduced the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in the ACTIVE study compared with placebo. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated abaloparatide's efficacy in a subset of women in the study at an increased risk of fracture at baseline, based on the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended risk thresholds for inclusion in clinical trials.MethodsWomen with a baseline 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture ≥ 10% or hip fracture ≥ 5%, assessed using the FRAX® tool (including femoral neck bone mineral density), were included in the analysis. The proportion with one or more events of new morphometric vertebral fractures was calculated. Event rates for nonvertebral, major osteoporotic, and all clinical fractures were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsFollowing 18 months of treatment, abaloparatide significantly reduced incident vertebral fractures compared with placebo (relative risk reduction = 91%; 0.5% versus 5.6%; p < 0.001). Abaloparatide treatment was also associated with significantly fewer nonvertebral, major osteoporotic, and clinical fractures compared with placebo: 2.7% versus 5.8%, p = 0.036; 1.3% versus 6.0%, p < 0.001; and 3.5% versus 8.2%, p = 0.006, respectively. The effect of abaloparatide on major osteoporotic fractures (78% reduction) was significantly greater than that seen with teriparatide (23% reduction, p = 0.007).ConclusionIn a subset of postmenopausal women at increased risk of fracture as judged by CHMP guidance, abaloparatide significantly decreased the risk of all fracture endpoints compared with placebo.

Project description:Prior studies suggest an association between osteoporosis, systemic inflammation, and pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6. Conflicting findings exist on the association between hyperuricemia and osteoporosis. Furthermore, it remains unknown whether gout, a common inflammatory arthritis, affects fracture risk. Using data from a US commercial health plan (2004-2013), we evaluated the risk of non-vertebral fracture (ie, forearm, wrist, hip, and pelvis) in patients with gout versus those without. Gout patients were identified with ?2 diagnosis codes and ?1 dispensing for a gout-related drug. Non-gout patients, identified with ?2 visits coded for any diagnosis and ?1 dispensing for any prescription drugs, were free of gout diagnosis and received no gout-related drugs. Hip fracture was the secondary outcome. Fractures were identified with a combination of diagnosis and procedure codes. Cox proportional hazards models compared the risk of non-vertebral fracture in gout patients versus non-gout, adjusting for more than 40 risk factors for osteoporotic fracture. Among gout patients with baseline serum uric acid (sUA) measurements available, we assessed the risk of non-vertebral fracture associated with sUA. We identified 73,202 gout and 219,606 non-gout patients, matched on age, sex, and the date of study entry. The mean age was 60 years and 82% were men. Over the mean 2-year follow-up, the incidence rate of non-vertebral fracture per 1,000 person-years was 2.92 in gout and 2.66 in non-gout. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.12) for non-vertebral fracture and 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.07) for hip fracture in gout versus non-gout. Subgroup analysis (n?=?15,079) showed no association between baseline sUA and non-vertebral fracture (HR?=?1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.15), adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity score, and number of any prescription drugs. Gout was not associated with a risk of non-vertebral fracture. Among patients with gout, sUA was not associated with the risk of non-vertebral fracture. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:BackgroundBone loss with aging and menopause increases the risk of fragile vertebral fracture, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). The fracture causes severe pain, impedes respiratory function, lower the quality of life, and increases the risk of new fractures and deaths. Various medications have been prescribed to prevent a secondary fracture, but few study summarized their effects. Therefore, we investigated their effects on preventing subsequent OVCF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.MethodsElectronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched for published randomized controlled trials from June 2015 to June 2019. The trials that recruited participants with at least one OVCF were included. We assessed the risk of bias of every study, estimated relative risk ratio of secondary OVCF, non-vertebral fracture, gastrointestinal complaints and discontinuation due to adverse events. Finally, we evaluated the quality of evidence.ResultsForty-one articles were included. Moderate to high quality evidence proved the effectiveness of zoledronate (Relative Risk, RR: 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69, p = 0.003), alendronate (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.68; p < 0.0001), risedronate (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.51-0.73; p < 0.0001), etidronate (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87, p < 0.01), ibandronate (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.71; p < 0.0001), parathyroid hormone (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.41; p < 0.0001), denosumab (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; p < 0.0001) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (Raloxifene, RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.44-0.76; p < 0.0001; Bazedoxifene, RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.82; p = 0.0002) in preventing secondary fractures. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate (Romosozumab vs. alendronate, RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.84; p = 0.001) and high quality evidence proved that teriparatide had better effect than risedronate (risedronate vs. teriparatide, RR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70; p < 0.0001).ConclusionZoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, parathyroid hormone, denosumab and selective estrogen receptor modulators had significant secondary prevention effects on OVCF. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate. High quality evidence proved PTH had better effect than risedronate, but with higher risk of adverse events.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Despite vertebral fracture being a significant risk factor for further fracture, vertebral fractures are often unrecognised. A study was therefore conducted to determine the proportion of patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture who also have an unrecognised vertebral fracture. METHODS: Prospective study of patients presenting with a non-vertebral fracture in South Glasgow who underwent DXA evaluation with vertebral morphometry (MXA) from DV5/6 to LV4/5. Vertebral deformities (consistent with fracture) were identified by direct visualisation using the Genant semi-quantitative grading scale. RESULTS: Data were available for 337 patients presenting with low trauma non-vertebral fracture; 261 were female. Of all patients, 10.4% were aged 50-64 years, 53.2% were aged 65-74 years and 36.2% were aged 75 years or over. According to WHO definitions, 35.0% of patients had normal lumbar spine BMD (T-score -1 or above), 37.4% were osteopenic (T-score -1.1 to -2.4) and 27.6% osteoporotic (T-score -2.5 or lower). Humerus (n=103, 31%), radius-ulna (n=90, 27%) and hand/foot (n=53, 16%) were the most common fractures. For 72% of patients (n=241) the presenting fracture was the first low trauma fracture to come to clinical attention. The overall prevalence of vertebral deformity established by MXA was 25% (n=83); 45% (n=37) of patients with vertebral deformity had deformities of more than one vertebra. Of the patients with vertebral deformity and readable scans for grading, 72.5% (58/80) had deformities of grade 2 or 3. Patients presenting with hip fracture, or spine T-score <or=-2.5, or low BMI, or with more than one prior non-vertebral fracture were all significantly more likely to have evidence of a prevalent vertebral deformity (p<0.05). However, 19.8% of patients with an osteopenic T-score had a vertebral deformity (48% of which were multiple), and 16.1% of patients with a normal T-score had a vertebral deformity (26.3% of which were multiple). Following non-vertebral fracture, some guidelines suggest that anti-resorptive therapy should be reserved for patients with DXA-proven osteoporosis. However, patients who have one or more prior vertebral fractures (prevalent at the time of their non-vertebral fracture) would also become candidates for anti-resorptive therapy-which would have not been the case had their vertebral fracture status not been known. Overall in this study, 8.9% of patients are likely to have had a change in management by virtue of their underlying vertebral deformity status. In other words, 11 patients who present with a non-vertebral fracture would need to undergo vertebral morphometry in order to identify one patient who ought to be managed differently. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the recommendation to perform vertebral morphometry in patients who are referred for DXA after experiencing a non-vertebral fracture. Treatment decisions will then better reflect any given patient's future absolute fracture risk. The 'Number Needed to Screen' if vertebral morphometry is used in this way would be seven to identify one patient with vertebral deformity, and 14 to identify one patient with two or more vertebral deformities. Although carrying out MXA will increase radiation exposure for the patient, this increased exposure is significantly less than would be obtained if X-rays of the dorso-lumbar spine were obtained.

Project description:Using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling older osteoporotic Japanese women with prior vertebral fracture over a lifetime horizon, we found that daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years.PurposeTeriparatide has proven efficacy in reducing osteoporotic fractures, but with substantial cost. We examined the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate (i.e., daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years) compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior clinical or morphometric vertebral fracture in Japan.MethodsUsing a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the perspective of a single payer responsible for both public healthcare and long-term care. We assumed a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5million (or $47,500) per QALY in the base case. We modeled the cost of biosimilar teriparatide, which has been available since November 2019 in Japan, assuming the efficacy was the same as that of the brand version.ResultsIn the base case, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would become cost-effective with 85%, 50%, and 15% price discounts to teriparatide at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively, compared to the current biosimilar cost. Otherwise, results were especially sensitive to changes that affected efficacy of teriparatide or alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were 0%, 1%, and 37% at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively.ConclusionsAmong high-risk osteoporotic women in Japan, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy, even with the availability of biosimilar teriparatide.

Project description:ObjectiveTeriparatide has been increasingly utilized in the management of osteoporosis. The efficacy of low and high dose teriparatide on lumbar spine bone mineral density, vertebral fracture incidence and pain is unknown. We sought to determine the efficacy of teriparatide on these patient-important outcomes using a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate teriparatide to any comparator for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used by two independent reviewers to assess the strength and quality of evidence.ResultsA total of 20 studies (n = 6024) were included in this review, with 2855 patients receiving teriparatide and 3169 patients receiving placebo or control treatment. A teriparatide dose of 20 μg/day increased lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.34 standard deviation (SD) units higher (95% CI 0.19-0.48 SDs higher) in comparison to placebo. Relative to anti-resorptive agents, 20 μg/day of teriparatide had a range from 0.14 SD units to 0.96 SD units higher (95% CI, 0.08 SDs lower to 0.36 SDs higher, CI, 0.33-1.59 SDs higher, respectively). 20 μg/day teriparatide had a significant effect on pain severity to placebo or control (SMD 0.80, 95% CI, 1.16-0.43 SDs lower) and also decreased the incidence of vertebral fractures compared to placebo (relative risk 0.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.46). Arthralgia and extremity pain incidence were also calculated; there were 15 and 8 fewer events per 1000 patients with the use of 20 μg/day of teriparatide compared to placebo or control, respectively.ConclusionHigh quality evidence supports the utilization of teriparatide 20 μg/day dose to significantly improve lumbar spine BMD and decrease incidence of vertebral fractures and pain severity relative to all comparators. 40 μg/day dose of teriparatide demonstrated significantly better results with prolonged treatment. This data is valuable for clinicians involved in the care of this growing demographic of patients. Further investigation on the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in higher doses for the long-term treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women should be conducted through high-quality clinical trials.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets