Dataset Information

Comparison of the Effects of Denosumab and Alendronate on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Osteoporotic Patients.

ABSTRACT: A correlation between impaired bone metabolism, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) has been suggested. This study aimed to compare the effects of denosumab and alendronate, two anti-resorptive agents, on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in osteoporotic patients. Propensity score-matched cohort study comparing denosumab to alendronate users between January 2005 and December 2017 was conducted from a large medical organization in Taiwan. Risks of CVD development and renal function decline were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression. A total 2523 patients were recruited in each group. No significant difference in cardiovascular events was found between the two groups over a 5-year study period. Stratified analysis results showed that denosumab was likely to exert protective effects against composite CVD in patients with medication possession rate ≥60% (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR), 0.74; p = 0.0493) and myocardial infraction (AHR, 0.42; p = 0.0415). Denosumab was associated with increased risk of renal function decline in male patients (AHR, 1.78; p = 0.0132), patients with renal insufficiency (AHR, 1.5; p = 0.0132), and patients with acute kidney injury during the study period (AHR, 1.53; p = 0.0154). Conclusively, denosumab may exert cardiovascular benefits in patients with good adherence but may have renal disadvantages in certain conditions and thus must be used with caution.

SUBMITTER: Hsu TW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6678904 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the Effects of Denosumab and Alendronate on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Osteoporotic Patients.

Hsu Tsuen-Wei TW Hsu Chien-Ning CN Wang Shih-Wei SW Huang Chiang-Chi CC Li Lung-Chih LC

Journal of clinical medicine 20190628 7

A correlation between impaired bone metabolism, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) has been suggested. This study aimed to compare the effects of denosumab and alendronate, two anti-resorptive agents, on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in osteoporotic patients. Propensity score-matched cohort study comparing denosumab to alendronate users between January 2005 and December 2017 was conducted from a large medical organization in Taiwan. Risks of CVD development and renal f ...[more]

PMID: 31261703

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHead-to-head randomized clinical trials showed greater efficacy of denosumab vs alendronate in improving bone mineral density. Although there is an association of changes in bone mineral density with reductions in fracture risk, the magnitude of the association is not well established.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of hip and any fracture in patients treated with denosumab and alendronate in routine practice settings.Design, setting, and participantsThis Danish nationwide, population-based, historical cohort study of a population with universal access to health care used prospectively collected, individually linked data from Danish health registries with complete follow-up. Cohorts consisted of 92 355 individuals 50 years or older who were new users of denosumab (n = 4624) or alendronate (n = 87 731) from May 2010 to December 2017 after at least 1 year without an antiosteoporosis medication dispensing.ExposuresInitiation of denosumab or alendronate.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was hospitalization for hip fracture, and the secondary outcome was hospitalization for any fracture. Inverse probability of treatment weights and the intention-to-treat approach were used to calculate cumulative incidences and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% CIs.ResultsOf the 92 355 included patients, 75 046 (81.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 71 (10) years. The denosumab cohort had a lower proportion of men than the alendronate cohort (12.7% [589] vs 19.0% [16 700]), while age distributions were similar in the 2 cohorts. Within 3 years of follow-up, initiation of denosumab or alendronate was associated with cumulative incidences of 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, for hip fracture and 9.0% and 9.0%, respectively, for any fracture. Overall, the aHRs for denosumab vs alendronate were 1.08 (95% CI, 0.92-1.28) for hip fracture and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02) for any fracture. The aHR of denosumab vs alendronate for hip fracture was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) among patients with a history of any fracture and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.83-1.32) among patients without history of fracture. The aHR for any fracture for denosumab vs alendronate was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71-0.98) among patients with a history of any fracture and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.93) among patients with no history of fracture.Conclusions and relevanceTreatment with denosumab and alendronate was associated with similar risks of hip or any fracture over a 3-year period, regardless of fracture history.

Project description:Among hypothetical cohorts of older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two treatment strategies using a simulation model. Annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years was cost-saving compared with biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 3 years.PurposeOsteoporosis constitutes a major medical and health economic burden to society worldwide. Injectable treatments for osteoporosis require less frequent administration than oral treatments and therefore have higher persistence and adherence with treatment, which could explain better efficacy for fracture prevention. Although annual intravenous zoledronic acid and biannual subcutaneous denosumab are available, it remains unclear which treatment strategy represents a better value from a health economic perspective. Accordingly, we examined the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid for 3 years compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate (i.e., denosumab for 3 years followed by oral weekly alendronate for 3 years, making the total treatment duration 6 years) among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan at ages 65, 70, 75, or 80 years.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 public healthcare and long-term care payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5 million (or $47,500) per QALY.ResultsIn the base case, zoledronic acid was cost-saving (i.e., more effective and less expensive) compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to changes in the efficacy of zoledronic acid or the cumulative persistence rate with zoledronic acid or denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective were 98-100%.ConclusionsAmong older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, zoledronic acid was cost-saving compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate.

Project description:The clinical utility of denosumab for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) has yet to be established. This study aimed to compare the effects of denosumab on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers to those of alendronate in patients with GIOP.A prospective, single-center study of 32 patients (18 men; median age, 66.0 years) with glomerular disease receiving prednisolone (PSL) who were diagnosed as having GIOP and had not received bisphosphonates before was conducted. Participants were randomized to either alendronate (35 mg orally once a week) or denosumab (60 mg subcutaneously once every 6 months), and all subjects received calcitriol. The primary endpoint was the percent change in lumbar spine (LS) BMD at 12 months of treatment.The demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline were not significantly different between the groups. Denosumab treatment markedly decreased serum levels of t-PINP, BAP, and TRACP-5b at 12 months compared to baseline (-57.4%, p<0.001; -30.9%, p<0.01; -57.7%, p<0.001, respectively). After 12 months of alendronate treatment, serum levels of t-PINP, BAP, and TRACP-5b were also significantly decreased compared to pretreatment (-38.9%, p<0.01; -16.3%, p<0.05; -43.5%, p<0.01, respectively). However, no significant differences in the changes of bone turnover markers were found between the two groups. As for the effects on BMD, denosumab treatment markedly increased LS BMD from 6 months compared to baseline, whereas no significant difference compared to pretreatment was found in the alendronate group during the study period. In the comparison of the two groups, a large increase of LS BMD was found in the denosumab treatment group compared to the alendronate treatment group at 12 months (p<0.05).In patients with GIOP, denosumab treatment markedly suppressed bone turnover, which led to a significantly greater increase in LS BMD than with alendronate treatment. These results suggest that denosumab is a therapeutic option for the treatment of GIOP.

Project description:This registry-based study of 3068 patients with osteoporosis compared the anti-fracture effectiveness of denosumab versus bisphosphonates. Denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral and any fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab.PurposeTo analyse the fracture risk of patients with osteoporosis receiving bisphosphonates or denosumab in a real-world setting.MethodsThis registry-based cohort study evaluated patients taking denosumab, bisphosphonates or both sequentially. Fractures were analysed using rates, rate ratios and hazard ratios (HR), including both therapies as time-varying co-variates. Fracture risk hazards were adjusted (aHR) for baseline T-Scores and trabecular bone score (TBS) and were additionally analysed with inverse probability treatment weighting.ResultsA total of 3068 patients (89% female; median age at treatment onset, 69 years [63 to 76]) received denosumab (median duration 2.8 years, [2.2 to 4.7]), bisphosphonates (3.4 years, [2.1 to 5.7]) or both sequentially. Thus, 11,078 subject-years were assessed for bisphosphonates (41% alendronate, 36% ibandronate, 23% zoledronate) and 4216 for denosumab. Moreover, 48,375 subject-years were observed before treatment onset, in addition to 2593 years of drug holidays. A total of 1481 vertebral fractures (435 under therapy), 1508 non-vertebral fractures (499 under therapy) and 202 hip fractures (67 under therapy) occurred after age 50. The risks of vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures were significantly lower under all bisphosphonates, denosumab and drug holidays than before treatment onset (all p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, baseline T-scores and TBS, denosumab was associated with lower risk than alendronate or ibandronate for vertebral fractures (aHR 0.47 (0.35 to 0.64) and 0.70 [0.53 to 0.91], p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively) and any fractures (aHR 0.62 [0.51 to 0.76] and 0.77 [0.64 to 0.92], p < 0.001 and p = 0.004). With propensity weighting, denosumab was associated with a lower hip fracture risk compared to alendronate (HR 0.54 [0.29 to 0.98], p = 0.044). No difference in fracture risk reduction (vertebral, non-vertebral or hip) was found between zoledronate and denosumab.ConclusionsWhen adjusting for disease severity, denosumab was associated with significantly greater risk reduction than alendronate and ibandronate for vertebral fractures. No difference in fracture risk reduction was found between zoledronate and denosumab.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the Effects of Denosumab and Alendronate on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Osteoporotic Patients.

Publications

Comparison of the Effects of Denosumab and Alendronate on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Osteoporotic Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets