ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 321

A Meta-Analysis of 4 Clinical Trials of Denosumab Compared with Bisphosphonates in Postmenopausal Women Previously Treated with Oral Bisphosphonates

Paul D Miller1, N Pannacciulli2, J Malouf3, A Singer4, E Czerwinski5, HG Bone6, C Wang2, Rachel B. Wagman2 and JP Brown7, 1Colorado Center for Bone Research, Lakewood, CO, 2Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 3Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, 4Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, 5Krakow Medical Center, Krakow, Poland, 6Michigan Bone and Mineral Clinic, Detroit, MI, 7CHU de Québec Research Centre and Laval University, Québec, QC, Canada

Meeting: 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Date of first publication: September 18, 2017

Keywords: Bisphosphonates, denosumab and meta-analysis

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 5, 2017

Title: Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease – Clinical Aspects and Pathogenesis Poster I

Session Type: ACR Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Four clinical trials have separately shown greater BMD gains with transitioning to denosumab (DMAb) compared with continuing on bisphosphonates (BP) in subjects previously treated with oral BPs (Kendler JBMR 2010; Recknor Obstet Gynecol 2013; Roux Bone 2014; Miller JCEM 2016). The aim of this meta-analysis was to improve estimates of effect size and provide an integrated assessment of safety/efficacy of DMAb vs BPs with different dosing regimens (weekly, monthly, yearly) and administration routes (oral, intravenous), over 12 months in postmenopausal women pretreated with oral BPs.

Methods: Data were pooled from 4 randomized studies in postmenopausal women with low bone mass or osteoporosis, aged ≥55 years, and pretreated with oral BPs, who were randomized 1:1 to DMAb (60mg every 6 months) or an oral (alendronate 70mg weekly, ibandronate 150mg monthly, risedronate 150mg monthly) or intravenous (zoledronic acid 5mg yearly) BP for 12 months. Percentage (%) change from baseline (BL) in BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius (assessed in 2 studies) at month 12; % change from BL in serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (sCTX, in a subset of 1058 subjects) at 1, 6, and 12 months (in 2 of the studies); and safety were assessed. Fractures were collected as adverse events (AEs) and not adjudicated.

Results: A total of 2850 subjects were included (1426 DMAb; 1424 BP). Mean (SD) age was 68 (8) years, mean (SD) lumbar spine BMD T-score was –2.5 (1.0), and mean (SD) duration of prior oral BP use was 3.8 (3.6) years. BMD % change from BL at month 12 was significantly greater with DMAb vs BPs at all measured skeletal sites (Figure) and independent of length of prior BP use (<2 or ≥2 years) at all sites measured (except for 1/3 radius for those with <2 years of prior BP use). Median sCTX % decrease from BL was greater with DMAb than BPs at months 1 (–58% vs –12%), 6 (–36% vs –14%), and 12 (–26% vs 8%; all p<0.0001). Overall AEs/serious AEs were similar between groups. There were no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Three events consistent with the definition of atypical femoral fracture were observed (2 DMAb; 1 BP). Osteoporosis-related fractures were reported in 47 (3.3%) DMAb and 43 (3.1%) BP subjects.

Conclusion: This integrated assessment shows greater clinical benefit with increases in BMD and reductions in bone turnover and similar safety profile in transitioning from oral BPs to DMAb, compared with continuing on or cycling through the same therapeutic class (from one BP to another).

Adobe Systems

 

 


Disclosure: P. D. Miller, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Radius Health, Ultragenyx, 2,Amgen, Alexion, Lilly, Merck, Radius Health, Ultragenyx, 5; N. Pannacciulli, Amgen, 1,Amgen, 3; J. Malouf, None; A. Singer, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Radius, UCB, 5,National Osteoporosis Foundation Board of Trustees, 6,Amgen, Eli Lilly, Radius, 8; E. Czerwinski, Amgen, 2; H. Bone, Amgen, Merck, Shire, 2,Amgen, Grünenthal, Merck, Radius, Shire, 5,Amgen, Radius, Shire, 8; C. Wang, Amgen, 1,Amgen, 3; R. B. Wagman, Amgen, 1,Amgen, 3; J. Brown, Amgen, Eli Lilly, 2,Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, 5,Amgen, Eli Lilly, 8.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Miller PD, Pannacciulli N, Malouf J, Singer A, Czerwinski E, Bone H, Wang C, Wagman RB, Brown J. A Meta-Analysis of 4 Clinical Trials of Denosumab Compared with Bisphosphonates in Postmenopausal Women Previously Treated with Oral Bisphosphonates [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/a-meta-analysis-of-4-clinical-trials-of-denosumab-compared-with-bisphosphonates-in-postmenopausal-women-previously-treated-with-oral-bisphosphonates/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/a-meta-analysis-of-4-clinical-trials-of-denosumab-compared-with-bisphosphonates-in-postmenopausal-women-previously-treated-with-oral-bisphosphonates/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology