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: 2257

How Does Non-Compliance to Prolia ® (DENOSUMAB) Impact the Change in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in Osteoporotic Patients?

Aashish Kalani1, Matt Wong-Pack1, Jacob Hordyk2, Arthur N. Lau3, George Ioannidis4, Robert Bensen5, William G. Bensen6 and Jonathan D. Adachi1, 1McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2University of Ottawa, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 3Rheumatology and Clinical Epidemiology, Division of Rheumatology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 4St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 5Rheumatology Health Team, Dr. Bensen's Rheumatology Clinic, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 6Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Clinical Professor, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Meeting: 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Denosumab and osteoporosis

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

Title: Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease - Clinical Aspects and Pathogenesis: Osteoporosis: Treatment, Safety, and Long Term Outcomes

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: Denosumab (Prolia®) has shown to be a safe and efficacious therapy for osteoporotic patients in many clinical trials. Unfortunately, few studies have explored its effectiveness in clinical practice. Currently, best practice guidelines suggest that denosumab should be administered subcutaneously every six months. However, in clinical practice, patients do not always receive subsequent denosumab as prescribed. This non-compliance may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the drug. The objective of this study is to assess the impact that noncompliance with the regular dosing regimen has on bone mineral density (measured at the lumbar spine [LS] and femoral neck [FN]) compared to patients who receive their scheduled dosing regimen.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted from August 2012 to August 2013. We included all osteoporotic patients from a single academic center who received a minimum of two injections of denosumab with a follow-up BMD measurement since May 2010 for analysis. Patients who have only received their first subcutaneous injection and patients without a corresponding BMD score were excluded from the study. Patients were classified into 3 categories and analyzed in these groups: 1) subsequent injection less than five months, 2) between five to seven months, 3) more than seven months after their initial subcutaneous injection. Interval changes in BMD (at the LS and FN) over a 1-year follow-up period was analyzed between these three groups.

Results: Of the 924 charts examined, 436 patients met eligibility criteria. Multi-variable regression analysis was conducted comparing the change in BMD after one year of denosumab therapy at both the LS and FN for the three pre-specified groups. The group receiving an injection 7 months after their initial injection was used as a reference. The change in BMD (95% confidence interval) after one year was -0.00008 (-0.01335 to 0.01168) and 0.02073 (-0.00697 to 0.04843) for patients receiving a subsequent injection between 5-7 months later, at LS and FN respectively. The change in BMD (95% confidence interval) after one year was 0.00515 (-0.00619 to 0.01649) and 0.01474 (-0.01042 to 0.03990) for patients receiving a subsequent injection less than 5 months later, at LS and FN respectively. The relationship between the timing of drug administration and change in BMD over 1 year was not statistically significant (p>0.05).

Conclusion: This observational study proposes that the efficacy of denosumab (as measured by BMD measurements at the lumbar spine and femoral neck) has great efficacy in the treatment of osteoporosis especially when patient compliance was maintained. This emphasizes the importance of patient compliance and the need for programs available to patients to help ensure this compliance. However, in the small subset of patients who were unable to receive their subsequent denosumab injection within the 5 to 7 month window, there was no difference in BMD measurements. This suggests that although compliance is essential, a delay in a subsequent injection may be acceptable in extenuating circumstances. A follow-up study with a larger sample size and longer follow-up duration is required to further characterize this relationship.


Disclosure:

A. Kalani,
None;

M. Wong-Pack,
None;

J. Hordyk,
None;

A. N. Lau,

Amgen, Roche,

8,

Amgen, Roche,

2;

G. Ioannidis,
None;

R. Bensen,
None;

W. G. Bensen,
None;

J. D. Adachi,

Amgen Inc., Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Nycomed, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Wyeth, and Bristol-Myers Squibb,

5,

Amgen Inc., Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Wyeth, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.,

2.

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

« Back to 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/how-does-non-compliance-to-prolia-denosumab-impact-the-change-in-bone-mineral-density-bmd-in-osteoporotic-patients/

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