Evaluation of the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic profile of oral recombinant human parathyroid hormone [rhPTH(1-31)NH(2)] in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

CONTEXT: Treatment of osteoporosis with subcutaneous (SC) injections of rhPTH(1-34) or rhPTH(1-84) is associated with significant improvements in BMD and reductions in osteoporotic fractures. However, subcutaneous injections can be associated with discomfort and thus deteriorating compliance. OBJECTIVE: The UGL-OR1001 trial aimed to establish the efficacy and safety parameters of a novel oral tablet formulation of rhPTH(1-31)NH(2) and matching placebo tablets and open-label teriparatide positive control in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. DESIGN: 24 weeks of randomized, double-blind treatment with once daily doses of 5mg oral treatment or corresponding placebo, or open-label subcutaneous teriparatide. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Women diagnosed with postmenopausal osteoporosis as detected by lumbar spine DXA, with an exclusion of those with prior treatment with bone active agents. INTERVENTION(S): Orally formulated recombinant human PTH(1-31)NH(2) and placebo, or open-label subcutaneous teriparatide as a positive control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary endpoint was to characterize the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density (BMD) at L1-L4 axial lumbar spine after 24 weeks in the rhPTH(1-31)NH(2) arm. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included safety and tolerability of the oral formulation, measurement of biochemical markers of bone turnover, and evaluation of the PK profile at first and last dose. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT01321723. RESULTS: The oral tablet formulation of rhPTH(1-31)NH(2) resulted in similar PK profiles at both timepoints with mean C(max) values similar to subcutaneous administration. In the rhPTH(1-31)NH(2) arm, a 2.2% increase in lumbar spine BMD was observed compared to baseline (p<0.001), while no change was observed in the placebo arm. Open-label teriparatide resulted in a 5.1% increase in LS BMD (p<0.001). In the oral PTH study arm, the bone formation marker osteocalcin was increased by 32%, 21% and 23% at Weeks 4, 12 and 24, respectively. There was no significant increase in the level of the bone resorption marker CTx-1. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, these data demonstrate that enteric-coated oral tablet formulation technology consistently generated robust levels of exposure of rhPTH(1-31)NH(2) leading to induction of bone formation without inducing bone resorption resulting in significantly increased levels of LS BMD. Few adverse events were observed, recommending this orally delivered drug candidate for further development.

A randomized, parallel group, double-blind, multicentre study comparing the efficacy and safety of Avandamet (rosiglitazone/metformin) and metformin on long-term glycaemic control and bone mineral density after 80 weeks of treatment in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if superior glycaemic control could be achieved with Avandamet® (rosiglitazone/metformin/AVM) compared with metformin (MET) monotherapy, and if glycaemic effects attained with AVM are durable over 18 months of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD) and bone biomarkers were evaluated in a subgroup of patients. METHODS: This was a phase IV, randomized, double-blind, multi-centre study in 688, drug naÏve, male and female patients who had an established clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio either to AVM or MET. RESULTS: As initial therapy in patients with T2DM, AVM was superior to MET in achieving statistically significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (p < 0.0001) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (p < 0.001), with more patients reaching recommended HbA1c and FPG targets for intensive glycaemic control. The glycaemic effects attained with AVM compared to MET monotherapy were durable over 18 months of treatment. In the bone substudy, AVM was associated with a significantly lower BMD in comparison with MET at week 80 in the lumbar spine and total hip (p < 0.0012 and p = 0.0005, respectively). Between-treatment differences were not statistically significant for distal one-third of radius BMD, femoral neck BMD or total BMD. CONCLUSION: Superior glycaemic control was achieved with AVM compared with MET monotherapy. The superior glycaemic effects were shown to be durable over 18 months of treatment. AVM was associated with a significantly reduced BMD in comparison with MET at week 80 in the lumbar spine and total hip.