Long-Term Bone Mineral Density Changes in Kidney Transplant Recipients Treated with Denosumab: A Retrospective Study with Nonequivalent Control Group.

Data on the effectiveness of denosumab on osteoporosis after kidney transplantation are limited. We investigated the long-term bone mineral density (BMD) changes in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) treated with denosumab compared to untreated KTRs. We enrolled KTRs treated with denosumab 60 mg/6 months for 4 years. An untreated group of sex and age-matched KTRs with a 1:1 ratio was included. The primary outcome was BMD changes assessed by Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry over 4 years. Data on serum creatinine, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), parathyroid hormone, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D were collected. All patients received oral cholecalciferol and calcium supplementation. 23 denosumab-treated KTRs were enrolled, and 23 untreated KTRs. The median time from transplant to the start of denosumab was 4 years (range 0:24). The denosumab group showed a significant increase from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine (LS) (9.0 ± 10.7%, p < 0.001), and total hip (TH) (3.8 ± 7.9%, p = 0.041). The untreated group showed a significant decrease at all sites (- 3.0 ± 7%, p = 0.041 at the LS; - 6.3 ± 9.2%, p = 0.003 at the TH; - 6.7 ± 9.3%, p = 0.003 at the FN). The between-group differences in percent BMD changes were statistically significant at all sites. Similar results were found for the respective Z-scores. The ALP serum levels significantly decreased from baseline only in the denosumab group, with a significant between-group difference (p = 0.032). No significant differences in serum creatinine, hypocalcaemic events or acute graft rejection rates were observed. Four years of denosumab therapy were associated with increased BMD in KTRs, while untreated KTRs showed significant BMD losses at all sites.

Romosozumab added to ongoing denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis, a prospective observational study.

Background: Optimization of sequential and combination treatment is crucial in shaping long-term management of postmenopausal osteoporosis (OP). Methods: We conducted a 6-month prospective observational study on postmenopausal women with severe OP receiving treatment with romosozumab either alone (in patients naïve to treatment) or in combination with ongoing long-term denosumab (>2 years) or continuing ongoing denosumab alone (>2 years). We collected serum samples for bone turnover markers, bone modulators, and calcium phosphate metabolism at baseline, month 3 and month 6. BMD was assessed at baseline and after 6 months. Results: Fifty-two postmenopausal women with OP were included in the study. Nineteen received romosozumab alone, 11 received romosozumab combined to ongoing denosumab, and 22 continued denosumab alone. BMD increased significantly at all sites at 6 months of follow-up in the romosozumab alone group (femoral neck +8.1%, total hip +6.8%, and lumbar spine +7.9%). In contrast, BMD increased significantly only at lumbar spine in the combination group (+7.2%) and in the denosumab group (+1.5%). P1nP increased significantly in romosozumab groups at month 3 (+70.4% in romosozumab alone group and +99.1% in combination group). Sclerostin levels increased steeply in both romosozumab groups, and Dkk1 did not change. Conclusion: Romosozumab added to ongoing denosumab resulted in an increase in P1nP and lumbar spine BMD, but not in femoral neck BMD. For patients on denosumab, using romosozumab as an additional treatment appeared to be useful in terms of bone formation markers and spine BMD vs denosumab alone. Further randomized controlled trials, possibly powered to fracture outcomes, are needed to confirm our results.