Serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and the risk of fractures in the teriparatide versus risedronate VERO clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Using data from the 2-year, randomized, double-dummy VERO trial, we examined the changes in 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations over time, and whether the fracture risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate varies by baseline 25(OH)D sufficiency category. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis received subcutaneous daily teriparatide 20 µg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg, with concomitant 500-1000 mg of elemental calcium and 400-800 IU/day of vitamin D supplements. Fracture endpoints were analyzed by predefined subgroups of 25(OH)D insufficient and sufficient patients. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on fractures was investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: At baseline, mean serum 25(OH)D was 31.9 ng/mL in the teriparatide group and 31.5 ng/mL in the risedronate group, and 16.8% and 17.9% of patients, respectively, were 25(OH)D insufficient. At month 6, the mean serum 25(OH)D concentration decreased in teriparatide-treated patients to 24.5 ng/mL (by approximately 23%) but remained relatively constant in risedronate-treated patients (32.2 ng/mL) (p < 0.001). Proportions of 25(OH)D insufficient patients at month 6 were 26.7% and 5.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate for any of the fracture endpoints did not significantly differ between subgroups by 25(OH)D sufficiency status at baseline, with nonsignificant (p > 0.1) treatment-by-25(OH)D interactions in all fracture analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Serum 25(OH)D concentration decreases during teriparatide treatment. Fracture risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ between the two groups of patients defined by baseline 25(OH)D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Effects of Teriparatide Compared with Risedronate on the Risk of Fractures in Subgroups of Postmenopausal Women with Severe Osteoporosis: The VERO Trial.

The 2-year, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled fracture endpoint VERO study included postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, who had at least 2 moderate or 1 severe baseline vertebral fractures (VFx), and bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤-1.5. Patients were treated with either s.c. daily teriparatide 20 µg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg. As previously reported, the risk of new VFx and clinical fractures (a composite of clinical VFx and nonvertebral fragility fractures [NVFFx]) was statistically significantly reduced with teriparatide compared with risedronate. Here we present the prospectively planned subgroup analyses of fracture data across subgroups, which were predefined by the following baseline characteristics: age, number and severity of prevalent VFx, prevalent nonvertebral fractures (NVFx), glucocorticoid use, prior osteoporosis drugs, recent bisphosphonate use, clinical VFx in the year before study entry, and baseline BMD. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on the primary endpoint (new VFx), and the four key secondary endpoints (including clinical fractures and NVFFx) were investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 1360 women were randomized and treated (680 per group). Mean age was 72.1 years, mean (SD) number of prevalent VFx was 2.7 (2.1), 55.4% had a BMD T-score <-2.5, 36.5% had a recent clinical VFx, 28.3% had a prior major NVFx, 43.2% were osteoporosis drug-naïve, 39.3% were recent bisphosphonate users, and 9.3% were taking glucocorticoids at a prednisone-equivalent dose of >5 mg/d. For most fracture endpoints, the risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ in any of the subgroups analyzed (treatment-by-subgroup interaction p > 0.1), with most subgroups mirroring results from the total study population. In conclusion, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the antifracture efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate was consistent in a wide range of patient settings, including treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.

Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No clinical trials have compared osteoporosis drugs with incident fractures as the primary outcome. We compared the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide with risedronate in patients with severe osteoporosis. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, we enrolled post-menopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a bone mineral density T score of less than or equal to -1·50. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 µg of teriparatide once daily plus oral weekly placebo or 35 mg of oral risedronate once weekly plus daily injections of placebo for 24 months. The primary outcome was new radiographic vertebral fractures. Secondary, gated outcomes included new and worsened radiographic vertebral fractures, clinical fractures (a composite of non-vertebral and symptomatic vertebral), and non-vertebral fractures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01709110) and EudraCT (2012-000123-41). FINDINGS: We enrolled 680 patients in each group. At 24 months, new vertebral fractures occurred in 28 (5·4%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group and 64 (12·0%) of 680 patients in the risedronate group (risk ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·29-0·68; p<0·0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4·8%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group compared with 61 (9·8%) of 680 in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·32-0·74; p=0·0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 (4·0%) patients in the teriparatide group and 38 (6·1%) in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·10; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures is significantly lower in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving risedronate. FUNDING: Lilly.

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral salmon calcitonin in the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women taking calcium and vitamin D.

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of oral calcitonin (SMC021) for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A total of 4665 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to receive calcium and vitamin D plus either SMC021 tablets (0.8mg/d) or placebo for 36months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a new vertebral fracture. The two groups were well balanced at baseline with regards to demographic and clinical data. No effect of SMC021 on preventing new vertebral fractures was observed, nor was any effect seen on new hip or non-vertebral fractures. Women receiving SMC021 had a mean 1.02% (±0.12%) increase in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) compared with a mean 0.18% (±0.12%) increase in the placebo group by the end of the study (p<0.0001). Similarly, small increases in BMD were observed at the femoral neck and hip in both groups. Levels of the biomarkers of bone turnover, urinary CTX-I and CTX-II, were 15% lower in the SMC021 group than in the placebo arm at 12 and 24months, but not at 36months. No change in quality of life between groups, assessed by the Qualeffo-14 questionnaire, was observed in either group between baseline and month 36. Pharmacokinetics analysis confirmed exposure to SMC021, but the drug levels were markedly lower than expected. Approximately 92% of subjects in each treatment group experienced an adverse event (AE), the majority of which were mild or moderate in intensity. AEs associated with SMC021 were primarily of gastrointestinal origin and included nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, as well as hot flushes which were the reason for the slightly higher drop-out rate in the active treatment arm compared to placebo. The number of severe AEs was low in both groups. Thirty-five deaths were reported but none were considered treatment-related. Due to the lack of efficacy in preventing fractures, the development of the orally formulated calcitonin was terminated despite the promising results in earlier studies.

Effects of short-term risedronate on bone resorption and patient satisfaction in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients.

This multicenter, open-label study evaluated the effects of short-term risedronate on bone resorption and patient satisfaction in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Brazil. Entry requirements included: osteoporosis of the spine/femoral neck diagnosed by a bone mineral density (BMD) T-scoreor=1 dose of study drug (intent-to-treat [ITT] population), and 390 completed treatment (81%). After 12 wk, CTX decreased in 94% of patients (from 0.419+/-0.234 to 0.158+/-0.171 microg/L, p<0.0001). Mean CTX reduction was 60.6%. Patient satisfaction was good/excellent in 91.7% of patients. A total of 156 adverse events (AEs) were reported by 113 (23.5%) patients in the ITT population. Digestive symptoms emerged or worsened in 7.1% and 3.5%, respectively. Five patients (1.0%) experienced serious AEs, not considered to be related to risedronate. In conclusion, risedronate significantly reduced serum CTX after 12-wk treatment. Almost all patients reported good/excellent satisfaction.

Is it ethical to use placebos in osteoporosis trials?

The use of placebo control groups (e.g., subjects using calcium and vitamin D) in osteoporosis trials with subjects at high risk for fracture has been systematically questioned by institutional review boards (IRBs). Regulatory agencies, on the other hand, continue to not only recommend but also require that placebo-controlled trials be presented for the registration of new drugs for osteoporosis treatment. The Declaration of Helsinki and its updates have upheld the principle that protection of research subjects' rights is of primary concern. Nevertheless, even the Declaration keeps clearly opening the possibility of using placebo-control designs if it is justified for "compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons." The use of intermediary endpoints or surrogates to establish the efficacy or safety of new medications in the management of osteoporosis is currently considered scientifically insufficient. This concept has led regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the European Medicines Agency in the European Union, to require "fragility fracture reduction" as the primary endpoint in clinical trials for the registration of new drugs. Superiority or noninferiority trials are alternatives to placebo-controlled designs. However, factors such as sample size, cost, and statistical limitations render these models impractical for the registration of new medications for osteoporosis. We recommend collaboration among regulatory agencies, IRBs, scientists, and ethicists on the design of clinical trials for the registration of new medications for reduction of fracture risk. Delay in developing mutually acceptable models may impair scientific development in the field and possibly deprive patients of potentially beneficial treatments.