Kyoungah See

Teriparatide for acceleration of fracture repair in humans: A prospective, randomized, double‐blind study of 102 postmenopausal women with distal radial fractures

Animal experiments show a dramatic improvement in skeletal repair by teriparatide. We tested the hypothesis that recombinant teriparatide, at the 20 µg dose normally used for osteoporosis treatment or higher, would accelerate fracture repair in humans. Postmenopausal women (45 to 85 years of age) who had sustained a dorsally angulated distal radial fracture in need of closed reduction but no surgery were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of once‐daily injections of placebo (n = 34) or teriparatide 20 µg (n = 34) or teriparatide 40 µg (n = 34) within 10 days of fracture. Hypotheses were tested sequentially, beginning with the teriparatide 40 µg versus placebo comparison, using a gatekeeping strategy. The estimated median time from fracture to first radiographic evidence of complete cortical bridging in three of four cortices was 9.1, 7.4, and 8.8 weeks for placebo and teriparatide 20 µg and 40 µg, respectively (overall p = .015). There was no significant difference between the teriparatide 40 µg versus placebo groups (p = .523). In post hoc analyses, there was no significant difference between teriparatide 40 µg versus 20 µg (p = .053); however, the time to healing was shorter in teriparatide 20 µg than placebo (p = .006). The primary hypothesis that teriparatide 40 µg would shorten the time to cortical bridging was not supported. The shortened time to healing for teriparatide 20 µg compared with placebo still may suggest that fracture repair can be accelerated by teriparatide, but this result should be interpreted with caution and warrants further study.

Effects of Teriparatide Versus Alendronate for Treating Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis Thirty-Six-Month Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE To compare the bone anabolic drug teriparatide (20 microg/day) with the antiresorptive drug alendronate (10 mg/day) for treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (OP). METHODS This was a 36-month, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in 428 subjects with OP (ages 22-89 years) who had received > or =5 mg/day of prednisone equivalent for > or =3 months preceding screening. Measures included changes in lumbar spine and hip bone mineral density (BMD), changes in bone biomarkers, fracture incidence, and safety. RESULTS Increases in BMD from baseline were significantly greater in the teriparatide group than in the alendronate group, and at 36 months were 11.0% versus 5.3% for lumbar spine, 5.2% versus 2.7% for total hip, and 6.3% versus 3.4% for femoral neck (P < 0.001 for all). In the teriparatide group, median percent increases from baseline in N-terminal type I procollagen propeptide (PINP) and osteocalcin (OC) levels were significant from 1 to 36 months (P < 0.01), and increases in levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) were significant from 1 to 6 months (P < 0.01). In the alendronate group, median percent decreases in PINP, OC, and CTX were significant by 6 months and remained below baseline through 36 months (P < 0.001). Fewer subjects had vertebral fractures in the teriparatide group than in the alendronate group (3 [1.7%] of 173 versus 13 [7.7%] of 169; P = 0.007), with most occurring during the first 18 months. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of nonvertebral fractures (16 [7.5%] of 214 subjects taking teriparatide versus 15 [7.0%] of 214 subjects taking alendronate; P = 0.843). More subjects in the teriparatide group (21%) versus the alendronate group (7%) had elevated predose serum calcium concentrations (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that subjects with glucocorticoid-induced OP treated with teriparatide for 36 months had greater increases in BMD and fewer new vertebral fractures than subjects treated with alendronate.

Baseline Glucocorticoid Dose and Bone Mineral Density Response with Teriparatide or Alendronate Therapy in Patients with Glucocorticoid-induced Osteoporosis

Objective. This post-hoc analysis studied the effect of baseline glucocorticoid dose on the 18-month bone mineral density (BMD) response to teriparatide 20 μg/day or alendronate 10 mg/day in 387 patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) from a randomized, double-blind trial. Methods. Lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) BMD were measured at baseline and 18 months. Mean baseline glucocorticoid dose was categorized as low (≤ 5 mg/day), medium (> 5 and < 15 mg/day), or high (≥ 15 mg/day). Results. Baseline LS, FN, and TH BMD were similar between groups, and between glucocorticoid dose categories within each group. LS BMD increases at the low, medium, and high glucocorticoid doses were 8.1%, 6.6%, and 4.6%, respectively, with teriparatide, and 3.6%, 2.8%, and 2.3% with alendronate. Analyzed as a continuous variable, higher glucocorticoid doses had a negative, but non-significant, effect on the percentage increase in LS BMD in both groups. Glucocorticoid dose did not significantly affect FN or TH BMD increases in either group. Across the 3 glucocorticoid dose categories, the overall LS BMD increases were different for both treatments combined (p = 0.033), but the relative differences between the treatment groups were not different (interaction, p = 0.52). Conclusion. Teriparatide and alendronate increased LS and hip BMD across a range of baseline glucocorticoid doses. LS BMD increases with teriparatide were greater in the low-dose category than in the high-dose category. Overall LS BMD increases were significantly greater with teriparatide compared with alendronate, which may reflect the respective anabolic and antiresorptive mechanisms of action. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT00051558.

Does Teriparatide Improve Femoral Neck Fracture Healing: Results From A Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial.

AbstractBackground There is a medical need for therapies that improve hip fracture healing. Teriparatide (Forteo®/ Forsteo®, recombinant human parathyroid hormone) is a bone anabolic drug that is approved for treatment of osteoporosis and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and postmenopausal women at high fracture risk. Preclinical and preliminary clinical data also suggest that teriparatide may enhance bone healing.Questions/purposesWe wished to test the hypotheses that treatment with teriparatide versus placebo would improve femoral neck fracture healing after internal fixation as measured by (1) frequency of revision surgery, (2) radiographic fracture healing, and (3) other outcomes including pain control, gait speed, and safety.MethodsWe initiated two separate, but identically designed, clinical trials to meet FDA requirements to provide substantial evidence to support approval of a new indication. The two prospective, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III studies were designed to evaluate the effect of subcutaneous teriparatide (20 μg/day) for 6 months versus placebo on fracture healing at 24 months. The trials were conducted concurrently with a planned enrollment of 1220 patients per trial. However, enrollment was stopped owing to very slow patient accrual, and an a priori decision was made to pool the results of those studies for statistical analyses before study completion; pooling was specified in both protocols. Randomization was stratified by fixation (sliding hip screw or multiple cancellous screws) and fracture type (displaced or nondisplaced). An independent Central Adjudication Committee reviewed revision surgical procedures and radiographs. A total of 159 patients were randomized in the two trials (81 placebo, 78 teriparatide). The combined program had very low power to detect the originally expected treatment effect but had approximately 80% power to detect a larger difference of 12% between treatment groups for risk of revision surgery.ResultsThe proportion of patients undergoing revision surgery at 12 months was 14% (11 of 81) in the placebo group versus 17% (13 of 78) in the teriparatide group. Central Adjudication Committee review excluded two of these patients treated with placebo from the primary analysis. After exclusions, the proportion of patients who did not undergo revision surgery at 12 months (primary endpoint) was not different between the study and placebo groups, at 88% in the placebo group (90% CI, 0.79–0.93) versus 84% in the teriparatide group (90% CI, 0.75–0.90; p = 0.743). There also were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients achieving radiographic fracture healing at 12 months (75% [61 of 81] placebo versus 73% [57 of 78] teriparatide; odds ratio, 0.89; 90% CI, 0.46–1.72; p = 0.692) or in measures of pain control (such as pain during ambulation, 92% [55 of 62] placebo versus 91% [52 of 57] teriparatide; odds ratio, 0.91; 90% CI, 0.25–3.37; p = 0.681). The frequency of patients reporting adverse events was 49% [40 of 81] in the placebo group versus 45% [35 of 78] in the teriparatide group (p = 0.634) during the 6-month treatment period.ConclusionsThe small sample size limited this study’s power to detect potential differences, and the results are exploratory. With the patients available, teriparatide did not decrease the risk of revision surgery, improve radiographic signs of fracture healing, or decrease pain compared with the placebo. The adverse event data observed were consistent with the teriparatide safety profile. Functional and health outcome data from the studies may help improve our understanding of patients recovering from femoral neck fractures. Further large controlled studies are required to determine the effect of teriparatide on fracture healing.Level of EvidenceLevel II, prospective study.

An observational study to assess back pain in patients with severe osteoporosis treated with teriparatide versus antiresorptives: An Indian subpopulation analysis.

Background: One year, prospective, observational study in an Indian subpopulation to assess back pain in patients with severe osteoporosis treated with teriparatide or antiresorptives in a clinical setting. Materials and Methods: One hundred and nineteen teriparatide-naοve Indian men and postmenopausal women (mean age 68.0 years) with previous osteoporotic vertebral fracture participated. Patients were assessed at baseline, 6-and 12-months to evaluate relative risk (RR) of new/worsening back pain using the Back Pain Questionnaire. The incidence of back pain and changes in back pain severity were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS); Health outcomes were assessed using the euroquol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. All tests were conducted with a two-sided alpha of 0.05. Results: Of 562 overall patients, 57, 60, and 2 Indian patients received teriparatide, antiresorptive, or teriparatide and antiresorptive, respectively. Baseline disease characteristics were slightly worse for antiresorptive-treated patients, whereas teriparatide-treated patients were older with more comorbidities. At 6-months, the incidence of new/worsening back pain was 5.3% for teriparatide-treated patients versus 4.4% for antiresorptive-treated patients (RR: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.68, 1.48); the incidence of severe back pain was 0% versus 12.5% (P = 0.017); in these treatment groups, respectively. Mean VAS change scores (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) were − 1.9 ± 1.73 versus − 1.4 ± 1.77, and mean EQ-5D change scores were 4.2 ± 27.20 versus 9.9 ± 26.23 at 6-months. At 6 months, more teriparatide-treated patients felt better (89% vs. 61%; P = 0.001) and were at least very satisfied with their treatment (30% vs. 9%; P = 0.011). Conclusion: Teriparatide-treated Indian patients had similar new/worsening back pain risk and minimal risk of severe back pain compared with antiresorptive-treated patients at 6-months.

Patient experience with a new teriparatide delivery device.

Abstract Objective: To determine functionality and acceptability of a new teriparatide (Forteo, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) delivery device by patients with osteoporosis. Research design and methods: This was an eight week, single-arm, multicenter, open-label clinical trial. Patients received teriparatide 20 µg/day by subcutaneous injection using a new delivery device. Men and postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture were stratified to Current User (n = 92) or Not Current User (n = 107) groups. Current Users had used the original delivery device for ≥8 weeks, including uninterrupted use for four weeks before enrollment. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00577863. Main outcome measures: The primary objective was to detect common complaints (≥3% for all patients) regarding the functionality and acceptability of the new device. Complaints were categorized as functional (e.g., malfunction), nonfunctional (e.g., size), or user manual. Secondary objectives included questionnaire assessment of preference of the new versus original device, features of the new delivery device, and analysis of adverse events. Results: A total of 31 patients (16%) reported 47 complaints (four functional, 27 nonfunctional, and 16 user manual). There were two common complaints: device size (4.0%) and lack of information on alcohol swabs (3.5%). Overall, patients agreed that the new device was easy to use (99.5%), easy to learn to use (99%), easy to attach a needle (97%), easy to hold while injecting (95%), and that it reduced their reluctance to take injections (90%). Most Current Users (92%) preferred the new delivery device over the original device. Adverse events reported by ≥2% of patients were upper respiratory infection (3.5%), urinary tract infection (2%), influenza (2%), and headache (2%). Limitations include the one-arm study design and the short (eight week) duration of the study. Conclusions: Patients found the new teriparatide delivery device easy to use and Current Users preferred the new delivery device over the original device.

Improvements in psoriasis within different body regions vary over time following treatment with ixekizumab

Abstract Background: Ixekizumab is a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17 A. Objective: Examine the efficacy of ixekizumab in clearing psoriasis within different body regions. Methods: Data from 3 placebo- (PBO) or PBO- and etanercept (ETN)-controlled trials were integrated. Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were randomized to 12 weeks of PBO (UNCOVER-1, -2, -3, N = 792; UNCOVER-2, -3, N = 361), 50 mg ETN twice weekly (N = 740), or 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 (IXE Q2W; N = 1169; N = 736) or 4 weeks (IXE Q4W; N = 1165; N = 733) after a 160-mg starting dose. Results: Mean percent improvements in regional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) were noted at Week 1 and increased through Week 12 in the IXE Q2W (approved dosing regimen) group for each body region. Week 12 improvements were 91.4% (head/neck); 92.8% (trunk); 89.9% (arms); and 88.7% (legs) (all regions p < .001 vs. PBO). Mean regional PASI improvements at Week 12 were ≥84.2% for ixekizumab versus ≤70.9% for ETN in all regions (p < .001). Scaling and thickness reduced faster than erythema. Conclusions: Within 12 weeks of ixekizumab treatment, all signs of psoriasis across all body regions reached clinically meaningful improvements, with the head/neck and trunk responding quicker than psoriasis of the arms and legs, especially with reduced scaling and thickness.