Margaret R. Warner

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.

Effects of teriparatide on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in Japanese subjects with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in a 24-month clinical study: 12-Month, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind and 12-month open-label phases

This multicenter study assessed the safety and efficacy of teriparatide 20 microg/day in Japanese men and women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture during a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period followed by second and third treatment periods (to 18 and 24 months, respectively,) in which all subjects received open-label teriparatide. Subjects (93% female; median age 70 years) were randomized 2:1 to teriparatide versus placebo (randomized at baseline, teriparatide n=137, placebo-teriparatide n=70; entering the second period, teriparatide n=119, placebo-teriparatide n=59; entering the third period, teriparatide n=102, placebo-teriparatide n=50). For subjects with measurements at 12 months, teriparatide significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine L2-L4 (mean percent change+/-SD, teriparatide 10.04+/-5.23% versus placebo-teriparatide 0.19+/-4.33%), the femoral neck (teriparatide 2.01+/-4.63% versus placebo-teriparatide 0.44+/-3.97%), and the total hip (teriparatide 2.72+/-4.04% versus placebo-teriparatide -0.26+/-3.42%). In the placebo-teriparatide group at 24 months (12-month teriparatide dosing) BMD increased by 9.11+/-5.14% at the lumbar spine, 2.19+/-4.81% at the femoral neck and 2.46+/-3.54% at the total hip. In the teriparatide group at 18 and 24 months, BMD increased from baseline at the lumbar spine by 11.93+/-5.79% and 13.42+/-6.12%, respectively; at the femoral neck by 2.68+/-4.45% and 3.26+/-4.25%, respectively; and at the total hip by 3.02+/-3.79% and 3.67+/-3.98%, respectively. Serum procollagen I N-terminal pro-peptide (PINP) increased rapidly with teriparatide treatment (P<0.001 versus placebo at 1 month) and changed from baseline in the teriparatide and placebo-teriparatide groups at 12 months by a median of 78.95% and -17.23%, respectively, (P<0.001) and at 24 months by 49.24% and 76.12%, respectively. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, and discontinuations due to TEAEs were comparable in the teriparatide and placebo-teriparatide groups. These data show that teriparatide 20 microg/day was well tolerated and stimulated bone formation in Japanese subjects with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture during 18 and 24 months of treatment.

An open‐label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study comparing sildenafil citrate and tadalafil for treating erectile dysfunction in men naïve to phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor therapy

Associate Editor

ORIGINAL RESEARCH—ED PHARMACOTHERAPY: Psychosocial Outcomes and Drug Attributes Affecting Treatment Choice in Men Receiving Sildenafil Citrate and Tadalafil for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: Results of a Multicenter, Randomized, Open‐Label, Crossover Study

INTRODUCTION Although sildenafil citrate (sildenafil) and tadalafil are efficacious and well-tolerated treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED), preference studies have shown that patients may favor one medication over the other. AIM To determine whether psychosocial outcomes differed when men with ED received tadalafil compared with sildenafil. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Measures included a treatment preference question, Psychological and Interpersonal Relationship Scales (PAIRS), and Drug Attribute Questionnaire. METHODS Randomized, open-label, crossover study. After a 4-week baseline, men with ED (N = 367; mean age = 54 years; naïve to type 5 phosphodiesterase inhibitor therapy) were randomized: tadalafil for 12 weeks then sildenafil for 12 weeks or vice versa (8-week dose optimization/4-week assessment phases). During dose optimization, patients started with 10 mg tadalafil, or 25 or 50 mg sildenafil and could titrate to their optimal dose (10 or 20 mg tadalafil; 25, 50, or 100 mg sildenafil). Medications were taken as needed. Patients completing both 12-week periods chose which medication to continue during an 8-week extension. RESULTS Of 291 men completing both treatment periods, 71% (N = 206) chose tadalafil and 29% (N = 85) chose sildenafil (P < 0.001) for the 8-week extension. When taking tadalafil compared with sildenafil men had higher mean endpoint scores on PAIRS Sexual Self-Confidence (tadalafil = 2.91 vs. sildenafil = 2.75; P < 0.001) and Spontaneity (tadalafil = 3.32 vs. sildenafil = 3.17; P < 0.001) Domains and a lower mean endpoint score on Time Concerns Domain (tadalafil = 2.2 vs. sildenafil = 2.59; P < 0.001). The two most frequently chosen drug attributes to explain treatment preference were ability to get an erection long after taking the medication and firmness of erections. Tadalafil and sildenafil were well tolerated with 12 (3.3%) patients discontinuing for an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS As measured with PAIRS, men with ED had higher sexual self-confidence and spontaneity and less time concerns related to sexual encounters when treated with tadalafil compared with sildenafil. These psychosocial outcomes may help explain why more men (71%) preferred tadalafil for the treatment of ED in this clinical trial.

Correlations between biochemical markers of bone turnover and bone density responses in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis treated with teriparatide or alendronate

The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to determine whether baseline concentrations or early changes in serum bone turnover markers were correlated with changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at 18 months in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) treated with teriparatide (n=80; 20 mug/day) or alendronate (n=77; 10 mg/day). Bone markers included type I collagen N-terminal propeptide (PINP), type I collagen C-terminal propeptide (PICP), bone alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP), and cross-linked C-telopeptide of type I collagen (Sbeta-CTX). The relationship between baseline and early changes in markers and the 18-month changes in lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN) BMD was evaluated using Spearman correlation analysis. In the teriparatide group, increases in LS and FN BMD at 18 months were not significantly correlated with baseline marker concentrations (P>0.05) but were correlated with the increases in PINP at 1 and 6 months (P<0.05). In the alendronate group, the increase in FN BMD at 18 months was positively correlated with baseline marker concentrations (P<0.05) and negatively correlated with change in PINP and Sbeta-CTX at 1 and 6 months. In addition, in the alendronate group, the increase in LS BMD was negatively correlated with change in Sbeta-CTX at 1 month (P<0.05). Increases in BMD at the spine and hip were independent of baseline bone turnover in the teriparatide group, while increases in hip BMD were dependent on baseline bone turnover in the alendronate group. With both therapies, early changes in some bone turnover markers were correlated with 18-month gains in BMD in patients with GIO.

Bone formation markers in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis treated with teriparatide or alendronate☆

Reduced osteoblast function is a primary defect in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), and is reflected by decreased biochemical markers of bone formation, such as serum osteocalcin (OC) and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP). This analysis compared the effects of teriparatide and alendronate on OC and PINP in patients with GIO. In a double-blind study, women (N=159) and men (N=38) with GIO were randomized to either teriparatide 20 mug/day by subcutaneous injection or to alendronate 10 mg/day orally. OC and PINP were measured in fasting-state serum samples obtained at baseline and at 1, 6, 18, and 36 months. Baseline bone formation markers were below the reference interval (low) in 33% of patients for OC and in 4% of patients for PINP. On teriparatide therapy, the median OC and PINP levels increased by 92% and 108%, respectively, and this resulted in only 12% and 1% of patients being low at 6 months. On alendronate therapy, the median OC and PINP levels decreased by 40% and 53%, respectively, and this resulted in 68% and 34% of patients being low at 6 months. We conclude that bone formation as determined by surrogate markers was increased in teriparatide-treated patients with GIO and decreased in alendronate-treated patients with GIO.

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.

Effects of tadalafil on myocardial blood flow in patients with coronary artery disease.

ObjectiveErectile dysfunction and coronary artery disease share similar risk factors. Although phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors used to treat erectile dysfunction do not adversely affect hemodynamic parameters in patients with coronary artery disease, their effects on myocardial blood flow are unknown. MethodsIn a randomized, double-blind, crossover study we examined the effects of tadalafil, 20 mg, compared with placebo on myocardial blood flow in patients with stable coronary artery disease (n=7, 52–73 years old). After tadalafil or placebo, myocardial blood flow was measured with positron emission tomography (nine-segment model) at rest, during maximal coronary hyperemia with adenosine, and during increased myocardial work with dobutamine. Abnormal flow was defined as myocardial blood flow <75% of maximum perfusion during adenosine plus placebo (46 normal/17 abnormal segments dentified). ResultsCompared with placebo, tadalafil had no significant effect on global myocardial blood flow at rest, during adenosine infusion, or during dobutamine infusion. Similarly, in normal and abnormal segments, tadalafil versus placebo had no significant effect on resting myocardial blood flow or on adenosine-induced increases in myocardial blood flow. In normal segments, myocardial blood flow with dobutamine plus tadalafil was greater than that with dobutamine plus placebo (1.79±0.56 versus 1.56±0.37 ml/g per min, P<0.01), and in abnormal segments, there was a trend for tadalafil compared with placebo to increase myocardial blood flow during dobutamine infusion (1.46±0.44 versus 1.36±0.36 ml/g per min, P=0.7). ConclusionsTadalafil had no significant effect on global myocardial blood flow at rest, during adenosine infusion, or during dobutamine infusion. Compared with placebo, tadalafil significantly augmented myocardial blood flow during increased workload in normal regions, with a trend toward improving myocardial blood flow in poorly perfused regions.

Active Comparator Trial of Teriparatide vs Alendronate for Treating Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis: Results From the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Cohorts

Glucocorticoid use is a leading cause of secondary osteoporosis. This post hoc analysis compared teriparatide vs alendronate on bone mineral density (BMD) in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. The 18-mo results from all patients (N=428) in a double-blind trial of teriparatide (20 microg/d) and alendronate (10 mg/d) who had taken glucocorticoids for >or=3 mo were reported (Saag et al. N Engl J Med 2007). The present study analyzed results from the Hispanic (n=61) and non-Hispanic (n=367) cohorts. The BMD was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). In the Hispanic cohort at 18 mo, there were significantly greater increases from baseline in the teriparatide vs alendronate group in lumbar spine BMD (9.8%+/-1.7% vs 4.2%+/-1.4%; p<0.001; mean+/-SE) and total hip BMD (5.9%+/-1.6% vs 1.3%+/-1.3%, p<0.001), with no significant difference between groups at the femoral neck (4.3%+/-2.2% vs 2.0%+/-1.8%, p=0.228). Within each treatment group, the BMD responses were not significantly different in the Hispanic vs non-Hispanic cohort. The number of patients reporting >or=1 adverse event was not significantly different between treatments in either cohort, with more patients reporting nausea in the teriparatide group. In summary, teriparatide was more efficacious than alendronate in increasing BMD in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

Incorporation of a Benefit-Risk Assessment Framework Into the Clinical Overview of Marketing Authorization Applications

Background: The main responsibility of regulators and industry is to ensure the benefit-risk balance of pharmaceutical products is positive for the intended patient populations. In recent decades, regulators and industry have taken steps to systematize benefit-risk decision making related to marketing authorization applications through the use of structured benefit-risk assessment. Methods: This manuscript presents an outline for a structured benefit-risk assessment that can be incorporated into Section 2.5.6 of the Clinical Overview to provide the basis for approval of pharmaceutical products in these regulatory submissions. Results: The structured format presents the benefits and risks of a pharmaceutical product in the context of the medical need in the disease state, the benefits and risks of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies, and the approach for mitigating the risks of the product under review. Conclusions: Ultimately, such an approach that lends further support to quality decision making would be beneficial to patients who would be treated with new pharmaceutical products.