Satoshi Soen

Diagnostic criteria for primary osteoporosis: year 2012 revision

In 1995, the Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Metabolism (now the Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research) established the Osteoporosis Diagnostic Criteria Review Committee. Following discussion held at the 13th scientific meeting of the Society in 1996, the Committee, with the consensus of its members, proposed diagnostic criteria for primary osteoporosis. The Committee revised those criteria in 1998 and again in 2000. The Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research and Japan Osteoporosis Society Joint Review Committee for the Revision of the Diagnostic Criteria for Primary Osteoporosis aimed at obtaining international consistency and made a revised edition based on the new findings in 2012.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: position paper from the Allied Task Force Committee of Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research, Japan Osteoporosis Society, Japanese Society of Periodontology, Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, and Japanese Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

Bisphosphonates (BPs) have been widely, efficiently, and safely used for the treatment of osteoporosis, malignant hypercalcemia, bone metastasis of solid cancers, and multiple myeloma bone diseases. Accumulating recent reports describe that surgical dental treatments in patients with cancer or osteoporosis who have been receiving intravenous or oral BPs are associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw (bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, BRONJ). The accurate incidence, clinical backgrounds, and pathogenesis of BRONJ have been unclear and appropriate approaches for prevention and treatment have not been established to date. To address the current situation of BRONJ in Japan, the “Allied Task Force Committee of Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw,” consisting of physicians specializing in bone biology, orthopedic surgery, rheumatology, obstetrics/gynecology, and medical oncology and dentists specializing in oral surgery, periodontology, dental radiology, and oral pathology, was organized. The committee attempted to propose a standard position paper for the treatment of BRONJ. The committee expects that this proposal will provide objective and correct scientific information on BRONJ and will serve as a reference for conducting dental procedures for patients receiving BPs and in designing prevention and treatment of BRONJ. However, because this position paper is not based on direct clinical evidence, it should be used as a reference, and a decision on treatment in each case should be made after an extensive discussion among physicians, dentists/oral surgeons, and the patients.

Guidelines on the management and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis of the Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research (2004)

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are widely used to treat various inflammatory, immunologic, and allergic disorders that cause rheumatic, respiratory, bowel, hepatic, neurological, renal, and skin diseases. Osteoporosis is the most common and important adverse effect of GC therapy, and fractures occur in 30–50 % of adult patients receiving long-term GC therapy [1, 2]. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) is the most common type of secondary osteoporosis, and it occurs in patients of all ages, from children to the elderly. An early rapid decrease of bone mineral density (8–12 %) occurs within several months of starting GC therapy, although bone mineral density decreases more slowly thereafter, with the annual loss being approximately 2–4 % [3]. In addition, it is known that there is a significant increase in the risk of vertebral and hip fractures before marked bone loss occurs [4]. Therefore, it is important to prevent early bone loss and to decrease in fracture risk as early as possible after the start of GC therapy. Based on the concept of early prevention and treatment, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) developed recommendations for the prevention and treatment of GIO

Efficacy and Safety of the Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitor Celecoxib in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis in Japan

Background/Aims: Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders are common adverse reactions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Loxoprofen is a representative NSAID widely used in East Asia. A selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, was introduced in Japan in 2007. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of celecoxib with those of loxoprofen in Japanese patients. Methods: We analyzed the data from 12 clinical studies conducted in Japan. These data of Japanese patients were compared with those of the patients in the West that had been published after 2000. Results: The efficacy of celecoxib as an analgesic was comparable to that of loxoprofen, whereas serious GI events, including symptomatic ulcers, were significantly less frequent with celecoxib than with loxoprofen in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) (p = 0.039). These results were consistent with the findings of the studies conducted in the West. The incidence of serious cardiovascular events was 0.1% in 2,398 subjects on celecoxib, which was not statistically different from the incidence in subjects on loxoprofen (0.3%; p = 0.3404) and those on placebo (0.2%); this result was also consistent with the data of the studies conducted in the West. Conclusion: The analgesic activity of celecoxib, which was used for the treatment of RA, OA, and low back pain, was comparable to that of loxoprofen, and celecoxib was safer in terms of GI injury often caused by other nonselective NSAIDs.

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection versus oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a multi-center, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial

IntroductionWhile many of the commonly used conservative treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been recognized to be effective, there is still insufficient evidence available. Among the pharmacological treatments for knee OA, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) act rapidly and are recommended for the management of OA. However, frequent and serious adverse effects of NSAIDs have been recognized. Intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) for the treatment of knee OA have been shown to reduce pain and improve joint function. However, there has been no qualified direct comparison study of the efficacy and safety between IA-HA and NSAIDs for patients with knee OA. The aim of this study was to clarify the efficacy and safety of early-phase IA-HA in comparison to those of NSAIDs for patients with knee OA.MethodsThis multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority comparison study with an oral NSAID involved a total of 200 patients with knee OA. An independent, computer-generated randomization sequence was used to randomly assign patients in a 1:1 ratio to NSAIDs three times per day for five weeks (n = 100) or IA-HA once a week for five weeks (n = 100). The primary endpoint was the percentage change in the patient-oriented outcome measure for knee OA, the Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM) score. All patients were questioned regarding any adverse events during treatment. The full analysis set (FAS) was used for analysis. The margin of non-inferiority was 10%.ResultsThe analyses of primary endpoint included 98 patients in the IA-HA group and 86 patients in the NSAID group. The difference in the percentage changes of the JKOM score between the two intervention arms (IA-HA; -34.7% (P<0.001), NSAID; -32.2% (P<0.001)) was -2.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): -14.0 to 9.1), indicating IA-HA was not inferior to NSAID. The frequency of both withdrawal and adverse events in the IA-HA group were significantly lower than those in the NSAID group (P = 0.026 and 0.004, respectively).ConclusionsThe early efficacy of IA-HA is suggested to be not inferior to that of NSAIDs, and that the safety of the early phase of IA-HA is superior to that of NSAIDs for patients with knee OA.Trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN- CTR), UMIN000001026.

Safety and efficacy of combination therapy of iguratimod with methotrexate for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate: An open-label extension of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Abstract Objective. To obtain safety and efficacy data on combination treatment with iguratimod and methotrexate (MTX) in an open-label extension study in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Following a 28-week, randomized, double-blind trial of adding iguratimod or placebo to stable MTX therapy, patients entered a 24-week extension. Patients randomized to the iguratimod + MTX group continued treatment. Patients treated with placebo + MTX switched to iguratimod + MTX [the (placebo/iguratimod) + MTX group]. Results. In the iguratimod + MTX group, the rate of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 52 (71.3%) was similar to that at week 24 (69.5%). ACR50, ACR70 and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at week 52 significantly improved compared with the values at week 24. In the (placebo/iguratimod + MTX) group, the switch to iguratimod treatment significantly improved ACR20 from 30.7% at week 24 to 72.1% at week 52. Frequent adverse events for 52 weeks in the iguratimod + MTX group were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract inflammation, stomatitis, lymphocyte decrease, AST increase, ALT increase and blood iron decrease. These adverse events were predominantly mild or moderate in severity. No deaths occurred. Conclusion. Efficacy and tolerance of iguratimod + MTX therapy was maintained to 52 weeks in patients with active RA with inadequate response to MTX.

Lack of cooperation between physicians and dentists during osteoporosis treatment may increase fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw

Abstract Objective: Our previous questionnaire-based survey suggested that discontinuation of antiresorptive agents before tooth extraction may increase adverse events and disturb osteoporosis treatment without completely preventing osteonecrosis of the jaw (O.N.J.). We also found little cooperation between physicians and dentists in Japan. However, limitations of our previous study included a survey of doctors belonging to small clinics and a small sample size. Our current study aimed to confirm the results of our previous survey in doctors mainly belonging to academia. Methods: A structured questionnaire including 14 key clinical queries was sent to 1812 physicians of the Japan Osteoporosis Society, and 629 responses were received. Results: Dentists requested discontinuation of many medications that were not associated with the incidence of O.N.J. A total of 523 respondents had received discontinuation requests from dentists. Of these, 97 respondents experienced 119 adverse events including 25 fractures and seven incidences of O.N.J. The ratios of valid responses for fractures were 3.6% and 5.3% in patients with a discontinuation of <3 and ≥3 months, respectively. Those for O.N.J. were 0.7% and 1.6%, respectively. Respondents who refused discontinuation requests reported no cases of O.N.J. Approximately 17% of respondents had patients who discontinued osteoporosis treatment following a requested drug discontinuation after tooth extraction. Approximately 62% of respondents did not request oral health care by a dentist before antiresorptive therapy, and 72% reported no cooperation between physicians and dentists in their region. Conclusions: This study reconfirms the results of our previous survey. Discontinuation of antiresorptive treatment may increase both fractures and O.N.J. Immediate development of a strategy for sharing information about O.N.J. among physicians, dentists, and patients is required to reduce the incidence of both O.N.J. and skeletal events in osteoporosis treatment. Study limitations were selection bias due to low response rate and possible inaccurate responses to the questionnaire.

Tu1054 TAK-438 Versus Lansoprazole 15 mg for Secondary Prevention of Peptic Ulcers Associated With Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Therapy: Results of a Phase 3 Trial

Background and Aims: Gastroesophageal reflux is considered to cause sleep disturbance, while proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration is reported to improve insomnia associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux are asymptomatic and a significant number with erosive esophagitis are also reported to be asymptomatic. Therefore, PPIs may improve sleep disturbance not only for symptomatic GERD patients, but also individuals without reflux symptoms if asymptomatic reflux is an important factor to cause insomnia. We examined whether PPI administration has a therapeutic effect for improving insomnia in patients without reflux symptoms in the same manner as patients with reflux symptoms. Methods: We performed a randomized multicenter doubleblind placebo-controlled trial using 176 patients with insomnia regardless of the presence of reflux symptoms. The patients were divided into those administered omeprazole (20 mg) or a placebo for 14 days. Four self-reporting questionnaires, QOLRAD-J(Japanese translation of Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire), PSQI(Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index) , ESS (Epworth Sleepiness Scale), and a sleep diary, were used for evaluating GERDrelated quality of life and sleep disturbance. Results:We evaluated 171 patients with insomnia, of whom 69 had typical reflux symptoms. Omeprazole improved GERD-related quality of life and insomnia significantly better than the placebo in patients with reflux symptoms. On the other hand, the therapeutic effects of omeprazole and the placebo were not different in patients without reflux symptoms.(Table) Conclusion: Our results showed that PPI administration is effective only for insomnia in patients with reflux symptoms. Effects of omeprazole and placebo on reflux and sleep indices in patients with heartburn and/or acid regurgitation

Vonoprazan prevents ulcer recurrence during long-term NSAID therapy: randomised, lansoprazole-controlled non-inferiority and single-blind extension study

Objective To assess the non-inferiority of vonoprazan to lansoprazole for secondary prevention of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced peptic ulcer (PU) and the safety of vonoprazan during extended use. Design A phase 3, 24-week, multicenter, randomised, double-blind (DB), active-controlled study, followed by a phase 3, ≥28 week, multicenter, single-blind, parallel-group extension study (EXT) in outpatients (n=642) receiving long-term NSAID therapy who are at risk of PU recurrence. The patients received vonoprazan (10 mg or 20 mg) or lansoprazole 15 mg once daily. For DB, non-inferiority of the proportion of patients with recurrent PU within 24 weeks was analysed by Farrington and Manning test (significance level 2.5%, non-inferiority margin 8.3%; primary endpoint), recurrent PU within 12 weeks, bleeding and time-to-event of PU (secondary endpoint) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). For EXT, TEAEs (primary endpoint), recurrent PU and safety (secondary) were assessed up to 104 weeks for patients in the extension study. Results The non-inferiority of vonoprazan 10 mg and 20 mg to lansoprazole 15 mg was verified (percentage difference –2.2%,95% CI –6.2% to 1.8%, p<0.001; –2.1%,95% CI –6.1% to 2.0%, p<0.001, respectively). The proportion of patients with endoscopically confirmed recurrent PU within 24 weeks was 3.3%, 3.4% and 5.5%, for vonoprazan 10 mg, 20 mg and lansoprazole 15 mg, respectively. No significant safety concerns were identified. Conclusion The non-inferiority of vonoprazan (10 and 20 mg) was verified in patients receiving long-term NSAIDs in DB; it was effective and well tolerated in EXT for longer than 1 year, with a safety profile similar to lansoprazole (15 mg). Trial registration numbers NCT01452750, NCT01456260; Results.

Real-world effectiveness of daily teriparatide in Japanese patients with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture: final results from the 24-month Japan Fracture Observational Study (JFOS)

Abstract Objective: The Japan Fracture Observational Study (JFOS), a prospective observational study, investigated the real-world effectiveness of daily teriparatide to reduce clinical fracture risk in osteoporotic patients. Methods: In routine clinical practice, Japanese patients initiated on teriparatide 20 μg/day by subcutaneous injection were enrolled. The primary end-point was the rate of clinical fractures at 6-month intervals over 24 months. Bone mineral density (BMD), procollagen type 1 aminoterminal propeptide (P1NP), back pain, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) information was collected. Results: Of 1,996 patients at baseline, 90.1% were female, and mean age was 76.9 years. Teriparatide persistence at 12 and 24 months was 68.0% and 51.6%, respectively. Compared to the first 6-month treatment interval, the odds ratio of fractures decreased by 56.4% during 6–12 months, 51.6% during 12–18 months, and 58.8% during 18–24 months (all p < .01). After 24 months, BMD increased by 17.2% (lumbar spine) and 7.9% (total hip). After 6 months, P1NP levels increased by 259.3%. A reduction in back pain (100 mm visual analog scale) of 16.1 mm at 3 months was maintained through 24 months. HRQoL (pain, daily living activities, general health) improved by ≥10% at each post-baseline time point. Of 279 (14.6%) patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE), 71 (3.7%) experienced ≥1 drug-related AE (investigator assessed), including nausea (0.7%), dizziness (0.4%), and decreased appetite (0.3%). Osteosarcoma was not reported; there were no new safety signals. Conclusions: JFOS demonstrated effectiveness of teriparatide 20 μg/day to reduce the risk of clinical fractures in Japanese patients in a real-world setting.