The intensity of bone remodeling is a critical determinant of the decay of cortical and trabecular microstructure after menopause. Denosumab suppresses remodeling more than alendronate, leading to greater gains in areal bone mineral density (aBMD). These greater gains may reflect differing effects of each drug on bone microarchitecture and strength. In a phase 2 double-blind pilot study, 247 postmenopausal women were randomized to denosumab (60mg subcutaneous 6 monthly), alendronate (70mg oral weekly), or placebo for 12 months. All received daily calcium and vitamin D. Morphologic changes were assessed using high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) at the distal radius and distal tibia and QCT at the distal radius. Denosumab decreased serum C-telopeptide more rapidly and markedly than alendronate. In the placebo arm, total, cortical, and trabecular BMD and cortical thickness decreased (−2.1% to −0.8%) at the distal radius after 12 months. Alendronate prevented the decline (−0.6% to 2.4%, p = .051 to < .001 versus placebo), whereas denosumab prevented the decline or improved these variables (0.3% to 3.4%, p < .001 versus placebo). Changes in total and cortical BMD were greater with denosumab than with alendronate (p ≤ .024). Similar changes in these parameters were observed at the tibia. The polar moment of inertia also increased more in the denosumab than alendronate or placebo groups (p < .001). Adverse events did not differ by group. These data suggest that structural decay owing to bone remodeling and progression of bone fragility may be prevented more effectively with denosumab.
Vertebral fractures and trabecular bone loss are hallmarks of osteoporosis. However, 80% of fractures are non-vertebral and 70% of all bone loss is cortical and is produced by intracortical remodeling. The resulting cortical porosity increases bone fragility exponentially. Denosumab, a fully human anti-RANKL antibody, reduces the rate of bone remodeling more than alendronate. The aim of this study was to quantify the effects of denosumab and alendronate on cortical and trabecular bone. Postmenopausal women, mean age 61years (range 50 to 70), were randomized double blind to placebo (n=82), alendronate 70mg weekly (n=82), or denosumab 60mg every 6months (n=83) for 12months. Porosity of the compact-appearing cortex (CC), outer and inner cortical transitional zones (OTZ, ITZ), and trabecular bone volume/total volume (BV/TV) of distal radius were quantified in vivo from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography scans. Denosumab reduced remodeling more rapidly and completely than alendronate, reduced porosity of the three cortical regions at 6months, more so by 12months relative to baseline and controls, and 1.5- to 2-fold more so than alendronate. The respective changes at 12months were [mean (95% CI)]; CC: -1.26% (-1.61, -0.91) versus -0.48% (-0.96, 0.00), p=0.012; OTZ: -1.97% (-2.37, -1.56) versus -0.81% (-1.45, -0.17), p=0.003; and ITZ: -1.17% (-1.38, -0.97) versus -0.78% (-1.04, -0.52), p=0.021. Alendronate reduced porosity of the three cortical regions at 6months relative to baseline and controls but further decreased porosity of only the ITZ at 12months. By 12months, CC porosity was no different than baseline or controls, OTZ porosity was reduced only relative to baseline, not controls, while ITZ porosity was reduced relative to baseline and 6months, but not controls. Each treatment increased trabecular BV/TV volume similarly: 0.25% (0.19, 0.30) versus 0.19% (0.13, 0.30), p=0.208. The greater reduction in cortical porosity by denosumab may be due to greater inhibition of intracortical remodeling. Head to head studies are needed to determine whether differences in porosity result in differing fracture outcomes.
High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) has recently been introduced as a clinical research tool for in vivo assessment of bone quality. The utility of this technique to address important skeletal health questions requires translation to standardized multi-center data pools. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility of pooling data in multi-center HR-pQCT imaging trials. Reproducibility imaging experiments were performed using structure and composition-realistic phantoms constructed from cadaveric radii. Single-center precision was determined by repeat scanning over short (<72hrs), intermediate (3–5mo), and long-term intervals (28mo). Multi-center precision was determined by imaging the phantoms at nine different HR-pQCT centers. Least significant change (LSC) and root mean squared coefficient of variation (RMSCV) for each interval and across centers was calculated for bone density, geometry, microstructure, and biomechanical parameters. Single-center short-term RMSCVs were <1% for all parameters except Ct.Th (1.1%), Ct.Th.SD (2.6%), Tb.Sp.SD (1.8%), and porosity measures (6–8%). Intermediate-term RMSCVs were generally not statistically different from short-term values. Long-term variability was significantly greater for all density measures (0.7–2.0%; p < 0.05 vs. short-term) and several structure measures: Ct.Th (3.4%; p < 0.01 vs. short-term), Ct.Po (15.4%; p < 0.01 vs. short-term), and Tb.Th (2.2%; p < 0.01 vs. short-term). Multi-center RMSCVs were also significantly higher than short-term values: 2–4% for density and µFE measures (p < 0.0001), 2.6–5.3% for morphometric measures (p < 0.001), while Ct.Po was 16.2% (p < 0.001). In the absence of subject motion, multi-center precision errors for HR-pQCT parameters were generally less than 5%. Phantom-based multi-center precision was comparable to previously reported in vivo single-center precision errors, although this was approximately 2–5 times worse than ex vivo short-term precision. The data generated from this study will contribute to the future design and validation of standardized procedures that are broadly translatable to multi-center study designs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.