Author: Patrick O'Mara

Denosumab (Prolia) has been shown to reduce the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women and men ≥50 years old with osteoporosis. It has also been approved for steroid induced bone loss.

Individuals who were in the FREEDOM study, which evaluated denosumab in comparison to placebo, were followed, and those who stopped denosumab had a subsequent reduction in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in the risk of fracture (Bone JCEM 2011).

Analysis of the data from the FREEDOM study as well as the Extension trial of denosumab up to a total of 10 years, confirmed that stopping denosumab was associated with an increase in rate of bone loss as measured by bone turnover markers, which rose 3 months after missing a scheduled dose. BMD decreased back to the baseline level 12 months after missing a scheduled dose of denosumab (Cummings JBMR 2017).

Individuals who had received ≥2 doses of denosumab or placebo, and stopped treatment but remained in the study for ≥ 7 months after the last dose, were reviewed. In the 1001 patients who stopped denosumab, the rate of spine fractures increased from 1.2/100 patient-years (while on treatment) to 7.1/100 patient-years, a similar rate to the placebo group. Multiple (>1) vertebral fractures appeared to be more common in the group stopping denosumab than the group stopping placebo (3.4% vs 2.2%). The risk of having multiple (>1) vertebral fractures after stopping denosumab was higher in those people who had already experienced a prior spine fracture, and also in those who had rapid rates of bone loss. The rates of non-spine fractures were similar in those stopping denosumab and those stopping placebo (2.8% denosumab, 3.8% placebo) (Cummings et al JBMR 2017).

Due to the increased risk of vertebral fractures associated with denosumab discontinuation, it is important not to miss scheduled doses of denosumab once treatment has started. Patients need to be advised of the increased risk of bone loss and vertebral fracture when therapy is stopped. If denosumab needs to be stopped, it should be replaced by an alternative osteoporosis medication to help prevent rapid bone loss and risk of fractures (Symonds CMAJ April 2018).

Osteoporosis Canada advises individuals on denosumab therapy to discuss their treatment with their physician prior to stopping therapy or missing a scheduled dose.

1. Bone HG et al JCEM 2011:96:972-980

2. Cummings et al JBMR vol 33, No2, Feb 2018 pp 190-198

3. Symonds C, Kline G CMAJ 2018 April 23 :190 pp E485- 486

Prepared by Aliya Khan, Sandra Kim, Rowena Ridout and Lianne Tile, on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Council of Osteoporosis Canada, Rapid Response Committee.

The recent study by Bolland and colleagues published in the Lancet Diabetes Endocrinology (Oct 4, 2018) is an updated meta-analysis that evaluated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on fractures, falls and bone mineral density (BMD) in adults. This study analyzed the pooled findings of 81 randomized control trials, collectively involving more than 50,000 participants.

The majority of the trials included in this analysis were of vitamin D alone, with daily doses of more than 800 IU daily, vs. untreated controls, in community-dwelling women age 65-years or older. Trials of high-dose vs. low-dose vitamin D, as well as co-administration of calcium with vitamin D were also included. Study duration was 1 year or less. The primary outcomes were fractures and falls; and the secondary outcome was change in BMD from baseline at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, total body, and forearm (1).

This meta-analysis found that vitamin D supplementation did not have an effect on the risk of fractures or falls, and there were no meaningful effects on BMD. The authors also concluded that there were no differences between the effects of higher and lower doses of vitamin D (1).

In more than half of the trials, subjects had a baseline vitamin D level (25OHD) of <50 nmol/L (a cutoff considered by many including the Endocrine Society (2) to indicate vitamin D insufficiency), and almost all had a baseline 25OHD <75 nmol/L. Only four trials (6%) studied people with vitamin D deficiency (25OHD <25 nmol/L), in whom vitamin D supplementation may produce different results. Since there is large variability in how vitamin D levels respond to fixed doses of vitamin D (most studies used 1000 IU per day or less), 25OHD levels may not have reached the target range of interest in these studies. The finding that vitamin D alone may not prevent fractures, falls or improve BMD is consistent with prior published studies. While studies have shown little impact on outcomes when vitamin D or calcium are used separately, a review of trials of calcium and vitamin D used together in individuals living in long-term care showed benefit (3). The current meta-analysis by Bolland included only 20 trials (25%) of vitamin D taken with calcium vs. calcium alone, and did not include studies that compared vitamin D used together with calcium vs. no treatment. Although the major strength of the current study lies in the large number of studies included in the analysis, it is important to recognize potential limitations including the heterogeneity of populations, study designs and results of the studies in the meta-analysis. Importantly, this study did not specifically address the vitamin D requirements of individuals with osteoporosis, those with risk factors for osteoporotic fractures, or those with risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. It is important to remember that vitamin D is needed for optimal calcium absorption from the gut, and plays an important role in calcium balance and bone mineralization. Inadequate vitamin D can result in poor bone mineralization, as well as bone loss due to a rise in parathyroid hormone levels. Although this study suggests that routine vitamin D supplementation, in particular, high dose vitamin D, may not be necessary for healthy individuals in the general population, these findings cannot be applied to people with osteoporosis, or to those with risk factors for fractures or vitamin D deficiency. Osteoporosis Canada recommends that individuals with osteoporosis or with risk factors for fractures receive adequate vitamin D, as recommended at 800-2000 IU per day (4), however vitamin D dosing may require adjustment in order to achieve the adequate 25OHD level needed for optimal calcium homeostasis. Further studies are needed to clarify the optimal 25OHD level for those with osteoporosis or with risk factors for fracture. High dose vitamin D supplementation should be avoided due to potential harms (5). There are large randomized trials currently ongoing to help answer questions about effects of vitamin D supplementation on other aspects of health (6). Appropriate osteoporosis medication may be required for those at high fracture risk. It is important to note that clinical trials showing the effectiveness of osteoporosis medications all included vitamin D and calcium as part of the treatment regimen. References: 1. Bolland et al Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Oct 2018 2. Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Michael F. Holick et al The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2011 96 (7): 1911-1930. 3. Papaioannou et al CMAJ 2015 187: 1-11. 4. Vitamin D in adult health and disease: a review and guideline statement from Osteoporosis Canada by David A. Hanley MD et al CMAJ 2010 5. Smith et al 2017 J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol173:317-22 6. Pradhan AD Manson JE Update on the Vitamin D and OmegA-3 trial (VITAL). Study J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016 Jan;155(Pt B):252-6. 7. Manson JE et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2018 Nov 10; [e-pub]. (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944) Prepared by Aliya Khan, Sandra Kim, Rowena Ridout and Lianne Tile, on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Council of Osteoporosis Canada, Rapid Response Committee.

Bisphosphonate therapy – long term use

Recently a study published by Drieling et al in JAGS 2017 described the results of a cohort study of 5120 older women with an average age of 80 yrs and at high fracture risk . This observational study from the Womens Health Initiative included 5120 women who had been using oral BP for at least 2 years and had a FRAX score of 1.5% or higher for 5 yrs. Women who had been on PTH , calcitonin or aromatase inhibitors were excluded. The average follow up data was available for 4 yrs.

10-13 yrs of oral bisphosphonate use was associated with higher risk of any clinical fracture then 2 yrs of use HR =1.29 , 95% CI 1.07-1.57.

There was no association between intermediate use and fracture risk. There are a number of limitations to this observational data including the fact that this study did not include a group without bisphosphonate use also compliance was not evaluated.

Oral BPs have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of vertebral and non vertebral fracture in randomized controlled trials. The extension studies of these fracture trials unfortunately were not powered to evaluate impact on fracture risk and currently we do not have long term data consistently demonstrating reductions in non vertebral fracture risk with long term BP use.

It appears that the optimal period of use for oral or IV bisphosphonates is 3-5 yrs with published randomized controlled trial data confirming reductions in fracture risk for vertebral , non vertebral and hip fracture with use for this time period. After the first 5 years of bisphosphonate use the fracture risk should be re-evaluated and bisphosphonate therapy should also be re-evaluated.

Osteoporosis Canada advises that all patients should have their treatment strategy reviewed by their physicians particularly after 5 years of use as long term use of bisphosphonates may not have the same risk benefit ratio as seen with short term use of up to 5 yrs.