AACE 25 th Annual Scientific and Clinical Congress Osteoporosis Treatment: Then and Now Orlando, FL May 28, 2016 Michael R. McClung, MD Oregon Osteoporosis Center Portland, Oregon, USA
Disclosures I am disclosing financial relationships as follows: Advisory Boards: Amgen, Merck, Radius Honorarium for speaking: Amgen, Merck Michael McClung, MD 2016
Congratulations, AACE
Osteoporosis: THEN and NOW Images courtesy of Dr David Dempster THEN: 1992 the year of the first AACE meeting in Orlando
Osteoporosis: THEN and NOW Images courtesy of Dr David Dempster THEN: 1992 the year of the first AACE meeting in Orlando Earlier milestones 1942 Albright realized that women with osteoporosis were in negative calcium balance due to poor calcium absorption and excessive renal calcium loss estrogen therapy improved calcium balance 1948 Albright-Reifenstein textbook Fuller Albright
Osteoporosis: THEN and NOW Images courtesy of Dr David Dempster 1960-64: Frost and Parfitt describe process of bone remodeling 1977: ASBMR founded, but osteoporosis Cancellous was a very Bone small part of Remodeling Unit the scientific program 1986: Dempster s photos depict osteoporosis Resorption Reversal Formation J Bone Miner Res 1:15-21. Cortical Bone Remodeling Unit Images Courtesy of Dr. David Dempster
Osteoporosis: THEN and NOW Images courtesy of Dr David Dempster 1978: estrogen approved to treat osteoporosis 1984: injectable calcitonin approved as osteoporosis therapy 1985-90: epidemiology of fracture and relationship to BMD 1985-88: clinical trials with fracture endpoints begun 1987: DXA introduced 1989-92: large clinical trials begun
Osteoporosis: THEN and NOW Images courtesy of Dr David Dempster 1992 Osteoporosis was one of the osteopenic conditions Osteoporosis diagnosed when older women presented with height loss or pain due to vertebral fractures No definition or diagnostic tests Available treatments estrogen injectable calcitonin oral etidronate (off label) sodium fluoride
The Science of Osteoporosis: 1992-2010 1993: relationship of BMD to fracture risk 20 16 Hip BMD Efforts to prevent hip fractures should focus on women with low hip bone density. ip F ra c tu re R R H i 12 8 4 Radius BMD 0-5 -4-3 -2-1 0 1 2 Age-adjusted BMD T-score Cummings SR et al. Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Lancet 1993;341:72-5
The Science of Osteoporosis: 1992-2010 1993: relationship of BMD to fracture risk 1994: WHO definition of osteoporosis WHO Diagnostic Category* T-Score Normal bone mass > 1 Low bone mass 1 > 2.5 Osteoporosis < 2.5 Established osteoporosis < 2.5 and fracture
The Science of Osteoporosis: 1992-2010 1993: relationship of BMD to fracture risk 1994: WHO definition of osteoporosis 1995: alendronate reduces vertebral fracture risk and licensed for treatment Incidence of Vertebral Fracture (%) 9.0 6.0 3.0 Pivotal Phase 3 study Incidence of vertebral fracture at 3 years 53% 0.0 6.2% 2.8% 2.9% Placebo 5 mg 10 mg Liberman U, et al. New Engl L Med. 1995;333:1437-43
The Science of Osteoporosis: 1992-2010 1993: relationship of BMD to fracture risk 1994: WHO definition of osteoporosis 1995: alendronate reduces vertebral fracture risk and licensed for treatment 1998: clinical guidelines appear National Osteoporosis Foundation - 1998 Treatment for osteoporosis recommended in all postmenopausal women with T-score -2.0 or lower or T-score -1.5 and another risk factor AACE Guidelines - 2001 adult with fragility fracture T-score <-2.5 T-score <-1.5 + risk factors
The Science of Osteoporosis: 1992-2010 1993: relationship of BMD to fracture risk 1994: WHO definition of osteoporosis 1995: alendronate reduces vertebral fracture risk and licensed for treatment 1998: clinical guidelines appear 1999-2004: more drugs licensed 2004: ONJ 2007: Atypical fracture 2008: FRAX introduced 2010: denosumab licensed
Drug Therapies for Osteoporosis - 2016 Designed to Modulate Remodeling Osteoporosis is a consequence of an imbalance in bone remodeling with bone formation lagging behind resorption Anti-remodeling agents 90% of market bisphosphonates estrogen agonist/antagonist (raloxifene) RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab) Remodeling stimulating (anabolic) agents teriparatide (PTH 1-34) Images courtesy of Drs John Kanis and Sergio Ragi Eis
Osteoporosis Therapies OBJECTIVES 1 1. improve bone strength 2. reduce risk of fracture BENEFITS 2 1. effective protection from fractures vertebral fracture by 60-70% hip fracture by 40-50% non-vertebral fracture by 20-35% 2. in general are well tolerated 3. in clinical trials, have been very safe 1. Seeman E et al. Bone 2004;17 Suppl 2:23S-29S 29S 2. McClung M et al. Amer J Med.. 2013;126:13-20
Fracture Risk with Osteoporosis Treatment HORIZON Study FREEDOM Study % of patients at 36 m on nths 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Placebo NNT 37 Zoledronic acid 25% NNT 13 NNT 91 70% 40% Spine Hip Non-spine 8 6 4 2 0 Spine 68% Placebo Denosumab 41% Hip 20% Non-spine Black D et al. New Engl J Med 2007;356:1809-22. Cummings SR et al. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:756-65.
Osteoporosis Therapies 1. Fracture protection begins within months of starting therapy continues with long-term therapy wanes when treatment is stopped
Alendronate: Cumulative Incidence of Clinical Vertebral and Hip Fracture Phase 3: FIT Trial Clinical Vertebral Fracture Hip Fracture Black DM et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85:4118 24
Zoledronic Acid and Denosumab Incidence of Morphometric Vertebral Fracture HORIZON Study FREEDOM Study Black D et al. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1809-22 Cummings SR et al. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:756-6565
Zoledronic Acid and Denosumab Cumulative Incidence of Hip Fracture HORIZON Study FREEDOM Study Black D et al. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1809-22 Cummings SR et al. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:756-6565
Osteoporosis Therapies 1. Fracture protection begins within months of starting therapy persists with long-term therapy wanes when treatment is stopped
Long Term Alendronate Therapy Mean Percent Ch hange (± SE) 0-20 -40-60 -80 Placebo ALN 10 mg 8 6 4 2 ALN 10 mg Urinary N-telopeptide 0 Total Hip BMD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years Bone HG et al, NEJM 2004; 350:1189-99. 99.
Fracture Protection with Risedronate Persists with Long Term Therapy Fracture protection persists with long term therapy Incidence per Year (% %) 14 VERT-MN: Radiographic Vertebral Fracture* 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 49% P=0.001 59% P=0.011 Placebo Ris 5 mg Placebo Ris 5 mg Ris 5 mg Ris 5 mg Years 0-3 Years 4-5 Subjects switched to risedronate 5 mg at end of year 5 7.6% 4.7% 12.3% 5.2% 3.8% 3.8% Years 6-7 Mellstrom DD et al. Calcif Tissue Int. 2004;75:462-8
Vertebral Fractures with Zoledronic Acid 15 PBO Years 1-3 10.9% (310/2853) ZOL P = <0.001 70% (62, 76) Fracture protection persists with long term therapy % Patient ts 10 5 3.3% (92/2822) Years 4-6 3.0% (14/469) 0 Core study 1 Extension study Morphometric Vertebral Fractures Black DM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1809 22
Percentage Change From Baseline Denosumab Treatment Total Hip BMD and Nonvertebral Fractures Through 10 Years 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0-1 -2 FREEDOM a a a a a a a a a Total Hip b b Placebo b b Extension b b Study Year b b Long-term Denosumab 9.2% c b 7.4% c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 b Yearly Incidence of vertebral Fractures (%) Y Nonv Yearly Incidence of Nonvertebral Fractures (%) FREEDOM FREEDOM Cross-over over Denosumab Extension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years of Denosumab Treatment Extension 1 2 3 4 5 Years of Denosumab Treatment 6 7 Bone HG et al. ASBMR; Seattle, WA; October 12, 2015; #LB-1157
Osteoporosis Therapies 1. Fracture protection begins within months of starting therapy persists with long-term therapy wanes when treatment is stopped even with bisphosphonates
Discontinuing Osteoporosis Treatments Skeletal benefit of most drugs disappears quickly upon discontinuation of treatment estrogen raloxifene calcitonin teriparatide denosumab LS BMD: Mean Percent Change from Baseline 9 6 3 0-3 Placebo Estrogen/Progestin - Off Therapy -6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years Wasnich, McClung et al. Menopause 2004;1:622-30 Percent Change (LS Mean ± SE) 12 8 4 0-4 Placebo Lumbar Spine 7.9 210 mg Q6M Discontinued Treatment 0.9 * -1.3-1.8 2.5-2.4 * 0 3 6 12 18 24 36 48 Months Miller PD, et al. Bone. 2008;43:222-9
Stopping Alendronate Therapy Changes over 5 years are within the LSC Mean Percent Chan nge (+ SE) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lumbar spine 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years 8 6 4 2 0 ALN 10 mg ALN 20 mg/aln 5 mg/placebo 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years Total Hip Bone HG et al, NEJM 2004; 350:1189-1199. 1199.
Clinical Vertebral Fractures in FLEX Study 6 Cumulat tive Incidence of Fra actures (%) 5 4 3 2 1 ALN 5 years Placebo 5 years Alendronate 10 years RR 55% P= 0.013 5.4% 2.5% 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Years Since FIT ALN/PLB 437 436 425 412 398 387 ALN/ALN 662 660 646 631 615 597 Black DM, et al. JAMA. 2006;296:2927-38
Vertebral Fractures with Zoledronic Acid 15 PBO 10.9% (310/2853) ZOL P = <0.001 70% (62, 76) Absolute risk of new vertebral fracture if therapy is stopped = 1%/year Z3P3 Z6 % Patient ts 10 5 3.3% (92/2822) 6.2% (30/486) 52%* (10, 74) 3.0% (14/469) P = 0.0348 0 Core study 1 Extension study Morphometric Vertebral Fractures Black DM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1809 22
Osteoporosis Therapies 1. Fracture protection begins within months of starting therapy persists with long-term therapy wanes when treatment is stopped even with bisphosphonates 2. No drug yet cures osteoporosis long-term treatment is required
Risks and Concerns with Long-term Therapy Bisphosphonates Hypocalcemia Intolerance upper GI symptoms: oral drugs acute phase reaction: IV drugs bone and muscle pain Inflammatory eye problems No increase with long-term therapy Atrial fibrillation Esophageal cancer: oral drugs Osteonecrosis of the jaw Unproven relationship; minimal evidence of increased risk with long-term therapy Atypical fractures Concern here of risk of long-term therapy
Benefit:Risk Profile of Bisphosphonate Treatment for 10 Years Proportion of Patie ents Affected (%) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 73 year old woman FN T-score -2.7 63% with vertebral fracture 7% 1.0% Vertebral Fracture Prevented * Hip Fracture Prevented* 23% 3.3% Atypical Femoral Fracture ** 0.11% 1 2 3 5 10 Years *From Black D et al. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1809-22 **From Dell RM et al. J Bone Miner Res 2012;27:2544-50
Optimize the Benefit:Risk Ratio Benefit Treat patients who will receive the most benefit at high risk for fracture Low Favorable Avoid long-term therapy in low risk patients Risk Risk of Fracture High Avoid treatment in patients at risk for adverse effects Individualize treatment to match the patient
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 Summary We have effective tools to diagnose osteoporosis and to identify patients at high risk of fracture In patients with osteoporosis, our current treatments can effectively and quickly reduce fracture risk While all drugs have side effects, the incidence of serious complications from our therapies is quite low As a result the benefit:risk ratio of therapy is high when patients at high risk are treated McClung M. Personal opinion, 2016
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 How Are We Doing? Adherence to therapy is very poor Percent Adherent on Oral Weekly Bisphosphona ates 100 80 60 40 20 58% discontinued therapy 0 0 3 6 9 12 36 Months Following Therapy Initiation
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 How Are We Doing? Adherence to therapy is very poor Number of BMD tests is declining despite increase in number of patients over age 65 Number of prescriptions for osteoporosis drugs has decreased by >40% since 2008 Treatment gap even for the most obvious patients has widened since 2002 Annual unadjusted probability of osteoporosis medication use within 12 months after discharge Solomon DH et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29:1929-37 Between 2000 and 2013, number of women age 65 and older has increased from 35 million to 44.7 million
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 How Are We Doing? Järvinen TL et al. J Intern Med. 2015;277:662-73. Järvinen TL et al. Overdiagnosis of bone fragility in the quest to prevent hip fracture. BMJ. 2015 May 26;350:h2088. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2088.
Are You Kidding? The dominant approach to hip fracture prevention (i.e., drugs) is neither viable as a public health strategy nor cost effective. Järvinen TL et al. J Intern Med. 2015;277:662-73. Järvinen TL et al. Overdiagnosis of bone fragility in the quest to prevent hip fracture. BMJ. 2015 May 26;350:h2088. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2088.
Overdiagnosis of Osteoporosis? CKD Low T Pre-dementia Thyroid cancer Crazy tests BMD Total body scans MRI for back pain and headache
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 Where Did We Go Wrong? 1. Lost focus on treating patient at high risk 2. NOF guidelines not supported by the osteoporosis community not known to primary care physicians not implemented 3. Too many fracture endpoints 4. Destructive debates among competing drug companies 5. Criticism of DXA especially by epidemiologists 6. Confusion among doctors and patients NO CONSISTENT, BELIEVABLE VOICE
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 Where Are We Going? Advances in Health Care Delivery 1. Development of Fracture Liaison Services Capture the Fracture (IOF) Own the Bone (AOA) 2 Million 2 Many (NBHA) 2. Discussion of the Treat-to-Target concept Therapies will be chosen on their probability of getting an individual patient to a target Lewiecki EM, Cummings SR, Cosman F. Treat-to-target for osteoporosis: is now the time? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:946-53
FNIH Meta-regression Change in Total Hip BMD vs Reduction in Hip Fracture MORE (RAL) Clodronate R 2 =0.52 HIP(RIS) FIT II(ALN) FREEDOM (DMAB) WHI HORIZON(ZOL) FIT I(ALN) *Bubble size ~ to n fractures in study Courtesy of Dr D Black et al, ASBMR 2015
Large, Progressive Increases in HIP BMD Percentage Ch hange From Basel line 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0-1 -2 Placebo Denosumab 60 mg QM FREEDOM Total Hip BMD Extension 9.2% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Study Year 12 10 8 6 4 2 0-2 Placebo Odanacatib 50 mg QW Femoral Neck BMD Phase 2 0 1 3 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 Month 9.8%
Relationship Between Total Hip T-score on Therapy and Non-vertebral Fracture Risk DMAb (N = 3612) Incidence of non- -vertebral fracture at 1 ye ear (%) 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.5 Total Hip T-score Ferrari S et al. ASBMR 2015
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 Where Are We Going? Improved Imaging Techniques Trabecular bone structure High resolution pqct Algorithms to estimate cortical porosity Mapping of cortical thickness and mass Finite element analysis estimated bone strength surrogate for fracture in clinical trials new target for treatment
Osteoporosis Therapy - 2016 Where Are We Going? New Drugs 1. Cathepsin K inhibition 2. Sclerostin inhibition Percent Change frombaseline (Mean ± SEM) 250 200 150 100 50 0-50 -100 10 mg/kg (N = 6) 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 Time (day)
Cathepsin K Inhibition Cathepsin K, the major proteolytic enzyme of osteoclasts Odanacatib very specific inhibitor of cathepsin K inhibits bone resorption without decreasing osteoclast number and function thus preserving bone formation in pre-clinical studies, increased endocortical and periosteal bone formation; increased cortical thickness and strength Convenient once weekly oral dosing in clinical studies 1 McClung M, et al. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(Supp 3):S57-S58. 2 Roy SK et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(Suppl 1):S293. 3 Greenspan S et al. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(suppl 3):S11. 4 Warmington K, et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(Suppl 1):S22..
Cathepsin K Inhibitor: Odanacatib Phase 2: Bone Mineral Density Discontinue therapy Discontinue therapy Langdahl et al. J Bone Min Res 2012 DOI 10.1002/jbmr.1695
Cathepsin K Inhibitor: Odanacatib Phase 3: Fracture Risk Reduction In LOFT study, odanacatib 50 mg po once weekly significantly reduced fracture risk in women with osteoporosis Relative risk reduction (%), 95% (confidence interval) spine 54% (2.3% vs 7.2%) Discontinue therapy hip 47% (0.7% vs 1.2%) non-vertebral * 23% (6.5% vs 8.0%) Discontinue therapy * Time-dependent decrease in non-vertebral fracture risk Final adjudication of safety events expected soon McClung M et al. ASBMR 2014
Sclerostin Inhibition Sclerostin an osteocyte-derived inhibitor of bone formation Romosozumab humanized anti-sclerostin antibody in pre-clinical studies, normalized bone mass, structure and strength Administered SQ once monthly in clinical studies 1 McClung M, et al. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(Supp 3):S57-S58. 2 Roy SK et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(Suppl 1):S293. 3 Greenspan S et al. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(suppl 3):S11. 4 Warmington K, et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20(Suppl 1):S22..
Sclerostin Inhibitor: Romosozumab Phase 2 Study: Bone Mineral Density Placebo ALN TPTD Romosozumab 210 mg QM Percentage Change From Baseline 12 P < 0.0001 vs ALN 11.3% 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 Lumbar Spine *P < 0.0001 vs placebo ʌ P 0.0025 vs TPTD * ʌ * ʌ Data are LS means and 95% CIs. * ʌ 0 3 6 9 12 Month 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 Total Hip *P < 0.0001 vs placebo P < 0.0001 vs ALN ʌ P < 0.0001 vs TPTD * * ʌ * ʌ 4.1% 0 3 6 9 12 Month McClung et al. NEJM 2014;370:412-420.
Bone Mineral Density Year 3 Romosozumab Discontinuation: Transition to Denosumab Romosozumab 210 mg QM* Placebo* Denosumab 60 mg Q6M Placebo Q6M Percent Change from Baseline 24 16 8 0-8 Lumbar Spine 15.7% 19.4% 15 10 5 0-5 Total Hip 6.0% 7.1% BL 3 6 12 18 24 30 36 BL 3 6 12 18 24 30 36 Month McClung MR et al. ASBMR 2014.
Sclerostin Inhibitor: Romosozumab Phase 3: Fracture Risk Reduction Phase III studies are underway - evaluation of safety will be important Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 extension ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01575834 Romosozumab Denosumab Denosumab Discontinue therapy Placebo Denosumab Denosumab Discontinue therapy ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01631214 Romosozumab Alendronate Alendronate Alendronate
Osteoporosis Treatment The Near Future Sequential therapy For patients with severe osteoporosis, a sequential treatment regimen will be used Finite interval of anabolic agent followed by an anti-remodeling drug Anabolic agent Anti-remodeling Drug Anabolic agent Anti-remodeling Drug 6-12 months 6-24 months 6-12 months Bisphosphonate 3-5 years Target met Target not met Continue or drug holiday Change to more potent drug
Osteoporosis Treatment - 2016 State of the Art We understand much but not all of how bone loss occurs and how osteoporosis develops We have very effective tools for diagnosing osteoporosis and for estimating fracture risk in individual patients We have several classes of effective treatments to prevent bone loss and to reduce fracture risk
Osteoporosis Treatment - 2016 State of the Art However, our patients, physician colleagues and health care systems do not share our interest and are not aware of how much we know and can do. Most patients with fractures are not being evaluated Most patients with osteoporosis are not treated Most patients begun on therapy stop within 6-12 months
Osteoporosis Treatment - 2016 Where Are We Going? Better measures of bone strength and fracture risk Drugs with long dosing intervals improved adherence New drugs are that may actually cure osteoporosis -- but We need to translate our scientific advances into daily clinical practice Help primary care colleagues feel comfortable approaching the question of osteoporosis clearer guidelines secondary prevention services Help patients appreciate the relative benefits vs risks of osteoporosis treatments Help payers recognize the effectiveness of our current strategies
Osteoporosis Treatment - 2016 Action Plan Osteoporosis community MUST Re-engage the medical community about the importance and urgency of treating patients at high risk for fracture Communicate more consistently about treatment strategies more clearly about the effectiveness of our current treatments more loudly about the very favorable benefit:risk ratio
Osteoporosis Treatment - 2016 Summary Osteoporosis no longer has to happen. Effective management of patients with osteoporosis can now be based on solid clinical data on Science - not just opinion. The ART of managing osteoporosis is still important Beneficiaries of these advances and our work will be our patients.
Thank you, AACE Michael R. McClung, MD, FACP, FACE Founding Director Oregon Osteoporosis Center Portland, Oregon, USA mmcclung@orost.com