Early changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover and their relationship with bone mineral density changes after 24 months of treatment with teriparatide

Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Osteoporosis International (Impact Factor: 4.17). 10/2010; 22(6):1935-46. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-010-1379-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We report the changes in biochemical markers of bone formation during the first 6 months of teriparatide therapy in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis according to previous antiresorptive treatment. Prior therapy does not adversely affect the response to teriparatide treatment. Similar bone markers levels are reached after 6 months of treatment.
The response of biochemical markers of bone turnover with teriparatide therapy in subjects who have previously received osteoporosis drugs is not fully elucidated. We examined biochemical markers of bone formation in women with osteoporosis treated with teriparatide and determined: (1) whether the response is associated with prior osteoporosis therapy, (2) which marker shows the best performance for detecting a response to therapy, and (3) the correlations between early changes in bone markers and subsequent bone mineral density (BMD) changes after 24 months of teriparatide.
We conducted a prospective, open-label, 24-month study at 95 centers in 10 countries in 758 postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis (n = 181 treatment-naïve) who had at least one post-baseline bone marker determination. Teriparatide (20 μg/day) was administered for up to 24 months. We measured procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (b-ALP), and total alkaline phosphatase (t-ALP) at baseline, 1 and 6 months, and change in BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck from baseline to 24 months.
Significant increases in formation markers occurred after 1 month of teriparatide regardless of prior osteoporosis therapy. The absolute increase at 1 month was lower in previously treated versus treatment-naïve patients, but after 6 months all groups reached similar levels. PINP showed the best signal-to-noise ratio. Baseline PINP correlated positively and significantly with BMD response at 24 months.
This study suggests that the long-term responsiveness of bone formation markers to teriparatide is not affected in subjects previously treated with antiresorptive drugs.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is currently no standard practice for the monitoring of patients receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Repeated dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is commonly used for monitoring treatment response, but it has its limitations. Bone turnover markers have advantages over DXA as they are non-invasive, relatively cheap and can detect changes in bone turnover rates earlier. However, they do have disadvantages, particularly high within- and between-patient variability. The ability of bone turnover markers to identify treatment non-responders and predict future fracture risk has yet to be established. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness, test accuracy, reliability, reproducibility and cost-effectiveness of bone turnover markers for monitoring the response to osteoporosis treatment. We searched 12 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and trials registries) without language restrictions from inception to March 2012. We hand-searched three relevant journals for the 12 months prior to May 2012, and websites of five test manufacturers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. A systematic review of test accuracy, clinical utility, reliability and reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness of two formation and two resorption bone turnover markers, in patients being treated for osteoporosis with any of bisphosphonate [alendronate (Fosamax(®), MSD), risedronate (Actonel(®), Warner Chilcott Company), zolendronate (Zometa(®), Novartis)], raloxifene (Evista(®), Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), strontium ranelate (Protelos(®), Servier Laboratories Ltd), denosumab (Prolia(®), Amgen Ltd) or teriparatide (Forsteo(®), Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Given the breadth of the review question, a range of study designs and outcome measures were eligible. The development of a decision model was planned to determine the cost-effectiveness of bone turnover markers for informing changes in patient management if clinical effectiveness could be established. Forty-two studies (70 publications) met the inclusion criteria; none evaluated cost-effectiveness. Only five were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); these assessed only the impact of bone marker monitoring on aspects of adherence. No RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of bone turnover marker monitoring on treatment management. One trial suggested that feedback of a good response decreased non-persistence [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.95], and feedback of a poor response increased non-persistence (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.89); it is not clear whether or not the trial recruited a population representative of that seen in clinical practice. Thirty-three studies reported results of some assessment of test accuracy, mostly correlations between changes in bone turnover and bone mineral density. Only four studies reported on intra- or interpatient reliability and reproducibility in treated patients. Overall, the results were inconsistent and inconclusive, owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity across the studies and the generally small sample sizes. As clinical effectiveness of bone turnover monitoring could not be established, a decision-analytic model was not developed. There was insufficient evidence to inform the choice of which bone turnover marker to use in routine clinical practice to monitor osteoporosis treatment response. The research priority is to identify the most promising treatment-test combinations for evaluation in subsequent, methodologically sound, RCTs. In order to determine whether or not bone turnover marker monitoring improves treatment management decisions, and ultimately impacts on patient outcomes in terms of reduced incidence of fracture, RCTs are required. Given the large number of potential patient population-treatment-test combinations, the most promising combinations would initially need to be identified in order to ensure that any RCTs focus on evaluating those strategies. As a result, the research priority is to identify these promising combinations, by either conducting small variability studies or initiating a patient registry to collect standardised data. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
    02/2014; 18(11):1-180. DOI:10.3310/hta18110
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis may require treatment with the bone anabolic drug teriparatide. While changes in bone mineral density (BMD) are one measure of response, BMD changes often require a minimum of one year to observe measureable changes. Biochemical markers of bone turnover change within 1 to 3 months of initiating osteoporosis therapy. Monitoring with a marker such as procollagen type I N propeptide (PINP), an osteoblast-derived protein, during teriparatide treatment may provide clinically useful information for managing patients with osteoporosis. Clinical trials have shown consistent increases in PINP within 3 months of initiating teriparatide, increases that are significantly greater than placebo and significantly different from baseline. Increases in PINP concentrations during teriparatide treatment correlate well with increases in skeletal activity assessed by radioisotope bone scans and quantitative bone histomorphometry parameters. Individuals treated with teriparatide in clinical trials usually experienced an increase in PINP > 10 mcg/L from baseline, while those given placebo usually did not. In the clinical setting, patients experiencing a significant increase in PINP > 10 mcg/L after initiating teriparatide therapy may receive an earlier confirmation of anabolic effect, while those who do not may be assessed for adherence, proper injection technique, or undetected secondary conditions that might mitigate an anabolic response. PINP monitoring may provide information supplemental to BMD monitoring and be a useful aid in managing patients receiving anabolic osteoporosis treatment in the same way that biochemical markers of bone resorption are useful in monitoring antiresorptive therapy. This review examines PINP as a biological response marker during teriparatide treatment for osteoporosis.
    Osteoporosis International 03/2014; 25(9). DOI:10.1007/s00198-014-2646-0 · 4.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This postmarketing surveillance study assessed the safety and effectiveness of daily teriparatide treatment in patients with osteoporosis in a Japanese clinical setting. In this prospective, multicenter, observational study, patients with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture received subcutaneous injections of teriparatide (20 μg/day) for a maximum of 24 months. For this interim report, data from 1,671 patients were eligible for analysis at the cutoff date. The mean age was 75.3 years; 93 % of patients (1,552/1,671 patients) were women. There were 117 adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in 101 of 1,671 patients (6.04 %); the most common reported ADRs were nausea, dizziness, headache, and palpitations. No clinically significant safety issues were identified, although 5 serious ADRs were reported in 4/1,671 (0.24 %) patients. At 12 months, 71.9 % of patients remained on teriparatide treatment. From 1 month, there were rapid increases in the biomarkers of bone formation P1NP and, to a lesser extent, BAP. In contrast, increases in the biomarkers of bone resorption, serum NTX, urinary NTX, and TRACP5b, were smaller. After 12 months of treatment, there was an increase in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, and a decrease in the Visual Analog Scale score for back pain. The incidence of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures was 1.21 % and 3.18 %, respectively. In conclusion, the favorable safety profile and effectiveness of teriparatide observed in this population of Japanese patients with osteoporosis were accompanied by relatively high persistence with treatment, which is a key factor in the success of osteoporosis treatment.
    Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism 12/2013; 32(6). DOI:10.1007/s00774-013-0546-6 · 2.11 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014