Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#378 Tony Romo-sozumab: Winning touchdown in osteoporosis or interception for the loss?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What is the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
In a single randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of postmenopausal women with fracture history, romosozumab was more effective than alendronate at reducing major osteoporotic fractures (7% versus 10%) including hip fractures (2% versus 3%) but increased cardiovascular events (0.8% versus 0.3%) at 2.7 years. High cost and potential cardiovascular harm may limit use.



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • Differences statistically significant unless noted.
  • Efficacy: Two main RCTs of romosozumab 210mg subcutaneous monthly (mean age: 70).1-2
    • Versus alendronate 70mg weekly for 12 months, followed by open-label alendronate for additional 12 months in both groups. 4093 women (96%: vertebral fracture; baseline FRAX ~20%).1 At 24-32 months:
      • Major osteoporotic fractures: 7.1% versus 10% (alendronate), number needed to treat (NNT)=35.
      • Hip fracture: 2.0% versus 3.2% (alendronate), NNT=84.
      • Clinical vertebral fracture: 0.9% versus 2.1% (alendronate), NNT=79.
    • Versus placebo for 12 months, followed by denosumab subcutaneously 60mg every 6 months for one year in both groups. 7180 women with T-score -2.5 to -3.5 at hip/femoral neck (~20% previous fracture, baseline FRAX ~13%) at 12 months: 2
      • Major osteoporotic fracture: 1.1% versus 1.8% (placebo), NNT=143.
      • Hip, non-vertebral fracture: No difference.
      • Vertebral fracture: 0.5% versus 1.8% (placebo), NNT=77.
      • Systematic reviews with additional small RCTs: Similar.3,4
  • Adverse Events: Nine systematic reviews, romosozumab versus placebo.5-13 Most comprehensive review (nine RCTs, 12,796 postmenopausal women):7
    • Injection site reactions: 5.3% versus 2.9% (placebo), number needed to harm (NNH)=44 at 6-12 months.
    • Osteonecrosis of jaw, atypical femur fracture: <1%, no statistical difference.
    • Consistent with other reviews.5,6,8,9,14-16
    • Cardiovascular risk: Focusing on above main RCTs:
      • Cardiac ischemic events:10.8% versus 0.3% (alendronate), NNH=206
        • Not reported in placebo-controlled trial.2
  • Limitations: Industry funded;1-2 few non-vertebral fractures in placebo-controlled RCT;2 no comparisons versus denosumab.

CONTEXT
CONTEXTE
  • Guideline: Consider romosozumab first-line if:14
    • Vertebral fracture (within last two years) with vertebral height loss >40%, or
    • >1 vertebral fracture and T-score ≤-2.5.
  • Duration: Approved for one year, then anti-resorptive agent.14
  • Yearly cost:15,16
    • Romosozumab ~ $8200.
    • Risedronate/alendronate: ~$480.
    • Denosumab: ~$800.


Dale Cole November 24, 2024

Too expensive

Brian Duff November 26, 2024

I don’t think I have any patients willing to spend $8000 to be the one out of 80 to avoid a hip fracture.

Yvan Roy November 28, 2024

Indications limitées.

Ralph Suke November 29, 2024

I agree. Perhaps a bit more effective for fracture reduction but CV issues and cost will limit use. I am not likely to prescribe this.


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#379 Bumpin’ Up the Protection? RSV Vaccine in Pregnancy

How effective and safe is the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine (AbrysvoTM) when given during pregnancy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#378 Tony Romo-sozumab: Winning touchdown in osteoporosis or interception for the loss?

What is the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#377 How to slow the flow IV: Combined oral contraceptives

In premenopausal heavy menstrual bleeding due to benign etiology, do combined oral contraceptives (COC) improve patient outcomes?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Steven Piotrowski MSc MPAS CCPA
  • Émélie Braschi MD PhD CCFP
  • Samantha Moe PharmD

1. Saag K, Petersen J, Brandi ML et al. New Engl J Med. 2017; 377:1417-1427.

2. Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. New Engl J Med. 2016; 375:1532-43.

3. Davis S, Simpson E, Hamilton J, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2020; 24(29):1-314.

4. Simpson EL, Martyn-St James M, Hamilton J, et al. Bone. 2020; 130: 115081.

5. Ayers C, Kansagara D, Lazur B, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2023; 176(2): 182-195.

6. Händel MN, Cardoso I, von Bülow C, et al. BMJ. 2023; 381; e068033.

7. Huang W, Nagao M, Yonemoto N, et al. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2023; 32:671-684.

8. Singh S, Dutta S, Khasbage S, et al. Osteoporos Int. 2022; 33(1): 1-12.

9. Kaveh S, Hosseinifard H, Nashmil G, et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2020; 39: 3261-3276.

10. Lv F, Xiaoling C, Wenjia Y, et al. Bone. 2020; 130: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2019.115121.

11. Mariscal G, Nuñez HJ, Bhatia S, et al. Monoclon Antib Immunodiagn Immunother. 2020; 39(2): 29-36.

12. Poutoglidou F, Samolada E, Nikolaos R, et al. J Clin Densitom. 2022; 25:401-415.

13. Tian A, Jia H, Zhu S, et al. Orthop Surg. 2021; 13:1941-1950.

14. Morin S, Feldman S, Funnell L, et al. CMAJ. 2023; 195:E1333-E1348.

15. RxFiles. Osteoporosis. 2024. Available at: https://www.rxfiles.ca/RxFiles/uploads/documents/members/Cht-osteoporosis.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2024.

16. Moe SM, Allan GM. Tools for Practice #282: Osteoporosis treatment for post-menopausal women. Available at: https://cfpclearn.ca/tfp282/ Accessed: August 6, 2024.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.