Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Warning of an increased risk of vertebral fracture after stopping denosumab

Christopher Symonds and Gregory Kline
CMAJ April 23, 2018 190 (16) E485-E486; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.180115
Christopher Symonds
Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory Kline
Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
KEY POINTS
  • Denosumab, a well-tolerated, injectable inhibitor of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, has been shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce significantly the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

  • Recent evidence shows that patients previously treated with denosumab who discontinue the drug have an increased risk for rebound vertebral fractures, which are often multiple and may occur as soon as eight months after the last injection of the drug.

  • When prescribing denosumab, clinicians should consider the patient’s ability to adhere to regular dosing and counsel the patient against discontinuation without medical consultation.

Recent evidence has highlighted a serious risk of new vertebral compression fractures after discontinuation of the osteoporosis drug, denosumab.1,2 Major societies of bone researchers and clinicians have called for physicians and patients to be made aware of the potential risk of multiple rebound fractures when denosumab is stopped and have urged patients to be warned upon starting the drug.3 Patients already taking denosumab who are considering stopping treatment should discuss with their physicians the merits of either replacing the drug promptly with another antiresorptive osteoporosis medication or continuing treatment with denosumab until evidence emerges for safe “drug weaning.”

Pharmacologic treatment of patients with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture may substantially reduce the future risk for fracture. Well-designed randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials have shown bisphosphonates, teriparatide and denosumab to reduce the relative risk of fragility fracture by 40%–60% in postmenopausal women.4

Use of denosumab became common in the last decade after publication of the results of the large Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial in 2009, which showed significant reductions in the incidence of vertebral fractures, as well as reduced nonvertebral and hip fractures, in postmenopausal women treated with denosumab compared with those who were treated with placebo.5 Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), which normally stimulates osteoclastic bone loss. When this agent is injected subcutaneously at a dosage of 60 mg every six months, the action of RANKL is inhibited, leading to a rapid reduction in the activity of osteoclasts at the bone surface. In the FREEDOM trial, the drug was well-tolerated, with only a slightly higher incidence of eczema and cellulitis than in patients taking placebo.5 In 2010, Health Canada approved the use of denosumab for women with osteoporosis, with variable reimbursement criteria among provinces.

In an open-label extension follow-up study involving participants in the FREEDOM trial who were given denosumab, a low vertebral fracture rate persisted, with a paucity of observed adverse effects. This led the study authors to conclude that patients with osteoporosis could be safely treated with denosumab for up to 10 years.6 A study that used pharmacy claims data from Ontario reported a rapid uptake in the use of denosumab from 2012 to 2013.7 However, studies have begun to report that adherence may be poor; a recent prospective observational study in the United States found that of 617 patients prescribed denosumab, 64.3% had stopped taking the drug after two years.8

Troubling reports of potential adverse effects upon stopping denosumab were first raised in 2011. Investigators from the FREEDOM trial showed that patients previously taking denosumab for two years who were then followed off medication had rapid drops in their bone density and a marked rise in their bone resorption markers that were well above baseline only 12 months after the last denosumab injection.9 Case reports then appeared of new, often multiple, vertebral fractures that developed in patients within a few months of stopping denosumab — termed “rebound-associated” fractures. A systematic review of 24 cases of patients taking denosumab for 2.9 years, on average, reported a mean of 4.7 vertebral fractures per patient only 5.2 months from when the last injection of denosumab should have “worn off.”1 Attempts at vertebroplasty in 5 of the 24 patients were abandoned after all five patients had another fracture during the procedure.

By following participants who were originally randomly assigned in the FREEDOM trial, the association between discontinuation of denosumab and rapid development of vertebral fractures was strengthened. The investigators recently reported on the experience of all participants from that trial who had received at least two doses of the study drug and who were followed for a minimum of seven months. Among the 1001 participants who previously took denosumab, the vertebral fracture rate quickly rose almost sixfold from 1.2 per 100 participant-years while on the drug to 7.1, similar to that of patients taking placebo. Furthermore, the patients who had stopped denosumab sustained multiple fractures at a rate of 4.2 per 100 participant-years compared to 0.4 while on denosumab and 3.2 in the 470 participants who took placebo. Of the 56 participants with new vertebral fractures, 60.7% had two or more and 23.2% had four or more fractures compared to multiple fractures in 38.7% of participants previously treated with placebo.2 No evidence to date shows a rise in the nonvertebral fracture rate, and there is no indication whether the observed rise in vertebral fractures applies to patients treated with bisphosphonates before taking denosumab.

A recent commentary in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research echoed the call made by specialist societies in suggesting that this information be widely disseminated and emphasizing that “drug holidays cannot be safely initiated in patients treated with denosumab.”10 Because patients treated with bisphosphonates may be aware of the evidence supporting some persistence of antifracture efficacy after discontinuation of these drugs, physicians should emphasize to patients taking denosumab that pausing treatment is unwise — even after only two doses (12 months) of therapy.

It is not clear why rebound fractures occur. Because denosumab does not induce osteoclast apoptosis but arrests the development and function of osteoclasts in a highly reversible manner, it is most likely that once the drug is cleared, there is a sudden reactivation of a dormant pool of osteoclast precursors and a high expression of RANKL occurs, increasing osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. Trabecular bone, the major subtype in vertebral bodies, may be somewhat more susceptible to this acute rebound than cortical bone.

In light of this emerging evidence, how should a physician proceed when considering denosumab? First, although there are reasonable 10-year safety data on the continuous use of denosumab in osteoporosis, there is no evidence about outcomes in patients with treatment expectancies beyond this period. Although continuing long-term therapy is an option, physicians should remember that reports of the association of uncommon adverse effects, such as atypical femoral fractures, with prolonged courses of bisphosphonates did not emerge until the drugs had been on the market for over 12 years.11 Second, the use of autoreminders in electronic medical record systems may help physicians to ensure that denosumab prescriptions are available and filled on time. Finally, if a patient has either stopped or wants to discontinue denosumab, experts suggest that denosumab be replaced promptly with another antiresorptive osteoporosis drug.3,10

In the absence of clear evidence from clinical trials, the prescription of a once-weekly bisphosphonate administered orally for at least one year seems like a reasonable course of action. Replacement therapy should start no later than six to eight months after the last dose of denosumab. However, it is worth bearing in mind that Canadian data from a review of about 450 000 new prescriptions of bisphosphonates to older adults showed that less than half of these patients continued treatment for two years.12 Physicians must review the risks and benefits of the use of denosumab with their patients before commencing therapy. Additional studies are needed to better guide safe “drug weaning” while maintaining antifracture efficacy.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Christopher Symonds conceived the idea, conducted the literature review and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Gregory Kline critically reviewed and edited the manuscript. Both of the authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Anastasilakis AD,
    2. Polyzos SA,
    3. Makras P,
    4. et al
    . Clinical features of 24 patients with rebound-associated vertebral fractures after denosumab discontinuation: systematic review and additional cases. J Bone Miner Res 2017;32:1291–6.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Cummings SR,
    2. Ferrari S,
    3. Eastell R,
    4. et al
    . Vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab: a post hoc analysis of the randomized placebo-controlled FREEDOM Trial and its extension. J Bone Miner Res 2018;33:190–8.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Tsourdi E,
    2. Langdahl B,
    3. Cohen-Solal M,
    4. et al
    . Discontinuation of denosumab therapy for osteoporosis: a systematic review and position statement by ECTS. Bone 2017;105:11–7.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Crandall CJ,
    2. Newberry SJ,
    3. Diamant A,
    4. et al
    . Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014;161:711–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Cummings SR,
    2. Martin JS,
    3. McClung MR,
    4. et al.
    FREEDOM trial. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 756–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Bone HG,
    2. Wagman RB,
    3. Brandi ML,
    4. et al
    . 10 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the phase 3 randomised FREEDOM trial and open-label extension. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:513–23.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Burden AM,
    2. Tadrous M,
    3. Csalzavara A,
    4. et al
    . Uptake and characteristics of zoledronic acid and denosumab patients and physicians in Ontario, Canada: impact of drug formulary access. Osteoporos Int 2015;26:1525–33.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Modi A,
    2. Sajjan S,
    3. Insinga R,
    4. et al
    . Frequency of discontinuation of injectable osteoporosis therapies in US patients over 2 years. Osteoporos Int 2017;28: 1355–63.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Bone HG,
    2. Bolognese MA,
    3. Yuen CK,
    4. et al
    . Effects of denosumab treatment and discontinuation on bone mineral density and bone turnover markers in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96: 972–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Leder BZ
    . An essential warning. J Bone Miner Res 2018;33:188–9.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Lenart BA,
    2. Lorich DG,
    3. Lane JM
    . Atypical fractures of the femoral diaphysis in postmenopausal women taking alendronate. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1304–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Burden AM,
    2. Paterson JM,
    3. Solomon DH,
    4. et al
    . Bisphosphonate prescribing, persistence and cumulative exposure in Ontario, Canada. Osteoporos Int 2012;23: 1075–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 190 (16)
CMAJ
Vol. 190, Issue 16
23 Apr 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Warning of an increased risk of vertebral fracture after stopping denosumab
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Warning of an increased risk of vertebral fracture after stopping denosumab
Christopher Symonds, Gregory Kline
CMAJ Apr 2018, 190 (16) E485-E486; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.180115

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Warning of an increased risk of vertebral fracture after stopping denosumab
Christopher Symonds, Gregory Kline
CMAJ Apr 2018, 190 (16) E485-E486; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.180115
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A “No More Waves” strategy for COVID-19 in Canada
  • The case for relaxing no-visitor policies in hospitals during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
  • Transforming race-based health research in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Osteoporosis
    • Patient safety & quality improvement
    • Women's health (including abortion)
    • Family medicine, general practice, primary care
    • Drugs: musculoskeletal & joint
    • Drugs: adverse reactions
    • Endocrinology

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire