The Korean Journal of Pain

The Korean Pain Society (대한통증학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Can denosumab be a substitute, competitor, or complement to bisphosphonates?

  • Kim, Su Young (Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University) ;
  • Ok, Hwoe Gyeong (Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University) ;
  • Birkenmaier, Christof (Department of Orthopedics, Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich, Grosshadern Campus) ;
  • Kim, Kyung Hoon (Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Pusan National University)
  • Received : 2017.03.02
  • Accepted : 2017.03.10
  • Published : 2017.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Osteoblasts, originating from mesenchymal cells, make the receptor activator of the nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) in order to control differentiation of activated osteoclasts, originating from hematopoietic stem cells. When the RANKL binds to the RANK of the pre-osteoclasts or mature osteoclasts, bone resorption increases. On the contrary, when OPG binds to the RANK, bone resorption decreases. Denosumab (AMG 162), like OPG (a decoy receptor), binds to the RANKL, and reduces binding between the RANK and the RANKL resulting in inhibition of osteoclastogenesis and reduction of bone resorption. Bisphosphonates (BPs), which bind to the bone mineral and occupy the site of resorption performed by activated osteoclasts, are still the drugs of choice to prevent and treat osteoporosis. The merits of denosumab are reversibility targeting the RANKL, lack of adverse gastrointestinal events, improved adherence due to convenient biannual subcutaneous administration, and potential use with impaired renal function. The known adverse reactions are musculoskeletal pain, increased infections with adverse dermatologic reactions, osteonecrosis of the jaw, hypersensitivity reaction, and hypocalcemia. Treatment with 60 mg of denosumab reduces the bone resorption marker, serum type 1 C-telopeptide, by 3 days, with maximum reduction occurring by 1 month. The mean time to maximum denosumab concentration is 10 days with a mean half-life of 25.4 days. In conclusion, the convenient biannual subcutaneous administration of 60 mg of denosumab can be considered as a first-line treatment for osteoporosis in cases of low compliance with BPs due to gastrointestinal trouble and impaired renal function.

Keywords

References

  1. Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, Lewiecki EM, Tanner B, Randall S, et al. Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2014; 25: 2359-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-014-2794-2
  2. Drake MT, Clarke BL, Khosla S. Bisphosphonates: mechanism of action and role in clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc 2008; 83: 1032-45. https://doi.org/10.4065/83.9.1032
  3. Baron R, Ferrari S, Russell RG. Denosumab and bisphosphonates: different mechanisms of action and effects. Bone 2011; 48: 677-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2010.11.020
  4. McClung MR, Lewiecki EM, Cohen SB, Bolognese MA, Woodson GC, Moffett AH, et al. Denosumab in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 821-31. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa044459
  5. Cheung AM, Frame H, Ho M, Mackinnon ES, Brown JP. Bone strength and management of postmenopausal fracture risk with antiresorptive therapies: considerations for women's health practice. Int J Womens Health 2016; 8: 537-47. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S112621
  6. Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR, Siris ES, Eastell R, Reid IR, et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 756-65. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0809493
  7. Khosla S. Increasing options for the treatment of osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 818-20. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe0905480
  8. Rizzoli R, Yasothan U, Kirkpatrick P. Denosumab. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010; 9: 591-2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3244
  9. Zaheer S, LeBoff M, Lewiecki EM. Denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2015; 11: 461-70. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2015.1000860
  10. Janjan N. Bone metastases: approaches to management. Semin Oncol 2001; 28: 28-34.
  11. Weinfurt KP, Li Y, Castel LD, Saad F, Timbie JW, Glendenning GA, et al. The significance of skeletal-related events for the health-related quality of life of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 579-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi122
  12. Yong M, Jensen AO, Jacobsen JB, Norgaard M, Fryzek JP, Sorensen HT. Survival in breast cancer patients with bone metastases and skeletal-related events: a population-based cohort study in Denmark (1999-2007). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 129: 495-503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1475-5
  13. Cassinello Espinosa J, Gonzalez Del Alba Baamonde A, Rivera Herrero F, Holgado Martin E; SEOM (Spanish Society of Clinical Oncology). SEOM guidelines for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumours. Clin Transl Oncol 2012; 14: 505-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-012-0832-0
  14. von Moos R, Costa L, Ripamonti CI, Niepel D, Santini D. Improving quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: targeting metastatic bone pain. Eur J Cancer 2017; 71: 80-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.10.021
  15. Raggatt LJ, Partridge NC. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of bone remodeling. J Biol Chem 2010; 285: 25103-8. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.R109.041087
  16. Proff P, Romer P. The molecular mechanism behind bone remodelling: a review. Clin Oral Investig 2009; 13: 355-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0268-2
  17. Ghayor C, Weber FE. Epigenetic regulation of bone remodeling and its impacts in osteoporosis. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17: E1446. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17091446
  18. Crockett JC, Rogers MJ, Coxon FP, Hocking LJ, Helfrich MH. Bone remodelling at a glance. J Cell Sci 2011; 124: 991-8. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.063032
  19. Miller SC, de Saint-Georges L, Bowman BM, Jee WS. Bone lining cells: structure and function. Scanning Microsc 1989; 3: 953-60.
  20. Hanley DA, Adachi JD, Bell A, Brown V. Denosumab: mechanism of action and clinical outcomes. Int J Clin Pract 2012; 66: 1139-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12022
  21. Xing L, Xiu Y, Boyce BF. Osteoclast fusion and regulation by RANKL-dependent and independent factors. World J Orthop 2012; 3: 212-22. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v3.i12.212
  22. Martin TJ. Paracrine regulation of osteoclast formation and activity: milestones in discovery. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2004; 4: 243-53.
  23. Clarke BL. Anti-sclerostin antibodies: utility in treatment of osteoporosis. Maturitas 2014; 78: 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.04.016
  24. Boivin G, Farlay D, Bala Y, Doublier A, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD. Influence of remodeling on the mineralization of bone tissue. Osteoporos Int 2009; 20: 1023-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0861-x
  25. Bone HG, Bolognese MA, Yuen CK, Kendler DL, Wang H, Liu Y, et al. Effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93: 2149-57. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2007-2814
  26. Sohn W, Simiens MA, Jaeger K, Hutton S, Jang G. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of denosumab in patients with advanced solid tumours and bone metastases: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2014; 78: 477-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12355
  27. Miller PD. A review of the efficacy and safety of denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2011; 3: 271-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1759720X11424220
  28. Martin M, Bell R, Bourgeois H, Brufsky A, Diel I, Eniu A, et al. Bone-related complications and quality of life in advanced breast cancer: results from a randomized phase III trial of denosumab versus zoledronic acid. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 4841-9. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3310
  29. Kendler DL, Roux C, Benhamou CL, Brown JP, Lillestol M, Siddhanti S, et al. Effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women transitioning from alendronate therapy. J Bone Miner Res 2010; 25: 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.090716
  30. Fizazi K, Carducci M, Smith M, Damiao R, Brown J, Karsh L, et al. Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind study. Lancet 2011; 377: 813-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62344-6
  31. Anastasilakis AD, Polyzos SA, Anastasilakis CD, Toulis KA, Makras P. Denosumab and bisphosphonates: rivals or potential "partners"? A "hybrid" molecule hypothesis. Med Hypotheses 2011; 77: 109-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2011.03.039
  32. Chiu YG, Ritchlin CT. Denosumab: targeting the RANKL pathway to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2017; 17: 119-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2017.1263614
  33. Tsai JN, Uihlein AV, Lee H, Kumbhani R, Siwila-Sackman E, McKay EA, et al. Teriparatide and denosumab, alone or combined, in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: the DATA study randomised trial. Lancet 2013; 382: 50-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60856-9

Cited by

  1. Medications for osteoporotic pain vol.30, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2017.30.2.85
  2. Denosumab Related Osteonecrosis of Jaw: a Case Report vol.9, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2018.9405
  3. Functional Medicine-Based Dentistry: A Clinical Conversation with Mary Ellen S. Chalmers, DMD, and Robert Rountree, MD vol.26, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1089/act.2020.29274.mec
  4. Denosumab for Effective Tumor Size Reduction in Patients With Giant Cell Tumors of the Bone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.27, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274820934822
  5. Association of Antiosteoporotic Medication Bisphosphonates and Denosumab with Primary Breast Cancer: An Electronic Health Record Cohort Study vol.2, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2020.0120
  6. Systemic osteoprotegerin does not improve peri‐implant bone volume or osseointegration in rabbits vol.39, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24884