Kellen C Sheedy1, Maria I Camara2, Pauline M Camacho3. 1. Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois. 2. University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Loyola University, Maywood, Illinois.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab and ZA. METHODS: The charts of patients who received denosumab and ZA at Loyola Hospital were reviewed, and adverse events were noted. Of primary interest were myalgias, flu-like symptoms, back pain, and fractures. A questionnaire regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and treatment cost supplemented this chart review in a subset of study participants. Bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone turnover markers, and questionnaire results were also compared. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 107 patients (51 denosumab, 56 ZA). The denosumab group had a greater mean increase in spine BMD at 1 year (0.060 g/cm2) than the ZA group (0.021 g/cm2; P = .04). The change in femur and spine BMD at 1 year were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The ZA group had a significantly greater incidence of mild flu-like symptoms (29% ZA group vs. 0% denosumab group; P = .04). CONCLUSION: The denosumab group had a higher mean increase in spine BMD, and the ZA group had a higher incidence of flu-like symptoms, but the study groups were statistically similar in terms of patient satisfaction. As denosumab is still a relatively new therapy, there were a limited number of patients with posttreatment data available for comparison. As more posttherapy data become available, it can be further investigated.
OBJECTIVE: Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab and ZA. METHODS: The charts of patients who received denosumab and ZA at Loyola Hospital were reviewed, and adverse events were noted. Of primary interest were myalgias, flu-like symptoms, back pain, and fractures. A questionnaire regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and treatment cost supplemented this chart review in a subset of study participants. Bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone turnover markers, and questionnaire results were also compared. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 107 patients (51 denosumab, 56 ZA). The denosumab group had a greater mean increase in spine BMD at 1 year (0.060 g/cm2) than the ZA group (0.021 g/cm2; P = .04). The change in femur and spine BMD at 1 year were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The ZA group had a significantly greater incidence of mild flu-like symptoms (29% ZA group vs. 0% denosumab group; P = .04). CONCLUSION: The denosumab group had a higher mean increase in spine BMD, and the ZA group had a higher incidence of flu-like symptoms, but the study groups were statistically similar in terms of patient satisfaction. As denosumab is still a relatively new therapy, there were a limited number of patients with posttreatment data available for comparison. As more posttherapy data become available, it can be further investigated.