Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Rebound-associated vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab—from clinic and biomechanics

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

Rebound-associated vertebral fractures may follow treatment discontinuation of highly potent reversible bone antiresorptives, resulting from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone.

Introduction

The purposes of this study are to characterize rebound-associated vertebral fractures following the discontinuation of a highly potent reversible antiresorptive therapy based on clinical observation and propose a pathophysiological rationale.

Methods

This study is a case report of multiple vertebral fractures early after discontinuation of denosumab therapy in a patient with hormone receptor-positive non-metastatic breast cancer treated with an aromatase inhibitor.

Results

Discontinuation of highly potent reversible bone antiresorptives such as denosumab may expose patients to an increased fracture risk due to the joined effects of absent microdamage repair during therapy followed by synchronous excess activation of multiple bone remodelling units at the time of loss-of-effect. We suggest the term rebound-associated vertebral fractures (RVF) for this phenomenon characterized by the presence of multiple new clinical vertebral fractures, associated with either no or low trauma, in a context consistent with the presence of high bone turnover and rapid loss of lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) occurring within 3 to 12 months after discontinuation (loss-of-effect) of a reversible antiresorptive therapy in the absence of secondary causes of bone loss or fractures. Unlike atypical femoral fractures that emerge from failure of microdamage repair in cortical bone with long-term antiresorptive treatment, RVF originate from the synergy of rapid bone resorption and accelerated microdamage accumulation in trabecular bone triggered by the discontinuation of highly potent reversible antiresorptives.

Conclusions

Studies are urgently needed to i) prove the underlying pathophysiological processes suggested above, ii) establish the predictive criteria exposing patients to an increased risk of RVF, and iii) determine appropriate treatment regimens to be applied in such patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Winer EP, Hudis C, Burstein HJ et al (2005) American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: status report 2004. J Clin Oncol 23:619–629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eastell R, Hannon R (2005) Long-term effects of aromatase inhibitors on bone. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 95:151–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ et al (2004) A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 350:1081–1092

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lonning PE, Geisler J, Krag LE et al (2005) Effects of exemestane administered for 2 years versus placebo on bone mineral density, bone biomarkers, and plasma lipids in patients with surgically resected early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5126–5137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cummings SR, San Martin J, McClung MR et al (2009) Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 361:756–765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McClung MR, Lewiecki EM, Geller ML, Bolognese MA, Peacock M, Weinstein RL, Ding B, Rockabrand E, Wagman RB, Miller PD (2013) Effect of denosumab on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover: 8-year results of a phase 2 clinical trial. Osteoporos Int 24:227–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Miller PD, Bolognese MA, Lewiecki EM, McClung MR, Ding B, Austin M, Liu Y, San Martin J (2008) Effect of denosumab on bone density and turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass after long-term continued, discontinued, and restarting of therapy: a randomized blinded phase 2 clinical trial. Bone 43:222–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown JP, Roux C, Torring O et al (2013) Discontinuation of denosumab and associated fracture incidence: analysis from the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial. J Bone Miner Res 28:746–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ellis GK, Bone HG, Chlebowski R, Paul D, Spadafora S, Smith J, Fan M, Jun S (2008) Randomized trial of denosumab in patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors for nonmetastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol

  10. Gnant M, Pfeiler G, Dubsky PC et al (2015) Adjuvant denosumab in breast cancer (ABCSG-18): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 386:433–443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lambers FM, Bouman AR, Rimnac CM, Hernandez CJ (2013) Microdamage caused by fatigue loading in human cancellous bone: relationship to reductions in bone biomechanical performance. PLoS One 8:e83662

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Rapillard L, Charlebois M, Zysset PK (2006) Compressive fatigue behavior of human vertebral trabecular bone. J Biomech 39:2133–2139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pattin CA, Caler WE, Carter DR (1996) Cyclic mechanical property degradation during fatigue loading of cortical bone. J Biomech 29:69–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolfram U, Wilke HJ, Zysset PK (2010) Valid micro finite element models of vertebral trabecular bone can be obtained using tissue properties measured with nanoindentation under wet conditions. J Biomech 43:1731–1737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seref-Ferlengez Z, Basta-Pljakic J, Kennedy OD, Philemon CJ, Schaffler MB (2014) Structural and mechanical repair of diffuse damage in cortical bone in vivo. J Bone Miner Res 29:2537–2544

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Burr DB, Forwood MR, Fyhrie DP, Martin RB, Schaffler MB, Turner CH (1997) Bone microdamage and skeletal fragility in osteoporotic and stress fractures. J Bone Miner Res 12:6–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McNamara LM, Prendergast PJ (2005) Perforation of cancellous bone trabeculae by damage-stimulated remodelling at resorption pits: a computational analysis. Eur J Morphol 42:99–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eriksen EF (2010) Cellular mechanisms of bone remodeling. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 11:219–227

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Roux JP, Wegrzyn J, Arlot ME, Guyen O, Delmas PD, Chapurlat R, Bouxsein ML (2010) Contribution of trabecular and cortical components to biomechanical behavior of human vertebrae: an ex vivo study. J Bone Miner Res 25:356–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rockoff SD, Sweet E, Bleustein J (1969) The relative contribution of trabecular and cortical bone to the strength of human lumbar vertebrae. Calcif Tissue Res 3(2):163–175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Aubry-Rozier A, Gonzalez-Rodriguez E, Stoll D, Lamy O (2015) Severe spontaneous vertebral fractures after denosumab discontinuation: three case reports. Published online: 28 October 2015. Osteoporos Int

  22. Geissler JR, Bajaj D, Fritton JC (2015) American Society of Biomechanics Journal of Biomechanics Award 2013: cortical bone tissue mechanical quality and biological mechanisms possibly underlying atypical fractures. J Biomech 48:883–894

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Grey A, Bolland MJ, Horne A, Wattie D, House M, Gamble G, Reid IR (2012) Five years of anti-resorptive activity after a single dose of zoledronate—results from a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Bone 50:1389–1393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Freemantle N, Satram-Hoang S, Tang ET, Kaur P, Macarios D, Siddhanti S, Borenstein J, Kendler DL, DAPS Investigators (2012) Final results of the DAPS (Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction) study: a 24-month, randomized, crossover comparison with alendronate in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 23(1):317–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Leder BZ, Tsai JN, Uihlein AV, Wallace PM, Lee H, Neer RM, Burnett-Bowie SA (2015) Denosumab and teriparatide transitions in postmenopausal osteoporosis (the DATA-Switch study): extension of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386:1147–1155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tsai JN, Uihlein AV, Lee H, Kumbhani R, Siwila-Sackman E, McKay EA, Burnett-Bowie SA, Neer RM, Leder BZ (2013) Teriparatide and denosumab, alone or combined, in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: the DATA study randomised trial. Lancet 382:50–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Philippe Kress, MD, Galttbrugg, Switzerland, for commenting and copyediting the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to A. W. Popp or K. Lippuner.

Ethics declarations

The patient gave written informed consent for anonymized case presentation and publication.

Conflict of interest

AWP received advisory boards (consulting fees) from Amgen Switzerland; KL received advisory boards (consulting fees) from Amgen, MSD, Eli Lily, and UCB; and none for PhZ.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Popp, A.W., Zysset, P.K. & Lippuner, K. Rebound-associated vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab—from clinic and biomechanics. Osteoporos Int 27, 1917–1921 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3458-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-015-3458-6

Keywords

Navigation