Denosumab (Prolia
®
& Xgeva
®
)
UnitedHealthcare Commercial Medical Benefit Drug Policy
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2024 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
older who were receiving ≥ 7.5 mg prednisone daily or equivalent, for at least 3 months (glucocorticoid continuing) or less than
3 months (glucocorticoid initiating). Patients under 50 years of age were required to have a history of osteoporosis-related
fracture. Patients 50 years and older needed a lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck bone mineral density T score of -2.0 or
less, or -1.0 or less if they had a history of osteoporosis-related fracture. Study patients received either 60 mg subcutaneous
denosumab every 6 months and oral placebo daily for, or 5 mg oral risedronate daily and subcutaneous placebo every 6
months for 24 months. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of denosumab to risedronate in terms of percentage change
from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density at 12 months based on non-inferiority margins. In addition, superiority was
also assessed. The safety analysis included all study patients who received one dose or more of their assigned investigational
product. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01575873). Denosumab was both non-inferior and superior to
risedronate at 12 months for effect on bone mineral density at the lumbar spine in both glucocorticoid-continuing (4.4% [95% CI
3.8-5.0] vs. 2.3% [1.7-2.9]; p < 0.0001) and glucocorticoid-initiating (3.8% [3.1-4.5]vs 0.8% [0.2-1.5]; p < 0.0001) subpopulations.
Incidence of adverse events and fractures was similar between treatment groups. The most common adverse events in both
groups included back pain and arthralgia. Serious infection occurred in 15 (4%) patients in the risedronate group and 17 (4%)
patients in the denosumab group. The authors conclude that denosumab could be a useful treatment option for patients taking
glucocorticoids who are at risk for fractures.
Xgeva
In an ad hoc analysis of the phase 3 clinical trial of 1,776 patients with metastases from solid tumors or multiple myeloma,
where it was shown that denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in delaying or preventing SREs, Henry et al reports
outcomes in the subgroup of 1,597 patients with solid tumors, excluding multiple myeloma.
17
In the ad hoc analysis,
denosumab significantly delayed time to first on-study SRE compared to ZA (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68–0.96) and time to first-and-
subsequent SREs (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72–1.00). Denosumab also significantly delayed time to development of moderate or
severe pain (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66–1.00), pain worsening (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.97), and worsening pain interference in
patients with no/mild baseline pain (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61–0.96). Overall survival was similar in both groups. The median KM
estimate was 10.7 months for denosumab-treated patients and 10.0 months for ZA-treated patients (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81–
1.05: p = 0.215). Similarly, there was no difference between groups in time to disease progression. The median KM estimate
was 5.3 (4.9, 5.7) months for denosumab-treated and 5.4 (4.8, 5.7) months for ZA-treated patients (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85–1.08:
p = 0.497). The authors concluded that denosumab was more effective in delaying the incidence of SREs, however did not
significantly affect the overall incidence or disease progression or overall survival.
In a double-blind, double-dummy, phase III clinical trial, Henry et al compared denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for delaying
or preventing skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases (excluding breast and
prostate) or myeloma.
16
Patients were randomly assigned to receive either monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120mg (n = 886)
or intravenous ZA 4mg (dose adjustment for renal impairment; n = 890). The primary end point was time to first on-study SRE
(pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). The trial demonstrated that denosumab was
noninferior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98; p = 0.0007). Denosumab was
not statistically superior to ZA in delaying time to first on-study SRE (p = 0.03 unadjusted; p = 0.06 adjusted for multiplicity) or
time to first-and-subsequent (multiple) SRE (rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.04; p = 0.14). Overall survival and disease
progression were similar between groups. Hypocalcemia occurred more frequently with denosumab. Osteonecrosis of the jaw
occurred at similarly low rates in both groups. Acute-phase reactions after the first dose occurred more frequently with ZA, as
did renal adverse events and elevations in serum creatinine. The authors concluded that denosumab was noninferior to ZA in
preventing or delaying first on-study SRE in patients with advanced cancer metastatic to bone or myeloma.
Fizazi et al evaluated the comparison of denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events in
men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer.
20
In a phase 3 clinical study, 1904 men with castration-
resistant prostate cancer had no previous exposure to IV bisphosphonate were randomized 1:1 to either receive 120mg
subcutaneous denosumab plus IV placebo (n = 950), or 4mg IV ZA plus subcutaneous placebo (n = 951) every 4 weeks. The
primary endpoint was time to first on-study skeletal related event (pathological fracture, radiation therapy, surgery to bone, or
spinal cord compression), and was assessed for non-inferiority. The same outcome was further assessed for superiority as a
secondary endpoint. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Median time to first on-study skeletal-related event was 20.7
months (95% CI 18.8–24.9) with denosumab compared with 17.1 months (15.0–19.4) with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio 0.82,
95% CI 0.71–0.95; p = 0.0002 for non-inferiority; p = 0.008 for superiority). While there was a three-month increase in the time to
first skeletal-related events observed with denosumab in men with prostate cancer, there was no clinically meaningful difference
in skeletal-related events for denosumab as compared with zoledronic acid: Overall confirmed events (ZA vs. denosumab) 41%
vs. 36%; radiation to bone (21% vs. 19%); pathological fracture (15% vs. 14%); spinal cord compression (4% vs. 3%); surgery to