Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Clinical Advance
  • Published:

Is denosumab better than alendronate in the treatment of osteoporosis?

Abstract

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (RANKL), the principal mediator of osteoclastic bone resorption. By binding to RANKL, denosumab reduces the differentiation, activity and survival of osteoclasts, and thereby slows the rate of bone resorption. These antiresorptive effects led to the development of this agent as a treatment for osteoporosis. In studies conducted so far, denosumab is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Oral bisphosphonates are currently favored as first-line therapy for most patients with this condition and, therefore, studies that directly compare the effects of these agents with denosumab are of clinical interest. Here, I discuss a study by Brown et al. that compares the effects of denosumab and alendronate in women who have not previously received antiosteoporosis therapy, and place the findings in the context of other clinically relevant studies of this RANKL inhibitor.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Bone HG et al. (2008) Effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93: 2149–2157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cummings SR et al. (2008) A phase III study of the effects of denosumab on vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture in women with osteoporosis: results from the FREEDOM trial [abstract]. J Bone Miner Res 23 (Suppl): S80

    Google Scholar 

  3. McClung MR et al. (2006) Denosumab in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. N Engl J Med 354: 821–831

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewiecki EM et al. (2007) Two-year treatment with denosumab (AMG 162) in a randomized phase 2 study of postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Res 22: 1832–1841

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown JP et al. (2008) Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial. J Bone Miner Res [10.1359/JBMR.080910]

  6. Gold DT et al. (2008) Preference and satisfaction with a 6-monthly subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass [abstract]. J Bone Miner Res 23 (Suppl): S467

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kendler DL et al. (2008) Effects of denosumab vs alendronate on bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers (BTM), and safety in women previously treated with alendronate [abstract]. J Bone Miner Res 23 (Suppl): S473

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author has received financial support or owned personal investments in the following companies during the past 2 years: Amgen, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Roche, Sanofi-aventis and Wyeth. During the past 2 years, he has been a member of the scientific advisory boards and/or speakers' bureaus for Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Upsher-Smith, and Wyeth. He is a direct stock shareholder in Procter & Gamble.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewiecki, E. Is denosumab better than alendronate in the treatment of osteoporosis?. Nat Rev Rheumatol 5, 72–73 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0981

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0981

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing