Therapeutic Strategies of Denosumab Sequential Therapy: A Four‐Armed Randomized Controlled Trial

After denosumab discontinuation, the rebound effect can lead to rapid bone loss and increased fracture risk. Identifying effective sequential therapies after denosumab discontinuation is crucial to mitigate these risks. We conducted the Denosumab Sequential Therapy (DST) trial, a two-year, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial, conducted at a referral center and two affiliated hospitals in Taiwan. The DST trial enrolled 101 patients aged 50 years or older who received denosumab for at least 2 years (median: 2 years) and stratified the patients into four intervention groups to evaluate the effectiveness of three therapeutic strategies compared to continuous denosumab treatment. The four arms were as follows: (1) continued denosumab for 2 years (denosumab group); (2) two consecutive annual zoledronate infusions (annual-zoledronate group); (3) one zoledronate infusion followed by a supervised medication-free year (biennial-zoledronate group); and (4) one zoledronate infusion followed by resumed denosumab (double-switching group). The primary outcome was the percent change in the lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD), total hip BMD (TH-BMD), and femoral neck BMD (FN-BMD). Secondary outcomes included changes in BTMs, the incidence of clinical fractures, and the need for rescue zoledronate in the biennial-zoledronate group. LS-BMD increased by 1.77% in the denosumab group, by 2.25% in the double-switching group, while decreasing by 0.71% in the annual-zoledronate group and by 2.76% in the biennial-zoledronate group. One-third of patients in the biennial-zoledronate group showed LS-BMD loss exceeding the least significant change (LSC), and 22% required rescue zoledronate infusions. Given the significant bone loss observed, a single zoledronate infusion followed by a medication-free year is not recommended. Two consecutive zoledronate infusions and the double-switching regimen with resumed denosumab showed promising BMD preservation, making them advisable clinical alternatives after denosumab discontinuation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Published
2025-10-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.70088
Primary Topic
Bone health and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Therapeutic Strategies of Denosumab Sequential Therapy: A Four‐Armed Randomized Controlled Trial

Hung‐Kuan Yen, Chuan‐Ching Huang, Chia‐Che Lee, Chung‐Yi Li et al.
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Bone health and treatments
article

Therapeutic Strategies of Denosumab Sequential Therapy: A Four‐Armed Randomized Controlled Trial

Hung‐Kuan Yen, Chuan‐Ching Huang, Chia‐Che Lee, Chung‐Yi Li, Shau‐Huai Fu, Olivier Q. Groot, Chen‐Yu Wang, Chih-Chien Hung, Ta-Chun Lin
article en

Abstract

After denosumab discontinuation, the rebound effect can lead to rapid bone loss and increased fracture risk. Identifying effective sequential therapies after denosumab discontinuation is crucial to mitigate these risks. We conducted the Denosumab Sequential Therapy (DST) trial, a two-year, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial, conducted at a referral center and two affiliated hospitals in Taiwan. The DST trial enrolled 101 patients aged 50 years or older who received denosumab for at least 2 years (median: 2 years) and stratified the patients into four intervention groups to evaluate the effectiveness of three therapeutic strategies compared to continuous denosumab treatment. The four arms were as follows: (1) continued denosumab for 2 years (denosumab group); (2) two consecutive annual zoledronate infusions (annual-zoledronate group); (3) one zoledronate infusion followed by a supervised medication-free year (biennial-zoledronate group); and (4) one zoledronate infusion followed by resumed denosumab (double-switching group). The primary outcome was the percent change in the lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD), total hip BMD (TH-BMD), and femoral neck BMD (FN-BMD). Secondary outcomes included changes in BTMs, the incidence of clinical fractures, and the need for rescue zoledronate in the biennial-zoledronate group. LS-BMD increased by 1.77% in the denosumab group, by 2.25% in the double-switching group, while decreasing by 0.71% in the annual-zoledronate group and by 2.76% in the biennial-zoledronate group. One-third of patients in the biennial-zoledronate group showed LS-BMD loss exceeding the least significant change (LSC), and 22% required rescue zoledronate infusions. Given the significant bone loss observed, a single zoledronate infusion followed by a medication-free year is not recommended. Two consecutive zoledronate infusions and the double-switching regimen with resumed denosumab showed promising BMD preservation, making them advisable clinical alternatives after denosumab discontinuation.

Clinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsVol. 119(2)
Asia University (TW), National Health Research Institutes (TW), National Taiwan University (TW), China Medical University (TW), Utrecht University (NL), Kyoto University (JP), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Ministry of Health and Welfare (TW), National Taiwan University Hospital (TW), National Hsinchu University of Education (TW), National Yunlin University of Science and Technology (TW), National Cheng Kung University (TW)
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Bone health and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.