English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Denosumab and zoledronate are increasingly prescribed for primary and secondary osteoporosis long-term management. Methods A retrospective audit was conducted at Basildon Hospital during 2012-2019 using the NICE guidelines standards to evaluate the long term safety and efficacy of denosumab and zoledronate. Number of patients was 84, diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia, 34 of them received 10 or more denosumab injections and 50 patients planned to receive 5 zoledronate infusions (9 patients received 5 and 38 patients received 4). Results Forty percent of the patients were at their 8th decade followed by 28.57% and 21.42 % at their 9th and 7th decades respectively. More than 90% were Caucasian females. Primary prevention was in 39.28% and secondary prevention in 60.71%. The commonest sites of fracture were the wrist and vertebrae at 34.37% for each; followed by the neck of femur and humerous at 12.5% for each. Denosumab was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th line of treatment in 9.52%, 13.09%, 16.66% and 1.19% respectively; whereas zoledronate was the 1st, 2nd or 3rd line of treatment in 13.09%, 40.47% and 5.95% respectively. The commonest reason for choosing denosumab as the first line was chronic kidney disease, whereas the reason for choosing it as the 2nd or 3rd line was inefficacy of bisphosphonate in 69% or gastrointestinal side effects in 14%. Zoledronate was chosen in all cases because of intolerability to oral bisphosphonate or gastrointestinal side effects. Repeat DXA scan was performed after the 5th, 10th denosumab injections and the 3rd zoledronate infusions. After the 5th Denosumab, DXA scan showed improvement or stability in 100% and 85.29% at the spine and hip respectively whilst deterioration was seen in 14.7% at the hip. After the 10th denosumab, the rate of improvement or stability at the spine was reduced to 88.23% and decline was seen in 2.94%. At the hip area, 73.52% continued to show improvement or stability, whilst 17.66 % showed deterioration. After the 3rd zoledronate, 98% and 88% showed improvement or stability at the spine and hip respectively whilst deterioration seen in 2% and 12% at the spine and hip respectively. One patient on zoledronate experienced dental issues after the 4th injection and stopped treatment. There were no jaw osteonecrosis, no new fractures and no significant side effects with either denosumab or zoledronate. Ninety percent of patients who completed 10 denosumab injections were planned to continue for another 5 injections. Conclusion After the period of 3-5 years, denosumab and zoledronate were well tolerated and BMD was either stable or improved at both spinal and hip sites. There were few cases of deterioration mainly at the hip area with both zoledronate and denosumab. Future researches are needed to stratify guidelines on discontinuation of denosumab. Disclosures Z. Alkutobi None. D. Laila None. M. Tariq None. A. Nandagudi None.

EP20 Long term safety and efficacy of denosumab and zoledronate