AzTrials
AzTrials

Osteoporosis, OsteopeniaPhase 2/3NCT04169698

Alendronate Versus Denosumab in Kidney Transplant Patients

A Phase 2/3 study testing Denosumab 60 mg/ml [Prolia] and Alendronate 70Mg Tab in people with Osteoporosis, Osteopenia and Renal Transplant Recipient, run by Ain Shams University at 1 site in Egypt.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The management of bone disease has often been neglected post-transplantation, when the clinical focus is on allograft function and immunological sequelae. However, most renal transplant recipients (RTRs) have pre-existing CKD-MBD, which results in changes to mineral metabolism and reduced bone mineral density (BMD)… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 80 years
What is being tested?
Denosumab 60 mg/ml [Prolia] and Alendronate 70Mg Tab
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
90 participants
Where
1 siteEgypt
Study dates
17 Oct 2019to 1 May 2021
Phase
Phase 2/3
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 80 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Adult ≥ 18 year old and medically stable.
  • Recent kidney transplantation (up to 3 months).
  • Stabilization of renal allograft function.
  • Normal liver function.
  • Reduced bone mineral density at least one SD lower than normal level for the same age and gender (T-score < -1).

Who cannot join

  • Poor or unstable graft function (creatinine >200 lmol/L).
  • Skeletal malignancies or bone metastases.
  • Risk for osteosarcoma, such as Paget's disease of the bone.
  • Unstable medical condition.
  • Pregnancy and lactation.
  • Autoimmune diseases.
  • Predisposition to drug hypersensitivity.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Egypt1 site
  • National institute of urology and nephrology

    Cairo, 11566

Other trials in Egypt

About this study

Official title: Evaluation of the Efficacy and Tolerability of Alendronate Versus Denosumab in Kidney Transplant Patients With Reduced Bone Mineral Density

The management of bone disease has often been neglected post-transplantation, when the clinical focus is on allograft function and immunological sequelae. However, most renal transplant recipients (RTRs) have pre-existing CKD-MBD, which results in changes to mineral metabolism and reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and quality, which are linked to an increased incidence of fractures and cardiovascular disease. Bone loss is greatest in the first 6-12 months post-transplantation, during which period any intervention is likely to be of greatest benefit. Anti-resorptive agents all inhibit bone resorption. Since bisphosphonates and densoumab are the most widely used anti-resorptive agents for osteoporosis, we conduct this prospective interventional comparative study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of alendronate versus denosumab in de novo kidney transplant recipients with reduced bone mineral density, in the first 12 months treatment after kidney transplantation.

Read the detailed description

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) exhibit a complex form of bone disease defined by KDIGO as "Mineral and Bone Disorder" (CKD-MBD). CKD-MBD generally encompasses two pathological disorders, namely vascular calcification and renal osteodystrophy, which is the bone health impairment associated with chronic kidney disease. Among the complications associated with renal osteodystrophy, hip or vertebral fractures are associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

CKD-MBD is a systemic disease that links disorders of mineral and bone metabolism due to CKD to either one or all of the following: abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone or vitamin D metabolism; abnormalities in bone turnover, mineralization, volume, linear growth or strength; or vascular or other soft-tissue calcification. Consequently, since bone status in recently transplanted patients reflects several years of CKD-MBD, it would be useful to assess bone status in this population.

The management of bone disease has often been neglected post-transplantation, when the clinical focus is on allograft function and immunological sequelae. However, most renal transplant recipients (RTRs) have pre-existing CKD-MBD, which results in changes to mineral metabolism and reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and quality, which are linked to an increased incidence of fractures and cardiovascular disease. Pre-existing renal osteodystrophy, including adynamic bone disease, is further affected post-transplantation by the use of immunosuppressive medications (glucocorticoids and calcineurin-inhibitors), variable renal allograft function and post-transplantation diabetes mellitus.

Successful renal transplantation corrects many metabolic abnormalities associated with the development of renal osteodystrophy. However, osteopenia and osteoporosis remain prevalent, even in patients with well-functioning grafts. Increasing attention has focused on preventing late complications of transplantation and on patient quality of life by addressing factors affecting long-term morbidity, such as cardiovascular risk, post-transplantation diabetes mellitus, cancer, and bone disease.

The spectrum of bone diseases in kidney transplant recipients includes renal osteodystrophy, osteoporosis, bone fracture, and osteonecrosis. Earlier studies after transplantation indicate that BMD declines by 4%-10% in the first 6 months, with a further decrease of 0.4%-4.5% in lumbar BMD between 6 and 12 months. After 1 year, BMD remains relatively stable with no further decline but at significantly lower levels than healthy controls. This reduction in BMD contributes to an increased risk of fractures.

Osteoporosis is defined as skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength with low BMD and bone quality predisposing to an increased risk of fracture and bone fragility. Osteoporosis has also been defined quantitatively using BMD and can be expressed as standard deviation (SD) score comparing an individual's BMD with that of a reference population as measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). A T-score that is ≤ -2.5 is indicative of osteoporosis.

In RTRs, a noninvasive cost-effective tool regarding diagnostic evaluation of osteoporosis is BMD monitoring with DEXA scans. BMD is the amount of bone mass per unit volume (volumetric density), or per unit area (areal density), and both can be measured in vivo by densitometric techniques. A wide variety of techniques is available to assess bone mineral that are reviewed elsewhere. The most widely used are based on X-ray absorptiometry of bone, particularly dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, since the absorption of X-rays is very sensitive to the calcium content of the tissue of which bone is the most important source.

DEXA is obtained by aiming two radiograph beams with different energy levels at the patient's bones. After subtracting the soft tissue absorption, the BMD is determined. DEXA is the most widely used noninvasive technique for measuring BMD in the general population. Low BMD by DEXA is a robust and consistent risk factor for fracture and treatments that increase BMD reduce fracture risk.

Bone mineral density is most often described as a T- or Z score, both of which are units of SD. The T-score describes the number of SDs by which the BMD in an individual differs from the mean value expected in young healthy individuals. The Z-score describes the number of SDs by which the BMD in an individual differs from the mean value expected for age and sex. It is mostly used in children and adolescents.

Bone loss is greatest in the first 6-12 months post-transplantation, during which period any intervention is likely to be of greatest benefit. Anti-resorptive agents all inhibit bone resorption. The FDA-approved anti-resorptive agents include calcitonin, estrogens, selective estrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates and denosumab. Each anti-resorptive agent has each owns unique mechanism of action. Since bisphosphonates and densoumab are the most widely used anti-resorptive agents for osteoporosis, these two agents will be focused here.

There is strong evidence that bisphosphonates prevent post-transplantation bone loss; however, data are lacking that this clearly extends to a reduction in fracture incidence. Denosumab is a potential alternative to vitamin D receptor agonists and bisphosphonates in reducing post-transplantation bone loss; however, further studies are needed to demonstrate its safety in patients with a significantly reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Clinical judgement remains the cornerstone of this complex clinical problem, providing a strong rationale for the formation of combined endocrinology and nephrology clinics to treat patients with Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder, before and after transplantation.

Bisphosphonates are chemical analogues of naturally occurring pyrophosphates (P-O-P), degradation products of adenosine triphosphate metabolism. Pyrophosphates are rapidly metabolized by the ubiquitous presence of pyrophosphatases, while bisphosphonates (P-C-P) are not metabolized. Once entering the blood stream, bisphosphonates are rapidly taken up by bone, the only tissue that binds bisphosphonates. In bone, bisphosphonates inhibit bone resorption by two mechanisms: a physiochemical one stabilizing the calcium-phosphorus surface and a cellular one by inhibiting osteoclast activity. Bisphosphonates are cleared by the kidney both by filtration and active proximal tubular secretion. Bisphosphonates are retained in bone in the remodeling resorption cavity and the amount of bisphosphonate retained in probably a function of the baseline remodeling space, the chronic rate of bone turnover and the glomerular filteration rate (GFR). While oral bisphosphonates are poorly (less than 1% of a single dose) absorbed and 50% of that excreted unchanged by the kidney, intravenous bisphosphonate show a 100% bioavailability with still 50% of an intravenous dose excreted by the kidney. Treatment with bisphosphonates before and after renal transplantation had a favorable effect on BMD, with bisphosphonates, such as pamidronate and alendronate, being preferable to other treatments.

Denosumab is a full length human monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), a cytokine that is essential for the formation, function, and survival of osteoclasts. By binding RANKL, denosumab prevents the interaction of RANKL with RANK on osteoclasts and reversibly inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2010 as a new treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis in women who are at high risk of fractures. Denosumab is not renally cleared, which makes it more attractive than bisphosphonates in patients with significant graft dysfunction, although there are little data of its use in the transplant population. Denosumab treatment may be useful to improve bone health in the first year after kidney transplantation and was safe except for a higher number of urinary tract infections and asymptomatic episodes of hypocalcemia.

There are no comparative studies of different agents available for treatment of RTRs, who remain a heterogeneous population in terms of renal function. However, given that bone loss is greatest in the first 12 months, any benefit will be greatest in this period. KDIGO 2017 guidelines suggest treatment with vitamin D, calcitriol/alfacalcidol, and/or antiresorptive agents be considered in patients in the first 12 months after kidney transplant with an estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than approximately 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 and low BMD.

Finally, this prospective interventional comparative study will be conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of alendronate versus denosumab in de novo kidney transplant recipients with reduced bone mineral density, in the first 12 months treatment after kidney transplantation.

Being tested
Denosumab 60 mg/ml [Prolia], Alendronate 70Mg Tab
Keywords
Denosumab, Alendronate, Osteoporosis, renal transplant
Medical subject headings
Osteoporosis, Bone Diseases, Metabolic

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Denosumab 60 mg/ml [Prolia]Drug

    full length human monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand

  • Alendronate 70Mg TabDrug

    Bisphosphonates

Study groups in NCT04169698
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Control groupNo interventionParticipants will receive daily supplements of calcium (1000 mg), vitamin D (800 IU or more) and calcitriol (0.25 micro gram).
Denosumab groupExperimentalParticipants will receive a single 60 mg subcutaneous dose of denosumab (Prolia) every 6 months for 12 months plus daily supplements of calcium (1000 mg), vitamin D (800 IU or more) and calcitriol (0.25 micro gram).
Receives: Drug: Denosumab 60 mg/ml [Prolia]
Alendronate groupExperimentalParticipants will receive an oral alendronate at a dose of 70 mg once every week for up to 12 months plus daily supplements of calcium (1000 mg), vitamin D (800 IU or more) and calcitriol (0.25 micro gram).
Receives: Drug: Alendronate 70Mg Tab

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Bone mineral density measured by DEXA scan

    Subject percent changes of bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, proximal femur and distal one-third radius from baseline to 6 and 12 months.

    Measured: One year

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Fracture incidence

    The number of new clinical vertebral or non-vertebral fractures that are reported at any post baseline visit and subsequently confirmed by radiographs.

    Measured: One year

  2. Graft function

    Calculating the estimated GFR with the creatinine-based Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula.

    Measured: One year

  3. serum parathyroid hormone and vitamin D

    parathyroid hormone and vitamin D

    Measured: One year

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Nov 2019
  2. Study start17 Oct 2019
  3. Primary completion1 May 2021
  4. Study completion1 May 2021

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 2/3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
90 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04169698
Sponsor's protocol ID
PHCL236
Status last verified
Nov 2021
First submitted
18 Nov 2019
Last updated
12 Nov 2021
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Publications

  • Sayed SA, El Wakeel LM, Elseasi AM, Shawki MA. Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of alendronate versus denosumab in kidney transplant patients with reduced bone mineral density. Pharmacotherapy. 2023 Sep;43(9):904-912. doi: 10.1002/phar.2838. Epub 2023 Jun 22.

    PubMed 37323099

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 2/3 study testing Denosumab 60 mg/ml [Prolia] and Alendronate 70Mg Tab in people with Osteoporosis, Osteopenia and Renal Transplant Recipient, run by Ain Shams University at 1 site in Egypt.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Nov 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Egypt. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this combined phase mean?

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Bone mineral density measured by DEXA scan (time frame: One year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04169698, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Nov 2021.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in