Bhandari Mohit, Jin Ling, See Kyoungah, Burge Russel, Gilchrist Nigel, Witvrouw Richard, Krohn Kelly D, Warner Margaret R, Ahmad Qasim I, Mitlak Bruce
Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 293 Wellington Street N, Suite 110, Hamilton, ON, L8L8E7, Canada.
Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 May;474(5):1234-44. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4669-z. Epub 2016 Mar 1.
There is a medical need for therapies that improve hip fracture healing. Teriparatide (Forteo(®)/ Forsteo(®), recombinant human parathyroid hormone) is a bone anabolic drug that is approved for treatment of osteoporosis and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and postmenopausal women at high fracture risk. Preclinical and preliminary clinical data also suggest that teriparatide may enhance bone healing.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We wished to test the hypotheses that treatment with teriparatide versus placebo would improve femoral neck fracture healing after internal fixation as measured by (1) frequency of revision surgery, (2) radiographic fracture healing, and (3) other outcomes including pain control, gait speed, and safety.
We initiated two separate, but identically designed, clinical trials to meet FDA requirements to provide substantial evidence to support approval of a new indication. The two prospective, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III studies were designed to evaluate the effect of subcutaneous teriparatide (20 μg/day) for 6 months versus placebo on fracture healing at 24 months. The trials were conducted concurrently with a planned enrollment of 1220 patients per trial. However, enrollment was stopped owing to very slow patient accrual, and an a priori decision was made to pool the results of those studies for statistical analyses before study completion; pooling was specified in both protocols. Randomization was stratified by fixation (sliding hip screw or multiple cancellous screws) and fracture type (displaced or nondisplaced). An independent Central Adjudication Committee reviewed revision surgical procedures and radiographs. A total of 159 patients were randomized in the two trials (81 placebo, 78 teriparatide). The combined program had very low power to detect the originally expected treatment effect but had approximately 80% power to detect a larger difference of 12% between treatment groups for risk of revision surgery.
The proportion of patients undergoing revision surgery at 12 months was 14% (11 of 81) in the placebo group versus 17% (13 of 78) in the teriparatide group. Central Adjudication Committee review excluded two of these patients treated with placebo from the primary analysis. After exclusions, the proportion of patients who did not undergo revision surgery at 12 months (primary endpoint) was not different between the study and placebo groups, at 88% in the placebo group (90% CI, 0.79-0.93) versus 84% in the teriparatide group (90% CI, 0.75-0.90; p = 0.743). There also were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients achieving radiographic fracture healing at 12 months (75% [61 of 81] placebo versus 73% [57 of 78] teriparatide; odds ratio, 0.89; 90% CI, 0.46-1.72; p = 0.692) or in measures of pain control (such as pain during ambulation, 92% [55 of 62] placebo versus 91% [52 of 57] teriparatide; odds ratio, 0.91; 90% CI, 0.25-3.37; p = 0.681). The frequency of patients reporting adverse events was 49% [40 of 81] in the placebo group versus 45% [35 of 78] in the teriparatide group (p = 0.634) during the 6-month treatment period.
The small sample size limited this study's power to detect potential differences, and the results are exploratory. With the patients available, teriparatide did not decrease the risk of revision surgery, improve radiographic signs of fracture healing, or decrease pain compared with the placebo. The adverse event data observed were consistent with the teriparatide safety profile. Functional and health outcome data from the studies may help improve our understanding of patients recovering from femoral neck fractures. Further large controlled studies are required to determine the effect of teriparatide on fracture healing.
Level II, prospective study.
对于改善髋部骨折愈合的治疗方法存在医学需求。特立帕肽(福善美/复泰奥,重组人甲状旁腺激素)是一种骨合成代谢药物,已被批准用于治疗高骨折风险的男性骨质疏松症以及绝经后女性的骨质疏松症和糖皮质激素诱导的骨质疏松症。临床前和初步临床数据也表明特立帕肽可能促进骨愈合。
问题/目的:我们希望检验以下假设:与安慰剂相比,特立帕肽治疗可改善内固定术后股骨颈骨折的愈合情况,评估指标包括:(1)翻修手术频率;(2)影像学骨折愈合情况;(3)其他结果,包括疼痛控制、步态速度和安全性。
为满足美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)要求,提供充分证据以支持新适应症的批准,我们开展了两项独立但设计相同的临床试验。这两项前瞻性、随机双盲、安慰剂对照的III期研究旨在评估皮下注射特立帕肽(20μg/天)6个月与安慰剂相比,对24个月时骨折愈合的影响。两项试验同时进行,计划每项试验招募1220名患者。然而,由于患者入组非常缓慢,入组工作停止,并且在研究完成前预先决定将这些研究的结果合并进行统计分析;两项方案中均规定了合并分析。随机分组按固定方式(滑动髋螺钉或多枚松质骨螺钉)和骨折类型(移位或无移位)进行分层。一个独立的中央判定委员会审查翻修手术程序和X线片。两项试验共有159例患者被随机分组(81例安慰剂组,78例特立帕肽组)。合并后的研究方案检测最初预期治疗效果的效能很低,但检测治疗组间翻修手术风险12%的更大差异的效能约为80%。
安慰剂组12个月时接受翻修手术的患者比例为14%(81例中的11例),特立帕肽组为17%(78例中的13例)。中央判定委员会审查将安慰剂组中2例接受治疗的患者排除在主要分析之外。排除后,研究组和安慰剂组12个月时未接受翻修手术的患者比例(主要终点)无差异,安慰剂组为88%(90%CI,0.79 - 0.93),特立帕肽组为84%(90%CI,0.75 - 0.90;p = 0.743)。两组在12个月时实现影像学骨折愈合的患者比例(安慰剂组75%[81例中的61例],特立帕肽组73%[78例中的57例];优势比,0.89;90%CI,0.46 - 1.72;p = 0.692)或疼痛控制指标(如行走时疼痛情况,安慰剂组92%[62例中的55例],特立帕肽组91%[57例中的52例];优势比,0.91;90%CI,0.25 - 3.37;p = 0.681)方面也无差异。在6个月治疗期内,报告不良事件患者的频率在安慰剂组为49%(81例中的40例),特立帕肽组为45%(78例中的35例)(p = 0.634)。
小样本量限制了本研究检测潜在差异的效能,结果为探索性的。就现有患者而言,与安慰剂相比,特立帕肽并未降低翻修手术风险、改善骨折愈合的影像学表现或减轻疼痛。观察到的不良事件数据与特立帕肽的安全性特征一致。这些研究中的功能和健康结局数据可能有助于增进我们对股骨颈骨折患者康复情况的理解。需要进一步开展大型对照研究以确定特立帕肽对骨折愈合的影响。
II级,前瞻性研究。