Background

In the Postmenopausal Evaluation and Risk Reduction With Lasofoxifene (PEARL) trial, women assigned to lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/d had a lower risk of major coronary heart disease (CHD) events and stroke, whereas women assigned to lasofoxifene 0.25 mg/d had a lower risk of stroke. Both doses of lasofoxifene increased the risk of venous thromboembolic events. In this report, we provide comprehensive cardiovascular end-point data, including component events comprising the composite end point of major CHD events, and evaluate whether the effect of lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/d is consistent across different categories of CHD risk.

Methods and results

In this study, 8556 women 59 to 80 years of age with osteoporosis received lasofoxifene 0.25 mg/d, lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/d, or placebo for 5 years. Cardiovascular events, including major CHD events, were prespecified secondary end points. Compared with placebo, lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/d reduced the risk of major CHD events 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.93), including the risk of coronary revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.56, 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.98). Reductions in risk of hospitalization for unstable angina (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.04) and diagnosis of new ischemic heart disease (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 1.04) nearly reached significance (P=0.06 for both comparisons). Although both hazard ratios were <1.0, no significant effect of lasofoxifene at 0.5 mg/d was demonstrated for coronary death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. The reduction in CHD events with lasofoxifene 0.25 mg/d was not significant (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 1.03; P=0.08). The effectiveness of lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/d in reducing CHD events was similar across strata of major cardiovascular risk factors.

Conclusions

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/d for 5 years reduced the risk of CHD events, regardless of the presence or absence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The significant reduction in risk of CHD events with lasofoxifene 0.5 mg/d was due primarily to lower risks of coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalization for unstable angina, and diagnosis of new ischemic heart disease.

Clinical trial registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00141323.

The aims of this study were to describe the changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs) in response to lasofoxifene therapy; to describe the changes in BTMs in the individual; and to examine the relationships between BTM levels on treatment and treatment outcomes. Women (n=1126) aged 59-80years with femoral neck or spine bone mineral density T-scores ≤-2.5 were randomized to lasofoxifene 0.25mg/d, 0.5mg/d, or placebo for 5years. We measured serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and serum procollagen I N-propeptide (PINP), osteocalcin, and bone alkaline phosphatase (ALP) at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36months. Lasofoxifene therapy resulted in a decrease in the concentrations of bone resorption and bone formation markers compared with placebo; the decrease was maximal between 6 and 24months. The effect of lasofoxifene 0.5mg/d was similar to that of lasofoxifene 0.25mg/d. The decrease in bone ALP was less than the decreases in CTX, osteocalcin, and PINP. Lasofoxifene therapy 0.5mg/d resulted in BTM-defined response rates for CTX (decrease in concentration from baseline >60%), PINP (>50%), and bone ALP (>30%) of 35%, 45%, and 43% of women at month 12, respectively, compared with placebo responses of 4%, 4%, and 7%. In contrast, the increase in BMD took longer (50% responded after 36months of lasofoxifene 0.5mg/d) and was not as specific (15% of placebo group responded). Bone density change was weakly inversely correlated with change in the concentrations of BTMs. BTMs may prove useful in the monitoring of the response to lasofoxifene treatment for women with postmenopausal osteoporosis early in the course of treatment.

Background

The effects of lasofoxifene on the risk of fractures, breast cancer, and cardiovascular disease are uncertain.

Methods

In this randomized trial, we assigned 8556 women who were between the ages of 59 and 80 years and had a bone mineral density T score of -2.5 or less at the femoral neck or spine to receive once-daily lasofoxifene (at a dose of either 0.25 mg or 0.5 mg) or placebo for 5 years. Primary end points were vertebral fractures, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer, and nonvertebral fractures; secondary end points included major coronary heart disease events and stroke.

Results

Lasofoxifene at a dose of 0.5 mg per day, as compared with placebo, was associated with reduced risks of vertebral fracture (13.1 cases vs. 22.4 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.70), nonvertebral fracture (18.7 vs. 24.5 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.91), ER-positive breast cancer (0.3 vs. 1.7 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56), coronary heart disease events (5.1 vs. 7.5 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93), and stroke (2.5 vs. 3.9 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.99). Lasofoxifene at a dose of 0.25 mg per day, as compared with placebo, was associated with reduced risks of vertebral fracture (16.0 vs. 22.4 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83) and stroke (2.4 vs. 3.9 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.96) Both the lower and higher doses, as compared with placebo, were associated with an increase in venous thromboembolic events (3.8 and 2.9 cases vs. 1.4 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratios, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.55 to 4.58] and 2.06 [95% CI, 1.17 to 3.60], respectively). Endometrial cancer occurred in three women in the placebo group, two women in the lower-dose lasofoxifene group, and two women in the higher-dose lasofoxifene group. Rates of death per 1000 person-years were 5.1 in the placebo group, 7.0 in the lower-dose lasofoxifene group, and 5.7 in the higher-dose lasofoxifene group.

Conclusions

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, lasofoxifene at a dose of 0.5 mg per day was associated with reduced risks of nonvertebral and vertebral fractures, ER-positive breast cancer, coronary heart disease, and stroke but an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00141323.)

Background

Currently available selective estrogen receptor modulators reduce the risk of breast cancer, but they are not widely used. In the Postmenopausal Evaluation and Risk-Reduction with Lasofoxifene (PEARL) trial, lasofoxifene was shown to reduce the risk of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer, nonvertebral and vertebral fractures, coronary artery disease, and stroke, but the effects on total breast cancer (invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ, ER+ and estrogen receptor-negative [ER-]) and ER+ invasive breast cancer are unknown.

Methods

Postmenopausal women (n = 8556) aged 59-80 years with low bone density and normal mammograms were randomly assigned to two doses of lasofoxifene (0.25 and 0.5 mg) or placebo. The primary endpoints of the PEARL trial were incidence of ER+ breast cancer and nonvertebral fractures at 5 years. A nested case-control study of 49 incident breast cancer case patients and 156 unaffected control subjects from the PEARL trial was performed to evaluate treatment effects on risk of total and ER+ invasive breast cancer by baseline serum estradiol and sex hormone-binding globulin levels using logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate risk of total breast cancer and ER+ invasive breast cancer using intention-to-treat analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Breast cancer was confirmed in 49 women. Compared with placebo, 0.5 mg of lasofoxifene statistically significantly reduced the risk of total breast cancer by 79% (hazard ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08 to 0.55) and ER+ invasive breast cancer by 83% (hazard ratio = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.57). The effects of 0.5 mg of lasofoxifene on total breast cancer were similar regardless of Gail score, whereas the effects were markedly stronger for women with baseline estradiol levels greater than the median (odds ratio = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.51) vs those with levels less than the median (odds ratio = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.16 to 3.79; P(interaction) = .04).

Conclusion

A 0.5-mg dose of lasofoxifene appears to reduce the risks of both total and ER+ invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Several recent studies suggest that obesity may be a risk factor for fracture. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between body mass index (BMI) and future fracture risk at different skeletal sites. In prospective cohorts from more than 25 countries, baseline data on BMI were available in 398,610 women with an average age of 63 (range, 20-105) years and follow up of 2.2 million person-years during which 30,280 osteoporotic fractures (6457 hip fractures) occurred. Femoral neck BMD was measured in 108,267 of these women. Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) ) was present in 22%. A majority of osteoporotic fractures (81%) and hip fractures (87%) arose in non-obese women. Compared to a BMI of 25 kg/m(2) , the hazard ratio (HR) for osteoporotic fracture at a BMI of 35 kg/m(2) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.90). When adjusted for bone mineral density (BMD), however, the same comparison showed that the HR for osteoporotic fracture was increased (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.23). Low BMI is a risk factor for hip and all osteoporotic fracture, but is a protective factor for lower leg fracture, whereas high BMI is a risk factor for upper arm (humerus and elbow) fracture. When adjusted for BMD, low BMI remained a risk factor for hip fracture but was protective for osteoporotic fracture, tibia and fibula fracture, distal forearm fracture, and upper arm fracture. When adjusted for BMD, high BMI remained a risk factor for upper arm fracture but was also a risk factor for all osteoporotic fractures. The association between BMI and fracture risk is complex, differs across skeletal sites, and is modified by the interaction between BMI and BMD. At a population level, high BMI remains a protective factor for most sites of fragility fracture. The contribution of increasing population rates of obesity to apparent decreases in fracture rates should be explored.