ArticleRheumatology international2018
Variability of Denosumab densitometric response in postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for nonresponse to 2 years of denosumab administration in patients with osteoporosis: A retrospective single-center cohorts study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Denosumab mid-term densitometric gain in postmenopausal osteoporosis women in clinical practice: comment on "Variability of denosumab densitometric response in postmenopausal osteoporosis".Rheumatology international · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of our prospective study is to specify the variability of densitometric response to Denosumab, given in the second line, and to try to understand the reasons. All menopausal patients with primary osteoporosis, treated by Denosumab in our centre from 2014 to 2015, were included in this open prospective work. At T0, the patient's age, type of fracture, and previous treatments were collated. At T0 and T1, after 1 year of treatment by Dmab, a DXA of the spine and the hip and a determination of CTX were performed. Sixty-three patients aged 68.8 ± 8.3 years were included. The median number of treatments prescribed for osteoporosis before switch to Denosumab was 2.4. The median duration of these treatments was 7.2 years. At T1, CTX was less than 33 pg/ml (minimum threshold for our assay kit) in all patients. The median BMD in the spine increased by + 5.44% compared to T0. 14 patients in the upper quartile had a median BMD gain in the spine of + 11.07%. Fourteen patients in the lower quartile had a median BMD gain in the spine of + 0.6%. Only the duration of previous treatments, which was greater in the non-responder group, differed between these two groups. In the total cohort, the spinal densitometric gain was negatively correlated with the age of the patient at baseline (p = 0.04), the duration of previous treatment (p = 0.02), and positively with the CTX level (p = 0.05). The Dmab densitometric response is highly variable, partly explained by the duration of previous treatments and the level of bone resorption at initiation of treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29362876What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.