ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021
Retrospective Analysis of the Effects of Non-Compliance with Denosumab on Changes in Bone Mineral Density During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence of denosumab treatment for low bone mineral density in Japanese people living with HIV: a retrospective observational study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2023Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Adherence to Denosumab Therapy: A Single Center Study.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Drug adherence and treatment duration for denosumab and mortality risk among hip fracture patients.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough denosumab is a safe and effective treatment for osteoporosis in various clinical trials, few studies have investigated its efficacy in specific clinical situations. The effect of non-compliance with the standard six-month dosing regimen for denosumab on bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed in a retrospective study of patients prescribed denosumab during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween February 2019 and September 2020, 638 patient records were reviewed, with 236 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. Patients were divided into three groups: those who received denosumab injections between five and seven months after their initial subcutaneous injection, those who received denosumab injections between seven and nine months after their initial subcutaneous injection, and those who received denosumab injections more than nine months after their initial subcutaneous injection. A multivariate regression study was conducted to compare the BMD shift (at least one year apart) before and after two denosumab injections between the three pre-specified groups in both the lumbar spine (LS) and the femoral neck (FN).
resultsThe difference between LS BMD indicates that there is a statistical difference between subjects who received denosumab injections between 5 and 7 months (near-standard dosing interval) and more than 9 months (
conclusionThe results of this study show that in special clinical situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians may have some flexibility to prescribe denosumab, but the interval between injections should not exceed 9 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.