Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35154013›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2021

The Efficacy of Alendronate Versus Denosumab on Major Osteoporotic Fracture Risk in Elderly Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Danish Retrospective Cohort Study.

Rikke Viggers, Zheer Al-Mashhadi, Jakob Starup-Linde, Peter Vestergaard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparative effectiveness of denosumab vs alendronate among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Article
  5. Potential Targeting Mechanisms for Bone-Directed Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rikke ViggersSteno Diabetes Center North Jutland, Department of Endocrinology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Zheer Al-MashhadiSteno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Jakob Starup-LindeSteno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter VestergaardSteno Diabetes Center North Jutland, Department of Endocrinology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DKAarhus University · DKSteno Diabetes Center · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of fractures; however, the underlying mechanism is largely unknown. We aimed to investigate whether the risk of major osteoporotic fractures in diabetes patients differs between subjects initiated with alendronate and denosumab, respectively. Methods and Research Design: We conducted a retrospective nationwide cohort study through access to all discharge diagnoses (ICD-10 system) from the National Danish Patient Registry along with all redeemed drug prescriptions (ATC classification system) from the Health Service Prescription Registry. We identified all subjects with a diabetes diagnosis between 2000 and 2018 and collected data on the first new prescription of anti-osteoporotic treatment between 2011 and 2018. Exposure was defined as either alendronate or denosumab treatment initiated after diabetes diagnosis. Outcome information was collected by identification of all major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) diagnoses, i.e., hip, spine, forearm, and humerus, from exposure until 2018 or censoring by emigration or death. The risk of fracture was calculated as hazard ratios (HR) using multiply adjusted Cox proportional models with death as a competing risk. Results: We included 8,745 subjects initiated with either alendronate (n = 8,255) or denosumab (n = 490). The cohort consisted of subjects with a mean age of 73.62 (SD ± 9.27) years, primarily females (69%) and suffering mainly from type 2 diabetes (98.22%) with a median diabetes duration at baseline of 5.45 years (IQR 2.41-9.19). Those in the denosumab group were older (mean 75.60 [SD ± 9.72] versus 73.51 [SD ± 9.23] years), had a higher proportion of women (81% versus 68%, RR 1.18 [95% CI 1.13-1.24], and were more comorbid (mean CCI 2.68 [95% CI 2.47-2.88] versus 1.98 [95% CI 1.93-2.02]) compared to alendronate initiators. In addition, denosumab users had a higher prevalence of previous fractures (64% versus 46%, RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.28-1.48]). The adjusted HR for any MOF after treatment initiation with denosumab was 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.02) compared to initiation with alendronate. Conclusion: The risk of incident MOF among subjects with diabetes was similar between those initially treated with alendronate and denosumab. These findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equally effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures in subjects with diabetes.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Osteoporotic FracturesAgedAlendronateCohort StudiesDenmarkDenosumabFemaleHumansRetrospective StudiesAlendronateBone Density Conservation AgentsDenosumabalendronatebonedenosumabdiabetesfractureosteoporosis

Identifiers

PMID35154013
PMCPMC8825412
OpenAlexW4210354320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.