Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35165774›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2022

Romosozumab and antiresorptive treatment: the importance of treatment sequence.

Felicia Cosman, David L Kendler, Bente L Langdahl, Benjamin Z Leder, E Michael Lewiecki, Akimitsu Miyauchi, Maria Rojeski, Michele McDermott, Mary K Oates, Cassandra E Milmont and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Romosozumab followed by denosumab versus denosumab only: a post hoc analysis of FRAME and FRAME extension.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Efficacy of sequential romosozumab-denosumab therapy in patients on hemodialysis: association with bone mineral density improvement and TRACP-5b rebound.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  10. Effects of romosozumab on the peripheral and axial skeleton in postmenopausal women at high fracture risk: real-world evidence from DXA and HR-pQCT data.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Mechanisms underlying the waning of osteoanabolic therapy effects in osteoporosis.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Efficacy of combination and sequential therapy with romosozumab.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  18. Romosozumab super-responders in clinical practice: insights from a large Italian multicenter cohort of women with severe postmenopausal osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Felicia CosmanCollege of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 W 168th St, New York, NY, 10032, USA. fc14@cumc.columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4554-6616
David L KendlerUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bente L LangdahlAarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Benjamin Z LederMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
E Michael LewieckiNew Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Akimitsu MiyauchiMiyauchi Medical Center, Osaka, Japan.
Maria RojeskiAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Michele McDermottAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Mary K OatesAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Cassandra E MilmontAmgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Cesar LibanatiUCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium.
Serge FerrariGeneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, this analysis reviewed studies where romosozumab was administered before or following an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab). Initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive resulted in larger increases in bone mineral density of both hip and spine compared with the reverse sequence.

introductionTeriparatide followed by an antiresorptive increases bone mineral density (BMD) more than using an antiresorptive first. To evaluate whether treatment sequence affects romosozumab response, we reviewed randomized clinical trials where romosozumab was administered before (ARCH, FRAME) or following (STRUCTURE, Phase 2 extension) an antiresorptive (alendronate or denosumab, respectively).

methodsWe evaluated BMD percentage change for total hip (TH) and lumbar spine (LS) and response rates (BMD gains ≥ 3% and ≥ 6%) at years 1 and 2 (except STRUCTURE with only 1-year data available).

resultsWith 1-year romosozumab initial therapy in ARCH and FRAME, TH BMD increased 6.2% and 6.0%, and LS BMD increased 13.7% and 13.1%, respectively. When romosozumab was administered for 1 year after alendronate (STRUCTURE) or denosumab (Phase 2 extension), TH BMD increased 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, and LS BMD increased 9.8% and 5.3%, respectively. Over 2 years, TH and LS BMD increased 7.1% and 15.2% with romosozumab/alendronate, 8.5% and 16.6% with romosozumab/denosumab, and 3.8% and 11.5% with denosumab/romosozumab, respectively. A greater proportion of patients achieved BMD gains ≥ 6% when romosozumab was used first, particularly for TH, versus the reverse sequence (69% after romosozumab/denosumab; 15% after denosumab/romosozumab).

conclusionIn this study, larger mean BMD increases and greater BMD responder rates were achieved when romosozumab was used before, versus after, an antiresorptive agent. Since BMD on treatment is a strong surrogate for bone strength and fracture risk, this analysis supports the thesis that initial treatment with romosozumab followed by an antiresorptive will result in greater efficacy versus the reverse sequence.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalAlendronateAntibodies, MonoclonalBone DensityDenosumabFemaleHumansTeriparatideAlendronateAntibodies, MonoclonalBone Density Conservation AgentsDenosumabromosozumabTeriparatideAnabolicAntiresorptiveRomosozumabTeriparatideTreatment sequence

Identifiers

PMID35165774
PMCPMC9106644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.