ReviewJournal of orthopaedic translation2024
Treatment effects, adverse outcomes and cardiovascular safety of romosozumab - Existing worldwide data: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preventing Hip (Proximal Femoral) Fractures: An Evidence-Based Review for Clinicians.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Osteoporosis on Romosozumab Treatment Compared with Denosumab: A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Observational
- Very short-term monitoring of Romosozumab longitudinal effects in a cohort of postmenopausal women by means of Radiofrequency Echographic Multi-Spectrometry (REMS) technology.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Managing Bone Fragility in Older Adults with Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Assessment, and Therapeutic Considerations.Drugs & aging · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular Risk of Romosozumab vs. Teriparatide: A Cohort Study Using Japan's National Claims Database.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular safety of romosozumab versus denosumab for osteoporosis treatment: a multinational real-world data analysis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Therapeutic Sclerostin Inhibition Compared With Alternative Anabolic Therapies: A Real-World Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Evaluation of testosterone and alendronate coated membranes in osteoporotic fracture and defect model in rats and goats.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- Osteoporosis therapies and coronary risk: insights from vascular calcification biology and sclerostin signaling.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- When Skin Reactions Interrupt Bone Therapy: Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reaction to Romosozumab Leading to Treatment Discontinuation.European journal of case reports in internal medicine · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of the current state and future directions of osteoporosis pharmacological treatment.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Sclerostin and Cardiovascular Risk: Evaluating the Cardiovascular Safety of Romosozumab in Osteoporosis Treatment.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Addressing musculoskeletal disorders through new treatment strategies.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Romosozumab is a novel monoclonal antibody that binds to sclerostin, and has dual effects of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption, giving it a unique mechanism of action. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis based on existing worldwide data on treatment effects and safety of romosozumab in randomized controlled trials. Methods: A systematic search was carried out on four databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The keywords used for search was "(romosozumab) AND (osteoporosis OR safety)". Randomized controlled trial or post-hoc studies of the included randomized controlled trial which studied the effects and safety of romosozumab were included. The quality of selected studies was assessed with the Cochrane collaboration tool and the PEDro scale. Results: 20 studies were included for qualitative analysis. 14 studies were included for meta-analysis. In total, there were 13,507 (n = 13,507) participants with 637 men and 12,870 women from original cohorts. The overall mean difference was in favor of romosozumab treatment for lumbar spine (10.04 (95 % confidence interval (CI) = 7.51-12.57; p < 0.00001)), total hip (4.04 (95 % CI = 3.10-4.99; p < 0.00001)) and femoral neck bone mineral density (3.77 (95 % CI = 2.90-4.64; p < 0.00001)) at 12 months. There was significantly less likelihood of new vertebral fractures with romosozumab compared to control (odds ratio (OR) 0.42 (95 % CI = 0.20-0.89); p = 0.02) at 12 months of treatment. There was significantly less likelihood of new vertebral fracture at 24 months with 12 months of romosozumab followed by sequential treatment with anti-resorptive compared to control with only anti-resorptive agent use (OR 0.36 (95 % CI = 0.18-0.71); p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events and fatal adverse events with use of romosozumab compared with control in our meta-analyses. There were no significant differences in serious cardiovascular events in Asian population of romosozumab with control group with 12 months of romosozumab treatment followed by 24 months of anti-resorptive agent with OR 1.09 (95 % CI = 0.40-2.96; P = 0.86). There was no significant difference between romosozumab group and control group for the median time to radiographic healing. Our qualitative analysis on Quantitative Computed Tomography (QCT), Finite element analysis (FEA) and bone biopsy analyses demonstrated that romosozumab improved parameters and measures in these domains as well. Conclusion: In conclusion, our study showed that romosozumab was an effective agent to treat osteoporosis with high quality evidence. There were no significant differences in the adverse events, serious adverse events, fatal adverse events identified. Further subgroup analysis of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in the total population showed no differences either. The translational potential of this article: Given the results, romosozumab is an effective agent to treat patients with very-high risk of osteoporotic fractures.
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.