Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39320414›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2024

Comparative effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of romosozumab versus teriparatide in patients with osteoporosis: a population-based cohort study.

Soichiro Masuda, Toshiki Fukasawa, Shuichi Matsuda, Satomi Yoshida, Koji Kawakami

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. PTH1 receptor agonists for fracture risk: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Cardiovascular safety of osteoanabolic agents.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
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

5 authors.

Soichiro MasudaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Toshiki FukasawaDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine and Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Shuichi MatsudaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Satomi YoshidaDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine and Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Koji KawakamiDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine and Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. kawakami.koji.4e@kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7477-4071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of romosozumab and teriparatide. The main finding was that there were no significant differences between the two drugs in fracture prevention and risk of major adverse cardiac events. This suggests that romosozumab and teriparatide are comparable options for treating osteoporosis. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the preventive effects of romosozumab versus teriparatide on fractures and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients initiating these drugs.

methodsWe conducted an active comparator, a new user cohort design, with confounding controlled by inverse probability of treatment weighting using a Japanese administrative claims database (March 2019 to October 2022). This cohort study included 49,104 patients aged 50 years or older who initiated romosozumab (n = 16,125) or teriparatide (n = 32,979) for osteoporosis. The study exposure was the initiation of romosozumab or teriparatide. Effectiveness outcomes were nonvertebral fracture and hip fracture. The safety outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Follow-up period was 365 days.

resultsThe weighted incidence rate difference (IRD) for nonvertebral fracture between romosozumab versus teriparatide was -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.34 to 0.17) events per 100 person-years (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.12]); weighted IRD for hip fracture was 0.00 (95% CI, -0.16 to 0.16) events per 100 person-years (weighted HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29]); and weighted IRD for MACE was -0.06 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.09) events per 100 person-years (weighted HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.19]).

conclusionIn patients with osteoporosis, there was no significant difference in the prevention of nonvertebral fracture and hip fracture between romosozumab and teriparatide. In addition, the risk of MACE was comparable between the two drugs.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesOsteoporosisOsteoporotic FracturesTeriparatideAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, MonoclonalCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHip FracturesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedAntibodies, MonoclonalBone Density Conservation AgentsromosozumabTeriparatideCardiovascularFractureOsteoporosisRomosozumabTeriparatide

Identifiers

PMID39320414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.