ArticleJournal of bone and mineral metabolism2026
Real-world persistence and compliance of denosumab versus alendronate among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in Asia-Pacific.
Article in Journal of bone and mineral metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on real-world persistence and interpretation of BMD outcomes in denosumab vs. alendronate therapy.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2026Article
- Editorial comment.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo compare 12-month real-world treatment persistence and compliance in postmenopausal women prescribed denosumab or alendronate for osteoporosis in Asia-Pacific. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled women aged ≥ 50 years from Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore between 2019-2021. Study participants were prescribed bi-annual denosumab injection or weekly alendronate, based on physicians' decision. Medication persistence and compliance were estimated over 12 months of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if treatment type (denosumab or alendronate) was significantly associated with persistence and compliance, while adjusting for age, fracture history, baseline BMD, prior osteoporosis treatment, and prior treatment with oral glucocorticoids. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
resultsAmong 686 enrolled women, 580 completed their 12-month visit (301 in denosumab and 279 in alendronate group). At baseline, those in the denosumab group were older and more likely to have received prior osteoporosis treatment. Overall treatment persistence and compliance were 72.4% and 70.7%, respectively. Patients receiving denosumab exhibited higher persistence (82.7% vs. 61.3%, P < 0.001) and compliance (86.0% vs. 54.1%, P < 0.001), versus those on alendronate. Regression results also showed that patients on denosumab were more likely to be persistent (aOR = 3.08; 95% CI 2.04-4.63) and compliant (aOR = 5.32; 95% CI 3.45-8.21) with treatment. Gastrointestinal disorders were more frequently reported in the alendronate group, while bone and joint injuries were more common in the denosumab group.
conclusionPostmenopausal women with osteoporosis were more likely to be persistent and compliant with denosumab, compared with weekly oral alendronate.
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.