ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Cardiovascular Risk of Romosozumab vs. Teriparatide: A Cohort Study Using Japan's National Claims Database.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone aging: a paradigm of multiscale degeneration and targeted rejuvenation.Bone research · 2026Review
- Romosozumab in older adults: real-world patterns in fracture liaison service cohort.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Observational
- Response to the letter to the editor regarding "treatment with romosozumab in patients with osteoporosis on maintenance hemodialysis".Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular safety of romosozumab versus denosumab for osteoporosis treatment: a multinational real-world data analysis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disproportionality analyses suggested a cardiovascular risk signal for romosozumab, while statistically significant associations were not found in the real-world database studies. Therefore, a larger comparative study was necessary to examine this signal. This study aimed to compare the cardiovascular risks of romosozumab with those of teriparatide in the overall population and in groups with a history of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A new user cohort study was conducted using Japan's national claims database. Patients aged ≥ 40 years who initiated romosozumab or teriparatide between March 2019 and March 2023 were analyzed. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for MACE. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on MACE history. A total of 251,219 romosozumab and 500,445 teriparatide users were analyzed (most common age group was 80-89 years for both drugs; men: 9.33% for romosozumab and 14.14% for teriparatide). MACE occurred in 1853 romosozumab and 3427 teriparatide users, with incidence rates of 1.09 and 1.22 per 100 person-years, respectively. The aHR (95% confidence interval [CI]) for romosozumab compared with teriparatide was 1.00 (0.94-1.06). In subgroup analyses based on MACE history, the aHRs (95% CI) for no history, for the one-year period leading up to t
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.