ArticleBone reports2026
Comparison of KN012, a denosumab biosimilar, versus reference denosumab in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: efficacy, safety, and population pharmacokinetics in a 12-month phase III study.
Article in Bone reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, bone turnover markers, population pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles of KN012 compared to US reference denosumab (US-denosumab) in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic patients. Methods: This 12-month, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled Phase III study enrolled 279 participants who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 60 mg of KN012 or US-denosumab subcutaneously at months 0 and 6. The primary endpoint was the mean percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline at Month 12. Efficacy equivalence was concluded if the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for least squares (LS) mean group differences fell within ±1.75%. The Secondary endpoints included percent changes in BMD at the hip, femoral neck, and trochanter. Safety, bone turnover markers, population pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity were assessed throughout the study period. Results: The primary efficacy analysis indicated that the LS mean difference between the KN012 group and the US-denosumab group was 0.22% (95% CI, -0.78, 1.23) in the full analysis set (FAS) and 0.11% (95% CI,-0.92, 1.14) in the per-protocol set (PPS). Both confidence intervals fell entirely within the predefined equivalence margin (±1.75%), confirming clinical equivalence between KN012 and US-denosumab. Secondary efficacy endpoints, safety, bone turnover markers, population pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity results were comparable between the two groups up to Month 12. Conclusions: KN012 demonstrates comparable efficacy, safety, bone turnover markers, population pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity to US-denosumab in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture.
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.