Safety of bazedoxifene in a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase 3 study of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report the safety findings from a 3-year phase 3 study (NCT00205777) of bazedoxifene, a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator under development for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: Healthy postmenopausal osteoporotic women (N = 7,492; mean age, 66.4 years) were randomized to daily doses of bazedoxifene 20 or 40 mg, raloxifene 60 mg, or placebo for 3 years. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting and routine physical, gynecologic, and breast examination. RESULTS: Overall, the incidence of AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs in the bazedoxifene groups was not different from that seen in the placebo group. The incidence of hot flushes and leg cramps was higher with bazedoxifene or raloxifene compared with placebo. The rates of cardiac disorders and cerebrovascular events were low and evenly distributed among groups. Venous thromboembolic events, primarily deep vein thromboses, were more frequently reported in the active treatment groups compared with the placebo group; rates were similar with bazedoxifene and raloxifene. Bazedoxifene showed a neutral effect on the breast and an excellent endometrial safety profile. The incidence of fibrocystic breast disease was lower with bazedoxifene 20 and 40 mg versus raloxifene or placebo. Reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein levels and increases in high-density lipoprotein levels were seen with bazedoxifene versus placebo; similar results were seen with raloxifene. Triglyceride levels were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: Bazedoxifene showed a favorable safety and tolerability profile in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00205777; Trial registration date: September 16, 2005.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".