Effects of Romosozumab Compared With Teriparatide on Bone Density and Mass at the Spine and Hip in Postmenopausal Women With Low Bone Mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, has a dual effect on bone by increasing bone formation and reducing bone resorption, and thus has favorable effects in both aspects of bone volume regulation. In a phase 2 study, romosozumab increased areal BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip as measured by DXA compared with placebo, alendronate, and teriparatide in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. In additional analyses from this international, randomized study, we now describe the effect of romosozumab on lumbar spine and hip volumetric BMD (vBMD) and BMC at month 12 as assessed by QCT in the subset of participants receiving placebo, s.c. teriparatide (20 µg once daily), and s.c. romosozumab (210 mg once monthly). QCT measurements were performed at the lumbar spine (mean of L1 and L2 entire vertebral bodies, excluding posterior processes) and hip. One year of treatment with romosozumab significantly increased integral vBMD and BMC at the lumbar spine and total hip from baseline, and compared with placebo and teriparatide (all p < 0.05). Trabecular vertebral vBMD improved significantly and similarly from baseline (p < 0.05) with both romosozumab (18.3%) and teriparatide (20.1%), whereas cortical vertebral vBMD gains were larger with romosozumab compared with teriparatide (13.7% versus 5.7%, p < 0.0001). Trabecular hip vBMD gains were significantly larger with romosozumab than with teriparatide (10.8% versus 4.2%, p = 0.01), but were similar for cortical vBMD (1.1% versus –0.9%, p = 0.12). Cortical BMC gains were larger with romosozumab compared with teriparatide at both the spine (23.3% versus 10.9%, p < 0.0001) and hip (3.4% versus 0.0%, p = 0.03). These improvements are expected to result in strength gains and support the continued clinical investigation of romosozumab as a potential therapy to rapidly reduce fracture risk in ongoing phase 3 studies. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".