MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902921438 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.3622

One Year of Romosozumab Followed by Two Years of Denosumab Maintains Fracture Risk Reductions: Results of the FRAME Extension Study

2018· article· en· W2902921438 on OpenAlexaff
E. Michael Lewiecki, Rajani Dinavahi, Marise Lazaretti-Castro, Peter R. Ebeling, Jonathan D. Adachi, Akimitsu Miyauchi, Evelien Gielen, Cassandra E. Milmont, Cesar Libanati, Andreas Grauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUCB PharmaAstellas PharmaAmgen
KeywordsDenosumabExtension (predicate logic)Frame (networking)MedicineFracture (geology)Internal medicineComputer scienceOsteoporosisMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Romosozumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, has the dual effect of increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. As previously reported in the pivotal FRActure study in postmenopausal woMen with ostEoporosis (FRAME), women with a T-score of ≤ -2.5 at the total hip or femoral neck received subcutaneous placebo or romosozumab once monthly for 12 months, followed by open-label subcutaneous denosumab every 6 months for an additional 12 months. Upon completion of the 24-month primary analysis period, eligible women entered the extension phase and received denosumab for an additional 12 months. Here, we report the final analysis results through 36 months, including efficacy assessments of new vertebral, clinical, and nonvertebral fracture; bone mineral density (BMD); and safety assessments. Of 7180 women enrolled, 5743 (80%) completed the 36-month study (2851 romosozumab-to-denosumab; 2892 placebo-to-denosumab). Through 36 months, fracture risk was reduced in subjects receiving romosozumab versus placebo for 12 months followed by 24 months of denosumab for both groups: new vertebral fracture (relative risk reduction [RRR], 66%; incidence, 1.0% versus 2.8%; p < 0.001), clinical fracture (RRR, 27%; incidence, 4.0% versus 5.5%; p = 0.004), and nonvertebral fracture (RRR, 21%; incidence, 3.9% versus 4.9%; p = 0.039). BMD continued to increase for the 2 years with denosumab treatment in both arms. The substantial difference in BMD achieved through 12 months of romosozumab treatment versus placebo was maintained through the follow-up period when both treatment arms received denosumab. Subject incidence of adverse events, including positively adjudicated serious cardiovascular adverse events, were overall balanced between groups. In conclusion, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, 12 months of romosozumab led to persistent fracture reduction benefit and ongoing BMD gains when followed by 24 months of denosumab. The sequence of romosozumab followed by denosumab may be a promising regimen for the treatment of osteoporosis. © 2018 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations192
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207