MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021039694 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.050

MON-378 Efficacy and Safety of Romosozumab vs Alendronate Is Similar Across Different Levels of Renal Function Among Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis

2020· article· en· W3021039694 on OpenAlexaff
Paul D. Miller, Angela M. Cheung, Ian R. Reid, Maria Rojeski, Mark Vanderkelen, Wenjing Yang, Norma Ruiz Santiago, Mary Oates

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionUrologyIncidence (geometry)Femoral neckOsteoporosisBone mineralPostmenopausal womenInternal medicineCreatininePost-hoc analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may also have renal insufficiency. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the ARCH study to determine the efficacy and safety of romosozumab (Romo) vs alendronate (ALN) among patients with different levels of baseline renal function. In ARCH, 4,093 postmenopausal women, 55–90 years old, were randomized 1:1 to receive monthly subcutaneous Romo 210 mg or weekly oral ALN 70 mg for 12 months (double-blind phase [DBP]). Eligible patients had a bone mineral density (BMD) T score of ≤ –2.5 at the total hip (TH) or femoral neck (FN) and either ≥ 1 moderate/severe vertebral fracture (VFx) or ≥ 2 mild VFx; or a T score of ≤ –2.0 at the TH or FN and either ≥ 2 moderate/severe VFx or an Fx of the proximal femur sustained 3–24 months before randomization. Pts were excluded for significantly impaired renal function (eGFR < 35 mL/min/1.73 m2, calculated using the MDRD equation). For the current analysis, patients were categorized by baseline eGFR: normal renal function (eGFR ≥ 90), mild renal insufficiency (eGFR 60–89), or moderate renal insufficiency (eGFR 30–59). The least squares mean (LSM) % change from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine (LS), TH, and FN; incidence of new VFx; incidence of adverse events (AEs); and changes in renal function were assessed for each eGFR category at month 12 of the DBP. At baseline, 15% of patients had eGFR ≥ 90, 60% had eGFR 60–89, 24% had eGFR 30–59, and 0.3% had eGFR 15–29. In the overall patient population, LSM % change (95% CI) from baseline in BMD (Romo vs ALN) was 13.7% (13.4–14.0) vs 5.0% (4.7–5.2) for LS, 6.2% (5.9–6.4) vs 2.8% (2.7–3.0) for TH, and 4.9% (4.7–5.2) vs 1.7% (1.5–2.0) for FN (P < 0.001 at each site). Changes in BMD were similar irrespective of baseline eGFR. Among patients with eGFR ≥ 90, eGFR 60–89, and eGFR 30–59, the incidence of new VFx (Romo/ALN) was 3.3%/7.3% (relative risk reduction [RRR] = 57%; 95% CI: 1–81), 3.2%/3.9% (RRR = 19%; 95% CI: -28–49), and 3.4%/6.2% (RRR = 51%; 95% CI: 5–75), respectively. The incidences of AEs, serious AEs, and fatal AEs were similar in both treatment groups within each eGFR category as well as across eGFR categories; there was a higher incidence of positively adjudicated cardiovascular events in the Romo vs ALN group overall and across eGFR categories. One patient in the Romo group with eGFR 60–89 at baseline and 1 in the ALN group with eGFR ≥ 90 at baseline had an AE of mild hypocalcemia. Similar percentages of patients in the Romo and ALN groups had changes in renal function over 12 months of treatment. In conclusion, the efficacy and safety of Romo vs ALN was similar across different levels of renal function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207