MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029934388 · doi:10.1007/s00198-020-05463-4

Efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate on FRAX®-defined major osteoporotic fractures: results of the VERO clinical trial

2020· article· en· W3029934388 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Jacques Body, Fernando Marín, David L. Kendler, Cristiano A. F. Zerbini, Pedro López‐Romero, R Möricke, E. Casado, Astrid Fahrleitner‐Pammer, J Štěpán, Éric Lespessailles, Salvatore Minisola, Piet Geusens

Bibliographic record

VenueOsteoporosis International · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineFRAXTeriparatideOsteoporosisInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Cumulative incidenceHazard ratioClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialSurgeryBone mineralConfidence intervalOsteoporotic fractureCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FRAX ® calculates the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which are considered to have a greater clinical impact than other fractures. Our results suggest that, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, those treated with teriparatide had a 60% lower risk of FRAX ® -defined MOF compared with those treated with risedronate. The VERO trial was an active-controlled fracture endpoint clinical trial that enrolled postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis. After 24 months, a 52% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) of clinical fractures was reported in patients randomized to teriparatide compared with risedronate. We examined fracture results restricted to FRAX ® -defined major osteoporotic fractures (MOF), which include clinical vertebral, hip, humerus, and forearm fractures. In total, 1360 postmenopausal women (mean age 72.1 years) were randomized to receive subcutaneous daily teriparatide (20 μg) or oral weekly risedronate (35 mg). Patient cumulative incidence of ≥ 1 FRAX ® -defined MOF and of all clinical fractures were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses, and the comparison between treatments was based on the stratified log-rank test. Additionally, an extended Cox model was used to estimate HRs at different time points. Incidence fracture rates were estimated at each 6-month interval. After 24 months, 16 (2.6%) patients in the teriparatide group had ≥ 1 low trauma FRAX ® -defined MOF compared with 40 patients (6.4%) in the risedronate group (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23–0.68; p = 0.001). Clinical vertebral and radius fractures were the most frequent FRAX ® -defined MOF sites. The largest difference in incidence rates of both FRAX ® -defined MOF and all clinical fractures between treatments occurred during the 6- to 12-month period. There was a statistically significant reduction in fractures between groups as early as 7 months for both categories of clinical fractures analyzed. In postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, treatment with teriparatide was more efficacious than risedronate, with a 60% lower risk of FRAX ® -defined MOF during the 24-month treatment period. Fracture risk was statistically significantly reduced at 7 months of treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsteoporosis InternationalSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207