Effect of Burosumab Compared With Conventional Therapy on Younger vs Older Children With X-linked Hypophosphatemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Younger age at treatment onset with conventional therapy (phosphate salts and active vitamin D; Pi/D) is associated with improved growth and skeletal outcomes in children with X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH). The effect of age on burosumab efficacy and safety in XLH is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of burosumab vs Pi/D in younger (< 5 years) and older (5-12 years) children with XLH. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a 64-week, open-label, randomized controlled study took place at 16 academic centers. Sixty-one children aged 1 to 12 years with XLH (younger, n = 26; older, n = 35) participated. Children received burosumab starting at 0.8 mg/kg every 2 weeks (younger, n = 14; older, n = 15) or continued Pi/D individually titrated per recommended guidelines (younger, n = 12; older, n = 20). The main outcome measure included the least squares means difference (LSMD) in Radiographic Global Impression of Change (RGI-C) rickets total score from baseline to week 64. RESULTS: The LSMD in outcomes through 64 weeks on burosumab vs conventional therapy by age group were as follows: RGI-C rickets total score (younger, +0.90; older, +1.07), total Rickets Severity Score (younger, -0.86; older, -1.44), RGI-C lower limb deformity score (younger, +1.02; older, +0.91), recumbent length or standing height Z-score (younger, +0.20; older, +0.09), and serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (younger, -31.15% of upper normal limit [ULN]; older, -52.11% of ULN). On burosumab, dental abscesses were not reported in younger children but were in 53% of older children. CONCLUSION: Burosumab appears to improve outcomes both in younger and older children with XLH, including rickets, lower limb deformities, growth, and ALP, compared with Pi/D.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".