Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials
Pooled result · Withdrawal due to AEsResult — go to the resultRelative risk 0.49 95% CI 0.34–0.71Authors' conclusion
We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with primary osteoporosis in peer-reviewed RCTs published in English (PubMed, Google Scholar, as of December 2023); follow-up 12–24 months
- Participants
- 5,545 patients11 RCTs
- Comparison
- Denosumab vs bisphosphonates
- Outcome
- Comparative safety: RR of various adverse events (AEs), denosumab vs bisphosphonates
Methodological detailsfixed- or random-effects model, All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation)
- Fixed- or random-effects model
- All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation)
Pooled result
Withdrawal due to AEs
Relative risk
0.49
95% CI 0.34–0.71
Denosumabvs Bisphosphonates
RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.34–0.71)
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Vertebral fractures | 0.54 (0.31–0.93) | |
| 0.20.5125Relative risk (log scale) |
Safety
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Five-point MACE | 2.05 (1.03–4.09) | |
| Cardiovascular AEs | 1.61 (1.07–2.41) | |
| Infections | 1.14 (1.02–1.27) | |
| Upper respiratory tract infections | 1.56 (1.08–2.25) | |
| Abdominal pain | 0.44 (0.22–0.87) | |
| 0.20.5125Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int. Published 11 May 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →