Cardiovascular Safety of Romosozumab Compared to Commonly Used Anti-osteoporosis Medications in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1007/s40264-024-01475-9
Shih-Hao Cheng, William Chu, Wen-Hsiang Chou, Woei-Chyn Chu, Yi-No Kang
{"title":"Cardiovascular Safety of Romosozumab Compared to Commonly Used Anti-osteoporosis Medications in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Shih-Hao Cheng, William Chu, Wen-Hsiang Chou, Woei-Chyn Chu, Yi-No Kang","doi":"10.1007/s40264-024-01475-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the cardiovascular safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting sclerostin, has been shown to increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures. However, in previous studies, romosozumab therapy was identified as a potential risk factor for cardiovascular events, particularly in patients with predisposing cardiovascular disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of romosozumab versus alendronate, teriparatide, denosumab, or placebo in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Contrast-based network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled estimates are presented as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5282 articles retrieved, 25 RCTs were included in this review (n = 24,942), and 18 randomized controlled trials (n = 16,777) were included in the network meta-analysis. The results indicated no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality rate between romosozumab and placebo. Regarding the risk of major cardiovascular events, no significant differences were found in the direct evidence or the network meta-analysis with placebo as the reference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Romosozumab might be a safe option for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cardiovascular concerns associated with this treatment seem less significant than previously suggested, although additional real-world data are required to confirm this conclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-024-01475-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the cardiovascular safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting sclerostin, has been shown to increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures. However, in previous studies, romosozumab therapy was identified as a potential risk factor for cardiovascular events, particularly in patients with predisposing cardiovascular disease.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of romosozumab versus alendronate, teriparatide, denosumab, or placebo in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Contrast-based network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled estimates are presented as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Of the 5282 articles retrieved, 25 RCTs were included in this review (n = 24,942), and 18 randomized controlled trials (n = 16,777) were included in the network meta-analysis. The results indicated no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality rate between romosozumab and placebo. Regarding the risk of major cardiovascular events, no significant differences were found in the direct evidence or the network meta-analysis with placebo as the reference.

Conclusion: Romosozumab might be a safe option for treating postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cardiovascular concerns associated with this treatment seem less significant than previously suggested, although additional real-world data are required to confirm this conclusion.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
绝经后骨质疏松症患者使用 Romosozumab 与常用抗骨质疏松症药物相比的心血管安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和网络 Meta 分析》。
简介本研究旨在调查罗莫司单抗对绝经后骨质疏松症妇女心血管的安全性。罗莫索单抗是一种靶向硬骨素的单克隆抗体,已被证明可增加骨矿密度并降低骨质疏松性骨折的风险。然而,在之前的研究中,罗莫索单抗疗法被认为是心血管事件的潜在风险因素,尤其是在易患心血管疾病的患者中:在Cochrane图书馆、Embase、PubMed和Web of Science数据库中进行了系统性文献检索,以确定在绝经后骨质疏松症女性患者中比较romosozumab与阿仑膦酸钠、特立帕肽、地诺单抗或安慰剂的安全性和有效性的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用随机效应模型进行了基于对比的网络荟萃分析。汇总的估计值以风险比和95%置信区间表示:在检索到的 5282 篇文章中,有 25 项随机对照试验(n = 24942)被纳入本综述,18 项随机对照试验(n = 16777)被纳入网络荟萃分析。结果表明,罗莫单抗与安慰剂在心血管死亡率方面无明显差异。关于主要心血管事件的风险,直接证据和以安慰剂为参照物的网络荟萃分析均未发现明显差异:结论:罗莫单抗可能是治疗绝经后妇女骨质疏松症的一种安全选择。结论:罗莫司单抗可能是治疗绝经后妇女骨质疏松症的安全选择,与这种治疗方法相关的心血管问题似乎没有以前认为的那么严重,尽管还需要更多的真实世界数据来证实这一结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Safety
Drug Safety 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues. Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes. In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics. Editorials and commentaries on topical issues. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
期刊最新文献
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Long-Term Safety Analysis of the BBV152 Coronavirus Vaccine in Adolescents and Adults: Findings from a 1-Year Prospective Study in North India. A Calculated Risk: Evaluation of QTc Drug-Drug Interaction (DDI) Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Alerts and Performance of the Tisdale Risk Score Calculator. Description and Validation of a Novel AI Tool, LabelComp, for the Identification of Adverse Event Changes in FDA Labeling. Examining the Effect of Missing Data and Unmeasured Confounding on External Comparator Studies: Case Studies and Simulations. Unveiling the Burden of Drug-Induced Impulsivity: A Network Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1