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.
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.
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.