Key Takeaways & Executive Findings
- ā¢ā¢ Romosozumab significantly increases lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck bone mineral density at 6 and 12 months compared with placebo, alendronate, and teriparatide. ⢠Compared with denosumab, romosozumab provides superior lumbar spine BMD gains but similar hip and femoral neck BMD changes. ⢠Romosozumab has a lower adverse event rate than alendronate but higher than teriparatide; no significant differences versus placebo or denosumab. ⢠Romosozumab does not significantly increase cardiovascular complication risk, supporting its use in high-fracture-risk patients without cardiovascular contraindications.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Romosozumab is a novel biologic agent currently being used to treat osteoporosis in postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of romosozumab compared with placebo, alendronate sodium, teriparatide, and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis in adults. METHODS: The medical keywords āanti-sclerostin antibody,ā āromosozumab,ā āAMG 78500,ā and āosteoporosisā were used to search PubMed, CNKI, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of romosozumab with alendronate, teriparatide, denosumab, or placebo in adult patients with osteoporosis. Two researchers independently screened studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. The primary outcome was the percentage change from baseline in bone mineral density (BMD) at 6 and 12 months; secondary outcomes were the incidence of adverse events and cardiovascular complications during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 12,570 patients were included. Compared with placebo, alendronate, and teriparatide, romosozumab significantly increased BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 6 and 12 months. Compared with denosumab, romosozumab significantly increased lumbar spine BMD at 6 and 12 months (MD=3.68, 95%CI: 0.34-7.01, P=0.03; MD=5.20, 95%CI: 3.19-7.21, P<0.00001), while no significant differences were found in total hip and femoral neck BMD. In terms of safety, romosozumab had a lower incidence of adverse events compared with alendronate (RR=0.96, 95%CI: 0.93-0.99, P=0.02) but a higher incidence compared with teriparatide (RR=1.13, 95%CI: 1.01-1.25, P=0.03). No significant differences were found versus placebo or denosumab (RR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.96-1.00, P=0.11; RR=2.64, 95%CI: 0.74-9.36, P=0.13). Importantly, romosozumab did not significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular complications compared with other treatments (RR=1.25, 95%CI: 0.94-1.67, P=0.12). CONCLUSION: Romosozumab rapidly improves lumbar spine BMD with an overall manageable safety profile, particularly suitable for adult osteoporosis patients at high fracture risk who require rapid bone mass increase and have no cardiovascular contraindications. This meta-analysis is based on limited data and has certain limitations; more high-quality, longer-duration follow-up studies are needed to confirm the results.
1. Introduction
Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, leading to increased bone fragility and fracture risk. It commonly occurs in the elderly, especially postmenopausal women [1-2]. Treatment strategies primarily aim to either reduce bone resorption or increase bone formation. Most available drugs are antiresorptive, such as bisphosphonates, calcitonin, estrogen and its analogs, and denosumab, while teriparatide, a parathyroid hormone analog, is the main anabolic agent [3]. Unfortunately, no drug has a dual effect on bone, and all have limitations and adverse events.
The core pathology of osteoporosis lies in the uncoupling of bone resorption and formation, with relative insufficiency of bone formation [4]. Sclerostin, secreted by osteocytes, antagonizes Wnt signaling by competitively binding to LRP5/6, thereby reducing osteoblastic activity and contributing to bone loss [5]. Therefore, sclerostin monoclonal antibodies have been developed to neutralize sclerostin, restore Wnt signaling, and promote bone formation [6]. Among these, romosozumab, a humanized anti-sclerostin antibody, has emerged as a promising therapeutic agent due to its dual mechanism of actionāstimulating bone formation and inhibiting bone resorptionāand has been approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis since 2019 [7].
Loading authentic research manuscript (Pages 1ā5)...
Wang Xiaochen, Guo Lin, Wang Changcheng, Xu Tan, Gu Mingxi (2026). Efficacy and safety of romozumab in the treatment of osteoporosis in adults: a meta-analysis. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research. https://doi.org/10.12307/2026.21599
Research & Educational Purpose Only:The translations, structured abstracts, analytical annotations, and data reports provided by SinoBioData are intended exclusively for academic research, internal corporate R&D, and educational benchmarking. They do not constitute formal engineering, chemical safety, legal, or professional advice.
Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice: Original copyright of the underlying source articles and experimental data remains with the respective authors, institutions, and original publishing journals. SinoBioData claims intellectual property only over its proprietary translations, analytical syntheses, and AEO structured enhancements in accordance with international fair use and academic citation principles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is romosozumab and how does it work?
Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against sclerostin. By inhibiting sclerostin, it activates the Wnt signaling pathway, leading to increased bone formation and decreased bone resorption, thereby improving bone density and reducing fracture risk.
How effective is romosozumab compared with other osteoporosis treatments?
In this meta-analysis, romosozumab significantly increased lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck bone mineral density at 6 and 12 months compared with placebo, alendronate, and teriparatide. Compared with denosumab, it showed superior lumbar spine BMD gains but similar hip and femoral neck changes.
What are the safety concerns with romosozumab?
Romosozumab had a lower adverse event rate than alendronate but higher than teriparatide. No significant differences were found versus placebo or denosumab. Importantly, it did not significantly increase cardiovascular complication risk, though longer-term data are needed.
Who is the ideal candidate for romosozumab therapy?
Romosozumab is particularly suitable for adult osteoporosis patients at high fracture risk who require rapid bone mass increase and have no cardiovascular contraindications, such as those with recent fractures or very low bone density.
What are the limitations of this meta-analysis?
The meta-analysis included a limited number of studies with follow-up of 12 months or less, and the primary endpoint was BMD rather than fracture outcomes. More high-quality, long-term studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of romosozumab.
Related Technical Papers & Translations
Adverse Events Reporting System for Vaccine Safety Surveillance: A Comprehensive Analysis
Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are critical to monitor for vaccine safety. This study evaluates the performance of an adverse events reporting system (AERS) integrated with a vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) to enhance surveillance. Methods: We analyzed data from multiple sources including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network. A novel framework was developed to integrate these systems, incorporating natural language processing for signal detection. Results: The integrated system improved detection of rare adverse events by 25% compared to traditional methods. The system identified new safety signals for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: The proposed AERS framework enhances vaccine safety surveillance, enabling timely identification of potential risks. Integration of diverse data sources and advanced analytics is essential for robust pharmacovigilance.
Efficacy and Safety of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Treating Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a global health concern, and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has emerged as a promising treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FCM compared to other iron therapies or placebo in adults with IDA. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FCM with active comparators or placebo in adults with IDA were included. The primary outcomes were change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,856 patients were included. FCM significantly increased Hb levels compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.9-1.5) and was non-inferior to other intravenous iron preparations. The risk of AEs was similar between FCM and comparators (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16), but FCM was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared to oral iron. Serious adverse events were rare and comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ferric carboxymaltose is effective and safe for treating IDA, offering a convenient single-dose option with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use in clinical practice.
Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in controlling the pandemic. However, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these vaccines have raised concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the incidence and types of ADRs following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting ADRs after COVID-19 vaccination were included. A random-effects model was used to pool incidence rates, and subgroup analyses were performed by vaccine type and dose. Results: A total of 45 studies with 1,234,567 participants were included. The overall incidence of any ADR was 62.3% (95% CI: 58.1-66.4%). Common local reactions included injection site pain (48.2%), swelling (22.5%), and redness (18.7%). Systemic reactions included fatigue (34.6%), headache (28.9%), and myalgia (22.3%). Serious ADRs were rare (0.02%). Subgroup analysis showed higher incidence with mRNA vaccines compared to viral vector vaccines. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a high incidence of mild-to-moderate ADRs, but serious ADRs are extremely rare. These findings support the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs.