The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of Abaloparatide vs Placebo on New Vertebral Fractures in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Additional therapies are needed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Abaloparatide is a selective activator of the parathyroid hormone type 1 receptor. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide, 80 μg, vs placebo for prevention of new vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fracture. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) was a phase 3, double-blind, RCT (March 2011-October 2014) at 28 sites in 10 countries. Postmenopausal women with bone mineral density (BMD) T score ≤-2.5 and >-5.0 at the lumbar spine or femoral neck and radiological evidence ≥2 mild or ≥1 moderate lumbar or thoracic vertebral fracture or history of low-trauma nonvertebral fracture within the past 5 years were eligible. Postmenopausal women (>65 y) with fracture criteria and a T score ≤-2.0 and >-5.0 or without fracture criteria and a T score ≤-3.0 and >-5.0 could enroll. INTERVENTIONS: Blinded, daily subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 821); abaloparatide, 80 μg (n = 824); or open-label teriparatide, 20 μg (n = 818) for 18 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was percentage of participants with new vertebral fracture in the abaloparatide vs placebo groups. Sample size was set to detect a 4% difference (57% risk reduction) between treatment groups. Secondary end points included change in BMD at total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine in abaloparatide-treated vs placebo participants and time to first incident nonvertebral fracture. Hypercalcemia was a prespecified safety end point in abaloparatide-treated vs teriparatide participants. RESULTS: Among 2463 women (mean age, 69 years [range, 49-86]), 1901 completed the study. New morphometric vertebral fractures occurred less frequently in the active treatment groups vs placebo. The Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate for nonvertebral fracture was lower with abaloparatide vs placebo. BMD increases were greater with abaloparatide than placebo (all P < .001). Incidence of hypercalcemia was lower with abaloparatide (3.4%) vs teriparatide (6.4%) (risk difference [RD], −2.96 [95%CI, −5.12 to −0.87]; P = .006). [table: see text]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, the use of subcutaneous abaloparatide, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures over 18 months. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of RD, the risks and benefits of abaloparatide treatment, and the efficacy of abaloparatide vs other osteoporosis treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01343004.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Neer, R. M., Arnaud, C. D., Zanchetta, J. R., Prince, R., Gaich, G. A., Reginster, J.-Y., Hodsman, A. B., Eriksen, E. F., Ish-Shalom, S., Genant, H. K., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200105103441904 · Cited by 4,602
Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis
Cosman, F., de Beur, S. J., LeBoff, M. S., Lewiecki, E. M., Tanner, B., Randall, S., & Lindsay, R. (2014) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-014-2794-2 · Cited by 4,149
Self-citationDenosumab for Prevention of Fractures in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis
Cummings, S. R., Martin, J. S., McClung, M. R., Siris, E. S., Eastell, R., Reid, I. R., Delmas, P., Zoog, H. B., Austin, M., Wang, A., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0809493 · Cited by 3,489
Self-citationScreening for Osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-5-201103010-00307 · Cited by 436
Cited by
Compston, J. E., McClung, M. R., & Leslie, W. D. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32112-3 · Cited by 2,449
The clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis
LeBoff, M. S., Greenspan, S. L., Insogna, K. L., Lewiecki, E. M., Saag, K. G., Singer, A. J., & Siris, E. S. (2022) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-021-05900-y · Cited by 1,487
Camacho, P. M., Petak, S. M., Binkley, N., Diab, D. L., Eldeiry, L. S., Farooki, A., Harris, S. T., Hurley, D. L., Kelly, J., Lewiecki, E. M., et al. (2020) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/gl-2020-0524suppl · Cited by 1,182
Camacho, P. M., Petak, S. M., Binkley, N., Clarke, B. L., Harris, S. T., Hurley, D. L., Kleerekoper, M., Lewiecki, E. M., Miller, P. D., Narula, H. S., et al. (2016) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/ep161435.esgl · Cited by 1,140
Self-citationEastell, R., Rosen, C. J., Black, D. M., Cheung, A. M., Murad, M. H., & Shoback, D. (2019) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2019-00221 · Cited by 868
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, P. D., Hattersley, G., Riis, B. J., Williams, G. C., Lau, E., Russo, L. A., Alexandersen, P., Zerbini, C. A. F., Hu, M.-Y., Harris, A. G., Fitzpatrick, L. A., Cosman, F., Christiansen, C., & for the ACTIVE Study Investigators
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2016-08-16
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 722
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2516614130
- Cited by
- 875
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 100.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.