Cited by 169Bone health and osteoporosis researchBone health and treatmentsMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments

Denosumab: A review in postmenopausal osteoporosis

Deeks, Emma D.·2018·Drugs & Aging

Abstract

Denosumab (Prolia ® ; Pralia ® ) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the key bone resorption mediator RANKL. The drug is administered via subcutaneous injection once every 6 months and is approved for various indications, including the treatment of postmenopausal (PM) women with osteoporosis at increased/high risk of fracture or failure/intolerance of other osteoporosis therapies (indications featured in this review). Denosumab showed benefit in several phase 3 or 4 studies in PM women with osteoporosis or low bone mineral density (BMD), including the pivotal 3-year double-blind FREEDOM trial and its 7-year open-label extension. Denosumab reduced the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral and hip fractures and increased BMD across skeletal sites versus placebo in FREEDOM, with these benefits maintained over up to 10 years' therapy in the extension. The drug was also more effective in improving BMD than bisphosphonates, including in women switched from a bisphosphonate regimen, in 1-year trials; however, whether these differences translate into differences in anti-fracture efficacy is unclear. Denosumab was generally well tolerated over up to 10 years' treatment, although an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures was observed after discontinuation of the drug. Thus, denosumab is a key treatment option for PM women with osteoporosis who have an increased/high risk of fracture or failure/intolerance of other osteoporosis therapies, although the potential for multiple verte…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40266-018-0525-7

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Denosumab has undesirable side effects and, similar to bisphosphonates, adversely affects osteoblastogenesis.

    “denosumab, has been shown to have undesirable side effects and, similar to biphosphonates, adversely affects osteoblastogenesis [71]”

    From Osteoclasts and Microgravity (2020) · cites this paper as [71]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deeks, E. D.
Affiliations
Springer Nature (New Zealand) (NZ)
Corresponding author
Deeks, Emma D.
Venue
Drugs & Aging
Published
2018-02
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
163-173
ISSN
  • 1170-229X (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1969
OpenAlex
W2792392055
Cited by
169
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3
FWCI
18.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drugs & Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Bone health and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Keywords
denosumab, postmenopausal osteoporosis, RANKL, monoclonal antibodies, fracture risk, vertebral fractures, hip fracture, osteopenia, FREEDOM trial, drug discontinuation, adverse events, long-term treatment
MeSH terms
Denosumab, Aged, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Bone Density, Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal, Treatment Outcome, Bone Density Conservation Agents, Fractures, Bone, RANK Ligand

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