Evidence Hub

Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Osteoporosis on Romosozumab Treatment Compared with Denosumab: A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study

Ahn SH, Boo D, Kim KJ, Choi J, Yoon H, Jung CY, You SC, Oh JS et al.

Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea), 2026

4,896 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Backgruound: Romosozumab, a potent anabolic agent for osteoporosis, has been associated with an increased risk of adjudicated cardiovascular events compared with alendronate in postmenopausal women, although such an association was not observed in a placebo-controlled trial. Evidence from real-world clinical practice remains limited.

Methods: In this multicenter observational study, we analyzed patients aged ≥50 years who were newly prescribed romosozumab 120 mg monthly or denosumab 60 mg every 6 months for osteoporosis at three tertiary hospitals in South Korea between January 1, 2020, and the end of each site's data collection period. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or sudden cardiac death) and all cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs; MACE, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, and non-coronary revascularization), assessed at 1- and 3-year follow-up. Large-scale 1:1 propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards models were applied within a common data model framework with individual-level meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 4,896 patients were included in the MACE analysis (4,758 in the CVAE analysis). At 1 year, the incidence rate of MACE did not differ significantly between the romosozumab and denosumab groups (9.20 per 1,000 person-years vs. 6.43 per 1,000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 3.19). The risk of CVAE was also…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,896 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free