Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This is an international, multi-center study to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of romosozumab (AMG 785) in adults with a fresh unilateral hip fracture, status post surgical fixation.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Placebo Comparator | Participants received placebo to romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
| Romosozumab 70 mg | Experimental | Participants received 70 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
| Romosozumab 140 mg | Experimental | Participants received 140 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
| Romosozumab 210 mg | Experimental | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Drug | Administered by subcutaneous (under the skin) injection |
| |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) Over Week 6 Through Week 20 | Functional healing was measured by the timed-up-and-go test (TUG) over Weeks 6 through 20. During this assessment, the clinician timed the participant while they stood up from a seated position in a chair, walked three meters, turned around, walked three meters back to the chair, and returned to the seated position. A TUG value of ten seconds or less was considered normal for a healthy elderly person. Higher TUG values after hip fracture have been shown to be a predictor of future falls. Least squares mean (LSM) estimates were based on a repeated measures model fitted with the log-transformed TUG values at weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, 52 as the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment, randomized strata, gender, country category, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and back-transformed using the exponential transformation. | Weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20 |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) at Each Visit | During the timed-up-and-go test the clinician timed the participant while they stood up from a seated position in a chair, walked 3 meters, turned around, walked 3 meters back to the chair, and returned to a seated position. A TUG value of ≤ 10 seconds is considered normal for a healthy elderly person. LSMs were based on a repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, randomized strata, gender, country category, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Missing TUG values for participants still on study were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) when possible. If no observation could be carried forward, the maximum TUG value observed among all participants at a given visit was used. TUG values obtained after unplanned revision surgery were replaced by carrying forward the last available observed or imputed value prior to unplanned revision surgery. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Males and females, age 55 to 95 years
fresh unilateral low energy intertrochanteric or femoral neck fracture as the primary injury, confirmed by X-ray and in the opinion of the treating surgeon amenable to repair by internal fixation
internal fixation of the fracture with devices approved by local regulatory agency, performed no later than 7 days after injury for intertrochanteric or undisplaced femoral neck fractures and no later than 2 days after injury for displaced femoral neck fractures
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| MD | Amgen | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research Site | Birmingham | Alabama | 35294 | United States | ||
| Research Site |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31977817 | Background | Schemitsch EH, Miclau T, Karachalios T, Nowak LL, Sancheti P, Poolman RW, Caminis J, Daizadeh N, Dent-Acosta RE, Egbuna O, Chines A, Maddox J, Grauer A, Bhandari M. A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Romosozumab for the Treatment of Hip Fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Apr 15;102(8):693-702. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00790. |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| AmgenTrials clinical trials website | View source |
Not provided
Participants were randomized in a 2:3:3:3 ratio to 1 of 3 romosozumab treatment groups or placebo.
Randomization followed operative fracture repair and was stratified by type of fracture, type of fixation device and age at entry. There were 7 randomization strata.
This study was conducted at 63 centers in 22 countries in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, India, North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Placebo | Participants received placebo to romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| FG001 | Romosozumab 70 mg | Participants received 70 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Romosozumab |
| Drug |
Administered by subcutaneous injection |
|
|
| Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
| Time to Radiographic Healing | Time to radiographic healing is the time interval from the surgery date for the eligible hip fracture to the date of radiographic healing, defined as effacement of the fracture lines by newly formed bone along the cortices and within the trabecular bone on anteroposterior and lateral (or oblique) radiographs. Radiographic fracture healing was determined by a panel of independent reviewers blinded to treatment. The cumulative incidence function (CIF) method was used to estimate the median time to radiographic healing and the confidence intervals. Unplanned revision surgery to promote healing was considered a competing risk in CIF estimate. | 52 weeks |
| Radiographic Union Scale for Hip (RUSH) Score At Each Visit | The radiographic Union Scale for Hip (RUSH) is a semiquantitative scoring assessment to assess hip fracture healing after surgical repair. The RUSH has 4 key domains based on radiographic parameters used by orthopedic surgeons and radiologists in routine clinical practice including cortical bridging (4 to 12 points), cortical fracture line disappearance (4 to 12 points), trabecular consolidation (1 to 3 points), and trabecular index disappearance of fracture line (1 to 3 points). The score has a minimum of 10 points (definitely not healed) and a maximum of 30 points (definitely healed). | Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
| Harris Hip Score At Each Visit | The Harris Hip Score is a clinician-based outcome that assesses pain, function, deformity, and range of motion. The pain domain measures pain severity and its effect on activities and need for pain medication. The function domain consists of daily activities and gait. Deformity takes into account hip flexion, adduction, internal rotation, and extremity length discrepancy. Range of motion measures hip flexion, abduction, external and internal rotation, and adduction. The score ranges form 0-100 (best possible outcome) covering pain (0-44 points), function (0-47 points), absence of deformity (4 points), and range of motion (5 points). LSMs were based on a repeated measures model fitted with the Harris hip score values at weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 as the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment, randomized strata, gender, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. | Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
| Hip Pain Score at Each Visit | Hip pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Participants were asked to rate their pain as a result of the hip fracture on a 100 mm vertical scale with 0 indicating no pain at all and 100 indicating the worst pain they could imagine. LSMs were based on a repeated measures model fitted with hip pain score values at weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 as the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment, randomized strata, gender, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. | Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
| Pomona |
| California |
| 91767 |
| United States |
| Research Site | Aurora | Colorado | 80012 | United States |
| Research Site | Denver | Colorado | 80204 | United States |
| Research Site | Indianapolis | Indiana | 46202 | United States |
| Research Site | Woodbury | Minnesota | 55125 | United States |
| Research Site | St Louis | Missouri | 63110 | United States |
| Research Site | Brooklyn | New York | 11220 | United States |
| Research Site | Rochester | New York | 14642 | United States |
| Research Site | Altoona | Pennsylvania | 16602 | United States |
| Research Site | Philadelphia | Pennsylvania | 19104 | United States |
| Research Site | State College | Pennsylvania | 16801 | United States |
| Research Site | Buenos Aires | C1012AAR | Argentina |
| Research Site | Buenos Aires | C1419AHN | Argentina |
| Research Site | Liverpool | New South Wales | 2170 | Australia |
| Research Site | Footscray | Victoria | 3011 | Australia |
| Research Site | Bruges | 8000 | Belgium |
| Research Site | Genk | 3600 | Belgium |
| Research Site | Leuven | 3000 | Belgium |
| Research Site | Liège | 4020 | Belgium |
| Research Site | Liège | 4000 | Belgium |
| Research Site | Blagoevgrad | 2700 | Bulgaria |
| Research Site | Pleven | 5800 | Bulgaria |
| Research Site | Plovdiv | 4002 | Bulgaria |
| Research Site | Red Deer | Alberta | T4N 6V7 | Canada |
| Research Site | Cambridge | Ontario | N1R 3G2 | Canada |
| Research Site | Guelph | Ontario | N1E 4J4 | Canada |
| Research Site | Ottawa | Ontario | K1Y 4E9 | Canada |
| Research Site | Toronto | Ontario | M5C 1R6 | Canada |
| Research Site | Waterloo | Ontario | N2J 1C4 | Canada |
| Research Site | Montreal | Quebec | H4J 1C5 | Canada |
| Research Site | Québec | Quebec | G1J 1Z4 | Canada |
| Research Site | Québec | Quebec | G1R 2J6 | Canada |
| Research Site | Ã…rhus C | 8000 | Denmark |
| Research Site | Hvidovre | 2650 | Denmark |
| Research Site | København NV | 2400 | Denmark |
| Research Site | Viborg | 8800 | Denmark |
| Research Site | Tallinn | 11312 | Estonia |
| Research Site | Tartu | 50410 | Estonia |
| Research Site | Kuopio | 70211 | Finland |
| Research Site | Oulu | 90220 | Finland |
| Research Site | Turku | 20520 | Finland |
| Research Site | Aachen | 52074 | Germany |
| Research Site | Berlin | 12200 | Germany |
| Research Site | München | 80336 | Germany |
| Research Site | Münster | 48149 | Germany |
| Research Site | Athens | 12462 | Greece |
| Research Site | Athens | 14561 | Greece |
| Research Site | Larissa | 41110 | Greece |
| Research Site | Pátrai | 26500 | Greece |
| Research Site | Thessaloniki | 56429 | Greece |
| Research Site | Hong Kong | Hong Kong |
| Research Site | New Territories | Hong Kong |
| Research Site | Budapest | 1081 | Hungary |
| Research Site | Miskolc | 3526 | Hungary |
| Research Site | Nyíregyháza | 4400 | Hungary |
| Research Site | Szeged | 6725 | Hungary |
| Research Site | Hyderabad | Andhra Pradesh | 500 063 | India |
| Research Site | Bangalore | Karnataka | 560 054 | India |
| Research Site | Mangalore | Karnataka | 575 002 | India |
| Research Site | Nashik | Maharashtra | 422 002 | India |
| Research Site | Pune | Maharashtra | 411 005 | India |
| Research Site | Pune | Maharashtra | 411 044 | India |
| Research Site | Jaipur | Rajasthan | 302 022 | India |
| Research Site | Mangalore | 575 001 | India |
| Research Site | Nashik | 422 009 | India |
| Research Site | Florence | 50139 | Italy |
| Research Site | Milan | 20142 | Italy |
| Research Site | Roma (RM) | 00133 | Italy |
| Research Site | Verona | 37126 | Italy |
| Research Site | Riga | 1005 | Latvia |
| Research Site | Valmiera | 4201 | Latvia |
| Research Site | Kaunas | 44320 | Lithuania |
| Research Site | Vilnius | 04130 | Lithuania |
| Research Site | Amsterdam | 1061 AE | Netherlands |
| Research Site | Amsterdam | 1091 AC | Netherlands |
| Research Site | Amsterdam | 1105 AZ | Netherlands |
| Research Site | Haarlem | 2035 RC | Netherlands |
| Research Site | Nieuwegein | 3435 CM | Netherlands |
| Research Site | Christchurch | 8022 | New Zealand |
| Research Site | Kraków | 31-826 | Poland |
| Research Site | Lublin | 20-718 | Poland |
| Research Site | Warsaw | 00-739 | Poland |
| Research Site | Warsaw | 03-242 | Poland |
| Research Site | Celje | 3000 | Slovenia |
| Research Site | Izola | 6310 | Slovenia |
| Research Site | Jesenice | 4270 | Slovenia |
| Research Site | Sempeter pri Gorici | 5290 | Slovenia |
| Research Site | Linköping | 581 85 | Sweden |
| Research Site | Lund | 221 85 | Sweden |
| Research Site | Basel | 4031 | Switzerland |
| Research Site | Lausanne | 1011 | Switzerland |
| Research Site | Lucerne | 6000 | Switzerland |
| Research Site | Zurich | 8063 | Switzerland |
| Research Site | Barnet | EN5 3DJ | United Kingdom |
| Research Site | Leeds | LS1 3EX | United Kingdom |
| Research Site | London | E1 1BB | United Kingdom |
| Research Site | Newcastle | NE1 4LP | United Kingdom |
| Research Site | Norwich | NR4 7UY | United Kingdom |
| FG002 | Romosozumab 140 mg | Participants received 140 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| FG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| Received Study Drug |
|
| Completed 24 Weeks of Study |
|
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Placebo | Participants received placebo to romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| BG001 | Romosozumab 70 mg | Participants received 70 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| BG002 | Romosozumab 140 mg | Participants received 140 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| BG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| BG004 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
| |||||||||||||||
| Age, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Randomization Stratification | Randomization was stratified by type of fracture (intertrochanteric vs. displaced femoral neck vs. undisplaced femoral neck), type of fixation device (sliding hip screw (SHS) vs. intramedullary (IM) nail vs. cancellous screws) and age at entry (55-75 years vs. ≥ 76 years). | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) Over Week 6 Through Week 20 | Functional healing was measured by the timed-up-and-go test (TUG) over Weeks 6 through 20. During this assessment, the clinician timed the participant while they stood up from a seated position in a chair, walked three meters, turned around, walked three meters back to the chair, and returned to the seated position. A TUG value of ten seconds or less was considered normal for a healthy elderly person. Higher TUG values after hip fracture have been shown to be a predictor of future falls. Least squares mean (LSM) estimates were based on a repeated measures model fitted with the log-transformed TUG values at weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, 52 as the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment, randomized strata, gender, country category, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and back-transformed using the exponential transformation. | Randomized participants who received at least one dose of study drug with available data at each time point. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | seconds | Weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) at Each Visit | During the timed-up-and-go test the clinician timed the participant while they stood up from a seated position in a chair, walked 3 meters, turned around, walked 3 meters back to the chair, and returned to a seated position. A TUG value of ≤ 10 seconds is considered normal for a healthy elderly person. LSMs were based on a repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, randomized strata, gender, country category, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Missing TUG values for participants still on study were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) when possible. If no observation could be carried forward, the maximum TUG value observed among all participants at a given visit was used. TUG values obtained after unplanned revision surgery were replaced by carrying forward the last available observed or imputed value prior to unplanned revision surgery. | Randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. LOCF imputation was used when possible, as described above. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | seconds | Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Time to Radiographic Healing | Time to radiographic healing is the time interval from the surgery date for the eligible hip fracture to the date of radiographic healing, defined as effacement of the fracture lines by newly formed bone along the cortices and within the trabecular bone on anteroposterior and lateral (or oblique) radiographs. Radiographic fracture healing was determined by a panel of independent reviewers blinded to treatment. The cumulative incidence function (CIF) method was used to estimate the median time to radiographic healing and the confidence intervals. Unplanned revision surgery to promote healing was considered a competing risk in CIF estimate. | All randomized participants who received at least one dose of study drug. | Posted | Median | 95% Confidence Interval | weeks | 52 weeks |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Radiographic Union Scale for Hip (RUSH) Score At Each Visit | The radiographic Union Scale for Hip (RUSH) is a semiquantitative scoring assessment to assess hip fracture healing after surgical repair. The RUSH has 4 key domains based on radiographic parameters used by orthopedic surgeons and radiologists in routine clinical practice including cortical bridging (4 to 12 points), cortical fracture line disappearance (4 to 12 points), trabecular consolidation (1 to 3 points), and trabecular index disappearance of fracture line (1 to 3 points). The score has a minimum of 10 points (definitely not healed) and a maximum of 30 points (definitely healed). | Randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug, with available data at baseline and at each time point. Missing RUSH scores for participants who were still on study were imputed using the using last observation carried forward procedure when possible. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale | Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Harris Hip Score At Each Visit | The Harris Hip Score is a clinician-based outcome that assesses pain, function, deformity, and range of motion. The pain domain measures pain severity and its effect on activities and need for pain medication. The function domain consists of daily activities and gait. Deformity takes into account hip flexion, adduction, internal rotation, and extremity length discrepancy. Range of motion measures hip flexion, abduction, external and internal rotation, and adduction. The score ranges form 0-100 (best possible outcome) covering pain (0-44 points), function (0-47 points), absence of deformity (4 points), and range of motion (5 points). LSMs were based on a repeated measures model fitted with the Harris hip score values at weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 as the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment, randomized strata, gender, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. | Randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug with available data at each time point. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | units on a scale | Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Hip Pain Score at Each Visit | Hip pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Participants were asked to rate their pain as a result of the hip fracture on a 100 mm vertical scale with 0 indicating no pain at all and 100 indicating the worst pain they could imagine. LSMs were based on a repeated measures model fitted with hip pain score values at weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 as the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment, randomized strata, gender, pre-fracture community-dwelling status, pre-fracture walking aid use, quality of surgical fixation, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. | Randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug with available data at each time point. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | units on a scale | Weeks 2, 6, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36, and 52 |
|
52 weeks
Other Adverse Events summarizes the non-serious occurrences of adverse events that exceed the indicated frequency threshold.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Placebo | Participants received placebo to romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. | 25 | 87 | 31 | 87 | ||
| EG001 | Romosozumab 70 mg | Participants received 70 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. | 9 | 60 | 24 | 60 | ||
| EG002 | Romosozumab 140 mg | Participants received 140 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. | 15 | 89 | 30 | 89 | ||
| EG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. | 26 | 89 | 26 | 89 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anaemia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute coronary syndrome | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute myocardial infarction | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Atrial fibrillation | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Atrioventricular block | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cardiac arrest | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cardiac disorder | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cardiac failure | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cardiac failure congestive | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cardio-respiratory arrest | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Haemorrhage coronary artery | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Myocardial infarction | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abdominal pain | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diarrhoea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Duodenal ulcer haemorrhage | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Haematemesis | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Intestinal haemorrhage | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pancreatitis acute | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Death | General disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Device dislocation | General disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Device failure | General disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Medical device complication | General disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Medical device discomfort | General disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Medical device pain | General disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bile duct obstruction | Hepatobiliary disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cholecystitis acute | Hepatobiliary disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cholelithiasis | Hepatobiliary disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Appendicitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cellulitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Clostridium difficile colitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diverticulitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Escherichia urinary tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastroenteritis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastroenteritis viral | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Lower respiratory tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Lung infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pneumonia | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pneumonia bacterial | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Post procedural infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Postoperative wound infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Respiratory tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urinary tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Wound infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bone fissure | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Femoral neck fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Femur fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hip fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pelvic fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Post procedural complication | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Tibia fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urinary retention postoperative | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hepatic enzyme increased | Investigations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dehydration | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypoglycaemia | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fracture nonunion | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Musculoskeletal chest pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Osteoarthritis | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pseudarthrosis | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute myeloid leukaemia | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pancreatic neoplasm | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Plasma cell myeloma | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Squamous cell carcinoma of the vagina | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cerebellar artery thrombosis | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cerebrovascular accident | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dementia Alzheimer's type | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Ischaemic stroke | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Myasthenia gravis | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Transient ischaemic attack | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Depression | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Haematuria | Renal and urinary disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Renal failure acute | Renal and urinary disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urinary retention | Renal and urinary disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Prostatomegaly | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute pulmonary oedema | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute respiratory failure | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Respiratory failure | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nail operation | Surgical and medical procedures | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Deep vein thrombosis | Vascular disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constipation | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diarrhoea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pyrexia | General disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urinary tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Contusion | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Procedural pain | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Arthralgia | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Back pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Osteoarthritis | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pain in extremity | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypertension | Vascular disorders | MedDRA 16.0 | Systematic Assessment |
|
The Clinical Trial Agreement generally does not restrict an investigator's discussion of trial results after completion. The Agreement permits Amgen a limited period of time to review material discussing trial results (typically up to 45 days and possible extension). Amgen may remove confidential information, but authors have final control and approval of publication content. For multicenter studies, the investigator agrees not to publish any results before the first multi-center publication.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study Director | Amgen Inc. | 866-572-6436 | medinfo@amgen.com |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D006620 | Hip Fractures |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005264 | Femoral Fractures |
| D050723 | Fractures, Bone |
| D014947 | Wounds and Injuries |
| D025981 | Hip Injuries |
| D007869 | Leg Injuries |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| C557282 | romosozumab |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ≥ 65 years |
|
| Male |
|
| Black or African American |
|
| Hispanic or Latino |
|
| Asian |
|
| Intertrochanteric, SHS and ≥ 76 years |
|
| Intertrochanteric, IM Nail and 55-75 years |
|
| Intertrochanteric, IM Nail and ≥ 76 years |
|
| Displaced femoral neck and SHS |
|
| Displaced femoral neck and cancellous screws |
|
| Undisplaced femoral neck |
|
|
| Week 12 |
|
|
| Week 16 |
|
|
| Week 20 |
|
|
| OG002 | Romosozumab 140 mg | Participants received 140 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| OG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
|
| OG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
|
| Romosozumab 140 mg |
Participants received 140 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| OG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
|
| OG002 | Romosozumab 140 mg | Participants received 140 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
| OG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
|
| OG003 | Romosozumab 210 mg | Participants received 210 mg romosozumab administered by subcutaneous injection on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, and 12. |
|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|