-
Journal of Clinical Densitometry : the... 2022Osteoporosis is a chronic disease with an increasing prevalence. Anti-sclerostin antibodies are being investigated for the treatment of osteoporosis. The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Osteoporosis is a chronic disease with an increasing prevalence. Anti-sclerostin antibodies are being investigated for the treatment of osteoporosis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antis-sclerostin antibodies compared to placebo and conventional therapies (alendronate and teriparatide) in the treatment of osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials were searched from PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL) from their inception up to June 2021 by using Medical Subject Headings terms "anti-sclerostin antibody", "romosozumab", "blosozumab", "AMG 785″, "LY2541546", and "osteoporosis". Two investigators independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data from each study. The I index was used to assess heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager Software (RevMan, Version 5.4). The GRADE approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for all the pooled outcomes. 8 RCTs with 12,416 patients met the inclusion criteria. Anti-sclerostin antibodies significantly increased lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck bone mineral density compared to placebo, alendronate and teriparatide at both 6 and 12 mo. Adverse events were comparable between anti-sclerostin antibodies and other treatments, except for the incidence of injection-site reactions that was higher in the anti-sclerostin antibody groups. Anti-sclerostin antibodies represent a valid theurapeutic option in the treatment of osteoporosis. Further studies with longer duration and follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Teriparatide
PubMed: 34920938
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2021.11.005 -
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Nov 2022Both medical and surgical therapy represent potential management options for patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Because uncertainty remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Efficacy and Safety of Medical and Surgical Therapy in Patients With Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Both medical and surgical therapy represent potential management options for patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Because uncertainty remains regarding both medical and surgical therapy, this systematic review addresses the efficacy and safety of medical therapy in asymptomatic patients or symptomatic patients who decline surgery and surgery in asymptomatic patients. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to December 2020, and included randomized controlled trials in patients with PHPT that compared nonsurgical management with medical therapy versus without medical therapy and surgery versus no surgery in patients with asymptomatic PHPT. For surgical complications we included observational studies. Paired reviewers addressed eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data for patient-important outcomes. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess quality of evidence for each outcome. For medical therapy, 11 trials reported in 12 publications including 438 patients proved eligible: three addressed alendronate, one denosumab, three cinacalcet, two vitamin D, and two estrogen therapy. Alendronate, denosumab, vitamin D, and estrogen therapy all increased bone density. Cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels. Cinacalcet and vitamin D may have a small or no increase in overall adverse events. Very-low-quality evidence raised the possibility of an increase in serious adverse events with alendronate and denosumab. The trials also provided low-quality evidence for increased bleeding and mastalgia with estrogen therapy. For surgery, six trials presented in 12 reports including 441 patients proved eligible. Surgery achieved biochemical cure in 96.1% (high quality). We found no convincing evidence supporting an impact of surgery on fracture, quality of life, occurrence of kidney stones, and renal function, but the evidence proved low or very low quality. Surgery was associated with an increase in bone mineral density. For patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic PHPT, who are not candidates for parathyroid surgery, cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and PTH levels; anti-resorptives increased bone density. For patients with asymptomatic PHPT, surgery usually achieves biochemical cure. These results can help to inform patients and clinicians regarding use of medical therapy and surgery in PHPT. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Topics: Humans; Cinacalcet; Hyperparathyroidism, Primary; Alendronate; Calcium; Quality of Life; Denosumab; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Parathyroid Hormone; Vitamin D; Estrogens
PubMed: 36053960
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4685 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jul 2017There is controversy regarding whether locally delivered alendronate enhances osseointegration. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is controversy regarding whether locally delivered alendronate enhances osseointegration. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of local alendronate delivery (topical, or as a coating on implant surfaces) in the osseointegration of implants. The focused question was, "Does the local delivery of alendronate affect osseointegration around implants?". To address this question, indexed databases were searched, without time or language restriction, up to and including January 2017. Various combinations of the following key words were used: "alendronate", "bisphosphonates", "osseointegration", and "topical administration". letters to the editor, historic reviews, commentaries, case series, and case reports were excluded. In total, 18 experimental studies were included: alendronate-coated implants were used in 13 of these studies and local delivery in five studies. The results of 11 of the studies showed that alendronate coating increased new bone formation, the bone volume fraction, or bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and biomechanical properties. Results from two studies in which alendronate was administered topically indicated impaired BIC and/or biomechanical fixation around implants. On experimental grounds, local alendronate delivery seems to promote osseointegration. From a clinical perspective, the results in animal models support phase 1 studies in healthy humans (without co-morbidities other than edentulism).
Topics: Administration, Topical; Alendronate; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osseointegration
PubMed: 28366449
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.03.009 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reveal the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with alendronate in patients with primary osteoporosis. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reveal the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with alendronate in patients with primary osteoporosis. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from the establishment of each database to April 2022 for comparative studies on the topic, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, and 2 authors individually extracted information and data concerning study design, baseline characteristics, bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, and adverse events (AEs). We identified 8 eligible trials, including 1863 participants. Pooled estimates demonstrated that, compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid showed no significant difference in increasing the BMD of the lumbar spine after 1 year (SMD = -0.03, 95%CI -0.15 to 0.09, I = 0.41%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.16, 95%CI -0.12 to 0.43, I = 63%), and the BMD of the total hip after 1 year (SMD = -0.08, 95%CI -0.31 to 0.14, I = 64%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.05, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.32, I = 61%). No significant difference in improving bone turnover markers, including serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-1 collagen, urine N-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-1 collagen, and serum procollagen type-1 N-terminal propeptide, were found, whereas significantly higher total AE rates (RR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.60 to 3.21, I = 75%) were recorded within 3 days of infusion, but some lower AE rates, particularly of gastrointestinal AEs (RR = 0.6, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83, I = 37%), were noted after 3 days of infusion. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid has achieved comparable therapeutic results in the treatment of primary osteoporosis in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover marker levels. Zoledronic acid showed a better safety profile than alendronate with long-term use, especially with regards to gastrointestinal-related AEs.
Topics: Humans; Female; Alendronate; Zoledronic Acid; Diphosphonates; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Density; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
PubMed: 36433675
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2181 -
Archives of Osteoporosis Jan 2023This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical effectiveness of denosumab (Prolia®) in patients with hormone-sensitive cancer receiving endocrine therapy, compared to bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), and placebo: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
UNLABELLED
This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in cancer patients with osteoporosis. This is the first SR to assess treating osteoporotic cancer patients with denosumab.
PURPOSE
This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (bazedoxifene, raloxifene) and placebo for the treatment of osteoporosis in hormone-sensitive cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy (men with prostate cancer [MPC] on hormone ablation therapy [HAT], and women with breast cancer [WBC] on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy [AAIT]).
METHODS
Systematic literature searches were conducted in three biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Frequentist network meta-analyses and/or pairwise meta-analyses were performed on predetermined outcomes (i.e., vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, treatment-related adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], withdrawal due to treatment-related AEs).
RESULTS
A total of 14 RCTs (15 publications) were included. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab, zoledronate, and alendronate improved BMD at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) in MPC on HAT, relative to placebo. Denosumab, ibandronate and risedronate improved BMD at the LS and total hip (TH) in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Denosumab and risedronate improved trochanteric (TRO) BMD in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab improved FN BMD in WBC on AAIT.
CONCLUSION
In MPC on HAT, denosumab (relative to placebo) was effective at preventing vertebral fractures and improving BMD at the FN and LS. Moreover, in WBC on AAIT, denosumab (relative to placebo) improved BMD at the FN, LS, TH, and TRO, as well as prevent vertebral fracture.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hormones; Ibandronic Acid; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporosis; Risedronic Acid; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Zoledronic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36624318
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01211-3 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
JBMR Plus Jun 2023Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone...
Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone mass and may have already sustained fractures. Short or intermittent courses of bisphosphonate therapy, initiated around the time of menopause, might prevent excessive bone loss and lower long-term fracture risk. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effects of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers in early menopausal women (ie, perimenopausal or <5 years postmenopausal) over ≥12 months. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched in July 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random effect meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan v5.3. In total, 12 trials were included ( = 1722 women); five evaluated alendronate, three risedronate, three ibandronate, and one zoledronate. Four were at low risk of bias; eight raised some concerns. Fractures were infrequent in the three studies that reported them. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates improved BMD over 12 months (mean percentage difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]) at the spine (4.32%, 95% CI, 3.10%-5.54%, < 0.0001, = 8 studies), the femoral neck (2.56%, 95% CI, 1.85%-3.27%, = 0.001, = 6 studies), and the total hip (1.22%, 95% CI 0.16%-2.28%, = 0.002, = 4 studies). Over treatment durations of 24 to 72 months, bisphosphonates improved BMD at the spine (5.81%, 95% CI 4.71%-6.91%, < 0.0001, = 8 studies), femoral neck (3.89%, 95% CI 2.73%-5.05%, = 0.0001, = 5 studies) and total hip (4.09%, 95% CI 2.81%-5.37%, < 0.0001, = 4 studies). Bisphosphonates reduced urinary N-telopeptide (-52.2%, 95% CI -60.3% to -44.2%, < 0.00001, = 3 studies) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (-34.2%, 95% CI -42.6% to -25.8%, < 0.00001, = 4 studies) more than placebo at 12 months. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that bisphosphonates improve BMD and lower bone turnover markers in early menopause, warranting further investigation of these agents for osteoporosis prevention. © 2023 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
PubMed: 37283657
DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10748 -
Medicine Oct 2018Alendronate has been used to prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), data regarding its efficacy are inconsistent. We conducted the current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alendronate has been used to prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), data regarding its efficacy are inconsistent. We conducted the current systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate both efficacy and safety of alendronate in the treatment of GIO.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Databases were searched up through March 1, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients which received alendronate treatment were included. Outcome measures were bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone fractures, and adverse reactions. Data from the individual studies were pooled using random or fixed effect models based on heterogeneity. Effect size was reported as standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes and pooled odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Overall, 10 studies involving 1002 patients were included in the present investigation. Alendronate treatment significantly increased BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck during 6 to 24 months. These beneficial effects were apparent at 12 months after treatment for the lumbar spine but not the femoral neck BMD. Alendronate treatment did not significantly change fracture risk nor induce significant differences in adverse gastrointestinal effects.
CONCLUSION
Alendronate significantly increases BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck in patients with GIO, but does not appear to reduce the risk of fractures. As relatively insufficient data regarding the GIO fracture incidence has been reported, more RCTs need to be carried out to determine the efficacy of alendronate in the prevention of GIO fracture.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Male; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30334952
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012691 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue with a consequent increase in bone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. Osteoporosis represents an important cause of morbidity in people with beta-thalassaemia and its pathogenesis is multifactorial. Factors include bone marrow expansion due to ineffective erythropoiesis, resulting in reduced trabecular bone tissue with cortical thinning; endocrine dysfunction secondary to excessive iron loading, leading to increased bone turnover; and lastly, a predisposition to physical inactivity due to disease complications with a subsequent reduction in optimal bone mineralization.A number of therapeutic strategies have been applied to treat osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia, which include bisphosphonates, with or without, hormone replacement therapy. There are various forms of bisphosphonates, such as clodronate, pamidronate, alendronate and zoledronic acid. Other treatments include calcitonin, calcium, zinc supplementation, hydroxyurea and hormone replacement therapy for preventing hypogonadism.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 04 February 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials in people with thalassaemia with a bone mineral density z score of less than -2 standard deviations for: children less than 15 years old; adult males (15 to 50 years old); and all pre-menopausal females above 15 years and a bone mineral density t score of less than -2.5 standard deviations for post-menopausal females and males above 50 years old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials, extracted and analysed data and completed the review. We summarised results using risk ratios or rate ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data. We combined trial results where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Four trials (with 211 participants) were included; three trials investigated the effect of bisphosphonate therapies and one trial investigated the effect of zinc supplementation. Only one trial was judged to be of good quality (low risk of bias); the remaining trials had a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one key domain.One trial (data not available for analysis) assessing the effect of neridronate (118 participants) reported significant increases in favour of the bisphosphonate group for bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and hip at both six and 12 months. For the femoral neck, a significant difference was noted at 12 months only. A further trial (25 participants) assessed the effect of alendronate and clodronate and found that after two years, bone mineral density increased significantly in the alendronate and clodronate groups as compared to placebo at the lumbar spine, mean difference 0.14 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.22) and at the femoral neck, mean difference 0.40 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.57). One 12-month trial (26 participants) assessed the effects of different doses of pamidronate (30 mg versus 60 mg) and found a significant difference in bone mineral density in favour of the 60 mg dose at the lumbar spine and forearm, mean difference 0.43 g/cm(2) (95% CI 0.10 to 0.76), mean difference 0.87 g/cm(2) (95% CI 0.23 to 1.51), respectively, but not at the femoral neck.In a zinc sulphate supplementation trial (42 participants), bone mineral density increased significantly compared to placebo at the lumbar spine after 12 months (37 participants), mean difference 0.15 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.20) and after 18 months (32 participants), mean difference 0.34 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.40). The same was true for bone mineral density at the hip after 12 months, mean difference 0.15 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.19) and after 18 months, mean difference 0.26 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.31).Fractures were not observed in one trial and not reported in three trials. There were no major adverse effects reported in two of the bisphosphonate trials; in the neridronate trial there was a reduction noted in the use of analgesic drugs and in the reported back pain score in favour of bisphosphonate treatment. Adverse effects were not reported in the trial of different doses of pamidronate or the zinc supplementation trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to indicate an increase in bone mineral density at the femoral neck, lumbar spine and forearm after administration of bisphosphonates and at the lumbar spine and hip after zinc sulphate supplementation. The authors recommend that further long-term randomised control trials on different bisphosphonates and zinc supplementation therapies in people with beta-thalassaemia and osteoporosis are undertaken.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Child; Clodronic Acid; Diphosphonates; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zinc Sulfate; beta-Thalassemia
PubMed: 26964506
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010429.pub2 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is characterized by increased bone remodeling and hypercalcemia. Parathyroidectomy (PTX), the current standard of care, is recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of antiresorptive agents bisphosphonates and denosumab in mitigating hypercalcemia and bone loss in primary hyperparathyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is characterized by increased bone remodeling and hypercalcemia. Parathyroidectomy (PTX), the current standard of care, is recommended in all symptomatic and some groups of asymptomatic patients. Anti-resorptive therapies (bisphosphonates and denosumab) have been used in patients where PTX is refused or contraindicated. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the effectiveness of anti-resorptives in preventing/treating PHPT-induced bone loss and mitigating hypercalcemia.
METHOD
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles with keywords containing PHPT, bisphosphonates, and denosumab in various combinations. We extracted and tabulated areal BMD (aBMD), serum mineral, and bone turnover parameters from the qualified studies and used comprehensive meta-analysis software for analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 1,914 articles screened, 13 were eligible for meta-analysis. In the pooled analysis, 12 months of anti-resoptives (bisphosphonates and denosumab) therapy significantly increased aBMD at the lumbar spine (Standard difference in means (SDM)=0.447, 95% CI=0.230 to 0.664, p=0.0001), femoral neck (SDM=0.270, 95% CI=0.049 to 0.491, p=0.017) and increased serum PTH (SDM=0.489, 95% CI=0.139 to 0.839, p=0.006), and decreased serum calcium (SDM=-0.545, 95% CI=-0.937 to -0.154, p=0.006) compared with baseline. 12 months of bisphosphonate use significantly increased aBMD only at the lumbar spine (SDM=0.330, 95% CI=0.088 to 0.571, p=0.007) with a significant increased in serum PTH levels (SDM=0.546, 95% CI= 0.162 to 0.930, p=0.005), and a decreased in serum calcium (SDM=-0.608, 95% CI=-1.048 to -0.169, p=0.007) and bone-turnover markers (BTMs) compared with baseline. Denosumab use for 12 months significantly increased aBMD at both the lumbar spine (SDM=0.828, 95% CI=0.378 to 1.278, p=0.0001) and femur neck (SDM=0.575, 95% CI=0.135 to 1.015, p=0.010) compared with baseline. Mean lumbar spine aBMD (SDM=0.350, 95% CI=0.041 to 0.659, p=0.027) and serum PTH (SDM=0.602, 95% CI= 0.145 to 1.059, p=0.010) were significantly increased after 12 months of alendronate use compared with placebo. When compared with baseline, alendronate significantly decreased BTMs after 12 months and increased aBMD without altering the PTH and calcium levels after 24 months.
CONCLUSION
Anti-resorptives are effective in mitigating bone loss and hypercalcemia in PHPT while maintaining or increasing aBMD. PTX reversed all changes in PHPT and normalized PTH levels.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Alendronate; Denosumab; Hypercalcemia; Calcium; Hyperparathyroidism, Primary; Bone Density; Parathyroid Hormone; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Lumbar Vertebrae
PubMed: 36817591
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1098841