-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes have not been extensively studied. There are insufficient data to determine whether reducing and maintaining biochemical markers of bone turnover to within the normal range improves quality of life and reduces the risk of complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for adult patients with Paget's disease of bone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and trials registers up to March 2017. We searched regulatory agency published information for rare adverse events.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates as treatment for Paget's disease in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials (25 reports, 3168 participants). Of these, 10 trials (801 participants) compared bisphosphonates (etidronate, tiludronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, olpadronate, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate) versus placebo, seven compared two bisphosphonates (992 participants), one trial compared a bisphosphonates with a bisphosphonate plus calcitonin (44 participants), and two studies, the largest trial (1331 participants) and its interventional extension study (502 participants), compared symptomatic treatment and intensive treatment where the goal was to normalise alkaline phosphatase.Most studies were assessed at low or unclear risk of bias. Six of 10 studies comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo were assessed at high risk of bias, mainly around incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Participant populations were reasonably homogeneous in terms of age (mean age 66 to 74 years) and sex (51% to 74% male). Most studies included participants who had elevated alkaline phosphatase levels whether or not bone pain was present. Mean follow-up was six months.Bisphosphonates versus placeboBisphosphonates tripled the proportion (31% versus 9%) of participants whose bone pain disappeared (RR 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 8.90; 2 studies, 205 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 1 to 31; moderate-quality evidence). This result is clinically important. Data were consistent when pain change was measured as any reduction (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.01; 7 studies, 481 participants).There was uncertainty about differences in incident fractures: 1.4% fractures occurred in the bisphosphonates group and none in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.31; 4 studies, 356 participants; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported data on orthopaedic surgery, quality of life or hearing thresholds.Results regarding adverse effects and treatment discontinuation were uncertain. There was a 64% risk of mild gastrointestinal adverse events in intervention group participants and 48% in the control group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 6 studies, 376 participants; low-quality evidence). The likelihood of study participants discontinuing due to adverse effects was slightly higher in intervention group participants (4.4%) than the control group (4.1%) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52; 6 studies, 517 participants; low-quality evidence). Zoledronate was associated with an increased risk of transient fever or fatigue (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.44; 1 study, 176 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Bisphosphonates versus active comparatorMore participants reported pain relief with zoledronate than pamidronate (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 89 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 11) or risedronate (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.74; 1 study, 347 participants; NNT 7, 95% CI 4 to 24; very low quality evidence). This result is clinically important.There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude differences in adverse effects of bisphosphonates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76; 2 studies, 437 participants; low-quality evidence) and treatment discontinuation (2 studies, 437 participants) (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.59; 2 studies, 437 participants; very low-quality evidence).Intensive versus symptomatic treatmentThere was no consistent evidence of difference to response in bone pain, bodily pain or quality of life in participants who received intensive versus symptomatic treatment.Inconclusive results were observed regarding fractures and orthopaedic procedures for intensive versus symptomatic treatment (intensive treatment for fracture: RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.44; absolute risk 8.1% versus 5.2%; orthopaedic procedures: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.11; absolute risk 5.6% versus 3.0%; 1 study, 502 participants; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference in adverse effects between intensive and symptomatic treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference of risk of rare adverse events (including osteonecrosis of the jaw) from the regulatory agencies databases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-quality evidence that bisphosphonates improved pain in people with Paget's disease of bone when compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the results of head-to-head studies investigating bisphosphonates. We found insufficient evidence of benefit in terms of pain or quality of life from intensive treatment. Information about adverse effects was limited, but serious side effects were rare, and rate of withdrawals due to side effects was low.
Topics: Aged; Alkaline Phosphatase; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcitonin; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Male; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteitis Deformans; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29192423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004956.pub3 -
Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism Nov 2014Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of bone resorption, widely used for the management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention. Recent evidence suggests that... (Review)
Review
Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of bone resorption, widely used for the management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention. Recent evidence suggests that bisphosphonates may have beneficial effects in the treatment of thalassemia-associated osteoporosis, a complex and multifactorial condition. Here we summarise available data about the efficacy and tolerability of bisphosphonates in beta--thalassemic patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates in beta-thalassemia were identified searching PubMed. Studies were reviewed to retrieve relevant clinical information. The following variables were considered to assess the safety and efficacy of bisphosphonates-bone mineral density (BMD), markers of bone turnover, incidence of fragility fracture, bone pain, back pain, and clinical adverse events. Five RCTs were identified, investigating alendronate, clodronate, zoledronic acid and neridronate. All bisphosphonates produced a significant decrease of the markers of bone turnover. Alendronate, neridronate, and zoledronic acid significantly improved BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip. Zoledronic acid and neridronate were also shown to reduce bone and back pain. Probably due to the small sample sizes and to the short duration of the trials, it was not possible to establish the anti-fracture efficacy of bisphosphonates; however, they were well tolerated and adverse events were rare but expected on the basis of previous studies. Sufficient evidence exists to support the use of bisphosphonates in the management of thalassemia-associated osteoporosis (to prevent bone loss and improve the BMD). Further research is warranted to establish their anti-fracture efficacy and long-term safety.
Topics: Animals; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporosis; PubMed; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; beta-Thalassemia
PubMed: 24748165
DOI: 10.1007/s00774-014-0584-8 -
PloS One 2022Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common secondary osteoporosis, alendronate (ALE) and teriparatide (TPTD) are widely used in the treatment of GIOP.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficiency and safety of alendronate versus teriparatide for treatment glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common secondary osteoporosis, alendronate (ALE) and teriparatide (TPTD) are widely used in the treatment of GIOP. However, which of these two drugs has a better curative effect needs the support of evidence-based medicine.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials of ALE and TPTD in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis until February 2022. These patients included in the study took glucocorticoid doses greater than 7.5 mg/d for more than 3 months before treatment with ALE and TPTD. The risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) are used as the influence index of discontinuous data, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI are used as the influence index of continuous data.
RESULTS
A total of 4102 patients were enrolled in all 5 studies that met the admission criteria. We found that compared with ALE, TPTD could reduce the rate of new vertebral fracture (RR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05-0.34, P<0.00001). TPTD increased LS bone mineral density (BMD) (0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.64, P<0.00001), TH BMD (0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.28, P = 0.004) and FN BMD (0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29, P = 0.006) compared to ALE. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of non-vertebral fracture and adverse events between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with ALE, TPTD is an effective drug to reduce vertebral fracture risk in patients with GIOP. Furthermore, long-term use of TPTD can increase the bone mineral density of LS, FN, and TH.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fractures; Teriparatide
PubMed: 35639783
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267706 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Aug 2014Compare the efficacy of bazedoxifene with oral bisphosphonates for reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporotic (PMO) women and in higher-risk... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Compare the efficacy of bazedoxifene with oral bisphosphonates for reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal osteoporotic (PMO) women and in higher-risk patients based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Eight RCTs assessing vertebral fracture risk reduction with oral bisphosphonates (n = 7) or bazedoxifene (n = 1) were identified by a systematic literature review. Individual study results were pooled in a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare treatment effects for overall PMO women and a higher-risk subgroup (FRAX ≥ 20%). Three sets of NMA analyses were conducted: aggregate data (AD) from the bisphosphonate RCTs and bazedoxifene RCT for the full population or the FRAX ≥20% subgroup (NMA AD); bisphosphonate AD and bazedoxifene AD from each FRAX subgroup adjusted for baseline risk (NMA AD meta-regression); and bisphosphonate AD and bazedoxifene individual patient data (IPD) adjusted for baseline risk/FRAX (NMA AD/IPD meta-regression).
RESULTS
For the overall population, bisphosphonates had lower fracture risks versus bazedoxifene although there is considerable uncertainty in supporting one intervention over another. The relative risk reduction (RRR) for bazedoxifene was -0.23 (95% CrI: -1.11, 0.27) versus ibandronate, -0.17 (-0.76, 0.22) versus alendronate, and -0.06 (-0.62, 0.30) versus risedronate. RESULTS from the meta-regression analyses were similar. For the FRAX ≥20% population, estimated fracture rates with bazedoxifene were lower than with bisphosphonates, but again the uncertainty limits strong interpretation. The RRR for bazedoxifene was 0.51 (-0.31, 0.83) versus ibandronate, 0.53 (-0.18, 0.83) versus alendronate, and 0.57 (-0.07, 0.85) versus risedronate. The meta-regression analyses showed comparable findings.
CONCLUSION
The analyses only considered vertebral fractures for oral bisphosphonates versus bazedoxifene, and IPD was available only for bazedoxifene. In light of this, bazedoxifene is comparable to bisphosphonates in the overall PMO population and at least as effective as bisphosphonates for preventing vertebral fractures among higher-risk PMO patients. The findings suggest bazedoxifene performs better in higher-risk PMO than in the overall PMO.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Indoles; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24773456
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2014.908279 -
Oral Diseases Jan 2023To determine the frequency of osteonecrosis of the jaw in bisphosphonate users submitted to dental procedures. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the frequency of osteonecrosis of the jaw in bisphosphonate users submitted to dental procedures.
METHODS
This systematic review searched the sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library, with no restriction on language or publication date. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected the studies, extracted their data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 27 studies (5391 participants) were included. The most reported bisphosphonates were zoledronate (n = 17 studies) and alendronate (n = 19) for treating cancers (n = 11) and osteoporosis (n = 16), respectively. Twelve studies were of low methodological quality. The frequency of osteonecrosis was 2.7% (95% CI: 0.9-5.2%) and proved higher for intravenous [6.9% (0.7-17.3%)] than oral [0.2% (0.9-5.2%)] bisphosphonate use. No association between longer treatment duration and greater frequency of osteonecrosis was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher frequency of osteonecrosis was observed in intravenous bisphosphonate users submitted to dental extraction. Further studies collecting more detailed information on the bisphosphonates used and of greater methodological rigor are warranted to confirm these findings and better inform prescribers, dental surgeons, and other professionals on risks of bisphosphonate use in this patient group.
Topics: Humans; Diphosphonates; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Osteonecrosis; Zoledronic Acid; Osteoporosis; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw
PubMed: 34402147
DOI: 10.1111/odi.14003 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Feb 2015A systematic review of eight ulnar fractures in seven patients with bisphosphonate therapy was performed to describe the characteristics and predisposing factors. The... (Review)
Review
SUMMARY
A systematic review of eight ulnar fractures in seven patients with bisphosphonate therapy was performed to describe the characteristics and predisposing factors. The proximal ulna is likely to be fractured, especially in the dominant limb of elderly female patients using walking aids after 7 to 15 years of bisphosphonate use.
INTRODUCTION
Long-term bisphosphonate use has been suggested to result in decreased bone remodelling and increased risk of atypical fractures. While the relationship between bisphosphonate use and atypical femoral fractures has been extensively studied, there is relative rarity and unawareness of these fractures in the forearm. We conducted a systematic review of existing case reports to better describe the characteristics and predisposing factors for fractures occurring in patients with bisphosphonate therapy.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. All studies with ulnar fractures in individuals with history of bisphosphonate use were included, with data extracted and analysed in totality.
RESULTS
Seven patients with eight fractures are included. Predisposing factors include elderly females requiring walking aids. There is a propensity for the proximal ulna to be fractured, especially in the dominant limb used for ambulation or transfer. All patients were on bisphosphonate for 7 to 15 years. All fractures were atraumatic, non-comminuted, transverse in configuration, had localised periosteal or endosteal thickening at the fracture site and generalised cortical thickening of the diaphysis.
CONCLUSION
Ulnar fractures in patients with bisphosphonate therapy demonstrate features similar to those described for atypical femoral fractures, suggesting that these fractures could also possibly be due to bisphosphonate use. However, the ulna appears to be able to tolerate longer periods of alendronate use prior to fracture development. The mechanism and characteristics of these fractures additionally suggest the presence of repetitive stress that accumulates over time due to suppressed bone remodelling in patients on bisphosphonates, eventually resulting in these fractures.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Female; Fractures, Stress; Humans; Osteoporosis; Risk Factors; Self-Help Devices; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Ulna Fractures; Walking
PubMed: 25227921
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-014-2885-0 -
Endocrine Jun 2018Both type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been associated with bone fragility and increased fracture risk. However, little is known regarding the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Both type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been associated with bone fragility and increased fracture risk. However, little is known regarding the effect of anti-osteoporotic treatment on bone mineral density (BMD) and/or fracture risk in these patients. We aimed to systematically investigate the efficacy of anti-osteoporotic medications in patients with diabetes in comparison with non-diabetic subjects.
METHODS
MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched (up to 31st October 2017).
RESULTS
Nine studies fulfilled the pre-defined inclusion criteria [patients with T2DM (n = 8) or either T1DM or T2DM (n = 1)]. Regarding fracture risk, five studies were identified. Alendronate demonstrated comparable vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in patients with and without diabetes (n = 2), whereas non-vertebral fracture risk was either the same (n = 1) or higher in diabetic patients (n = 1). Raloxifene also demonstrated comparable vertebral anti-fracture efficacy in both groups (n = 2), without any effect on non-vertebral fractures in either group. In one study, diabetic patients exposed to raloxifene demonstrated the same vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk with non-diabetic patients. Teriparatide (n = 1) demonstrated the same non-vertebral fracture rates in both patients with and without T2DM. Regarding BMD, equal increases in spine BMD were observed with alendronate (n = 4), risedronate (n = 1), and teriparatide (n = 1). With respect to hip BMD, similar increases were observed with teriparatide (n = 1), whereas data regarding alendronate were controversial (n = 3). No eligible study was found for zoledronic acid, ibandronate, strontium ranelate, denosumab, or bazedoxifene.
CONCLUSIONS
The presence of diabetes does not alter anti-osteoporotic treatment response, regarding BMD increase and vertebral fracture risk reduction.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 29411304
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-018-1548-x -
Journal of the American Dental... Aug 2019The authors' aim in this systematic review was to evaluate the validity of using preoperative serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide (CTX) levels as a predictive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide level as a predictive biomarker of osteonecrosis after dentoalveolar surgery in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The authors' aim in this systematic review was to evaluate the validity of using preoperative serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide (CTX) levels as a predictive factor of increased risk of developing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in patients receiving bisphosphonate (BP) therapy who underwent invasive dental procedures.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The authors conducted a meta-analysis on the risk ratio. The authors used the methodological index for nonrandomized studies and Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies checklist to assess quality.
RESULTS
The authors included 18 clinical trials involving 2,301 patients. Most patients received alendronate or risedronate for an average of 62.14 months. The average serum CTX level in patients who received BP before surgery was 198.25 picograms per milliliter. Meta-analysis results showed that the cutoff in CTX level (150 pg/mL) was not predictive of MRONJ risk. The sensitivity of CTX values lower than 150 pg/mL was 34.26%, and the specificity was 77.08%.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The use of CTX levels to diagnose MRONJ risk after dental procedures in patients receiving BP is not justified. The cutoff of 150 pg/mL in serum CTX levels is not predictive of MRONJ. Further studies are needed to develop other reliable biomarkers.
Topics: Biomarkers; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Collagen Type I; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteonecrosis; Peptides; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 31256803
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.03.006 -
Journal of Investigative Medicine : the... Mar 2022This meta-analysis and systematic review investigated the efficacy of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fracture (IHF) in patients of different ages with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis and systematic review investigated the efficacy of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fracture (IHF) in patients of different ages with osteoporosis or osteopenia. We searched Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and PubMed from inception to January 10, 2021, for trials reporting the effects of bisphosphonates on the IHF. We included only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. We pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis with risk ratios (RRs) and reported 95% CIs. We also used the Cochran Q and I² statistics to assess the heterogeneity in the results of individual studies. The primary endpoints were the total numbers of people in the bisphosphonates and placebo groups and the numbers of IHFs during the follow-up periods. Bisphosphonates reduced the IHF with an overall effect (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.77; zoledronic acid: RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.78; risedronate: RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.94, and alendronate: RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.95). The result of the heterogeneity assessment was I²=0, p=0.97. In all age groups (all ages, ≥55 years old, ≥65 years old), bisphosphonates reduced the IHF. In the ≥55 years old and ≥65 years old age groups, the RR and 95% CI were 0.63 and 0.43 to 0.93, and 0.60 and 0.44 to 0.81, respectively. Bisphosphonate reduced the IHF in the general population and all age groups (≥55 years old and ≥65 years old). Zoledronic acid, risedronate and alendronate reduced the IHF in osteoporosis or osteopenia populations. The association between bisphosphonate and the IHF does not appear to be influenced by age.
Topics: Aged; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Humans; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 34893517
DOI: 10.1136/jim-2021-001961 -
Hormone and Metabolic Research =... Oct 2018Bisphosphonates, such as alendronate, have become the most widely used and effective anti-resorptive therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Previous genetic studies... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative Efficacy of Alendronate upon Vertebral Bone Mineral Density and Fracture Rates in East Asians Versus Non-East Asians with Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Bisphosphonates, such as alendronate, have become the most widely used and effective anti-resorptive therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Previous genetic studies suggest that ethnicity may drive differing responses to bisphosphonate therapy in East Asians and non-East Asians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of alendronate upon lumbar spinal BMD and vertebral fracture rates in East Asians and non-East Asians with postmenopausal osteoporosis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of alendronate versus placebo (or calcium/mineral and/or Vitamin D or hormone replacement therapy) in primary postmenopausal osteoporotic women. We calculated the weighted mean differences (WMDs) for lumbar spinal BMD and the risk ratios (RRs) for vertebral fracture risk along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). From an initial set of 445 non-duplicate records, 13 full-text articles were finally included in this meta-analysis consisting of four East Asian RCTs and nine non-East Asian RCTs. Alendronate therapy displayed significant effects in improving lumbar spinal BMD in both East Asians [WMD (95% CI)=5.30 (0.32-10.29), p=0.037] and non-East Asians [WMD (95% CI)=5.73 (3.61-7.85), p=0.000]. Alendronate therapy did not display significant effects upon vertebral fracture risk in East Asians [RR (95% CI)=0.41 (0.06-2.73), p=0.358] but did display a significant effect upon lowering vertebral fracture risk in non-East Asians [RR (95% CI)=0.55 (0.42-0.72), p=0.000]. These findings suggest that ethnicity may affect the efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy in postmenopausal osteoporotic women.
Topics: Alendronate; Asian People; Bone Density; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Spinal Fractures; Spine
PubMed: 30312984
DOI: 10.1055/a-0741-8300