-
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Apr 2019Meta-analyses conducted >15 years ago reported that improvements in bone mineral density (BMD) were associated with reduction in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Meta-analyses conducted >15 years ago reported that improvements in bone mineral density (BMD) were associated with reduction in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in osteoporosis trials. Numerous studies have been conducted since then, incorporating new therapies with different mechanisms of action and enrolling many more subjects. To extend these prior analyses, we conducted a meta-regression of 38 placebo-controlled trials of 19 therapeutic agents to determine the association between improvements in BMD and reductions in fracture risk. We used a linear model to examine the relationship between mean percent difference in BMD change between treatment and placebo groups and the logarithm of the relative risk. We found that greater improvements in BMD were strongly associated with greater reductions in vertebral and hip fractures but not nonvertebral fractures. For vertebral fracture, the r values for total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD change were 0.56, 0.54, and 0.63, respectively (p ≤ 0.0002). For a 2% or 6% improvement in total hip BMD, we might expect a 28% or 66% reduction, respectively, in vertebral fracture risk. For hip fracture, the r values for total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD change were 0.48 (p = 0.01), 0.42 (p = 0.02), and 0.22 (ns), respectively. For a 2% or 6% improvement in total hip BMD, we might expect a 16% or 40% reduction in hip fracture risk. In conclusion, our results extend prior observations that larger improvements in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-based BMD are associated with greater reductions in fracture risk, particularly for vertebral and hip fractures. Although these results cannot be directly applied to predict the treatment benefit in an individual patient, they provide compelling evidence that improvements in BMD with osteoporosis therapies may be useful surrogate endpoints for fracture in trials of new therapeutic agents. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Topics: Absorptiometry, Photon; Bone Density; Hip Fractures; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 30674078
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3641 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice.
OBJECTIVES
To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Three placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and two were possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials (one with incomplete data reported) indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.6 points better (0.2 better to 1 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 6% (2% better to 10% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 9% (3% better to14% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.7 points better (0.3 better to 3.1 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (1% to 14% better), relative improvement 10% better (3% to 18% better) (three trials, 296 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.75 points (3.53 worse to 9.02 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute change: 3% better (4% worse to 9% better), relative change: 5% better (6% worse to 15% better (two trials, 175 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from seven trials (four placebo, three usual care, 1020 participants), up to 24 months follow-up, indicates we are uncertain whether vertebroplasty increases the risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (70/509 (or 130 per 1000; range 60 to 247) observed in the vertebroplasty group compared with 59/511 (120 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.87)).Similarly, moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from five trials (three placebo, two usual care, 821 participants), indicates uncertainty around the risk of other serious adverse events (18/408 or 76 per 1000, range 6 to 156) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 26/413 (or 106 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.12). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks. Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based upon high- to moderate-quality evidence, our updated review does not support a role for vertebroplasty for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice. We found no demonstrable clinically important benefits compared with placebo (sham procedure) and subgroup analyses indicated that the results did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Cements; Female; Fractures, Compression; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fractures; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 29618171
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006349.pub3 -
International Journal of Orthopaedic... Nov 2020Osteoporosis is a progressive disease commonly seen in postmenopausal women which is characterized by decreased bone mass. This is becoming an important public health... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a progressive disease commonly seen in postmenopausal women which is characterized by decreased bone mass. This is becoming an important public health issue in India. This review aimed to evaluate the effect of exercise on quality of life and bone health status among postmenopausal osteoporotic women.
METHODS
We searched the following databases: Pubmed-Medline, Proquest, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central and PEDro. The review included randomized controlled trials that examined the use of exercise aimed at improving bone mineral density and quality of life in postmenopausal osteoporotic women without a history of fracture. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
RESULTS
This review suggests exercise is effective in improving the bone mineral density and quality of life of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The exercise interventions included in the studies were heterogeneous and included: Tai Chi, high intensity aerobic exercises, Modified Eight Section Brocade exercises, progressive slow loading low impact exercises, pilates and closed kinetic exercises. Four studies had a small sample size and in three studies, interventions were for a shorter duration. Meta-analysis could not be performed as the studies were not homogenous.
CONCLUSION
There is a need to conduct more experimental trials with robust research methods so that a high risk of bias can be avoided. The available evidence supports the positive effects of exercises on postmenopausal osteoporosis.
Topics: Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33041224
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijotn.2020.100796 -
PharmacoEconomics Feb 2021Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is...
BACKGROUND
Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them.
METHODS
A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles.
RESULTS
The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporosis-specific guideline could be useful in improving the transparency, quality, and comparability of future economic evaluations in osteoporosis.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pharmaceutical Preparations; State Medicine
PubMed: 33026634
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00965-9 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Dec 2017Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture comprising approximately 1.4 million cases worldwide. Clinical practice... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture comprising approximately 1.4 million cases worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines can be powerful tools for promoting evidence-based practice as they integrate research findings to support decision making. However, currently available clinical guidelines and recommendations, established by different medical societies, are sometimes contradictory.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to appraise the recommendations and the methodological quality of international clinical guidelines for the management of VCFs.
STUDY DESIGN
This is a systematic review of clinical guidelines for the management of VCF.
METHODS
Guidelines were selected by searching MEDLINE and PubMed, PEDro, CINAHL, and EMBASE electronic databases between 2010 and 2016. We also searched clinical practice guideline databases, including the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the Canadian Medical Association InfoBase. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed by two authors independently using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. We also classified the strength of each recommendation as either strong (ie, based on high-quality studies with consistent findings for recommending for or against the intervention), weak (ie, based on a lack of compelling evidence resulting in uncertainty for benefit or potential harm), or expert consensus (ie, based on expert opinion of the working group rather than on scientific evidence). Guideline recommendations were grouped into diagnostic, conservative care, interventional care, and osteoporosis treatment and prevention of future fractures. Our study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Four guidelines from three countries, published in the period 2010-2013, were included. In general, the quality was not satisfactory (50% or less of the maximum possible score). The domains scoring 50% or less of the maximum possible score were rigor of development, clarity of presentation, and applicability. The use of plain radiography or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for diagnosis was recommended in two of the four guidelines. Vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty was recommended in three of the four guidelines. The recommendation for bed rest, trunk orthoses, electrical stimulation, and supervised or unsupervised exercise was inconsistent across the included guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparison of clinical guidelines for the management of VCF showed that diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations were generally inconsistent. The evidence available to guideline developers was limited in quantity and quality. Greater efforts are needed to improve the quality of the majority of guidelines.
Topics: Fractures, Compression; Humans; Kyphoplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Postoperative Complications; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Spinal Fractures; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 28739478
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.07.174 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2023This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR... (Review)
Review
Efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis.
This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on GC efficacy were identified from a separate search on the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A combined search was performed for the duration of use and safety of GCs in RA patients. Dose-defined and time-defined GC treatment of any dose and duration (excluding intra-articular GCs) prescribed in combination with other DMARDs were considered. Results are presented descriptively. Two included studies confirmed the efficacy of GC bridging as initial therapy, with equal efficacy after 2 years of initial doses of 30 mg/day compared with 60 mg/day prednisone. Based on a recently performed SLR, in clinical trials most patients starting initial GC bridging are able to stop GCs within 12 (22% patients continued on GCs) to 24 months (10% patients continued on GCs). The safety search included 12 RCTs and 21 observational studies. Well-known safety risks of GC use were confirmed, including an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, serious infections, diabetes and mortality. Data on cardiovascular outcomes were Inconsistent. Overall, safety risks increased with increasing dose and/or duration, but evidence on which dose is safe was conflicting. In conclusion, this SLR has confirmed the efficacy of GCs in the treatment of RA. In clinical trials, most patients have shown to be able to stop GCs within 12-24 months. Well-known safety risks of GC use have been confirmed, but with heterogeneity between studies.
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Antirheumatic Agents; Prednisone; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 36410794
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2022-223358 -
Calcified Tissue International Jun 2023To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Clinical Effectiveness of Denosumab (Prolia®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women, Compared to Bisphosphonates, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM), and Placebo: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; bazedoxifene, raloxifene) or placebo, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW). Systematic searches were run in PubMed, Embase & Cochrane Library on 27-April-2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included osteoporotic PMW allocated to denosumab, SERMs, bisphosphonates, or placebo were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Bayesian network and/or pairwise meta-analyses were conducted on predetermined outcomes (i.e. vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, adverse events [AEs], serious AEs (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, AEs caused by denosumab discontinuation). A total of 12 RCTs (k = 22 publications; n = 25,879 participants) were included in the analyses. Denosumab, reported a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD, compared to placebo. Similarly, denosumab also resulted in a statistically significant increase in TH BMD compared to the raloxifene and bazedoxifene. However, relative to denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate resulted in significant improvements in both femoral neck (FN) and LS BMD. With regards to vertebral fractures and all safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between denosumab and any of the comparator. Relative to placebo, denosumab was associated with significant benefits in both LS and TH BMD. Additionally, denosumab (compared to placebo) was not associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Finally, denosumab was not associated with improvement in safety outcomes, compared to placebo. These findings should be interpreted with caution as some analyses suffered from statistical imprecision.
Topics: Female; Humans; Diphosphonates; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Denosumab; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Risedronic Acid; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Ibandronic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Postmenopause; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporosis; Bone Density; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37016189
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-023-01078-z -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Sep 2023Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone...
Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), and the International...
PURPOSE
Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone microarchitecture. In 2015, a Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) published a review of the TBS literature, concluding that TBS predicts hip and major osteoporotic fracture, at least partly independent of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. It was also concluded that TBS is potentially amenable to change as a result of pharmacological therapy. Further evidence on the utility of TBS has since accumulated in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and the introduction of FRAX and BMD T-score adjustment for TBS has accelerated adoption. This position paper therefore presents a review of the updated scientific literature and provides expert consensus statements and corresponding operational guidelines for the use of TBS.
METHODS
An Expert Working Group was convened by the ESCEO and a systematic review of the evidence undertaken, with defined search strategies for four key topics with respect to the potential use of TBS: (1) fracture prediction in men and women; (2) initiating and monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis; (3) fracture prediction in secondary osteoporosis; and (4) treatment monitoring in secondary osteoporosis. Statements to guide the clinical use of TBS were derived from the review and graded by consensus using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
A total of 96 articles were reviewed and included data on the use of TBS for fracture prediction in men and women, from over 20 countries. The updated evidence shows that TBS enhances fracture risk prediction in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and can, when taken with BMD and clinical risk factors, inform treatment initiation and the choice of antiosteoporosis treatment. Evidence also indicates that TBS provides useful adjunctive information in monitoring treatment with long-term denosumab and anabolic agents. All expert consensus statements were voted as strongly recommended.
CONCLUSION
The addition of TBS assessment to FRAX and/or BMD enhances fracture risk prediction in primary and secondary osteoporosis, adding useful information for treatment decision-making and monitoring. The expert consensus statements provided in this paper can be used to guide the integration of TBS in clinical practice for the assessment and management of osteoporosis. An example of an operational approach is provided in the appendix. This position paper presents an up-to-date review of the evidence base, synthesised through expert consensus statements, which informs the implementation of Trabecular Bone Score in clinical practice.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Cancellous Bone; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Absorptiometry, Photon; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoarthritis; Aging; Consensus; World Health Organization; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 37393412
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06817-4 -
The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology Aug 2020The validation of bone mineral density (BMD) as a surrogate outcome for fracture would allow the size of future randomised controlled osteoporosis registration trials to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Treatment-related changes in bone mineral density as a surrogate biomarker for fracture risk reduction: meta-regression analyses of individual patient data from multiple randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The validation of bone mineral density (BMD) as a surrogate outcome for fracture would allow the size of future randomised controlled osteoporosis registration trials to be reduced. We aimed to determine the association between treatment-related changes in BMD, assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and fracture outcomes, including the proportion of treatment effect explained by BMD changes.
METHODS
We did a pooled analysis of individual patient data from multiple randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials. We included data from multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of osteoporosis medications that included women and men at increased osteoporotic fracture risk. Using individual patient data for each trial we calculated mean 24-month BMD percent change together with fracture reductions and did a meta-regression of the association between treatment-related differences in BMD changes (percentage difference, active minus placebo) and fracture risk reduction. We also used individual patient data to determine the proportion of anti-fracture treatment effect explained by BMD changes and the BMD change needed in future trials to ensure fracture reduction efficacy.
FINDINGS
Individual patient data from 91 779 participants of 23 randomised, placebo-controlled trials were included. The trials had 1-9 years of follow-up and included 12 trials of bisphosphonate, one of odanacatib, two of hormone therapy (one of conjugated equine oestrogen and one of conjugated equine oestrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate), three of PTH receptor agonists, one of denosumab, and four of selective oestrogen receptor modulator trials. The meta-regression revealed significant associations between treatment-related changes in hip, femoral neck, and spine BMD and reductions in vertebral (r 0·73, p<0·0001; 0·59, p=0·0005; 0·61, p=0·0003), hip (0·41, p=0·014; 0·41, p=0·0074; 0·34, p=0·023) and non-vertebral fractures (0·53, p=0·0021; 0·65, p<0·0001; 0·51, p=0·0019). Minimum 24-month percentage changes in total hip BMD providing almost certain fracture reductions in future trials ranged from 1·42% to 3·18%, depending on fracture site. Hip BMD changes explained substantial proportions (44-67%) of treatment-related fracture risk reduction.
INTERPRETATION
Treatment-related BMD changes are strongly associated with fracture reductions across randomised trials of osteoporosis therapies with differing mechanisms of action. These analyses support BMD as a surrogate outcome for fracture outcomes in future randomised trials of new osteoporosis therapies and provide an important demonstration of the value of public access to individual patient data from multiple trials.
FUNDING
Foundation for National Institutes of Health.
Topics: Absorptiometry, Photon; Biomarkers; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Risk Reduction Behavior; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32707115
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30159-5 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jun 2024To compare single and multiple physiotherapy sessions to improve pain, function, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
One and Done? The Effectiveness of a Single Session of Physiotherapy Compared With Multiple Sessions to Reduce Pain and Improve Function and Quality of Life in Patients With a Musculoskeletal Disorder: A Systematic Review With Meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To compare single and multiple physiotherapy sessions to improve pain, function, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs).
DATA SOURCES
AMED, Cinahl, SportsDiscus, Medline, Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single and multiple physiotherapy sessions for MSKDs.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Six RCTs (n=2090) were included (conditions studied: osteoporotic vertebral fracture, neck, knee, and shoulder pain). Meta-analyses with low-certainty evidence showed a significant pain improvement at 6 months in favor of multiple sessions compared with single session interventions (3 RCTs; n=1035; standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53; P=.02) but this significant difference in pain improvement was not observed at 3 months (4 RCTs; n=1312; SMD: 0.39; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.89; P=.13) and at 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1266; SMD: -0.05; 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.39; P=.82). Meta-analyses with low-certainty evidence showed no significant differences in function at 3 (4 RCTs; n=1583; SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.21; P=.56), 6 (4 RCTs; n=1538; SMD: 0.06; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.23; P=.53) and 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1528; SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.25; P=.30) and QoL at 3 (4 RCTs; n=1779; SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.17; P=.12), 6 (3 RCTs; n=1206; SMD: 0.03; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.14; P=.59), and 12 months (4 RCTs; n=1729; SMD: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.07; P=.58).
CONCLUSIONS
Low certainty meta-analyses found no clinically significant differences in pain, function, and QoL between single and multiple physiotherapy sessions for MSKD management for the conditions studied. Future research should compare the cost-effectiveness of those different models of care.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Pain Management; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37805175
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.09.017