-
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jun 2020
Topics: Alendronate; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32246168
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05379-z -
Experimental Neurobiology Feb 2022Spinal cord injury is a destructive disease characterized by motor/sensory dysfunction and severe inflammation. Alendronate is an anti-inflammatory molecule and may...
Spinal cord injury is a destructive disease characterized by motor/sensory dysfunction and severe inflammation. Alendronate is an anti-inflammatory molecule and may therefore be of benefit in the treatment of the inflammation associated with spinal cord injury. This study aimed to evaluate whether alendronate attenuates motor/sensory dysfunction and the inflammatory response in a thoracic spinal cord clip injury model. Alendronate was intraperitoneally administered at 1 mg/kg/day or 5 mg/kg/day from day (D) 0 to 28 post-injury (PI). The histopathological evaluation showed an alleviation of the inflammatory response, including the infiltration of inflammatory cells, and a decrease in gliosis. Alendronate also led to reductions in the levels of inflammation-related molecules, including mitogen-activated protein kinase, p53, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and pro-inflammatory mediators. Neuro-behavioral assessments, including the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scale for locomotor function, the von Frey filament test, the hot plate test, and the cold stimulation test for sensory function, and the horizontal ladder test for sensorimotor function improved significantly in the alendronate-treated group at D28PI. Taken together, these results suggest that alendronate treatment can inhibit the inflammatory response in spinal cord injury thus improving functional responses.
PubMed: 35256544
DOI: 10.5607/en21030 -
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering Dec 2023The development of magnesium-derived biomaterials is one of the most promising research in bone tissue engineering, and related strategies have been extensively used for...
The development of magnesium-derived biomaterials is one of the most promising research in bone tissue engineering, and related strategies have been extensively used for tendon, skull, cartilage, and bone regeneration. Also, alendronate, a well-recognized drug for osteoporosis treatment, has recently attracted a great deal of attention for bone repair. However, rapid corrosion of Mg and low systemic bioavailability of alendronate are the main limitations hampering their full exploitation. In this work, by means of physical and chemical cross-linking conjugating magnesium-metal-organic frameworks (Mg-MOFs) and bone-targeting alendronate to biocompatible gelatin scaffolds, a facile method is developed for the preparation of organic/inorganic nanocomposite gel scaffolds. The results affirmed that the nanocomposite gel scaffolds possessed excellent biocompatibility, continuous slow release of Mg and alendronate, strong bone affinity, and bone regeneration. It is noteworthy that the continuous slow release of Mg and alendronate could induce the macrophage switch to the M2 phenotype and promote osteogenic differentiation in the early stage, resulting in improved bone regeneration during implanting the scaffolds into the distal femoral. In summary, Mg-MOFs-loaded alendronate-modified gelatin gel scaffolds have been developed, exhibiting great potential for bone regenerative.
Topics: Diphosphonates; Osteogenesis; Alendronate; Magnesium; Gelatin; Nanogels; Tissue Scaffolds; Bone Regeneration
PubMed: 37942941
DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01080 -
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 -
Pharmacotherapy Sep 2023To compare the effect of denosumab and alendronate on bone mineral density (BMD) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) with low bone mass. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
To compare the effect of denosumab and alendronate on bone mineral density (BMD) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) with low bone mass.
METHODS
Patients were randomized to receive either denosumab subcutaneously (60 mg/6 months), oral alendronate (70 mg/week), or no treatment for 1 year. The three groups were prescribed daily calcium and vitamin D. Primary outcome was BMD assessed at lumbar spine, hip, and radius and measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Adverse events and laboratory assessments (calcium, phosphate, vitamin D, renal functions, and intact parathyroid hormone) were monitored for all patients. Quality of life was assessed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months for all patients.
RESULTS
Ninety RTRs were included in the study (30 in each group). Baseline clinical characteristics and BMD values were comparable in the three groups. After 12 months, lumbar spine T-score of patients treated with denosumab and alendronate showed a median increase of 0.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4-0.6] and 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4-0.8), respectively, and patients in the control group showed a decrease of -0.2 (95% CI: -0.3 to -0.1), p < 0.001. Denosumab and alendronate showed a significant comparable gain in T-scores at hip and radius versus a significant decrease in the control group. Adverse events and laboratory values were similar in the three groups. Both treatments resulted in comparable significant improvement in physical functioning, physical role limitations, vitality, and pain scores.
CONCLUSION
Denosumab and alendronate showed comparable efficacy in improving BMD at all measured skeletal sites and were safe and well-tolerated, with no serious adverse effects reported in RTRs with low bone mass. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04169698.
Topics: Humans; Alendronate; Denosumab; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Density; Kidney Transplantation; Calcium; Quality of Life; Vitamin D
PubMed: 37323099
DOI: 10.1002/phar.2838 -
Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism Nov 2023To investigate the differences in the incidence rates of suspected stage 0/1 osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and incidence risk of relevant clinical findings of suspected... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
To investigate the differences in the incidence rates of suspected stage 0/1 osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and incidence risk of relevant clinical findings of suspected stage 0 ONJ between patients treated with sequential therapy comprising weekly teriparatide for 72 weeks followed by alendronate for 48 weeks vs. those who received monotherapy with alendronate for 120 weeks.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Suspected stage 0/1 ONJ was defined by non-specific symptoms. Tooth mobility and periodontal symptoms (gingival bleeding, swelling, and/or pain) were selected as clinical findings of suspected stage 0 ONJ. Poisson regression models were applied to calculate the incidence rate ratios of suspected stage 0/1 between the teriparatide group (TG) and alendronate group (AG). Generalized linear models were used to calculate the risk ratios of clinical findings between groups.
RESULTS
Two hundred and sixty-one participants in the TG and 344 in the AG answered a structured questionnaire on oral health and were included in this study. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence rate of suspected stage 0/1 ONJ at both 72 and 120 weeks. The risk ratio of the TG to AG for tooth mobility was 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.88, p = 0.02) at 72 weeks and 0.90 (95% CI 0.40-2.03, p = 0.83) at 120 weeks. The incidence rate of tooth mobility related to periodontal symptoms decreased in the TG and increased in the AG during the study.
CONCLUSION
Tooth mobility accompanied by clinical periodontal symptoms may be a useful early sign of stage 0 ONJ.
Topics: Humans; Alendronate; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; East Asian People; Osteoporosis; Reproducibility of Results; Teriparatide; Tooth Mobility
PubMed: 37897672
DOI: 10.1007/s00774-023-01466-3 -
Medicina Clinica Oct 2022Aminobisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis. They have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite, binding primarily to resorbing surfaces, but also to... (Review)
Review
Aminobisphosphonates are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis. They have a high affinity for hydroxyapatite, binding primarily to resorbing surfaces, but also to forming surfaces and to some extent to resting surfaces. They inhibit osteoclasts, thereby decreasing remodelling units. Consequently, they increase bone mass and reduce stress risers. This decreases the risk of fractures. If this decrease is sufficient, they can be temporarily withdrawn (drug holidays), which prevents serious complications (atypical femoral fracture). They probably reduce mortality. Virtually all patients with osteoporosis can benefit from them at some point in the course of their disease (at the beginning of treatment or after the administration of anabolics, selective estrogen receptor modulators or denosumab). If well tolerated orally, alendronate and risedronate are preferable. Otherwise, zoledronate is preferred. Their efficacy vs. cost-safety-convenience ratio makes aminobisphosphonates reference drugs in the field of osteoporosis.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Hydroxyapatites; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Risedronic Acid; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 35738929
DOI: 10.1016/j.medcli.2022.04.003 -
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Nov 2022Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of... (Review)
Review
Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of evidence; however, patient adherence to oral bisphosphonates remains poor in part due to complex dosing instructions and adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This problem has led to the development of novel oral bisphosphonate formulations. Buffered, effervescent alendronate is dissolved in water and so seeks to reduce upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, and gastro-resistant risedronate aims to reduce the complexity of dosing procedure (e.g. fasting prior to consumption) whilst still maintaining the efficacy of fracture risk reduction. Clinical trials and real-world data have been employed to demonstrate some benefits in terms of reduced upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, adherence, persistence and health economic outcomes. This report describes the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores where oral bisphosphonates sit in current clinical practice guidelines, review their risk-benefit profile and the consequences of poor adherence before exploring novel oral bisphosphonate formulations and their potential clinical and health economic impact. Further research is required but there are signs that these novel, oral bisphosphonate formulations may lead to improved tolerance of oral bisphosphonates and thus, improved adherence and fracture outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Risedronic Acid; Alendronate
PubMed: 36331798
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-022-02272-z -
Bone Jul 2022Despite their ability to reduce fracture-risk and increase Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in osteoporotic women, bisphosphonates are reported to reduce formation of new...
Despite their ability to reduce fracture-risk and increase Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in osteoporotic women, bisphosphonates are reported to reduce formation of new bone. Reduced bone formation has been suggested to lead to accumulation of microfractures and contribute to rare side effects in cortical bone such as atypical femur fractures. However, most studies are limited to trabecular bone. In this study, the cortical bone remodeling in human iliac bone specimens of 65 non-treated and 24 alendronate-treated osteoporotic women was investigated using a new histomorphometric classification of intracortical pores. The study showed that only 12.4 ± 11% of the cortical pore area reflected quiescent pores/osteons in alendronate-treated patients versus 8.5 ± 5% in placebo, highlighting that new cortical remodeling events remain to be activated. The percent and size of eroded pores (events in resorption-reversal phase) remained unchanged, but their contribution to total pore area was 1.4-fold higher in alendronate versus placebo treated patients (66 ± 22% vs 48 ± 22%, p < 0.001). On the other hand, the mixed eroded-formative pores (events with mixed resorption-reversal-formation phases) was 2-fold lower in alendronate versus placebo treated patients (19 ± 14% vs 39 ± 23% of total pore area, p < 0.001), and formative pores (event in formation phase) was 2.2-fold lower in alendronate versus placebo treated patients (2.1 ± 2.4% vs 4.6 ± 3.6%, p < 0.01), and their contribution to total pore area was 2.4-fold lower (1.3 ± 2.1% vs 3.1 ± 4.4%, p < 0.05). Importantly, these differences between alendronate and placebo treated patients were significant in patients after 3 years of treatment, not after 2 years of treatment. Collectively, the results support that cortical remodeling events activated during alendronate treatment has a prolonged reversal-resorption phase with a delayed transition to formation, becoming increasingly evident after 3-years of treatment. A potential contributor to atypical femur fractures associated with long-term bisphosphonate treatment.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Remodeling; Bone and Bones; Cortical Bone; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans
PubMed: 35413490
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2022.116419 -
Surgery Today Feb 2022Some authors have suggested that a relationship exists between gastrectomy for gastric cancer and metabolic bone disorders. However, few studies have investigated... (Review)
Review
Some authors have suggested that a relationship exists between gastrectomy for gastric cancer and metabolic bone disorders. However, few studies have investigated metabolic bone disorders after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in detail. Thus, we reviewed the findings of our recent prospective study and those of other reports on this subject. Osteoporosis and osteomalacia have been observed after gastrectomy and appear to be caused by reduced food intake and absorption, and steatorrhea. Moreover, the incidence of fracture is high after gastrectomy, although subtotal or total gastrectomy and reconstruction for gastric cancer have not been identified as significant risk factors for decreased bone mineral density (BMD). Recently, we reported that the BMD decreased significantly within 12 months after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in both male and female patients, but there was no significant gender-related difference in the rate of change in BMD. More than 1 year after gastrectomy, the steep decrease in the BMD stabilized and normal levels of 1,25(OH) vitamin D were maintained, despite the lack of precursor for 1,25(OH) vitamin D synthesis after gastrectomy. Alendronate therapy might be effective and prevent postgastrectomy metabolic bone disorders; however, the optimal treatment and prevention strategy for this bone disorder has not been delineated.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Calcitriol; Female; Gastrectomy; Humans; Male; Osteomalacia; Osteoporosis; Postoperative Complications; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 33630154
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02253-1