-
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Although some studies have found that nitrates were beneficial for bone health, the findings are inconsistent. To assess the efficacy of nitrates for bone health, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although some studies have found that nitrates were beneficial for bone health, the findings are inconsistent. To assess the efficacy of nitrates for bone health, we conducted a meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE databases, Cochrane Library for relevant articles published before December 2021 were searched. All observational and randomized controlled studies that reporting bone mineral density (BMD), fractures with nitrates use were included. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for fractures, change differences for bone mineral density.
RESULTS
Four cohort studies and two case-control studies examining the association between nitrates use and fractures were identified. The nitrates use was not associated with any fracture risk (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01; = 31.5%) and hip fracture (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.02; = 74.5%). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences in fracture risk, whereas two cohort studies revealed a reduced risk of hip fracture (RR = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.58-0.86, = 0.0%). There were no statistically significant differences in BMD percent changes at lumbar spine (WMD = -0.07, 95% CI,-0.78-0.65; = 0.0%), total hip (WMD = -0.42, 95% CI,-0.88-0.04; = 0.0%), femoral neck (WMD = -0.38, 95% CI,-1.02-0.25; = 0.0%), or total body (WMD = -0.17, 95% CI,-0.51-0.17; = 0.0%) in two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with a placebo. Another two RCTs compared nitrates with alendronate. Nitrates were comparable to alendronate in increasing bone mineral density at lumbar spine (WMD = 0.00, 95% CI,-0.01-0.02; = 0.0%). Besides, the most common adverse effect was headache, contributing to low adherence to therapy.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis showed no association between nitrates use and fractures in observational studies. The results of RCTs on the usage of nitrates and their effects on BMD were inconsistent. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to clarify the efficacy of nitrates for bone health.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone and Bones; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Isosorbide Dinitrate; Male; Nitrates; Nitric Oxide Donors; Nitroglycerin; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35222289
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.833932 -
Medicine Oct 2020The goal of this study was to review relevant randomized controlled trials or case-control studies to determine the clinical efficacy of minodronate in the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The goal of this study was to review relevant randomized controlled trials or case-control studies to determine the clinical efficacy of minodronate in the treatment of osteoporosis.
METHOD
The relevant studies were identified on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases using appropriate keywords. Pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through October 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we assessed odds ratios, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) to evaluate and synthesize outcomes.
RESULT
Thirteen studies comprising 3740 patients were included in this study. Compared with other drugs, minodronate significantly decreased N-telopeptide of type I collagen/creatinine (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -13.669, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -23.108 to -4.229), bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) (WMD: -1.26, 95% CI: -2.04 to -0.47) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (WMD: -154.11, 95% CI: -277.85 to -30.37). Minodronate combined with other drugs would significantly decrease BAP (WMD: -3.10, 95% CI: -5.20 to -1.00) than minodronate. Minodronate-naïve would significantly decrease BAP (WMD: -3.00, 95% CI: -5.47 to 0.53) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (WMD: -128.20, 95% CI: -198.11 to -58.29) than minodronate-switch. The incidence of vertebral fracture was significantly decreased in the minodronate group than the other drugs (relative risk: 0.520, 95% CI: 0.363-0.744).
CONCLUSION
Minodronate has better clinical efficacy in the treatment of osteoporosis than other drugs (alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, or eldecalcitol).
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alendronate; Alkaline Phosphatase; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Case-Control Studies; Collagen Type I; Creatinine; Diphosphonates; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Imidazoles; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Spinal Fractures; Tartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphatase; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin D
PubMed: 33019463
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022542 -
PloS One 2021Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients, attempts at comprehensive quantification of potential adverse effects have been limited. We undertook a meta-analysis with novel methodology to identify and quantify these adverse effects.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in breast cancer where at least one of the treatments was a bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate, alendronate or clodronate). Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings were examined. Primary outcomes were adverse events of any type or severity (excluding death). We carried out pairwise and network meta-analyses to estimate the size of any adverse effects potentially related to bisphosphonates. In order to ascertain whether adverse effects differed by individual factors such as age, or interacted with other common adjuvant breast cancer treatments, we examined individual-level patient data for one large trial, AZURE.
FINDINGS
We identified 56 trials that reported adverse data, which included a total of 29,248 patients (18,301 receiving bisphosphonate drugs versus 10,947 not). 24 out of the 103 different adverse outcomes analysed showed a statistically and practically significant increase in patients receiving a bisphosphonate drug compared with those not (2 additional outcomes that appeared statistically significant came only from small studies with low event counts and no clinical suspicion so are likely artifacts). Most of these 24 are already clinically recognised: 'flu-like symptoms, fever, headache and chills; increased bone pain, arthralgia, myalgia, back pain; cardiac events, thromboembolic events; hypocalcaemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw; as well as possibly stiffness and nausea. Oral clodronate appeared to increase the risk of vomiting and diarrhoea (which may also be increased by other bisphosphonates), and there may be some hepatotoxicity. Four additional potential adverse effects emerged for bisphosphonate drugs in this analysis which have not classically be recognised: fatigue, neurosensory problems, hypertonia/muscle spasms and possibly dysgeusia. Several symptoms previously reported as potential side effects in the literature were not significantly increased in this analysis: constipation, insomnia, respiratory problems, oedema or thirst/dry mouth. Individual patient-level data and subgroup analysis revealed little variation in side effects between women of different ages or menopausal status, those with metastatic versus non-metastatic cancer, or between women receiving different concurrent breast cancer therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis has produced estimates for the absolute frequencies of a range of side effects significantly associated with bisphosphonate drugs when used by breast cancer patients. These results show good agreement with previous literature on the subject but are the first systematic quantification of side effects and their severities. However, the analysis is limited by the availability and quality of data on adverse events, and the potential for bias introduced by a lack of standards for reporting of such events. We therefore present a table of adverse effects for bisphosphonates, identified and quantified to the best of our ability from a large number of trials, which we hope can be used to improve the communication of the potential harms of these drugs to patients and their healthcare providers.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33544765
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246441 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Herein, we purposed to evaluate the efficacy along with the safety of Xianling Gubao capsule (XLGB) combined with alendronate (ALE) for primary osteoporosis (POP) from...
The Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Herbal Medicine Xianling Gubao Capsule Combined With Alendronate in the Treatment of Primary Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 20 Randomized Controlled Trials.
Herein, we purposed to evaluate the efficacy along with the safety of Xianling Gubao capsule (XLGB) combined with alendronate (ALE) for primary osteoporosis (POP) from the current literature. We carried out a search for electronic literature in the PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, EMBASE, Wanfang Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Cochrane Library, as well as Chinese VIP databases targeting articles published from inception to December 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were enrolled into the study. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), visual analogue scale (VAS), serum phosphorus (S-P), bone gla protein (BGP), serum calcium (S-Ca) and bone mineral density (BMD) were the primary outcome variable. The total clinical effective rate along with the adverse drug reaction (ADR) were the secondary outcome variables. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 12.0. GRADE pro3.6.1 software was used for the assessment of evidence quality. Overall, 20 RCTs focusing on 1911 patients were enrolled into the study. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that XLGB combined with ALE remarkably increased BMD ( < 0.001), BGP ( < 0.001), S-Ca ( < 0.001), S-P ( < 0.001) and effective rate ( < 0.001) than ALE alone in patients with POP. Moreover, ALP ( < 0.001) and VAS ( < 0.001) were overtly by decreased XLGB. However, XLGB combined with ALE would not markedly increase the rate of ADR in contrast with ALE alone ( = 0.499). The results of our study demonstrated that XLGB is a potential candidate for OP treatment. We recommend that rigorous, as well as high-quality trials involving large samples sizes should be conducted to confirm our findings.
PubMed: 34335260
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.695832 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022To review the effects of bisphosphonates on bone density, fractures, and bone markers in osteopenic older women. Relevant articles published before February 2022 were...
To review the effects of bisphosphonates on bone density, fractures, and bone markers in osteopenic older women. Relevant articles published before February 2022 were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. All randomized controlled trials that reported incident fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), bone markers, or adverse events with bisphosphonates in osteopenic older women were included. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The risk ratios (RRs) for fractures, net percent change in bone mineral density and differences in bone markers were calculated using a meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Bisphosphonates significantly increased the percent changes in the lumbar spine BMD (WMD, 5.60; 95% CI, 4.16-7.03; = 93.6%), hip BMD (WMD, 4.80; 95% CI, 2.93 to 6.66; = 97.1%), total body BMD (WMD, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.12-4.35; = 90.9%), femoral neck BMD (WMD, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.70-6.35; = 91.8%) and trochanter BMD (WMD, 5.22; 95% CI, 3.51-6.93; = 83.6%) when compared to placebo. Zoledronate was associated with a great treatment effect on fragility fracture (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.79), clinical vertebral fracture (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76), and radiographic vertebral fracture (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.27-1.35) compared to placebo. Meanwhile, alendronate was also associated with beneficial effects on fragility fracture (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.15-1.07), clinical vertebral fracture (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.17-1.24), and radiographic vertebral fracture (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.38-1.09). In addition, the use of bisphosphonates reduced the concentration of procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP) and C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) over placebo by 15.79 (95% CI, -18.92 to -12.66; = 28.4%), -0.23 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.10; = 91.3%), respectively. Although there was insufficient evidence to determine their safety, these bisphosphonates may have an effect on cancer, cardiac events, and mortality in osteopenic older women. All bisphosphonates examined were associated with beneficial effects on fractures, BMD, and bone markers in women with osteopenia. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to clarify the safety of bisphosphonates in women with osteopenia.
PubMed: 35662708
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.892091 -
International Journal of Clinical... Apr 2024Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world evidence has been published evaluating the anti-nonvertebral fracture effect of ibandronate.
AIM
This meta-analysis of observational studies assessed the effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis.
METHOD
Pubmed/Embase databases were searched for observational studies. Risks of nonvertebral fractures and hip fractures were the outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed pooling rate ratios (RRs), using random-effects models. Data were reanalysed in sensitivity analyses considering Knapp-Hartung method and Bayesian random-effects.
RESULTS
Six cohort studies were included. Overall, once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate reduced the risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Similar results were obtained when the comparison was restricted to once-monthly 150 mg risedronate, but no differences were found when the comparator was other oral bisphosphonates (weekly alendronate/risedronate). Ibandronate didn't significantly change the risk of hip fractures (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89-1.76). The risk of hip fracture was comparable between once monthly, 150 mg oral ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. Intravenous ibandronate was not effective in reducing hip fractures comparing to intravenous zoledronate. The low number of studies diminished the robustness of sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
Results suggest that once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate may be as effective as other oral bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures. However, uncertainty associated to the small number of included studies, which are characterized by heterogeneous demographics and methodologies, precluded definitive conclusions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Risedronic Acid; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Bayes Theorem; Osteoporosis; Hip Fractures; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38112890
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-023-01666-x -
Journal of Indian Society of... 2021Aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of Aloe vera in various forms such as gel, mouthwash, and dentifrice on gingival and plaque index (PI) in...
BACKGROUND
Aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of Aloe vera in various forms such as gel, mouthwash, and dentifrice on gingival and plaque index (PI) in comparison to various allopathic products such as chlorhexidine, metformin, chlorine dioxide, fluoridated toothpaste, and alendronate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive electronic search was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, and HAND SEARCH of reference list of archived articles published till January 2020. Randomized controlled trials were searched comparing the product with other products which used PI and gingival index (GI) to evaluate the outcomes. Finally, nine studies assessing PI and four studies evaluating GI were considered for the meta-analysis. After extracting the information, a risk of bias was estimated. The standardized mean differences (SMDs) and fixed and random effect models were obtained from the mean treatment differences.
RESULTS
The estimates of SMD of PI from fixed effects (SMD = 0.271, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.00134-0.407, < 0.001) and random effects (SMD = 0.288, 95% CI = 0.048-0.529, = 0.019) were found slightly different, the models showed consistent results yielding positive and significant treatment effects. For GI fixed effects (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = -0.035-0.575, = 0.0803, not significant) and random effects (SMD = 0.259, 95% CI = 0.049-0.469, = 0.016, significant) were found slightly different and positive. However, one model showed significant and another model showed nonsignificant treatment effects.
CONCLUSION
Results from our meta-analyses confirmed the beneficial effects of in improving the periodontal parameters and hence may be considered as a safe alternative drug delivery agent for the management of periodontal diseases in future.
PubMed: 34667378
DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_40_21 -
Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences Jul 2023Class II mandibular furcation defect is a periodontal condition characterized by a cul-de-sac lesion, a definite parallel constituent with only a portion of alveolar...
Class II mandibular furcation defect is a periodontal condition characterized by a cul-de-sac lesion, a definite parallel constituent with only a portion of alveolar bone remaining intact. There may be involvement of vertical bone loss. Local drug deliveries such as Boric acid, alendronate gel, and other drugs exhibited anti-inflammatory, antibacterial & osteoblastic differentiation activity. The present systematic review compares the drugs based on their outcomes and pharmacological action. To analzse & compare various forms of local drug delivery systems on a class II furcation. A search was conducted using PubMed, Google scholar, science direct, and Pub Med central using MeSH terms - local drug delivery in periodontics, boric acid in the management of class II mandibular furcation, simvastatin in the treatment of furcation. A total of 560 articles were screened; 58 out of 560 were full-text articles accessed for eligibility, and five articles were included in the systematic review. PRISMA guidelines were used for reporting this review. In addition, five randomized controlled trials were enclosed and used in this systematic review. The various local drugs used in treating class II mandibular furcation defects are effective in the prevention of bleeding on probing, bone resorption, gingival bleeding index and increase in the bone fill, and microbial deposit removal. The managing of class II mandibular furcation defect with the drugs mentioned in this review can be effective by reducing several clinical parameters such as bleeding on probing, gingival indices, osteoblastic differentiation, bone fill, etc., Considering the results of the studies, it can be concluded that it can be used as a therapeutic therapy against class II furcation defects with positive outcomes.
PubMed: 37654351
DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_572_22 -
Orthopaedic Surgery Aug 2020To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral bisphosphonates in increasing bone mineral density (BMD), reducing fractures, and improving clinical function in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral bisphosphonates in increasing bone mineral density (BMD), reducing fractures, and improving clinical function in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI).
METHODS
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized controlled trials of directly comparing oral bisphosphonate therapy with placebo-group in OI patients. Data synthesis regarding to bone mineral density as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), decreased fracture incidence, change in biochemical markers of bone and mineral metabolism, bone histology, growth, bone pain, quality of life, and others were assessed, and meta-analysis done when possible.
RESULTS
From 98 potential references and six randomized controlled studies a total of 263 participants receiving oral bisphosphonates and 143 placebo treatments contributed data to meta-analysis. Pooled meta-analysis of three studies suggested that there was significant difference between bisphosphonate treated group and placebo in number of patients with at least one fracture (mean difference 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.89, P = 0.02). Pooled meta-analysis of two studies suggested that significant difference was noted between bisphosphonate treated group and placebo in mean percentage change in spine BMD (T-score) (mean difference 28.43, 95% confidence interval 7.09-49.77, P = 0.009). The similar effect was shown in the term of mean change (Z-score) in spine BMD.
CONCLUSIONS
Significant improvement in lumbar areal BMD in patients affected with OI has been shown when treated with oral bisphosphonates, even though only a small population was enrolled. We cannot draw a definite conclusion that the increase in BMD can be translated into fracture reduction and clinical functional improvement. The optimal method, dose, type, initiation, and duration of oral bisphosphonates therapy still remains unclear. Well-designed, adequately-powered, placebo-controlled RCTs investigating the effects of oral bisphosphonates on fractures reduction and improvement in quality of life in both children and adults are studied here.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Osteogenesis Imperfecta; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32589343
DOI: 10.1111/os.12611 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022To assess the benefit and harm of Chinese medicine Xianling Gubao (XLGB) capsule compared to conventional medication or placebo to inform clinical practice. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefit and harm of Chinese medicine Xianling Gubao (XLGB) capsule compared to conventional medication or placebo to inform clinical practice.
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with Jadad score ≥3 of XLGB capsule compared to pharmaceutical medication, placebo, or no treatment for primary osteoporosis. We conducted searches in EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (Sino-Med) from their inception till November 13, 2021. Study selection and data extraction were done by two authors independently. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The effect size was presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Our searches identified 2292 records and after exclusions, eight trials involving 846 participants were included. There was no statistically significant difference between conventional medications with or without XLGB on new fracture (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: [0.13, 1.87]). Quality of life by SF-36 questionnaire of XLGB plus calcium carbonate, vitamin D, and calcitriol was improved than that of without XLGB (MD: 6.72 scores, 95% CI: [2.82, 10.62]). XLGB increased bone mineral density similarly as calcium carbonate plus vitamin D (MD: 0.21, 95% CI: [-0.16, 0.58]) or as alendronate sodium, calcium carbonate plus vitamin D (MD: 0.00, 95% CI: [-0.10, 0.10]), but it had no additional effect as an add-on treatment to conventional medications (MD: 0.13, 95% CI: [-0.12, 0.37]). XLGB relieved pain visual analog scale more effectively when combined with medications (MD: -1.55 score, 95% CI: [-2.47, -0.63]). XLGB as monotherapy did not increase adverse events (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: [0.28, 1.41]), or as an add-on treatment (RR: 0.25, 95% CI: [0.03, 2.16]).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review shows that XLGB capsule appears to be safe and has a beneficial effect on the quality of life and pain relief when used alone or in combination with conventional medications in osteoporosis patients. Further large, rigorous trials are warranted to test its long-term benefit.
Topics: Calcium Carbonate; Humans; Osteoporosis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin D
PubMed: 35464071
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.870277