-
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Nov 2022Both medical and surgical therapy represent potential management options for patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Because uncertainty remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Efficacy and Safety of Medical and Surgical Therapy in Patients With Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Both medical and surgical therapy represent potential management options for patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Because uncertainty remains regarding both medical and surgical therapy, this systematic review addresses the efficacy and safety of medical therapy in asymptomatic patients or symptomatic patients who decline surgery and surgery in asymptomatic patients. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to December 2020, and included randomized controlled trials in patients with PHPT that compared nonsurgical management with medical therapy versus without medical therapy and surgery versus no surgery in patients with asymptomatic PHPT. For surgical complications we included observational studies. Paired reviewers addressed eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data for patient-important outcomes. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess quality of evidence for each outcome. For medical therapy, 11 trials reported in 12 publications including 438 patients proved eligible: three addressed alendronate, one denosumab, three cinacalcet, two vitamin D, and two estrogen therapy. Alendronate, denosumab, vitamin D, and estrogen therapy all increased bone density. Cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels. Cinacalcet and vitamin D may have a small or no increase in overall adverse events. Very-low-quality evidence raised the possibility of an increase in serious adverse events with alendronate and denosumab. The trials also provided low-quality evidence for increased bleeding and mastalgia with estrogen therapy. For surgery, six trials presented in 12 reports including 441 patients proved eligible. Surgery achieved biochemical cure in 96.1% (high quality). We found no convincing evidence supporting an impact of surgery on fracture, quality of life, occurrence of kidney stones, and renal function, but the evidence proved low or very low quality. Surgery was associated with an increase in bone mineral density. For patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic PHPT, who are not candidates for parathyroid surgery, cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and PTH levels; anti-resorptives increased bone density. For patients with asymptomatic PHPT, surgery usually achieves biochemical cure. These results can help to inform patients and clinicians regarding use of medical therapy and surgery in PHPT. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Topics: Humans; Cinacalcet; Hyperparathyroidism, Primary; Alendronate; Calcium; Quality of Life; Denosumab; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Parathyroid Hormone; Vitamin D; Estrogens
PubMed: 36053960
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4685 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Feb 2021Methotrexate (MTX)-related osteopathy is rare, defined by the triad of pain, osteoporosis, and "atypical fractures" when it was first described in the 1970s in children... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Methotrexate (MTX)-related osteopathy is rare, defined by the triad of pain, osteoporosis, and "atypical fractures" when it was first described in the 1970s in children treated with high doses MTX for acute leukemia. Since then, several cases have been reported in patients treated with low-dose MTX for inflammatory diseases.
METHODS
A systematic research of cases of MTX-related osteopathy was performed in records of Rheumatology Department of Rennes University Hospital. Data collection focused on demographic data, corticosteroid doses, MTX doses and intake method, cumulative doses, year of diagnosis, fracture location, bone densitometry value, and osteoporosis treatment if necessary. A literature review was also conducted to identify other cases in literature and try to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms of this rare entity.
RESULTS
We report 5 cases identified between 2011 and 2019, which represents the largest cohort described excluding oncology cases. Fracture locations were atypical for osteoporotic fractures. All patients improved in the following months with MTX withdrawal. All patients except one were treated with antiresorptives (bisphosphonates, denosumab). Two patients, treated with bisphosphonates, had a recurrence of fracture, once again of atypical location. Twenty-five cases were collected in literature with similar clinical presentation. The cellular studies that investigated the bone toxicity of MTX mainly showed a decrease in the number of osteoblasts, osteocytes, and chondrocytes in the growth plate and an increase in the number and activity of osteoclasts. In vitro, consequences of mechanical stimulation on human trabecular bone cells in the presence of MTX showed an alteration in mechano-transduction, with membrane hyperpolarization, acting on the integrin pathway. In contrast with our report, the cases described in the literature were not consistently associated with a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD).
CONCLUSION
MTX osteopathy while rare must be known by the rheumatologist, especially when using this treatment for inflammatory conditions. The mechanisms are still poorly understood, raising the question of a possible remnant effect of MTX on osteo-forming bone cells, potentially dose-dependent. Methotrexate (MTX) osteopathy, described as a clinical triad, pain, osteoporosis, and atypical stress fractures, while rare, must be known by the rheumatologist. Our cohort of 5 cases represent the largest series of the literature. Pathophysiological studies raised the question of a dose-dependent remnant effect of MTX on osteo-forming bone cells.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Bone Density; Bone Diseases; Child; Humans; Methotrexate; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 33128074
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05664-x -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2019Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common form of secondary osteoporosis. In May 2018, denosumab was approved for the treatment of GIOP in men and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common form of secondary osteoporosis. In May 2018, denosumab was approved for the treatment of GIOP in men and women at high risk of fracture. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the efficacy and safety of denosumab in the prevention and treatment of GIOP.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, American College of Rheumatology and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research meeting abstracts for relevant studies. We included studies in which subjects were taking systemic glucocorticoid therapy and were assigned to take denosumab or control therapy, and assessed the effect of treatment on areal bone mineral density (BMD), fractures and/or safety.
RESULTS
Three eligible studies were included in the primary meta-analysis. Denosumab significantly increased lumbar spine BMD (2.32%, 95% CI 1.73%, 2.91%, <0.0001) and hip BMD (1.52%, 95% CI 1.1%,1.94%, <0.0001) compared to bisphosphonates. Adverse events, serious adverse events and fractures were similar between denosumab and bisphosphonate arms.
CONCLUSION
Results suggest that denosumab is superior to bisphosphonates in its effects on lumbar spine and total hip BMD in patients with GIOP. There was no difference in the incidence of infections, adverse events or serious adverse events. Studies were underpowered to detect differences in the risk of fracture. Denosumab is a reasonable option for treatment of GIOP. However, further studies are needed to guide transitions off denosumab.
Topics: Denosumab; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 31616133
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S148654 -
International Journal of Endocrinology 2023To summarize the characteristics of all reported patients with hypophosphatasia (HPP) who sustained atypical femoral fracture (AFF) and identify all available evidence...
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the characteristics of all reported patients with hypophosphatasia (HPP) who sustained atypical femoral fracture (AFF) and identify all available evidence to quantify the rate of coexistence between HPP and AFF.
METHODS
Potentially eligible articles were identified from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from its inception to September 2022, using a search strategy consisting of terms related to "Hypophosphatasia" and "Atypical femoral fracture." Eligible articles must report one of the following information: (1) individual data of patients diagnosed with HPP and AFF, (2) prevalence of HPP among patients with AFF, or (3) prevalence of AFF among patients of HPP. Characteristics of patients reported in each study were extracted.
RESULTS
A total of 148 articles were identified. After the systematic review, 24 articles met the eligibility criteria. A total of 28 patients with AFF and HPP were identified. The mean ± SD age of the reported patients was 53.8 ± 12.5 years, and 22 patients (78.6%) were female. Nine patients (32.1%) received antiresorptive medication (bisphosphonate and/or denosumab), and two patients (7.1%) received teriparatide prior to the development of AFF. Seven (25.0%) and eighteen (64.3%) patients sustained unilateral and bilateral AFF, respectively (laterality not reported in three cases). Thirteen patients (46.4%) had a history of fractures at other sites. Four (14.3%) and seven (25.0%) patients received asfotase alfa and teriparatide after sustaining AFF. Two studies reported the prevalence of AFF among patients with HPP of approximately 10%. One study reported one HPP patient in a cohort of 72 patients with AFF.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the limited evidence, AFF occurred in up to 10% of patients with HPP. Based on the 28 case reports, about two-thirds did not receive antiresorptive treatment, suggesting that the HPP itself could potentially be a risk factor for AFF.
PubMed: 37731773
DOI: 10.1155/2023/5544148 -
Bone Dec 2020Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction caused by the use of antiresorptive antiangiogenic medication. Treating MRONJ is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction caused by the use of antiresorptive antiangiogenic medication. Treating MRONJ is difficult and besides standard treatments, which are conservative medical and surgical approaches, there are some adjuvant therapies that might further stimulate healing. The aim of this systematic review is to compare outcome and effectiveness of currently available adjuvant therapies for MRONJ.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Articles focusing on mucosal healing in patients treated with an adjuvant therapy for MRONJ were selected and analysed. Inclusion was not limited to randomized controlled trials to present a complete review of the current literature.
RESULTS
A search was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Thirty articles out of 3297 were included. Laser ablation had a success of 60-95% for complete healing. The controlled trials of leukocyte- and platelet-rich-fibrine (LPRF) showed 60-100% success for the same outcome. Fluorescence guided surgery had a complete healing percentage of 85-90%.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that laser ablation, LPRF and fluorescence guided surgery might have a potential in improving the healing process. Interpreting the results should however be done with great care and a critical point of view, as most articles had a medium to high risk of bias. More randomized controlled trials are necessary to define the most beneficial therapy protocols.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
It seems that adjuvant surgical therapies for treating MRONJ are beneficial for mucosal healing, but there is only low scientific evidence.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Humans
PubMed: 33022455
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115676 -
Annals of Geriatric Medicine and... Mar 2023Osteosarcopenia, a combination of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia, is a common condition among older adults. While numerous studies and meta-analyses have been...
BACKGROUND
Osteosarcopenia, a combination of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia, is a common condition among older adults. While numerous studies and meta-analyses have been conducted on the treatment of osteoporosis, the pharmacological treatment of osteosarcopenia still lacks evidence. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, has shown encouraging results for the treatment of osteosarcopenia. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the potential dual role of denosumab as an anti-resorptive agent and for other beneficial muscle-related effects in patients with osteosarcopenia, and to evaluate whether denosumab can be a treatment of choice compared to bisphosphonate.
METHODS
Relevant literature was collated from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. The primary outcome was denosumab's effect on lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS BMD), handgrip strength, and gait speed change. The secondary outcome was the effect of denosumab on appendicular lean mass (ALM). The outcomes were presented as mean difference (MD). A random effects model was used in the analysis to represent the population. The risk of bias was assessed using funnel plots.
RESULTS
Out of the 3,074 studies found, four full-text studies met the inclusion criteria, including 264 and 244 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Regarding a primary outcome, our meta-analysis showed that denosumab showed no significant differences in LS BMD and gait speed changes compared to other agents-MD=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.35 to 0.79; p=0.09 and MD=0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.40; p=0.46, respectively. Denosumab had a significant effect on handgrip strength change compared to standard agents-MD=5.16; 95% CI, 1.38 to 18.94; p=0.007, based on the random effects model.
CONCLUSIONS
Denosumab was better than bisphosphonate and placebo in improving muscle strength (handgrip strength). Therefore, denosumab may be favored in individuals with osteosarcopenia to improve muscular performance and reduce fall risk.
PubMed: 36628511
DOI: 10.4235/agmr.22.0139 -
Biomolecules Jun 2023Invasive dental treatment in patients exposed to antiresorptive and antiangiogenic drugs can cause medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Currently, the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Invasive dental treatment in patients exposed to antiresorptive and antiangiogenic drugs can cause medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Currently, the exact pathogenesis of this disease is unclear.
METHODS
In March 2022, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Web of Science were screened to identify eligible in vitro studies investigating the effects of antiresorptive and antiangiogenic compounds on orally derived cells.
RESULTS
Fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Bisphosphonates were used in 57 studies, denosumab in two, and sunitinib and bevacizumab in one. Zoledronate was the most commonly used nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate. The only non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate studied was clodronate. The most frequently tested tissues were gingival fibroblasts, oral keratinocytes, and alveolar osteoblasts. These drugs caused a decrease in cell proliferation, viability, and migration.
CONCLUSIONS
Antiresorptive and antiangiogenic drugs displayed cytotoxic effects in a dose and time-dependent manner. Additional research is required to further elucidate the pathways of MRONJ.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Zoledronic Acid; Angiogenesis Inhibitors
PubMed: 37371553
DOI: 10.3390/biom13060973 -
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 -
Bone Reports Dec 2021Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that has been approved to treat osteoporosis, skeletal metastasis, and giant cell tumor of bone in skeletally mature patients. Due to... (Review)
Review
Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that has been approved to treat osteoporosis, skeletal metastasis, and giant cell tumor of bone in skeletally mature patients. Due to its potential adverse effects on normal bone growth, its use has not yet been approved in skeletally immature patients; however, the use of this agent in such patients with overt or dysregulated bone resorptive conditions has been explored in recent years. While most studies have proven the effectiveness of denosumab in controlling the progression of various disorders in skeletally immature patients, they have also revealed that refractory hypercalcemia often follows the discontinuation of denosumab treatment, raising a concern over the use of this agent in these patients. Thus, this study was designed to better understand the pathology of this condition through a systematic review of the published literature. Our analysis suggests that this condition has a potential male predisposition, that there is a correlation between the duration of denosumab treatment and patient age, and that this condition often occurs within 3 months after the last administration of denosumab in skeletally immature patients but is significantly less likely in adults. These results may further underscore that high bone formation and bone turnover rates are critically associated with hypercalcemia after the discontinuation of denosumab. In contrast, given that not all skeletally immature patients develop hypercalcemia, it is probable that other unidentified factors are involved in the pathology of this condition.
PubMed: 34825020
DOI: 10.1016/j.bonr.2021.101148 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2023Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is defined by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) as the presence of an exposed bone... (Review)
Review
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is defined by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) as the presence of an exposed bone area in the maxillofacial region, present for more than eight weeks in patients treated with the use of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic agents, with no history of radiation or metastatic disease. Bisphosphonates (BF) and denosumab (DS) are widely used in adults for the management of patients with cancer and osteoporosis, and recently there has been an increase in their use in child and young patients for the management of disorders such as osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, McCune-Albright syndrome (MAS), malignant hypercalcemia, and others. There are differences between case reports in adults compared to child and young patients related to the use of antiresorptive/antiangiogenic drugs and the development of MRONJ. The aim was to analyze the presence of MRONJ in children and young patients, and the relation with oral surgery. A systematic review, following the PRISMA search matrix based on the PICO question, was conducted in PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and manual search in high-impact journals between 1960 and 2022, publications in English or Spanish, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, cases and controls studies, and series and case reports. A total of 2792 articles were identified and 29 were included; all of them published between 2007 and 2022, identifying 1192 patients, 39.68% male and 36.24% female, aged 11.56 years old on average, using these drugs mainly for OI (60.15%); 4.21 years on average was the therapy time and 10.18 drug doses administered on average; oral surgery was observed in 216 subjects, reporting 14 cases of MRONJ. We concluded that there is a low presence of MRONJ in the child and youth population treated with antiresorptive drugs. Data collection is weak, and details of therapy are not clear in some cases. Deficiencies in protocols and pharmacological characterization were observed in most of the included articles.
PubMed: 36835951
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041416