-
JAMA Network Open Dec 2021With the global population aging, falls and fall-related injuries are ubiquitous, and several clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for...
IMPORTANCE
With the global population aging, falls and fall-related injuries are ubiquitous, and several clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for individuals 60 years or older have been developed. A systematic evaluation of the recommendations and agreement level is lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for falls prevention and management for adults 60 years or older in all settings (eg, community, acute care, and nursing homes), evaluate agreement in recommendations, and identify potential gaps.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement methods for clinical practice guidelines on fall prevention and management for older adults was conducted (updated July 1, 2021) using MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Epistemonikos databases. Medical Subject Headings search terms were related to falls, clinical practice guidelines, management and prevention, and older adults, with no restrictions on date, language, or setting for inclusion. Three independent reviewers selected records for full-text examination if they followed evidence- and consensus-based processes and assessed the quality of the guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II) criteria. The strength of the recommendations was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scores, and agreement across topic areas was assessed using the Fleiss κ statistic.
FINDINGS
Of 11 414 records identified, 159 were fully reviewed and assessed for eligibility, and 15 were included. All 15 selected guidelines had high-quality AGREE-II total scores (mean [SD], 80.1% [5.6%]), although individual quality domain scores for clinical applicability (mean [SD], 63.4% [11.4%]) and stakeholder (clinicians, patients, or caregivers) involvement (mean [SD], 76.3% [9.0%]) were lower. A total of 198 recommendations covering 16 topic areas in 15 guidelines were identified after screening 4767 abstracts that proceeded to 159 full texts. Most (≥11) guidelines strongly recommended performing risk stratification, assessment tests for gait and balance, fracture and osteoporosis management, multifactorial interventions, medication review, exercise promotion, environment modification, vision and footwear correction, referral to physiotherapy, and cardiovascular interventions. The strengths of the recommendations were inconsistent for vitamin D supplementation, addressing cognitive factors, and falls prevention education. Recommendations on use of hip protectors and digital technology or wearables were often missing. None of the examined guidelines included a patient or caregiver panel in their deliberations.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review found that current clinical practice guidelines on fall prevention and management for older adults showed a high degree of agreement in several areas in which strong recommendations were made, whereas other topic areas did not achieve this level of consensus or coverage. Future guidelines should address clinical applicability of their recommendations and include perspectives of patients and other stakeholders.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Combined Modality Therapy; Consensus; Environment Design; Health Promotion; Health Services for the Aged; Humans; Medication Review; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Physical Therapy Modalities; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 34910151
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38911 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2023The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.
PURPOSE
To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies ( ≥1000) for harms.
DATA EXTRACTION
Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).
LIMITATION
Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Aged; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Teriparatide; Alendronate; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Denosumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Fractures, Bone; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Physicians
PubMed: 36592455
DOI: 10.7326/M22-0684 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jan 2022The study was conducted to illustrate the effect of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Romosozumab decreased the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The study was conducted to illustrate the effect of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Romosozumab decreased the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and clinical fractures significantly. In addition, decreased incidence of falls and increased bone mineral density at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck was observed. Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts against the sclerostin pathway leading to enhanced bone formation and reduced bone resorption in patients with osteoporosis. Electronic search was performed on Medline (via PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov, till May 2020, for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis. RCTs evaluating the effect of Romosozumab on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Meta-analysis was performed by Cochrane review manager 5 (RevMan) version 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and GRADE pro-GDT were applied for methodological quality and overall evidence quality, respectively. One hundred seventy-nine studies were screened, and 10 eligible studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 6137 patients in romosozumab group and 5732 patients in control group. Romosozumab significantly reduced the incidence of vertebral fractures [OR = 0.43 (95%CI = 0.35-0.52), High-quality evidence], nonvertebral fractures [OR = 0.78 (95%CI = 0.66-0.92), High quality], and clinical fractures [OR = 0.70 (95%CI = 0.60-0.82), High quality] at 24 months. Significant reduction in incidence risk of falls [OR = 0.87 (95%CI = 0.78-0.96), High quality] was observed with romosozumab. Bone mineral density was significantly increased in the romosozumab treated groups at lumbar spine [MD = 12.66 (95%CI = 12.66-12.67), High quality], total hip [MD = 5.69 (95%CI = 5.68 - 5.69), Moderate quality], and femoral neck [MD = 5.18 (95%CI = 5.18-5.19), Moderate quality] at 12 months. The total adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.96-1.01), Moderate quality] and serious adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.88-1.08), Moderate quality] with romosozumab were comparable to the control group. The current analysis with evidence on efficacy and safety of Romosozumab, authors opine to recommend the use of Romosozumab treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019112196.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
PubMed: 34432115
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06095-y -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2023To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE
To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events.
RESULTS
The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019128391.
Topics: Humans; Female; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Postmenopause; Denosumab; Receptor, Parathyroid Hormone, Type 1; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Risk Reduction Behavior; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37130601
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068033 -
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Nov 2022The last international guidelines on the evaluation and management of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) were published in 2014. Research since that time has led to new... (Review)
Review
The last international guidelines on the evaluation and management of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) were published in 2014. Research since that time has led to new insights into epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, measurements, genetics, outcomes, presentations, new imaging modalities, target and other organ systems, pregnancy, evaluation, and management. Advances in all these areas are demonstrated by the reference list in which the majority of listings were published after the last set of guidelines. It was thus, timely to convene an international group of over 50 experts to review these advances in our knowledge. Four Task Forces considered: 1. Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Genetics; 2. Classical and Nonclassical Features; 3. Surgical Aspects; and 4. Management. For Task Force 4 on the Management of PHPT, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology addressed surgical management of asymptomatic PHPT and non-surgical medical management of PHPT. The findings of this systematic review that applied GRADE methods to randomized trials are published as part of this series. Task Force 4 also reviewed a much larger body of new knowledge from observations studies that did not specifically fit the criteria of GRADE methodology. The full reports of these 4 Task Forces immediately follow this summary statement. Distilling the essence of all deliberations of all Task Force reports and Methodological reviews, we offer, in this summary statement, evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the evaluation and management of PHPT. Different from the conclusions of the last workshop, these deliberations have led to revisions of renal guidelines and more evidence for the other recommendations. The accompanying papers present an in-depth discussion of topics summarized in this report. © 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; Hyperparathyroidism, Primary
PubMed: 36245251
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4677 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022This study aimed to analyze the effects of multicomponent exercise training in older women with osteoporosis. We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to analyze the effects of multicomponent exercise training in older women with osteoporosis. We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (number CRD42022331137). We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, and CINHAL databases for randomized experimental trials that analyzed the effects of physical exercise on health-related variables in older women with osteoporosis. The risk of bias in the studies was verified using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Jadad scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 544 participants in the experimental group and 495 in the control group. The mean age of all participants was 68.4 years. The studies combined two to four different exercise types, including strength, aerobic, balance, flexibility, and/or functional fitness training. The practice of multicomponent training with an average of 27.2 weeks, 2.6 sessions per week, and 45 min per session showed improvements in strength, flexibility, quality of life, bone mineral density, balance, and functional fitness and reduced the risk of falls in older women with osteoporosis. Multicomponent training was shown to be effective in improving health-related variables in older women with osteoporosis.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aged; Quality of Life; Postural Balance; Exercise; Osteoporosis; Accidental Falls; Exercise Therapy; Muscle Strength; Resistance Training
PubMed: 36361073
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192114195 -
BioMed Research International 2020Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that seriously affects human health and quality of life. This study is aimed at determining whether swimming had an effect on the bone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that seriously affects human health and quality of life. This study is aimed at determining whether swimming had an effect on the bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine and femoral neck in postmenopausal and premenopausal osteoporosis patients. We retrieved relevant literature and analyzed data from randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of swimming on BMD in postmenopausal and premenopausal women. Relevant studies, with no language restrictions, from inception to September 2019, were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and EBSCO databases independently by two investigators. The keywords used for the literature search were "osteoporosis" and "swimming." The main results included BMD and -score. We searched 256 relevant articles and finally screened five articles, including 263 participants. Lumbar spine density was mentioned in three articles. Although the heterogeneity of lumbar vertebral density is moderate, the analysis of swimmers to nonswimmers shows that the lumbar vertebral density in swimmers is improved [heterogeneity: chi = 5.16, df = 2 ( = 0.08); = 61%]. We analyzed the following heterogeneous subgroups: subgroup 1 (3-6 hours) and subgroup 2 (<3 hours). The BMD in subgroup 1 was significantly higher than that in the placebo, while no effect on BMD was found in subgroup 2 [heterogeneity: chi = 0.15, df = 3 ( = 0.70); = 0%]. According to the current evidence, swimming may improve the BMD of postmenopausal women participants, if the swimming time is between 3 and 6 hours, especially in long-term swimmers. However, the effectiveness of swimming does require further investigation.
Topics: Adult; Bone Density; Exercise Therapy; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Premenopause; Swimming
PubMed: 32509864
DOI: 10.1155/2020/6210201 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Oct 2021Osteoporosis affects all sections of society, including families with people affected by osteoporosis, government agencies and medical institutes in various fields. For... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis affects all sections of society, including families with people affected by osteoporosis, government agencies and medical institutes in various fields. For example, it involves the patient and his/her family members, and government agencies in terms of the cost of treatment and medical care. Providing a comprehensive picture of the prevalence of osteoporosis globally is important for health policymakers to make appropriate decisions. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the prevalence of osteoporosis worldwide.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Magiran, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time limit up till 26 August 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using the I test, and the publication bias was assessed by the Begg and Mazumdar's test at the significance level of 0.1.
RESULTS
After following the systematic review processes, 86 studies were selected for meta-analysis. The sample size of the study was 103,334,579 people in the age range of 15-105 years. Using meta-analysis, the prevalence of osteoporosis in the world was reported to be 18.3 (95% CI 16.2-20.7). Based on 70 studies and sample size of 800,457 women, and heterogenicity I: 99.8, the prevalence of osteoporosis in women of the world was reported to be 23.1 (95% CI 19.8-26.9), while the prevalence of osteoporosis among men of the world was found to be 11.7 (95% CI 9.6-14.1 which was based on 40 studies and sample size of 453,964 men.). The highest prevalence of osteoporosis was reported in Africa with 39.5% (95% CI 22.3-59.7) and a sample size of 2989 people with the age range 18-95 years.
CONCLUSION
According to the medical, economic, and social burden of osteoporosis, providing a robust and comprehensive estimate of the prevalence of osteoporosis in the world can facilitate decisions in health system planning and policymaking, including an overview of the current and outlook for the future; provide the necessary facilities for the treatment of people with osteoporosis; reduce the severe risks that lead to death by preventing fractures; and, finally, monitor the overall state of osteoporosis in the world. This study is the first to report a structured review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of osteoporosis worldwide.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Prevalence; Young Adult
PubMed: 34657598
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02772-0 -
Calcified Tissue International Nov 2020In this sub-analysis of a comprehensive meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the effect of different types of exercise on (areal) bone mineral density (BMD) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In this sub-analysis of a comprehensive meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the effect of different types of exercise on (areal) bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) intervention ≥ 6 months, (d) BMD assessments at lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN) or total hip (TH), (e) in postmenopausal women. Eight electronic databases were scanned without language restrictions up to March 2019. The present subgroup analysis was conducted as a mixed-effect meta-analysis with "type of exercise" as the moderator. The 84 eligible exercise groups were classified into (a) weight bearing (WB, n = 30) exercise, (b) (dynamic) resistance exercise (DRT, n = 18), (c) mixed WB&DRT interventions (n = 36). Outcome measures were standardized mean differences (SMD) for BMD-changes at LS, FN and TH. All types of exercise significantly affect BMD at LS, FN and TH. SMD for LS average 0.40 (95% CI 0.15-0.65) for DRT, SMD 0.26 (0.03-0.49) for WB and SMD 0.42 (0.23-0.61) for WB&DRT. SMD for FN were 0.27 (0.09-0.45) for DRT, 0.37 (0.12-0.62) for WB and 0.35 (0.19-0.51) for WB&DRT. Lastly, SMD for TH changes were 0.51 (0.28-0.74) for DRT, 0.40 (0.21-0.58) for WB and 0.34 (0.14-0.53) for WB&DRT. In summary, we provided further evidence for the favorable effect of exercise on BMD largely independent of the type of exercise. However, in order to generate dedicated exercise recommendations or exercise guideline, meta-analyses might be a too rough tool.
Topics: Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Resistance Training; Weight-Bearing
PubMed: 32785775
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-020-00744-w -
The Clinical Respiratory Journal Jul 2022To present a review on the pathogenesis, risk factor and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease complicated with osteoporosis and provide new ideas for the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To present a review on the pathogenesis, risk factor and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease complicated with osteoporosis and provide new ideas for the diagnosis and treatment.
DATA SOURCE
A systematic search is carried out using keywords as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, risk factors, and pulmonary rehabilitation.
RESULTS
Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have a high prevalence of osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture. The mechanisms of osteoporosis in COPD patients are associated with general risk factors, such as smoking, reduced physical activity, low weight, and disease-specific risk factors, such as systemic inflammatory, Vitamin D deficiency, use of glucocorticoid, anemia, hypoxemia, and hypercapnia. The treatment of osteoporosis in COPD emphasizes comprehensive intervention, which mainly include basic treatment and anti-osteoporosis drugs. Noticeably, pulmonary rehabilitation program is an important part of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
This work summarizes the pathogenesis, risk factor, prevention, and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease complicated with osteoporosis, and the latest progress of studies on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and osteoporosis is discussed.
Topics: Fractures, Bone; Humans; Osteoporosis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Risk Factors; Vitamin D Deficiency
PubMed: 35688435
DOI: 10.1111/crj.13514