-
Journal of Clinical Densitometry : the... 2022Osteoporosis is a chronic disease with an increasing prevalence. Anti-sclerostin antibodies are being investigated for the treatment of osteoporosis. The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Osteoporosis is a chronic disease with an increasing prevalence. Anti-sclerostin antibodies are being investigated for the treatment of osteoporosis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antis-sclerostin antibodies compared to placebo and conventional therapies (alendronate and teriparatide) in the treatment of osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials were searched from PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL) from their inception up to June 2021 by using Medical Subject Headings terms "anti-sclerostin antibody", "romosozumab", "blosozumab", "AMG 785″, "LY2541546", and "osteoporosis". Two investigators independently screened eligible studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data from each study. The I index was used to assess heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager Software (RevMan, Version 5.4). The GRADE approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for all the pooled outcomes. 8 RCTs with 12,416 patients met the inclusion criteria. Anti-sclerostin antibodies significantly increased lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck bone mineral density compared to placebo, alendronate and teriparatide at both 6 and 12 mo. Adverse events were comparable between anti-sclerostin antibodies and other treatments, except for the incidence of injection-site reactions that was higher in the anti-sclerostin antibody groups. Anti-sclerostin antibodies represent a valid theurapeutic option in the treatment of osteoporosis. Further studies with longer duration and follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this meta-analysis.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Teriparatide
PubMed: 34920938
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2021.11.005 -
Archives of Osteoporosis Jan 2023This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical effectiveness of denosumab (Prolia®) in patients with hormone-sensitive cancer receiving endocrine therapy, compared to bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), and placebo: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
UNLABELLED
This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in cancer patients with osteoporosis. This is the first SR to assess treating osteoporotic cancer patients with denosumab.
PURPOSE
This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (bazedoxifene, raloxifene) and placebo for the treatment of osteoporosis in hormone-sensitive cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy (men with prostate cancer [MPC] on hormone ablation therapy [HAT], and women with breast cancer [WBC] on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy [AAIT]).
METHODS
Systematic literature searches were conducted in three biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Frequentist network meta-analyses and/or pairwise meta-analyses were performed on predetermined outcomes (i.e., vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, treatment-related adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], withdrawal due to treatment-related AEs).
RESULTS
A total of 14 RCTs (15 publications) were included. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab, zoledronate, and alendronate improved BMD at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) in MPC on HAT, relative to placebo. Denosumab, ibandronate and risedronate improved BMD at the LS and total hip (TH) in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Denosumab and risedronate improved trochanteric (TRO) BMD in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab improved FN BMD in WBC on AAIT.
CONCLUSION
In MPC on HAT, denosumab (relative to placebo) was effective at preventing vertebral fractures and improving BMD at the FN and LS. Moreover, in WBC on AAIT, denosumab (relative to placebo) improved BMD at the FN, LS, TH, and TRO, as well as prevent vertebral fracture.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hormones; Ibandronic Acid; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporosis; Risedronic Acid; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Zoledronic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36624318
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01211-3 -
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 -
JBMR Plus Jun 2023Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone...
Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone mass and may have already sustained fractures. Short or intermittent courses of bisphosphonate therapy, initiated around the time of menopause, might prevent excessive bone loss and lower long-term fracture risk. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effects of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers in early menopausal women (ie, perimenopausal or <5 years postmenopausal) over ≥12 months. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched in July 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random effect meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan v5.3. In total, 12 trials were included ( = 1722 women); five evaluated alendronate, three risedronate, three ibandronate, and one zoledronate. Four were at low risk of bias; eight raised some concerns. Fractures were infrequent in the three studies that reported them. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates improved BMD over 12 months (mean percentage difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]) at the spine (4.32%, 95% CI, 3.10%-5.54%, < 0.0001, = 8 studies), the femoral neck (2.56%, 95% CI, 1.85%-3.27%, = 0.001, = 6 studies), and the total hip (1.22%, 95% CI 0.16%-2.28%, = 0.002, = 4 studies). Over treatment durations of 24 to 72 months, bisphosphonates improved BMD at the spine (5.81%, 95% CI 4.71%-6.91%, < 0.0001, = 8 studies), femoral neck (3.89%, 95% CI 2.73%-5.05%, = 0.0001, = 5 studies) and total hip (4.09%, 95% CI 2.81%-5.37%, < 0.0001, = 4 studies). Bisphosphonates reduced urinary N-telopeptide (-52.2%, 95% CI -60.3% to -44.2%, < 0.00001, = 3 studies) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (-34.2%, 95% CI -42.6% to -25.8%, < 0.00001, = 4 studies) more than placebo at 12 months. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that bisphosphonates improve BMD and lower bone turnover markers in early menopause, warranting further investigation of these agents for osteoporosis prevention. © 2023 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
PubMed: 37283657
DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10748 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is characterized by increased bone remodeling and hypercalcemia. Parathyroidectomy (PTX), the current standard of care, is recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of antiresorptive agents bisphosphonates and denosumab in mitigating hypercalcemia and bone loss in primary hyperparathyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is characterized by increased bone remodeling and hypercalcemia. Parathyroidectomy (PTX), the current standard of care, is recommended in all symptomatic and some groups of asymptomatic patients. Anti-resorptive therapies (bisphosphonates and denosumab) have been used in patients where PTX is refused or contraindicated. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the effectiveness of anti-resorptives in preventing/treating PHPT-induced bone loss and mitigating hypercalcemia.
METHOD
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles with keywords containing PHPT, bisphosphonates, and denosumab in various combinations. We extracted and tabulated areal BMD (aBMD), serum mineral, and bone turnover parameters from the qualified studies and used comprehensive meta-analysis software for analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 1,914 articles screened, 13 were eligible for meta-analysis. In the pooled analysis, 12 months of anti-resoptives (bisphosphonates and denosumab) therapy significantly increased aBMD at the lumbar spine (Standard difference in means (SDM)=0.447, 95% CI=0.230 to 0.664, p=0.0001), femoral neck (SDM=0.270, 95% CI=0.049 to 0.491, p=0.017) and increased serum PTH (SDM=0.489, 95% CI=0.139 to 0.839, p=0.006), and decreased serum calcium (SDM=-0.545, 95% CI=-0.937 to -0.154, p=0.006) compared with baseline. 12 months of bisphosphonate use significantly increased aBMD only at the lumbar spine (SDM=0.330, 95% CI=0.088 to 0.571, p=0.007) with a significant increased in serum PTH levels (SDM=0.546, 95% CI= 0.162 to 0.930, p=0.005), and a decreased in serum calcium (SDM=-0.608, 95% CI=-1.048 to -0.169, p=0.007) and bone-turnover markers (BTMs) compared with baseline. Denosumab use for 12 months significantly increased aBMD at both the lumbar spine (SDM=0.828, 95% CI=0.378 to 1.278, p=0.0001) and femur neck (SDM=0.575, 95% CI=0.135 to 1.015, p=0.010) compared with baseline. Mean lumbar spine aBMD (SDM=0.350, 95% CI=0.041 to 0.659, p=0.027) and serum PTH (SDM=0.602, 95% CI= 0.145 to 1.059, p=0.010) were significantly increased after 12 months of alendronate use compared with placebo. When compared with baseline, alendronate significantly decreased BTMs after 12 months and increased aBMD without altering the PTH and calcium levels after 24 months.
CONCLUSION
Anti-resorptives are effective in mitigating bone loss and hypercalcemia in PHPT while maintaining or increasing aBMD. PTX reversed all changes in PHPT and normalized PTH levels.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Alendronate; Denosumab; Hypercalcemia; Calcium; Hyperparathyroidism, Primary; Bone Density; Parathyroid Hormone; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Lumbar Vertebrae
PubMed: 36817591
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1098841 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2005To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (subject to licensing)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.
OBJECTIVES
To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective oestrogen receptor modulators, bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (subject to licensing) for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies that met the review's entry criteria were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analyses provided that they reported fracture incidence in terms of the number of patients suffering fractures. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model. A model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions. The model calculated the number of fractures that occurred and provided the costs associated with osteoporotic fractures, and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In addition, the conditions of breast cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) were modelled, as some interventions have been shown to affect the risk of these conditions.
RESULTS
Ninety randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. They related to the five interventions (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide) and to five comparators (calcium, calcium plus vitamin D, calcitriol, hormone replacement therapy and exercise), as well as placebo or no treatment. All five interventions have been shown to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in women with severe osteoporosis with adequate calcium intakes. However, none of these drugs has been demonstrated, by direct comparison, to be significantly more effective than either each other or the other active interventions reviewed in this report. The intervention costs of treating all osteoporotic women, for a period of 5 years, were in the region of pound 900-1500 million for alendronate, etidronate, risedronate and raloxifene. The cost per QALY ratios fell dramatically with age. Assuming the risks of a woman with severe osteoporosis at the threshold of osteoporosis, no treatment had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000 at 50 years of age. At 60 years of age, the cost per QALY of raloxifene was pound 26,000 assuming no impact on hip fractures, and pound 31,000 assuming an adverse effect. However, these results are driven by the effect on breast cancer and the assumptions made regarding this disease state. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. When analyses were conducted assuming that the fracture risk is doubled at each site, alendronate and risedronate had cost per QALY ratios below pound 30,000 at all ages. For women at the threshold of osteoporosis, without a prior fracture and aged 70 years, the cost per QALY of the three bisphosphonates ranged from pound 34,000 to pound 41,000. Raloxifene had a cost per QALY of pound 23,000, assuming no effect on hip fracture, given assumptions regarding breast cancer. At 80 years of age, the cost per QALY of alendronate and risedronate was below pound 20,000. This was true for etidronate when incorporating observational data, but the value rose to pound 69,000 when only RCT data were used. No other intervention had a cost per QALY below pound 35,000. It was assumed that doubling the risk of fracture for women without a prior fracture would give results similar to patients at the threshold of osteoporosis with a prior fracture.
CONCLUSIONS
Of the five interventions, only raloxifene appeared to reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women unselected for low bone mineral density (BMD). However, as the full data have not been made public, there is some uncertainty regarding this result. None of the five interventions has been shown to reduce the risk of non-vertebral fracture in women unselected for low BMD. All of the proposed interventions provided gains in QALYs compared with no treatment in women with sufficient calcium and vitamin D intakes. The size of the QALY gain for each intervention was strongly related to the age of the patient. The estimated costs varied widely for the interventions. These net costs were markedly different by age, with some interventions becoming cost-saving at higher age ranges in patients with a prior fracture. Areas for future research include: the evidence base for the efficacy of fracture prevention in the very elderly, reanalysis of raloxifene using a dedicated breast cancer and CHD model, and more trials considering the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Etidronic Acid; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Teriparatide
PubMed: 15929857
DOI: 10.3310/hta9220 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of alendronate combined with step 2 of periodontal therapy in reducing probing pocket depth,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Added effect of 1% topical alendronate in intra-bony and inter-radicular defects as part of step II periodontal therapy: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of alendronate combined with step 2 of periodontal therapy in reducing probing pocket depth, improving clinical attachment level, and reducing bone defect depth in intra-bony and inter-radicular defects.
METHODS
RCTs with more than 6 months follow-up were included in this study. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane collaboration tool. In addition, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were used to aggregate the available evidence.
RESULTS
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Topical application of alendronate during second step of periodontal therapy significantly improved PD and CAL.
CONCLUSION
Local application of alendronate may confer a beneficial effect when applied during step II of periodontal therapy even if long term studies are needed to confirm these results.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Considering the emerging role of host-inflammatory response in treatment of periodontitis and the antiresorptive and osteostimulative properties of bisphosphonates, several studies are focusing on the role of alendronate as an addition to non-surgical periodontal therapy.
Topics: Alendronate; Alveolar Bone Loss; Diphosphonates; Humans; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Periodontitis
PubMed: 35062940
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02044-1 -
Journal of the American Geriatrics... Mar 2017To evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a treatment for osteoporosis or low bone mineral density for adult men and reported fracture outcomes.
PARTICIPANTS
Men.
MEASUREMENTS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Information was extracted from included studies on participant sociodemographic characteristics, number of male participants, treatment evaluated, comparator for evaluated treatment, study duration, and fracture outcomes. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using measures recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles reporting results for 22 studies (including 4,868 male participants) met strict inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures with alendronate (relative risk (RR) = 0.328, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.155-0.692) and risedronate (RR = 0.428, 95% CI = 0.245-0.746) but not with calcitonin (RR = 0.272, 95% CI = 0.046-1.608) or denosumab (RR = 0.256, 95% CI = 0.029-2.238) than in controls. For bisphosphonates as a treatment category, meta-analyses demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.368, 95% CI = 0.252-0.537) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.604, 95% CI = 0.404-0.904) than in controls. The meta-analysis finding that bisphosphonates significantly reduce nonvertebral fracture risk was not robust to sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of vertebral and possibly nonvertebral fractures for men with osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates for reducing nonvertebral fracture risk and the efficacy of nonbisphosphonates for reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in men with osteoporosis.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcitonin; Denosumab; Humans; Male; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risedronic Acid; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 28304090
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14668 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2016Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax and Fosamax Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel and Actonel Once a Week, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk.
DATA SOURCES
For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.
RESULTS
Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX.
LIMITATIONS
We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population.
CONCLUSIONS
Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diphosphonates; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Imidazoles; Models, Econometric; Osteoporotic Fractures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Risk Factors; Social Work; State Medicine; United Kingdom; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 27801641
DOI: 10.3310/hta20780 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with bone and mineral metabolism. In this study we evaluated the comparative efficacies and safety of osteoporosis... (Review)
Review
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with bone and mineral metabolism. In this study we evaluated the comparative efficacies and safety of osteoporosis medications in patients with CKD or a history of kidney transplantation, and make recommendations for the best choice of osteoporosis treatment among patients with CKD or a history of kidney transplantation. We systemically searched for randomized controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to June 2020. Network-meta analysis was used to compare the relative effectiveness of different treatments. A random-effects model was used when heterogeneity was expected. The safety of different treatments was also evaluated in terms of reported major adverse events. A total of 17 studies with data from 10,214 patients who had stage 2-5 CKD, were receiving dialysis, or had a history of kidney transplantation were included in the network meta-analysis. Treatment with teriparatide, denosumab, alendronate, and raloxifene were all associated with a significantly reduced risk of fractures compared to treatment with placebos [teriparatide: odds ratio (OR) = 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10-0.35; denosumab: OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58; alendronate: OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92; raloxifene: OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.67]. The rank probability and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values suggested that teriparatide ranked the highest for improvement in vertebral bone mineral density (BMD) (SUCRA = 97.8%), whereas denosumab ranked the highest for improvement in femoral neck BMD (SUCRA = 88.3%). Teriparatide and denosumab seem to be the most effective treatments for preventing bone loss and reducing the risk of fracture in our network comparison. However, because of the limitations and potential biases in the reviewed studies, there is still some uncertainty about the best treatment options for osteoporosis in patients with CKD or a history of kidney transplantation. : [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42020209830].
PubMed: 35222037
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.822178