-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue with a consequent increase in bone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue with a consequent increase in bone fragility and susceptibility to fracture. Osteoporosis represents an important cause of morbidity in people with beta-thalassaemia and its pathogenesis is multifactorial. Factors include bone marrow expansion due to ineffective erythropoiesis, resulting in reduced trabecular bone tissue with cortical thinning; endocrine dysfunction secondary to excessive iron loading, leading to increased bone turnover; and lastly, a predisposition to physical inactivity due to disease complications with a subsequent reduction in optimal bone mineralization.A number of therapeutic strategies have been applied to treat osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia, which include bisphosphonates, with or without, hormone replacement therapy. There are various forms of bisphosphonates, such as clodronate, pamidronate, alendronate and zoledronic acid. Other treatments include calcitonin, calcium, zinc supplementation, hydroxyurea and hormone replacement therapy for preventing hypogonadism.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 04 February 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials in people with thalassaemia with a bone mineral density z score of less than -2 standard deviations for: children less than 15 years old; adult males (15 to 50 years old); and all pre-menopausal females above 15 years and a bone mineral density t score of less than -2.5 standard deviations for post-menopausal females and males above 50 years old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials, extracted and analysed data and completed the review. We summarised results using risk ratios or rate ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data. We combined trial results where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Four trials (with 211 participants) were included; three trials investigated the effect of bisphosphonate therapies and one trial investigated the effect of zinc supplementation. Only one trial was judged to be of good quality (low risk of bias); the remaining trials had a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one key domain.One trial (data not available for analysis) assessing the effect of neridronate (118 participants) reported significant increases in favour of the bisphosphonate group for bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and hip at both six and 12 months. For the femoral neck, a significant difference was noted at 12 months only. A further trial (25 participants) assessed the effect of alendronate and clodronate and found that after two years, bone mineral density increased significantly in the alendronate and clodronate groups as compared to placebo at the lumbar spine, mean difference 0.14 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.22) and at the femoral neck, mean difference 0.40 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.57). One 12-month trial (26 participants) assessed the effects of different doses of pamidronate (30 mg versus 60 mg) and found a significant difference in bone mineral density in favour of the 60 mg dose at the lumbar spine and forearm, mean difference 0.43 g/cm(2) (95% CI 0.10 to 0.76), mean difference 0.87 g/cm(2) (95% CI 0.23 to 1.51), respectively, but not at the femoral neck.In a zinc sulphate supplementation trial (42 participants), bone mineral density increased significantly compared to placebo at the lumbar spine after 12 months (37 participants), mean difference 0.15 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.20) and after 18 months (32 participants), mean difference 0.34 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.40). The same was true for bone mineral density at the hip after 12 months, mean difference 0.15 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.19) and after 18 months, mean difference 0.26 g/cm(2) (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.31).Fractures were not observed in one trial and not reported in three trials. There were no major adverse effects reported in two of the bisphosphonate trials; in the neridronate trial there was a reduction noted in the use of analgesic drugs and in the reported back pain score in favour of bisphosphonate treatment. Adverse effects were not reported in the trial of different doses of pamidronate or the zinc supplementation trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to indicate an increase in bone mineral density at the femoral neck, lumbar spine and forearm after administration of bisphosphonates and at the lumbar spine and hip after zinc sulphate supplementation. The authors recommend that further long-term randomised control trials on different bisphosphonates and zinc supplementation therapies in people with beta-thalassaemia and osteoporosis are undertaken.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Child; Clodronic Acid; Diphosphonates; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zinc Sulfate; beta-Thalassemia
PubMed: 26964506
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010429.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Densitometry : the... 2005Alendronate is known to increase bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and hip in women, but less information is available in men. We conducted a systematic... (Review)
Review
Alendronate is known to increase bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and hip in women, but less information is available in men. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine whether oral alendronate improves BMD at the lumbar spine and hip in men with low bone mass or prevalent fractures, compared with men treated with placebo, calcium, or vitamin D. In three trials in men, BMD (measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) increased at 2-3 yr (compared to baseline) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck in alendronate-treated patients compared to controls. The pooled estimates of changes in BMD with 10 mg of alendronate daily compared to controls were as follows: 7.8% over 2-3 yr (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.8- 10.8) at the lumbar spine and 3.8% (95% CI = 2.3-5.3) at the femoral neck (p < 0.001 for treatment effect in each analysis). Statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effect was noted between trials. We conclude that 10 mg of oral daily alendronate is significantly associated with increase in BMD at the lumbar spine and hip in men over 2-3 yr and that these changes are similar to those previously observed in postmenopausal women.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15722581
DOI: 10.1385/jcd:8:1:007 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Apr 2019We performed a systematic review on the effect of drug holidays (discontinuation) on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk. Bisphosphonate discontinuation may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
We performed a systematic review on the effect of drug holidays (discontinuation) on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk. Bisphosphonate discontinuation may be considered for women who do not have low hip BMD after 3-5 years of initial treatment, while women who have low hip BMD may benefit from treatment continuation.
INTRODUCTION
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of drug holidays (discontinuation) on BMD and fracture risk.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to locate controlled clinical trials and cohort studies evaluating the effect of drug holidays/discontinuation versus osteoporosis treatment continuation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of hazard ratios of hip and any clinical osteoporotic fracture for individuals who discontinued bisphosphonates compared to persistent users.
RESULTS
Thirteen records reporting results from eight different studies met inclusion criteria. The FLEX study found a reduced clinical vertebral fracture risk with 10 years of alendronate therapy compared to 5 (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.85), and the HORIZON extension studies found a reduced risk of morphometric vertebral fracture with 6 years of zoledronic acid therapy compared to 3 (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.26-0.95); subgroup analyses showed that women with low hip BMD T-scores after the initial treatment period benefitted from continued treatment in terms of reduced vertebral fracture risk. Meta-analysis of adjusted hazard ratios of hip and any clinical osteoporotic fracture for women who discontinued bisphosphonates revealed no significant differences in the risk of hip fracture (summary estimate of HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.87-1.37) or any clinical fracture (summary estimate of HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75-1.70) compared to persistent users.
CONCLUSIONS
Bisphosphonate discontinuation may be considered for women who do not have low hip BMD after 3 to 5 years of initial treatment, while women who have low hip BMD may benefit from treatment continuation.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Clinical Decision-Making; Diphosphonates; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risk Assessment; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30623214
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-018-4791-3 -
International Journal of Clinical... Apr 2024Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world evidence has been published evaluating the anti-nonvertebral fracture effect of ibandronate.
AIM
This meta-analysis of observational studies assessed the effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis.
METHOD
Pubmed/Embase databases were searched for observational studies. Risks of nonvertebral fractures and hip fractures were the outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed pooling rate ratios (RRs), using random-effects models. Data were reanalysed in sensitivity analyses considering Knapp-Hartung method and Bayesian random-effects.
RESULTS
Six cohort studies were included. Overall, once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate reduced the risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Similar results were obtained when the comparison was restricted to once-monthly 150 mg risedronate, but no differences were found when the comparator was other oral bisphosphonates (weekly alendronate/risedronate). Ibandronate didn't significantly change the risk of hip fractures (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89-1.76). The risk of hip fracture was comparable between once monthly, 150 mg oral ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. Intravenous ibandronate was not effective in reducing hip fractures comparing to intravenous zoledronate. The low number of studies diminished the robustness of sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
Results suggest that once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate may be as effective as other oral bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures. However, uncertainty associated to the small number of included studies, which are characterized by heterogeneous demographics and methodologies, precluded definitive conclusions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Risedronic Acid; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Bayes Theorem; Osteoporosis; Hip Fractures; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38112890
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-023-01666-x -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Sep 2022We assessed the survival outcomes associated with real-world bisphosphonate use, stratified by fracture site, type, administration, and duration of treatment, among...
We assessed the survival outcomes associated with real-world bisphosphonate use, stratified by fracture site, type, administration, and duration of treatment, among patients with osteoporosis. A systematic review that incorporates our findings was conducted to provide up-to-date evidence on survival outcomes with bisphosphonate treatment in real-world settings. Patients diagnosed with osteoporosis who had been hospitalized for major fractures were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database 2008-2017 and followed until 2018. There were 24,390 new bisphosphonate users who were classified and compared with 76,725 nonusers of anti-osteoporosis medications in terms of survival outcomes using Cox model analysis. An inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model and landmark analyses for minimizing immortal time bias were also performed. Bisphosphonate users vs. nonusers had a significantly lower mortality risk, regardless of fracture site (hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for patients with any major fracture, hip fracture, and vertebral fracture: 0.90 (0.88, 0.93), 0.83 (0.80, 0.86), and 0.86 (0.82, 0.89), respectively). Compared with nonuse, zoledronic acid (0.77 (0.73, 0.82)) was associated with the lowest mortality, followed by ibandronate (0.85 (0.78, 0.93)) and alendronate/risedronate (0.93 (0.91, 0.96)). Using bisphosphonates for ≥ 3 years had lower mortality (0.60 (0.53, 0.67)) than using bisphosphonates for < 3 years (0.98 (0.95, 1.01)). Intravenous bisphosphonates had a lower mortality than that of oral bisphosphonates. Our results are consistent with the systematic review findings among real-world populations. In conclusion, bisphosphonate use, especially persistence to intravenous bisphosphonates (e.g., zoledronic acid), may reduce post-fracture mortality among patients with osteoporosis, particularly those with hip/vertebral fractures. This supports the rational use of bisphosphonates in post-fracture care.
Topics: Diphosphonates; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risedronic Acid; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 35561128
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2645 -
PloS One 2021Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients, attempts at comprehensive quantification of potential adverse effects have been limited. We undertook a meta-analysis with novel methodology to identify and quantify these adverse effects.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in breast cancer where at least one of the treatments was a bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate, alendronate or clodronate). Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings were examined. Primary outcomes were adverse events of any type or severity (excluding death). We carried out pairwise and network meta-analyses to estimate the size of any adverse effects potentially related to bisphosphonates. In order to ascertain whether adverse effects differed by individual factors such as age, or interacted with other common adjuvant breast cancer treatments, we examined individual-level patient data for one large trial, AZURE.
FINDINGS
We identified 56 trials that reported adverse data, which included a total of 29,248 patients (18,301 receiving bisphosphonate drugs versus 10,947 not). 24 out of the 103 different adverse outcomes analysed showed a statistically and practically significant increase in patients receiving a bisphosphonate drug compared with those not (2 additional outcomes that appeared statistically significant came only from small studies with low event counts and no clinical suspicion so are likely artifacts). Most of these 24 are already clinically recognised: 'flu-like symptoms, fever, headache and chills; increased bone pain, arthralgia, myalgia, back pain; cardiac events, thromboembolic events; hypocalcaemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw; as well as possibly stiffness and nausea. Oral clodronate appeared to increase the risk of vomiting and diarrhoea (which may also be increased by other bisphosphonates), and there may be some hepatotoxicity. Four additional potential adverse effects emerged for bisphosphonate drugs in this analysis which have not classically be recognised: fatigue, neurosensory problems, hypertonia/muscle spasms and possibly dysgeusia. Several symptoms previously reported as potential side effects in the literature were not significantly increased in this analysis: constipation, insomnia, respiratory problems, oedema or thirst/dry mouth. Individual patient-level data and subgroup analysis revealed little variation in side effects between women of different ages or menopausal status, those with metastatic versus non-metastatic cancer, or between women receiving different concurrent breast cancer therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis has produced estimates for the absolute frequencies of a range of side effects significantly associated with bisphosphonate drugs when used by breast cancer patients. These results show good agreement with previous literature on the subject but are the first systematic quantification of side effects and their severities. However, the analysis is limited by the availability and quality of data on adverse events, and the potential for bias introduced by a lack of standards for reporting of such events. We therefore present a table of adverse effects for bisphosphonates, identified and quantified to the best of our ability from a large number of trials, which we hope can be used to improve the communication of the potential harms of these drugs to patients and their healthcare providers.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33544765
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246441 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2007To examine concordance between treatment effects in animal experiments and clinical trials. Study design Systematic review. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine concordance between treatment effects in animal experiments and clinical trials. Study design Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, SIGLE, NTIS, Science Citation Index, CAB, BIOSIS.
STUDY SELECTION
Animal studies for interventions with unambiguous evidence of a treatment effect (benefit or harm) in clinical trials: head injury, antifibrinolytics in haemorrhage, thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, tirilazad in acute ischaemic stroke, antenatal corticosteroids to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis. Review methods Data were extracted on study design, allocation concealment, number of randomised animals, type of model, intervention, and outcome.
RESULTS
Corticosteroids did not show any benefit in clinical trials of treatment for head injury but did show a benefit in animal models (pooled odds ratio for adverse functional outcome 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.83). Antifibrinolytics reduced bleeding in clinical trials but the data were inconclusive in animal models. Thrombolysis improved outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tissue plasminogen activator reduced infarct volume by 24% (95% confidence interval 20% to 28%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 23% (17% to 29%). Tirilazad was associated with a worse outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29% (21% to 37%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 48% (29% to 67%). Antenatal corticosteroids reduced respiratory distress and mortality in neonates whereas in animal models respiratory distress was reduced but the effect on mortality was inconclusive (odds ratio 4.2, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 20.9). Bisphosphonates increased bone mineral density in patients with osteoporosis. In animal models the bisphosphonate alendronate increased bone mineral density compared with placebo by 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.2% to 12.9%) in the combined results for the hip region. The corresponding treatment effect in the lumbar spine was 8.5% (5.8% to 11.2%) and in the combined results for the forearms (baboons only) was 1.7% (-1.4% to 4.7%).
CONCLUSIONS
Discordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately.
Topics: Animal Experimentation; Animals; Bias; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Models, Animal; Research Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17175568
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2021Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis affects mostly postmenopausal women, leading to deterioration of the microarchitectural bone structure and low bone mass, with an increased fracture risk with associated disability, morbidity and mortality. This Bayesian network meta-analysis compared the effects of current anti-osteoporosis drugs on bone mineral density.
METHODS
The present systematic review and network meta-analysis follows the PRISMA extension statement to report systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions. The literature search was performed in June 2021. All randomised clinical trials that have investigated the effects of two or more drug treatments on BMD for postmenopausal osteoporosis were accessed. The network comparisons were performed through the STATA Software/MP routine for Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model analysis. The inverse variance method with standardised mean difference (SMD) was used for analysis.
RESULTS
Data from 64 RCTs involving 82,732 patients were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 29.7 ± 19.6 months. Denosumab resulted in a higher spine BMD (SMD -0.220; SE 3.379), followed by pamidronate (SMD -5.662; SE 2.635) and zoledronate (SMD -10.701; SE 2.871). Denosumab resulted in a higher hip BMD (SMD -0.256; SE 3.184), followed by alendronate (SMD -17.032; SE 3.191) and ibandronate (SMD -17.250; SE 2.264). Denosumab resulted in a higher femur BMD (SMD 0.097; SE 2.091), followed by alendronate (SMD -16.030; SE 1.702) and ibandronate (SMD -17.000; SE 1.679).
CONCLUSION
Denosumab results in higher spine BMD in selected women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Denosumab had the highest influence on hip and femur BMD.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.
Topics: Alendronate; Bayes Theorem; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Female; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 34452621
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02678-x -
Maturitas Jul 2017Bisphosphonates and denosumab are used extensively in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Despite their proven efficacy in the reduction of vertebral and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates and denosumab are used extensively in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Despite their proven efficacy in the reduction of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, their optimal duration of use has not been determined. The occurrence of adverse effects, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical femoral fractures (AFF), has raised the issue of bisphosphonate or denosumab discontinuation ("drug holiday") after a certain treatment period.
AIM
To assess the effect of bisphosphonate and denosumab discontinuation on fracture risk, as well as its possible benefits in reducing the risk of adverse effects.
METHODS
Systematic review and consensus of expert opinion.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Discontinuation of bisphosphonates should be considered in all patients who have beentreated for more than five years with alendronate, risedronate or zoledronic acid. In view of the limited evidence, no robust recommendations can be made for ibandronate and denosumab. If the patient has not experienced fractures before or during therapy and the fracture risk is low, a "drug holiday" canbe recommended. Although there is no solid evidence, 1-2 years for risedronate, 3-5 years for alendronate and 3-6 years for zoledronic acid are suggested. After this time, the patient should be reassessed. If a new fracture is experienced, or fracture risk has increased or BMD remains low (femoral neck T-score ≤-2.5), anti-osteoporotic treatment should be resumed. In the case of denosumab discontinuation, close monitoring is suggested, due to the possibility of rebound fractures.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28539165
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.04.008 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Although some studies have found that nitrates were beneficial for bone health, the findings are inconsistent. To assess the efficacy of nitrates for bone health, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although some studies have found that nitrates were beneficial for bone health, the findings are inconsistent. To assess the efficacy of nitrates for bone health, we conducted a meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE databases, Cochrane Library for relevant articles published before December 2021 were searched. All observational and randomized controlled studies that reporting bone mineral density (BMD), fractures with nitrates use were included. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for fractures, change differences for bone mineral density.
RESULTS
Four cohort studies and two case-control studies examining the association between nitrates use and fractures were identified. The nitrates use was not associated with any fracture risk (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01; = 31.5%) and hip fracture (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.02; = 74.5%). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences in fracture risk, whereas two cohort studies revealed a reduced risk of hip fracture (RR = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.58-0.86, = 0.0%). There were no statistically significant differences in BMD percent changes at lumbar spine (WMD = -0.07, 95% CI,-0.78-0.65; = 0.0%), total hip (WMD = -0.42, 95% CI,-0.88-0.04; = 0.0%), femoral neck (WMD = -0.38, 95% CI,-1.02-0.25; = 0.0%), or total body (WMD = -0.17, 95% CI,-0.51-0.17; = 0.0%) in two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with a placebo. Another two RCTs compared nitrates with alendronate. Nitrates were comparable to alendronate in increasing bone mineral density at lumbar spine (WMD = 0.00, 95% CI,-0.01-0.02; = 0.0%). Besides, the most common adverse effect was headache, contributing to low adherence to therapy.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis showed no association between nitrates use and fractures in observational studies. The results of RCTs on the usage of nitrates and their effects on BMD were inconsistent. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to clarify the efficacy of nitrates for bone health.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone and Bones; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Isosorbide Dinitrate; Male; Nitrates; Nitric Oxide Donors; Nitroglycerin; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35222289
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.833932