-
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 Bone and Mineral Research :... Nov 2022Both medical and surgical therapy represent potential management options for patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Because uncertainty remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Efficacy and Safety of Medical and Surgical Therapy in Patients With Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Both medical and surgical therapy represent potential management options for patients with asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Because uncertainty remains regarding both medical and surgical therapy, this systematic review addresses the efficacy and safety of medical therapy in asymptomatic patients or symptomatic patients who decline surgery and surgery in asymptomatic patients. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to December 2020, and included randomized controlled trials in patients with PHPT that compared nonsurgical management with medical therapy versus without medical therapy and surgery versus no surgery in patients with asymptomatic PHPT. For surgical complications we included observational studies. Paired reviewers addressed eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data for patient-important outcomes. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess quality of evidence for each outcome. For medical therapy, 11 trials reported in 12 publications including 438 patients proved eligible: three addressed alendronate, one denosumab, three cinacalcet, two vitamin D, and two estrogen therapy. Alendronate, denosumab, vitamin D, and estrogen therapy all increased bone density. Cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels. Cinacalcet and vitamin D may have a small or no increase in overall adverse events. Very-low-quality evidence raised the possibility of an increase in serious adverse events with alendronate and denosumab. The trials also provided low-quality evidence for increased bleeding and mastalgia with estrogen therapy. For surgery, six trials presented in 12 reports including 441 patients proved eligible. Surgery achieved biochemical cure in 96.1% (high quality). We found no convincing evidence supporting an impact of surgery on fracture, quality of life, occurrence of kidney stones, and renal function, but the evidence proved low or very low quality. Surgery was associated with an increase in bone mineral density. For patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic PHPT, who are not candidates for parathyroid surgery, cinacalcet probably reduced serum calcium and PTH levels; anti-resorptives increased bone density. For patients with asymptomatic PHPT, surgery usually achieves biochemical cure. These results can help to inform patients and clinicians regarding use of medical therapy and surgery in PHPT. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Topics: Humans; Cinacalcet; Hyperparathyroidism, Primary; Alendronate; Calcium; Quality of Life; Denosumab; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Parathyroid Hormone; Vitamin D; Estrogens
PubMed: 36053960
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4685 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reveal the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with alendronate in patients with primary osteoporosis. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to reveal the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with alendronate in patients with primary osteoporosis. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from the establishment of each database to April 2022 for comparative studies on the topic, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, and 2 authors individually extracted information and data concerning study design, baseline characteristics, bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, and adverse events (AEs). We identified 8 eligible trials, including 1863 participants. Pooled estimates demonstrated that, compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid showed no significant difference in increasing the BMD of the lumbar spine after 1 year (SMD = -0.03, 95%CI -0.15 to 0.09, I = 0.41%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.16, 95%CI -0.12 to 0.43, I = 63%), and the BMD of the total hip after 1 year (SMD = -0.08, 95%CI -0.31 to 0.14, I = 64%) or after 2 years (SMD = 0.05, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.32, I = 61%). No significant difference in improving bone turnover markers, including serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-1 collagen, urine N-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-1 collagen, and serum procollagen type-1 N-terminal propeptide, were found, whereas significantly higher total AE rates (RR = 2.27, 95%CI 1.60 to 3.21, I = 75%) were recorded within 3 days of infusion, but some lower AE rates, particularly of gastrointestinal AEs (RR = 0.6, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83, I = 37%), were noted after 3 days of infusion. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid has achieved comparable therapeutic results in the treatment of primary osteoporosis in increasing BMD and reducing bone turnover marker levels. Zoledronic acid showed a better safety profile than alendronate with long-term use, especially with regards to gastrointestinal-related AEs.
Topics: Humans; Female; Alendronate; Zoledronic Acid; Diphosphonates; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Density; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
PubMed: 36433675
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2181 -
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma... Feb 2016The treatment of adult non-traumatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVN; N-ANFH) within an estimated incidence of 5000-7000 cases per annum in Germany remains a...
INTRODUCTION
The treatment of adult non-traumatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVN; N-ANFH) within an estimated incidence of 5000-7000 cases per annum in Germany remains a challenge. Risk factors include steroids, alcohol abuse, chemotherapy and immunosuppressive medication, but a genetic predisposition has been suggested. Early diagnosis of this often bilateral disease process is essential for successful conservative or joint preserving surgical management. In this review, we present the update German consensus S3 guideline "diagnosis and management for N-ANFH" as a concise summary.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review is based on the published literature from January 1, 1970 to April 31, 2013 (German and English language). Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses and relevant peer review publications. We identified a total of 3715 related publications, of which 422 were suitable according to the SIGN criteria, but only 159 fulfilled our inclusion criteria.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Clinical suspicion of N-ANFH mandates radiographic evaluation. If radiographs are normal MRI scans are recommended, which should be evaluated according to the ARCO-classification. Differential diagnoses include transient osteoporosis, bone bruise, insufficiency fracture and destructive arthropathy. Untreated, subchondral fractures commonly occur within 2 years, during which the risk for contralateral involvement is high-thereafter unlikely. Conservative management with Ilomedin and Alendronat can be tried, but other pharmacological or physical treatments are inappropriate. No specific joint preserving procedure can be recommended, but core decompression should be considered in early stages if necrosis is <30 %. In ARCO stages IIIc or IV total hip arthroplasty (THA) should be contemplated, which offers similar outcome compared to osteoarthritis. Young age is the main risk factor for higher revision rates after THA for N-ANFH.
Topics: Adult; Alendronate; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Decompression, Surgical; Diagnosis, Differential; Femur Head Necrosis; Hip Prosthesis; Humans; Iloprost; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 26667621
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-015-2375-7 -
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 -
Brazilian Oral Research 2024The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket...
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket healing after tooth extraction in animal models"? To this end, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, as well as in the gray literature up to May 2023. Preclinical studies that evaluated alveolar healing after tooth extraction and the intake of sodium alendronate compared with placebo were included. Two investigators were responsible for screening the articles independently, extracting the data, and assessing their quality through the SYRCLE's RoB tool for randomized trials in animal studies. The study selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in studies, impact of alendronate on bone healing, and certainty of evidence were described in text and table formats. Methodological differences among the studies were restricted to the synthesis methods. The synthesis of qualitative results followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. From the 19 included studies, five were considered to have low risk, three were of unclear risk, and eleven presented a high risk of bias. The studies were considered heterogeneous regarding alendronate posology, including its dosage and route of administration. Furthermore, a variety of animal species, different age ranges, diverse teeth extracted, and exposure or not to ovariectomy contributed to the lack of parity of the selected studies. Our results indicated that alendronate monotherapy negatively affects the early phase of wound healing after tooth extraction in preclinical studies, suggesting that the bone resorption process after tooth extraction in animals treated with alendronate might impair the bone healing process of the extraction socket. In conclusion, alendronate administration restrains bone resorption, thereby delaying alveolar socket healing . Future studies should be conducted to validate these findings and to better understand the effects of alendronate therapy on oral tissues.
Topics: Alendronate; Tooth Extraction; Animals; Wound Healing; Tooth Socket; Bone Density Conservation Agents
PubMed: 38747825
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0038 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2011The lifetime risk of fracture in white women is 20% for the spine, 15% for the wrist, and 18% for the hip, with an exponential increase in risk beyond the age of 50... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The lifetime risk of fracture in white women is 20% for the spine, 15% for the wrist, and 18% for the hip, with an exponential increase in risk beyond the age of 50 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of bisphosphonates to prevent fractures in postmenopausal women? What are the effects of pharmacological treatments other than bisphosphonates to prevent fractures in postmenopausal women? What are the effects of non-pharmacological treatments to prevent fractures in postmenopausal women? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 71 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alendronate, calcitonin, calcium, calcium plus vitamin D, clodronate, denosumab, etidronate, exercise, hip protectors, hormone replacement therapy, ibandronate, multifactorial non-pharmacological interventions, pamidronate, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, risedronate, strontium ranelate, vitamin D, vitamin D analogues, and zoledronate.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium, Dietary; Etidronic Acid; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Incidence; Postmenopause; Raloxifene Hydrochloride
PubMed: 21542947
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
PloS One 2022Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common secondary osteoporosis, alendronate (ALE) and teriparatide (TPTD) are widely used in the treatment of GIOP.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficiency and safety of alendronate versus teriparatide for treatment glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is the most common secondary osteoporosis, alendronate (ALE) and teriparatide (TPTD) are widely used in the treatment of GIOP. However, which of these two drugs has a better curative effect needs the support of evidence-based medicine.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials of ALE and TPTD in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis until February 2022. These patients included in the study took glucocorticoid doses greater than 7.5 mg/d for more than 3 months before treatment with ALE and TPTD. The risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) are used as the influence index of discontinuous data, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% CI are used as the influence index of continuous data.
RESULTS
A total of 4102 patients were enrolled in all 5 studies that met the admission criteria. We found that compared with ALE, TPTD could reduce the rate of new vertebral fracture (RR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05-0.34, P<0.00001). TPTD increased LS bone mineral density (BMD) (0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.64, P<0.00001), TH BMD (0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.28, P = 0.004) and FN BMD (0.17, 95% CI 0.05-0.29, P = 0.006) compared to ALE. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of non-vertebral fracture and adverse events between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with ALE, TPTD is an effective drug to reduce vertebral fracture risk in patients with GIOP. Furthermore, long-term use of TPTD can increase the bone mineral density of LS, FN, and TH.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fractures; Teriparatide
PubMed: 35639783
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267706 -
Urologiia (Moscow, Russia : 1999) Dec 2017Most patients with idiopathic hypercalciuria and calcium nephrolithiasis have a family history of the disease. Idiopathic hypercalciuria is a metabolic abnormality with... (Review)
Review
Most patients with idiopathic hypercalciuria and calcium nephrolithiasis have a family history of the disease. Idiopathic hypercalciuria is a metabolic abnormality with various causes and developmental pathways. The systematic review describes specific mutations associated with idiopathic hypercalciuria and nephrolithiasis. Detection of these mutations may provide a better understanding of the pathogenesis of this heterogeneous disease and personalize patient management depending on the detected polymorphisms. A promising treatment option for a mutation in the vitamin D receptor gene is thiazide diuretics in combination with bisphosphonates. Among bisphosphonates, the drug of choice which has been most strongly supported by research evidence is alendronate.
Topics: Alendronate; Female; Humans; Hypercalciuria; Male; Mutation; Nephrolithiasis; Receptors, Calcitriol
PubMed: 29376607
DOI: No ID Found