-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic agents), and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, this adverse drug reaction may occur rarely (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment), or commonly (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. This is an update of our review first published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs. To assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 16 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs (1668 participants) in this updated review, of which eight were new additions. The studies were clinically diverse and examined very different interventions, so meta-analyses could not be performed. We have low or very low certainty about available evidence on interventions for the prophylaxis or treatment of MRONJ. Prophylaxis of MRONJ Five RCTs examined different interventions to prevent the occurrence of MRONJ. One RCT compared standard care with regular dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39, 253 participants). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated. Dentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ and five RCTs tested various preventive measures to reduce the risk of postoperative MRONJ. The studies evaluated plasma rich in growth factors inserted into the postextraction alveolus in addition to standardised medical and surgical care versus standardised medical and surgical care alone (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51, 176 participants); delicate surgery and closure by primary intention versus non-traumatic tooth avulsion and closure by secondary intention (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin without primary wound closure (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); and subperiosteal wound closure versus epiperiosteal wound closure (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.56, 132 participants). Treatment of MRONJ Eight RCTs examined different interventions for the treatment of established MRONJ; that is, the effect on MRONJ cure rates. One RCT analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18, 46 participants). Healing rates from MRONJ were not significantly different between autofluorescence-guided bone surgery and conventional bone surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, 30 participants). Another RCT that compared autofluorescence- with tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ found no significant difference (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, 34 participants). Three RCTs investigated the effect of growth factors and autologous platelet concentrates on healing rates of MRONJ: platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery versus surgery alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22, 47 participants), bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin versus platelet-rich fibrin alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.29, 55 participants), and concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure versus primary wound closure only (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.34, 28 participants). Two RCTs focused on pharmacological treatment with teriparatide: teriparatide 20 μg daily versus placebo in addition to standard care (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.95, 33 participants) and teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly versus teriparatide 20 μg daily in addition to standard care (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.44, 12 participants).
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Prophylaxis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw One open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be very low. There is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ in patients with antiresorptive therapy undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Although some interventions suggested a potential large effect, the studies were underpowered to show statistical significance, and replication of the results in larger studies is pending. Treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw The available evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit, in addition to standard care, of any of the interventions studied for the treatment of MRONJ.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Male; Osteonecrosis; Osteoporosis; Teriparatide
PubMed: 35866376
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012432.pub3 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Aug 2017To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of GIOP prevention and treatment options. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. We used a group consensus process to determine the final recommendations and grade their strength. The guideline addresses initial assessment and reassessment in patients beginning or continuing long-term (≥3 months) glucocorticoid (GC) treatment, as well as the relative benefits and harms of lifestyle modification and of calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and denosumab treatment in the general adult population receiving long-term GC treatment, as well as in special populations of long-term GC users.
RESULTS
Because of limited evidence regarding the benefits and harms of interventions in GC users, most recommendations in this guideline are conditional (uncertain balance between benefits and harms). Recommendations include treating only with calcium and vitamin D in adults at low fracture risk, treating with calcium and vitamin D plus an additional osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonate preferred) in adults at moderate-to-high fracture risk, continuing calcium plus vitamin D but switching from an oral bisphosphonate to another antifracture medication in adults in whom oral bisphosphonate treatment is not appropriate, and continuing oral bisphosphonate treatment or switching to another antifracture medication in adults who complete a planned oral bisphosphonate regimen but continue to receive GC treatment. Recommendations for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, women of childbearing potential, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment, are also made.
CONCLUSION
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium, Dietary; Consensus; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Rheumatic Diseases; Rheumatology; Societies, Medical; Teriparatide; United States; Vitamin D
PubMed: 28585373
DOI: 10.1002/art.40137 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side effects of ARD intake in connection to various aspects of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to answer the focused question "In patients with systemic intake of ARDs, what is the outcome and complication rate of implant therapy including associated bone grafting procedures comparing to patients without systemic intake of ARDs?"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Original studies fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria (e.g., case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and controlled and/or randomized controlled clinical trials; retro- or prospective design; and ≥10 patients with systemic intake of ARDs). Various patient-, medication-, and intervention-related parameters [i.e., implant loss, grafting procedure complication/failure, peri-implant marginal bone levels/loss, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), and peri-implantitis] were extracted, and meta-analyses and quality assessment were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies with bisphosphonate (BP) intake (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and seven studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), including ≥10 patients, and controls not taking the medication were identified. Furthermore, seven studies on MRONJ associated with implants were included. Meta-analyses based on four studies reporting on patient level and eight studies reporting on implant level showed no significant differences in terms of implant loss between patients on BPs (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and controls. Furthermore, low-dose BP intake did not compromise peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on two studies, no negative effect of HRT was observed on the implant level, while HRT appeared to exert a marginally significant negative effect regarding implant survival on the patient level and regarding peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on six studies reporting single-patient data, MRONJ in patients on BP for osteoporosis appeared in 70% of the cases >36 months after start of drug intake, while in patients with cancer, MRONJ appeared in 64% of the cases ≤36 months after first BP intake.
CONCLUSION
Low-dose oral BP intake for osteoporosis treatment, in general, does not compromise implant therapy, that is, patients on ARDs do not lose more implants nor get more implant-related complications/failures comparing to implant patients without BP intake. There is almost no information available on the possible effect on implant therapy of high-dose BPs or other widely used ARDs (e.g., denosumab), or on the success or safety of bone grafting procedures. Patients with high-dose ARD intake for management of malignancies, patients on oral BP over a longer period of time, and patients with comorbidities should be considered as high-risk patients for MRONJ.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 30306695
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13282 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2023In early breast cancer (BC) the impact of denosumab on survival outcomes is still unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and...
BACKGROUND
In early breast cancer (BC) the impact of denosumab on survival outcomes is still unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant denosumab in addition to standard anticancer therapy.
METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and oncological meetings websites were screened to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Survival outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), bone-metastasis-free survival (BMFS), and overall survival (OS). Fracture incidence and time to first fracture were bone-health outcomes. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), atypical femur fractures (AFF), and other adverse events were also evaluated. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RR) with respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed using a random-effects model. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Two phase III RCTs were included, the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group-18 (ABCSG-18) and the D-CARE trials, for a total of 7929 patients. In the ABCSG-18 trial, denosumab was administered every 6 months during endocrine therapy (for a median of seven cycles) while the D-CARE trial used an intensive schedule for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Adjuvant denosumab showed no difference in DFS (HR: 0.932; 95% CI: 0.748-1.162), BMFS (HR: 0.9896; 95% CI: 0.751-1.070), and OS (HR: 0.917; 95% CI: 0.718-1.171) compared to placebo in the overall population. In hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative BC patients, a DFS (HR: 0.883; 95% CI: 0.782-0.996) and BMFS (HR: 0.832; 95% CI: 0.714-0.970) benefit was observed and BMFS was prolonged in all hormone receptor positive patients (HR: 0.850; 95% CI: 0.735-0.983). Fracture incidence (RR: 0.787; 95% CI: 0.696-0.890) and time to first fracture (HR: 0.760; 95% CI: 0.665-0.869) were also improved. No increase in overall toxicity was seen with denosumab and no differences were observed for ONJ and AFF between the 60-mg every 6-month schedule and placebo.
CONCLUSION
Denosumab addition to anticancer treatment does not improve DFS, BMFS, or OS in the overall population, although a DFS improvement was observed in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative BC patients and a BMFS improvement in all hormone receptor positive patients. Bone-health outcomes were improved with no added toxicity with the 60-mg schedule.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO identifier: CRD42022332787.
PubMed: 37284523
DOI: 10.1177/17588359231173180 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... May 2020Atypical femur fractures (AFFs) are serious adverse events associated with bisphosphonates and often show poor healing.
CONTEXT
Atypical femur fractures (AFFs) are serious adverse events associated with bisphosphonates and often show poor healing.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic review to evaluate effects of teriparatide, raloxifene, and denosumab on healing and occurrence of AFF.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We retrieved 910 references and reviewed 67 papers, including 31 case reports, 9 retrospective and 3 prospective studies on teriparatide. There were no RCTs. We pooled data on fracture union (n = 98 AFFs on teriparatide) and found that radiological healing occurred within 6 months of teriparatide in 13 of 30 (43%) conservatively managed incomplete AFFs, 9 of 10 (90%) incomplete AFFs with surgical intervention, and 44 of 58 (75%) complete AFFs. In 9 of 30 (30%) nonoperated incomplete AFFs, no union was achieved after 12 months and 4 (13%) fractures became complete on teriparatide. Eight patients had new AFFs during or after teriparatide. AFF on denosumab was reported in 22 patients, including 11 patients treated for bone metastases and 8 without bisphosphonate exposure. Denosumab after AFF was associated with recurrent incomplete AFFs in 1 patient and 2 patients of contralateral complete AFF. Eight patients had used raloxifene before AFF occurred, including 1 bisphosphonate-naïve patient.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence-based indication in patients with AFF for teriparatide apart from reducing the risk of typical fragility fractures, although observational data suggest that teriparatide might result in faster healing of surgically treated AFFs. Awaiting further evidence, we formulate recommendations for treatment after an AFF based on expert opinion.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Europe; Femoral Fractures; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Societies, Medical; Teriparatide
PubMed: 31867670
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgz295 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Jun 2021The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred...
The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and 1 study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of "implant surgery-triggered" medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained before implant placement.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Dental Implants; Diphosphonates; Humans; Jaw; Osteonecrosis
PubMed: 32699903
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00351 -
Denosumab and osteonecrosis of the jaw. A systematic analysis of events reported in clinical trials.Clinical Oral Implants Research Mar 2016The aims of this meta-analysis were (i) to perform a systematic review of the relation between treatment with denosumab and the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this meta-analysis were (i) to perform a systematic review of the relation between treatment with denosumab and the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and (ii) to obtain information on dosage, first event apparition, and treatment approaches for patients with ONJ related to denosumab.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature was performed in the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases, identifying randomized clinical trials that evaluate the adverse effects of denosumab. The overall incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ONJ were calculated employing fixed- and random-effects models, according to the heterogeneity of the studies included.
RESULTS
A total of 8963 patients with a variety of solid tumors reported in seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic analysis. The overall incidence of ONJ in patients with cancer receiving denosumab was 1.7% [95% CI: 0.9-3.1%]. The use of denosumab was associated with a significantly increased risk of ONJ in comparison with bisphosphonates (BPs)/placebo treatment (RR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.05-2.48, P = 0.029). Subgroup analysis based on controlled therapies demonstrated an increased risk of ONJ in denosumab therapy, when compared with BPs (RR 1.48, 95% CI: 0.96-2.29, P = 0.078) or placebo (RR 16.28, 95% CI: 1.68-158.05, P = 0.017). Similar results were observed for prostate cancer (RR 3.358, 95% CI: 1.573-7.166, P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
Denosumab combined with risk factors such as dental extraction, poor oral hygiene, use of removable apparatus, and chemotherapy may favor the development of ONJ.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25639776
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12556 -
PharmacoEconomics Feb 2021Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is...
BACKGROUND
Considering the heavy economic burden of osteoporotic fractures, the limits of healthcare resources, and the recent availability of new anti-osteoporosis drugs, there is continuing interest in economic evaluation studies of osteoporosis management strategies.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to (1) systematically review recent economic evaluations of drugs for osteoporosis and (2) to apply an osteoporosis-specific guideline to critically appraise them.
METHODS
A literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify original articles containing economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs, published between 1 July, 2013 and 31 December, 2019. A recent European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases-International Osteoporosis Foundation (ESCEO-IOF) guideline for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis was used to assess the quality of included articles.
RESULTS
The database search retrieved 3860 records, of which 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in 15 countries; 12 active drugs were assessed, including various traditional pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, raloxifene, strontium ranelate, denosumab, and teriparatide, and new agents such as abaloparatide, romosozumab, and gastro-resistant risedronate. Eight out of 12 studies that compared traditional oral bisphosphonates to other active interventions (denosumab, zoledronic acid, gastro-resistant risedronate, and teriparatide) suggested that the other active agents were generally cost-effective or dominant. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy has recently been assessed and indications are that it can lead to extra health benefits (larger gains in quality-adjusted life-year). The key drivers of cost effectiveness included baseline fracture risk, drug effect on the risk of fractures, drug cost, and medication adherence/persistence. The current average score for quality assessment was 17 out of 25 (range 2-15); room for improvement was observed for most studies, which could potentially be explained by the fact that most studies were published prior to the osteoporosis-specific guideline. Greater adherence to guideline recommendations was expected for future studies. The quality of reporting was also suboptimal, especially with regard to treatment side effects, treatment effect after discontinuation, and medication adherence.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated review provides an overview of recently published cost-effectiveness analyses. In comparison with a previous review, recent economic evaluations of anti-osteoporosis drugs were conducted in more countries and included more active drugs and sequential therapy as interventions/comparators. The updated economic evidence could help decision makers prioritize health interventions and the unmet/unreported quality issues indicated by the osteoporosis-specific guideline could be useful in improving the transparency, quality, and comparability of future economic evaluations in osteoporosis.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Pharmaceutical Preparations; State Medicine
PubMed: 33026634
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00965-9 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jun 2021Bisphosphonates and denosumab are both antiresorptive medications, each with their own mechanism of action; yet both may result in the same adverse effect:...
OBJECTIVE
Bisphosphonates and denosumab are both antiresorptive medications, each with their own mechanism of action; yet both may result in the same adverse effect: medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The present systematic review aims to answer the following question: "Are bisphosphonate-related ONJ and denosumab-related ONJ any different, regarding clinical and imaging aspects?"
METHODS
This review followed the Joanna Briggs Review's Manual, and the searches were performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Lilacs databases and on the grey literature (ProQuest, Open Grey, and Google Scholar).
RESULTS
The searches resulted in 7535 articles that were critically assessed. Based on the selection criteria, seven studies were included in the review: five cross-sectional studies and two randomized clinical trials. A total of 7755 patients composed the final population. An increase in bone sequestra, cortical bone lysis, and bone density was observed in bisphosphonate-related ONJ, while larger bone sequestra, more frequent periosteal reactions, and mandibular canal enhancement were noted in denosumab-related ONJ.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review demonstrated that the imaging characteristics of bisphosphonate-related and denosumab-related ONJ are not similar. Although clinically similar conditions, they were found to be radiographically distinct. More studies are necessary to further elucidate these differences.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cross-Sectional Studies; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans
PubMed: 33140246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05855-6 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jun 2023Continuous use of glucocorticoids (GCs) has become the primary cause of secondary osteoporosis. Bisphosphonate drugs were given priority over denosumab and teriparatide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Continuous use of glucocorticoids (GCs) has become the primary cause of secondary osteoporosis. Bisphosphonate drugs were given priority over denosumab and teriparatide in the 2017 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines but have a series of shortcomings. This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of teriparatide and denosumab compared with those of oral bisphosphonate drugs.
METHODS
We systematically searched studies included in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library databases and included randomized controlled trials that compared denosumab or teriparatide with oral bisphosphonates. Risk estimates were pooled using both fixed and random effects models.
RESULTS
We included 10 studies involving 2923 patients who received GCs for meta-analysis, including two drug base analyses and four sensitivity analyses. Teriparatide and denosumab were superior to bisphosphonates in increasing the bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar vertebrae [teriparatide: mean difference [MD] 3.98%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.61-4.175%, P = 0.00001; denosumab: MD 2.07%, 95% CI 0.97-3.17%, P = 0.0002]. Teriparatide was superior to bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures and increasing hip BMD [MD 2.39%, 95% CI 1.47-3.32, P < 0.00001]. There was no statistically significant difference between serious adverse events, adverse events, and nonvertebral fracture prevention drugs.
CONCLUSIONS
Teriparatide and denosumab exhibited similar or even superior characteristics to bisphosphonates in our study, and we believe that they have the potential to become first-line GC-induced osteoporosis treatments, especially for patients who have previously received other anti-osteoporotic drugs with poor efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Teriparatide; Glucocorticoids; Denosumab; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Bone Density; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37349750
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03920-4