-
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Jan 2013To evaluate the evidence for denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours and, using a network meta-analysis, indirectly compare denosumab... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To evaluate the evidence for denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours and, using a network meta-analysis, indirectly compare denosumab with bisphosphonates and best supportive care.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (1948 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), Cochrane Library (all sections) (issue 1, 2011) and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to May 2011) and additional meeting abstracts (2010 and 2011) were searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Only randomised controlled trials assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates or best supportive care in patients with bone metastases from any solid tumour were included.
SYNTHESIS
Direct evidence comparing denosumab and zoledronic acid was assessed for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other solid tumours. Denosumab was compared with pamidronate and best supportive care through a network meta-analysis for each tumour type. The primary outcomes were time to first skeletal related event (SRE) and time to first and subsequent SRE. Secondary outcomes were skeletal morbidity rate, pain, quality of life (QoL) and overall survival.
RESULTS
Denosumab was found to be more effective in delaying the time to first SRE and reducing the risk of first and subsequent SRE compared to zoledronic acid, placebo and pamidronate. In breast and prostate cancer, denosumab was effective in reducing skeletal morbidity rate compared with placebo. The lack of published data on pain and QoL meant that firm conclusions could not be made. Denosumab did not appear to have an affect on overall survival.
LIMITATIONS
Network meta-analyses are subject to uncertainties and potential biases.
CONCLUSIONS
Denosumab is effective in preventing SRE, but the effect on pain and QoL is unclear.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bone Neoplasms; Denosumab; Humans; Neoplasms; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 22906748
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.07.016 -
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular... 2022Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a common condition. Several pharmacotherapies have been applied in practice. However, the comparative effectiveness among these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a common condition. Several pharmacotherapies have been applied in practice. However, the comparative effectiveness among these pharmacotherapies is unknown.
AIM
The aim of this study is to study the comparative effectiveness among differential pharmacotherapies for CPSP through a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from inception to 30 March 2022, without any language restriction. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias (RoB). The outcome of interest of the study was the change in the scores of pain intensity scales. We estimated standard mean differences (SMDs) between treatments and calculated corresponding 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials (529 participants) were included after a screen of 1774 articles. Compared with placebo, pamidronate (SMD -2.43, 95% CI -3.54 to -1.31; - score = 0.93), prednisone (SMD -2.38, 95% CI -3.09 to -1.67; - score = 0.92), levetiracetam (SMD -2.11, 95% CI -2.97 to -1.26; - score = 0.87), lamotrigine (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.58; - score = 0.73), etanercept (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -1.8 to -0.03; - score = 0.59), and pregabalin (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.22; - score = 0.41) had significantly better treatment effect. Pamidronate, prednisone, and levetiracetam ranked as the first three most effective treatments. In subgroup analyses, prednisone, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and pregabalin were more effective than placebo as oral pharmacotherapies, while etanercept was more effective than placebo as injectable pharmacotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study confirmed that pamidronate, prednisone, and guideline-recommended anticonvulsants were effective for reducing pain intensity for CPSP. Pamidronate and prednisone showed better effect than other pharmacotherapies, which warrants further investigation.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Etanercept; Humans; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pamidronate; Prednisone; Pregabalin
PubMed: 36035203
DOI: 10.1155/2022/3511385 -
Hormones (Athens, Greece) Jun 2018Thalassemia Major (TM) is a clinical entity with a high prevalence of low bone mass. The aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of all available data on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thalassemia Major (TM) is a clinical entity with a high prevalence of low bone mass. The aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of all available data on the role of bisphosphonates (BPs) in the therapy of thalassemia major-induced osteoporosis. The PRISMA recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses were used to guide the present study. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through March 31, 2017 for articles related to thalassemia and BPs. To meta-analytically synthesize the primary endpoint, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD) after Hedges's g transformation under the scenario of a random effects model. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using the I statistic. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) containing original data were included in this review. Three studies were performed in Italy, one in Australia, three in Greece, one in Cyprus, and one in China. The BPs investigated included zoledronate, alendronate, pamidronate, clodronate, and neridronate. Zoledronate and alendronate showed a tendency to perform best as compared to neridronate and the placebo effect with respect to femoral neck, lumbar spine, total hip, and total body in terms of bone mass density (g/cm). BPs and in particular, zolendronate, were quite effective in the treatment of osteoporosis. These findings suggested that bisphosphonates are still a front-line treatment of osteoporosis in TM. However, to draw more meaningful and significant conclusions for the use and efficacy of BP in TM, larger and more complete RCTs should be conducted.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporosis; Thalassemia
PubMed: 29858849
DOI: 10.1007/s42000-018-0019-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or no trauma. Bisphosphonates are used in an attempt to increase bone mineral density and reduce these fractures in people with osteogenesis imperfecta.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates in increasing bone mineral density, reducing fractures and improving clinical function in people with osteogenesis imperfecta.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We additionally searched PubMed and major conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search: 07 April 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing bisphosphonates to placebo, no treatment, or comparator interventions in all types of osteogenesis imperfecta.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials (819 participants) were included. Overall, the trials were mainly at a low risk of bias, although selective reporting was an issue in several of the trials. Data for oral bisphosphonates versus placebo could not be aggregated; a statistically significant difference favouring oral bisphosphonates in fracture risk reduction and number of fractures was noted in two trials. No differences were reported in the remaining three trials which commented on fracture incidence. Five trials reported data for spine bone mineral density; all found statistically significant increased lumbar spine density z scores for at least one time point studied. For intravenous bisphosphonates versus placebo, aggregated data from two trials showed no statistically significant difference for the number of participants with at least one fracture, risk ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.06). In the remaining trial no statistically significant difference was noted in fracture incidence. For spine bone mineral density, no statistically significant difference was noted in the aggregated data from two trials, mean difference 9.96 (95% confidence interval -2.51 to 22.43). In the remaining trial a statistically significant difference in mean per cent change in spine bone mineral density z score favoured intravenous bisphosphonates at six and 12 months. Data describing growth, bone pain, and functional outcomes after oral or intravenous bisphosphonate therapy, or both, as compared to placebo were incomplete among all studies, but do not show consistent improvements in these outcomes. Two studies compared different doses of bisphosphonates. No differences were found between doses when bone mineral density, fractures, and height or length z score were assessed. One study compared oral versus intravenous bisphosphonates and found no differences in primary outcomes. Two studies compared the intravenous bisphosphonates zoledronic acid and pamidronate. There were no significant differences in primary outcome. However, the studies were at odds as to the relative benefit of zoledronic acid over pamidronate for lumbosacral bone mineral density at 12 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Bisphophonates are commonly prescribed to individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta. Current evidence, albeit limited, demonstrates oral or intravenous bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density in children and adults with this condition. These were not shown to be different in their ability to increase bone mineral density. It is unclear whether oral or intravenous bisphosphonate treatment consistently decreases fractures, though multiple studies report this independently and no studies report an increased fracture rate with treatment. The studies included here do not show bisphosphonates conclusively improve clinical status (reduce pain; improve growth and functional mobility) in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. Given their current widespread and expected continued use, the optimal method, duration of therapy and long-term safety of bisphosphonate therapy require further investigation. In addition, attention should be given to long-term fracture reduction and improvement in quality of life indicators.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Osteogenesis Imperfecta; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25054949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005088.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014Osteoporosis is a bone mineralisation disorder occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a bone mineralisation disorder occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and handsearches of journals and abstract books) on 13 January 2014.Additional searches of PubMed were performed on 13 January 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials and extracted data. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials were identified and seven (with a total of 237 adult participants) were included.Data were combined (when available) from six included studies in participants without a lung transplant. Data showed that there was no significant reduction in fractures between treatment and control groups at 12 months, odds ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 3.80). No fractures were reported in studies with follow-up at 24 months. However, in patients taking bisphosphonates after six months the percentage change in bone mineral density increased at the lumbar spine, mean difference 4.61 (95% confidence interval 3.90 to 5.32) and at the hip or femur, mean difference 3.35 (95% confidence interval 1.63 to 5.07); but did not significantly change at the distal forearm, mean difference -0.49 (95% confidence interval -2.42 to 1.45). In patients taking bisphosphonates, at 12 months the percentage change in bone mineral density increased at the lumbar spine, mean difference 6.10 (95% confidence interval 5.10 to 7.10) and at the hip or femur, mean difference 4.35 (95% confidence interval 2.99 to 5.70). At 24 months, in patients treated with bisphosphonates the percentage change in bone mineral density also increased at the lumbar spine, mean difference 5.49 (95% confidence interval 4.38 to 6.60) and at the hip or femur, mean difference 6.05 (95% confidence interval 3.74 to 8.36). There was clinical heterogeneity between studies and not all studies reported all outcomes. Bone pain was the most common adverse event with intravenous agents. Flu-like symptoms were also increased in those taking bisphosphonates.In participants with a lung transplant (one study), intravenous pamidronate did not change the number of new fractures. At axial sites, bone mineral density increased with treatment compared to controls: percentage change in bone mineral density at lumbar spine, mean difference 6.20 (95% confidence interval 4.28 to 8.12); and femur mean difference 7.90 (95% confidence interval 5.78 to 10.02).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral and intravenous bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous agents. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Additional trials are also required to further assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates. Trials in larger populations are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival.
Topics: Adult; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cystic Fibrosis; Diphosphonates; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Lung Transplantation; Male; Osteoporosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24627308
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002010.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Osteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids. This is an updated version of a previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and hand searches of journals and abstract books) on 5 May 2022. We performed additional searches of PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 5 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data. We judged the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with a total of 385 participants (272 adults and 113 children (aged five to 18 years)). Trial durations ranged from six months to two years. Only two of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias for all the domains. Bisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant Seven trials included only adult participants without lung transplants, one trial included both adults and children without lung transplantation (total of 238 adults and 113 children). We analysed adults (n = 238) and children (n = 113) separately. Adults Three trials assessed intravenous bisphosphonates (one assessed pamidronate and two assessed zoledronate) and five trials assessed oral bisphosphonates (one assessed risedronate and four assessed alendronate). Bisphosphonates were compared to either placebo or calcium (with or without additional vitamin D). Data showed no difference between treatment or control groups in new vertebral fractures at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.09; 5 trials, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and two trials (44 participants) reported no vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in non-vertebral fractures at 12 months (OR 2.11, 95% CI 0.18 to 25.35; 4 trials, 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and again two trials (44 participants) reported no non-vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in total fractures between groups at 12 months (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50; 5 trials, 142 participants) and no fractures were reported in two trials (44 participants) at 24 months. At 12 months, bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 6.31, 95% CI 5.39 to 7.22; 6 trials, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the hip or femur (MD 4.41, 95% 3.44 to 5.37; 5 trials, 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in quality of life scores at 12 months (1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence), but bisphosphonates probably led to more adverse events (bone pain) at 12 months (OR 8.49, 95% CI 3.20 to 22.56; 7 trials, 206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children The single trial in 113 children compared oral alendronate to placebo. We graded all evidence as low certainty. At 12 months we found no difference between treatment and placebo in new vertebral fractures (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13; 1 trial, 113 participants) and non-vertebral fractures (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.04; 1 trial, 113 participants). There was also no difference in total fractures (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.61; 1 trial, 113 participants). Bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine at 12 months (MD 14.50, 95% CI 12.91 to 16.09). There was no difference in bone or muscle pain (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22), fever (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22) or gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.26). The trial did not measure bone mineral density at the hip/femur or report on quality of life. Bisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant One trial of 34 adults who had undergone lung transplantation compared intravenous pamidronate to no bisphosphonate treatment. It did not report at 12 months and we report the 24-month data (not assessed by GRADE). There was no difference in the number of fractures, either vertebral or non-vertebral. However, bone mineral density increased with treatment at the lumbar spine (MD 6.20, 95% CI 4.28 to 8.12) and femur (MD 7.90, 95% CI 5.78 to 10.02). No participants in either group reported either bone pain or fever. The trial did not measure quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral and intravenous bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis, but there are insufficient data to determine whether treatment reduces fractures. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous bisphosphonates. Before any firm conclusions can be drawn, trials in larger populations, including children, and of longer duration are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids can ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Future trials should also assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates.
Topics: Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cystic Fibrosis; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteoporosis; Pamidronate; Quality of Life; Spinal Fractures; Zoledronic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36625789
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002010.pub5 -
Injury Aug 2015Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a group of genetic disorders, of which Type III is the most severe among survivors. The disease is characterised in particular by bone... (Review)
Review
Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a group of genetic disorders, of which Type III is the most severe among survivors. The disease is characterised in particular by bone fragility, decreased bone mass and increased incidence of fractures. Other usual findings are muscle hypotonia, joint hypermobility and short stature. Fractures and weak bones may consequently cause limb and spinal deformity and chronic physical disability. Bisphosphonates have revolutionised the treatment of newborn children with severe OI type III. Surgery is still needed in most patients due to high frequency of the fractures. In this systematic review we describe the present state-of-art in treating the most severe type of OI in newborn and preschool children with their bone fractures.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Immobilization; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Orthopedic Procedures; Osteogenesis Imperfecta; Pamidronate; Physical Therapy Modalities; Prognosis
PubMed: 25943292
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.04.021 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2017Primary hyperparathyroidism is increasingly an asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, but the recognized guidelines for management are based on evidence obtained from... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Primary hyperparathyroidism is increasingly an asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, but the recognized guidelines for management are based on evidence obtained from studies on patients with symptomatic disease, and surgery is not always indicated. Other patients are unable to undergo surgery, and thus a medical treatment is warranted. This systematic review provides an overview of the existing literature on contemporary pharmaceutical options available for the medical management of primary hyperparathyroidism.
METHODS
Databases of medical literature were searched for articles including terms for primary hyperparathyroidism and each of the included drugs. Data on s-calcium, s-parathyroid hormone, bone turnover markers, bone mineral density (BMD) and hard endpoints were extracted and tabulated, and level of evidence was determined. Changes in s-calcium were estimated and a meta-regression analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The 1,999 articles were screened for eligibility and 54 were included in the review. Weighted mean changes calculated for each drug in s-total calcium (mean change from baseline ± SEM) were pamidronate (0.31 ± 0.034 mmol/l); alendronate (0.07 ± 0.05 mmol/l); clodronate (0.20 ± 0.040 mmol/l); mixed bisphosphonates (0.16 ± 0.049 mmol/l); and cinacalcet (0.37 ± 0.013 mmol/l). The meta-analysis revealed a significant decrease of effect on s-calcium with time for the bisphosphonates (Coef. -0.049 ± 0.023, = 0.035), while cinacalcet proved to maintain its effect on s-calcium over time. Bisphosphonates improved BMD while cinacalcet had no effect.
DISCUSSION
The included studies demonstrate advantages and drawbacks of the available pharmaceutical options that can prove helpful in the clinical setting. The great variation in how primary hyperparathyroidism is manifested requires that management should rely on an individual evaluation when counseling patients. Combining resorptive agents with calcimimetics could prove rewarding, but more studies are warranted.
PubMed: 28473803
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00079 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Multiple myeloma is a disease characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of a clone of plasma cells that can lead to bone destruction. Bisphosphonates are specific... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple myeloma is a disease characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of a clone of plasma cells that can lead to bone destruction. Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity. Therefore, there is a pharmacological basis for their use in multiple myeloma. However, the exact clinical role of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
Primary: to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in multiple myeloma decreases skeletal-related morbidity (pathological fractures), skeletal-related mortality and overall mortality. Secondary: to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life and incidence of hypercalcemia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE (1966 - June 2001), LILACS (1982 - June 2001), EMBASE (1974 - December 2000) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (all years, latest Issue 03/2001) to identify all randomized trials in multiple myeloma. All of these references were accessed in order to identify trials related to the use of bisphosphonates in myeloma. All relevant references in each article were also scanned. We also performed a handsearch of relevant meeting proceedings from 1993 to 2000. Additionally, manufacturers of bisphosphonates and researchers in the field were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials with a parallel design on the use of bisphosphonate in myeloma compared with placebo or no treatment as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and abstracted data. A third reviewer checked all data after the extraction was completed. Statistical heterogeneity was tested using random and fixed effect models. All pooled data are reported using Peto odds ratios and, when appropriate, as absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to prevent or to cause a pathological event.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven trials were included with 1113 patients analysed in bisphosphonates groups, and 1070 analysed in control groups. There was no significant statistical heterogeneity among trials for the endpoints selected for comparison in this review. The pooled analysis of the published evidence demonstrated the beneficial effect of bisphosphonates on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures [OR=0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.78); P=0.0001] and on amelioration of pain [OR = 0.59 (95%CI 0.46-0.76); P=0.00005]. However, the analysis of the effect of bisphosphonates on pain was based on clinically heterogeneous data and must be interpreted with caution. Although there was no statistical heterogeneity between groups, the benefit was most apparent with clodronate and pamidronate. In absolute terms, the result may be interpreted to mean that 10 (95%CI 7-20) patients with multiple myeloma should be treated to prevent one vertebral fracture, and 11 (95%CI 7-28) to prevent one patient experiencing pain. We found no significant effect of bisphosphonates on mortality, on the reduction of non-vertebral fractures or on the incidence of hypercalcemia. There were no significant adverse effects associated with the administration of bisphosphonates. Our results are based on the extraction of published data, which were sometimes poorly reported, and thus the results should be understood as the best possible summation of available evidence.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Adding bisphosphonates to the treatment of myeloma reduces pathological vertebral fractures and pain but - from the published evidence - not mortality. On current evidence, clodronate or pamidronate may be the preferred agents.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bone Diseases; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12137679
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003188