-
Current Clinical Pharmacology May 2013Bone antiresorptive treatment is associated with osteonecrosis of the jaws. Interventions used to treat this complication are diverse, controversial, and largely... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
PURPOSE
Bone antiresorptive treatment is associated with osteonecrosis of the jaws. Interventions used to treat this complication are diverse, controversial, and largely empirical but certain risk factors could help in its avoidance. The aim of this evidence-based review is to elucidate any interventions that are effective in reducing the risk for development of ONJ in cancer patients receiving bone antiresorptive therapy and to quantify the effectiveness of such interventions.
MATERIALS & METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and other trial registries through January 2012. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Cohort studies were included only as long as there are no RCTs on the same modality.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included in the systematic review while nine studies contributed to the various comparisons. Prescribing denosumab (DSB) instead of zoledronic acid (ZA) may not be expected to reduce risk ONJ (RR:0.71 [99% CI: 0.41-1.24], I2=0%). Prescribing clodronate (RR:10.15 [99% CI: 2.43-42.35], I2=0%) or pamidronate (RR:4.41 [99% CI: 1.90-10.24], I2=16%) instead of ZA may reduce risk for ONJ. Dental extractions remain the most potent risk factor for ONJ (RR:14.04, [99% CI: 10.36-19.03], I2=0%) and their avoidance can be considered an effective risk-reductive intervention. ONJ risk can be reduced by dental prophylactic measures (RR:0.45, [99% CI: 0.23-0.85], I2=7%).
CONCLUSIONS
DSB and ZA might cause ONJ more frequently compared with chlodornate or pamidronate. Prescription pamidronate and clodronate helps avoid the complication. Reducing the administered dose for denosumab and zoledronic acid might reduce risk for ONJ as well. More randomized clinical trials comparing reduced doses of these regimens against those currently approved are needed.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Bone Resorption; Diphosphonates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23092218
DOI: 10.2174/1574884711308020005 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Nov 2016Our network meta-analyses compared the efficacy of different bisphosphonates preventing fractures for primary osteoporosis. By including 36 studies, we found that... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Our network meta-analyses compared the efficacy of different bisphosphonates preventing fractures for primary osteoporosis. By including 36 studies, we found that zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture.
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted in order to analyze the available evidence on the efficacy of bisphosphonates for preventing fractures.
METHODS
We considered randomized trials comparing any bisphosphonate with other bisphosphonate or placebo. We searched Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed and manually searched reference list of relevant articles. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. The primary outcome is vertebral fracture. Secondary outcomes include nonvertebral fracture, hip fracture, wrist fracture, and any fracture.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies were included. Significant difference was found between bisphosphonates for vertebral fracture and nonvertebral fracture (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.04, respectively). Compared with placebo, alendronate, clodronate, ibandronate, minodronate, pamidronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid significantly prevented vertebral fracture. Zoledronic acid significantly reduced the risk of vertebral fracture, compared with alendronate, clodronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and tiludronate (0.65 (0.46, 0.91), 0.53 (0.33, 0.86), 0.45 (0.27, 0.74), 0.52 (0.36, 0.75), 0.59 (0.42, 0.83), and 0.31 (0.21, 0.48), respectively). Compared with etidronate, clodronate and zoledronic acid significantly prevented nonvertebral fracture. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid significantly prevented any fracture. The possibility rankings showed that zoledronic ranked first in preventing vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and any fracture, and pamidronate ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture and wrist fracture. In the sensitivity analyses, zoledronic acid ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture, and alendronate ranked first in preventing hip fracture and wrist fracture.
CONCLUSION
Zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture. Uncertainty still remains and future studies are needed to accurately evaluate the comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27273112
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-016-3654-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes have not been extensively studied. There are insufficient data to determine whether reducing and maintaining biochemical markers of bone turnover to within the normal range improves quality of life and reduces the risk of complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for adult patients with Paget's disease of bone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and trials registers up to March 2017. We searched regulatory agency published information for rare adverse events.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates as treatment for Paget's disease in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials (25 reports, 3168 participants). Of these, 10 trials (801 participants) compared bisphosphonates (etidronate, tiludronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, olpadronate, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate) versus placebo, seven compared two bisphosphonates (992 participants), one trial compared a bisphosphonates with a bisphosphonate plus calcitonin (44 participants), and two studies, the largest trial (1331 participants) and its interventional extension study (502 participants), compared symptomatic treatment and intensive treatment where the goal was to normalise alkaline phosphatase.Most studies were assessed at low or unclear risk of bias. Six of 10 studies comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo were assessed at high risk of bias, mainly around incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Participant populations were reasonably homogeneous in terms of age (mean age 66 to 74 years) and sex (51% to 74% male). Most studies included participants who had elevated alkaline phosphatase levels whether or not bone pain was present. Mean follow-up was six months.Bisphosphonates versus placeboBisphosphonates tripled the proportion (31% versus 9%) of participants whose bone pain disappeared (RR 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 8.90; 2 studies, 205 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 1 to 31; moderate-quality evidence). This result is clinically important. Data were consistent when pain change was measured as any reduction (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.01; 7 studies, 481 participants).There was uncertainty about differences in incident fractures: 1.4% fractures occurred in the bisphosphonates group and none in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.31; 4 studies, 356 participants; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported data on orthopaedic surgery, quality of life or hearing thresholds.Results regarding adverse effects and treatment discontinuation were uncertain. There was a 64% risk of mild gastrointestinal adverse events in intervention group participants and 48% in the control group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 6 studies, 376 participants; low-quality evidence). The likelihood of study participants discontinuing due to adverse effects was slightly higher in intervention group participants (4.4%) than the control group (4.1%) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52; 6 studies, 517 participants; low-quality evidence). Zoledronate was associated with an increased risk of transient fever or fatigue (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.44; 1 study, 176 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Bisphosphonates versus active comparatorMore participants reported pain relief with zoledronate than pamidronate (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 89 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 11) or risedronate (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.74; 1 study, 347 participants; NNT 7, 95% CI 4 to 24; very low quality evidence). This result is clinically important.There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude differences in adverse effects of bisphosphonates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76; 2 studies, 437 participants; low-quality evidence) and treatment discontinuation (2 studies, 437 participants) (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.59; 2 studies, 437 participants; very low-quality evidence).Intensive versus symptomatic treatmentThere was no consistent evidence of difference to response in bone pain, bodily pain or quality of life in participants who received intensive versus symptomatic treatment.Inconclusive results were observed regarding fractures and orthopaedic procedures for intensive versus symptomatic treatment (intensive treatment for fracture: RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.44; absolute risk 8.1% versus 5.2%; orthopaedic procedures: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.11; absolute risk 5.6% versus 3.0%; 1 study, 502 participants; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference in adverse effects between intensive and symptomatic treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference of risk of rare adverse events (including osteonecrosis of the jaw) from the regulatory agencies databases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-quality evidence that bisphosphonates improved pain in people with Paget's disease of bone when compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the results of head-to-head studies investigating bisphosphonates. We found insufficient evidence of benefit in terms of pain or quality of life from intensive treatment. Information about adverse effects was limited, but serious side effects were rare, and rate of withdrawals due to side effects was low.
Topics: Aged; Alkaline Phosphatase; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcitonin; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Male; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteitis Deformans; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29192423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004956.pub3 -
Palliative Medicine Jul 2004Bisphosphonates are the treatment of choice for hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) but there is no consensus regarding which drug or dose should be given. We designed a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are the treatment of choice for hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM) but there is no consensus regarding which drug or dose should be given. We designed a systematic review to investigate the efficacy of bisphosphonates in the treatment of HCM.
METHODS
We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching electronic databases, scanning of reference lists, and consultation with experts and pharmaceutical companies. Foreign papers were translated. Inclusion criteria were RCTs, confirmed malignant disease and measurement of serum calcium (ionized or corrected for albumin) postrehydration. The primary outcome was number of patients achieving normocalcaemia. Secondary outcomes were time to normocalcaemia, time to relapse and toxicity.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven papers and two abstracts, using intravenous bisphosphonates, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Data from 26 studies were used in analyses. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. Pamidronate was more effective than placebo, mithramycin, etidronate (7.5 mg/kg) and low-dose clodronate (600 mg), but equal to higher dose clodronate (1500 mg). Clodronate and etidronate were superior to placebo; incadronate was superior to elcatonin; gallium nitrate was superior to etidronate. No difference was seen between alendronate and clodronate. Three dose finding studies showed no difference between 30-90 mg of pamidronate, but one well designed study showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose. Studies using increasing doses of ibandronate (0.6-4 mg), alendronate (2.5-15 mg), and incadronate (2.5-10mg), showed a dose response. Duration of administration of pamidronate did not affect efficacy (six studies).
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates normalize calcium in >70% patients with minimal side effects. Aminobisphosphonates are most effective at maintaining normocalcaemia and should be given in high dose irrespective of baseline serum calcium.
Topics: Diphosphonates; Humans; Hypercalcemia; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15332420
DOI: 10.1191/0269216304pm914ra -
Drugs 2005The purpose of this study was to review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies currently available for the treatment of ankylosing... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this study was to review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies currently available for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).A literature search using MEDLINE from 1966 through to April 2005 and a hand search of abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meetings for 2001 through to 2004 were performed. References of articles retrieved were also searched. The MEDLINE search yielded 570 citations and 157 abstracts from ACR were identified. Eighty-four studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); 53 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (pharmacological treatment of AS and RCT) and were included in this review. Statistical pooling of data was not performed because of the disparate outcome measures used. Eight RCTs found nonselective NSAIDs and two RCTs found cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAIDs to be superior to placebo for relief of pain and improvement in physical function. Twenty-nine RCTs showed comparable efficacy and safety between nonselective NSAIDs. One RCT showed no difference between methylprednisolone 1g and 375 mg. Seven RCTs assessing the efficacy of sulfasalazine (sulphasalazine) and two RCTs of methotrexate provided contradictory evidence as to their benefit for treatment of AS. One RCT showed intravenous pamidronate 60 mg to be more effective than 10mg intravenously for the treatment of axial pain. All six RCTs of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha agents demonstrated superiority to placebo for the treatment of axial and peripheral symptoms. Nonselective as well as COX-2-selective NSAIDs can be used for pain control in patients with AS. Other proven treatment options include sulfasalazine for the treatment of peripheral joint symptoms, while limited evidence supports the use of pamidronate or methotrexate, which require further studies. Anti-TNFalpha agents have been found very effective for the treatment of both peripheral and axial symptoms in patients with AS, but their use is limited by cost and uncertainty over long-term efficacy and safety.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diphosphonates; Humans; MEDLINE; Pamidronate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfasalazine; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 16225367
DOI: 10.2165/00003495-200565150-00004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010 and 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus non-aminobisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ) and hypocalcemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase (September 2011 to July 2017) and the CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7) to identify all randomized controlled trial (RCT) in MM up to July 2017 using a combination of text and MeSH terms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo/no treatment/bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related ONJ in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) using a random-effects model. We used meta-regression to explore statistical heterogeneity. Network meta-analysis using Bayesian approach was conducted.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we included four new studies (601 participants), resulting in a total of 24 included studies.Twenty RCTs compared bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and four RCTs involved another bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 24 included RCTs enrolled 7293 participants. Pooled results showed that there was moderate-quality evidence of a reduction in mortality with on OS from 41% to 31%, but the confidence interval is consistent with a larger reduction and small increase in mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 14 studies; 2706 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I = 65%) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a meta-regression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found an OS benefit with zoledronate but limited evidence of an effect on PFS. This provided a further rationale for performing a network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head-to-head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed evidence of a benefit for OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87) and placebo (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.91). However, there was no evidence for a difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates.The effect of bisphosphonates on disease progression (PFS) is uncertain. Based on the HR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; seven studies; 908 participants), 47% participants would experience disease progression without treatment compared with between 30% and 47% with bisphosphonates (low-quality evidence). There is probably a similar risk of non-vertebral fractures between treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; six studies; 1389 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated evidence for a difference favoring bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; seven studies; 1116 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and skeletal-related events (SREs) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 10 studies; 2141 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence for less pain with bisphosphonates was of very low quality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; eight studies; 1281 participants).Bisphosphonates may increase ONJ compared with placebo but the confidence interval is very wide (RR 4.61, 95% CI 0.99 to 21.35; P = 0.05; six studies; 1284 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from the network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for a difference in the incidence of ONJ (eight RCTs, 3746 participants) between bisphosphonates. Data from nine observational studies (1400 participants) reported an incidence of 5% to 51% with combination of pamidronate and zoledronate, 3% to 11% with zoledronate alone, and 0% to 18% with pamidronate alone.The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59; seven studies; 1829 participants; low-quality evidence).The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74; three studies; 1090 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Use of bisphosphonates in participants with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Bisphosphonates were associated with an increased risk of developing ONJ. For every 1000 participants treated with bisphosphonates, about one patient will suffer from the ONJ. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or non-aminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate was found to be better than placebo and first-generation bisposphonate (etidronate) in pooled direct and indirect analyses for improving OS and other outcomes such as vertebral fractures. Direct head-to-head trials of the second-generation bisphosphonates are needed to settle the issue if zoledronate is truly the most efficacious bisphosphonate currently used in practice.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Diseases; Clodronic Acid; Diphosphonates; Disease-Free Survival; Etidronic Acid; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Imidazoles; Multiple Myeloma; Pamidronate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fractures; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 29253322
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003188.pub4 -
Archives of Osteoporosis Feb 2022Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PMH) can be a challenge for diagnosis and might be confused with other tumors, such as epithelioid sarcoma. Here we present a case... (Review)
Review
Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PMH) can be a challenge for diagnosis and might be confused with other tumors, such as epithelioid sarcoma. Here we present a case and a systematic review of the literature to identify and discuss PMH treatment in primary bone involvement. A 25-year-old woman was referred for bone pain (10/10) in the left lower limb. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed multiple bone lesions (left femur, tibia, patella, ankle, and foot) with well-defined borders without signs of local aggressiveness. Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT) showed multiple metabolic musculoskeletal lesions in the left lower limb. A CT scan-guided biopsy was performed. Histological and immunohistochemical findings confirmed the diagnosis of PMH. After treatment with intravenous pamidronate (90 mg/monthly), the patient had clinical improvement, mild pain 2/10 without the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opiates. Follow-up was assessed by MRI and PET-CT. PET-CT showed metabolic resolution of most of the bone and muscular lesions and a significant improvement of the femoral lesion. MRI showed that the lesions in the left femur, tibia, and foot had a marked decrease in size without intravenous post-contrast enhancement and smaller lesions had disappeared. After a 3-year follow-up, PET-CT showed no metabolically active images. Literature review identified 31 records including 58 clinical cases of PMH with primary bone involvement and treatment description for qualitative analysis. Most lesions (69%) were treated by local excision or curettage. In addition, amputations were performed in a significant percentage of cases (20.7%). In the last years, mTOR inhibitors (n = 7) and anti-resorptive treatments (n = 4) were considered as alternative treatment options, especially in multifocal lesions.
Topics: Adult; Bone and Bones; Female; Hemangioendothelioma; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Pamidronate; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
PubMed: 35106633
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01062-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Children with chronic illnesses are at increased risk for reductions in bone strength and subsequent fractures (osteoporosis), either due to the impact of the underlying... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Children with chronic illnesses are at increased risk for reductions in bone strength and subsequent fractures (osteoporosis), either due to the impact of the underlying condition on skeletal development or due to the osteotoxic effect of medications (e.g., glucocorticoids) used to treat the chronic illness. Bisphosphonates are being administered with increasing frequency to children with secondary osteoporosis; however, the efficacy and harm of these agents remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy and harm of bisphosphonate therapy in the treatment and prevention of secondary osteoporosis in children and adolescents.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science (inception-December 2006). Further literature was identified through expert contact, key author searches, scanning reference lists of included studies, and contacting bisphosphonate manufacturers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, quasi-randomized, controlled clinical trials, cohort, and case controls of bisphosphonate(s) in children 0-18 years of age with at least one low-trauma fracture event or reductions in bone mineral density in the context of secondary osteoporosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Case series were used for supplemental harms-related data.
MAIN RESULTS
Six RCTs, two CCTs, and one prospective cohort (n=281 children) were included and classified into osteoporosis due to: 1) neuromuscular conditions (one RCT) and 2) chronic illness (five RCTs, two CCTs, one cohort). Bisphosphonates examined were oral alendronate, clodronate, and intravenous (IV) pamidronate. Study quality varied. Harms data from 23 case series (n=241 children) were used. Heterogeneity precluded statistically combining the results. Percent change or Z-score change in lumbar spine areal BMD from baseline were consistently reported. Two studies carried out between-group analyses; one showed no significant difference (using oral alendronate in anorexia nervosa) while the other demonstrated a treatment effect on lumbar spine with IV pamidronate in burn patients. Frequently reported harms included the acute phase reaction, followed by gastrointestinal complaints, and bone/muscle pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results justify further evaluation of bisphosphonates among children with secondary osteoporosis. However, the evidence does not support bisphosphonates as standard therapy. Short-term (3 years or less) bisphosphonate use appears to be well-tolerated. An accepted criterion for osteoporosis in children, a standardized approach to BMD reporting, and examining functional bone health outcomes (e.g., fracture rates) will allow for appropriate comparisons across studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Child; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 17943849
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005324.pub2 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Mar 2018To our knowledge from indexed literature, the present study is the first one to systematically review the influence of local delivery of pamidronate (PAM) and/or...
PURPOSE
To our knowledge from indexed literature, the present study is the first one to systematically review the influence of local delivery of pamidronate (PAM) and/or ibandronate (IBA) on osseointegration enhancement. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the efficacy of IBA and/or PAM local delivery (topically or coating on implants surfaces) in promoting osseointegration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To address the focused question, "Does local IBA and/or PAM delivery enhances osseointegration?," indexed databases were searched without time or language restrictions up to and including May 2016 using various combinations of the following keywords: "pamidronate," "ibandronate," "bisphosphonates," "osseointegration," and "topical administration." Letters to the Editor, historic reviews, commentaries, case series, and case reports were excluded.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included. Fourteen studies were performed in animals and 2 were clinical trials. One study reported an experimental model and a clinical trial in the same publication. Results from 12 experimental studies and 2 clinical studies reported improved biomechanical properties and/or osseointegration around implants with PAM and/or IBA. Two experimental studies showed that PAM and/or IBA did not improve osseointegration.
CONCLUSIONS
On experimental grounds, local IBA and/or PAM delivery seems to enhance osseointegration; however, from a clinical perspective, further randomized control trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of IBA and PAM in promoting osseointegration around dental implants.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Osseointegration; Pamidronate
PubMed: 27870311
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12571 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Science :... Feb 2024Periprosthetic bone loss following total hip arthroplasty (THA) threatens prosthesis stability. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the...
BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic bone loss following total hip arthroplasty (THA) threatens prosthesis stability. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of anti-osteoporotic drugs for measures of hip function according to functional outcomes, periprosthetic femoral bone mineral density loss in each Gruen zone, and revision surgery after THA.
METHODS
The systematic search of six literature databases was conducted in December 2021 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Adult participants who underwent primary THA were included. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed within a frequentist framework, and the confidence in the evidence for each outcome was evaluated using the CINeMA tool, which assessed the credibility of results from the network meta-analysis. We included 22 randomized controlled trials (1243 participants) comparing the efficacy and safety of bisphosphonates (including etidronate, clodronate, alendronate, risedronate, pamidronate, and zoledronate), denosumab, selective estrogen receptor modulator, teriparatide, calcium + vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin D. We defined the period for revision surgery as the final follow-up period.
RESULTS
Raloxifene, bisphosphonate, calcium + vitamin D, and denosumab for prosthetic hip function might have minimal differences when compared with placebos. The magnitude of the anti-osteoporotic drug effect on periprosthetic femoral bone loss varied across different Gruen zones. Bisphosphonate, denosumab, teriparatide might be more effective than placebo in Gruen zone 1 at 12 months after THA. Additionally, bisphosphonate might be more effective than placebo in Gruen zones 2, 5, 6, and 7 at 12 months after THA. Denosumab was efficacious in preventing bone loss in Gruen zones 6 and 7 at 12 months after THA. Teriparatide was likely to be efficacious in preventing bone loss in Gruen zone 7 at 12 months after THA. Raloxifene was slightly efficacious in preventing bone loss in Gruen zones 2 and 3 at 12 months after THA. Calcium was slightly efficacious in preventing bone loss in Gruen zone 5 at 12 months after THA. None of the studies reported revision surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Bisphosphonate and denosumab may be effective anti-osteoporotic drugs for preventing periprosthetic proximal femoral bone loss due to stress shielding after THA, particularly in cementless proximal fixation stems, which are the most commonly used prostheses worldwide.
PubMed: 38342711
DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2024.01.011