-
Annals of Internal Medicine Jun 2024
Meta-Analysis
Update Alert: Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.
Topics: Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Density; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38710084
DOI: 10.7326/L24-0118 -
Neurospine Jun 2024We investigated the clinical efficacy of anabolic agents compared with bisphosphonates (BPs) for the incidence of new osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and fracture...
Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of Anabolic Agents and Bisphosphonates in the Patients With Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
We investigated the clinical efficacy of anabolic agents compared with bisphosphonates (BPs) for the incidence of new osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and fracture healing of OVF in the patients with OVF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for published RCTs till December 2022. The RCTs that recruited participants with osteoporosis at high-/very high-risk of fracture (a history of osteoporotic vertebral or hip fracture) or fresh OVF were included in this study. We assessed the risk of bias on every included RCTs, estimated relative risk (RR) for the incidence of new OVF and fracture healing of OVF, and overall certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed by Cochrane review manager (RevMan) ver. 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and GRADEpro/GDT were applied for evaluating methodological quality and overall certainty of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
Five hundred eighteen studies were screened, and finally 6 eligible RCTs were included in the analysis. In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents significantly reduced the incidence of new OVF (teriparatide and romosozumab vs. alendronate and risedronate [RR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.71; p < 0.00001; high-certainty of evidence]; teriparatide vs. risedronate [RR, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.0001; high-certainty of evidence]). However, there was no evidence of teriparatide compared to alendronate in fracture healing of OVF (RR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.60; p = 0.12; low-certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSION
In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents showed a significant superiority for preventing new OVF than BPs, with no significant evidence for promoting fracture healing of OVF. However, considering small number of RCTs in this study, additional studies with large-scale data are required to obtain more robust evidences.
PubMed: 38697911
DOI: 10.14245/ns.2347256.628 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2024Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both...
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.
METHODS
The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.
RESULTS
Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.
FUTURE WORK
Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Humans; Diphosphonates; Alendronate; Zoledronic Acid; Osteoporotic Fractures; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 38634483
DOI: 10.3310/WYPF0472 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.
Topics: Humans; Female; Osteoporotic Fractures; Etidronic Acid; Wrist Fractures; Secondary Prevention; Calcium; Postmenopause; Osteoporosis; Spinal Fractures; Hip Fractures; Vitamin D; Wrist Injuries
PubMed: 38591743
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003376.pub4 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jul 2024To determine and appraise the certainty of fracture liaison service (FLS) in reducing the risk of secondary fragility fractures in older adults aged ≥ 50 years... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To determine and appraise the certainty of fracture liaison service (FLS) in reducing the risk of secondary fragility fractures in older adults aged ≥ 50 years and to examine the nature of the FLS and the roles of various disciplines involved in the delivery of the FLS. Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 1st, 2010, to May 31st, 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted data. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the PEDro scale for randomized trials, while the GRADE approach established the certainty of the evidence. Thirty-seven studies were identified of which 34 (91.9%) were rated as having a low risk of bias and 22 (59.5%) were meta-analyzed. Clinically important low certainty evidence at 1 year (RR 0.26, CI 0.13 to 0.52, 6 pooled studies) and moderate certainty evidence at ≥ 2 years (RR 0.68, CI 0.55 to 0.83, 13 pooled studies) indicate that the risk of secondary fragility fracture was lower in the FLS intervention compared to the non-FLS intervention. Sensitivity analyses with no observed heterogeneity confirmed these findings. This review found clinically important moderate certainty evidence showing that the risk of secondary fragility fracture was lower in the FLS intervention at ≥ 2 years. More high-quality studies in this field could improve the certainty of the evidence. Review registration: PROSPERO-CRD42021266408.
Topics: Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Aged; Secondary Prevention; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 38536447
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-024-07052-1 -
Current Osteoporosis Reports Apr 2024Recently, the American Diabetes Association updated the 2024 guidelines for Standards of Care in Diabetes and recommend that a T-score of - 2.0 in patients with diabetes... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Recently, the American Diabetes Association updated the 2024 guidelines for Standards of Care in Diabetes and recommend that a T-score of - 2.0 in patients with diabetes should be interpreted as equivalent to - 2.5 in people without diabetes. We aimed to evaluate the most recent findings concerning the bone mineral density (BMD)-derived T-score and risk of fractures related to osteoporosis in subjects with diabetes.
RECENT FINDINGS
The dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan is the golden standard for evaluating BMD. The BMD-derived T-score is central to fracture prediction and signifies both diagnosis and treatment for osteoporosis. However, the increased fracture risk in diabetes is not sufficiently explained by the T-score, complicating the identification and management of fracture risk in these patients. Recent findings agree that subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a higher T-score and higher fracture risk compared with subjects without diabetes. However, the actual number of studies evaluating the direct association of higher fracture risk at higher T-score levels is scant. Some studies support the adjustment based on the 0.5 BMD T-score difference between subjects with T2D and subjects without diabetes. However, further data from longitudinal studies is warranted to validate if the T-score treatment threshold necessitates modification to prevent fractures in subjects with diabetes.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density; Osteoporosis; Absorptiometry, Photon; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38509440
DOI: 10.1007/s11914-024-00867-1 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Translation Mar 2024Fracture-related infection (FRI) remains a major concern in orthopaedic trauma. Functionalizing implants with antibacterial coatings are a promising strategy in... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Fracture-related infection (FRI) remains a major concern in orthopaedic trauma. Functionalizing implants with antibacterial coatings are a promising strategy in mitigating FRI. Numerous implant coatings have been reported but the preventive and therapeutic effects vary. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of current implant coating strategies to prevent and treat FRI in animal fracture and bone defect models.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in three databases: PubMed, Web of Science and Embase, with predetermined keywords and criteria up to 28 February 2023. Preclinical studies on implant coatings in animal fracture or defect models that assessed antibacterial and bone healing effects were included.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies were included in this systematic review, seven of which used fracture models and seven used defect models. Passive coatings with bacteria adhesion resistance were investigated in two studies. Active coatings with bactericidal effects were investigated in 12 studies, four of which used metal ions including Ag and Cu; five studies used antibiotics including chlorhexidine, tigecycline, vancomycin, and gentamicin sulfate; and the other three studies used natural antibacterial materials including chitosan, antimicrobial peptides, and lysostaphin. Overall, these implant coatings exhibited promising efficacy in antibacterial effects and bone formation.
CONCLUSION
Antibacterial coating strategies reduced bacterial infections in animal models and favored bone healing . Future studies of implant coatings should focus on optimal biocompatibility, antibacterial effects against multi-drug resistant bacteria and polymicrobial infections, and osseointegration and osteogenesis promotion especially in osteoporotic bone by constructing multi-functional coatings for FRI therapy.
THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS PAPER
The clinical treatment of FRI is complex and challenging. This review summarizes novel orthopaedic implant coating strategies applied to FRI in preclinical studies, and offers a perspective on the future development of orthopaedic implant coatings, which can potentially contribute to alternative strategies in clinical practice.
PubMed: 38495742
DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2023.12.006 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jun 2024The use of opportunistic computed tomography (CT) image-based biomarkers may be a low-cost strategy for screening older individuals at high risk for osteoporotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The use of opportunistic computed tomography (CT) image-based biomarkers may be a low-cost strategy for screening older individuals at high risk for osteoporotic fractures and populations that are not sufficiently targeted. This review aimed to assess the discriminative ability of image-based biomarkers derived from existing clinical routine CT scans for hip, vertebral, and major osteoporotic fracture prediction. A systematic search in PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was conducted from the earliest indexing date until July 2023. The evaluation of study quality was carried out using a modified Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. The primary outcome of interest was the area under the curve (AUC) and its corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) obtained for four main categories of biomarkers: areal bone mineral density (BMD), image attenuation, volumetric BMD, and finite element (FE)-derived biomarkers. The meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Sixty-one studies were included in this review, among which 35 were synthesized in a meta-analysis and the remaining articles were qualitatively synthesized. In comparison to the pooled AUC of areal BMD (0.73 [95% CI 0.71-0.75]), the pooled AUC values for predicting osteoporotic fractures for FE-derived parameters (0.77 [95% CI 0.72-0.81]; p < 0.01) and volumetric BMD (0.76 [95% CI 0.71-0.81]; p < 0.01) were significantly higher, but there was no significant difference with the pooled AUC for image attenuation (0.73 [95% CI 0.66-0.79]; p = 0.93). Compared to areal BMD, volumetric BMD and FE-derived parameters may provide a significant improvement in the discrimination of osteoporotic fractures using opportunistic CT assessments.
Topics: Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Biomarkers; Mass Screening; Spinal Fractures; Hip Fractures; Finite Element Analysis
PubMed: 38353706
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-024-07029-0 -
The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging Apr 2024Stroke survivors frequently encounter physical complications. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of stroke on bone mineral density (BMD) and assess the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Stroke survivors frequently encounter physical complications. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of stroke on bone mineral density (BMD) and assess the risk of post-stroke osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify longitudinal studies reporting the influence of stroke on BMD, osteoporosis, and osteoporotic fractures. Pooled analyses were performed utilizing random-effects models.
RESULTS
This study included 21 studies with 1,029,742 participants. The mean difference of BMD in the paretic femoral neck between follow-up and initial measurements was -0.07 g/cm (95% CI, -0.09 to -0.04), and -0.03 g/cm (95% CI, -0.05 to -0.01) in the non-paretic femoral neck. A follow-up length exceeding six months was associated with a more pronounced decrease compared to a follow-up of under six months (MD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.05 vs MD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.02; P = 0.03). No significant change in lumbar spine BMD was detected post-stroke (MD, -0.00; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02), nor was significant change observed in the non-paretic distal radius, proximal humerus, tibia, trochanter, and total hip. Stroke was not associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.95-2.13).
CONCLUSION
Stroke survivors undergo significant BMD loss in paralyzed limbs, most notably in the femoral neck. However, BMD in the lumbar spine does not exhibit a significant decrease post-stroke. The risk of post-stroke osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures should be interpreted with caution and needs further investigation.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density; Stroke; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Femur Neck; Female; Male; Aged
PubMed: 38350301
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnha.2024.100189 -
Osteoporosis guidelines on TCM drug therapies: a systematic quality evaluation and content analysis.Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of osteoporosis guidelines on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) drug therapies and to analyze the specific...
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of osteoporosis guidelines on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) drug therapies and to analyze the specific recommendations of these guidelines.
METHODS
We systematically collected guidelines, evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the (AGREE) II tool, and summarized the recommendations of TCM drug therapies using the Patient-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) model as the analysis framework.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
A total of 20 guidelines were included. Overall quality evaluation results revealed that four guidelines were at level A, four at level B, and 12 at level C, whose quality needed to be improved in the domains of "stakeholder involvement", "rigor of development", "applicability" and "editorial independence". Stratified analysis suggested that the post-2020 guidelines were significantly better than those published before 2020 in the domains of "scope and purpose", "stakeholder involvement" and "editorial independence". Guidelines with evidence systems were significantly better than those without evidence systems in terms of "stakeholder involvement", "rigor of development", "clarity of presentation" and "applicability". The guidelines recommended TCM drug therapies for patients with osteopenia, osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture. Recommended TCM drugs were mainly Chinese patent medicine alone or combined with Western medicine, with the outcome mainly focused on improving bone mineral density (BMD).
Topics: Humans; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Research Design
PubMed: 38317713
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1276631