-
Medicine Oct 2020The goal of this study was to review relevant randomized controlled trials or case-control studies to determine the clinical efficacy of minodronate in the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The goal of this study was to review relevant randomized controlled trials or case-control studies to determine the clinical efficacy of minodronate in the treatment of osteoporosis.
METHOD
The relevant studies were identified on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases using appropriate keywords. Pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through October 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we assessed odds ratios, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) to evaluate and synthesize outcomes.
RESULT
Thirteen studies comprising 3740 patients were included in this study. Compared with other drugs, minodronate significantly decreased N-telopeptide of type I collagen/creatinine (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -13.669, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -23.108 to -4.229), bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) (WMD: -1.26, 95% CI: -2.04 to -0.47) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (WMD: -154.11, 95% CI: -277.85 to -30.37). Minodronate combined with other drugs would significantly decrease BAP (WMD: -3.10, 95% CI: -5.20 to -1.00) than minodronate. Minodronate-naïve would significantly decrease BAP (WMD: -3.00, 95% CI: -5.47 to 0.53) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (WMD: -128.20, 95% CI: -198.11 to -58.29) than minodronate-switch. The incidence of vertebral fracture was significantly decreased in the minodronate group than the other drugs (relative risk: 0.520, 95% CI: 0.363-0.744).
CONCLUSION
Minodronate has better clinical efficacy in the treatment of osteoporosis than other drugs (alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene, or eldecalcitol).
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alendronate; Alkaline Phosphatase; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Case-Control Studies; Collagen Type I; Creatinine; Diphosphonates; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Imidazoles; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Spinal Fractures; Tartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphatase; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin D
PubMed: 33019463
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022542 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
BACKGROUND
Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.
DATA SOURCES
For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.
RESULTS
Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.
LIMITATIONS
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Teriparatide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32588816
DOI: 10.3310/hta24290 -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... May 2020Atypical femur fractures (AFFs) are serious adverse events associated with bisphosphonates and often show poor healing.
CONTEXT
Atypical femur fractures (AFFs) are serious adverse events associated with bisphosphonates and often show poor healing.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic review to evaluate effects of teriparatide, raloxifene, and denosumab on healing and occurrence of AFF.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We retrieved 910 references and reviewed 67 papers, including 31 case reports, 9 retrospective and 3 prospective studies on teriparatide. There were no RCTs. We pooled data on fracture union (n = 98 AFFs on teriparatide) and found that radiological healing occurred within 6 months of teriparatide in 13 of 30 (43%) conservatively managed incomplete AFFs, 9 of 10 (90%) incomplete AFFs with surgical intervention, and 44 of 58 (75%) complete AFFs. In 9 of 30 (30%) nonoperated incomplete AFFs, no union was achieved after 12 months and 4 (13%) fractures became complete on teriparatide. Eight patients had new AFFs during or after teriparatide. AFF on denosumab was reported in 22 patients, including 11 patients treated for bone metastases and 8 without bisphosphonate exposure. Denosumab after AFF was associated with recurrent incomplete AFFs in 1 patient and 2 patients of contralateral complete AFF. Eight patients had used raloxifene before AFF occurred, including 1 bisphosphonate-naïve patient.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence-based indication in patients with AFF for teriparatide apart from reducing the risk of typical fragility fractures, although observational data suggest that teriparatide might result in faster healing of surgically treated AFFs. Awaiting further evidence, we formulate recommendations for treatment after an AFF based on expert opinion.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Europe; Femoral Fractures; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Societies, Medical; Teriparatide
PubMed: 31867670
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgz295 -
Bone Jan 2020To determine the clinical effectiveness of denosumab (DEN), raloxifene (RLX), romosozumab (ROMO) and teriparatide (TPTD), within their licensed (or anticipated licensed)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Clinical effectiveness of denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab, and teriparatide for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness of denosumab (DEN), raloxifene (RLX), romosozumab (ROMO) and teriparatide (TPTD), within their licensed (or anticipated licensed) indications, for the treatment of osteoporosis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted. Nine electronic databases and trial registries were searched up to the end of July 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised controlled trials (RCT) in a population at risk of osteoporotic fracture, comparing these four non-bisphosphonates DEN, RLX, ROMO, or TPTD with each other, a non-active treatment, or the bisphosphonates alendronate (ALN), risedronate (RIS), ibandronate (IBN) and zoledronic acid (ZOL). Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were used to determine the relative effectiveness of treatments.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 7898 citations. Forty-six RCTs of non-bisphosphonates met the inclusion criteria for the review and provided data for analyses. Additionally 49 RCTs of bisphosphonates were used in the NMAs. Forty-six RCTs were included in the NMA of vertebral fracture data, 23 RCTs for hip fractures and 73 RCTs in the NMA of femoral neck bone mineral density (FN BMD). For vertebral fractures, all four non-bisphosphonates showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo: TPTD HR 0.23 (95% credible internal (CrI) 0.16, 0.32); ROMO followed by ALN 0.25 (95% CrI 0.15, 0.43); DEN HR 0.30 (95% CrI 0.21, 0.43); RLX HR 0.61 (95% CrI 0.44, 0.80). The four non-bisphosphonates interventions studied also showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo for FN BMD, and for hip fractures TPTD, ROMO followed by ALN, and DEN showed statistically significant benefit relative to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The four non-bisphosphonate interventions studied were all statistically significantly clinically effective for reducing vertebral fractures when compared to placebo, and were beneficial for change in FN BMD compared to placebo. All reduced hip fractures, and this was statistically significant for TPTD, ROMO followed by ALN, and DEN.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Teriparatide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31626995
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2019.115081 -
JAMA Sep 2019Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects.
IMPORTANCE
Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects.
OBJECTIVE
To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review on medications to reduce risk of primary (first diagnosis) invasive breast cancer in women.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2019); manual review of reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
Discriminatory accuracy studies of breast cancer risk assessment methods; randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors for primary breast cancer prevention; studies of medication adverse effects.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Investigators abstracted data on methods, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, outcome ascertainment, and follow-up. Results of individual trials were combined by using a profile likelihood random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Probability of breast cancer in individuals (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]); incidence of breast cancer, fractures, thromboembolic events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, endometrial cancer, and cataracts; and mortality.
RESULTS
A total of 46 studies (82 articles [>5 million participants]) were included. Eighteen risk assessment methods in 25 studies reported low accuracy in predicting the probability of breast cancer in individuals (AUC, 0.55-0.65). In placebo-controlled trials, tamoxifen (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials [n = 28 421]), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials [n = 17 806]), and the aromatase inhibitors exemestane and anastrozole (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials [n = 8424]) were associated with a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer. Risk for invasive breast cancer was higher for raloxifene than tamoxifen in 1 trial after long-term follow-up (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]; n = 19 747). Raloxifene was associated with lower risk for vertebral fractures (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.73]; 2 trials [n = 16 929]) and tamoxifen was associated with lower risk for nonvertebral fractures (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.98]; 1 trial [n = 13 388]) compared with placebo. Tamoxifen and raloxifene were associated with increased thromboembolic events compared with placebo; tamoxifen was associated with more events than raloxifene. Tamoxifen was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer and cataracts compared with placebo. Symptomatic effects (eg, vasomotor, musculoskeletal) varied by medication.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors were associated with lower risk of primary invasive breast cancer in women but also were associated with adverse effects that differed between medications. Risk stratification methods to identify patients with increased breast cancer risk demonstrated low accuracy.
Topics: Adult; Area Under Curve; Aromatase Inhibitors; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Genes, BRCA1; Genes, BRCA2; Humans; Mutation; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 31479143
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.5780 -
Psychoneuroendocrinology Jul 2018Cognitive deficits are a core feature of serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) and are a common cause...
Targeting hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis hormones and sex steroids for improving cognition in major mood disorders and schizophrenia: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Cognitive deficits are a core feature of serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) and are a common cause of functional disability. There is limited efficacy of pharmacological interventions for improving the cognitive deficits in these disorders. As pro-cognitive pharmacological treatments are lacking, hormones or drugs that target the endocrine system may become potential candidates for 'repurposing' trials aiming to improve cognition. We aimed to study whether treatment with drugs targeting the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and sex steroids can improve cognition in patients with schizophrenia, MDD or BD. A systematic search was performed using PubMed (Medline), PsychInfo and clinicaltrials.gov, and a narrative synthesis was included. The systematic review identified 12 studies dealing with HPA-related drugs (mifepristone [n = 3], cortisol synthesis inhibitors [ketoconazole, n = 2], dehydroepiandrosterone [n = 5], fludrocortisone [n = 2]) and 14 studies dealing with sex steroids (oestradiol [n = 2], selective oestrogen receptor modulators [raloxifene, n = 7], pregnenolone [n = 5]). Positive trials were found for BD (mifepristone), MDD (dehydroepiandrosterone and fludrocortisone) and schizophrenia (dehydroepiandrosterone, raloxifene and pregnenolone). A replication of positive findings by at least two clinical trials was found for mifepristone in BD and raloxifene and pregnenolone in schizophrenia. The use of drugs targeting hormones related to the HPA axis and sex steroids is a promising field of research that might help to improve the cognitive outcome of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in the near future.
Topics: Affective Disorders, Psychotic; Bipolar Disorder; Cognition Disorders; Cognitive Dysfunction; Depressive Disorder, Major; Female; Gonadal Steroid Hormones; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System; Male; Mifepristone; Mood Disorders; Pituitary-Adrenal System; Pregnenolone; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 29680774
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.04.012 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Aug 2017To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of GIOP prevention and treatment options. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. We used a group consensus process to determine the final recommendations and grade their strength. The guideline addresses initial assessment and reassessment in patients beginning or continuing long-term (≥3 months) glucocorticoid (GC) treatment, as well as the relative benefits and harms of lifestyle modification and of calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonate, raloxifene, teriparatide, and denosumab treatment in the general adult population receiving long-term GC treatment, as well as in special populations of long-term GC users.
RESULTS
Because of limited evidence regarding the benefits and harms of interventions in GC users, most recommendations in this guideline are conditional (uncertain balance between benefits and harms). Recommendations include treating only with calcium and vitamin D in adults at low fracture risk, treating with calcium and vitamin D plus an additional osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonate preferred) in adults at moderate-to-high fracture risk, continuing calcium plus vitamin D but switching from an oral bisphosphonate to another antifracture medication in adults in whom oral bisphosphonate treatment is not appropriate, and continuing oral bisphosphonate treatment or switching to another antifracture medication in adults who complete a planned oral bisphosphonate regimen but continue to receive GC treatment. Recommendations for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, women of childbearing potential, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment, are also made.
CONCLUSION
This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium, Dietary; Consensus; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Rheumatic Diseases; Rheumatology; Societies, Medical; Teriparatide; United States; Vitamin D
PubMed: 28585373
DOI: 10.1002/art.40137 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2017Complications of chronic kidney disease (CKD) include weak bones and increased fracture risk. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Complications of chronic kidney disease (CKD) include weak bones and increased fracture risk.
PURPOSE
To review the benefits and harms of osteoporosis medications (bisphosphonates, teriparatide, raloxifene, and denosumab) compared with placebo, usual care, or active control in terms of bone mineral density (BMD), fractures, and safety in patients with CKD.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 2006 through December 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text articles for English-language, randomized, controlled trials that had at least 6 months of follow-up; evaluated osteoporosis medications among patients with CKD; and reported on BMD, fractures, or safety (mortality and adverse events).
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers serially abstracted data and independently assessed risk of bias and graded the strength of evidence (SOE).
DATA SYNTHESIS
There were 13 trials (n = 9850) that included kidney transplant recipients (6 trials), patients who had stage 3 to 5 CKD or were receiving dialysis (3 trials), or postmenopausal women with CKD (4 trials). Evidence showed that bisphosphonates may slow loss of BMD among transplant recipients (moderate SOE), but their effects on fractures and safety in transplant recipients and others with CKD are unclear. Raloxifene may prevent vertebral fractures but may not improve BMD (low SOE). Effects of teriparatide and denosumab on BMD and fractures are unclear (very low SOE), and these medications may increase risk for some safety outcomes.
LIMITATION
Unclear rigor of evidence, possible reporting biases, and scant evidence among patients with stage 3 to 5 CKD.
CONCLUSION
Effects of osteoporosis medications on BMD, fracture risk, and safety among patients with CKD are not clearly established.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Teriparatide
PubMed: 28395318
DOI: 10.7326/M16-2752 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Apr 2017Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a proatherogenic plasma lipoprotein and an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We investigated the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a proatherogenic plasma lipoprotein and an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We investigated the effects of raloxifene, selective estrogen receptor modulator, on circulating Lp(a) levels in postmenopausal women using a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
To identify relevant studies, electronic databases (PUBMED, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched by up to May 2015 to find controlled trials exploring the effects of oral raloxifene treatment on plasma Lp(a) levels in postmenopausal women. A random-effects model and generic inverse variance method were used for quantitative data synthesis.
RESULTS
Overall, seven eligible RCTs with ten treatment arms were included in this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis suggested a significant reduction of Lp(a) levels after treatment with raloxifene (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42; 95% CI -0.65, -0.19; p < 0.001), which may be considered as a medium effect size. When the studies were categorized according to the administered dose, there was a significant effect in both subsets of studies with administered doses ≤60 mg/day (SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.73, -0.13; p = 0.004) and >60 mg/day (SMD -0.36; 95% CI -0.68, -0.05; p = 0.025). No significant association between the changes in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) with dose and baseline Lp(a) levels was found in the random-effects meta-regression analysis. However, a significant inverse association was observed between the Lp(a)-lowering effect of raloxifene and duration of treatment (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Results of the present meta-analysis showed a reduction in plasma Lp(a) concentrations of postmenopausal women with oral raloxifene treatment.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Biomarkers; Down-Regulation; Female; Humans; Lipoprotein(a); Middle Aged; Postmenopause; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Time Factors
PubMed: 28265881
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-017-6721-6 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Apr 2016Preventive therapy is a risk reduction option for women who have an increased risk of breast cancer. The effectiveness of preventive therapy to reduce breast cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preventive therapy is a risk reduction option for women who have an increased risk of breast cancer. The effectiveness of preventive therapy to reduce breast cancer incidence depends on adequate levels of uptake and adherence to therapy. We aimed to systematically review articles reporting uptake and adherence to therapeutic agents to prevent breast cancer among women at increased risk, and identify the psychological, clinical and demographic factors affecting these outcomes.
DESIGN
Searches were carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychInfo, yielding 3851 unique articles. Title, abstract and full text screening left 53 articles, and a further 4 studies were identified from reference lists, giving a total of 57. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014014957).
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles reporting 26 studies of uptake in 21 423 women were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled uptake estimate was 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.6-19.0], with high heterogeneity (I(2) = 98.9%, P < 0.001). Uptake was unaffected by study location or agent, but was significantly higher in trials [25.2% (95% CI 18.3-32.2)] than in non-trial settings [8.7% (95% CI 6.8-10.9)] (P < 0.001). Factors associated with higher uptake included having an abnormal biopsy, a physician recommendation, higher objective risk, fewer side-effect or trial concerns, and older age. Adherence (day-to-day use or persistence) over the first year was adequate. However, only one study reported a persistence of ≥ 80% by 5 years. Factors associated with lower adherence included allocation to tamoxifen (versus placebo or raloxifene), depression, smoking and older age. Risk of breast cancer was discussed in all qualitative studies.
CONCLUSION
Uptake of therapeutic agents for the prevention of breast cancer is low, and long-term persistence is often insufficient for women to experience the full preventive effect. Uptake is higher in trials, suggesting further work should focus on implementing preventive therapy within routine care.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Chemoprevention; Female; Humans; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 26646754
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv590