-
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Jul 2023Alcohol consumption remains inconsistently correlated with fracture risk, and a dose-response meta-analysis for specific outcomes is lacking. The objective of this study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Alcohol consumption remains inconsistently correlated with fracture risk, and a dose-response meta-analysis for specific outcomes is lacking. The objective of this study was to quantitatively integrate the data on the relationship between alcohol consumption and fracture risk. Pertinent articles were identified in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to 20 February 2022. Combined RRs and 95% CIs were estimated by random- or fixed-effects models. Restricted cubic splines were used to model linear or nonlinear relationships. Forty-four articles covering 6,069,770 participants and 205,284 cases of fracture were included. The combined RRs and 95% CIs for highest compared with lowest alcohol consumption were 1.26 (1.17-1.37), 1.24 (1.13-1.35), and 1.20 (1.03-1.40) for total, osteoporotic, and hip fractures, respectively. A linear positive relationship between alcohol consumption and total fracture risk was detected (P = 0.057); the risk was correlated with a 6% increase (RR, 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.10) per 14 g/d increment of alcohol consumption. J-shaped relationships of alcohol consumption with risk of osteoporotic fractures (P < 0.001) and hip fractures (P < 0.001) were found. Alcohol consumption of 0 to 22 g/d was linked to a reduced risk of osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures. Our findings show that any level of alcohol consumption is a risk factor for total fractures. Moreover, this dose-response meta-analysis shows that an alcohol consumption level of 0 to 22 g/d is related to a reduction in the risk of osteoporotic and hip fractures. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022320623).
Topics: Humans; Alcohol Drinking; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36966875
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2023.03.008 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
Cureus Jan 2023The prevalence of osteoporosis in individuals with cirrhosis varies based on the diagnostic approach and etiology of the underlying liver disease. This systematic review... (Review)
Review
The prevalence of osteoporosis in individuals with cirrhosis varies based on the diagnostic approach and etiology of the underlying liver disease. This systematic review aims to evaluate the prevalence of osteoporosis in individuals with cirrhosis. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of osteoporosis among patients with cirrhosis. The primary outcome was the presence of osteoporosis, as determined by a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan. Secondary outcomes were levels of biochemical markers of bone metabolism, including calcium, vitamin D, phosphorus, and parathormone (PTH) levels. A cohort of 836 patients from 10 studies was included in the final analysis. The pooled rate of osteoporosis was 14.80% (95% CI: 14.19-15.49). Pooled levels of biochemical markers of bone metabolism were as follows: calcium 9.09 mg/dL (95% CI: 8.73-9.45), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) 15.41 ng/mL (95% CI: 14.79-16.03), phosphorus 15.41 mg/dL (95% CI: 2.99-3.51), and PTH 26.58 pg/mL (95% CI: 25.45-27.71). Pooled levels of liver biochemistries were: bilirubin 3.04 mg/dL (95% CI: 2.84-3.25), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 65.35 U/L (95% CI: 61.39-69.31), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 50.17 U/L (95% CI: 46.18-54.10), alkaline phosphatase 133.31 U/L (95% CI: 124.89-141.73), and albumin 3.25 g/dL (95% CI: 3.05-3.45). Cirrhosis appears to be associated with an increased risk for osteoporosis, with a pooled prevalence of 15%. This can include men and individuals younger than 50 years of age, a cohort not typically considered to be at an increased risk of osteoporosis. Levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) were also significantly low. Further studies are required to evaluate the risk of osteoporosis based on the etiology and stage of cirrhosis, especially in younger males, to incorporate this into future prediction models for fragility fractures.
PubMed: 36788896
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.33721 -
PharmacoEconomics Apr 2023Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative...
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women.
METHODS
A literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies.
RESULTS
Of 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Diphosphonates; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Bone Density Conservation Agents
PubMed: 36738425
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01239-2 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jun 2023Robust data on osteoporosis in the Asia Pacific region could improve healthcare decision-making. Osteoporosis affects 10-30% of women aged 40 + , and up to 10% of... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Robust data on osteoporosis in the Asia Pacific region could improve healthcare decision-making. Osteoporosis affects 10-30% of women aged 40 + , and up to 10% of men in 7 developed economies in Asia Pacific. Fractures affect 500-1000 adults aged 50 + per 100,000 person-years. Policymakers and clinicians must address this problem.
PURPOSE
Osteoporosis and associated fractures result in considerable morbidity, loss of productivity, early mortality, and increased healthcare expenses. Many countries in the Asia Pacific (AP) region, especially middle- and higher-income economies, are faced with aging and increasingly sedentary populations. It is critical to consolidate and analyze the available information on the prevalence and incidence of the disease in these countries.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed articles and gray literature for Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, JSTOR, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and other databases for data published 2009-2018. We included articles with prevalence or incidence estimates for adults with osteoporosis or related fractures.
RESULTS
All locations had data available, but of widely varying quantity and quality. Most estimates for osteoporosis prevalence ranged from 10 to 30% for women ages 40 and older, and up to 10% for men. Osteoporotic fracture incidence typically ranged between 500 and 1000 per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 50 and older. Both outcomes typically increased with age and were more common among women.
CONCLUSION
Osteoporosis and associated fractures affect significant portions of the adult population in developed economies in the AP region. Governments and healthcare systems must consider how best to prevent and diagnose osteoporosis, and manage affected individuals, to reduce healthcare costs and mortality associated with fractures.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Hong Kong; Incidence; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Prevalence
PubMed: 36735053
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-022-06657-8 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Recently, the effects of paraspinal muscle degeneration on osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) have attracted the attention of researchers; however, studies are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Recently, the effects of paraspinal muscle degeneration on osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) have attracted the attention of researchers; however, studies are limited, and their results vary. Hence, this study aimed to determine the role of paraspinal muscle degeneration in the occurrence and recurrence of OVF.
METHODS
Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline, the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies. Studies comparing the cross-sectional area (CSA) or fatty infiltration (FI) of the paraspinal muscles (including the psoas (PS), erector spinae plus multifidus (ES+MF), quadratus lumborum) in patients with and without initial OVF, or with and without recurrent OVF were included and analyzed.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Seven studies investigated the effects of paraspinal muscles on initial OVF, and the overall results revealed significantly lower CSA (SMD: -0.575, 95% CI: -0.866 to -0.285) and CSA (SMD: -0.750, 95% CI: -1.274 to -0.226), and higher FI (SMD: 0.768, 95% CI: 0.475 to 1.062) in the fracture group. Meanwhile, four studies evaluated the effects of the paraspinal muscles on recurrent OVF, and the pooled results demonstrated significantly higher FI (SMD:0.720, 95% CI: 0.258 to 1.182) in the refracture group, although no significant difference in CSA (SMD: -0.103, 95% CI: -0.395 to 0.189) was observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Paraspinal muscle degeneration plays a role in the occurrence and recurrence of OVF. Assessing the paraspinal muscles may be useful for identifying high-risk populations.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier (CRD42021276681).
Topics: Humans; Spinal Fractures; Paraspinal Muscles; Lumbar Vertebrae; Retrospective Studies; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Osteoporotic Fractures; Muscular Atrophy
PubMed: 36686478
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1073013 -
Journal of the American Board of Family... Feb 2023There are multiple classes of pharmacologic agents approved for treatment of osteoporosis, but their costs vary widely, and systematic data on their efficacy compared... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are multiple classes of pharmacologic agents approved for treatment of osteoporosis, but their costs vary widely, and systematic data on their efficacy compared with the traditional standard, bisphosphonates, for reducing fractures in postmenopausal women are lacking. The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of denosumab compared with bisphosphonates.
METHODS
Researchers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing denosumab to bisphosphonates that included information on clinical and/or osteoporotic fracture events over the follow-up period. Each clinical outcome was meta-analyzed using a fixed-effects analysis, with clinical and osteoporotic fractures as the outcomes of interest. A meta-regression was performed using change in bone mineral density (BMD) as the moderator variable.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs were included. Denosumab was not associated with a reduction in clinical or osteoporotic fractures compared with bisphosphonates. There was no association between the change in BMD with denosumab and bisphosphonates and denosumab's effect on both osteoporotic and clinical fractures.
DISCUSSION
Existing data do not support the use of the more expensive denosumab as a first-line agent over bisphosphonates for reduction of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. One limitation in this study was each RCT was not individually powered for fracture incidences.
Topics: Female; Humans; Diphosphonates; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Postmenopause; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporosis; Bone Density
PubMed: 36653115
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2022.220099R1 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Dec 2022Osteoporosis is a complex multifactorial disease characterized by reduced bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue linked to an increase of fracture...
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a complex multifactorial disease characterized by reduced bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue linked to an increase of fracture risk. Fragility fractures occur in osteoporotic subjects due to low-energy trauma. Osteoporotic patients are a challenge regarding the correct surgical planning, as it can include fixation augmentation techniques to reach a more stable anchorage of the implant, possibly lowering re-intervention rate and in-hospital stay.
METHODS
The PubMed database and the Google Scholar search engine were used to identify articles on all augmentation techniques and their association with fragility fractures until January 2022. In total, we selected 40 articles that included studies focusing on humerus, hip, spine, and tibia.
RESULTS
Literature review showed a quantity of materials that can be used for reconstruction of bone defects in fragility fractures in different anatomic locations, with good results over the stability and strength of the implant anchorage, when compared to non-augmented fractures.
CONCLUSION
Nowadays there are no recommendations and no consensus about the use of augmentation techniques in osteoporotic fractures. Our literature review points at implementing the use of bone augmentation techniques with a specific indication for elderly patients with comminuted fractures and poor bone quality.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Osteoporosis; Bone Density; Fractures, Comminuted; Osteoporotic Fractures; Humerus
PubMed: 36457070
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-06022-0 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Nov 2022Both denosumab and bisphosphonates have been demonstrated effective for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. However, evidence-based medicine is still lacking to prove... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Both denosumab and bisphosphonates have been demonstrated effective for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. However, evidence-based medicine is still lacking to prove the clinical results between denosumab and bisphosphonates. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety between denosumab and oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis through evidence-based medicine.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library databases were searched up to June 2022 for randomized controlled trials that compared denosumab and oral bisphosphonates in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: percentage change in bone mineral density from baseline at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and ultra-distal radius; percentage change from baseline in serum concentration of bone turnover markers; and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials involving 714 patients were included. The pooled results showed that denosumab was superior to bisphosphonates in improving bone mineral density in lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.30; P < 0.001) and ultra-distal radius (MD 0.87; 95% CI 0.29-1.45; P = 0.003), and in suppressing C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (MD -34.83; 95% CI -67.37--2.28; P = 0.04) and procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (MD -14.29; 95% CI -23.65- -4.94; P = 0.003) at 12 months. No significant differences were found in percentage change in total hip or femoral neck bone mineral density at 12 months, or in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or osteoporosis-related fracture.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with bisphosphonates, denosumab is superior in improving bone mineral density in lumbar spine and ultra-distal radius for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to prove the efficacy of denosumab.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Glucocorticoids; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36447169
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05997-0 -
Frontiers in Aging 2022Osteoporosis consists in the reduction of bone mineral density and increased risk of fracture. Age is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Although many treatments are...
Osteoporosis consists in the reduction of bone mineral density and increased risk of fracture. Age is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Although many treatments are available for osteoporosis, there is limited data regarding their efficacy in older people. To evaluate the efficacy of osteoporosis treatments in patients over 75 years old. We reviewed all published studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE including patients over 75 years old, treated by osteoporosis drugs, and focused on vertebral fractures or hip fractures. We identified 4,393 records for review; 4,216 were excluded after title/abstract review. After full text review, 19 records were included in the systematic review. Most studies showed a reduction in vertebral fracture with osteoporosis treatments, but non-significant results were observed for hip fractures. Meta-analysis of 10 studies showed that lack of treatment was significantly associated with an increased risk of vertebral fractures at one (OR = 3.67; 95%CI = 2.50-5.38) and 3 years (OR = 2.19; 95%CI = 1.44-3.34), and for hip fractures at one (OR = 2.14; 95%CI = 1.09-4.22) and 3 years (OR = 1.31, 95%CI = 1.12-1.53). A reduction in the risk of vertebral fractures with osteoporosis treatments was observed in most of the studies included and meta-analysis showed that lack of treatment was significantly associated with an increased risk of vertebral fractures. Concerning hip fractures, majority of included studies did not show a significant reduction in the occurrence of hip fractures with osteoporotic treatments, but meta-analysis showed an increased risk of hip fractures without osteoporotic treatment. However, most of the data derived from and preplanned analyses or observational studies.
PubMed: 36404990
DOI: 10.3389/fragi.2022.845886