-
The Angle Orthodontist Jul 2020To investigate and synthesize systematically the evidence from animal studies pertaining to the effect of pharmacological agents on tooth movement relapse following...
OBJECTIVES
To investigate and synthesize systematically the evidence from animal studies pertaining to the effect of pharmacological agents on tooth movement relapse following cessation of orthodontic force application.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted in seven online databases (including gray sources) without restrictions until the third week of April 2019, followed by a hand search in the reference lists of eligible articles. Controlled animal studies investigating the effect of pharmacological agents on tooth movement relapse following orthodontic treatment were selected. Relevant data were extracted from eligible studies and the risk of bias assessment was done using SYRCLE's risk of bias tool. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.
RESULTS
The search identified 2354 records, of which 7 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis, with the majority presenting an unclear risk of bias. Orthodontic relapse was shown to decrease with the administration of pamidronate disodium, atorvastatin, aspirin, and chemically modified tetracycline-3. Inconsistent effects on relapse were observed after the use of simvastatin. The overall quality of retrieved evidence was assessed as low at best.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence shows that the investigated pharmacological agents may demonstrate variable effects on tooth movement relapse following cessation of orthodontic force. Additional evidence of higher quality is required to draw definitive conclusions on their effects and to make potential recommendations for clinical application.
Topics: Animals; Dental Care; Health Behavior; Humans; Recurrence; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 33378496
DOI: 10.2319/092619-613.1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.
Topics: Adult; Alendronate; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Clodronic Acid; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Etidronic Acid; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Pamidronate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Quality of Life; RANK Ligand; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 33270906
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013020.pub2 -
JBMR Plus Oct 2019Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a rare genetic connective tissue disorder that results in bone fragility and deformity. Management is multi-disciplinary. Although...
Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a rare genetic connective tissue disorder that results in bone fragility and deformity. Management is multi-disciplinary. Although pharmacologic intervention with bisphosphonates (BP) is a standard of care for individuals with severe OI, no consensus or reviews were found that focus on the effects of bisphosphonates on function and mobility. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PEDro databases were searched for eligible articles for this review. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias. Twenty-six studies (801 children) were reviewed and five showed a low risk of bias. Included studies showed significant variability among clinical protocols for administering BP. Randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate a significant improvement in function and mobility with oral BP administration, while non-randomized open-label uncontrolled studies demonstrated that oral and intravenous BP administration objectively improved function and mobility. The most common outcome measure used by the studies included in this review was the Bleck score. Effect sizes (d = 0.28 - 4.5) varied among studies. This systematic review also summarized the apparent confounding variables affecting results of previous studies and provided suggestions to improve the quality of future studies.
PubMed: 31687649
DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10216 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jan 2020Skeletal fragility is a common complication of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) but the impact of bisphosphonate therapy on bone mass and fracture is...
UNLABELLED
Skeletal fragility is a common complication of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) but the impact of bisphosphonate therapy on bone mass and fracture is unclear. We aim to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effects of bisphosphonates on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture incidence in children with ALL.
METHODS
EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library were thoroughly searched by two researchers. Inclusion criteria was any child under the age of 18 years with a diagnosis of ALL, who had received any bisphosphonate treatment and had serial measurements of bone density performed thereafter. All primary research studies of any study design, excluding case reports, were included.
RESULTS
Ten full text papers were identified with two exclusively meeting the inclusion criteria. Both studies administered bisphosphonates to children receiving maintenance chemotherapy for varying durations. Bone density was assessed at regular intervals by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The majority of participants had an improvement in bone density at the end of each study. However, no size adjustment of DXA data was performed. Limited information on fracture occurrence was provided by one study but did not include routine screening for vertebral fractures.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review identified that there is insufficient evidence to support routine use of prophylactic bisphosphonate therapy in childhood ALL for prevention of fracture and improvement of bone mass. Future well-designed clinical trials in those at highest risk of fractures in ALL are now needed.
Topics: Adolescent; Bone Density; Child; Diphosphonates; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Incidence; Male; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 31377915
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05082-8 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology May 2019Bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaβ ligand (RANK-L) inhibitors are used as supportive treatments in breast cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaβ ligand (RANK-L) inhibitors are used as supportive treatments in breast cancer patients with bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). Due to missing head-to-head comparisons, a network meta-analysis was performed to provide a hierarchy of these therapeutic options. Through a systematic literature search, 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were identified. To prevent SREs, the ranking through P-scores showed denosumab (RR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.50-0.76), zoledronic acid (RR: 0.72; 95%CI: 0.61-0.84) and pamidronate (RR: 0.76; 95%CI: 0.67-0.85) to be significantly superior to placebo. Due to insufficient or heterogeneous data, overall survival, quality of life, pain response and adverse events were not able to be analyzed within the network. Although data were sparse on adverse events, the risk of significant adverse events appeared low. The results of this review can therefore be used to formulate clinical studies more precisely in order to standardise and focus on patient-relevant outcomes.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor-kappa B
PubMed: 31014505
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.02.004 -
Cancer Management and Research 2018Compared with application of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) every 4 weeks, it is unclear whether 12-weekly de-escalated therapy can be used as a substitute strategy.
BACKGROUND
Compared with application of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) every 4 weeks, it is unclear whether 12-weekly de-escalated therapy can be used as a substitute strategy.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials until November 22, 2017, was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included to assess skeletal-related event (SRE) rates, adverse events, and bone turnover biomarkers, comparing 12-weekly de-escalated treatments with standard 4-weekly dosage regimens. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were pooled in fixed-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
A total of eight citations were eligible comprising 2,878 patients: zoledronate (three studies, 2,650 patients), pamidronate (two studies, 68 patients), and denosumab (three studies, 160 patients). Summary RR (0.98; 95% CI 0.87-1.12; =0.82) for SRE rates between de-escalated and standard arms was produced when seven low risk of bias trials (695 patients) were pooled, and results without statistical significance also appeared in the analysis of adverse events and bone turnover biomarkers. Due to the limited sample size and methodological differences, the data for skeletal morbidity rates (SMRs), time to first SRE, serum C-telopeptide (sCTx) levels, and hypocalcemia were not combined, but systematic review still obtained similar indistinguishableness.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, the results "appeared" to show non-inferiority of the 12-weekly treatment. Due to the difference in available data, the results for bisphosphonates are more solid than for the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) antibodies.
PubMed: 30288112
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S176811 -
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 -
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 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2017Primary hyperparathyroidism is increasingly an asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, but the recognized guidelines for management are based on evidence obtained from... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Primary hyperparathyroidism is increasingly an asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, but the recognized guidelines for management are based on evidence obtained from studies on patients with symptomatic disease, and surgery is not always indicated. Other patients are unable to undergo surgery, and thus a medical treatment is warranted. This systematic review provides an overview of the existing literature on contemporary pharmaceutical options available for the medical management of primary hyperparathyroidism.
METHODS
Databases of medical literature were searched for articles including terms for primary hyperparathyroidism and each of the included drugs. Data on s-calcium, s-parathyroid hormone, bone turnover markers, bone mineral density (BMD) and hard endpoints were extracted and tabulated, and level of evidence was determined. Changes in s-calcium were estimated and a meta-regression analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The 1,999 articles were screened for eligibility and 54 were included in the review. Weighted mean changes calculated for each drug in s-total calcium (mean change from baseline ± SEM) were pamidronate (0.31 ± 0.034 mmol/l); alendronate (0.07 ± 0.05 mmol/l); clodronate (0.20 ± 0.040 mmol/l); mixed bisphosphonates (0.16 ± 0.049 mmol/l); and cinacalcet (0.37 ± 0.013 mmol/l). The meta-analysis revealed a significant decrease of effect on s-calcium with time for the bisphosphonates (Coef. -0.049 ± 0.023, = 0.035), while cinacalcet proved to maintain its effect on s-calcium over time. Bisphosphonates improved BMD while cinacalcet had no effect.
DISCUSSION
The included studies demonstrate advantages and drawbacks of the available pharmaceutical options that can prove helpful in the clinical setting. The great variation in how primary hyperparathyroidism is manifested requires that management should rely on an individual evaluation when counseling patients. Combining resorptive agents with calcimimetics could prove rewarding, but more studies are warranted.
PubMed: 28473803
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00079 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or no trauma. Bisphosphonates are used in an attempt to increase bone mineral density and reduce these fractures in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates in increasing bone mineral density, reducing fractures and improving clinical function in people with osteogenesis imperfecta.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We additionally searched PubMed and major conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Register: 28 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing bisphosphonates to placebo, no treatment, or comparator interventions in all types of osteogenesis imperfecta.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials (819 participants) were included. Overall, the trials were mainly at a low risk of bias, although selective reporting was an issue in several of the trials. Data for oral bisphosphonates versus placebo could not be aggregated; a statistically significant difference favouring oral bisphosphonates in fracture risk reduction and number of fractures was noted in two trials. No differences were reported in the remaining three trials which commented on fracture incidence. Five trials reported data for spine bone mineral density; all found statistically significant increased lumbar spine density z scores for at least one time point studied. For intravenous bisphosphonates versus placebo, aggregated data from two trials showed no statistically significant difference for the number of participants with at least one fracture, risk ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.06). In the remaining trial no statistically significant difference was noted in fracture incidence. For spine bone mineral density, no statistically significant difference was noted in the aggregated data from two trials, mean difference 9.96 (95% confidence interval -2.51 to 22.43). In the remaining trial a statistically significant difference in mean per cent change in spine bone mineral density z score favoured intravenous bisphosphonates at six and 12 months. Data describing growth, bone pain, and functional outcomes after oral or intravenous bisphosphonate therapy, or both, as compared to placebo were incomplete among all studies, but do not show consistent improvements in these outcomes. Two studies compared different doses of bisphosphonates. No differences were found between doses when bone mineral density, fractures, and height or length z score were assessed. One trial compared oral versus intravenous bisphosphonates and found no differences in primary outcomes. Two studies compared the intravenous bisphosphonates zoledronic acid and pamidronate. There were no significant differences in primary outcome. However, the studies were at odds as to the relative benefit of zoledronic acid over pamidronate for lumbosacral bone mineral density at 12 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Bisphophonates are commonly prescribed to individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta. Current evidence, albeit limited, demonstrates oral or intravenous bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density in children and adults with this condition. These were not shown to be different in their ability to increase bone mineral density. It is unclear whether oral or intravenous bisphosphonate treatment consistently decreases fractures, though multiple studies report this independently and no studies report an increased fracture rate with treatment. The studies included here do not show bisphosphonates conclusively improve clinical status (reduce pain; improve growth and functional mobility) in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. Given their current widespread and expected continued use, the optimal method, duration of therapy and long-term safety of bisphosphonate therapy require further investigation. In addition, attention should be given to long-term fracture reduction and improvement in quality of life indicators.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Osteogenesis Imperfecta; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27760454
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005088.pub4