-
Brazilian Oral Research 2024The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket...
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket healing after tooth extraction in animal models"? To this end, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, as well as in the gray literature up to May 2023. Preclinical studies that evaluated alveolar healing after tooth extraction and the intake of sodium alendronate compared with placebo were included. Two investigators were responsible for screening the articles independently, extracting the data, and assessing their quality through the SYRCLE's RoB tool for randomized trials in animal studies. The study selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in studies, impact of alendronate on bone healing, and certainty of evidence were described in text and table formats. Methodological differences among the studies were restricted to the synthesis methods. The synthesis of qualitative results followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. From the 19 included studies, five were considered to have low risk, three were of unclear risk, and eleven presented a high risk of bias. The studies were considered heterogeneous regarding alendronate posology, including its dosage and route of administration. Furthermore, a variety of animal species, different age ranges, diverse teeth extracted, and exposure or not to ovariectomy contributed to the lack of parity of the selected studies. Our results indicated that alendronate monotherapy negatively affects the early phase of wound healing after tooth extraction in preclinical studies, suggesting that the bone resorption process after tooth extraction in animals treated with alendronate might impair the bone healing process of the extraction socket. In conclusion, alendronate administration restrains bone resorption, thereby delaying alveolar socket healing . Future studies should be conducted to validate these findings and to better understand the effects of alendronate therapy on oral tissues.
Topics: Alendronate; Tooth Extraction; Animals; Wound Healing; Tooth Socket; Bone Density Conservation Agents
PubMed: 38747825
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0038 -
Neurospine Jun 2024We investigated the clinical efficacy of anabolic agents compared with bisphosphonates (BPs) for the incidence of new osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and fracture...
Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of Anabolic Agents and Bisphosphonates in the Patients With Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
We investigated the clinical efficacy of anabolic agents compared with bisphosphonates (BPs) for the incidence of new osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF) and fracture healing of OVF in the patients with OVF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for published RCTs till December 2022. The RCTs that recruited participants with osteoporosis at high-/very high-risk of fracture (a history of osteoporotic vertebral or hip fracture) or fresh OVF were included in this study. We assessed the risk of bias on every included RCTs, estimated relative risk (RR) for the incidence of new OVF and fracture healing of OVF, and overall certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses were performed by Cochrane review manager (RevMan) ver. 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and GRADEpro/GDT were applied for evaluating methodological quality and overall certainty of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
Five hundred eighteen studies were screened, and finally 6 eligible RCTs were included in the analysis. In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents significantly reduced the incidence of new OVF (teriparatide and romosozumab vs. alendronate and risedronate [RR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.71; p < 0.00001; high-certainty of evidence]; teriparatide vs. risedronate [RR, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.0001; high-certainty of evidence]). However, there was no evidence of teriparatide compared to alendronate in fracture healing of OVF (RR, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.60; p = 0.12; low-certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSION
In the patients with prevalent OVF, anabolic agents showed a significant superiority for preventing new OVF than BPs, with no significant evidence for promoting fracture healing of OVF. However, considering small number of RCTs in this study, additional studies with large-scale data are required to obtain more robust evidences.
PubMed: 38697911
DOI: 10.14245/ns.2347256.628 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2024Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both...
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.
METHODS
The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.
RESULTS
Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.
FUTURE WORK
Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Humans; Diphosphonates; Alendronate; Zoledronic Acid; Osteoporotic Fractures; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 38634483
DOI: 10.3310/WYPF0472 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Several medications have been used for glucocorticoids-induced osteoporosis (GIO). However, the best therapeutic option for GIO is still controversial. A Bayesian...
Several medications have been used for glucocorticoids-induced osteoporosis (GIO). However, the best therapeutic option for GIO is still controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab, teriparatide and bisphosphonates for patients with GIO. Relevant randomized controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 2023 were searched. The following efficiency and safety outcomes were extracted for comparison: bone mineral density (BMD) percentage changes in lumbar spine, femur neck and total hip, and incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), vertebrae and non-vertebrae fracture. Bayesian random effects models were used for multiple treatment comparisons. 11 eligible RCTs involving 2,877 patients were identified. All the six medications including alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, zoledronate, teriparatide, and denosumab and were effective in increasing BMD. Teriparatide and denosumab were more effective in improving lumbar spine and femur neck BMD, and reducing vertebrae fracture. Alendronate and denosumab were more effective in improving total hip BMD. Alendronate and teriparatide had the lowest incidences of AEs and SAEs. Teriparatide denosumab and the bisphosphonates are all effective in improving BMD for GIO patients. Based on this network meta-analysis, teriparatide and denosumab have higher efficiency in improving lumbar spine and femur neck BMD, and reducing vertebrae fracture. 10.17605/OSF.IO/2G8YA, identifier CRD42023456305.
PubMed: 38313307
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1336075 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Dec 2023To access the occurrence of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw (BAONJ) in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
BACKGROUND
To access the occurrence of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw (BAONJ) in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Observational studies that evaluated the occurrence of BAONJ in individuals with RA (BAONJ-RA) were considered for inclusion. Electronic searches were performed up to December 2022 in six databases and in the grey literature. The study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists was performed. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Five studies were included three cohort and two cross-sectional. The sample size of subjects with RA ranged from 16 to 3201. Together, the studies presented 36 cases of BAONJ-RA. Prevalence of BAONJ-RA ranged from 0.094% to 56.25%. The incidence ranged from 0.4% to 2.21. Women between the 6th and 8th decade of life were the most affected. Alendronate (n=5) and zoledronic acid (n=9), orally and intravenously, respectively, were the most used bisphosphonates. The duration of bisphosphonates use ranged from 2.7 to 8 years. The certainty of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS
The occurrence of BAONJ-RA is low. However, the certainty of the evidence was very low for this outcome.
PubMed: 38150601
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.26373 -
International Journal of Clinical... Apr 2024Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ibandronate is effective in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures, but experimental evidence offers conflicting results regarding nonvertebral fractures. Real-world evidence has been published evaluating the anti-nonvertebral fracture effect of ibandronate.
AIM
This meta-analysis of observational studies assessed the effectiveness of ibandronate in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with osteoporosis.
METHOD
Pubmed/Embase databases were searched for observational studies. Risks of nonvertebral fractures and hip fractures were the outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed pooling rate ratios (RRs), using random-effects models. Data were reanalysed in sensitivity analyses considering Knapp-Hartung method and Bayesian random-effects.
RESULTS
Six cohort studies were included. Overall, once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate reduced the risk of nonvertebral fractures (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.94). Similar results were obtained when the comparison was restricted to once-monthly 150 mg risedronate, but no differences were found when the comparator was other oral bisphosphonates (weekly alendronate/risedronate). Ibandronate didn't significantly change the risk of hip fractures (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89-1.76). The risk of hip fracture was comparable between once monthly, 150 mg oral ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates. Intravenous ibandronate was not effective in reducing hip fractures comparing to intravenous zoledronate. The low number of studies diminished the robustness of sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
Results suggest that once-monthly 150 mg oral ibandronate may be as effective as other oral bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fractures. However, uncertainty associated to the small number of included studies, which are characterized by heterogeneous demographics and methodologies, precluded definitive conclusions.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Risedronic Acid; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Bayes Theorem; Osteoporosis; Hip Fractures; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38112890
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-023-01666-x