-
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Sep 2023The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to systematically identify and review the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in men with osteoporosis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to systematically identify and review the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in men with osteoporosis.
METHODS
Medline (via Ovid) and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to May 2023 for any randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of osteoporotic treatment on the evolution of Bone Mineral Density (BMD) and incidence of fractures of men suffering from primary osteoporosis. If at least two studies used the same pharmacological treatment and evaluated the same outcome, a random effect model meta-analysis was applied to reported pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
From the 1,061 studies identified through bibliographic search, 21 RCTs fitted the inclusion criteria. Bisphosphonates (k = 10, n = 2992 men with osteoporosis) improved all three BMD sites compared to placebo; lumbar spine: MD + 4.75% (95% CI 3.45, 6.05); total hip: MD + 2.72% (95% CI 2.06; 3.37); femoral neck: MD + 2.26% (95% CI 1.67; 2.85). Denososumab (k = 2, n = 242), Teriparatide (k = 2, n = 309) and Abaloparatide (k = 2, n = 248) also produced significant improvement of all sites BMD compared to placebo. Romosozumab was only identified in one study and was therefore not meta-analysed. In this study, Romosozumab increased significantly BMD compared to placebo. Incident fractures were reported in 16 RCTs but only four reported fractures as the primary outcome. Treatments were associated with a lower incidence of fractures.
CONCLUSIONS
Medications used in the management of osteoporosis in women appear to provide similar benefits in men with osteoporosis. Therefore, the algorithm for the management of osteoporosis in men could be similar to the one previously recommended for the management of osteoporosis in women.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Osteoporosis; Bone Density; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone
PubMed: 37400668
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-023-02478-9 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Sep 2023Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone...
Update on the clinical use of trabecular bone score (TBS) in the management of osteoporosis: results of an expert group meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO), and the International...
PURPOSE
Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a grey-level textural measurement acquired from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry lumbar spine images and is a validated index of bone microarchitecture. In 2015, a Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) published a review of the TBS literature, concluding that TBS predicts hip and major osteoporotic fracture, at least partly independent of bone mineral density (BMD) and clinical risk factors. It was also concluded that TBS is potentially amenable to change as a result of pharmacological therapy. Further evidence on the utility of TBS has since accumulated in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and the introduction of FRAX and BMD T-score adjustment for TBS has accelerated adoption. This position paper therefore presents a review of the updated scientific literature and provides expert consensus statements and corresponding operational guidelines for the use of TBS.
METHODS
An Expert Working Group was convened by the ESCEO and a systematic review of the evidence undertaken, with defined search strategies for four key topics with respect to the potential use of TBS: (1) fracture prediction in men and women; (2) initiating and monitoring treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis; (3) fracture prediction in secondary osteoporosis; and (4) treatment monitoring in secondary osteoporosis. Statements to guide the clinical use of TBS were derived from the review and graded by consensus using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
A total of 96 articles were reviewed and included data on the use of TBS for fracture prediction in men and women, from over 20 countries. The updated evidence shows that TBS enhances fracture risk prediction in both primary and secondary osteoporosis, and can, when taken with BMD and clinical risk factors, inform treatment initiation and the choice of antiosteoporosis treatment. Evidence also indicates that TBS provides useful adjunctive information in monitoring treatment with long-term denosumab and anabolic agents. All expert consensus statements were voted as strongly recommended.
CONCLUSION
The addition of TBS assessment to FRAX and/or BMD enhances fracture risk prediction in primary and secondary osteoporosis, adding useful information for treatment decision-making and monitoring. The expert consensus statements provided in this paper can be used to guide the integration of TBS in clinical practice for the assessment and management of osteoporosis. An example of an operational approach is provided in the appendix. This position paper presents an up-to-date review of the evidence base, synthesised through expert consensus statements, which informs the implementation of Trabecular Bone Score in clinical practice.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Cancellous Bone; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Absorptiometry, Photon; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoarthritis; Aging; Consensus; World Health Organization; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 37393412
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-023-06817-4 -
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research :... Aug 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on bone mineral density (BMD) and the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on bone mineral density (BMD) and the risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fracture in adults. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for observational studies published from inception to January 2023 that reported adjusted effect sizes of NAFLD on BMD, osteopenia/osteoporosis, and osteoporotic fracture. The data were synthesized using multilevel and random-effects models. A total of 19 studies were included; of these, nine (21,294 participants) evaluated the effect of NAFLD on BMD, six (133,319 participants) investigated the risk of osteoporosis, and five (227,901 participants) assessed the risk of osteoporotic fracture. This meta-analysis showed that NAFLD was associated with decreased BMD (mean difference -0.019 g/cm , 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.036 to -0.002, I = 93%) and increased risks of osteoporosis (adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 1.28, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.52, I = 84%) and osteoporotic fractures (adjusted RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37, I = 67%). Subgroup analyses revealed that NAFLD had a significantly detrimental effect on BMD in men and on the BMD of the femoral neck and total hip. Stratified analyses by ethnicity demonstrated that NAFLD was not associated with BMD, osteoporosis, or osteoporotic fracture in non-Asian populations. The publication bias of all included studies was low; however, there was considerable heterogeneity among the studies, warranting a careful interpretation of the findings. Overall, our results suggest that NAFLD is associated with decreased BMD and an increased risk of osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures. Male sex and the BMD of the femoral neck and total hip may be potential risk factors for decreased BMD in adults with NAFLD. Additionally, ethnic disparities were observed between Asian and non-Asian populations regarding BMD and osteoporotic fractures. © 2023 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Osteoporosis; Femur Neck
PubMed: 37254266
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4862 -
Journal of Endocrinological... Nov 2023Preventing fragility fractures by treating osteoporosis may reduce disability and mortality worldwide. Algorithms combining clinical risk factors with bone mineral...
PURPOSE
Preventing fragility fractures by treating osteoporosis may reduce disability and mortality worldwide. Algorithms combining clinical risk factors with bone mineral density have been developed to better estimate fracture risk and possible treatment thresholds. This systematic review supported panel members of the Italian Fragility Fracture Guidelines in recommending the use of best-performant tool. The clinical performance of the three most used fracture risk assessment tools (DeFRA, FRAX, and FRA-HS) was assessed in at-risk patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched till December 2020 for studies investigating risk assessment tools for predicting major osteoporotic or hip fractures in patients with osteoporosis or fragility fractures. Sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and areas under the curve (AUCs) were evaluated for all tools at different thresholds. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2; certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
Forty-three articles were considered (40, 1, and 2 for FRAX, FRA-HS, and DeFRA, respectively), with the CoE ranging from very low to high quality. A reduction of Sn and increase of Sp for major osteoporotic fractures were observed among women and the entire population with cut-off augmentation. No significant differences were found on comparing FRAX to DeFRA in women (AUC 59-88% vs. 74%) and diabetics (AUC 73% vs. 89%). FRAX demonstrated non-significantly better discriminatory power than FRA-HS among men.
CONCLUSION
The task force formulated appropriate recommendations on the use of any fracture risk assessment tools in patients with or at risk of fragility fractures, since no statistically significant differences emerged across different prediction tools.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Bone Density; Risk Factors; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 37031450
DOI: 10.1007/s40618-023-02082-8 -
Zeitschrift Fur Orthopadie Und... Dec 2023To summarize the literature and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach (UTPA) and conventional transpedicular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To summarize the literature and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach (UTPA) and conventional transpedicular approach (CTPA) vertebral augmentation in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).
METHODS
A single researcher performed a systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Online scientific databases were searched in September 2021 for English- and Chinese-language publications. A series of comparative studies were included, with UTPA as the main intervention and CTPA as the comparison indicator. A meta-analysis was performed for studies that reported clinical outcome indicators. The χ was used to study heterogeneity between trials, and the I statistic was calculated to estimate variation across studies.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies were included for meta-analysis, all of which were observational studies with mixed bias risk. There were 613 subjects in the UTPA group and 488 subjects in the CTPA group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no difference between the UTPA group and the CTPA group in terms of visual analogue scale scores (p = 0.31), Oswestry Disability Index scores (p = 0.50), correction of kyphosis angle (p = 0.65), and the amount of bone cement (p = 0.13), but the UTPA group had a shorter operative time (p < 0.001), bone cement leakage rates (p = 0.02), and fluoroscopy times than the CTPA group (p < 0.001). Partial analysis results had a high risk of bias, and the most common source of bias was that there was high heterogeneity between studies, and the sensitivity can only be reduced by a random effect model, and some studies (four items) did not clearly describe the confounders that they controlled.
CONCLUSION
The limited evidence obtained in this study proves that the new puncture method does not have more advantages than the traditional technique, so it is no longer meaningful to continue to obsess over the impact of the puncture method on surgical outcome.
Topics: Humans; Kyphoplasty; Spinal Fractures; Fractures, Compression; Bone Cements; Spine; Vertebroplasty; Osteoporotic Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35378564
DOI: 10.1055/a-1785-5698