-
Calcified Tissue International Jun 2023To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Clinical Effectiveness of Denosumab (Prolia®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women, Compared to Bisphosphonates, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM), and Placebo: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; bazedoxifene, raloxifene) or placebo, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW). Systematic searches were run in PubMed, Embase & Cochrane Library on 27-April-2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included osteoporotic PMW allocated to denosumab, SERMs, bisphosphonates, or placebo were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Bayesian network and/or pairwise meta-analyses were conducted on predetermined outcomes (i.e. vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, adverse events [AEs], serious AEs (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, AEs caused by denosumab discontinuation). A total of 12 RCTs (k = 22 publications; n = 25,879 participants) were included in the analyses. Denosumab, reported a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD, compared to placebo. Similarly, denosumab also resulted in a statistically significant increase in TH BMD compared to the raloxifene and bazedoxifene. However, relative to denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate resulted in significant improvements in both femoral neck (FN) and LS BMD. With regards to vertebral fractures and all safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between denosumab and any of the comparator. Relative to placebo, denosumab was associated with significant benefits in both LS and TH BMD. Additionally, denosumab (compared to placebo) was not associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Finally, denosumab was not associated with improvement in safety outcomes, compared to placebo. These findings should be interpreted with caution as some analyses suffered from statistical imprecision.
Topics: Female; Humans; Diphosphonates; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Denosumab; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Risedronic Acid; Raloxifene Hydrochloride; Ibandronic Acid; Network Meta-Analysis; Postmenopause; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporosis; Bone Density; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37016189
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-023-01078-z -
Journal of Cancer Research and... Feb 2023This meta-analysis aimed at determining the association between preoperative denosumab and the risk of local recurrence in patients with giant cell tumors of the bone. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis aimed at determining the association between preoperative denosumab and the risk of local recurrence in patients with giant cell tumors of the bone.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were comprehensively searched on April 20, 2022. Data from the included articles were analyzed using meta-analysis. The bias of all included studies was evaluated according to ROBINS-I. Also, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Eight studies with 1270 cases (195 in the denosumab group and 1075 in the control group) were eventually included. Patients receiving denosumab before curettage had a higher risk of local recurrence than those who underwent curettage alone (odds ratio: 2.29, 95% confidence intervals: 1.44-3.64, P = 0.0005). The denosumab group showed a significantly higher risk of local recurrence in most subgroup analyses, except for those with preoperative denosumab duration ≤six months/doses (P = 0.66) and sample size ranging from 100 to 180 (P = 0.69).
CONCLUSION
Denosumab before curettage may increase the risk of local recurrence in patients with giant cell tumor of the bone. Preoperative denosumab should be used with caution after weighing an increased risk of local recurrence against the clinical benefits and a duration time of less than six months before surgery is recommended.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Denosumab; Giant Cell Tumor of Bone; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37006039
DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1171_22 -
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 -
Archives of Osteoporosis Feb 2023Periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) loss after total hip arthroplasty (THA) may threaten the survival of implants. Zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Zoledronic acid and denosumab for periprosthetic bone mineral density loss after joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
Periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD) loss after total hip arthroplasty (THA) may threaten the survival of implants. Zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab were effective in reducing bone loss in conditions associated with accelerated bone turnover by inhibiting osteoclast activity. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficiency and safety of ZA and denosumab for periprosthetic BMD loss after THA.
METHODS
A systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) associated with ZA or denosumab and THA was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science from 1980 to 2022. Meta-analysis was performed by the Cochrane Review Manager 5 (RevMan) version 5.41. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADEpro were applied for methodological quality and overall evidence quality, respectively.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs involving a total of 480 patients were finally included and analyzed. The pooled data that demonstrated significantly less periprosthetic BMD loss in Gruen zone 7 occurred in the intervention group patients than in the control group patients at 3 months (MD = 4.30, 95% CI: 1.78-6.82, P = 0.0008), 6 months (MD = 7.71, 95% CI: 5.41-10.02, P < 0.00001), and 12 months (MD = 8.19, 95% CI: 5.97-10.42, P < 0.00001) after THA. No serious adverse events (AEs) were observed.
CONCLUSION
In the current analysis with evidence on the efficacy and safety of ZA and denosumab, the authors recommend the use of ZA or denosumab treatment for periprosthetic bone mineral density loss.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022369273.
Topics: Humans; Zoledronic Acid; Bone Density; Denosumab; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
PubMed: 36840811
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01227-9 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2023Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is defined by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) as the presence of an exposed bone... (Review)
Review
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is defined by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) as the presence of an exposed bone area in the maxillofacial region, present for more than eight weeks in patients treated with the use of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic agents, with no history of radiation or metastatic disease. Bisphosphonates (BF) and denosumab (DS) are widely used in adults for the management of patients with cancer and osteoporosis, and recently there has been an increase in their use in child and young patients for the management of disorders such as osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, McCune-Albright syndrome (MAS), malignant hypercalcemia, and others. There are differences between case reports in adults compared to child and young patients related to the use of antiresorptive/antiangiogenic drugs and the development of MRONJ. The aim was to analyze the presence of MRONJ in children and young patients, and the relation with oral surgery. A systematic review, following the PRISMA search matrix based on the PICO question, was conducted in PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and manual search in high-impact journals between 1960 and 2022, publications in English or Spanish, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, cases and controls studies, and series and case reports. A total of 2792 articles were identified and 29 were included; all of them published between 2007 and 2022, identifying 1192 patients, 39.68% male and 36.24% female, aged 11.56 years old on average, using these drugs mainly for OI (60.15%); 4.21 years on average was the therapy time and 10.18 drug doses administered on average; oral surgery was observed in 216 subjects, reporting 14 cases of MRONJ. We concluded that there is a low presence of MRONJ in the child and youth population treated with antiresorptive drugs. Data collection is weak, and details of therapy are not clear in some cases. Deficiencies in protocols and pharmacological characterization were observed in most of the included articles.
PubMed: 36835951
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041416 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is characterized by increased bone remodeling and hypercalcemia. Parathyroidectomy (PTX), the current standard of care, is recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of antiresorptive agents bisphosphonates and denosumab in mitigating hypercalcemia and bone loss in primary hyperparathyroidism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is characterized by increased bone remodeling and hypercalcemia. Parathyroidectomy (PTX), the current standard of care, is recommended in all symptomatic and some groups of asymptomatic patients. Anti-resorptive therapies (bisphosphonates and denosumab) have been used in patients where PTX is refused or contraindicated. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the effectiveness of anti-resorptives in preventing/treating PHPT-induced bone loss and mitigating hypercalcemia.
METHOD
PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles with keywords containing PHPT, bisphosphonates, and denosumab in various combinations. We extracted and tabulated areal BMD (aBMD), serum mineral, and bone turnover parameters from the qualified studies and used comprehensive meta-analysis software for analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 1,914 articles screened, 13 were eligible for meta-analysis. In the pooled analysis, 12 months of anti-resoptives (bisphosphonates and denosumab) therapy significantly increased aBMD at the lumbar spine (Standard difference in means (SDM)=0.447, 95% CI=0.230 to 0.664, p=0.0001), femoral neck (SDM=0.270, 95% CI=0.049 to 0.491, p=0.017) and increased serum PTH (SDM=0.489, 95% CI=0.139 to 0.839, p=0.006), and decreased serum calcium (SDM=-0.545, 95% CI=-0.937 to -0.154, p=0.006) compared with baseline. 12 months of bisphosphonate use significantly increased aBMD only at the lumbar spine (SDM=0.330, 95% CI=0.088 to 0.571, p=0.007) with a significant increased in serum PTH levels (SDM=0.546, 95% CI= 0.162 to 0.930, p=0.005), and a decreased in serum calcium (SDM=-0.608, 95% CI=-1.048 to -0.169, p=0.007) and bone-turnover markers (BTMs) compared with baseline. Denosumab use for 12 months significantly increased aBMD at both the lumbar spine (SDM=0.828, 95% CI=0.378 to 1.278, p=0.0001) and femur neck (SDM=0.575, 95% CI=0.135 to 1.015, p=0.010) compared with baseline. Mean lumbar spine aBMD (SDM=0.350, 95% CI=0.041 to 0.659, p=0.027) and serum PTH (SDM=0.602, 95% CI= 0.145 to 1.059, p=0.010) were significantly increased after 12 months of alendronate use compared with placebo. When compared with baseline, alendronate significantly decreased BTMs after 12 months and increased aBMD without altering the PTH and calcium levels after 24 months.
CONCLUSION
Anti-resorptives are effective in mitigating bone loss and hypercalcemia in PHPT while maintaining or increasing aBMD. PTX reversed all changes in PHPT and normalized PTH levels.
Topics: Humans; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Alendronate; Denosumab; Hypercalcemia; Calcium; Hyperparathyroidism, Primary; Bone Density; Parathyroid Hormone; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Lumbar Vertebrae
PubMed: 36817591
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1098841 -
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 -
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 -
Annals of Geriatric Medicine and... Mar 2023Osteosarcopenia, a combination of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia, is a common condition among older adults. While numerous studies and meta-analyses have been...
BACKGROUND
Osteosarcopenia, a combination of osteopenia/osteoporosis and sarcopenia, is a common condition among older adults. While numerous studies and meta-analyses have been conducted on the treatment of osteoporosis, the pharmacological treatment of osteosarcopenia still lacks evidence. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, has shown encouraging results for the treatment of osteosarcopenia. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the potential dual role of denosumab as an anti-resorptive agent and for other beneficial muscle-related effects in patients with osteosarcopenia, and to evaluate whether denosumab can be a treatment of choice compared to bisphosphonate.
METHODS
Relevant literature was collated from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. The primary outcome was denosumab's effect on lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS BMD), handgrip strength, and gait speed change. The secondary outcome was the effect of denosumab on appendicular lean mass (ALM). The outcomes were presented as mean difference (MD). A random effects model was used in the analysis to represent the population. The risk of bias was assessed using funnel plots.
RESULTS
Out of the 3,074 studies found, four full-text studies met the inclusion criteria, including 264 and 244 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Regarding a primary outcome, our meta-analysis showed that denosumab showed no significant differences in LS BMD and gait speed changes compared to other agents-MD=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.35 to 0.79; p=0.09 and MD=0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.40; p=0.46, respectively. Denosumab had a significant effect on handgrip strength change compared to standard agents-MD=5.16; 95% CI, 1.38 to 18.94; p=0.007, based on the random effects model.
CONCLUSIONS
Denosumab was better than bisphosphonate and placebo in improving muscle strength (handgrip strength). Therefore, denosumab may be favored in individuals with osteosarcopenia to improve muscular performance and reduce fall risk.
PubMed: 36628511
DOI: 10.4235/agmr.22.0139 -
Archives of Osteoporosis Jan 2023This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical effectiveness of denosumab (Prolia®) in patients with hormone-sensitive cancer receiving endocrine therapy, compared to bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), and placebo: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
UNLABELLED
This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in cancer patients with osteoporosis. This is the first SR to assess treating osteoporotic cancer patients with denosumab.
PURPOSE
This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (bazedoxifene, raloxifene) and placebo for the treatment of osteoporosis in hormone-sensitive cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy (men with prostate cancer [MPC] on hormone ablation therapy [HAT], and women with breast cancer [WBC] on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy [AAIT]).
METHODS
Systematic literature searches were conducted in three biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Frequentist network meta-analyses and/or pairwise meta-analyses were performed on predetermined outcomes (i.e., vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, treatment-related adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], withdrawal due to treatment-related AEs).
RESULTS
A total of 14 RCTs (15 publications) were included. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab, zoledronate, and alendronate improved BMD at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) in MPC on HAT, relative to placebo. Denosumab, ibandronate and risedronate improved BMD at the LS and total hip (TH) in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Denosumab and risedronate improved trochanteric (TRO) BMD in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab improved FN BMD in WBC on AAIT.
CONCLUSION
In MPC on HAT, denosumab (relative to placebo) was effective at preventing vertebral fractures and improving BMD at the FN and LS. Moreover, in WBC on AAIT, denosumab (relative to placebo) improved BMD at the FN, LS, TH, and TRO, as well as prevent vertebral fracture.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Alendronate; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hormones; Ibandronic Acid; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoporosis; Risedronic Acid; Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators; Spinal Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Zoledronic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36624318
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-023-01211-3