-
Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences Jul 2023The chief aim in managing periodontal diseases is the elimination of causative factors that may vary from pathogens to physical parameters. In the current systematic...
INTRODUCTION
The chief aim in managing periodontal diseases is the elimination of causative factors that may vary from pathogens to physical parameters. In the current systematic review, the effectiveness of "" as a supplement to ")" in the management of periodontitis is calibrated from the previous studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An extensive online search in the various databanks of EMBASE, Medline, Pubmed, and Scopus was conducted. The keywords searched were "Probing depth (PD)" which was the main endpoint, and variations in " (CAL)" and/or " (BD) fill" were the secondary variants that were searched for in the current study. The data collected were tabulated and compared using the means and the standard deviations. Using the random effect method the mean variations and the confidence intervals (95%) of the parameters were assessed.
RESULTS
Eight studies were finalized. Alendronate was utilized as a supplement to SRP in seven studies, four of which employed topical administration and three of which used oral alendronate. A substantial grade of heterogeneity for Probing depth ( < 0.0001), Clinical Attachment Level ( = 0.007), and Bone Defect fill ( < 0.0001) was observed amongst groups when comparing the properties of adjunctive BT to SRP alone. In comparison to SRP alone, SRP with bisphosphonate treatment significantly reduced PD ( = 0.002), increased CAL ( = 0.008), and filled BD ( < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Although BT as an adjunct appears to be successful in treating periodontitis, its practical applicability is questionable due to the possibility of developing jaw osteonecrosis and the short-range follow-up of the research.
PubMed: 37654331
DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_504_22 -
JBMR Plus Jun 2023Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone...
Most women do not qualify for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment until more than a decade after menopause, by which time they will have lost up to 30% of their bone mass and may have already sustained fractures. Short or intermittent courses of bisphosphonate therapy, initiated around the time of menopause, might prevent excessive bone loss and lower long-term fracture risk. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effects of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates on fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone turnover markers in early menopausal women (ie, perimenopausal or <5 years postmenopausal) over ≥12 months. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched in July 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Random effect meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan v5.3. In total, 12 trials were included ( = 1722 women); five evaluated alendronate, three risedronate, three ibandronate, and one zoledronate. Four were at low risk of bias; eight raised some concerns. Fractures were infrequent in the three studies that reported them. Compared with placebo, bisphosphonates improved BMD over 12 months (mean percentage difference, 95% confidence interval [CI]) at the spine (4.32%, 95% CI, 3.10%-5.54%, < 0.0001, = 8 studies), the femoral neck (2.56%, 95% CI, 1.85%-3.27%, = 0.001, = 6 studies), and the total hip (1.22%, 95% CI 0.16%-2.28%, = 0.002, = 4 studies). Over treatment durations of 24 to 72 months, bisphosphonates improved BMD at the spine (5.81%, 95% CI 4.71%-6.91%, < 0.0001, = 8 studies), femoral neck (3.89%, 95% CI 2.73%-5.05%, = 0.0001, = 5 studies) and total hip (4.09%, 95% CI 2.81%-5.37%, < 0.0001, = 4 studies). Bisphosphonates reduced urinary N-telopeptide (-52.2%, 95% CI -60.3% to -44.2%, < 0.00001, = 3 studies) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (-34.2%, 95% CI -42.6% to -25.8%, < 0.00001, = 4 studies) more than placebo at 12 months. This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that bisphosphonates improve BMD and lower bone turnover markers in early menopause, warranting further investigation of these agents for osteoporosis prevention. © 2023 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
PubMed: 37283657
DOI: 10.1002/jbm4.10748 -
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... 2023Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis.
DESIGN AND SETTINGS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the evidence-based health program at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
METHODS
An electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases was performed until February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing zoledronate with placebo or other bisphosphonates were included. Standard methodological procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and the certainty of evidence for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Two authors assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on fractures, adverse events, bone turnover markers (BTM), and bone mineral density (BMD).
RESULTS
Twelve trials from 6,652 records were included: nine compared zoledronate with placebo, two trials compared zoledronate with alendronate, and one trial compared zoledronate with ibandronate. Zoledronate reduced the incidence of fractures in osteoporotic [three years: morphometric vertebral fractures (relative risk, RR = 0.30 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.24-0.38))] and osteopenic women [six years: morphometric vertebral fractures (RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.25-0.61))], increased incidence of post-dose symptoms [RR = 2.56 (95%CI: 1.80-3.65)], but not serious adverse events [RR = 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91-1.04)]. Zoledronate reduced BTM and increased BMD in osteoporotic and osteopenic women.
CONCLUSION
This review supports the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia for six years and osteoporosis for three years.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022309708, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708.
Topics: Female; Humans; Zoledronic Acid; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Postmenopause; Brazil; Osteoporosis; Fractures, Bone; Bone Density; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
PubMed: 37255065
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2022.0480.R1.27032023 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Osteoporosis is characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue leading to increased bone fragility. In people with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is characterized by low bone mass and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue leading to increased bone fragility. In people with beta-thalassaemia, osteoporosis represents an important cause of morbidity and is due to a number of factors. First, ineffective erythropoiesis causes bone marrow expansion, leading to reduced trabecular bone tissue with cortical thinning. Second, excessive iron loading causes endocrine dysfunction, leading to increased bone turnover. Lastly, disease complications can result in physical inactivity, with a subsequent reduction in optimal bone mineralization. Treatments for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia include bisphosphonates (e.g. clodronate, pamidronate, alendronate; with or without hormone replacement therapy (HRT)), calcitonin, calcium, zinc supplementation, hydroxyurea, and HRT alone (for preventing hypogonadism). Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, inhibits bone resorption and increases bone mineral density (BMD). Finally, strontium ranelate simultaneously promotes bone formation and inhibits bone resorption, thus contributing to a net gain in BMD, increased bone strength, and reduced fracture risk. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which includes references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries. Date of most recent search: 4 August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with beta-thalassaemia with: a BMD Z score below -2 standard deviations (SDs) for children aged under 15 years, adult males (aged 15 to 50 years) and premenopausal females aged over 15 years; or a BMD T score below -2.5 SDs for postmenopausal females and males aged over 50 years.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included RCTs, and extracted and analysed data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs (298 participants). Active interventions included bisphosphonates (3 trials, 169 participants), zinc supplementation (1 trial, 42 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 63 participants), and strontium ranelate (1 trial, 24 participants). The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low and was downgraded mainly due to concerns surrounding imprecision (low participant numbers), but also risk of bias issues related to randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding. Bisphosphonates versus placebo or no treatment Two RCTs compared bisphosphonates to placebo or no treatment. After two years, one trial (25 participants) found that alendronate and clodronate may increase BMD Z score compared to placebo at the femoral neck (mean difference (MD) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.58) and the lumbar spine (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.23). One trial (118 participants) reported that neridronate compared to no treatment may increase BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip at six and 12 months; for the femoral neck, the study found increased BMD in the neridronate group at 12 months only. All results were of very low-certainty. There were no major adverse effects of treatment. Participants in the neridronate group reported less back pain; we considered this representative of improved quality of life (QoL), though the certainty of the evidence was very low. One participant in the neridronate trial (116 participants) sustained multiple fractures as a result of a traffic accident. No trials reported BMD at the wrist or mobility. Different doses of bisphosphonate compared One 12-month trial (26 participants) assessed different doses of pamidronate (60 mg versus 30 mg) and found a difference in BMD Z score favouring the 60 mg dose at the lumbar spine (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.76) and forearm (MD 0.87, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.51), but no difference at the femoral neck (very low-certainty evidence). This trial did not report fracture incidence, mobility, QoL, or adverse effects of treatment. Zinc versus placebo One trial (42 participants) showed zinc supplementation probably increased BMD Z score compared to placebo at the lumbar spine after 12 months (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.20; 37 participants) and 18 months (MD 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.40; 32 participants); the same was true for BMD at the hip after 12 months (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.19; 37 participants) and 18 months (MD 0.26, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.31; 32 participants). The evidence for these results was of moderate certainty. The trial did not report BMD at the wrist, fracture incidence, mobility, QoL, or adverse effects of treatment. Denosumab versus placebo Based on one trial (63 participants), we are unsure about the effect of denosumab on BMD Z score at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and wrist joint after 12 months compared to placebo (low-certainty evidence). This trial did not report fracture incidence, mobility, QoL, or adverse effects of treatment, but the investigators reported a reduction in bone pain measured on a visual analogue scale in the denosumab group after 12 months of treatment compared to placebo (MD -2.40 cm, 95% CI -3.80 to -1.00). Strontium ranelate One trial (24 participants) only narratively reported an increase in BMD Z score at the lumbar spine in the intervention group and no corresponding change in the control group (very low-certainty evidence). This trial also found a reduction in back pain measured on a visual analogue scale after 24 months in the strontium ranelate group compared to the placebo group (MD -0.70 cm (95% CI -1.30 to -0.10); we considered this measure representative of improved quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Bisphosphonates may increase BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine, and forearm compared to placebo after two years' therapy. Zinc supplementation probably increases BMD at the lumbar spine and hip after 12 months. Denosumab may make little or no difference to BMD, and we are uncertain about the effect of strontium on BMD. We recommend further long-term RCTs on different bisphosphonates and zinc supplementation therapies in people with beta-thalassaemia-associated osteoporosis.
Topics: Adult; Child; Female; Male; Humans; Middle Aged; beta-Thalassemia; Alendronate; Pamidronate; Clodronic Acid; Denosumab; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone
PubMed: 37159055
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010429.pub3 -
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 -
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 -
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 Clinical Rheumatology :... Mar 2023This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in...
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate ibandronate clinical effectiveness in the prevention of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures (VFs) and nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's guidance and reporting in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement 2020. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE since their inception until February 7, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, experimental, and observational studies evaluating adult patients treated with ibandronate and assessed to osteoporotic fractures prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed according to study design. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
Eight references from 4 RCTs, 7 meta-analyses, and 6 observational studies were included. In RCTs, oral ibandronate was superior to placebo in the prevention of VF. However, the doses were lower than those approved. The meta-analyses confirmed these results and showed that adequate doses of oral ibandronate reduce the risk of NVF compared with insufficient doses. In observational studies, oral ibandronate (in approved doses) reduced the risk of VF compared with no treatment or risedronate or alendronate and the risk of NVF versus risedronate or alendronate; the risk of hip fractures was similar between ibandronate and other oral bisphosphonates.
CONCLUSIONS
There is strong evidence that ibandronate reduces the risk of VF in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available evidence further suggests that ibandronate may reduce the risk of NVF versus insufficient doses of ibandronate, as well as risedronate or alendronate.
Topics: Female; Humans; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Ibandronic Acid; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risedronic Acid; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36731043
DOI: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001902 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Mar 2023To evaluate the effect of subgingival administration of various antimicrobials and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as an adjunct to scaling and root planing... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of subgingival administration of various antimicrobials and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) compared to SRP alone or combined with placebo.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out using MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles up to October 2022 in addition to hand searches. All longitudinal studies that evaluated the effect of subgingival application of antimicrobial and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as adjuncts to SRP compared to SRP alone or SRP + placebo with at least 3 months of follow-up were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies were included. Superior clinical treatment outcomes were shown when alendronate, rosuvastatin, boric acid, simvastatin, and tetracycline (only at 3 months) were utilized in furcation defects in conjunction with SRP alone or SRP + placebo. Significant improvement was reported in radiographic bone defect depth and defect depth reduction when SRP was supplemented with alendronate, rosuvastatin, boric acid, and simvastatin.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive subgingival administration of medications and host-modulating agents in furcation defects may confer additional clinical and radiographic benefits than non-surgical periodontal treatment alone. Future investigations are needed to confirm their long-term effectiveness.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Local host modulators and antimicrobials may be used supplementary to enhance the clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes of conventional periodontal therapy in furcation defects.
Topics: Humans; Furcation Defects; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Alendronate; Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Root Planing; Treatment Outcome; Simvastatin
PubMed: 36729235
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04871-0