-
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Dec 2022Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Mammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer. However, it is questioned whether this increased risk estimate is applicable to current breast density classification methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further investigate and clarify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk based on current literature.
METHODS
Medline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published since 2013, that used BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition and incorporated data on digital mammography. Crude and maximally confounder-adjusted data were pooled in odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity regarding breast cancer risks were investigated using I statistic, stratified and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine observational studies were included. Having extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density D) resulted in a 2.11-fold (95% CI 1.84-2.42) increased breast cancer risk compared to having scattered dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density B). Sensitivity analysis showed that when only using data that had adjusted for age and BMI, the breast cancer risk was 1.83-fold (95% CI 1.52-2.21) increased. Both results were statistically significant and homogenous.
CONCLUSIONS
Mammographic breast density BI-RADS D is associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to having BI-RADS density B in general population women. This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.
Topics: Female; Humans; Breast Density; Breast Neoplasms; Mammography; Breast; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36183671
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.09.007 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Jan 2022The study was conducted to illustrate the effect of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Romosozumab decreased the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The study was conducted to illustrate the effect of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Romosozumab decreased the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and clinical fractures significantly. In addition, decreased incidence of falls and increased bone mineral density at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck was observed. Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts against the sclerostin pathway leading to enhanced bone formation and reduced bone resorption in patients with osteoporosis. Electronic search was performed on Medline (via PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov, till May 2020, for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of Romosozumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis. RCTs evaluating the effect of Romosozumab on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients. Meta-analysis was performed by Cochrane review manager 5 (RevMan) version 5.3. Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and GRADE pro-GDT were applied for methodological quality and overall evidence quality, respectively. One hundred seventy-nine studies were screened, and 10 eligible studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 6137 patients in romosozumab group and 5732 patients in control group. Romosozumab significantly reduced the incidence of vertebral fractures [OR = 0.43 (95%CI = 0.35-0.52), High-quality evidence], nonvertebral fractures [OR = 0.78 (95%CI = 0.66-0.92), High quality], and clinical fractures [OR = 0.70 (95%CI = 0.60-0.82), High quality] at 24 months. Significant reduction in incidence risk of falls [OR = 0.87 (95%CI = 0.78-0.96), High quality] was observed with romosozumab. Bone mineral density was significantly increased in the romosozumab treated groups at lumbar spine [MD = 12.66 (95%CI = 12.66-12.67), High quality], total hip [MD = 5.69 (95%CI = 5.68 - 5.69), Moderate quality], and femoral neck [MD = 5.18 (95%CI = 5.18-5.19), Moderate quality] at 12 months. The total adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.96-1.01), Moderate quality] and serious adverse events [RR = 0.98(95%CI = 0.88-1.08), Moderate quality] with romosozumab were comparable to the control group. The current analysis with evidence on efficacy and safety of Romosozumab, authors opine to recommend the use of Romosozumab treatment for post-menopausal osteoporosis.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019112196.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Female; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal
PubMed: 34432115
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-021-06095-y -
The American Journal of Clinical... Jun 2017: Considerable attention has recently focused on dietary protein's role in the mature skeleton, prompted partly by an interest in nonpharmacologic approaches to maintain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Considerable attention has recently focused on dietary protein's role in the mature skeleton, prompted partly by an interest in nonpharmacologic approaches to maintain skeletal health in adult life. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of dietary protein intake alone and with calcium with or without vitamin D (Ca±D) on bone health measures in adults. Searches across 5 databases were conducted through October 2016 including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies examining ) the effects of "high versus low" protein intake or ) dietary protein's synergistic effect with Ca±D intake on bone health outcomes. Two investigators independently conducted abstract and full-text screenings, data extractions, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments. Strength of evidence was rated by group consensus. Random-effects meta-analyses for outcomes with ≥4 RCTs were performed. Sixteen RCTs and 20 prospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Overall ROB was medium. Moderate evidence suggested that higher protein intake may have a protective effect on lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) compared with lower protein intake (net percentage change: 0.52%; 95% CI: 0.06%, 0.97%, : 0%; = 5) but no effect on total hip (TH), femoral neck (FN), or total body BMD or bone biomarkers. Limited evidence did not support an effect of protein with Ca±D on LS BMD, TH BMD, or forearm fractures; there was insufficient evidence for FN BMD and overall fractures. Current evidence shows no adverse effects of higher protein intakes. Although there were positive trends on BMD at most bone sites, only the LS showed moderate evidence to support benefits of higher protein intake. Studies were heterogeneous, and confounding could not be excluded. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to clarify dietary protein's role in bone health. This trial was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk as CRD42015017751.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcium; Calcium, Dietary; Dietary Proteins; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Male; Osteoporosis; Vitamin D
PubMed: 28404575
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.116.145110 -
Calcified Tissue International Nov 2020In this sub-analysis of a comprehensive meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the effect of different types of exercise on (areal) bone mineral density (BMD) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In this sub-analysis of a comprehensive meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the effect of different types of exercise on (areal) bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) intervention ≥ 6 months, (d) BMD assessments at lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN) or total hip (TH), (e) in postmenopausal women. Eight electronic databases were scanned without language restrictions up to March 2019. The present subgroup analysis was conducted as a mixed-effect meta-analysis with "type of exercise" as the moderator. The 84 eligible exercise groups were classified into (a) weight bearing (WB, n = 30) exercise, (b) (dynamic) resistance exercise (DRT, n = 18), (c) mixed WB&DRT interventions (n = 36). Outcome measures were standardized mean differences (SMD) for BMD-changes at LS, FN and TH. All types of exercise significantly affect BMD at LS, FN and TH. SMD for LS average 0.40 (95% CI 0.15-0.65) for DRT, SMD 0.26 (0.03-0.49) for WB and SMD 0.42 (0.23-0.61) for WB&DRT. SMD for FN were 0.27 (0.09-0.45) for DRT, 0.37 (0.12-0.62) for WB and 0.35 (0.19-0.51) for WB&DRT. Lastly, SMD for TH changes were 0.51 (0.28-0.74) for DRT, 0.40 (0.21-0.58) for WB and 0.34 (0.14-0.53) for WB&DRT. In summary, we provided further evidence for the favorable effect of exercise on BMD largely independent of the type of exercise. However, in order to generate dedicated exercise recommendations or exercise guideline, meta-analyses might be a too rough tool.
Topics: Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Resistance Training; Weight-Bearing
PubMed: 32785775
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-020-00744-w -
BioMed Research International 2020Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that seriously affects human health and quality of life. This study is aimed at determining whether swimming had an effect on the bone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Osteoporosis is a chronic disease that seriously affects human health and quality of life. This study is aimed at determining whether swimming had an effect on the bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine and femoral neck in postmenopausal and premenopausal osteoporosis patients. We retrieved relevant literature and analyzed data from randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of swimming on BMD in postmenopausal and premenopausal women. Relevant studies, with no language restrictions, from inception to September 2019, were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and EBSCO databases independently by two investigators. The keywords used for the literature search were "osteoporosis" and "swimming." The main results included BMD and -score. We searched 256 relevant articles and finally screened five articles, including 263 participants. Lumbar spine density was mentioned in three articles. Although the heterogeneity of lumbar vertebral density is moderate, the analysis of swimmers to nonswimmers shows that the lumbar vertebral density in swimmers is improved [heterogeneity: chi = 5.16, df = 2 ( = 0.08); = 61%]. We analyzed the following heterogeneous subgroups: subgroup 1 (3-6 hours) and subgroup 2 (<3 hours). The BMD in subgroup 1 was significantly higher than that in the placebo, while no effect on BMD was found in subgroup 2 [heterogeneity: chi = 0.15, df = 3 ( = 0.70); = 0%]. According to the current evidence, swimming may improve the BMD of postmenopausal women participants, if the swimming time is between 3 and 6 hours, especially in long-term swimmers. However, the effectiveness of swimming does require further investigation.
Topics: Adult; Bone Density; Exercise Therapy; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Premenopause; Swimming
PubMed: 32509864
DOI: 10.1155/2020/6210201 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Sep 2016To analyze articles that studied patients submitted to diphosphonates therapy and who received dental implants before, during or after bisphosphonate (BP) treatment,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To analyze articles that studied patients submitted to diphosphonates therapy and who received dental implants before, during or after bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, compared to healthy patients, analyzing the increase of failure and loss of implants or bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) incidence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was used in this study. The clinical question in "PICO" format was: In patients under bisphosphonate therapy, do dental implants placement, compared to healthy patients, increase the failure and loss of implants or bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence? PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for articles published up until April 15, 2015 using a combination of MeSH terms and their Entry terms.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 375 articles. After selection according to the eligibility criteria, 15 studies fulfilled were included (eight retrospective, one prospective and six case series), with a total of 1339 patients analyzed, 3748 implants placed, 152 loss of implants and 78 cases of BRONJ.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the lack of randomized clinical trials looking at this theme, further studies with longer follow-up are needed to elucidate the remaining questions. Thus, it is wise to be careful when planning dental implant surgery in patients undergoing bisphosphonate therapy because of the risk of developing BRONJ as well as occurring failure of implant. Moreover, complete systemic condition of the patient must be also taking into considering when such procedures are performed.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Dental Implants; Diphosphonates; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 27475681
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.20920 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or no trauma. Bisphosphonates are used in an attempt to increase bone mineral density and reduce these fractures in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates in increasing bone mineral density, reducing fractures and improving clinical function in people with osteogenesis imperfecta.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We additionally searched PubMed and major conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Register: 28 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing bisphosphonates to placebo, no treatment, or comparator interventions in all types of osteogenesis imperfecta.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials (819 participants) were included. Overall, the trials were mainly at a low risk of bias, although selective reporting was an issue in several of the trials. Data for oral bisphosphonates versus placebo could not be aggregated; a statistically significant difference favouring oral bisphosphonates in fracture risk reduction and number of fractures was noted in two trials. No differences were reported in the remaining three trials which commented on fracture incidence. Five trials reported data for spine bone mineral density; all found statistically significant increased lumbar spine density z scores for at least one time point studied. For intravenous bisphosphonates versus placebo, aggregated data from two trials showed no statistically significant difference for the number of participants with at least one fracture, risk ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.06). In the remaining trial no statistically significant difference was noted in fracture incidence. For spine bone mineral density, no statistically significant difference was noted in the aggregated data from two trials, mean difference 9.96 (95% confidence interval -2.51 to 22.43). In the remaining trial a statistically significant difference in mean per cent change in spine bone mineral density z score favoured intravenous bisphosphonates at six and 12 months. Data describing growth, bone pain, and functional outcomes after oral or intravenous bisphosphonate therapy, or both, as compared to placebo were incomplete among all studies, but do not show consistent improvements in these outcomes. Two studies compared different doses of bisphosphonates. No differences were found between doses when bone mineral density, fractures, and height or length z score were assessed. One trial compared oral versus intravenous bisphosphonates and found no differences in primary outcomes. Two studies compared the intravenous bisphosphonates zoledronic acid and pamidronate. There were no significant differences in primary outcome. However, the studies were at odds as to the relative benefit of zoledronic acid over pamidronate for lumbosacral bone mineral density at 12 months.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Bisphophonates are commonly prescribed to individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta. Current evidence, albeit limited, demonstrates oral or intravenous bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density in children and adults with this condition. These were not shown to be different in their ability to increase bone mineral density. It is unclear whether oral or intravenous bisphosphonate treatment consistently decreases fractures, though multiple studies report this independently and no studies report an increased fracture rate with treatment. The studies included here do not show bisphosphonates conclusively improve clinical status (reduce pain; improve growth and functional mobility) in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. Given their current widespread and expected continued use, the optimal method, duration of therapy and long-term safety of bisphosphonate therapy require further investigation. In addition, attention should be given to long-term fracture reduction and improvement in quality of life indicators.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Osteogenesis Imperfecta; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27760454
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005088.pub4 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Aug 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to determine the effect of dynamic resistance exercise (DRT) on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in postmenopausal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of dynamic resistance exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis with special emphasis on exercise parameters.
This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to determine the effect of dynamic resistance exercise (DRT) on areal bone mineral density (aBMD) in postmenopausal women and derive evidence-based recommendations for optimized training protocols. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) of isolated DRT with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) with intervention durations ≥ 6 months, (d) aBMD assessments at lumbar spine or proximal femur, (e) in cohorts of postmenopausal women. We searched eight electronic databases up to March 2019 without language restrictions. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for BMD changes at lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), and total hip (TH) were defined as outcome measures. Moderators of the exercise effects, i.e., "intervention length," "type of DRT," "training frequency," "exercise intensity," and "exercise volume," were addressed by sub-group analyses. The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under ID: CRD42018095097. Seventeen articles with 20 exercise and 18 control groups were eligible. SMD average is 0.54 (95% CI 0.22-0.87) for LS-BMD, 0.22 (0.07-0.38) for FN-BMD, and 0.48 (0.22-0.75) for TH-BMD changes (all p ≤ 0.015). While sub-group analysis for FN-BMD revealed no differences within categories of moderators, lower training frequency (< 2 sessions/week) resulted in significantly higher BMD changes at LS and TH compared to higher training frequency (≥ 2 sessions/week). Additionally, free weight training was significantly superior to DRT devices for improving TH-BMD. This work provided further evidence for significant, albeit only low-moderate, effects of DRT on LS-, FN-, and TH-BMD. Unfortunately, sub-analysis results did not allow meaningful exercise recommendations to be derived. This systematic review and meta-analysis observed a significant low-moderate effect of dynamic resistance exercise on bone mineral density changes in postmenopausal women. However, sub-group analyses focusing on exercise characteristics found no results that enable the derivation of meaningful exercise recommendations in the area of exercise and osteoporosis prevention or therapy.
Topics: Aged; Bone Density; Exercise; Female; Femur Neck; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Middle Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Postmenopause; Resistance Training
PubMed: 32399891
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-020-05441-w -
Bone Reports Dec 2022This study aimed to compare the effects of moderate- and high-intensity resistance and impact training (MiRIT and HiRIT, respectively) on changes in bone mineral density... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the effects of moderate- and high-intensity resistance and impact training (MiRIT and HiRIT, respectively) on changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials that compared the intervention effects of MiRIT and HiRIT were used as selection criteria to assess study patients with osteoporosis or an osteoporotic condition. Database searches were conducted on August 25, 2022, using CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL Web of Science, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. A risk of bias assessment was performed using Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for the assessment of randomized controlled trials. Point estimates and 95 % confidence intervals of change in BMD derived using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry were collected as outcomes, and a meta-analysis was performed using the amount of change in BMD before and after the intervention. Adverse event data were also collected.
RESULTS
The search yielded six studies (391 patients, mean age 53-65 years) that met the inclusion criteria. The intervention duration ranged from 24 weeks to 13 months. Compared with the MiRIT group, the HiRIT group showed significantly improved BMD of the lumbar spine (standardized mean difference 2.37 [0.10-4.65]). However, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed for three studies (154 patients, I = 98 %). Almost all studies reported minimal adverse events. The certainty of evidence was extremely low because of the risk of bias, inconsistency among studies, and imprecision in terms of sample size.
CONCLUSION
Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may achieve more significantly improved lumbar spine BMD with HiRIT than with MiRIT.
PubMed: 36310762
DOI: 10.1016/j.bonr.2022.101631 -
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