Dataset Information

Bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with rheumatic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While bisphosphonates (BPs) are commonly used in clinical treatment for osteoporosis, their roles on osteoporosis treatment for rheumatic patients remain unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of BPs on fractures prevention and bone mass preserving in rheumatic patients.

Methodology/principal findings

We searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant literatures with a time limit of Jan. 6, 2012. All randomized clinical trials of BPs for adult rheumatic patients with a follow-up of 6 months or more were included. We calculated relative risks (RRs) for fractures and weighted mean difference (WMD) for percent change of bone mineral density (BMD). Twenty trials were included for analysis. The RR in rheumatic patients treated with BPs was 0.61 (95%CI [0.44, 0.83], P?=?0.002) for vertebral fractures, and 0.49 (95%CI [0.23, 1.02], P?=?0.06) for non-vertebral fractures. The WMD of BMD change in the lumbar spine was 3.72% (95%CI [2.72, 4.72], P<0.001) at 6 months, 3.67% (95%CI [2.84, 4.50], P<0.001) at 12 months, 3.64% (95%CI [2.59, 4.69], P<0.001) at 24 months, and 5.87% (95%CI [4.59, 7.15], P<0.001) at 36 months in patients using BPs, as compared with those treated with calcium, vitamin D or calcitonin. In subgroup analyses, rheumatic patients using BPs for osteoporosis prevention had greater WMD than those using BPs for treating osteoporosis at 6 months (4.53% vs. 2.73%, P?=?0.05) and 12 months (4.93% vs. 2.91%, P?=?0.01).

Conclusions/significance

In both short-term and middle-term, BPs can preserve bone mass and reduce the incidence of vertebral fractures in rheumatic patients, mainly for those who have GC consumption. The efficacy of BPs is better when using BPs to prevent rather than to treat osteoporosis in rheumatic patients.

SUBMITTER: Feng Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3855695 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with rheumatic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Feng Zhiyun Z Zeng Shumei S Wang Yue Y Zheng Zhiyun Z Chen Zhong Z

PloS one 20131206 12

<h4>Background</h4>While bisphosphonates (BPs) are commonly used in clinical treatment for osteoporosis, their roles on osteoporosis treatment for rheumatic patients remain unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of BPs on fractures prevention and bone mass preserving in rheumatic patients.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant literatures with a time limit of Jan. 6, 2012. All ...[more]

PMID: 24324644

Similar Datasets

Project description:Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is a serious problem for patients with rheumatic diseases requiring long-term glucocorticoid treatment. Alendronate, a bisphosphonate, has been recommended in the prevention of GIOP. However, the efficacy and safety of alendronate in preventing GIOP remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of alendronate in preventing GIOP in patients with rheumatic diseases.We retrieved randomized controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI for continuous outcomes using Review Manager, version 5.3.A total of 339 studies were found, and 9 studies (1134 patients) were included. Alendronate was not able to reduce the incidence of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.10-4.04, P = 0.62) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.15-1.12, P?=?0.08). Alendronate significantly increased the percent change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (MD?=?3.66, 95% CI: 2.58-4.74, P?<?0.05), total hip (MD?=?2.08, 95% CI: 0.41-3.74, P?<?0.05), and trochanter (MD?=?1.68, 95% CI: 0.75-2.61, P?<?0.05). Significant differences were not observed in the percent change in BMD at the femoral neck (MD?=?-0.33, 95% CI: -2.79 to 2.13, P?=?0.79) and total body (MD?=?0.64, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.34, P?=?0.07). No significant differences in the adverse events were observed in patients treated with alendronate versus the controls (RR?=?1.00, 95% CI: 0.94-1.07, P?=?0.89). The odds of gastrointestinal adverse events were significantly reduced (RR?=?0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.97, P?<?0.05).Our analysis suggests that alendronate can increase the percent change in BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, and trochanter, and is not associated with an increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events; however, the vertebral and nonvertebral fractures cannot be reduced. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the poor statistical power.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rare diseases (RDs) in rheumatology as a group have a high prevalence, but randomized controlled trials are hampered by their heterogeneity and low individual prevalence. To survey the current evidence of pharmacotherapies for rare rheumatic diseases, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of RDs in rheumatology for different pharmaco-interventions were included into this meta-analysis if there were two or more trials investigating the same RD and using the same assessment tools or outcome parameters. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PUBMED were searched up to April 2nd 2020. The overall objective of this study was to identify RCTs of RDs in rheumatology, evaluate the overall quality of these studies, outline the evidence of pharmacotherapy, and summarize recommended therapeutic regimens. RESULTS:We screened 187 publications, and 50 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. In total, we analyzed data of 13 different RDs. We identified several sources of potential bias, such as a lack of description of blinding methods and allocation concealment, as well as small size of the study population. Meta-analysis was possible for 26 studies covering six RDs: Hunter disease, Behçet's disease, giant cell arteritis, ANCA-associated vasculitis, reactive arthritis, and systemic sclerosis. The pharmacotherapies tested in these studies consisted of immunosuppressants, such as corticosteroids, methotrexate and azathioprine, or biologicals. We found solid evidence for idursulfase as a treatment for Hunter syndrome. In Behçet's disease, apremilast and IF-? showed promising results with regard to total and partial remission, and Tocilizumab with regard to relapse-free remission in giant cell arteritis. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and azathioprine were equally effective in ANCA-associated vasculitis, while mepolizumab improved the efficacy of glucocorticoids. The combination of rifampicin and azithromycin showed promising results in reactive arthritis, while there was no convincing evidence for the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in systemic sclerosis. CONCLUSION:For some diseases such as systemic sclerosis, ANCA-associated vasculitis, or Behcet's disease, higher quality trials were available. These RCTs showed satisfactory efficacies for immunosuppressants or biological drugs, except for systemic sclerosis. More high quality RCTs are urgently warranted for a wide spectrum of RDs in rheumatology.

Project description:IntroductionOsteoporosis is an under-recognized problem threatening men. Bisphosphonates are the main treatment but their comparative efficacy is unclear for men with osteoporosis. Therefore, we performed this systematic review with network meta-analyses to summarize the evidence of comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates in men with osteoporosis.MethodsWe completed network meta-analyses with a frequentist model to compare the efficacy of different bisphosphonates. Randomized controlled trials investigating bisphosphonates used in men with osteoporosis were included. The primary outcome was the rate of patients with a new vertebral fracture. The secondary outcome was the rate of patients with a non-vertebral fracture, which was defined as any fractures reported other than vertebral fractures. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed to compare bisphosphonates with placebo. We included open-label studies in the analyses as a sensitivity analysis.ResultsTen trials were included, using alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid. No significant difference was found between any pairs of alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid for both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Zoledronic acid ranked as the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture in primary osteoporosis. Risedronate ranked best in preventing non-vertebral fracture in both primary osteoporosis and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. In the sensitivity analyses with the open-label studies, the ranking order did not change.ConclusionThe current evidence for bisphosphonates used in men with osteoporosis is inadequate. On the basis of the current evidence, zoledronic acid is most effective at preventing vertebral fractures, while risedronate has the highest possibility to rank the first in preventing non-vertebral fracture in men with primary osteoporosis and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. More well-designed studies are needed to test our findings and to better know the comparative efficacy of bisphosphonate to prevent vertebral fracture in men with osteoporosis.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in real-world settings.MethodsA systematic review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database NHS EED) databases were searched for studies published in English language up to April 2018. Prospective and retrospective observational studies that used prescription claim databases or hospital medical records to examine patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonate treatment among adults with osteoporosis were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies.ResultsThe search yielded 540 published studies, of which 89 were deemed relevant and were included in this review. The mean age of patients included within the studies ranged between 53 to 80.8 years, and the follow-up varied from 3 months to 14 years. The mean persistence of oral bisphosphonates for 6 months, 1?year and 2 years ranged from 34.8% to 71.3%, 17.7% to 74.8% and 12.9% to 72.0%, respectively. The mean medication possession ratio ranged from 28.2% to 84.5%, 23% to 50%, 27.2% to 46% over 1?year, 2 years and 3 years, respectively. All studies included scored between 6 to 8 out of 9 on the NOS. The determinants of adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates included geographic residence, marital status, tobacco use, educational status, income, hospitalisation, medication type and dosing frequency.ConclusionsWhile a number of studies reported high levels of persistence and adherence, the findings of this review suggest that patient persistence and adherence with oral bisphosphonates medications was poor and reduced notably over time. Overall, adherence was suboptimal. To maximise adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates, it is important to consider possible determinants, including characteristics of the patients.

Project description:ObjectivesThe impact of rheumatic diseases on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus and preprint database up to 29th August 2020, for publications with confirmed COVID-19 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases. The primary outcomes were the rates of hospitalization, oxygen support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. A meta-analysis of effect sizes using the random-effects models was performed, and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. The data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (the COVID-19 GRA) was used as a reference.ResultsA total of 31 articles involving 1138 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The publications were from Europe, Asia and North America, but none from other continents. The overall rates of hospitalization, oxygen support, ICU admission and fatality among COVID-19 infected patients with rheumatic diseases were 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.67), 0.33 (95% CI 0.21-0.47), 0.09 (95% CI 0.05-0.15) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.03-0.11), respectively. The rate of oxygen support in Europe (0.48, 95% CI 0.4-0.57) was higher than that in other continents. Among all hospitalized patients, the rates of oxygen support, ICU admission and fatality were 0.61 (95% CI 0.48-0.73), 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.21) and 0.13 (95% CI 0.09-0.18), respectively. The fatality rate was highest in Europe (0.19, 95% CI 0.15-0.24). The fatality rate was higher both in this meta-analysis and the COVID-19 GRA (7.0% and 6.7%, respectively) than that (3.4%) in WHO database, although the age, gender and comorbidity were not matched.ConclusionPatients with rheumatic diseases remain vulnerable with substantial rates of severe outcomes and a geographic variation. More studies were urgently needed to elucidate the risk factors of severe outcomes in this population.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis worldwide. Pain and reduced function are the main symptoms in this prevalent disease. There are currently no treatments for OA that modify disease progression; therefore analgesic drugs and joint replacement for larger joints are the standard of care. In light of several recent studies reporting the use of bisphosphonates for OA treatment, our work aimed to evaluate published literature to assess the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in OA treatment. METHODS: Literature databases were searched from inception to the 30th June 2012 for clinical trials of bisphosphonates to treat OA pain. Data was appraised and levels of evidence determined qualitatively using best evidence synthesis from the Cochrane Collaboration. The two largest studies were conducted with risedronate in the treatment of knee OA, for which meta-analyses were performed for pain and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Our searches found 13/297 eligible studies, which included a total of 3832 participants. The trials recruited participants with OA of the hand (n=1), knee (n=8), knee and spine (n=3), or hip (n=1). Our meta-analysis of the two largest knee studies using risedronate 15 mg showed odds ratios favouring placebo interventions for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain (1.73), WOMAC function (2.03), and WOMAC stiffness (1.82). However, 8 trials (61.5%) reported that bisphosphonates improve pain assessed by VAS scores and 2 (38.5%) reported significant improvement in WOMAC pain scores compared to control groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that bisphosphonates are effective in the treatment of OA pain. Limitations of the studies we analysed included the differences in duration of bisphosphonate use, the dose and route of administration and the lack of long-term data on OA joint structure modification post-bisphosphonate therapy. Future more targeted studies are required to appreciate the value of bisphosphonates in treating osteoarthritis pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Register CRD42012002541.

Dataset Information

Bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with rheumatic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusions/significance

Publications

Bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with rheumatic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure