Dataset Information

Osteoporosis Treatment Efficacy for Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a treatment for osteoporosis or low bone mineral density for adult men and reported fracture outcomes.Men.PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Information was extracted from included studies on participant sociodemographic characteristics, number of male participants, treatment evaluated, comparator for evaluated treatment, study duration, and fracture outcomes. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using measures recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.Twenty-four articles reporting results for 22 studies (including 4,868 male participants) met strict inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures with alendronate (relative risk (RR) = 0.328, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.155-0.692) and risedronate (RR = 0.428, 95% CI = 0.245-0.746) but not with calcitonin (RR = 0.272, 95% CI = 0.046-1.608) or denosumab (RR = 0.256, 95% CI = 0.029-2.238) than in controls. For bisphosphonates as a treatment category, meta-analyses demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.368, 95% CI = 0.252-0.537) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.604, 95% CI = 0.404-0.904) than in controls. The meta-analysis finding that bisphosphonates significantly reduce nonvertebral fracture risk was not robust to sensitivity analysis.Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of vertebral and possibly nonvertebral fractures for men with osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates for reducing nonvertebral fracture risk and the efficacy of nonbisphosphonates for reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in men with osteoporosis.

SUBMITTER: Nayak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5358515 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Osteoporosis Treatment Efficacy for Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Nayak Smita S Greenspan Susan L SL

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20161107 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a treatment for osteoporosis or low bone mineral density for adult men and reported fracture outcomes.<h4>Participants</h4>Men.<h4>Measurements</h4>PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Information was extracted from ...[more]

PMID: 28304090

Similar Datasets

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:Although osteoporosis affects 10 million people in the United States, screening and treatment rates remain low. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of quality improvement strategies to improve osteoporosis screening (bone mineral density [BMD]/dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA] testing) and/or treatment (pharmacotherapy) initiation rates. We developed broad literature search strategies for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to select relevant studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for outcomes of BMD/DXA testing and/or osteoporosis treatment. Forty-three randomized clinical studies met inclusion criteria. For increasing BMD/DXA testing in patients with recent or prior fracture, meta-analyses demonstrated several efficacious strategies, including orthopedic surgeon or fracture clinic initiation of osteoporosis evaluation or management (risk difference 44%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 26%-63%), fracture liaison service/case management (risk difference 43%, 95% CI 23%-64%), multifaceted interventions targeting providers and patients (risk difference 24%, 95% CI 15%-32%), and patient education and/or activation (risk difference 16%, 95% CI 6%-26%). For increasing osteoporosis treatment in patients with recent or prior fracture, meta-analyses demonstrated significant efficacy for interventions of fracture liaison service/case management (risk difference 20%, 95% CI 1%-40%) and multifaceted interventions targeting providers and patients (risk difference 12%, 95% CI 6%-17%). The only quality improvement strategy for which meta-analysis findings demonstrated significant improvement of osteoporosis care for patient populations including individuals without prior fracture was patient self-scheduling of DXA plus education, for increasing the outcome of BMD testing (risk difference 13%, 95% CI 7%-18%). The meta-analyses findings were limited by small number of studies in each analysis; high between-study heterogeneity; sensitivity to removal of individual studies; and unclear risk of bias of included studies. Despite the limitations of the current body of evidence, our findings indicate there are several strategies that appear worthwhile to enact to try to improve osteoporosis screening and/or treatment rates. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:ObjectivePhysical exercise has obvious effects on bone loss, pain relief, and improvement of bone metabolism indexes in patients with osteoporosis, but currently lacks sufficient evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize and present the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of exercises in the treatment of primary osteoporosis.MethodsPublications pertaining to the effectiveness of exercise on bone mineral density (BMD), visual analog scores (VAS), and biochemical markers of bone metabolism in primary osteoporosis (POP) from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang Database were retrieved from their inception to April 2020.ResultsA total of 20 studies with 1824 participants were included. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that exercise therapy for lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD is statistically different from conventional therapy (lumbar spine BMD: SMD = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.46, 1.10, P < 0.00001, I2 = 85%; femoral neck BMD (SMD = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.34, 1.27, P = 0.0007, I2 = 88%), exercise therapy can significantly increase the lumbar spine BMD of patients with OP, especially in lumbar spine2-4 BMD (SMD = 0.47; 95%CI: 0.20, 0.75; P = 0.0008; I2 = 69%). Compared with conventional treatment, kinesitherapy also has significant differences in alleviating the pain of POP patients (SMD = -1.39, 95%CI: -2.47,-0.31, P = 0.01, I2 = 97%). Compared with conventional therapy, kinesitherapy has no significant difference in improving biochemical markers of bone metabolism such as bone glaprotein (BGP) (SMD = 2.59, 95%CI:0.90, 4.28, P = 0.003, I2 = 98%), N-terminal pro peptide of type I procollagen (PINP) (SMD = 0.77, 95%CI: -0.44 to 1.98, P = 0.21, I2 = 95%), serum phosphorus (SMD = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.13, 0.22, P = 0.61, I2 = 30%), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (SMD = -0.08, 95%CI: -0.44, 0.27, P = 0.64, I2 = 76%), and serum calcium (SMD = 0.12, 95%CI: -0.18, 0.43, P = 0.42, I2 = 63%) in POP patients.ConclusionsKinesitherapy significantly improved lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, and relieve the pain of patients in the current low-quality evidence. Additional high-quality evidence is required to confirm the effect of exercise therapy on the biochemical markers of bone metabolism in POP patients.

Project description:BackgroundNon-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.ObjectivesTo summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-surgical treatments in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were poor study quality and small sample size (<10 patients per group).ResultsThirty eligible RCT's were included. Most studies assessed PPI efficacy for gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD, n = 10). Two RCTs included musculoskeletal chest pain, seven psychotropic drugs, and eleven various psychological interventions. Study quality was high in five RCTs and acceptable in 25. PPI treatment in patients with GERD (5 RCTs, 192 patients) was more effective than placebo [pooled OR 11.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 25.0, heterogeneity I2 = 6.1%)]. The pooled OR in GERD negative patients (4 RCTs, 156 patients) was 0.8 (95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, heterogeneity I2 = 50.4%). In musculoskeletal NCCP (2 RCTs, 229 patients) manual therapy was more effective than usual care but not than home exercise [pooled mean difference 0.5 (95% CI -0.3 to 1.3, heterogeneity I2 = 46.2%)]. The findings for cognitive behavioral treatment, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants were mixed. Most evidence was available for cognitive behavioral treatment interventions.LimitationsOnly a small number of studies were available.ConclusionsTimely diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the disease underlying NCCP is important. For patients with suspected GERD, high-dose treatment with PPI is effective. Only limited evidence was available for most prevalent diseases manifesting with chest pain. In patients with idiopathic NCCP, treatments based on cognitive behavioral principles might be considered.

Dataset Information

Osteoporosis Treatment Efficacy for Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Osteoporosis Treatment Efficacy for Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets