Dataset Information

Bisphosphonates for Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:To investigate the comparative efficacies of the five most commonly used bisphosphonates for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods:Five databases and the reference lists of all acquired articles from inception to July 2017 were searched. A Bayesian random-effects model was employed, and vertebral, hip and nonvertebral nonhip fractures were assessed by odds ratios (ORs) and 95%credible intervals. Furthermore, with respect to each endpoint, rank probabilities for each bisphosphonate were evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value. Results:Thirteen eligible studies were identified involving 11,822 patients with osteoporotic fractures. Overall in the pairwise meta-analyses, bisphosphonate use significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral nonhip fractures, with ORs and 95% confidence intervals of 0.56 (0.49-0.64), 0.69 (0.48-0.98), and 0.82 (0.70-0.97), respectively. In network meta-analyses, significant differences were found between placebo and any one of the five bisphosphonates for new vertebral fractures. The rank probability plot and the SUCRA calculation results suggested that alendronate was the best intervention (14.6%) for secondary prevention of vertebral fractures, followed by zoledronate (15.3%) and etidronate (22.1%). In terms of the incidence of new hip fractures, alendronate was associated with the lowest incidence (18.5%), followed by zoledronate (43.1%) and risedronate (52.5%). However, zoledronate ranked lowest (16.6%) regarding the incidence of new nonvertebral nonhip fractures, followed by risedronate (23.8%) and alendronate (44.1%). Conclusions:Bisphosphonates show significant efficacy for secondary prevention of new vertebral fractures, and alendronate is most likely to be successful at secondary prevention of vertebral and hip fractures compared with the other four bisphosphonates.

SUBMITTER: Shi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6885847 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bisphosphonates for Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Shi Lei L Min Nan N Wang Fei F Xue Qing-Yun QY

BioMed research international 20191119

<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate the comparative efficacies of the five most commonly used bisphosphonates for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>Five databases and the reference lists of all acquired articles from inception to July 2017 were searched. A Bayesian random-effects model was employed, and vertebral, hip and nonvertebral nonhip fractures were assessed by odds ratios (ORs) and 95%credible intervals. Furthermore, with re ...[more]

PMID: 31828096

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mineral and bone disorder is one of the severe complications in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Previous studies showed that bisphosphonates had favorable effects on bone mineral density (BMD). We sought to compare different bisphosphonate regimens and rank their strategies.We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to April 01, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bisphosphonate treatments in adult KTRs. The primary outcome was BMD change. We executed the tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration to evaluate the risk of bias. We performed pairwise meta-analyses using random effects models and network meta-analysis (NMA) using Bayesian models and assessed the quality of evidence.A total of 21 RCTs (1332 participants) comparing 6 bisphosphonate regimens were included. All bisphosphonates showed a significantly increased percentage change in BMD at the lumbar spine compared to calcium except clodronate. Pamidronate with calcium and Vitamin D analogs showed improved BMD in comparison to clodronate with calcium (mean difference [MD], 9.84; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.06-19.70). The combination of calcium and Vitamin D analogs had a significantly lower influence than adding either pamidronate or alendronate (MD, 6.34; 95% CrI, 2.59-11.01 and MD, 6.16; 95% CrI, 0.54-13.24, respectively). In terms of percentage BMD change at the femoral neck, both pamidronate and ibandronate combined with calcium demonstrated a remarkable gain compared with calcium (MD, 7.02; 95% CrI, 0.30-13.29 and MD, 7.30; 95% CrI, 0.32-14.22, respectively). The combination of ibandronate with calcium displayed a significant increase in absolute BMD compared to any other treatments and was ranked best.Our NMA suggested that new-generation bisphosphonates such as ibandronate were more favorable in KTRs to improve BMD. However, the conclusion should be treated with caution due to indirect comparisons.

Project description:We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of drugs respectively for primary prevention and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women (PMW), and to further identify the optimal intervention(s) respectively for the two groups when efficacy and safety both considered. We searched three databases. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted for two efficacy outcomes (vertebral fractures and nonvertebral fractures) and two safety outcomes (tolerability and acceptability) respectively in primary prevention group and secondary prevention group. We synthesized hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for nonvertebral fractures, and risk ratios (RRs) for three others. Factor and cluster analyses on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were conducted to identify the best intervention(s) with efficacy and safety both considered. The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO. We included 57 randomized trials involving fifteen anti-osteoporotic interventions and 106320 PMW. For primary prevention, only zoledronate (once per 18 months) reduced both vertebral (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.74) and nonvertebral (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85) fractures. For secondary prevention, abaloparatide, alendronate, denosumab, lasofoxifene, risedronate, romosozumab, teriparatide, and zoledronate (once per 12 months) reduced both vertebral (RRs: from 0.17 to 0.62) and nonvertebral (HRs: from 0.54 to 0.81) fractures. PTH (1-84) and abaloparatide increased withdrawal risk. Romosozumab, teriparatide, denosumab and risedronate, with the greatest composite scores, constituted the optimal cluster having both superior efficacy and superior safety. Zoledronate used at 5 mg per 18 months, with the similar safety as placebo, is the only drug intervention which has been shown to significantly reduce both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures for primary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in PMW; while romosozumab, teriparatide, denosumab, and risedronate are the optimal treatments for secondary prevention when efficacy and safety both considered. A limitation is that safety outcomes failed to consider the severity of adverse effects.

Project description:BackgroundExtended antithrombotic treatment is recommended for secondary prevention of unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE), however, there is no consensus on which antithrombotic strategy is preferable.AimTo compare the efficacy and safety of different antithrombotic strategies for secondary prevention unprovoked VTE.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE were systematically searched from inception to 22 July 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and/or safety of extended antithrombotic strategies including aspirin, warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for secondary prevention of unprovoked VTE. The primary outcome was risk of major bleeding and the secondary outcomes were risks of recurrent VTE and all-cause death. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effect. Possible ranking of extended antithrombotic strategies was plotted using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean ranks.ResultsSeventeen RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and meta-analysis results showed that warfarin was associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding than placebo/observation (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.32-5.55) or apixaban (OR 10.65, 95% CI 1.06-107.13). Apixaban and low-apixaban were the top two strategies according to the ranking of major bleeding. Warfarin (OR 0.25, 95%CI 0.13-0.49), rivaroxaban (OR 0.18, 95%CI 0.03-0.90), apixaban (OR 0.18, 95%CI 0.04-0.85) and low-apixaban (OR 0.18, 95%CI 0.04-0.82) were related to significantly lower risk than placebo/observation; edoxaban was non-inferior to warfarin on the risk of recurrent VTE. Furthermore, apixaban was linked with significantly lower risk of all-cause death than placebo/observation (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.88).ConclusionApixaban showed superiority to other antithrombotic strategies on major bleeding and all-cause death for secondary prevention of unprovoked VTE. Further studies are warranted owing to the limited number of studies and positive cases.Key messagesAll antithrombotic strategies including warfarin, DOACs and aspirin were superior to placebo/observation on recurrent VTE for secondary prevention of unprovoked VTE.Apixaban demonstrated lower risk of major bleeding than warfarin, and lower risk of all-cause death than placebo/observation.Further research about the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic treatments for secondary prevention of unprovoked VTE is warranted.

Project description:Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Bone loss with aging and menopause increases the risk of fragile vertebral fracture, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). The fracture causes severe pain, impedes respiratory function, lower the quality of life, and increases the risk of new fractures and deaths. Various medications have been prescribed to prevent a secondary fracture, but few study summarized their effects. Therefore, we investigated their effects on preventing subsequent OVCF via meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. METHODS:Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched for published randomized controlled trials from June 2015 to June 2019. The trials that recruited participants with at least one OVCF were included. We assessed the risk of bias of every study, estimated relative risk ratio of secondary OVCF, non-vertebral fracture, gastrointestinal complaints and discontinuation due to adverse events. Finally, we evaluated the quality of evidence. RESULTS:Forty-one articles were included. Moderate to high quality evidence proved the effectiveness of zoledronate (Relative Risk, RR: 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69, p?=?0.003), alendronate (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.68; p <?0.0001), risedronate (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.51-0.73; p?<?0.0001), etidronate (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87, p?<?0.01), ibandronate (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.38-0.71; p <?0.0001), parathyroid hormone (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.41; p?<?0.0001), denosumab (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; p?<?0.0001) and selective estrogen receptor modulators (Raloxifene, RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.44-0.76; p?<?0.0001; Bazedoxifene, RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.82; p =?0.0002) in preventing secondary fractures. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate (Romosozumab vs. alendronate, RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.84; p =?0.001) and high quality evidence proved that teriparatide had better effect than risedronate (risedronate vs. teriparatide, RR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70; p <?0.0001). CONCLUSION:Zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, parathyroid hormone, denosumab and selective estrogen receptor modulators had significant secondary prevention effects on OVCF. Moderate quality evidence proved romosozumab had better effect than alendronate. High quality evidence proved PTH had better effect than risedronate, but with higher risk of adverse events.

Project description:To compare the efficacy of bazedoxifene and oral bisphosphonates for the prevention of nonvertebral fractures (NVFs) in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis (i.e., the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool [FRAX] score ? 20%), based on currently available evidence from randomized controlled trials.Randomized controlled trials evaluating the NVF relative risk reduction (RRR) with oral bisphosphonates or bazedoxifene were identified by a systematic literature review and combined by means of a network meta-analysis. A subgroup of patients with a FRAX score of 20% or more in the bazedoxifene phase III osteoporosis study was selected as the population of interest on the basis of the bazedoxifene label. In one analysis (analysis 1), the placebo response of the subgroup with a FRAX score of 20% or more was the benchmark to select comparable bisphosphonate trials. Additional analyses incorporated the aggregate data from the bisphosphonate trials with all the FRAX subgroups (analysis 2) or with the individual patient data from the bazedoxifene trial (analysis 3).Nine identified bisphosphonate trials (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate; N = 23,440 patients) with a similar placebo response as observed for the subgroup of high risk patients in the bazedoxifene trial were included in analysis 1. The results of the network meta-analysis of this study set suggest that bazedoxifene is expected to have an RRR of 0.43 (95% credible interval [CrI] -0.19 to 0.72) versus alendronate, 0.58 (95% CrI 0.05-0.81) versus ibandronate, and 0.39 (95% CrI -0.29 to 0.70) versus risedronate. Analyses in which treatment effects with bisphosphonates were projected to a population with a FRAX score of 20% or more with meta-regression approaches (analysis 2 and analysis 3) provide similar findings.Based on an indirect comparison of randomized trials, bazedoxifene is expected to have at least a comparable RRR of NVF as alendronate, ibandronate, and risedronate in women with higher risk of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Dataset Information

Bisphosphonates for Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Bisphosphonates for Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets