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:Bisphosphonates have been found to be effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, their comparative effectiveness in populations at risk has yet to be defined. In light of recent clinical trials, we aimed to compare four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronate) and to identify which are the most effective for the prevention of fragility fractures. This is an update of a systematic review previously published as part of a NICE HTA report. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis, updating the estimates regarding the comparative effectiveness of the aforementioned bisphosphonates. Studies identified from published and unpublished sources between 2014 and 2021 were added to the studies identified in the previous review. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Outcomes were fractures, femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), mortality, and adverse events. We identified 25 additional trials, resulting in a total population of 47,007 participants. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment in preventing vertebral fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.28-0.49). Zoledronate (HR 0.71; 95% CrI, 0.61-0.81) and risedronate (HR 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.84) were found to be the most effective treatments in preventing nonvertebral fractures. All treatments were associated with increases in femoral neck BMD versus placebo with zoledronate being the most effective treatment mean difference (MD 4.02; 95% CrI, 3.2-4.84). There was a paucity of data regarding hip and wrist fractures. Depending on its cost-effectiveness, zoledronate could be considered a first-line option for people at increased risk of fragility fractures. © 2022 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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.

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