Dataset Information

Effect of adjuvant bisphosphonates on treatment of periodontitis: Systematic review with meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous systematic reviews showed additional benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates (BP) in the treatment of periodontitis. In contrast, it is unclear the effect of BP in patients with diabetes and smokers, its pooled effect when administered locally or systemically is also unknown.

Objectives

This study aimed to systematically review the literature about the use of BP as adjuvant to nonsurgical scaling and root planning (SRP).

Methodology

This study followed the PRISMA guideline. This study included randomized clinical trials that administered locally or systemically BPs as adjuvant for periodontal treatment. Five databases were used. Meta-analyses were performed, using the pooled mean differences (MD) for clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD). Standard mean difference (SMD) was used for radiographic assessment (RADIO). Subgroup analyses were performed for locally delivered meta-analyses, considering diabetes and smoking exposure.

Results

Thirteen studies were included. It was showed MD of 1.52 ?mm (95%CI: 0.97-2.07) and 1.44 ?mm (95%CI: 1.08-1.79) for PPD reduction and CAL gain, respectively, for locally delivered BP. BP was not able to provide significant improvements in smokers (subgroup analysis) when considering CAL (MD: 1.37; 95%CI: -0.17-2.91) and PPD (MD: 1.35; 95%CI: -0.13-2.83). Locally delivered BP also improved significantly the RADIO assessments (SMD: 4.34; 95%CI: 2.94-5.74). MD for systemically administered BP was 0.40 ?mm (95%CI: 0.21-0.60), 0.51 ?mm (95%CI: 0.19-0.83) and 1.05 (95%CI: 0.80-1.31) for PPD, CAL and RADIO, respectively.

Conclusion

The administration of BP in adjunct to SRP may result in additional clinical effects.

SUBMITTER: Muniz FWMG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7841362 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of adjuvant bisphosphonates on treatment of periodontitis: Systematic review with meta-analyses.

Muniz Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes FWMG Silva Bernardo Franco da BFD Goulart Conrado Richel CR Silveira Taciane Menezes da TMD Martins Thiago Marchi TM

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research 20210121 2

<h4>Background</h4>Previous systematic reviews showed additional benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates (BP) in the treatment of periodontitis. In contrast, it is unclear the effect of BP in patients with diabetes and smokers, its pooled effect when administered locally or systemically is also unknown.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to systematically review the literature about the use of BP as adjuvant to nonsurgical scaling and root planning (SRP).<h4>Methodology</h4>This study followed the P ...[more]

PMID: 33537188

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in people with diabetes mellitus, at different blood pressure levels. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, and BIOSIS were searched using highly sensitive search strategies. When data required according to the protocol were missing but trials were potentially eligible, we contacted researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and authorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials including 100 or more people with diabetes mellitus, treated for 12 months or more, comparing any antihypertensive agent against placebo, two agents against one, or different blood pressure targets. RESULTS:49 trials, including 73,738 participants, were included in the meta-analyses. Most of the participants had type 2 diabetes. If baseline systolic blood pressure was greater than 150 mm Hg, antihypertensive treatment reduced the risk of all cause mortality (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.99), cardiovascular mortality (0.75, 0.57 to 0.99), myocardial infarction (0.74, 0.63 to 0.87), stroke (0.77, 0.65 to 0.91), and end stage renal disease (0.82, 0.71 to 0.94). If baseline systolic blood pressure was 140-150 mm Hg, additional treatment reduced the risk of all cause mortality (0.87, 0.78 to 0.98), myocardial infarction (0.84, 0.76 to 0.93), and heart failure (0.80, 0.66 to 0.97). If baseline systolic blood pressure was less than 140 mm Hg, however, further treatment increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality (1.15, 1.00 to 1.32), with a tendency towards an increased risk of all cause mortality (1.05, 0.95 to 1.16). Metaregression analyses showed a worse treatment effect with lower baseline systolic blood pressures for cardiovascular mortality (1.15, 1.03 to 1.29 for each 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) and myocardial infarction (1.12, 1.03 to 1.22 for each 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure). Patterns were similar for attained systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS:Antihypertensive treatment reduces the risk of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in people with diabetes mellitus and a systolic blood pressure more than 140 mm Hg. If systolic blood pressure is less than 140 mm Hg, however, further treatment is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, with no observed benefit.

Project description:BackgroundMetformin use has been associated with a reduced risk of developing cancer and an improvement in overall cancer survival rates in meta-analyses, but, to date, evidence to support the use of metformin as an adjuvant therapy in individual cancer types has not been presented.Patients and methodsWe systematically searched research databases, conference abstracts and trial registries for any studies reporting cancer outcomes for individual tumour types in metformin users compared with non-users, and extracted data on patients with early-stage cancer. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the adjuvant effect of metformin on recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS), to inform future trial design.ResultsOf 7670 articles screened, 27 eligible studies were identified comprising 24 178 participants, all enrolled in observational studies. In those with early-stage colorectal cancer, metformin use was associated with a significant benefit in all outcomes [RFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.85; OS HR 0.69, CI 0.58-0.83; CSS HR 0.58, CI 0.39-0.86]. For men with early-stage prostate cancer, metformin was associated with significant, or borderline significant, benefits in all outcomes (RFS HR 0.83, CI 0.69-1.00; OS HR 0.82, CI 0.73-0.93; CSS HR 0.58, CI 0.37-0.93); however, there was significant heterogeneity between studies. The data suggest that prostate cancer patients treated with radical radiotherapy may benefit more from metformin (RFS HR 0.45, CI 0.29-0.70). In breast and urothelial cancer, no significant benefits were identified. Sufficient data were not available to conduct analyses on the impact of metformin dose and duration.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that metformin could be a useful adjuvant agent, with the greatest benefits seen in colorectal and prostate cancer, particularly in those receiving radical radiotherapy, and randomised, controlled trials which investigate dose and duration, alongside efficacy, are advocated.

Dataset Information

Effect of adjuvant bisphosphonates on treatment of periodontitis: Systematic review with meta-analyses.

Background

Objectives

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of adjuvant bisphosphonates on treatment of periodontitis: Systematic review with meta-analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets