Dataset Information

Overview of the clinical efficacy and safety of eldecalcitol for the treatment of osteoporosis.

ABSTRACT: Eldecalcitol (ELD) is a new oral analog of the active form of vitamin D with anti-resorptive properties. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of ELD in osteoporosis. Compared with alfacalcidol, ELD significantly lowered vertebral facture risk, increased bone mineral density, but also had a higher risk of hypercalciuria.

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of eldecalcitol (ELD) in osteoporosis by examining fracture rates, bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, and adverse events as outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to July 20, 2020, to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. The odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval was calculated by the random-effects model.

Results

ELD significantly increased lumbar BMD (WMD: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.60, 4.00; P < 0.001, 2 studies involved), total hip BMD (WMD: 2.11; 95% CI: 0.68, 3.55; P = 0.004, 2 studies involved), and femoral neck BMD (WMD: 1.78; 95% CI: 0.76, 2.79; P = 0.001, 1 study involved) compared with alfacalcidol. Moreover, ELD caused a significantly lower rate of vertebral fracture (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.95; P = 0.034, 2 studies involved) than alfacalcidol, but did not lower the rate of non-vertebral facture (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.06-3.05; P = 0.405, 2 studies involved) compared with alfacalcidol. ELD significantly reduced the percentage change in bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (WMD: - 15.40; 95% CI: - 20.30, - 10.60; P < 0.001, 1 study involved) and serum type I collagen C-telopeptide (WMD: - 38.50; 95% CI: - 50.00, - 27.10; P < 0.001, 1 study involved) as compared with alfacalcidol. ELD was also associated with higher risk of hypercalciuria compared with alfacalcidol (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.20; P = 0.001, 2 studies involved).

Conclusions

This systematic review indicated that ELD was superior than alfacalcidol for improving vertebral fracture risk and BMD. Further large-scale trials should be conducted to verify the long-term effects and safety of ELD in osteoporosis.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020147518.

SUBMITTER: Cui L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9072485 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Overview of the clinical efficacy and safety of eldecalcitol for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Cui Lijia L Xia Weibo W Yu Chuan C Dong Shuangshuang S Pei Yu Y

Archives of osteoporosis 20220505 1

Eldecalcitol (ELD) is a new oral analog of the active form of vitamin D with anti-resorptive properties. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of ELD in osteoporosis. Compared with alfacalcidol, ELD significantly lowered vertebral facture risk, increased bone mineral density, but also had a higher risk of hypercalciuria.<h4>Purpose</h4>This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of eldecalcitol (ELD) in osteoporosis by examining fracture rates, bone mine ...[more]

PMID: 35513519

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectEldecalcitol (ED-71) is a vitamin D analog for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, inconsistent results have been reported in this regard. Hence, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ED-71 for osteoporosis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify potential trials from inception until April 2021. The investigated outcomes included bone mineral density and fractures at various sites, and potential adverse events. The pooled effect estimates were calculated using weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model.ResultsEight RCTs involving 2368 patients were selected for the final meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that ED-71 were associated with a higher level of femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) (WMD: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.24-1.60; P = 0.008), while it had no significant effect on lumbar spine BMD (WMD: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.11 to 2.30; P = 0.076) and hip BMD (WMD: 1.12; 95% CI: -0.16 to 2.40; P = 0.088). Moreover, the use of ED-71 could protect against the risk of all osteoporotic fracture (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88; P = 0.003) and vertebral fracture (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; P = 0.038), while it did not affect the risk of nonvertebral fracture (RR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.23-1.23; P = 0.140). The subgroup analyses found that the effects of ED-71 were superior to those of alfacalcidol on both BMD and fracture results. Moreover, the use of ED-71 plus bisphosphonate was associated with a greater improvement in BMD at various sites compared with bisphosphonate alone. Finally, ED-71 was associated with an increased risk of increased urine calcium level (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.33-2.15; P < 0.001).ConclusionThis study found that the use of ED-71 could improve BMD and fractures at various sites, especially compared with alfacalcidol or a combination with bisphosphonate for patients with osteoporosis.Systematic review registration[http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021270536].

Project description:ObjectiveTo summarise the available clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for different conditions.DesignOverview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). PROSPERO CRD42020170983.Data sourcesAn electronic search was performed using seven databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, JBI, Prospero and Cochrane Library, from their inception until November 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSRs and MAs of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OMT for any condition were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe data were independently extracted by two authors. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and MAs. The overview was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.ResultsThe literature search revealed nine SRs or MAs conducted between 2013 and 2020 with 55 primary trials involving 3740 participants. The SRs reported a wide range of conditions including acute and chronic non-specific low back pain (NSLBP, four SRs), chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP, one SR), chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP, one SR), paediatric (one SR), neurological (primary headache, one SR) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, one SR). Although with a different effect size and quality of evidence, MAs reported that OMT is more effective than comparators in reducing pain and improving functional status in acute/chronic NSLBP, CNSNP and CNCP. Due to small sample size, presence of conflicting results and high heterogeneity, questionable evidence existed on OMT efficacy for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS.No adverse events were reported in most SRs. According to AMSTAR-2, the methodological quality of the included SRs was rated low or critically low.ConclusionBased on the currently available SRs and MAs, promising evidence suggests the possible effectiveness of OMT for musculoskeletal disorders. Limited and inconclusive evidence occurs for paediatric conditions, primary headache and IBS. Further well-conducted SRs and MAs are needed to confirm and extend the efficacy and safety of OMT.

Project description:Increased understanding of the Wnt signaling pathway has led to the development of romosozumab, one of the most potent osteoanabolic agents to date for osteoporosis treatment. Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits sclerostin, a natural inhibitor of the Wnt signaling pathway. Romosozumab, by inhibiting sclerostin activates the Wnt signaling pathway, leading to increased bone formation and decreased bone resorption. The pivotal ARCH and FRAME studies established romosozumab's fracture reduction efficacy. Romosozumab was superior to alendronate in fracture reduction and bone mineral density gain in the ARCH study. Romosozumab treatment should be followed sequentially with a potent antiresorptive agent. The antifracture efficacy gained from romosozumab is maintained or improved after transitioning to an antiresorptive agent. As one of the most potent osteoanabolic agents, the introduction of romosozumab has significantly increased our ability to treat osteoporosis. Studies have provided important information on using romosozumab with other osteoporosis medications to optimize osteoporosis treatment. Romosozumab used before antiresorptive medications is associated with more significant bone mineral density increases than when an antiresorptive agent is used before romosozumab. Romosozumab is recommended for osteoporosis treatment in patients at very high risk for fracture with low cardiovascular risk. Romosozumab is generally well tolerated, with 4%-5% of patients having injection site reactions. The ARCH trial showed a higher risk of cardiovascular events in patients receiving romosozumab. Romosozumab carries a black box warning that romosozumab should not be initiated in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke in the preceding year. However, the information on romosozumab and increased cardiovascular risk is conflicting. The risk of cardiovascular disease with romosozumab is unclear. While romosozumab has demonstrated significant osteoanabolic effect and antifracture efficacy and will benefit high fracture risk patients, further studies are needed to investigate the cardiovascular safety of romosozumab.

Dataset Information

Overview of the clinical efficacy and safety of eldecalcitol for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Prospero registration number

Publications

Overview of the clinical efficacy and safety of eldecalcitol for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets