Dataset Information

Antiresorptive treatments for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (CIO) is the most common type of secondary osteoporosis, leading to fractures, and increased morbidity and mortality.

Source of data

Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar databases.

Areas of agreement

Prolonged glucocorticoids administration leads to secondary osteoporosis.

Areas of controversy

The optimal management for CIO is controversial.

Growing points

The present study compared bone mineral density, fractures and adverse events in patients undergoing treatment with risedronate, alendronate, zoledronate, denosumab or etidronate for CIO.

Areas timely for developing research

For selected patients with CIO, alendronate performed better overall. These results must be interpreted within the limitations of the present study.

Level of evidence

I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Migliorini F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9494254 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antiresorptive treatments for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Migliorini Filippo F Colarossi Giorgia G Eschweiler Jörg J Oliva Francesco F Driessen Arne A Maffulli Nicola N

British medical bulletin 20220901 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (CIO) is the most common type of secondary osteoporosis, leading to fractures, and increased morbidity and mortality.<h4>Source of data</h4>Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar databases.<h4>Areas of agreement</h4>Prolonged glucocorticoids administration leads to secondary osteoporosis.<h4>Areas of controversy</h4>The optimal management for CIO is controversial.<h4>Growing points</h4>The present study compared bone mineral density, fr ...[more]

PMID: 35641234

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundAccording to the mechanisms of action, combination therapy of anabolic and antiresorptive agents may produce more effect for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, the combination therapy of anabolic agents and bisphosphonates reports no benefit and even reduced the anabolic effects of anabolic agents. This study aims to assess the effect of combination therapy of anabolic and nonbisphosphonates antiresorptive agents in adults with osteoporosis.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 1980 to November 1, 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with osteoporosis treated in combination therapy of anabolic and nonbisphosphonates antiresorptive agents compared with monotherapy of either agent alone. The primary outcome was the incidence of fractures. The secondary outcomes were the bone mineral density (BMD) changes at lumbar spine and total hip. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. I statistic (I > 50% as a threshold indicates significant heterogeneity) was used to assess the heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 10 trials with a total of 1042 patients were included. The pooled results showed that the combination therapy demonstrated a significant advantage over a monotherapy in the BMD improvement at the lumbar spine (SMD 1.18; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.72; I = 93%) and the total hip (SMD 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; I = 88%) and further reduce the fracture risk (RR, 0.45; 95%CI, 0.21 to 0.94; I = 0%).ConclusionsLow-to-moderate-quality evidence shows that the combination therapy of anabolic and nonbisphosphonates antiresorptive agents is superior to monotherapy in improving the BMD and reducing the fracture risk. However, further high methodological quality studies are needed to determine the antifracture efficacy, cost-effectiveness and safety of this strategy of combination therapy.

Project description:Background & aimsA plethora of second-line therapies have been recently introduced for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment with promising results. A meta-analysis of second-line treatments for HCC has been performed to better tailor their use based on improved patient stratification and to identify the best available option.MethodsPubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating second-line treatment for advanced HCC in patients already treated with sorafenib. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and drug withdrawal due to adverse events. Network meta-analyses were performed considering placebo as the basis for comparison in efficacy and safety analyses. Subgroup stratification considered gender, age, sorafenib-responsiveness and drug tolerability, viral infection, macrovascular invasion, HCC extrahepatic spread, performance status, and alpha-fetoprotein levels.ResultsFourteen phase II or III randomized controlled trials, involving 5,488 patients and 12 regimens, were included in the analysis. Regorafenib (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.79), cabozantinib (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.63-0.92), and ramucirumab (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70-0.76) significantly prolonged OS compared with placebo. Cabozantinib (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36-0.52), regorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37-0.56), ramucirumab (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.43-0.68), brivanib (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42-0.76), S-1 (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46-0.77), axitinib (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.44-0.87), and pembrolizumab (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57-0.90) significantly improved PFS compared with placebo. None of the compared drugs deemed undoubtedly superior after having performed a patients' stratification.ConclusionsThe results of this network meta-analysis suggest the use of regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line treatments in HCC.

Project description:BackgroundThe sequential anti-osteoporotic treatment for women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) is important, but the order in which different types of drugs are used is confusing and controversial. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of available sequential treatments to explore the most efficacious strategy for long-term management of osteoporosis.MethodsIn this network meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to September 19, 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing sequential treatments for women with PMO. The identified trials were screened by reading the title and abstract, and only randomised clinical trials involving sequential anti-osteoporotic treatments and reported relevant outcomes for PMO were included. The main outcomes included vertebral fracture risk, the percentage change in bone mineral density (BMD) in different body parts, and all safety indicators in the stage after switching treatment. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using the multivariate random effects method and evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in the Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42022360236.FindingsA total of 19 trials comprising 18,416 participants were included in the study. Five different sequential treatments were investigated as the main interventions and compared to the corresponding control groups. The intervention groups in this study comprised the following treatment switch protocols: switching from an anabolic agent (AB) to an anti-resorptive agent (AR) (ABtAR), transitioning from one AR to another AR (ARtAAR), shifting from an AR to an AB (ARtAB), switching from an AB to a combined treatment of AB and AR (ABtC), and transitioning from an AR to a combined treatment (ARtC). A significant reduction in the incidence of vertebral fractures was observed in ARtC, ABtAR and ARtAB in the second stage, and ARtC had the lowest incidence with 81.5% SUCRA. ARtAAR and ABtAR were two effective strategies for preventing fractures and improving BMD in other body parts. Especially, ARtAAR could improve total hip BMD with the highest 96.1% SUCRA, and ABtAR could decrease the risk of total fractures with the highest 94.3% SUCRA. Almost no difference was observed in safety outcomes in other comparisons.InterpretationOur findings suggested that the ARtAAR and ABtAR strategy are the effective and safe sequential treatment for preventing fracture and improving BMD for PMO. ARtC is more effective in preventing vertebral fractures.FundingThe National Natural Science Foundation of China (82170900, 81970762), the Hunan Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the Hunan Province High-level Health Talents "225" Project.

Dataset Information

Antiresorptive treatments for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Introduction

Source of data

Areas of agreement

Areas of controversy

Growing points

Areas timely for developing research

Level of evidence

Publications

Antiresorptive treatments for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets