Comparative gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis

Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

RATIONALE

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts (bone cells that break down bone tissue). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (which includes CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two trial registers, drug approval agency websites, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews to identify the studies included in this review. The latest search date was 01 February 2023. We imposed no restrictions on language, date, form of publication, or reported outcomes.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included only randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of alendronate on postmenopausal women. Targeted participants must have received at least one year of alendronate. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population met one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (-2.5 or lower), and 75 years old or older. If a study population met none of those criteria, we classified it as a primary prevention study.

OUTCOMES

Our major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 tool.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Based on the previous review experience, in which the clinical and methodological characteristics in the primary and secondary prevention studies were homogeneous, we used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis and estimated effects using the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. Our base case analyses included all eligible placebo-controlled studies with usable data. We selected the data available for the longest treatment period. We consider a relative change exceeding 15% as clinically important.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We included 119 studies, of which 102 studies provided data for quantitative synthesis. Of these, we classified 34 studies (15,188 participants) as primary prevention and 68 studies (29,577 participants) as secondary prevention. We had concerns about risks of bias in most studies. Selection bias was the most frequently overlooked domain, with only 20 studies (19%) describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Eight studies (8%) were at low risk of bias in all seven domains.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

The base case analyses included 16 primary prevention studies (one to five years in length; 10,057 women) and 20 secondary prevention studies (one to three years in length; 7375 women) which compared alendronate 10 mg/day (or 70 mg/week) to placebo, no treatment, or both. Indirectness, imprecision, and risk of bias emerged as the main factors contributing to the downgrading of the certainty of the evidence. For primary prevention, alendronate may lead to a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (16/1190 in the alendronate group versus 24/926 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.84; absolute risk reduction [ARR] 1.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence) and non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; ARR 1.6% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.3% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, clinically important differences were not observed for the following outcomes: hip fractures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; ARR 0.2% fewer, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 0.2% more; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.49; ARR 0.3% more, 95% CI 0.4% fewer to 1.1% more; low-certainty evidence); withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; ARR 0.2% more, 95% CI 0.9% fewer to 1.5% more; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; ARR 0.5% more, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 2.8% more; low-certainty evidence). For secondary prevention, alendronate probably results in a clinically important reduction in clinical vertebral fractures (24/1114 in the alendronate group versus 51/1055 in the placebo group; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; ARR 2.7% fewer, 95% CI 3.5% fewer to 1.3% fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). It may lead to a clinically important reduction in non-vertebral fractures (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; ARR 2.8% fewer, 95% CI 5.1% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); hip fractures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.96; ARR 1.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.5% fewer to 0.1% fewer; low-certainty evidence); wrist fractures (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90; ARR 1.8% fewer, 95% CI 2.6% fewer to 0.4% fewer; low-certainty evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96; ARR 3.5% fewer, 95% CI 5.8% fewer to 0.6% fewer; low-certainty evidence). However, the effects of alendronate for withdrawals due to adverse events are uncertain (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; ARR 0.4% fewer, 95% CI 1.7% fewer to 1.3% more; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, the updated evidence for the safety risks of alendronate suggests that, irrespective of participants' risk of fracture, alendronate may lead to little or no difference for gastrointestinal adverse events. Zero incidents of osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture were observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For primary prevention, compared to placebo, alendronate 10 mg/day may reduce clinical vertebral and non-vertebral fractures, but it might make little or no difference to hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. For secondary prevention, alendronate probably reduces clinical vertebral fractures, and may reduce non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, and serious adverse events, compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of alendronate on withdrawals due to adverse events.

FUNDING

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

REGISTRATION

This review is an update of the previous review (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001155).

Additional effects of herbal medicine combined with bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Osteoporosis (OP) is a significant medical issue associated with population aging. Recent research on herbal medicines (HMs) for OP has been increasing, with these therapies sometimes used in conjunction with bisphosphonates (BPs), the standard treatment for OP. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of combining HMs with BPs on improving bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with primary OP.

Methods

We searched nine databases-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Wanfang, KISS, Kmbase, Science On, and Oasis-up to 31 August 2023. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BMD between HMs plus BPs and BPs alone in primary OP. A meta-analysis with BMD as the primary outcome was performed using RevMan version 5.4. Study quality and evidence certainty were assessed through Cochrane's risk of bias2 and GRADE.

Results

Out of 43 RCTs involving 4,470 participants (mean age 65.8 ± 6.6 years), 35 RCTs with 3,693 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The combination of HMs and BPs was found to be more effective in improving BMD compared to BPs alone, with improvements of 0.10 g/cm2 at the lumbar spine (33 RCTs, 95% CI: 0.07-0.12, p < 0.001, I2 = 93%) and 0.08 g/cm2 at the femoral neck (20 RCTs, 95% CI: 0.05-0.12, p < 0.001, I2 = 94%), though this result was associated with high heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and very low certainty of evidence.

Conclusion

Our data suggest the possibility that combining HMs with BPs may improve BMD in primary OP more effectively than using BPs alone. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity and low quality of the studies included in the review. Therefore, further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023392139.

Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

Pediatric and adult osteoporosis: a contrasting mirror

Pediatric osteoporosis (PO) is a condition that is currently gaining recognition. Due to the lack of official definitions over the past few decades, the exact incidence of PO is unknown. The research does not provide a specific prevalence of PO in different world regions. However, this is expected to change with the latest 2019 guidelines proposed by the International Society of Clinical Densitometry. Although adult osteoporosis (AO) has been postulated a pediatric disease because its manifestation in adulthood is a result of the bone mass acquired during childhood, differences between PO and AO should be acknowledged. AO is defined as low bone density; however, PO is diagnosed based on existing evidence of bone fragility (vertebral fractures, pathological fractures). This is particularly relevant because unlike in adults, evidence is lacking regarding the association between low bone density and fracture risk in children. The enhanced capacity of pediatric bone for reshaping and remodeling after fracture is another difference between the two entities. This contrast has therapeutic implications because medication-free bone reconstitution is possible under certain conditions; thus, background therapy is not always recommended. In this narrative review, differences between PO and AO in definition, assessment, and medical approach were investigated.

Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID)-, Potassium Supplement-, Bisphosphonate-, and Doxycycline-Mediated Peptic Ulcer Effects: A Narrative Review

Peptic ulcers are a common condition that arises from an imbalance between acid production and gastroduodenal protective factors. Various drugs, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), potassium supplements, bisphosphonates, and doxycycline, can increase the development of peptic ulcers. NSAIDs are one of the most common medications prescribed for pain relief, and they also inhibit the formation of cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1). COX-1 helps in the production of mucus that lines the stomach, so by inhibiting COX-1, NSAIDs reduce the mucus produced by the stomach and increase the likelihood of gastric ulcer formation. Additionally, NSAIDs are acidic, and increasing the amount of any acid in the stomach can result in promoting ulcer development. Potassium supplements are used to reduce the effects of hypertension, decrease the development of kidney stones, and treat hypokalemia. The various types of transporters and channels used to move potassium across cell membranes increase hydrogen being pumped, increasing gastric acid production and ulcer formation. Bisphosphonates are used to treat a variety of skeletal disorders that require inhibition of osteoclast activity. Nitric oxide (NO) has been shown to have a therapeutic effect on gastric ulcers, and some bisphosphonates have been shown to decrease the production of nitric oxide, resulting in increased damage to the gastric mucosa. Finally, doxycycline is a broad-spectrum tetracycline antibiotic that is typically used to treat anthrax poisoning, skin lesions, and sexually transmitted diseases. A harmful adverse effect of doxycycline is the formation of peptic and gastric ulcers related to the drug being highly acidic once it has dissolved.

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.

Fracture outcome definitions in observational osteoporosis drug effects studies: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to describe fracture outcome definitions in observational osteoporosis drug effects studies from Canada and the United States.

INTRODUCTION

Health care administrative data are commonly utilized in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. These data are used to define outcomes, such as fractures, and are critical to determining real-world safety and effectiveness of medications. However, there is no current standard for fracture outcome definitions in observational studies. As a result, fractures are inconsistently defined. To inform future research, a synthesis of how fractures are defined in observational studies using health care administrative claims data is needed. Providing clarity on how fractures are defined will provide guidance for future research.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We will include observational studies from the United States and Canada that consider the impact of osteoporosis pharmacotherapies on fracture risk and leverage health care administrative data.

METHODS

This review will follow the three-step JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published in English from 2000 to the present. Following de-duplication, titles and abstracts will be screened independently by two reviewers. We will then conduct full-text screening for eligible studies. In addition, Canadian and US government pharmacovigilance websites will be searched to identify gray literature. Data extraction will be completed by two reviewers. Results will be presented in figures and in tabular format.

The treatment gap: The missed opportunities for osteoporosis therapy

Despite substantial advances in delineation of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk assessment and treatment of osteoporosis over the last three decades, a substantial proportion of men and women at high risk of fracture remain untreated - the so-called "treatment gap". This review summarises the important patient-, physician- and policyrelated causes of this treatment gap, before discussing in greater detail: (a) the evidence base for the efficacy of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis; (b) recent evidence relating to the adverse effects of this widely used therapeutic class, most notably atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw; (c) available strategies to improve both secondary and primary prevention pathways for the management of this disorder.

Oral Treatment With Bisphosphonates of Osteoporosis Does Not Increase the Risk of Severe Gastrointestinal Side Effects: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are first-line therapy for osteoporosis. Adherence is usually low in chronic, asymptomatic diseases, but gastrointestinal (GI) side-effects can also contribute to low adherence in BP therapy and may necessitate a review by a gastroenterologist with or without gastroscopy.

AIMS

Our meta-analysis aims to determine the risk of severe GI adverse events due to oral BP therapy in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three databases up to September 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) detailing GI adverse events in adults with osteoporosis on BP compared to placebo. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for non-severe and severe adverse events indicating endoscopic procedure with the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using chi2 and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs with 39,047 patients with 9,999 non-severe and 1,503 severe GI adverse events were included. The incidence of non-severe and severe adverse events ranged between 0.3-54.9 and 0-10.3%, respectively. There was no difference between BP and control groups in terms of the risk of non-severe or severe side effects: RR=1.05 (CI: 0.98-1.12), I2 = 48.1%, and RR=1.01 (CI: 0.92-1.12), I2 = 0.0%, respectively. Subgroup analysis of the most commonly used BP, once-weekly alendronate 70 mg, revealed an association between bisphosphonates and the risk of non-severe GI adverse events, RR=1.16 (CI: 1.00-1.36), I2 = 40.7%, while the risk of severe GI side effects was not increased in this subgroup, RR=1.20 (CI: 0.83-1.74), I2 = 0.0%.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that bisphosphonates do not increase the risk of severe GI adverse events. However, the marked variability of the screening for side effects in the included studies, and the fact that in most of the studies GI diseases were exclusion criteria limits the strenght of evidence of our results. The conclusions drawn from the meta-analysis are therefore restricted to selected populations, and the results must be interpreted with caution.

Clinical efficacy and safety of drug interventions for primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women: Network meta-analysis followed by factor and cluster analysis

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.

European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

Guidance is provided in a European setting on the assessment and treatment of postmenopausal women at risk from fractures due to osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2013. This manuscript updates these in a European setting.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were updated.

RESULTS

The following areas are reviewed: the role of bone mineral density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment; assessment of fracture risk; case-finding strategies; investigation of patients; health economics of treatment. The update includes new information on the evaluation of bone microstructure evaluation in facture risk assessment, the role of FRAX® and Fracture Liaison Services in secondary fracture prevention, long-term effects on fracture risk of dietary intakes, and increased fracture risk on stopping drug treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use.

Treatment with once-weekly alendronate oral jelly compared with once-weekly alendronate oral tablet for Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis: An open-label, prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clinical data regarding alendronate jelly are limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly alendronate oral jelly with once-weekly alendronate tablet formulations in the context of primary osteoporosis.

METHODS

In this 6-month, open-label, prospective, observational study, Japanese patients aged ≥60 years with primary osteoporosis were included from 14 primary care centres in Japan. The effects of once-weekly alendronate oral jelly and tablet formulations on bone mineral density (BMD), bone turnover markers, and quality of life related to gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Treatment was allocated by patient preference. This potentially confounding factor was adjusted for statistically.

RESULTS

In total, 170 patients were enrolled (jelly, n = 97; tablet, n = 73). Mean percent changes in radius, lumbar spine, femoral neck, and hip BMD were similar in both treatment groups at 6 months. Both formulations decreased tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) and procollagen 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) between baseline and 6 months (by about 50% and 60%, respectively); no significant differences in mean changes were noted in these markers between groups. At 6 months, no significant differences were noted in visual analogue scale or EuroQOL five-dimension questionnaire scores between groups. The jelly group had significantly lower scores than the tablet group in the Izumo scale domains of heartburn (-0.81, P = 0.0040), epigastralgia (-0.94, P = 0.0003), and epigastric fullness (-0.49, P = 0.044). During treatment, more patients discontinued for upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the tablet group (n = 4) than the jelly group (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly alendronate oral jelly 35 mg may be a suitable alternative therapeutic agent for primary osteoporosis in Japan.

Effect of zoledronate, a third-generation bisphosphonate, on proliferation and apoptosis of human dental pulp stem cells

Clinical use of zoledronate is accompanied by osteonecrosis of the jaw but the pathogenesis is not well understood. We assumed that zoledronate may have cytotoxicity against stem cells of the oral cavity and in this way helps to initiate or promote osteonecrosis. Dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) and gingival fibroblasts (GFs) were isolated from volunteers who were undergoing a third molar extraction. The proliferation of DPSCs and GFs was evaluated using the thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide assay. The effect of zoledronate on apoptosis was determined by propidium iodide staining and Western blotting analysis. Incubation with zoledronate for 72 h and 7 days significantly decreased proliferation of DPSCs and GFs at concentrations of more than 0.4 μmol/L (p < 0.001). The IC50 of zoledronate was lower for DPSCs than for GFs (0.92 versus 3.5 μmol/L for 7 days of treatment). After 72 h of treatment with zoledronate, the percentage of apoptotic DPSCs significantly increased, which was accompanied by an increased level of pro-apoptotic proteins caspase-3 and Bax and decreased the level of the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2. In conclusion, zoledronate has anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects in DPSCs. These effects may be involved in promoting zoledronate-induced osteonecrosis and suggest an unfavorable impact of this drug on regenerative potentials of the body stem cells.

Adherence and preference of intravenous zoledronic acid for osteoporosis versus other bisphosphonates

Objective

To evaluate adherence as well as patient preference and satisfaction of once-yearly intravenous zoledronic acid versus other bisphosphonates treatments.

Methods

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases, over the date range of 2000-2016. Following the PICO (Population, Interventions, Comparator, Outcomes) elements, eligibility criteria included: (1) participants: adults over 18 with osteoporosis and adults who were at high risk of developing low bone density as a result of chronic use of glucocorticoids; (2) intervention: adherence or patient preference/satisfaction of once-yearly zoledronic acid treatment; (3) comparator: other bisphosphonates; (4) outcome: data about adherence, persistence, compliance, preference and satisfaction criteria. Specific exclusion criteria were also applied.

Results

Adherence to zoledronate is only quantified in one study showing that mean proportion of days covered for zoledronic acid was greater than for ibandronate users. Three studies showed 100% of compliance to zoledronate treatment and only one study showed zoledronic acid provided the highest persistence rates. Once-yearly intravenous infusion of zoledronic acid was clearly preferred. Only one article indicated preference for schedules that were once monthly or less frequent and other preference results practically equal between once-yearly intravenous infusion or weekly oral. Although there is little evidence, adherence to osteoporosis treatment is improved with annual intravenous zoledronate regimen. Moreover, patients appear to have preference for less frequent dosing. Switching from oral to intravenous therapy, based on the opportunities offered by an integrated health management area, may allow obtaining better outcomes in adherence to osteoporosis treatment.

Physicians’ knowledge and attitude regarding bisphosphonates-related adverse events: An observational study

AIM

To assess the knowledge and attitude of Lebanese physicians regarding bisphosphonates (BPs)-related complications.

METHODS

An observational cross-sectional study was conducted at a major tertiary teaching hospital in Beirut city, and its affiliated primary health care center. Data were collected through a new self-administered questionnaire distributed via a delegated secretary to physicians expected to regularly prescribe BPs (n = 215). It assessed participants’ knowledge, fear and experience regarding BPs-reported complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-seven physicians fulfilled the questionnaire (response rate: 73.0%): 77.7% and 75.2% considered that gastrointestinal intolerance and osteonecrosis of the jaw are linked to BPs, respectively. Conversely, the least recognised complications are ocular inflammation (7.6%) and severe musculoskeletal pain (37.6%). The association of BPs with oesophageal cancer, atrial fibrillation and hepatotoxicity was reported by 11.5%, 13.4% and 24.8% of respondents, respectively. The multivariate analysis showed a significant association between level of knowledge and physicians’ department affiliation (P-value = 0.043), their gender (P-value = 0.044), whether or not they prescribe a BP (P-value = 0.012), and the number of BP prescriptions delivered monthly (P-value = 0.012). Physicians are mainly concerned about osteonecrosis of the jaw and nephrotoxicity when prescribing a BP. Yet, the complications commonly met in their practice are gastrointestinal intolerance (44.6%) and acute phase reactions (26.7%).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the presence of a deficient knowledge regarding BPs-related adverse events among our physicians. Professional training proposals are needed to increase their knowledge and improve their practices. Pharmaceutical industries should reconsider the instructions they provide to physicians regarding the complications of medications they promote. Moreover, they must actively collaborate with education providers and institutions in educational interventions.

Qianggu capsule for the treatment of primary osteoporosis: evidence from a Chinese patent medicine

BACKGROUND

Qianggu Capsule, a Chinese patent medicine, has been widely applied in the clinical practice of primary osteoporosis (POP) in recent years. This study aims to summarize the effectiveness and safety of Qianggu Capsule in treating POP.

METHODS

We searched seven electronic databases, all searches ended in 30 September, 2015. All randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of Qianggu Capsule treatment with no treatment, placebo or conventional therapy for POP were included. Combined therapies of Qianggu Capsule were also included. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess methodological quality of primary studies. Revman 5.2.0 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Ten trials were enrolled. The combined effect showed that Qianggu Capsule plus Caltrate D was better than Caltrate D on lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) (MD = 0.05 g/cm²; 95% CI: 0.02-0.07; P = 0.0004), femoral neck BMD (MD = 0.03 g/cm²; 95% CI: 0.01-0.05; P = 0.001), femoral great trochanter BMD (MD = 0.04 g/cm²; 95% CI: 0.03-0.06; P < 0.001). Meta-analysis exhibited a significant antiosteoporosis effect of Qianggu Capsule on femoral neck BMD (MD = 0.03 g/cm²; 95% CI: 0.01-0.05; P = 0.003) and femoral trochanteric BMD (MD = 0.07 g/cm²; 95% CI: 0.02-0.12; P = 0.006) compared with α-D3 capsule. However, the methodological quality of included studies was low. Constipation and dry mouth were the most common adverse drug reactions of Qianggu Capsule. Finally the evidence level was evaluated to be low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of Qianggu Capsule for POP was supported in improving BMD. Due to the methodological drawbacks of the included studies, the conclusions should be treated with caution for future research.

The safety and tolerability profile of therapies for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

At a time when the prevalence of osteoporosis and related fractures is increasing, initiation and continuation of pharmacologic therapies for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis have declined. This decline has been at least in part attributable to concerns about safety of these agents, such as atypical fractures with bisphosphonates and breast cancer with estrogen/progestin therapy, particularly when they are used long term by older women. However, in many cases, absolute risk of serious adverse effects is small and should be balanced against the larger potential for fracture reduction. Here, we review the safety and tolerability of available therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Taking into consideration their relative efficacy, we also provide strategies for optimization of the risk:benefit ratio.

New insights into treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women

For the prevention of fractures, antiresorptive drugs (bisphosphonates and denosumab) that decrease high bone resorption and, secondarily, also bone formation, are the mainstream of therapy. Osteoanabolic drugs, such as teriparatide, increase bone formation more than bone resorption, and are used in severe osteoporosis, including patients treated with antiresorptive drugs who still lose bone and have recurrent fractures. New potential drugs for fracture prevention that uncouple bone resorption from bone formation include odanacatib, a specific inhibitor of cathepsin-K, the enzyme that degrades bone collagen type I, that inhibits bone resorption and only temporarily bone formation, and monoclonal antibodies against sclerostin (romosozumab, blosozumab), that stimulate bone formation and decrease bone resorption.

The position of strontium ranelate in today's management of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis accounts for about 3 % of total European health-care spending. The low proportion of costs for the pharmacological prevention of osteoporotic fracture means that it is highly cost saving, especially in patient with severe osteoporosis or patients who cannot take certain osteoporosis medications due to issues of contraindications or tolerability. Following recent regulatory changes, strontium ranelate is now indicated in patients with severe osteoporosis for whom treatment with other osteoporosis treatments is not possible, and without contraindications including uncontrolled hypertension, established, current or past history of ischaemic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, and/or cerebrovascular disease. We review here today's evidence for the safety and efficacy of strontium ranelate. The efficacy of strontium ranelate in patients complying with the new prescribing information (i.e. severe osteoporosis without contraindications) has been explored in a multivariate analysis of clinical trial data, which concluded that the antifracture efficacy of strontium ranelate is maintained in patients with severe osteoporosis without contraindications and also demonstrated how the new target population mitigates risk. Strontium ranelate is therefore an important alternative in today's management of osteoporosis, with a positive benefit-risk balance, provided that the revised indication and contraindications are followed and cardiovascular risk is monitored. The bone community should be reassured that there remain viable alternatives in patients in whom treatment with other agents is not possible and protection against the debilitating effects of fracture is still feasible in patients with severe osteoporosis.

Gastrointestinal and renal side effects of bisphosphonates: differentiating between no proof of difference and proof of no difference

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed at comparing the safety of bisphosphonates in women with osteoporosis by application of equivalence testing.

METHODS

Gastrointestinal and renal side effects were evaluated based on information published in randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

The data on gastrointestinal side effects (47 trials) indicated that alendronate, risedronate etidronate, and zolendronate have similar rates of the adverse effects; application of Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that equivalence was demonstrated according to margins around ±10%. The data on renal safety were more sparse and suffered from the use of different outcome measures; hence, a single trial could be evaluated. This trial showed a similar effect of alendronate and risedronate on renal function at 12 months; equivalence was based on differences between the two agents in renal function with margins of less than ±10.4 ml/min.

CONCLUSION

Our study provided quantitative information to determine to what extent bisphosphonates can be considered equivalent in terms of gastrointestinal and renal side effects.

Patterns of use for brand-name versus generic oral bisphosphonate drugs in Ontario over a 13-year period: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are the first-line therapy for the treatment of osteoporosis. In the province of Ontario, the Ontario Drug Benefit Program funds medications for patients aged 65 years and older. The Ontario Drug Benefit Program has a generic substitution policy that requires lower-cost generic drugs to be dispensed when they are available. However, there is controversy surrounding the efficacy and tolerability of generic bisphosphonates. The objective of this study was to describe patterns in the use of brand-name versus generic formulations when dispensing oral bisphosphonate over a 13-year period.

METHODS

We identified all osteoporotic preparations for alendronate and risedronate that were dispensed through the Ontario Drug Benefit Program from 2001 to 2014. We stratified our sample into community-dwelling residents and residents in long-term care facilities. The number of prescriptions dispensed per month were plotted to illustrate trends over time.

RESULTS

We found a rapid switch from brand-name to generic bisphosphonate equivalents immediately after the generic became available on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary, with generics accounting for > 88% of dispensed drug within 2 months. We also observed a reduction in the number of generic drugs dispensed each time a new brand-name alternative (e.g., monthly risedronate, weekly alendronate plus vitamin D) was introduced to the formulary. The dispensing trends were similar in the community and long-term care settings.

INTERPRETATION

The Ontario Drug Benefit Program generic substitution policy resulted in rapid uptake of generic oral bisphosphonates among seniors in Ontario. However, there was a switch away from generic medications to new brand-name alternatives whenever they were introduced to the formulary. Therefore, some patients continued to use brand-name bisphosphonate despite the availability of generic options.

Efficacy and safety of currently marketed anti-osteoporosis medications

During the past 2 decades, many interventions were proven effective in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The objective of an anti-osteoporosis treatment is to reduce fracture rates, ideally at all skeletal sites (i.e. spine, hip, and other non-spine). The armamentarium against osteoporosis includes anti-resorptive agents (i.e. bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators and denosumab), bone-forming agents (i.e. peptides from the parathyroid hormone family) and one agent with a dual mechanism of action (i.e. strontium ranelate). All these medications combine antifracture efficacy with a reasonable benefit/risk profile. However, the choice of a particular chemical entity, in one individual patient is based on the knowledge and expertise of the physician. Prioritization of drugs should be based on the individual profile of the patient, the severity of osteoporosis and the specific contraindications, warnings and precautions of use of the various available medications.