Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis

Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids. This is an updated version of a previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and hand searches of journals and abstract books) on 5 May 2022. We performed additional searches of PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 5 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data. We judged the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials with a total of 385 participants (272 adults and 113 children (aged five to 18 years)). Trial durations ranged from six months to two years. Only two of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias for all the domains.  Bisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant Seven trials included only adult participants without lung transplants, one trial included both adults and children without lung transplantation (total of 238 adults and 113 children). We analysed adults (n = 238) and children (n = 113) separately. Adults Three trials assessed intravenous bisphosphonates (one assessed pamidronate and two assessed zoledronate) and five trials assessed oral bisphosphonates (one assessed risedronate and four assessed alendronate). Bisphosphonates were compared to either placebo or calcium (with or without additional vitamin D). Data showed no difference between treatment or control groups in new vertebral fractures at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.09; 5 trials, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and two trials (44 participants) reported no vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in non-vertebral fractures at 12 months (OR 2.11, 95% CI 0.18 to 25.35; 4 trials, 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and again two trials (44 participants) reported no non-vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in total fractures between groups at 12 months (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50; 5 trials, 142 participants) and no fractures were reported in two trials (44 participants) at 24 months. At 12 months, bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 6.31, 95% CI 5.39 to 7.22; 6 trials, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the hip or femur (MD 4.41, 95% 3.44 to 5.37; 5 trials, 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in quality of life scores at 12 months (1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence), but bisphosphonates probably led to more adverse events (bone pain) at 12 months (OR 8.49, 95% CI 3.20 to 22.56; 7 trials, 206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children The single trial in 113 children compared oral alendronate to placebo. We graded all evidence as low certainty. At 12 months we found no difference between treatment and placebo in new vertebral fractures (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13; 1 trial, 113 participants) and non-vertebral fractures (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.04; 1 trial, 113 participants). There was also no difference in total fractures (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.61; 1 trial, 113 participants). Bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine at 12 months (MD 14.50, 95% CI 12.91 to 16.09). There was no difference in bone or muscle pain (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22), fever (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22) or gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.26). The trial did not measure bone mineral density at the hip/femur or report on quality of life.  Bisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant One trial of 34 adults who had undergone lung transplantation compared intravenous pamidronate to no bisphosphonate treatment. It did not report at 12 months and we report the 24-month data (not assessed by GRADE). There was no difference in the number of fractures, either vertebral or non-vertebral. However, bone mineral density increased with treatment at the lumbar spine (MD 6.20, 95% CI 4.28 to 8.12) and femur (MD 7.90, 95% CI 5.78 to 10.02). No participants in either group reported either bone pain or fever. The trial did not measure quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral and intravenous bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis, but there are insufficient data to determine whether treatment reduces fractures. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous bisphosphonates. Before any firm conclusions can be drawn, trials in larger populations, including children, and of longer duration are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids can ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Future trials should also assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates.

Italian association of clinical endocrinologists (AME) position statement: drug therapy of osteoporosis

Treatment of osteoporosis is aimed to prevent fragility fractures and to stabilize or increase bone mineral density. Several drugs with different efficacy and safety profiles are available. The long-term therapeutic strategy should be planned, and the initial treatment should be selected according to the individual site-specific fracture risk and the need to give the maximal protection when the fracture risk is highest (i.e. in the late life). The present consensus focused on the strategies for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis taking into consideration all the drugs available for this purpose. A short revision of the literature about treatment of secondary osteoporosis due both to androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer and to aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer was also performed. Also premenopausal females and males with osteoporosis are frequently seen in endocrine settings. Finally particular attention was paid to the tailoring of treatment as well as to its duration.

Effects of bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis in children with cerebral palsy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In childhood and adolescence, some patients with cerebral palsy (CP) have long-term limited mobility, which can lead to secondary osteoporosis, Prevention and treatment strategies have been evaluated for the management of low bone mineral density (BMD) and fragility fractures. Currently, however, there are no established guidelines for the stratification and individualization of therapeutic interventions. Recently, an increasing number of studies have reported on the use of bisphosphonates to increase BMD in various pediatric conditions, and bisphosphonates have been suggested as a method to treat osteoporosis and prevent fractures.

PURPOSE

We performed the current meta-analysis to assess the effects of bisphosphonates on increasing BMD in children who have CP with secondary osteoporosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase from inception to April 2014 was performed with the following keywords: (bone disease, metabolic OR osteoporosis OR osteopenia) AND (child OR pediatric OR adolescent) AND (cerebral palsy) AND (bisphosphonate). Four studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis: one randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study and three case-controlled studies.

RESULTS

The Z-score of lumbar spine was significantly improved after bisphosphonates treatment compared with pre-treatment values (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.799; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.499-1.100; p<0.001). The Z-score of femur was also improved significantly compared with that of the baseline value (SMD, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.382-1.114; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonates have a significant effect on improving BMD in children with CP. Further standardization of treatment protocols including treatment dosage and duration needs to be established, and long-term follow up studies are needed.

Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is a bone mineralisation disorder occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and handsearches of journals and abstract books) on 13 January 2014.Additional searches of PubMed were performed on 13 January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials and extracted data. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were identified and seven (with a total of 237 adult participants) were included.Data were combined (when available) from six included studies in participants without a lung transplant. Data showed that there was no significant reduction in fractures between treatment and control groups at 12 months, odds ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 3.80). No fractures were reported in studies with follow-up at 24 months. However, in patients taking bisphosphonates after six months the percentage change in bone mineral density increased at the lumbar spine, mean difference 4.61 (95% confidence interval 3.90 to 5.32) and at the hip or femur, mean difference 3.35 (95% confidence interval 1.63 to 5.07); but did not significantly change at the distal forearm, mean difference -0.49 (95% confidence interval -2.42 to 1.45). In patients taking bisphosphonates, at 12 months the percentage change in bone mineral density increased at the lumbar spine, mean difference 6.10 (95% confidence interval 5.10 to 7.10) and at the hip or femur, mean difference 4.35 (95% confidence interval 2.99 to 5.70). At 24 months, in patients treated with bisphosphonates the percentage change in bone mineral density also increased at the lumbar spine, mean difference 5.49 (95% confidence interval 4.38 to 6.60) and at the hip or femur, mean difference 6.05 (95% confidence interval 3.74 to 8.36). There was clinical heterogeneity between studies and not all studies reported all outcomes. Bone pain was the most common adverse event with intravenous agents. Flu-like symptoms were also increased in those taking bisphosphonates.In participants with a lung transplant (one study), intravenous pamidronate did not change the number of new fractures. At axial sites, bone mineral density increased with treatment compared to controls: percentage change in bone mineral density at lumbar spine, mean difference 6.20 (95% confidence interval 4.28 to 8.12); and femur mean difference 7.90 (95% confidence interval 5.78 to 10.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral and intravenous bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous agents. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Additional trials are also required to further assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates. Trials in larger populations are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival.

Osteoporosis in young adults: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management

Postmenopausal osteoporosis is mainly caused by increased bone remodeling resulting from estrogen deficiency. Indications for treatment are based on low areal bone mineral density (aBMD, T-score  ≤ -2.5), typical fragility fractures (spine or hip), and more recently, an elevated 10-year fracture probability (by FRAX®). In contrast, there is no clear definition of osteoporosis nor intervention thresholds in younger individuals. Low aBMD in a young adult may reflect a physiologically low peak bone mass, such as in lean but otherwise healthy persons, whereas fractures commonly occur with high-impact trauma, i.e., without bone fragility. Furthermore, low aBMD associated with vitamin D deficiency may be highly prevalent in some regions of the world. Nevertheless, true osteoporosis in the young can occur, which we define as a T-score below -2.5 at spine or hip in association with a chronic disease known to affect bone metabolism. In the absence of secondary causes, the presence of fragility fractures, such as in vertebrae, may point towards genetic or idiopathic osteoporosis. In turn, treatment of the underlying condition may improve bone mass as well. In rare cases, a bone-specific treatment may be indicated, although evidence is scarce for a true benefit on fracture risk. The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened a working group to review pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of osteoporosis in the young, excluding children and adolescents, and provide a screening strategy including laboratory exams for a systematic approach of this condition.

Lumbar disc herniation in three patients with cystic fibrosis: a case series

INTRODUCTION

To date, lumbar disc herniation has not been reported in the context of cystic fibrosis even though back pain and musculoskeletal problems are very common in patients with cystic fibrosis.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report on three patients with cystic fibrosis who experienced lumbar disc herniation in the course of their disease at ages 19 to 21 years (a 22-year-old Caucasian man, a 23-year-old Caucasian man, and a 21-year-old Caucasian woman). Our third patient eventually died because of her deteriorated pulmonary situation, which was influenced by the lumbar disc herniation as it was not possible for her to perform pulmonary drainage techniques properly because of the pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar disc herniation can lead to a vicious cycle for patients with cystic fibrosis as it may promote pulmonary infections. This report highlights the need to investigate patients correctly.