Randomized controlled trial of zoledronic acid for treatment of osteoporosis in women

Current Progress and Future Perspectives in Contact and Releasing-Type Antimicrobial Coatings of Orthopaedic Implants: A Systematic Review Analysis Emanated from In Vitro and In Vivo Models

Background: Despite the expanding use of orthopedic devices and the application of strict pre- and postoperative protocols, the elimination of postoperative implant-related infections remains a challenge. Objectives: To identify and assess the in vitro and in vivo properties of antimicrobial-, silver- and iodine-based implants, as well as to present novel approaches to surface modifications of orthopedic implants. Methods: A systematic computer-based review on the development of these implants, on PubMed and Web of Science databases, was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: Overall, 31 in vitro and 40 in vivo entries were evaluated. Regarding the in vitro studies, antimicrobial-based coatings were assessed in 12 entries, silver-based coatings in 10, iodine-based in 1, and novel-applied coating technologies in 8 entries. Regarding the in vivo studies, antimicrobial coatings were evaluated in 23 entries, silver-coated implants in 12, and iodine-coated in 1 entry, respectively. The application of novel coatings was studied in the rest of the cases (4). Antimicrobial efficacy was examined using different bacterial strains, and osseointegration ability and biocompatibility were examined in eukaryotic cells and different animal models, including rats, rabbits, and sheep. Conclusions: Assessment of both in vivo and in vitro studies revealed a wide antimicrobial spectrum of the coated implants, related to reduced bacterial growth, inhibition of biofilm formation, and unaffected or enhanced osseointegration, emphasizing the importance of the application of surface modification techniques as an alternative for the treatment of orthopedic implant infections in the clinical settings.

Intravenous zoledronate for postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis: a systematic review and metanalysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis compromises bone strength and increases the risk of fractures. Zoledronate prevents loss of bone mass and reduces the risk of fractures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the evidence-based health program at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo.

METHODS

An electronic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases was performed until February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing zoledronate with placebo or other bisphosphonates were included. Standard methodological procedures were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and the certainty of evidence for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. Two authors assessed the risk of bias and extracted data on fractures, adverse events, bone turnover markers (BTM), and bone mineral density (BMD).

RESULTS

Twelve trials from 6,652 records were included: nine compared zoledronate with placebo, two trials compared zoledronate with alendronate, and one trial compared zoledronate with ibandronate. Zoledronate reduced the incidence of fractures in osteoporotic [three years: morphometric vertebral fractures (relative risk, RR = 0.30 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.24-0.38))] and osteopenic women [six years: morphometric vertebral fractures (RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.25-0.61))], increased incidence of post-dose symptoms [RR = 2.56 (95%CI: 1.80-3.65)], but not serious adverse events [RR = 0.97 (95%CI: 0.91-1.04)]. Zoledronate reduced BTM and increased BMD in osteoporotic and osteopenic women.

CONCLUSION

This review supports the efficacy and safety of zoledronate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia for six years and osteoporosis for three years.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022309708, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=309708.

Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.

PURPOSE

To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies (n ≥1000) for harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).

LIMITATION

Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).

Efficacy of Yigu® versus Aclasta® in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a multicenter prospective study

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) is a therapy inhibiting bone resorption. In this study, generic ZOL (Yigu®) showed its clinical efficacy consistency with original ZOL (Aclasta®) in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. This study provides a practical basis for the application of Yigu® in Chinese population.

INTRODUCTION

Yigu® has been approved its bioequivalence to Aclasta®. However, the clinical efficacy and safety of Yigu® have not been evaluated yet. Here, we compared the effectiveness and safety between Yigu® and Aclasta® in Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and assessed the efficacy of intravenous infusion of ZOL.

METHODS

This was a randomized open-label, active-controlled study in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis of 14 clinical centers in China. Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were recruited and randomized to receive a single infusion of 5 mg Yigu® or Aclasta®. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in bone mineral density (BMD) at lumbar spine after 12 months of treatment and was assessed for equivalence. The secondary endpoint was the percentage change in BMD at proximal femur after 12 months. Additional secondary endpoints were percentage changes in BMD at the above sites after 6 months of treatment and changes in bone turnover biomarkers during ZOL treatment. Safety was also evaluated and compared between two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 458 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were enrolled (n = 227, Yigu®; n = 231, Aclasta®). The mean percentage change in the BMD had no statistical difference at the lumbar spine (5.32% vs 5.18%), total hip (2.72% vs 2.83%), and femoral neck (2.37% vs 2.81%) between Yigu® and Aclasta® groups after 12 months of treatment. The mean difference of BMD change at the lumbar spine after 12 months between two groups was 0.15% (95% CI: - 0.71 to 1.00, equivalence margin: - 1.5%, 1.5%), demonstrating the treatments were equivalent. Meanwhile, the decreases in the P1NP and β-CTX showed no difference between two groups after 14 days and 6 and 12 months of treatment. As regards the whole sample, BMD significantly increased after 12 months of treatment. Also, serum C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (β-CTX) and procollagen 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) significantly decreased at each visit period. The overall adverse events were comparable and quite well between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous infusion of zoledronic acid achieved the potent anti-resorptive effects which led to significant increase in BMD of Chinese postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Yigu® was equivalent to Aclasta® with respect to efficacy and safety.

Effect of bisphosphonate on hip fracture in patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia according to age: a meta-analysis and systematic review

This meta-analysis and systematic review investigated the efficacy of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fracture (IHF) in patients of different ages with osteoporosis or osteopenia. We searched Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and PubMed from inception to January 10, 2021, for trials reporting the effects of bisphosphonates on the IHF. We included only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. We pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis with risk ratios (RRs) and reported 95% CIs. We also used the Cochran Q and I² statistics to assess the heterogeneity in the results of individual studies. The primary endpoints were the total numbers of people in the bisphosphonates and placebo groups and the numbers of IHFs during the follow-up periods. Bisphosphonates reduced the IHF with an overall effect (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.77; zoledronic acid: RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.78; risedronate: RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.94, and alendronate: RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.95). The result of the heterogeneity assessment was I²=0, p=0.97. In all age groups (all ages, ≥55 years old, ≥65 years old), bisphosphonates reduced the IHF. In the ≥55 years old and ≥65 years old age groups, the RR and 95% CI were 0.63 and 0.43 to 0.93, and 0.60 and 0.44 to 0.81, respectively. Bisphosphonate reduced the IHF in the general population and all age groups (≥55 years old and ≥65 years old). Zoledronic acid, risedronate and alendronate reduced the IHF in osteoporosis or osteopenia populations. The association between bisphosphonate and the IHF does not appear to be influenced by age.

Fragility Fractures: Risk Factors and Management in the Elderly

Given the progressive ageing of Western populations, the fragility fractures market has a growing socioeconomic impact. Fragility fractures are common in the elderly, negatively impacting their quality of life, limiting autonomy, increasing disability, and decreasing life expectancy. Different causes contribute to the development of a fractures in frail individuals. Among all, targeting fragile patients before the development of a fracture may represent the greatest challenge, and current diagnostic tools suffer from limitations. This study summarizes the current evidence on the management of fragility fractures, discussing risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, and actual limitations of the clinical therapeutic options, putting forward new ideas for further scientific investigation.

Denosumab, raloxifene, romosozumab and teriparatide to prevent osteoporotic fragility fractures: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of non-bisphosphonates {denosumab [Prolia^®; Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA], raloxifene [Evista^®; Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan], romosozumab [Evenity^®; Union Chimique Belge (UCB) S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) and Amgen Inc.] and teriparatide [Forsteo^®; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA]}, compared with each other, bisphosphonates or no treatment, for the prevention of fragility fracture.

DATA SOURCES

For the clinical effectiveness review, nine electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched up to July 2018.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of fracture and femoral neck bone mineral density were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a model previously used to evaluate bisphosphonates was adapted. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. This was done for each non-bisphosphonate treatment, a strategy of no treatment, and the five bisphosphonate treatments previously evaluated. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and network meta-analysis. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture^® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX^® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net monetary benefit was estimated using non-parametric regression. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.

RESULTS

Fifty-two randomised controlled trials of non-bisphosphonates were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review and an additional 51 randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates were included in the network meta-analysis. All treatments had beneficial effects compared with placebo for vertebral, non-vertebral and hip fractures, with hazard ratios varying from 0.23 to 0.94, depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and the percentage change in bone mineral density were statistically significant for all treatments. The rate of serious adverse events varied across trials (0-33%), with most between-group differences not being statistically significant for comparisons with placebo/no active treatment, non-bisphosphonates or bisphosphonates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were > £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for all non-bisphosphonate interventions compared with no treatment across the range of QFracture and FRAX scores expected in the population eligible for fracture risk assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for denosumab may fall below £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year at very high levels of risk or for high-risk patients with specific characteristics. Raloxifene was dominated by no treatment (resulted in fewer quality-adjusted life-years) in most risk categories.

LIMITATIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are uncertain for very high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are generally greater than the commonly applied threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107651.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pharmacological Management of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: a Level I Evidence Based - Expert Opinion

Objectives: Postmenopausal osteoporosis carries a high risk of fractures, which decrease quality of life and are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. The best pharmacological treatment options to manage and prevent osteoporotic fractures remain still unclear. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of the most commonly employed drugs in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Methods: Only RCTs comparing different drugs for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis were included. Data from 76 RCTs (205,011 patients) were collected. The mean follow-up was 27.6 ± 14.9 months. Results: Denosumab reported the lowest rate of non-vertebral fractures (LOR -1.57), Romosozumab the lowest rate of vertebral fractures (LOR 1.99), and Ibandronate the lowest rate of hip fractures (LOR0.18). Serious adverse events resulted in the lowest in the Raloxifene group (LOR 3.11), while those leading to study discontinuation were lowest in the Romosozumab cohort (LOR 2.65). Conclusions: Denosumab resulted in most effective, particularly in reducing the occurrence of non-vertebral fractures. Romosozumab and Ibandronate resulted best to prevent, respectively, vertebral fractures and hip fractures. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation were less frequent in the Romosozumab and Denosumab groups, while Raloxifene and Alendronate showed a lower incidence of serious adverse events overall. Level of evidence: I, Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs.

Clinical Management of Osteoporotic Fractures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines recent literature regarding the clinical management of fragility fractures, provides insight into new practice patterns, and discusses controversies in current management.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are declining rates of osteoporosis management following initial fragility fracture. Management of osteoporotic fractures via a multidisciplinary team reduces secondary fracture incidence and improves overall osteoporotic care. Anabolic agents (abaloparatide and teriparatide) are effective adjuvants to fracture repair, and have shown positive results in cases of re-fracture in spite of medical management (i.e., bisphosphonates). For AO 31-A1 and A2 intertrochanteric hip fractures (non-reverse obliquity), no clinical advantage of intramedullary fixation over the sliding hip screw (SHS) has been proven; SHS is more cost-effective. As fragility fracture incidence continues to rise, orthopedic surgeons must play a more central role in the care of osteoporotic patients. Initiation of pharmacologic intervention is key to preventing subsequent fragility fractures, and may play a supportive role in initial fracture healing. While the media bombards patients with complications of medical therapy (atypical femur fractures, osteonecrosis of jaw, myocardial infarction), providers need to understand and communicate the low incidence of these complications compared with consequences of not initiating medical therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Zoledronic Acid for Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

We conducted a meta-analysis based on eligible studies to assess the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for eligible studies that assessed the efficacy of zoledronic acid in the prevention of fractures among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The primary outcomes were new vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and hip fracture. Secondary outcomes were bone mineral density (BMD) and safety outcomes. A fixed-effect or random-effect model was used to pool the estimates according to the heterogeneity among the included studies. Eight randomized controlled trials, involving 13,335 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that treatment with zoledronic acid significantly reduced the incidences of nonvertebral fractures, vertebral fractures, and hip fractures, as compared with placebo. Zoledronic acid was also associated with significant improvement in BMD at lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter. However, the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the zoledronic acid group than that in the control group, and serious adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis indicated that zoledronic acid could significantly reduce the fracture risk and increase BMD in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Furthermore, it would not result in serious adverse events. Zoledronic acid could be used as an effective and well-tolerated treatment for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Femoral head trabecular micro-architecture in patients with osteoporotic hip fractures: Impact of bisphosphonate treatment

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing osteoporotic fractures. However, their limited efficacy of bisphosphonates has been suggested as a result of these drugs, which prevent the resorption of bone without improving bone connectivity. The trabecular microarchitecture in patients with osteoporotic hip fractures was evaluated according to their history of bisphosphonate treatment (BT).

METHODS

One hundred thirty-three patients with hip fractures admitted and treated between November 2014 and September 2016. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether they had received treatment with bisphosphonates for >3years or not [non-bisphosphonate-treated patients (NT)]. One-to-one propensity score matching generated 15 matched pairs of patients. Microstructural parameters of femoral head were measured by using micro-computed tomography (μCT). Mechanical compression test (Young's modulus, yield strength, and maximum compressive force) was performed following μCT.

RESULTS

Trabecular bone pattern factor (1.15±0.7mm^-1 versus 1.61±0.5mm^-1, p=0.037) and specific bone surface (14.1±0.8mm^-1 versus 15.4±1.9mm^-1, p=0.050) were significantly lower in the BT group than in the NT group. Furthermore, Young's modulus was significantly higher in the BT group than in the NT group (72.14±30.75MPa versus 47.89±29.89MPa, p=0.037). In both groups, trabecular bone pattern was the most closely correlated microstructural parameter to bone strength. Microstructural analysis demonstrated that bone connectivity was better preserved in the BT group than in the NT group.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisphosphonate treatment preserves bone mass and bone quality. The factors influencing osteoporotic hip fractures in patients treated with bisphosphonates warrant further research.

A model of fracture risk used to examine the link between bone mineral density and the impact of different therapeutic mechanisms on fracture outcomes in patients with osteoporosis

A hazard model of fracture was developed using individual patient data (IPD) from the NHANES (2005-2008) database and summary-level data from an aggregate dataset (AD). The AD was built by performing a comprehensive and systematic literature search of clinical studies published from 1995 to 2015, recording fracture rate and bone mineral density (BMD) for both treatment and placebo arms. The search resulted in a metadata set comprised of 21 studies investigating the effects of various bisphosphonates, teriparatide, denosumab, and raloxifene in 65,254 patients over a cumulative 56.75 years of study. The IPD was used to augment an AD in a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) hierarchical modeling approach. The resulting model predicts the probability of fracture events in patients with osteoporosis. The object of model building using this approach was to promote understanding of the impact of therapeutic drug effects on the probability of fracture together with, or independent of their effects on BMD. Candidate models were evaluated by deviance information criteria and posterior predictive check. The model with covariates for lumbar spine BMD with interaction with a drug effect on BMD, and patient body mass index, years post-menopause, fracture measure method (clinical or radiological) and an additional drug effect outperformed those models without interaction and without additional drug effects. The model quantitatively supports the widely held notion that changes in bone microarchitecture, which cannot be measured by areal BMD elicited by therapy contribute in a significant way to a reduction in fracture. Furthermore, this model can be used to simulate fracture risk in a clinical cohort similar to those contained in the MBMA.

The Efficacy of Bisphosphonates for Prevention of Osteoporotic Fracture: An Update Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of bisphosphonates for osteoporotic fracture has been consistently reported in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling hundreds of patients. The objective of this study was to update knowledge on the efficacy of available bisphosphonates in the prevention of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures.

METHODS

An approach "using systematic reviews" on PubMed and Cochrane Library was taken. Twenty-four RCTs investigating the effects of bisphosphonates for the prevention of osteoporotic fracture were included in final analysis. A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted with a random effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of bisphosphonate.

RESULTS

The use of bisphosphonate decrease the risk of overall osteoporotic fracture (odds ratio [OR] 0.62; P<0.001), vertebral fracture (OR 0.55; P<0.001) and non-vertebral fracture (OR 0.73; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that zoledronic acid showed the lowest risk reduction (OR 0.61; P<0.001) for overall osteoporotic fractures but no significance was observed for etidronate (OR 0.34; P=0.127).

CONCLUSIONS

This update meta-analysis re-confirmed that bisphosphonate use can effectively reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding etidronate for the prevention of osteoporotic fracture.

Effectiveness and Safety of Zoledronic Acid in the Treatment of Osteoporosis

The effectiveness of current treatments for osteoporosis is limited by poor patient compliance. However, a favorable dosing regimen of zoledronic acid (ZA) has the potential to improve patient compliance and thus clinical outcomes. The author conducted a retrospective analysis to examine adherence to and the antiosteoporotic effects of a once-yearly infusion of 5 mg of ZA in Taiwanese patients with osteoporosis for up to 48 months. Five men and 149 postmenopausal women (mean age, 77.1 years) were included. Prior to ZA treatment, 66.2% of patients had fractures; most patients discontinued previous treatments due to compliance or convenience issues. Approximately 85% of patients received at least 2 infusions of ZA. Following ZA treatment, bone mineral density improved from baseline at 12 months (11% from baseline; P=.01) and 48 months (20.7% from baseline; P=.009). In addition there was a significant reduction in mean beta-C-telopeptide at all time points from 12 (P<.001) to 36 months (P=.010). New clinical fractures occurred in 16 (10.4%) patients, of which 12 patients experienced a single fracture. Zoledronic acid had an acceptable safety profile; no adverse events were considered to be drug related. Treatment with ZA improved bone health by enhancing bone mineral density and reducing bone turnover, even in high-risk patients. Low fracture rates and high adherence further elucidate the benefits of ZA in the treatment of osteoporosis.

Comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates in short-term fracture prevention for primary osteoporosis: a systematic review with network meta-analyses

Our network meta-analyses compared the efficacy of different bisphosphonates preventing fractures for primary osteoporosis. By including 36 studies, we found that zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture.

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted in order to analyze the available evidence on the efficacy of bisphosphonates for preventing fractures.

METHODS

We considered randomized trials comparing any bisphosphonate with other bisphosphonate or placebo. We searched Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed and manually searched reference list of relevant articles. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. The primary outcome is vertebral fracture. Secondary outcomes include nonvertebral fracture, hip fracture, wrist fracture, and any fracture.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included. Significant difference was found between bisphosphonates for vertebral fracture and nonvertebral fracture (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.04, respectively). Compared with placebo, alendronate, clodronate, ibandronate, minodronate, pamidronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid significantly prevented vertebral fracture. Zoledronic acid significantly reduced the risk of vertebral fracture, compared with alendronate, clodronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and tiludronate (0.65 (0.46, 0.91), 0.53 (0.33, 0.86), 0.45 (0.27, 0.74), 0.52 (0.36, 0.75), 0.59 (0.42, 0.83), and 0.31 (0.21, 0.48), respectively). Compared with etidronate, clodronate and zoledronic acid significantly prevented nonvertebral fracture. Compared with alendronate, zoledronic acid significantly prevented any fracture. The possibility rankings showed that zoledronic ranked first in preventing vertebral fracture, hip fracture, and any fracture, and pamidronate ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture and wrist fracture. In the sensitivity analyses, zoledronic acid ranked first in preventing nonvertebral fracture, and alendronate ranked first in preventing hip fracture and wrist fracture.

CONCLUSION

Zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture, nonvertebral fracture, and any fracture, and alendronate or zoledronic acid seemed the most effective in preventing hip fracture. Uncertainty still remains and future studies are needed to accurately evaluate the comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates.

Effects of Zoledronate on Mortality and Morbidity after Surgical Treatment of Hip Fractures

We aimed to evaluate the effects of intertrochanteric femoral fractures on mortality, morbidity, and cost of zoledronate treatment in elderly patients treated by osteosynthesis. Based on Evans classification, 114 patients with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures were treated with osteosynthesis. After the surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures, the treatment group (M/F, 24/32; mean age, 76.7 ± SD years) received zoledronate infusion, and the control group (M/F, 20/38; mean age, 80.2 ± SD years) received placebo. Postoperative control visits were performed at 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month time points. Functional level of patients was evaluated by the modified Harris hip score and Merle d'Aubigné hip score. By 12 months, the mean HHS in treatment and control groups was 81.93 and 72.9, respectively. For time of death of the patients, mortality was found to be 57.1% (16/28) on the first 3 months and 92.9% (26/28) on the first six months. The mortality rate in the treatment and control groups was 14.3% (8/56) and 34.5% (20/58), respectively. The use of zoledronic acid after surgical treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in osteoporotic elderly patients is a safe treatment modality which helps to reduce mortality, improves functional outcomes, and has less side effects with single dose use per year.

Decreasing incidence of femoral neck fractures in the Medicare population

This study was designed to evaluate trends in incidence and treatment patterns for intracapsular hip fractures and to evaluate risk factors for complications and mortality. Patients with an intracapsular hip fracture who underwent internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, or total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified from a 5% nationwide sample of Medicare data (1998-2007). The authors identified 41,053 patients with intracapsular hip fractures between 1998 and 2007. The number of intracapsular hip fractures treated with internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, or THA decreased by 21.8%, from 4602 in 1998 to 3601 in 2007. In 2007, 54.3% of patients with an intracapsular hip fracture were treated with hemiarthroplasty, compared with 41.2% who were treated with internal fixation and 4.5% who were treated with THA. Compared with internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty had higher adjusted risks of dislocation (+98%) and infection (+53%) at 90 days and higher rates of death (+8%) and reoperation (+33%) at 1 year. Patients who underwent THA had a higher risk of complications at 90 days compared with those who underwent hemiarthroplasty, with 114%, 39%, and 123% greater risk of dislocation, deep venous thrombosis, and mechanical complications, respectively. At 1 year, patients treated with THA had a 42% lower mortality risk and an 85% lower risk of reoperation compared with those who underwent internal fixation. Primary THA is performed more often in younger patients with fewer comorbidities. The incidence of intracapsular hip fracture decreased by 21.8% over the past decade. This decrease is likely the result of multiple factors, most significantly increased awareness and medical management of osteoporosis.