Treatment with alendronate plus calcium, alendronate alone, or calcium alone for postmenopausal low bone mineral density

Effect of Denosumab on Bone Density in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Comparison with and without Calcium Supplementation in Patients on Standard Diets in Korea

The side effects and safety issues tied to calcium supplementation raise questions about its necessity in osteoporosis treatment. We retrospectively evaluated 189 postmenopausal osteoporosis patients treated with denosumab for 12 months. Patients exhibited neither renal dysfunction nor compromised general dietary intake. Patients were divided into three groups as follows: group A, weekly vitamin D 7000 IU; group B, daily vitamin D 1000 IU with elemental calcium 100 mg; and group C, daily vitamin D 1000 IU with elemental calcium 500 mg. All groups showed significant increases in bone density: +6.4 ± 4.7% for the lumbar spine, +2.2 ± 3.5% for the femoral neck, and +2.4 ± 3.8% for the total hip in group A; +7.0 ± 10.9% for the lumbar spine, +2.3 ± 5.2% for the femoral neck, and +2.4 ± 3.8% for the total hip in group B; and + 6.7 ± 8.7% for the lumbar spine, +2.5 ± 8.4% for the femoral neck, and +2.3 ± 4.0% for the total hip in group C. Serum calcium levels increased over time in all three groups with no significant difference. Changes in CTX and P1NP levels did not differ between the groups (all p > 0.05). With regular dietary intake, calcium supplementation levels showed no significant effect on bone density, bone marker changes, or hypocalcemia incidence during denosumab treatment.

Calcium Supplements and Risk of CVD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background

Vitamin D supplements may only be beneficial for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures when administered with calcium and in individuals with low blood levels of 25(OH)D, but possible hazards of calcium supplements on CVD cannot be excluded.

Objectives

We conducted a meta-analysis of all placebo-controlled randomized trials assessing the effects of calcium supplements alone or with vitamin D on CHD, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

Methods

A meta-analysis of 11 trials included 7 comparisons of calcium alone compared with control (n = 8634) and 6 comparisons of calcium plus vitamin D compared with control (n = 46,804). Aggregated study-level data were obtained from individual trials and combined using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. The main outcomes included MI, CHD death, any CHD, stroke, and all-cause mortality.

Results

Among trials of calcium alone (mean daily dose 1 g), calcium was not significantly associated with any excess risk of MI (RR, 1.15; 95% CI: 0.88, 1.51; n = 219 events), CHD death (RR, 1.24; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.73; n = 142), any CHD (RR, 1.01; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.37; n = 177), or stroke (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.90, 1.46, n = 275). Among 6 trials of combined treatment, supplementation with calcium plus vitamin D was not significantly associated with any excess risk of MI (RR, 1.09; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.25; n = 854), CHD death (RR, 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.27; n = 391), any CHD (RR, 1.05; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.19; n = 1061), or stroke (RR, 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.17; n = 885). Likewise, calcium alone, or with vitamin D had no significant associations with all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrated that calcium supplements were not associated with any significant hazard for CHD, stroke, or all-cause mortality and excluded excess risks above 0.3%-0.5% per year for CHD or stroke. Further trials of calcium and vitamin D are required in individuals with low blood levels of 25(OH)D for the prevention of fracture and other disease outcomes.

EXTENSIVE EXPERTISE IN ENDOCRINOLOGY: Osteoporosis management

Fractures occur in about half of older White women, and almost a third of older White men. However, 80% of the older individuals who have fractures do not meet the bone density definition of osteoporosis, suggesting that this definition is not an appropriate threshold for offering treatment. Fracture risk can be estimated based on clinical risk factors with or without bone density. A combination of calculated risk, fracture history, and bone density is used in treatment decisions. Medications available for reducing fracture risk act either to inhibit bone resorption or to promote bone formation. Romosozumab is unique in that it has both activities. Bisphosphonates are the most widely used interventions because of their efficacy, safety, and low cost. Continuous use of oral bisphosphonates for >5 years increases the risk of atypical femoral fractures, so is usually punctuated with drug holidays of 6-24 months. Denosumab is a further potent anti-resorptive agent given as 6-monthly s.c. injections. It is comparable to the bisphosphonates in efficacy and safety but has a rapid offset of effect after discontinuation so must be followed by an alternative drug, usually a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide stimulates both bone formation and resorption, substantially increases spine density, and reduces vertebral and non-vertebral fracture rates, though data for hip fractures are scant. Treatment is usually limited to 18-24 months, followed by the transition to an anti-resorptive. Romosozumab is given as monthly s.c. injections for 1 year, followed by an anti-resorptive. This sequence prevents more fractures than anti-resorptive therapy alone. Because of cost, anabolic drugs are usually reserved for those at very high fracture risk. 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels should be maintained above 30 nmol/L, using supplements if sunlight exposure is limited. Calcium intake has little effect on bone density and fracture risk but should be maintained above 500 mg/day using dietary sources.

Use of zoledronic acid in antiosteoporosis treatment is associated with a decreased blood lipid level in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: A cohort study in China

OBJECTIVE

: This cohort study aimed to evaluate the protective effects of zoledronic acid (ZA) in lipidemia in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

A total of 668 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were regularly followed up for 12 months between January 2018 and August 2021 in the department of endocrinology and the health examination center of the hospital. They were included in this cohort study. They were divided into group I and group II depending on lipid metabolism disorder; Group II received atorvastatin 20 mg/d orally. Groups I and II, divided into experimental group (ZA exposure) and control group (ZA nonexposure), depending on treatment with or without ZA. All the data were collected from the hospital's medical record system and passed ethical review.

RESULTS

In group I, which was the ZA exposure group(n = 164), the level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was significantly lower than that before ZA treatment(P = 0.017); in the ZA nonexposure group(n = 158), the levels of LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC) and triglycerides (TG) significantly increased after 12 months of follow-up, (P = 0.005, P < 0.001 and P = 0.001). At the baseline, no significant difference was found in blood lipid indicators between the ZA exposure and nonexposure groups (P > 0.05), but the levels of LDL-C and TC in the exposed group significantly decreased after 12 months of follow-up, (P = 0.008 and P = 0.027). Also, the ZA exposure group had 47 new cases of lipid metabolism disorder, while the nonexposure group had 43 new cases of lipid metabolism disorder after 12 months of follow-up. In group II, which was the ZA exposure group(n=155), the levels of LDL-C and TC were significantly lower than those before ZA treatment(P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). At the baseline, the ZA exposure and nonexposure groups(n = 191), had no significant difference in blood lipid indicators (P > 0.05), but the levels of LDL-C and TC significantly decreased in the exposed group after 12 months of follow-up, (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

This cohort study found that ZA might exert a protective effect on lipid metabolism in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. In postmenopausal women with lipid disorders suffering from osteoporosis, the treatment with ZA combined with atorvastatin or ZA alone significantly reduced the level of blood lipid (especially LDL-C and TC) compared with atorvastatin alone.

Calcium Supplements and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Background: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs) have reported controversial findings regarding the associations between calcium supplements on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between them. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the bibliographies of relevant articles for double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs in November, 2020. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of cardiovascular disease were calculated using a random effects model. The main outcomes were CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and cerebrovascular disease. Results: A total of 13 double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs (n = 28,935 participants in an intervention group and 14,243 in a control group)) were included in the final analysis. Calcium supplements significantly increased the risk of CVD (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06–1.25], I2 = 0.0%, n = 14) and CHD (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05–1.28], I2 = 0.0%, n = 9) in double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs, specifically in healthy postmenopausal women. In the subgroup meta-analysis, dietary calcium intake of 700–1000 mg per day or supplementary calcium intake of 1000 mg per day significantly increased the risk of CVD and CHD. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis found that calcium supplements increased a risk of CVD by about 15% in healthy postmenopausal women.

Osteoporosis: evidence for vitamin D and calcium in older people

Topics for DTB review articles are selected by DTB's editorial board to provide concise overviews of medicines and other treatments to help patients get the best care. Articles include a summary of key points and a brief overview for patients. Articles may also have a series of multiple choice CME questions.

Calcium and/or Vitamin D Supplementation for the Prevention of Fragility Fractures: Who Needs It?

Vitamin D and calcium have different biological functions, so the need for supplementation, and its safety and efficacy, need to be evaluated for each separately. Vitamin D deficiency is usually the result of low sunlight exposure (e.g., in frail older people, those who are veiled, those with dark-skin living at higher latitudes) and is reversible with calciferol 400–800 IU/day. Calcium supplements produce a 1% increase in bone density in the first year of use, without further increases subsequently. Vitamin D supplements do not improve bone density in clinical trials except in analyses of subgroups with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D <30 nmol/L. Supplementation with calcium, vitamin D, or their combination does not prevent fractures in community-dwelling adults, but a large study in vitamin D-deficient nursing home residents did demonstrate fracture prevention. When treating osteoporosis, co-administration of calcium with anti-resorptive drugs has not been shown to impact on treatment efficacy. Correction of severe vitamin D deficiency (<25 nmol/L) is necessary before use of potent anti-resorptive drugs to avoid hypocalcemia. Calcium supplements cause gastrointestinal side effects, particularly constipation, and increase the risk of kidney stones and, probably, heart attacks by about 20%. Low-dose vitamin D is safe, but doses >4000 IU/day have been associated with more falls and fractures. Current evidence does not support use of either calcium or vitamin D supplements in healthy community-dwelling adults.

Calcium and Bone

The maintenance of extracellular calcium levels within a narrow range is necessary for normal function of the nervous system, muscle, and coagulation, to maintain mineralization of the skeleton but to avoid calcification of soft tissues. Accordingly, absorption and excretion of calcium is closely regulated, and adult humans can adapt to a wide range of calcium intakes from 300 to 2,000 mg/day. The evidence that low calcium intakes contribute to osteoporosis development is weak, as is evidence that increasing these intakes significantly changes fracture risk. Consistent with this view, the United States Preventive Services Task Force does not support the use of calcium supplements in healthy community-dwelling adults. While some groups continue to recommend that supplements of calcium and vitamin D are given with drug treatments for osteoporosis, this view is not supported by clinical trials which demonstrate anti-fracture efficacy of estrogens and bisphosphonates in the absence of such supplementation. Thus, calcium supplements have only a minor place in contemporary medical practice.

Genetic predisposition to increased serum calcium, bone mineral density, and fracture risk in individuals with normal calcium levels: mendelian randomisation study

OBJECTIVE

To determine if genetically increased serum calcium levels are associated with improved bone mineral density and a reduction in osteoporotic fractures.

DESIGN

Mendelian randomisation study.

SETTING

Cohorts used included: the UK Biobank cohort, providing genotypic and estimated bone mineral density data; 25 cohorts from UK, USA, Europe, and China, providing genotypic and fracture data; and 17 cohorts from Europe, providing genotypic and serum calcium data (summary level statistics).

PARTICIPANTS

A genome-wide association meta-analysis of serum calcium levels in up to 61 079 individuals was used to identify genetic determinants of serum calcium levels. The UK Biobank study was used to assess the association of genetic predisposition to increased serum calcium with estimated bone mineral density derived from heel ultrasound in 426 824 individuals who had, on average, calcium levels in the normal range. A fracture genome-wide association meta-analysis comprising 24 cohorts and the UK Biobank including a total of 76 549 cases and 470 164 controls, who, on average, also had calcium levels in the normal range was then performed.

RESULTS

A standard deviation increase in genetically derived serum calcium (0.13 mmol/L or 0.51 mg/dL) was not associated with increased estimated bone mineral density (0.003 g/cm2, 95% confidence interval -0.059 to 0.066; P=0.92) or a reduced risk of fractures (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.15; P=0.85) in inverse-variance weighted mendelian randomisation analyses. Sensitivity analyses did not provide evidence of pleiotropic effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic predisposition to increased serum calcium levels in individuals with normal calcium levels is not associated with an increase in estimated bone mineral density and does not provide clinically relevant protection against fracture. Whether such predisposition mimics the effect of short term calcium supplementation is not known. Given that the same genetically derived increase in serum calcium is associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease, widespread calcium supplementation in the general population could provide more risk than benefit.

Calcium supplementation in osteoporosis: useful or harmful?

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are important social and economic problems worldwide and are due to both the loss of bone mineral density and sarcopenia. Indeed, fragility fractures are associated with increased disability, morbidity and mortality. It is known that a normal calcium balance together with a normal vitamin D status is important for maintaining well-balanced bone metabolism, and for many years, calcium and vitamin D have been considered crucial in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. However, recently, the usefulness of calcium supplementation (alone or with concomitant vitamin D) has been questioned, since some studies reported only weak efficacy of these supplementations in reducing fragility fracture risk. On the other hand, besides the gastrointestinal side effects of calcium supplements and the risk of kidney stones related to use of co-administered calcium and vitamin D supplements, other recent data suggested potential adverse cardiovascular effects from calcium supplementation. This debate article is focused on the evidence regarding both the possible usefulness for bone health and the potential harmful effects of calcium and/or calcium with vitamin D supplementation.

Calcium and Cardiovascular Disease

Circulating calcium is a risk factor for vascular disease, a conclusion arising from prospective studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants and extending over periods of up to 30 years. These associations may be partially mediated by other cardiovascular risk factors such as circulating lipid levels, blood pressure, and body mass index, but there appears to be a residual independent effect of serum calcium. Polymorphisms of the calcium-sensing receptor associated with small elevations of serum calcium are also associated with cardiovascular disease, suggesting that calcium plays a causative role. Trials of calcium supplements in patients on dialysis and those with less severe renal failure demonstrate increased mortality and/or acceleration of vascular disease, and meta-analyses of trials in those without overt renal disease suggest a similar adverse effect. Interpretation of the latter trials is complicated by a significant interaction between baseline use of calcium supplements and the effect of randomisation to calcium in the largest trial. Restriction of analysis to those who are calcium-naive demonstrates a consistent adverse effect. Observational studies of dietary calcium do not demonstrate a consistent adverse effect on cardiovascular health, though very high or very low intakes may be deleterious. Thus, obtaining calcium from the diet rather than supplements is to be encouraged.

The role of calcium supplementation in healthy musculoskeletal ageing : An expert consensus meeting of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the International Foundation for Osteoporosis (IOF)

The place of calcium supplementation, with or without concomitant vitamin D supplementation, has been much debated in terms of both efficacy and safety. There have been numerous trials and meta-analyses of supplementation for fracture reduction, and associations with risk of myocardial infarction have been suggested in recent years. In this report, the product of an expert consensus meeting of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the International Foundation for Osteoporosis (IOF), we review the evidence for the value of calcium supplementation, with or without vitamin D supplementation, for healthy musculoskeletal ageing. We conclude that (1) calcium and vitamin D supplementation leads to a modest reduction in fracture risk, although population-level intervention has not been shown to be an effective public health strategy; (2) supplementation with calcium alone for fracture reduction is not supported by the literature; (3) side effects of calcium supplementation include renal stones and gastrointestinal symptoms; (4) vitamin D supplementation, rather than calcium supplementation, may reduce falls risk; and (5) assertions of increased cardiovascular risk consequent to calcium supplementation are not convincingly supported by current evidence. In conclusion, we recommend, on the basis of the current evidence, that calcium supplementation, with concomitant vitamin D supplementation, is supported for patients at high risk of calcium and vitamin D insufficiency, and in those who are receiving treatment for osteoporosis.

Dietary Supplements and Risk of Cause-Specific Death, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Primary Prevention Trials

Our aim was to assess the efficacy of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer by using meta-analytical approaches. Electronic and hand searches were performed until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) minimum intervention period of 12 mo; 2) primary prevention trials; 3) mean age ≥18 y; 4) interventions included vitamins, fatty acids, minerals, supplements containing combinations of vitamins and minerals, protein, fiber, prebiotics, and probiotics; and 5) primary outcome of all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes of mortality or incidence from CVD or cancer. Pooled effects across studies were estimated by using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall, 49 trials (69 reports) including 287,304 participants met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two trials were judged as low risk-, 15 trials as moderate risk-, and 2 trials as high risk-of-bias studies. Supplements containing vitamin E (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.96) significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality risk, whereas supplements with folic acid reduced the risk of CVD (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.94). Vitamins D, C, and K; selenium; zinc; magnesium; and eicosapentaenoic acid showed no significant risk reduction for any of the outcomes. On the contrary, vitamin A was linked to an increased cancer risk (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.35). Supplements with β-carotene showed no significant effect; however, in the subgroup with β-carotene given singly, an increased risk of all-cause mortality by 6% (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.10) was observed. Taken together, we found insufficient evidence to support the use of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, incidence of CVD, and incidence of cancer. The application of some supplements generated small beneficial effects; however, the heterogeneous types and doses of supplements limit the generalizability to the overall population.

Should we prescribe calcium or vitamin D supplements to treat or prevent osteoporosis?

Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence to inform clinical practice. Meta-analyses of large RCTs of calcium and/or vitamin D supplements completed in the last 15 years provide strong evidence for clinical recommendations. These meta-analyses with data for > 50,000 older adults reported that calcium with or without vitamin D has only weak, inconsistent effects on fracture, and that vitamin D without calcium has no effect on fracture. Only one RCT of co-administered calcium and vitamin D in frail, institutionalized, elderly women with low dietary calcium intake and vitamin D levels showed significant reductions in fracture risk. These RCTs have also reported previously unrecognized adverse events of calcium supplements including kidney stones, myocardial infarction, hypercalcemia, and hospitalization with acute gastrointestinal symptoms. The small risk of these important adverse effects, together with the moderate risk of minor side-effects such as constipation, probably outweighs any benefits of calcium supplements on fracture. These data suggest the role for calcium and vitamin D supplements in osteoporosis management is very limited. Neither calcium nor vitamin D supplements should be recommended for fracture prevention in community-dwelling adults, although vitamin D should be considered for prevention of osteomalacia in at-risk individuals.

Calcium intake and bone mineral density: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether increasing calcium intake from dietary sources affects bone mineral density (BMD) and, if so, whether the effects are similar to those of calcium supplements.

DESIGN

Random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and references from relevant systematic reviews. Initial searches were undertaken in July 2013 and updated in September 2014.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials of dietary sources of calcium or calcium supplements (with or without vitamin D) in participants aged over 50 with BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, total body, or forearm as an outcome.

RESULTS

We identified 59 eligible randomised controlled trials: 15 studied dietary sources of calcium (n=1533) and 51 studied calcium supplements (n=12,257). Increasing calcium intake from dietary sources increased BMD by 0.6-1.0% at the total hip and total body at one year and by 0.7-1.8% at these sites and the lumbar spine and femoral neck at two years. There was no effect on BMD in the forearm. Calcium supplements increased BMD by 0.7-1.8% at all five skeletal sites at one, two, and over two and a half years, but the size of the increase in BMD at later time points was similar to the increase at one year. Increases in BMD were similar in trials of dietary sources of calcium and calcium supplements (except at the forearm), in trials of calcium monotherapy versus co-administered calcium and vitamin D, in trials with calcium doses of ≥ 1000 versus <1000 mg/day and ≤ 500 versus >500 mg/day, and in trials where the baseline dietary calcium intake was <800 versus ≥ 800 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing calcium intake from dietary sources or by taking calcium supplements produces small non-progressive increases in BMD, which are unlikely to lead to a clinically significant reduction in risk of fracture.

Calcium intake and risk of fracture: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the evidence underpinning recommendations to increase calcium intake through dietary sources or calcium supplements to prevent fractures.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and observational studies of calcium intake with fracture as an endpoint. Results from trials were pooled with random effects meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed, and references from relevant systematic reviews. Initial searches undertaken in July 2013 and updated in September 2014.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials or cohort studies of dietary calcium, milk or dairy intake, or calcium supplements (with or without vitamin D) with fracture as an outcome and participants aged >50.

RESULTS

There were only two eligible randomised controlled trials of dietary sources of calcium (n=262), but 50 reports from 44 cohort studies of relations between dietary calcium (n=37), milk (n=14), or dairy intake (n=8) and fracture outcomes. For dietary calcium, most studies reported no association between calcium intake and fracture (14/22 for total, 17/21 for hip, 7/8 for vertebral, and 5/7 for forearm fracture). For milk (25/28) and dairy intake (11/13), most studies also reported no associations. In 26 randomised controlled trials, calcium supplements reduced the risk of total fracture (20 studies, n=58,573; relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96) and vertebral fracture (12 studies, n=48,967. 0.86, 0.74 to 1.00) but not hip (13 studies, n=56,648; 0.95, 0.76 to 1.18) or forearm fracture (eight studies, n=51,775; 0.96, 0.85 to 1.09). Funnel plot inspection and Egger's regression suggested bias toward calcium supplements in the published data. In randomised controlled trials at lowest risk of bias (four studies, n=44,505), there was no effect on risk of fracture at any site. Results were similar for trials of calcium monotherapy and co-administered calcium and vitamin D. Only one trial in frail elderly women in residential care with low dietary calcium intake and vitamin D concentrations showed significant reductions in risk of fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Dietary calcium intake is not associated with risk of fracture, and there is no clinical trial evidence that increasing calcium intake from dietary sources prevents fractures. Evidence that calcium supplements prevent fractures is weak and inconsistent.

Efficacy, effectiveness and side effects of medications used to prevent fractures

There is an increasing number of effective therapies for fracture prevention in adults at risk of osteoporosis. However, shortcomings in the evidence underpinning our management of osteoporosis still exist. Evidence of antifracture efficacy in the groups of patients who most commonly use calcium and vitamin D supplements is lacking, the safety of calcium supplements is in doubt, and the safety and efficacy of high doses of vitamin D give cause for concern. Alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate and denosumab have been shown to prevent spine, nonspine and hip fractures; in addition, teriparatide and strontium ranelate prevent both spine and nonspine fractures, and raloxifene and ibandronate prevent spine fractures. However, most trials provide little information regarding long-term efficacy or safety. A particular concern at present is the possibility that oral bisphosphonates might cause atypical femoral fractures. Observational data suggest that the incidence of this type of fracture increases steeply with duration of bisphosphonate use, resulting in concern that the benefit-risk balance may become negative in the long term, particularly in patients in whom the osteoporotic fracture risk is not high. Therefore, reappraisal of ongoing use of bisphosphonates after about 5 years is endorsed by expert consensus, and 'drug holidays' should be considered at this time. Further studies are needed to guide clinical practice in this area.

The effects of calcium supplementation on verified coronary heart disease hospitalization and death in postmenopausal women: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Calcium supplementation, particularly with vitamin D, has been an approved public health intervention to reduce fracture risk. Enthusiasm for this intervention has been mitigated by meta-analyses suggesting that calcium supplementation with or without vitamin D increases myocardial infarction (MI) risk; however, concern has been raised over the design of these meta-analyses. We, therefore, undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with placebo or no-treatment control groups to determine if these supplements increase all-cause mortality and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk including MI, angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome, and chronic CHD verified by clinical review, hospital record, or death certificate in elderly women. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched from January 1, 1966, to May 24, 2013, for potentially eligible studies, reference lists were checked, and trial investigators were contacted where additional unpublished data were required. The search yielded 661 potentially eligible reports of which 18 met the inclusion criteria and contributed information on 63,563 participants with 3390 CHD events and 4157 deaths. Two authors extracted the data independently with trial data combined using random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the relative risk (RR). Five trials contributed CHD events with pooled relative RR of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.09; p = 0.51). Seventeen trials contributed all-cause mortality data with pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.02; p = 0.18). Heterogeneity among the trials was low for both primary outcomes (I(2)  = 0%). For secondary outcomes, the RR for MI was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.92-1.26; p = 0.32), angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome 1.09 (95% CI, 0.95-1.24; p = 0.22) and chronic CHD 0.92 (95% CI, 0.73-1.15; p = 0.46). In conclusion, current evidence does not support the hypothesis that calcium supplementation with or without vitamin D increases coronary heart disease or all-cause mortality risk in elderly women.

Calcium supplementation increases blood creatinine concentration in a randomized controlled trial

Background

Calcium supplements are widely used among older adults for osteoporosis prevention and treatment. However, their effect on creatinine levels and kidney function has not been well studied.

Methods

We investigated the effect of calcium supplementation on blood creatinine concentration in a randomized controlled trial of colorectal adenoma chemoprevention conducted between 2004–2013 at 11 clinical centers in the United States. Healthy participants (N = 1,675) aged 45–75 with a history of colorectal adenoma were assigned to daily supplementation with calcium (1200 mg, as carbonate), vitamin D₃ (1000 IU), both, or placebo for three or five years. Changes in blood creatinine and total calcium concentration were measured after one year of treatment and multiple linear regression was used to estimate effects on creatinine concentrations.

Results

After one year of treatment, blood creatinine was 0.013±0.006 mg/dL higher on average among participants randomized to calcium compared to placebo after adjustment for other determinants of creatinine (P = 0.03). However, the effect of calcium treatment appeared to be larger among participants who consumed the most alcohol (2–6 drinks/day) or whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m² at baseline. The effect of calcium treatment on creatinine was only partially mediated by a concomitant increase in blood total calcium concentration and was independent of randomized vitamin D treatment. There did not appear to be further increases in creatinine after the first year of calcium treatment.

Conclusions

Among healthy adults participating in a randomized clinical trial, daily supplementation with 1200 mg of elemental calcium caused a small increase in blood creatinine. If confirmed, this finding may have implications for clinical and public health recommendations for calcium supplementation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00153816

Calcium supplement intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in women

Some recent reports suggest that calcium supplement use may increase risk of cardiovascular disease. In a prospective cohort study of 74,245 women in the Nurses' Health Study with 24 years of follow-up, we found no independent associations between supplemental calcium intake and risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke.

INTRODUCTION

Some recent reports suggest that calcium supplements may increase cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The objective was to examine the independent associations between calcium supplement use and risk of CVD.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of supplemental calcium use and incident CVD in 74,245 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1984-2008) free of CVD and cancer at baseline. Calcium supplement intake was assessed every 4 years. Outcomes were incident CHD (nonfatal or fatal MI) and stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), confirmed by medical record review.

RESULTS

During 24 years of follow-up, 4,565 cardiovascular events occurred (2,709 CHD and 1,856 strokes). At baseline, women who took calcium supplements had higher levels of physical activity, smoked less, and had lower trans fat intake compared with those who did not take calcium supplements. After multivariable adjustment for age, body mass index, dietary calcium, vitamin D intake, and other CVD risk factors, the relative risk of CVD for women taking >1,000 mg/day of calcium supplements compared with none was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 0.92; p for trend <0.001). For women taking >1,000 mg/day of calcium supplements compared with none, the multivariable-adjusted relative risk for CHD was 0.71 (0.61 to 0.83; p for trend < 0.001) and for stroke was 1.03 (0.87 to 1.21; p for trend = 0.61). The relative risks were similar in analyses limited to non-smokers, women without hypertension, and women who had regular physical exams.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings do not support the hypothesis that calcium supplement intake increases CVD risk in women.

Vitamin D status and parathyroid hormone concentrations influence the skeletal response to zoledronate and denosumab

Studies suggest that optimal vitamin D status is required for the maximal effect of antiresorptive agents. We investigated the relationship between vitamin D status, serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) concentrations, and change in bone mineral density (BMD) following iv zoledronate and denosumab. We carried out a retrospective analysis of 111 patients, mean age 70 (SD 13) years, 89 women and 22 men, prescribed zoledronate and 43 postmenopausal women treated with denosumab for osteoporosis. We measured BMD at the lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH), serum 25 (OH) vitamin D, PTH, and bone turnover markers (plasma CTX, P1NP) at 1 year. In patients on zoledronate, BMD increased at the LS and TH (mean LS change [SEM] = 2.6 % [0.5 %], mean TH change = 1.05 % [0.5 %], p < 0.05). A significant increase in BMD was seen at the LS only in the denosumab group (p = 0.001). Significant decreases in CTX and P1NP were observed at 12 months in both treatment groups. At baseline and at 12 months, 34 % and 23 % of the patients on zoledronate had a serum vitamin D of <50 nmol/L, respectively. The mean PTH concentration in patients with 25 (OH) vitamin D <50 nmol/L was 44 ng/L (SEM 16.6). Patients with PTH concentration <44 ng/L had significantly higher increases in TH BMD compared to those with PTH >44 ng/L (zoledronate 1.9 [0.83] vs. -0.43 [0.81], p = 0.04; denosumab 4.1 [0.054] vs. -1.7 [0.04], p = 0.004). Optimal vitamin D status and PTH concentrations improve the skeletal response to zoledronate and denosumab.

Calcium supplements and cardiovascular risk: 5 years on

Calcium supplements have been widely used by older men and women. However, in little more than a decade, authoritative recommendations have changed from encouraging the widespread use of calcium supplements to stating that they should not be used for primary prevention of fractures. This substantial shift in recommendations has occurred as a result of accumulated evidence of marginal antifracture efficacy, and important adverse effects from large randomized controlled trials of calcium or coadministered calcium and vitamin D supplements. In this review, we discuss this evidence, with a particular focus on increased cardiovascular risk with calcium supplements, which we first described 5 years ago. Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D marginally reduce total fractures but do not prevent hip fractures in community-dwelling individuals. They also cause kidney stones, acute gastrointestinal events, and increase the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke. Any benefit of calcium supplements on preventing fracture is outweighed by increased cardiovascular events. While there is little evidence to suggest that dietary calcium intake is associated with cardiovascular risk, there is also little evidence that it is associated with fracture risk. Therefore, for the majority of people, dietary calcium intake does not require close scrutiny. Because of the unfavorable risk/benefit profile, widespread prescribing of calcium supplements to prevent fractures should be abandoned. Patients at high risk of fracture should be encouraged to take agents with proven efficacy in preventing vertebral and nonvertebral fractures.

A meta-analysis of bisphosphonates for periprosthetic bone loss after total joint arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic bone loss, which is common after joint arthroplasty, may cause bone loosening and lead to failed prosthetic fixation. Two previous meta-analyses have confirmed the mid-term effect of bisphosphonates (BPs) in preventing bone loss after arthroplasty. To determine long-term efficacy and gender bias of BPs after joint arthroplasty, we conducted a meta-analysis based on 17 RCTs involving 781 patients to evaluate the effect of BPs.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was conducted after a systematic search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science, and manual examination of references in selected articles and conference abstracts of key orthopedic journals. Methodological quality and abstracted relevant data were evaluated. In addition to analysis of bone mineral density (BMD), we also conducted systematic analysis of clinically relevant outcomes and bone biochemical markers.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving a total of 781 patients were assessed. Significantly less periprosthetic bone loss occurred in the BP-treated group than in the control group at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.0001). This protective effect was not noted at 3 months (p = 0.11) nor from 24-72 months (p = 0.14). The efficacy of BPs in the gender balance, shorter duration, and the non-nitrogenous BPs groups was no different from that for controls. Biochemical bone markers were suppressed in the BPs group. However, clinically relevant outcomes in the BPs group and controls were similar at all times.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall moderate-quality evidence from the RCTs confirmed the significant mid-term efficacy of BPs on periprosthetic bone loss after joint arthroplasty. Long-term efficacy of BPs was not observed, and the therapy was of more benefit to women, especially postmenopausal women. To achieve better efficacy, nitrogenous BPs and long duration of treatment may be recommended.

Calcium supplements and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Some evidence suggests that Ca and vitamin D supplements affect cancer risk; however, it is uncertain whether the effects are due to Ca, vitamin D or the combination. We investigated the effect of Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D on cancer risk. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of meta-analyses and two clinical trial registries were searched for randomised, placebo-controlled trials of Ca supplements ( ≥ 500 mg/d), with ≥ 100 participants and duration >1 year. The lead authors of eligible trials supplied data on cancer outcomes. Trial-level data were analysed using random-effects meta-analyses and patient-level data using Cox proportional hazards models. A total of sixteen trials were eligible, six had no data available, ten provided trial-level data (n 10 496, mean duration 3·9 years), and of these, four provided patient-level data (n 7221, median duration 3·5 years). In the meta-analysis of trial-level data, allocation to Ca did not alter the risk of total cancer (relative risk 0·95, 95 % CI 0·76, 1·18, P= 0·63), colorectal cancer (relative risk 1·38, 95 % CI 0·89, 2·15, P= 0·15), breast cancer (relative risk 1·01, 95 % CI 0·64, 1·59, P= 0·97) or cancer-related mortality (relative risk 0·96, 95 % CI 0·74, 1·24, P= 0·75), but reduced the risk of prostate cancer (relative risk 0·54, 95 % CI 0·30, 0·96, P= 0·03), although there were few events. The meta-analysis of patient-level data showed similar results, with no effect of Ca on the risk of total cancer (hazard ratio 1·07, 95 % CI 0·89, 1·28, P= 0·50). Ca supplements without co-administered vitamin D did not alter total cancer risk over 4 years, although the meta-analysis lacked power to detect very small effects, or those with a longer latency.

A meta-analysis characterizing the dose-response relationships for three oral nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women

A meta-analysis of spine BMD dose-response relationships for alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate was performed. Data from all three oral bisphosphonates conform to a log-linear relationship between dose and change in spine BMD relative to placebo at 1 year, with an incremental gain of about 1 % for each doubling of dose.

INTRODUCTION

Animal data suggesting differences in potency and differences in approved oral dosage strengths for alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate in the treatment of osteoporosis raise questions about their dose-response relationships and relative potencies in humans.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of dose-response relationships for spine BMD increases for these three bisphosphonates was performed using data from 21 placebo-controlled trials that collectively included over 13,000 patients on active treatment and over 8,000 on placebo.

RESULTS

For alendronate over the range of 1 to 20 mg/day, there was a strong log-linear relationship between dose and the increase in spine BMD relative to placebo at 1 year (R (2) = 0.994 using sample-weighted means). For each doubling in alendronate dose, there was an incremental gain of about 1 % in spine BMD. On the same scale, risedronate and ibandronate are approximately equipotent to alendronate on a weight-for-weight basis. The increases in BMD efficacy with each doubling of dose are parallel for all three nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (NCBPs).

CONCLUSIONS

All three NCBPs are approximately equipotent and exhibit a log-linear relationship between dose and the increase in spine BMD. Differences in efficacy between the available oral bisphosphonate regimens appear to be a function of dose rather than inherent differences in therapeutic potential.

The impact of dietary calcium intake and vitamin D status on the effects of zoledronate

We investigated whether baseline dietary calcium intake or vitamin D status modified the effects of zoledronate. Neither variable influenced the effect of zoledronate on bone mineral density, bone turnover, or risk of acute phase reaction, suggesting that co-administration of calcium and vitamin D supplements with zoledronate may not always be necessary.

INTRODUCTION

Calcium and vitamin D supplements are often co-administered with bisphosphonates, but it is unclear whether they are necessary for therapeutic efficacy or minimizing side effects of bisphosphonates. We investigated whether baseline dietary calcium intake or vitamin D status modified the effect of zoledronate on bone mineral density (BMD) or bone turnover at 1 year, or the risk of acute phase reactions (APR).

METHODS

Data were pooled from two trials of zoledronate in postmenopausal women without vitamin D deficiency in which calcium and vitamin D were not routinely administered. The cohort (zoledronate n = 154, placebo n = 68) was divided into subgroups by baseline dietary calcium intake (<800 vs. ≥800 mg/day) and vitamin D status [25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) <50 vs. ≥50 nmol/L, and <75 nmol/L vs. ≥75 nmol/L] and treatment × subgroup interactions tested.

RESULTS

There were 52, 86, and 36 % of the zoledronate group and 64, 94, and 46 % of the placebo group that had dietary calcium intake ≥800 mg/day, 25OHD ≥50 nmol/L, and 25OHD ≥75 nmol/L, respectively. There were no significant interactions between treatment and either baseline dietary calcium or baseline vitamin D status for lumbar spine BMD, total hip BMD, the bone turnover markers P1NP and β-CTx, or the risk of an APR. There was also no three-way interaction between baseline dietary calcium intake, baseline vitamin D status, and treatment for any of these variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline dietary calcium intake and vitamin D status did not alter the effects of zoledronate, suggesting that co-administration of calcium and vitamin D with zoledronate may not be necessary for individuals not at risk of marked vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D and bone disease

Vitamin D is important for normal development and maintenance of the skeleton. Hypovitaminosis D adversely affects calcium metabolism, osteoblastic activity, matrix ossification, bone remodeling and bone density. It is well known that Vit. D deficiency in the developing skeleton is related to rickets, while in adults is related to osteomalacia. The causes of rickets include conditions that lead to hypocalcemia and/or hypophosphatemia, either isolated or secondary to vitamin D deficiency. In osteomalacia, Vit. D deficiency leads to impairment of the mineralisation phase of bone remodeling and thus an increasing amount of the skeleton being replaced by unmineralized osteoid. The relationship between Vit. D and bone mineral density and osteoporosis are still controversial while new evidence suggests that Vit. D may play a role in other bone conditions such as osteoarthritis and stress fractures. In order to maintain a “good bone health” guidelines concerning the recommended dietary intakes should be followed and screening for Vit. D deficiency in individuals at risk for deficiency is required, followed by the appropriate action.

Calcium metabolism and correcting calcium deficiencies

Calcium is the most abundant cation in the human body, of which approximately 99% occurs in bone, contributing to its rigidity and strength. Bone also functions as a reservoir of Ca for its role in multiple physiologic and biochemical processes. This article aims to provide a thorough understanding of the absorptive mechanisms and factors affecting these processes to enable one to better appreciate an individual's Ca needs, and to provide a rationale for correcting Ca deficiencies. An overview of Ca requirements and suggested dosing regimens is presented, with discussion of various Ca preparations and potential toxicities of Ca treatment.

25 hydroxyvitamin D serum levels influence adequate response to bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis

It remains unclear whether vitamin D sufficiency optimizes response to bisphosphonate (BP) treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis. We evaluated the role and possible mechanisms of vitamin D in adequate response to standard BP treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

METHODS

We included 120 postmenopausal osteoporotic women (aged 68 ± 8 years) receiving BP (alendronate or risedronate) at their annual follow-up, performing complete anamnesis, including treatment adherence, use of vitamin D supplements, and previous falls and fractures during the last year. We analyzed the evolution of bone mineral density (BMD) during this period and serum PTH and 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and urinary NTx levels. Patients were classified as inadequate responders to antiosteoporotic treatment based on BMD loss>2% and/or the presence of fragility fractures during the last year.

RESULTS

Thirty percent of patients showed inadequate response to BP treatment, with significantly lower levels of 25(OH)D (22.4 ± 1.3 vs. 26.6 ± 0.3 ng/ml, p=0.01), a higher frequency of 25(OH)D levels<30 ng/ml (91% vs. 69%, p=0.019) and higher urinary NTx values (42.2 ± 3.9 vs. 30.9 ± 2.3 nM/mM, p=0.01). Patients with 25(OH)D>30 ng/ml had a greater significant increase in lumbar BMD than women with values <30 ng/ml (3.6% vs. 0.8%, p<0.05). The probability of inadequate response was 4-fold higher in patients with 25(OH)D<30 (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.22-15.97, p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate response to BP treatment is frequent in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis as is vitamin D insufficiency, despite vitamin D supplementation. Maintenance of 25(OH)D levels >30 ng/ml is especially indicated for adequate response to BP treatment.

Bisphosphonates for periprosthetic bone loss after joint arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials

The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the middle-term efficacy of bisphosphonates on maintaining periprosthetic bone mass after joint arthroplasty and the potential influential factors. It was found that the protective effect of bisphosphonates, probably modified by its generation and the prosthesis location, could persist in a middle-term follow-up after surgery and after drug discontinuation.

INTRODUCTION

A previous meta-analysis of 6 RCTs with follow-up of 12 months suggested that bisphosphonates (BPs) could prevent bone loss after arthroplasty up to 6 months. Our meta-analysis based on 14 RCTs involving 671 patients with follow-up up to 72 months aimed to evaluate the middle-term efficacy of BPs, understand the sources of heterogeneity, and comprehensively identify the potential influential factors.

METHODS

Electronic databases searching and hand searching of conference proceedings were conducted. We evaluated the methodological quality and abstracted relevant data. With fixed effect model we calculated the weighted mean differences to evaluate bone mineral density at different time points. We also conducted a systematic review for BP-related adverse effects.

RESULTS

The significantly less periprosthetic bone loss occurred in the BP-treated group than in the control group at 3, 6, and 12 months, and between 24 and 72 months after the index surgery. The protective effect persisted during 18 to 70 months after discontinuation of BPs. The heterogeneity was minimized with the separation of hip and knee trials during the analysis. The efficacy was more potent for the second and the third generation of BPs than the first generation. None of the trials noted serious or fatal adverse effects related to BPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall moderate evidence from the RCTs confirmed the significantly short-term and middle-term efficacy of BPs on periprosthetic bone loss after joint arthroplasty. To obtain a better efficacy, the second and the third generation of BPs may be the choice.

Adverse events from calcium supplementation: relationship to errors in myocardial infarction self-reporting in randomized controlled trials of calcium supplementation

The clinical effects of calcium supplements on adverse events reporting have not been well described. This study reviews randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence of adverse events to clarify the epidemiology of these events. The hypothesis that patient self-report of myocardial infarction (MI) is increased in individuals receiving calcium supplementation is because of an increase in non-MI events incorrectly perceived by the patient as being because of MI, is examined. In seven RCTs summary self-reported gastrointestinal (GI) adverse event rates were more common in participants receiving calcium. These were described as constipation, excessive abdominal cramping, bloating, upper GI events, GI disease, GI symptoms, and severe diarrhoea or abdominal pain (calcium 14.1%, placebo 10.0%), relative risk (RR) 1.43 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 1.59, p < 0.001. Adjudicated functional GI hospitalizations in one study were calcium 6.8%, placebo 3.6% (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.21-3.05, p = 0.006). Direct comparison of self-reported and adjudicated MI events in the two trials of dietary calcium supplementation showed self-reported MI rates of 3.6% in the calcium group and 2.1% in the placebo group. After adjudication the MI rates were 2.4% in the calcium group and 1.6% in the placebo group (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.88-2.45, p = 0.145). These data support the hypothesis that calcium tablets increase the incidence of adverse GI events, which may account for an increase in self-reported MI in calcium treated patients but not controls.

Cardiovascular effects of calcium supplementation

Trials in normal older women and in patients with renal impairment suggest that calcium supplements increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. To further assess their safety, we recently conducted a meta-analysis of trials of calcium supplements, and found a 27-31% increase in risk of myocardial infarction and a 12-20% increase in risk of stroke. These findings are robust because they are based on pre-specified analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled trials and show consistent risk across the trials. The fact that cardiovascular events were not primary endpoints of any of these studies will introduce noise but not bias into the data. A recent re-analysis of the Women's Health Initiative suggests that co-administration of vitamin D with calcium does not lessen these adverse effects. The increased cardiovascular risk with calcium supplements is consistent with epidemiological data relating higher circulating calcium concentrations to cardiovascular disease in normal populations. There are several possible pathophysiological mechanisms for these effects, including effects on vascular calcification, on the function of vascular cells, and on blood coagulation. Calcium-sensing receptors might mediate some of these effects. Because calcium supplements produce small reductions in fracture risk and a small increase in cardiovascular risk, there may be no net benefit from their use. Food sources of calcium appear to produce similar benefits on bone density, although their effects on fracture are unclear. Since food sources have not been associated with adverse cardiovascular effects, they may be preferable. Available evidence suggests that other osteoporosis treatments are still effective without calcium co-administration.

Calcium supplementation: balancing the cardiovascular risks

Calcium supplementation has been widely accepted as a key strategy in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Its role has been undermined, to some extent, by its disappointing effects on fracture in randomised controlled trials, but its use has continued to be encouraged on the grounds that it is physiologically appealing, and is unlikely to cause harm. The latter assumption is now under threat from accumulating evidence that calcium supplement use is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and, possibly, stroke. The latest data, based on meta-analysis of trials involving 29,000 participants, indicate that this risk is not mitigated by co-administration of vitamin D, and that the number of cardiovascular events caused is likely to be greater than the number of fractures prevented. These findings indicate that calcium supplementation probably does not have a role as a routine preventative agent and that dietary advice is the appropriate way to attain an adequate calcium intake in most situations. Patients at high risk of fracture need to take interventions of proven anti-fracture efficacy. Available evidence suggests that this efficacy is not dependent on the co-administration of calcium supplements.

Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D and risk of cardiovascular events: reanalysis of the Women's Health Initiative limited access dataset and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of personal calcium supplement use on cardiovascular risk in the Women's Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D Supplementation Study (WHI CaD Study), using the WHI dataset, and to update the recent meta-analysis of calcium supplements and cardiovascular risk.

DESIGN

Reanalysis of WHI CaD Study limited access dataset and incorporation in meta-analysis with eight other studies. Data source WHI CaD Study, a seven year, randomised, placebo controlled trial of calcium and vitamin D (1g calcium and 400 IU vitamin D daily) in 36,282 community dwelling postmenopausal women. Main outcome measures Incidence of four cardiovascular events and their combinations (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, death from coronary heart disease, and stroke) assessed with patient-level data and trial-level data.

RESULTS

In the WHI CaD Study there was an interaction between personal use of calcium supplements and allocated calcium and vitamin D for cardiovascular events. In the 16,718 women (46%) who were not taking personal calcium supplements at randomisation the hazard ratios for cardiovascular events with calcium and vitamin D ranged from 1.13 to 1.22 (P = 0.05 for clinical myocardial infarction or stroke, P = 0.04 for clinical myocardial infarction or revascularisation), whereas in the women taking personal calcium supplements cardiovascular risk did not alter with allocation to calcium and vitamin D. In meta-analyses of three placebo controlled trials, calcium and vitamin D increased the risk of myocardial infarction (relative risk 1.21 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.44), P = 0.04), stroke (1.20 (1.00 to 1.43), P = 0.05), and the composite of myocardial infarction or stroke (1.16 (1.02 to 1.32), P = 0.02). In meta-analyses of placebo controlled trials of calcium or calcium and vitamin D, complete trial-level data were available for 28,072 participants from eight trials of calcium supplements and the WHI CaD participants not taking personal calcium supplements. In total 1384 individuals had an incident myocardial infarction or stroke. Calcium or calcium and vitamin D increased the risk of myocardial infarction (relative risk 1.24 (1.07 to 1.45), P = 0.004) and the composite of myocardial infarction or stroke (1.15 (1.03 to 1.27), P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D modestly increase the risk of cardiovascular events, especially myocardial infarction, a finding obscured in the WHI CaD Study by the widespread use of personal calcium supplements. A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in osteoporosis management is warranted.

Reducing fracture risk with calcium and vitamin D

Studies of vitamin D and calcium for fracture prevention have produced inconsistent results, as a result of different vitamin D status and calcium intake at baseline, different doses and poor to adequate compliance. This study tries to define the types of patients, both at risk of osteoporosis and with established disease, who may benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The importance of adequate compliance in these individuals is also discussed. Calcium and vitamin D therapy has been recommended for older persons, either frail and institutionalized or independent, with key risk factors including decreased bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporotic fractures, increased bone remodelling as a result of secondary hyperparathyroidism and increased propensity to falls. In addition, treatment of osteoporosis with a bisphosphonate was less effective in patients with vitamin D deficiency. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation is a key component of prevention and treatment of osteoporosis unless calcium intake and vitamin D status are optimal. For primary disease prevention, supplementation should be targeted to those with dietary insufficiencies. Several serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) cut-offs have been proposed to define vitamin D insufficiency (as opposed to adequate vitamin D status), ranging from 30 to 100 nmol/l. Based on the relationship between serum 25(OH)D, BMD, bone turnover, lower extremity function and falls, we suggest that 50 nmol/l is the appropriate serum 25(OH)D threshold to define vitamin D insufficiency. Supplementation should therefore generally aim to increase 25(OH)D levels within the 50-75 nmol/l range. This level can be achieved with a dose of 800 IU/day vitamin D, the dose that was used in successful fracture prevention studies to date; a randomized clinical trial assessing whether higher vitamin D doses achieve a greater reduction of fracture incidence would be of considerable interest. As calcium balance is not only affected by vitamin D status but also by calcium intake, recommendations for adequate calcium intake should also be met. The findings of community-based clinical trials with vitamin D and calcium supplementation in which compliance was moderate or less have often been negative, whereas studies in institutionalized patients in whom medication administration was supervised ensuring adequate compliance demonstrated significant benefits.

Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether calcium supplements increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

DESIGN

Patient level and trial level meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966-March 2010), reference lists of meta-analyses of calcium supplements, and two clinical trial registries. Initial searches were carried out in November 2007, with electronic database searches repeated in March 2010.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies were randomised, placebo controlled trials of calcium supplements (>or=500 mg/day), with 100 or more participants of mean age more than 40 years and study duration more than one year. The lead authors of eligible trials supplied data. Cardiovascular outcomes were obtained from self reports, hospital admissions, and death certificates.

RESULTS

15 trials were eligible for inclusion, five with patient level data (8151 participants, median follow-up 3.6 years, interquartile range 2.7-4.3 years) and 11 with trial level data (11 921 participants, mean duration 4.0 years). In the five studies contributing patient level data, 143 people allocated to calcium had a myocardial infarction compared with 111 allocated to placebo (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.67, P=0.035). Non-significant increases occurred in the incidence of stroke (1.20, 0.96 to 1.50, P=0.11), the composite end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death (1.18, 1.00 to 1.39, P=0.057), and death (1.09, 0.96 to 1.23, P=0.18). The meta-analysis of trial level data showed similar results: 296 people had a myocardial infarction (166 allocated to calcium, 130 to placebo), with an increased incidence of myocardial infarction in those allocated to calcium (pooled relative risk 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.59, P=0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Calcium supplements (without coadministered vitamin D) are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. As calcium supplements are widely used these modest increases in risk of cardiovascular disease might translate into a large burden of disease in the population. A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in the management of osteoporosis is warranted.

Effect of osteoporosis treatment on mortality: a meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Fragility fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality. Effective osteoporosis treatment can reduce fracture incidence, but it is not known whether it reduces mortality.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine whether effective osteoporosis treatment reduces mortality.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Trials prior to September 2008, as well as 2000-2008 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research conference abstracts.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies were randomized placebo-controlled trials of approved doses of medications with proven efficacy in preventing both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, in which the study duration was longer than 12 months and there were more than 10 deaths. Trials of estrogen and selective estrogen receptor modulators were specifically excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted from the text of the retrieved articles, published meta-analyses, or the Food and Drug Administration web site.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eight eligible studies of four agents (risedronate, strontium ranelate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab) were included in the primary analysis. During two alendronate studies, the treatment dose changed, and those studies were only included in secondary analyses. In the primary analysis, treatment was associated with an 11% reduction in mortality (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.99; P = 0.036). In the secondary analysis, the results were similar (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.0; P = 0.044). Mortality reduction was not related to age or incidence of hip or nonvertebral fracture, but was greatest in trials conducted in populations with higher mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatments for osteoporosis with established vertebral and nonvertebral fracture efficacy reduce mortality in older, frailer individuals with osteoporosis who are at high risk of fracture.

Osteoporosis management: a perspective based on bisphosphonate data from randomised clinical trials and observational databases

AIMS

The efficacy of treatments for osteoporosis can be evaluated using a variety of study designs. This article aims to comprehensively review the evidence for bisphosphonate anti-fracture efficacy in postmenopausal women, discussing the strengths and limitations associated with each study method.

METHODS

Literature analysis included English-language publications reporting results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), post hoc analyses, meta analyses and observational studies evaluating the efficacy of alendronate (ALN), ibandronate (IBN), risedronate (RIS) and zoledronate (ZOL), with an initial sample size > or = 100 patients, and follow-up data for at least 1 year.

RESULTS

Primary and secondary analyses of RCT data suggest differences among bisphosphonates with regard to site-specific anti-fracture efficacy and onset of fracture risk reduction. While some observational studies indicate differences in clinical outcomes among these agents, others report similar effectiveness. ALN and RIS data demonstrate sustained fracture protection for up to 10 and 7 years of treatment respectively. The efficacy of IBN and ZOL has been evaluated for up to 3 and 5 years respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of the benefits of bisphosphonate treatment can be maximised by evaluating complementary data from RCTs and observational database studies. Fracture risk reduction with bisphosphonates is shown in RCTs and in real-world clinical settings.

Alendronate once weekly for the prevention and treatment of bone loss in Canadian adult cystic fibrosis patients (CFOS trial)

BACKGROUND

Patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) are at risk for early bone loss, and demonstrate increased risks for vertebral fractures and kyphosis. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of therapy with oral alendronate (FOSAMAX; Merck; Whitehouse Station, NJ) in adults with CF and low bone mass.

METHODS

Participants received placebo or alendronate, 70 mg once weekly, for 12 months. All participants received 800 IU of vitamin D and 1,000 mg of calcium daily. Adults with confirmed CF with a bone mineral density (BMD) T score of < - 1.0 were eligible for inclusion. Participants who had undergone organ transplantation or had other reported contraindications were excluded from the study. The primary outcome measure was the mean (+/- SD) percentage change in lumbar spine BMD after 12 months. Secondary measures included the percentage change in total hip BMD, the number of new vertebral fractures (grade 1 or 2), and changes in quality of life.

RESULTS

A total of 56 participants were enrolled in the study (mean age, 29.1 +/- 8.78 years; 61% male). The absolute percentage changes in lumbar spine and total hip BMDs at follow-up were significantly higher in the alendronate therapy group (5.20 +/- 3.67% and 2.14 +/- 3.32%, respectively) than those in the control group (- 0.08 +/- 3.93% and - 1.3 +/- 2.70%, respectively; p < 0.001). At follow-up, two participants (both in the control group) had a new vertebral fracture (not significant), and there were no differences in quality of life or the number of adverse events (including serious and GI-related events).

CONCLUSION

Alendronate therapy was well tolerated and produced a significantly greater increase in BMD over 12 months compared with placebo.

Valid treatment options for osteoporosis and osteopenia in HIV-infected persons

OBJECTIVE

To review clinical data on bone ossification agents that may be considered for use in the treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia in HIV-infected patients.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE (1950-January 2008), EMBASE, PubMed, and abstracts from major HIV conferences (February 2001-October 2007). These searches were limited to human data published in English and used the key words bisphosphonates, calcitonin, raloxifene, teriparatide, HAART, osteopenia, osteoporosis, and HIV/AIDS. Additional articles were retrieved from citations of selected references.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant information on the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of available treatment with hormonal and nonhormonal agents was selected. Greater emphasis was placed on randomized clinical trials than on retrospective studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Osteoporosis in HIV-infected persons is at least as prevalent as in postmenopausal women, yet this population is not listed in primary care guidelines as one that should be considered for screening. In addition to bisphosphonates, calcitonin, raloxifene, and teriparatide are used to treat bone disorders. Three clinical trials to date have evaluated the use of a bisphosphonate in HIV-infected persons. The trials showed a marked increase in bone mineral density in patients taking alendronate versus those in the control groups (with/without calcium, exercise, and/or vitamin D in 1 or both arms). Dosing restrictions complicate the use of these agents; diet, exercise, and calcium supplementation remain the foremost recommended strategies to prevent bone loss. The use of estrogen, testosterone, calcitonin, and teriparatide is less studied in HIV-positive patients, but may be considered in select cases. There are some investigational drugs and agents not available in the US; however, there are not enough data to support their use.

CONCLUSIONS

Alendronate appears to be a promising treatment option for HIV-infected patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia. Further research is required to determine the safety and efficacy of other available drugs. Until additional information is provided, and with available knowledge on the metabolism profiles of antiretroviral and bone ossification agents, alendronate appears to be the preferred agent to use in this population.