Recent Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis: A Firm Foundation or Falling Short?

Efficacy of Moxibustion for Primary Osteoporosis: A Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Primary osteoporosis (PO) is a systemic metabolic skeletal disease. Previous studies have shown that moxibustion can reduce pain intensity and enhance response rate, bone mineral density (BMD), and living function of the patients with PO. However, consensus on its efficacy does not exist, and evidence of moxibustion for PO is also insufficient.

Methods

We searched five English and four Chinese databases with various additional sources and published reviews through December 1, 2021, to evaluate potentially concerned randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent researchers addressed selection screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The data of this meta-analysis were analyzed using the RevMan v.5.4 software. Additionally, the trial sequential analysis v.0.9.5.10 β was used to estimate the sample size. In contrast, the quality of evidence from the RCTs was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool.

Results

The current meta-analysis included 14 RCTs containing 898 participants. The methodological quality of the RCTs was moderate. The review demonstrated that a combination of moxibustion and conventional medicine (CM) significantly reduced pain intensity and improved the BMD compared with CM. Furthermore, it was found that moxibustion plus CM/moxibustion could improve response rates compared with CM. However, it was found that the reduction of pain intensity and improvement of BMD by moxibustion showed no significant difference compared with CM. It was also evident that the sample size of most outcomes was inadequate. Moreover, all evidence obtained in this study was ranked as low to critically low.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it was demonstrated that moxibustion is a potentially effective agent for treating PO. However, high-quality studies should be implemented in the future because this study only obtained low-quality evidence. This study was registered in the PROSPERO platform (CRD42021291310).

Effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention in real-world postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study

To determine denosumab's effectiveness for fracture prevention among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis in East Asia, the risk of fracture was compared between patients continuing denosumab therapy versus patients discontinuing denosumab after one dose. The real-world effectiveness was observed to be consistent with the efficacy demonstrated in the phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION

After therapeutic efficacy is demonstrated for subjects in global clinical trials, real-world evidence may provide complementary knowledge of therapeutic effectiveness in a heterogeneous mix of patients seen in clinical practice. This retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the fracture risk in real-world clinical care received in Taiwan and Hong Kong between a treatment cohort (patients receiving denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months) versus an off-treatment cohort (patients discontinuing after 1 dose of denosumab, which has no known clinical benefit) among real-world postmenopausal women.

METHODS

This study included 38,906 and 2,835 postmenopausal women receiving denosumab in Taiwan and Hong Kong, respectively. The primary endpoint was hip fracture, and secondary endpoints were clinical vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Propensity-score-matched analysis, adjusting for known covariates, was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The robustness of findings was evaluated with a series of sensitivity and quantitative bias analyses.

RESULTS

In this study, 554 hip fractures were included in the primary Taiwan population analysis. The crude incidence rate was 0.9 per 100 person-years in the treatment cohort (n = 25,059) and 1.7 per 100 person-years in the off-treatment cohort (n = 13,847). After adjusting for prognostic differences between cohorts, denosumab reduced the risk of hip fractures by 38% (HR = 0.62, CI:0.52-0.75). Risk reductions of similar magnitude were observed for the secondary endpoints and for the analysis of the smaller Hong Kong population.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of denosumab for fracture reduction among real-world postmenopausal women with osteoporosis was consistent with the efficacy demonstrated in a global clinical trial.

REGISTRATION

EnCePP registration number: EUPAS26372; registration date: 12/11/2018.

Randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of odanacatib in the treatment of men with osteoporosis

Odanacatib (ODN) was investigated as an osteoporosis treatment in 292 men. Compared with placebo, odanacatib improved bone mineral density and led to sustained bone resorption decreases while producing relatively little bone formation reduction that leveled off with time. However, increased risk of stroke in another study stopped further odanacatib development.

INTRODUCTION

ODN, a selective oral cathepsin K inhibitor, was in development for osteoporosis treatment. This phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-month study investigated ODN safety and efficacy in men with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Men with idiopathic osteoporosis or osteoporosis due to hypogonadism and a lumbar spine or hip (total hip [TH], femoral neck [FN], or trochanter) bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of ≤ - 2.5 to ≥ - 4.0 without prior vertebral fracture or ≤ - 1.5 to ≥ - 4.0 with one prior vertebral fracture were randomized (1:1) to once-weekly ODN 50 mg or placebo. All received 5600 IU vitamin D₃ weekly and calcium supplementation as needed (≥ 1200 mg daily). The primary efficacy outcome was changed from baseline in lumbar spine BMD versus placebo.

RESULTS

Overall, 292 men, mean age 68.8 years, were randomly assigned to ODN or placebo. Versus placebo, ODN increased BMD from baseline at the lumbar spine, TH, FN, and trochanter by 5.6%, 2.0%, 1.7%, and 2.1%, respectively (all p < 0.01), and decreased uNTx/Cr (68%, p < 0.001), sCTx (77%, p < 0.001), sP1NP (16%, p = 0.001), and sBSAP (8%, p = 0.019). The between-group bone formation marker decrease peaked at 3 months, then returned toward baseline. The safety profile, including cardiovascular events, was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Though a promising osteoporosis therapy for men, ODN development was discontinued due to increased risk of stroke in the LOFT phase 3 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01120600 (registered May 11, 2010).

Acupoint injection treatment for primary osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials protocol

BACKGROUND

Acupoint injection has currently received increasing attention as a treatment for primary osteoporosis (POP). A number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that acupoint injection have some advantages in treatment of POP. However, no article has summarized the existing evidence. This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection as a clinical treatment for POP, so as to provide an important reference for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

RCTs of acupoint injection compared with conventional non-acupoint injection for POP were identified in searches of 7 databases from their inception to March 2019. All data were assessed and extracted by 2 authors independently. The risk of bias assessment recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the quality of the selected studies. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration) was used to conduct meta-analysis for the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection.

RESULT

The results of this systemic review and meta-analysis will be submitted to a recognized journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

This systemic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection as a clinical treatment for POP. We hope this study can make a definitive conclusion for acupoint injection in the treatment of POP.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019130890).

Comparison of fracture risk assessment tools in older men without prior hip or spine fracture: the MrOS study

Femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), age plus femoral neck BMD T score, and three externally generated fracture risk tools had similar accuracy to identify older men who developed osteoporotic fractures. Risk tools with femoral neck BMD performed better than those without BMD. The externally developed risk tools were poorly calibrated.

INTRODUCTION

We compared the performance of fracture risk assessment tools in older men, accounting for competing risks including mortality.

METHODS

A comparative ROC curve analysis assessed the ability of the QFracture, FRAX® and Garvan fracture risk tools, and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T score with or without age to identify incident fracture in community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (N = 4994) without hip or clinical vertebral fracture or antifracture treatment at baseline.

RESULTS

Among risk tools calculated with BMD, the discriminative ability to identify men with incident hip fracture was similar for FRAX (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73, 0.81), the Garvan tool (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74, 0.82), age plus femoral neck BMD T score (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.75, 0.83), and femoral neck BMD T score alone (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.72, 0.81). Among risk tools calculated without BMD, the discriminative ability to identify hip fracture was similar for QFracture (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), FRAX (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.73), and the Garvan tool (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.67, 0.74). Correlated ROC curve analyses revealed better diagnostic accuracy for risk scores calculated with BMD compared with QFracture (P < 0.0001). Calibration was good for the internally generated BMD T score predictor with or without age and poor for the externally developed risk tools.

CONCLUSION

In untreated older men without fragility fractures at baseline, an age plus femoral neck BMD T score classifier identified men with incident hip fracture as accurately as more complicated fracture risk scores.

Moxibustion treatment for primary osteoporosis: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Primary osteoporosis (POP) has a serious impact on quality of life for middle-aged and elderly, which particularly increase the risk of fracture. We conducted the systematic review to evaluate the effects of moxibustion for POP in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Eight databases were searched from their inception to July 30, 2016. The RCTs reporting the moxibustion as a monotherapy or in combination with conventional therapy for POP were enrolled. The outcomes might be fracture incidence, quality of life, clinical symptoms, death attributed to osteoporosis, adverse effect, bone mineral density (BMD), and biochemical indicators. Literature selection, data abstraction, quality evaluation, and data analysis were in accordance with Cochrane standards.Thirteen trials including 808 patients were included. Meta-analysis was not conducted because of the obvious clinical or statistical heterogeneity. Limited evidence suggested that moxibustion plus anti-osteoporosis medicine might be more effective in relieving the pain (visual analogue scale scores average changed 2 scores between groups, 4 trials), increasing the BMD of femoral neck (average changed 0.4 g/cm2 between groups, 3 trials), and improving the level of bone gla protein, osteoprotegerin and bone alkaline phosphatase (2 trials) compared with anti-osteoporosis medicine alone. However, the quality of previous studies was evaluated as generally poor. The safety evidence of moxibustion was still insufficient. Due to the paucity of high-quality studies, there was no definite conclusion about the efficacy and safety of moxibustion treating POP although parts of positive results were presented. Future research should pay attention to the dose-response relation and fracture incidence of moxibustion for POP.