The evidence for efficacy of osteoporosis treatment in men with primary osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of antiresorptive and anabolic treatment in men

Various aspects of sex and gender bias in biomedical research

The main role of research in medicine is to provide relevant knowledge which, after successful translation to clinical practice, improves the quality of healthcare. The sex bias which is still present in the majority of research disciplines prefers male subjects despite legislation changes in the US grant agencies and European research programme Horizon 2020. Male subjects (cells, animals) still dominate in preclinical research and it has detrimental consequences for women's health and the quality of science. Opposite bias exists for data obtained mainly in animal models utilizing female subjects (e.g. research in multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis) with skewed outcomes for men affected by these diseases. Either way, scientists are producing results which compromise half of the population. Assumptions that females as cohorts are more variable and another assumption that the oestrous cycle should be tracked in case the females are enrolled in preclinical studies were proven wrong. Variability of male versus female cohorts are comparable and do not only stem from hormonal levels. The widespread prevalence of sex differences in human diseases ultimately requires detailed experiments performed on both sexes, unless the studies are specifically addressing reproduction or sex-related behaviors.

Various aspects of sex and gender bias in biomedical research

The main role of research in medicine is to provide relevant knowledge which, after successful translation to clinical practice, improves the quality of healthcare. The sex bias which is still present in the majority of research disciplines prefers male subjects despite legislation changes in the US grant agencies and European research programme Horizon 2020. Male subjects (cells, animals) still dominate in preclinical research and it has detrimental consequences for women's health and the quality of science. Opposite bias exists for data obtained mainly in animal models utilizing female subjects (e.g. research in multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis) with skewed outcomes for men affected by these diseases. Either way, scientists are producing results which compromise half of the population. Assumptions that females as cohorts are more variable and another assumption that the oestrous cycle should be tracked in case the females are enrolled in preclinical studies were proven wrong. Variability of male versus female cohorts are comparable and do not only stem from hormonal levels. The widespread prevalence of sex differences in human diseases ultimately requires detailed experiments performed on both sexes, unless the studies are specifically addressing reproduction or sex-related behaviors.

Does Routine Anti-Osteoporosis Medication Lower the Risk of Fractures in Male Subjects? An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Background: Several epidemiological articles have reported the correlations between anti-osteoporosis medication and the risks of fractures in male and female subjects, but the specific efficacy of anti-osteoporosis medication for male subjects remains largely unexplored. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between anti-osteoporosis medication and the risk of fracture in relation to low bone mass [including outcomes of osteoporosis, fracture, and bone mineral density (BMD) loss] in male subjects analyzed in studies within the updated literature. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the effectiveness of a treating prescription for male subjects with osteoporosis (or low BMD) and that focused on the outcomes of fracture were included. Relevant studies from Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Chinese database of CNKI were retrieved from inception to January 30th, 2019. Two staff members carried out the eligibility assessment and data extraction. The discrepancies were settled by consultation with another researcher. We calculated the pooled relative risks (RRs) based on 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Twenty-seven documents (28 studies) with 5,678 subjects were identified. For the category of bisphosphonates, significant results were observed in pooled analyses for decreased risk of the vertebral fracture domain (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62]), nonvertebral fracture domain (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.87]), and clinical fracture domain (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48-0.72]) compared with those of controls. Participants with bisphosphonates had a 56% (95% CI = 38-69%) lower risk of vertebral fractures, 37% (95% CI = 13-54%) lower risk of nonvertebral fractures, and 41% (95% CI = 28-52%) lower risk of clinical fractures. Furthermore, meta-analyses also demonstrated a decreased risk of the vertebral fracture domain via treatment with risedronate (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28-0.72]) and alendronate (RR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23-0.74]), but not with calcitriol, calcitonin, denosumab, ibandronate, monofluorophosphate, strontium ranelate, teriparatide, or zoledronic acid, compared with that of controls. Conclusions: This systematic review confirms that bisphosphonates were connected with a decreased risk of vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fractures, and clinical fractures for male subjects with osteoporosis. Future research is needed to further elucidate the role of nonbisphosphonates in treating fractures of osteoporosis subjects.

Osteoporosis Treatment Efficacy for Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a treatment for osteoporosis or low bone mineral density for adult men and reported fracture outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS

Men.

MEASUREMENTS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Information was extracted from included studies on participant sociodemographic characteristics, number of male participants, treatment evaluated, comparator for evaluated treatment, study duration, and fracture outcomes. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using measures recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles reporting results for 22 studies (including 4,868 male participants) met strict inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures with alendronate (relative risk (RR) = 0.328, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.155-0.692) and risedronate (RR = 0.428, 95% CI = 0.245-0.746) but not with calcitonin (RR = 0.272, 95% CI = 0.046-1.608) or denosumab (RR = 0.256, 95% CI = 0.029-2.238) than in controls. For bisphosphonates as a treatment category, meta-analyses demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.368, 95% CI = 0.252-0.537) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.604, 95% CI = 0.404-0.904) than in controls. The meta-analysis finding that bisphosphonates significantly reduce nonvertebral fracture risk was not robust to sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of vertebral and possibly nonvertebral fractures for men with osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates for reducing nonvertebral fracture risk and the efficacy of nonbisphosphonates for reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in men with osteoporosis.

Comparison of Bone Mineral Density in Lumbar Spine and Fracture Rate among Eight Drugs in Treatments of Osteoporosis in Men: A Network Meta-Analysis

Context

The preferred treatment for osteoporosis in men is debated, and pairwise meta-analysis cannot obtain hierarchies of these treatments.

Objective

The objective of this study was to integrate the evidence and provide hierarchies of eight drugs based on their effect on the bone mineral density in the lumbar spine (BMD in LS) and the fracture rate.

Data Sources

Eligible studies were identified by searching Amed, British Nursing Index, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, SIGLE, the National Technical Information Service, the National Research Register (UK), and the Current Controlled Trials databases.

Study Selection

RCTs or quasi-RCTs reporting at least two drugs (two active drugs or one active drug and a placebo) used to treat osteoporosis in men were selected by two authors.

Data Extraction

Two authors independently extracted the data.

Data Synthesis

Thirteen studies involving 3647 patients were included. Compared with placebo therapy, zoledronate (SMDs 13.48, 95% credible intervals 11.88-15.08) yielded the most significant effect on increasing the BMD in LS, followed by alendronate (11.04, 9.68-12.41), teriparatide (20mcg) + risedronate (10.98, 8.55-13.48), risedronate (10.33, 8.68-12.01), teriparatide (20mcg) (9.33, 6.87-11.76), strontium ranelate (8.88, 7.51-10.24), ibandronate (5.49, 3.82-7.16), parathyroid hormone (1-84) (4.89, 3.12-6.62) and alfacalcidol (3.42, 1.7-5.2). Placebo therapy had a significantly higher fracture rate in contrast to risedronate (OR 2.51, 95% CrI 1.23-4.24) or zoledronate (2.92, 1.29-5.62) or teriparatide (20mcg) (4.04, 1.36-8.49) or teriparatide (40mcg) (3.5, 1.14-8.34). Zoledronate ranked first for increasing the BMD in LS, and teriparatide (20mg) was ranked first for decreasing the fracture rate.

Conclusions

Zoledronate might be the best choice to increase the BMD in LS and teriparatide (20mg) might lead to the lowest fracture rate.

The clinical epidemiology of male osteoporosis: a review of the recent literature

Osteoporosis, a musculoskeletal disease characterized by decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and an increased risk of fragility fractures, is now recognized as an important public health problem in men. Osteoporotic fractures, particularly of the hip, result in significant morbidity and mortality in men and lead to considerable societal costs. Many national and international organizations now address screening and treatment for men in their osteoporosis clinical guidelines. However, male osteoporosis remains largely underdiagnosed and undertreated. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of recent findings in male osteoporosis, including pathophysiology, epidemiology, and incidence and burden of fracture, and discuss current knowledge about the evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis in males. In particular, clinical practice guidelines, fracture risk assessment, and evidence of treatment effectiveness in men are addressed.

Modelling the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis: issues to consider

Expenditure on treating osteoporotic fractures and on preventative intervention is considerable and is likely to rise in forthcoming years due to the association between fracture risk and age. With funders such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee explicitly considering cost-effectiveness analyses within the process of producing guidance, it is imperative that economic models are as robust as possible. This article details issues that need to be considered specifically related to health technology assessments of interventions for osteoporosis, and highlights limitations within the current evidence base. A likely direction of impact on cost effectiveness of addressing the key issues has been included alongside a tentative categorization of the level of these impacts. It is likely that cost-effectiveness ratios presented in previous models that did not address the identified issues were favourable to interventions.

Causes, consequences, and treatment of osteoporosis in men

Men undergo gradual bone loss with aging, resulting in fragile bones. It is estimated that one in five men will suffer an osteoporotic fracture during their lifetime. The prognosis for men after a hip fracture is very grim. A major cause is reduction of free testosterone. Many other factors result in secondary osteoporosis, including treatment for other diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Patients should be screened not only for bone density but also assessed for their nutritional status, physical activity, and drug intake. Therapy should be chosen based on the type of osteoporosis. Available therapies include testosterone replacement, bisphosphonates, and nutritional supplementation with calcium, vitamin D, fatty acids, and isoflavones, as well as certain specific antibodies, like denosumab and odanacatib, and inhibitors of certain proteins.

The pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in men

Testosterone stimulates longitudinal and appositional growth during childhood, whereas estrogen induces epiphysial closure. During adulthood, testosterone continues to stimulate periosteal growth, whereas estrogen is important for the maintenance of trabecular bone mass and structure. In males, testosterone is aromatized to estradiol. Both free and bioavailable plasma levels of testosterone and estradiol decrease with age in males, and fracture risk is associated with low estradiol levels. Testosterone may increase muscle mass and prevent fractures related to falls. Younger hypogonadal males should be treated with testosterone to attain peak bone mass and increase bone mineral density (BMD). Older hypogonadal males should be treated in cases of osteoporosis, reduced muscle strength and increased risk of falling. Secondary hyperparathyroidism caused by calcium and vitamin D insufficiency may reduce bone mass and strength and increase fracture risk and should be avoided. Since calcium supplementation has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications and renal stones, the dose should be tailored to the habitual daily calcium intake. Lifestyle-related risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, lack of physical activity and low body weight) should be addressed. The antifracture efficacy of antiresorptive and anabolic treatment for osteoporosis has not been documented in larger randomized controlled studies. However, changes in BMD and bone markers suggest similar effects in males and females of bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid), nasal calcitonin, denosumab and teriparatide (parathyroid hormone [1-34]). The antiresorptive drugs should be used in males with BMD T-score less than -2.5 and one or more risk factors, or with hip and vertebral fractures. It seems appropriate to recommend a higher cut-off T-score (e.g. less than -1.0 standard deviation [SD]) in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and in patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy because of the fast initial bone loss. Anabolic treatment should be used in more severe spinal fracture cases, including glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

General medical practitioners' knowledge and beliefs about osteoporosis and its investigation and management

This qualitative study explored beliefs and attitudes regarding osteoporosis and its management. General medical practitioners (GPs) were ambivalent about osteoporosis due to concern about financial barriers for patients and their own beliefs about the salience of osteoporosis. GPs considered investigation and treatment in the context of patients' whole lives.

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate barriers, enablers, and other factors influencing the investigation and management of osteoporosis using a qualitative approach. This paper analyses data from discussions with general medical practitioners (GPs) about their beliefs and attitudes regarding osteoporosis and its management.

METHODS

Fourteen GPs and two practice nurses aged 27-89 years participated in four focus groups, from June 2010 to March 2011. Each group comprised 3-5 participants, and discussions were semi-structured, according to the protocol developed for the main study. Discussion points ranged from the circumstances under which GPs would initiate investigation for osteoporosis and their subsequent actions to their views about treatment efficacy and patient adherence to prescribed treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded for analysis using analytic comparison to identify the major themes.

RESULTS

The GPs were not particularly concerned about osteoporosis in their patients or the general population, ranking diabetes, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension higher than concern about osteoporosis. They expressed confidence in the efficacy of anti-fracture medications but were concerned about the potential financial burden on patients with limited incomes. The GPs were unsure about guidelines for investigation and management of osteoporosis in men and the appropriate duration of treatment, particularly for the bisphosphonates in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The GPs' ambivalence about osteoporosis appeared to stem from structural factors such as financial barriers for patients and their own beliefs about the salience of osteoporosis. GPs considered the impact of investigating and prescribing treatment in the context of patients' whole lives.

Effects of increasing age, dosage, and duration of PTH treatment on BMD increase--a meta-analysis

We studied the effects of increasing age, dosage, and duration of parathyroid hormone (PTH) treatment on changes in bone mineral density (BMD). Randomized placebo controlled trials on PTH treatment in men or women were retrieved from PubMed (1951 to present), Web of Science (1945 to present), or Embase (1974 to present). The search date was November 16, 2010. All studies comparing PTH treatment to either placebo or antiresorptive drugs--for example, bisphosphonates or hormone replacement therapy--were included. A total of 214 studies were identified in the initial search, and 15 of these trials were included. By metaregression analysis, we found that the increase in spine BMD (Z-score) after PTH treatment was blunted by increasing age (R(2) = 0.27; 2p = 0.01, slope -0.023 Z-scores per year, 11 studies). By increasing PTH dosage (μg/d), spine BMD increased significantly (2p = 0.002) with a slope of +0.011 Z-scores/μg/d of teriparatide. Furthermore, the duration of treatment was positively correlated to spine BMD (P < 0.001) with a slope of +0.043 Z-score for each extra month of treatment. We evaluated the BMD effect in hips and found no age dependency (R(2) = 0.04; P = 0.66; 8 studies). However, for the spine, we found a significant relation to daily dosage (P = 0.011), Z-score coefficient 0.0051 ± 0.0020 (2p < 0.01). The treatment duration also correlated positively by a Z-score coefficient of 0.0170 ± 0.0053, 2p < 0.01 per extra month of treatment. PTH treatment alone seems to be able to improve BMD significantly. However, the BMD increase was significantly lower with increasing age in the spine. No age dependency was observed in the hips. In general the effect of treatment was improved with increasing dosage and duration of treatment from 6 to 36 months.