ACE Report Cover
Network meta-analysis of current drug options for the treatment of osteoporosis in men
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り

METABOLIC DISORDERS

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

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2015;3(15):5 PLoS One. 2015 May 26;10(5):e0128032

13 studies with a total of 3647 men were included in this meta-analysis to analyze the effect of eight drugs (alfacalcidol, alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate, strontium ranelate, teriparatide, and parathyroid hormone) on bone mass density (BMD) in the lumbar spine (LS) and fracture incidence in males with osteoporosis. Network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons demonstrated that zoledronate had the greatest efficacy in increasing BMD in LS when compared to placebo, and teriparatide had the greatest efficacy in reducing fracture rate when compared to placebo.


出版資金提供の詳細 +
資金提供:
Non-funded
コンフリクト:
None disclosed

バイアスのリスク

10/10

報告基準

19/20

脆弱性指数

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

はい = 1

不確実=0.5

無関係 = 0

いいえ = 0

報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。

4/4

Introduction

4/4

Accessing Data

4/4

Analysing Data

4/4

Results

3/4

Discussion

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。

なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか?

Osteoporosis is a common bone disease that results in decreased bone mass, and in turn significantly increases the risk of fracture. An improvement of bone mass density has been demonstrated to minimize the incidence of osteoporotic fractures. There have been a number of drugs which have been suggested to be efficacious in osteoporosis treatment, such as bisphosphonates (including alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate), bone-anabolic drugs of parathyroid or teriparatide, strontium ranelate, and alfacalcidol, a vitamin D analog. Due to the wide range of drugs available, and conflicting results from many randomized controlled trials, the study sought to compare these options for primary treatment of osteoporosis.

主な研究課題は何ですか?

Between available drug therapies for osteoporosis (alfacalcidol, alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate, strontium ranelate, teriparatide, and parathyroid hormone) what is the hierarchy of efficacy with respect to improvement in bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and reduction of fracture rate?

研究の特徴 +
データソース:
Amed (from 1985 to May 2014), British Nursing Index (from 1985 to May 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to May 2014), PubMed (from 1966 to May 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google scholar, SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles. Additionally, the reference list of the included studies were reviewed for overlooked articles.
索引用語:
Search terms and MeSH terms included: "alfacalcidol", "alendronate", "ibandronate", "risedronate", "zoledronate", "strontium ranelate", "teriparatide", "parathyroid hormone", "men or male" and "osteoporosis".
研究の選択:
Two authors independently selected the articles based on the title and abstract. Disagreements between the authors was resolved by a discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. Studies listed for inclusion were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that contained the following: men with primary or idiopathic osteoporosis; a follow-up period of greater than 12 months; therapy regimens that included one drug and a placebo, or two of alfacalcidol, alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate, strontium ranelate, teriparatide, and parathyroid hormone; report of bone mass density (BMD) in the lumbar spine (LS) and the fracture rate. 13 studies with 3647 male patients were included in this meta-analysis.
データ抽出:
Two authors independently extracted the data for each included study.
データ統合:
Stata software (version 12.0) was used for pairwise meta-analyses, and WinBUGS (version 1.4.3) was used to perform a network meta-analysis. Chi-squared tests and I^2 tests were used to calculate heterogeneity between studies. The Der-Simonian and Laird random effects model was used. Fracture rates were reported using dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for direct comparisons and 95% credible intervals (CrI) for indirect comparisons. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used, with a 95% CI or CrI for direct and indirect comparisons, for continuous data.

重要な知見は?

  • Compared to placebo, effect on lumbar spine BMD from greatest to lowest was zoledronate (SMD 13.48 [95% CrI 11.88 to 15.08]), alendronate (11.04 [9.68 to 12.41]), teriparatide (20mcg) + risedronate (10.98 [8.55 to 13.48]), risedronate (10.33 [8.68 to 12.01]), teriparatide (20mcg) (9.33 [6.87 to 11.76]), strontium ranelate (8.88 [7.51 to 10.24]), ibandronate (5.49 [3.82 to 7.16]), parathyroid hormone (4.89 [3.12 to 6.62]) and alfacalcidol (3.42 [1.7 to 5.2]).
  • With the exception of teriparatide (20mcg) + risedronate, zoledronate demonstrated a significantly greater effect size on LS BMD when compared to all other treatment options.
  • Compared to placebo, significantly lower fracture rates were demonstrated with treatment with teriparatide (20mcg) (4.04 [1.36 to 8.49]), teriparatide (40mcg) (3.5 [1.14 to 8.34]), zoledronate (2.92 [1.29 to 5.62]), and risedronate (OR 2.51 [95%CrI 1.23 to 4.24]).
  • Alfacalcidol was associated with significantly higher fracture rate than treatment with risedronate (7.66, 1.74 to 19.27), zoledronate (8.41, 2.12 to 20.03), strontium ranelate (5.21, 1.32 to 11.88), teriparatide (40mcg) (10.49, 1.83 to 30.47), or teriparatide (20mcg) (12.12, 2.17 to 33.84)
最も覚えておくべきことは?

In osteoporosis treatment in men, zoledronate was associated with the greatest effect on lumbar spine bone mineral density relative to placebo treatment. Among the drug options, zoledronate, risedronate, and teriparatide (20 or 40mcg) demonstrated significant reductions in fracture incidence compared to placebo.

それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか?

The results of this study offer a preliminary analysis on the current evidence regarding effect of current drug options for osteoporosis on bone mineral density increase and fracture risk reduction. In general, zoledronate may be the most effective therapy drug for increasing lumbar BMD, whereas teriparatide may be associated with the greatest reduction in fracture rate. Nevertheless, results should be interpreted with careful consideration, as head-to-head comparisons between each drug are needed to ultimately conclude which treatment option offers the greatest efficacy for men with osteoporosis. Additional, future trials should consider safety analyses associated with the treatment options evaluated in the current study.

免責事項

このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。

0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
今月の無料記事閲覧数が4件に達しました。

週1.99ドルからOrthoEvidenceにアクセスできます。

最新のエビデンスにアクセスしてください。いつでもキャンセルできます。
  • 整形外科における最新のインパクトのあるランダム化比較試験とシステマティックレビューの批判的評価
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgeryとのコラボレーション、国際的に著名な外科医へのインタビュー、整形外科ニュースやトピックに関する座談会など、OrthoEvidenceポッドキャストコンテンツへのアクセス
  • 週2回発行されるエビデンスに基づくニュースレター、The Pulseの購読。
Upgrade
Close Dialog
おかえりなさい
パスワードをお忘れですか?
今すぐ無料トライアルを開始

あなたのアカウントは
OrthoEvidenceへの無料アクセスが含まれます。


または
パスワードをお忘れですか?

または
Eメールをご確認ください

入力されたメールアドレスにアカウントが存在する場合、パスワードリセットのメールが送信されます。メールが届かない場合は、迷惑メールフォルダをご確認ください。

その他のサポート サポートチームまでご連絡ください。.

この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

ACEレポートを翻訳

OrthoEvidenceは、多言語でコンテンツにアクセスできるようにするため、第三者の翻訳サービスを利用しています。正確性を確保するためにあらゆる努力をしていますが、翻訳が必ずしも完璧ではない可能性があることにご注意ください。

引用方法 ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Network meta-analysis of current drug options for the treatment of osteoporosis in men. OE Journal. 2015;3(15):5. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/network-meta-analysis-of-current-drug-options-for-the-treatment-of-osteoporosis-in-men

引用のコピー
この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

プレミアム会員機能

この機能にアクセスするには、OrthoEvidenceのプレミアムアカウントにログインする必要があります。

共有 ACE Report