Takaomi Kobayashi, Tadatsugu Morimoto, Koji Ito, Masaaki Mawatari, Takafumi Shimazaki
{"title":"Denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of comparative safety in randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Takaomi Kobayashi, Tadatsugu Morimoto, Koji Ito, Masaaki Mawatari, Takafumi Shimazaki","doi":"10.1007/s00198-024-07118-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.</p>","PeriodicalId":19638,"journal":{"name":"Osteoporosis International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteoporosis International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-024-07118-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis are generally well-tolerated, but their comparative safety remains unclear. We aimed to explore the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis. Databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published in English (as of December 2023). Trials comparing adverse events (AE) between denosumab and bisphosphonates in patients with primary osteoporosis were investigated. Data were pooled using a fixed- or random-effects model to determine the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various AEs in patients treated with denosumab in comparison to patients treated with bisphosphonates. Eleven trials (5,545 patients; follow-up period: 12-24 months) were included in this meta-analysis. All trials had a risk of bias (e.g., reporting bias linked to secondary endpoints and selection bias linked to random allocation). In comparison to bisphosphonates, denosumab was significantly associated with less withdrawal due to AEs (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.71), more five-point major adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 2.05; 95% CI 1.03-4.09), more cardiovascular AEs (RR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.41), more infections (RR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.02-1.27), more upper respiratory tract infections (RR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.08-2.25), less vertebral fractures (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.31-0.93), and less abdominal pain (RR = 0.44;95% CI 0.22-0.87). We explored the comparative safety of denosumab and bisphosphonates for primary osteoporosis, some of which could be attributed to their beneficial effects. However, all trials had a risk of bias. Further investigations are required to confirm our results.
期刊介绍:
An international multi-disciplinary journal which is a joint initiative between the International Osteoporosis Foundation and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, Osteoporosis International provides a forum for the communication and exchange of current ideas concerning the diagnosis, prevention, treatment and management of osteoporosis and other metabolic bone diseases.
It publishes: original papers - reporting progress and results in all areas of osteoporosis and its related fields; review articles - reflecting the present state of knowledge in special areas of summarizing limited themes in which discussion has led to clearly defined conclusions; educational articles - giving information on the progress of a topic of particular interest; case reports - of uncommon or interesting presentations of the condition.
While focusing on clinical research, the Journal will also accept submissions on more basic aspects of research, where they are considered by the editors to be relevant to the human disease spectrum.