Aarhus University Seal

Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  • Mina Nicole Händel, University of Copenhagen, University of Southern Denmark
  • ,
  • Isabel Cardoso, University of Copenhagen
  • ,
  • Cecilie Von Bülow, University of Copenhagen, University of Southern Denmark
  • ,
  • Jeanett Friis Rohde, University of Copenhagen
  • ,
  • Anja Ussing, University of Copenhagen
  • ,
  • Sabrina Mai Nielsen, University of Copenhagen, University of Southern Denmark
  • ,
  • Robin Christensen, University of Copenhagen, University of Southern Denmark
  • ,
  • Jean Jacques Body, Université Libre de Bruxelles
  • ,
  • Maria Luisa Brandi, Fondazione Italiana sulla Ricerca sulle Malattie dell'Osso (F.I.R.M.O. Foundation)
  • ,
  • Adolfo Diez-Perez, Autonomous University of Barcelona
  • ,
  • Peyman Hadji, University of Marburg
  • ,
  • Muhammad Kassim Javaid, University of Oxford
  • ,
  • Willem Frederik Lems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • ,
  • Xavier Nogues, Pompeu Fabra University
  • ,
  • Christian Roux, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
  • ,
  • Salvatore Minisola, Rome University
  • ,
  • Andreas Kurth, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
  • ,
  • Thierry Thomas, Universite Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne
  • ,
  • Daniel Prieto-Alhambra, University of Oxford, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • ,
  • Serge Livio Ferrari, University of Geneva
  • ,
  • Bente Langdahl
  • Bo Abrahamsen, University of Southern Denmark, University of Oxford, University of Copenhagen

Objective: To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors. Design: Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials. Data sources: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events. Results: The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; β=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusions: The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019128391.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere068033
JournalBMJ
Volume381
ISSN0959-8146
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2023

    Research areas

  • Bone Density Conservation Agents/adverse effects, Denosumab/adverse effects, Diphosphonates/adverse effects, Female, Humans, Network Meta-Analysis, Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal/complications, Osteoporosis/drug therapy, Osteoporotic Fractures/prevention & control, Postmenopause, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Receptor, Parathyroid Hormone, Type 1, Risk Reduction Behavior, Spinal Fractures

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 322422770