双膦酸盐疗法能否降低骨质疏松症患者的总死亡率?随机对照试验的 Meta 分析。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Zhibin Lan, Xue Lin, Di Xue, Yang Yang, Muhammad Saad, Qunhua Jin
{"title":"双膦酸盐疗法能否降低骨质疏松症患者的总死亡率?随机对照试验的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Zhibin Lan, Xue Lin, Di Xue, Yang Yang, Muhammad Saad, Qunhua Jin","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For patients with osteoporosis, bisphosphonate therapy can reduce the risk of fractures, but its effect on reducing mortality remains unclear. Previous studies on this topic have produced conflicting results and generally have been too small to definitively answer the question of whether bisphosphonate therapy reduces mortality. Therefore, a meta-analysis may help us arrive at a more conclusive answer.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>In a large meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we asked: (1) Does bisphosphonate use reduce mortality? (2) Is there a subgroup effect based on whether different bisphosphonate drugs were used (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), different geographic regions where the study took place (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), whether the study was limited to postmenopausal female patients, or whether the trials lasted 3 years or longer?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with each database searched up to November 20, 2023 (which also was the date of our last search), following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with participants diagnosed with osteoporosis and receiving bisphosphonate treatment. We excluded papers posted to preprint servers, other unpublished work, conference abstracts, and papers that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov but were not yet published. We collected 2263 records. After excluding records due to study type, study content not meeting the inclusion criteria, and duplicates, our meta-analysis included 47 placebo-controlled RCTs involving 59,437 participants. Data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analyses were performed. The evaluation of randomized trials for potential bias was conducted using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This assessment encompassed factors such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, subject blinding, outcome assessor blinding, incomplete outcome data, and reporting bias. Some studies did not provide explicit details regarding random sequence generation, leading to a high risk of selection bias. A few studies, due to their open-label nature, were unable to achieve double-blind conditions for both the subjects and the researchers, resulting in intermediate performance bias. Nevertheless, the overall study quality was high. Due to the low heterogeneity among the studies, as evidenced by the low statistical heterogeneity (that is, a low I2 statistic), we opted for a fixed-effects model, indicating that the effect size is consistent across the studies. In such cases, the fixed-effects model can provide more precise estimates. According to the results of the funnel plot, we did not find evidence of publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of bisphosphonates did not reduce the overall risk of mortality in patients with osteoporosis (risk ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.03]). Subgroup analyses involving different bisphosphonate drugs (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), regions (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), diverse populations (postmenopausal female patients and other patients), and trials lasting 3 years or longer revealed no associations with reduced overall mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on our comprehensive meta-analysis, there is high-quality evidence suggesting that bisphosphonate therapy for patients with osteoporosis does not reduce the overall risk of mortality despite its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fractures. The primary consideration for prescribing bisphosphonates to individuals with osteoporosis should continue to be centered on reducing fracture risk, aligning with clinical guidelines. Long-term studies are needed to investigate potential effects on mortality during extended treatment periods.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I, therapeutic study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Bisphosphonate Therapy Reduce Overall Mortality in Patients With Osteoporosis? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Zhibin Lan, Xue Lin, Di Xue, Yang Yang, Muhammad Saad, Qunhua Jin\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For patients with osteoporosis, bisphosphonate therapy can reduce the risk of fractures, but its effect on reducing mortality remains unclear. Previous studies on this topic have produced conflicting results and generally have been too small to definitively answer the question of whether bisphosphonate therapy reduces mortality. Therefore, a meta-analysis may help us arrive at a more conclusive answer.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>In a large meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we asked: (1) Does bisphosphonate use reduce mortality? (2) Is there a subgroup effect based on whether different bisphosphonate drugs were used (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), different geographic regions where the study took place (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), whether the study was limited to postmenopausal female patients, or whether the trials lasted 3 years or longer?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with each database searched up to November 20, 2023 (which also was the date of our last search), following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with participants diagnosed with osteoporosis and receiving bisphosphonate treatment. We excluded papers posted to preprint servers, other unpublished work, conference abstracts, and papers that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov but were not yet published. We collected 2263 records. After excluding records due to study type, study content not meeting the inclusion criteria, and duplicates, our meta-analysis included 47 placebo-controlled RCTs involving 59,437 participants. Data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analyses were performed. The evaluation of randomized trials for potential bias was conducted using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This assessment encompassed factors such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, subject blinding, outcome assessor blinding, incomplete outcome data, and reporting bias. Some studies did not provide explicit details regarding random sequence generation, leading to a high risk of selection bias. A few studies, due to their open-label nature, were unable to achieve double-blind conditions for both the subjects and the researchers, resulting in intermediate performance bias. Nevertheless, the overall study quality was high. Due to the low heterogeneity among the studies, as evidenced by the low statistical heterogeneity (that is, a low I2 statistic), we opted for a fixed-effects model, indicating that the effect size is consistent across the studies. In such cases, the fixed-effects model can provide more precise estimates. According to the results of the funnel plot, we did not find evidence of publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of bisphosphonates did not reduce the overall risk of mortality in patients with osteoporosis (risk ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.03]). Subgroup analyses involving different bisphosphonate drugs (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), regions (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), diverse populations (postmenopausal female patients and other patients), and trials lasting 3 years or longer revealed no associations with reduced overall mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on our comprehensive meta-analysis, there is high-quality evidence suggesting that bisphosphonate therapy for patients with osteoporosis does not reduce the overall risk of mortality despite its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fractures. The primary consideration for prescribing bisphosphonates to individuals with osteoporosis should continue to be centered on reducing fracture risk, aligning with clinical guidelines. Long-term studies are needed to investigate potential effects on mortality during extended treatment periods.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level I, therapeutic study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003204\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003204","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对于骨质疏松症患者来说,双膦酸盐疗法可以降低骨折风险,但其降低死亡率的效果仍不明确。以往有关该主题的研究结果相互矛盾,而且一般规模都太小,无法明确回答双膦酸盐疗法是否能降低死亡率的问题。因此,荟萃分析可能有助于我们得出更确切的答案:在一项对安慰剂对照随机对照试验(RCTs)进行的大型荟萃分析中,我们提出了以下问题:(1)使用双膦酸盐是否会降低死亡率?(2)根据是否使用了不同的双膦酸盐药物(唑来膦酸盐、阿仑膦酸盐、利塞膦酸盐和伊班膦酸盐)、研究发生的不同地理区域(欧洲、美洲和亚洲)、研究是否仅限于绝经后女性患者、试验是否持续了 3 年或更长时间,是否存在亚组效应?我们使用多个数据库进行了系统性综述,包括 Embase、Web of Science、Medline(通过 PubMed)、Cochrane Library 和 ClinicalTrials.gov,每个数据库的检索时间都截止到 2023 年 11 月 20 日(这也是我们最后一次检索的日期),并遵循了系统性综述和元分析首选报告项目(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)指南。我们纳入了以确诊为骨质疏松症并接受双膦酸盐治疗的患者为对象的随机安慰剂对照临床试验。我们排除了发布在预印本服务器上的论文、其他未发表的作品、会议摘要以及在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册但尚未发表的论文。我们共收集到 2263 条记录。在排除了因研究类型、研究内容不符合纳入标准以及重复的记录后,我们的荟萃分析包括了 47 项安慰剂对照 RCT,涉及 59437 名参与者。我们进行了数据提取、质量评估和统计分析。采用修订版 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具对随机试验的潜在偏倚进行了评估。评估包括序列生成、分配隐藏、受试者盲法、结果评估者盲法、结果数据不完整以及报告偏倚等因素。有些研究没有提供有关随机序列生成的明确细节,因此选择偏倚风险较高。少数研究由于其开放标签的性质,无法实现受试者和研究人员的双盲条件,从而导致中等程度的表现偏倚。尽管如此,总体研究质量还是很高的。由于各研究之间的异质性较低,如低统计异质性(即低 I2 统计量)所示,我们选择了固定效应模型,这表明各研究的效应大小是一致的。在这种情况下,固定效应模型可以提供更精确的估计值。根据漏斗图的结果,我们没有发现发表偏倚的证据:结果:使用双膦酸盐并不能降低骨质疏松症患者的总体死亡风险(风险比为 0.95 [95% CI 0.88 至 1.03])。涉及不同双膦酸盐药物(唑来膦酸盐、阿仑膦酸盐、利塞膦酸盐和伊班膦酸盐)、地区(欧洲、美洲和亚洲)、不同人群(绝经后女性患者和其他患者)以及持续 3 年或更长时间的试验的亚组分析表明,使用双膦酸盐不会降低总体死亡率:根据我们的综合荟萃分析,有高质量的证据表明,对骨质疏松症患者进行双膦酸盐治疗,尽管能有效降低骨折风险,但并不能降低总死亡率。根据临床指南,为骨质疏松症患者开具双膦酸盐处方时应继续以降低骨折风险为首要考虑因素。需要进行长期研究,以调查延长治疗期对死亡率的潜在影响:证据级别:I级,治疗研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can Bisphosphonate Therapy Reduce Overall Mortality in Patients With Osteoporosis? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: For patients with osteoporosis, bisphosphonate therapy can reduce the risk of fractures, but its effect on reducing mortality remains unclear. Previous studies on this topic have produced conflicting results and generally have been too small to definitively answer the question of whether bisphosphonate therapy reduces mortality. Therefore, a meta-analysis may help us arrive at a more conclusive answer.

Questions/purposes: In a large meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we asked: (1) Does bisphosphonate use reduce mortality? (2) Is there a subgroup effect based on whether different bisphosphonate drugs were used (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), different geographic regions where the study took place (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), whether the study was limited to postmenopausal female patients, or whether the trials lasted 3 years or longer?

Methods: We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases, including Embase, Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with each database searched up to November 20, 2023 (which also was the date of our last search), following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with participants diagnosed with osteoporosis and receiving bisphosphonate treatment. We excluded papers posted to preprint servers, other unpublished work, conference abstracts, and papers that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov but were not yet published. We collected 2263 records. After excluding records due to study type, study content not meeting the inclusion criteria, and duplicates, our meta-analysis included 47 placebo-controlled RCTs involving 59,437 participants. Data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analyses were performed. The evaluation of randomized trials for potential bias was conducted using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This assessment encompassed factors such as sequence generation, allocation concealment, subject blinding, outcome assessor blinding, incomplete outcome data, and reporting bias. Some studies did not provide explicit details regarding random sequence generation, leading to a high risk of selection bias. A few studies, due to their open-label nature, were unable to achieve double-blind conditions for both the subjects and the researchers, resulting in intermediate performance bias. Nevertheless, the overall study quality was high. Due to the low heterogeneity among the studies, as evidenced by the low statistical heterogeneity (that is, a low I2 statistic), we opted for a fixed-effects model, indicating that the effect size is consistent across the studies. In such cases, the fixed-effects model can provide more precise estimates. According to the results of the funnel plot, we did not find evidence of publication bias.

Results: The use of bisphosphonates did not reduce the overall risk of mortality in patients with osteoporosis (risk ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.88 to 1.03]). Subgroup analyses involving different bisphosphonate drugs (zoledronate, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate), regions (Europe, the Americas, and Asia), diverse populations (postmenopausal female patients and other patients), and trials lasting 3 years or longer revealed no associations with reduced overall mortality.

Conclusion: Based on our comprehensive meta-analysis, there is high-quality evidence suggesting that bisphosphonate therapy for patients with osteoporosis does not reduce the overall risk of mortality despite its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fractures. The primary consideration for prescribing bisphosphonates to individuals with osteoporosis should continue to be centered on reducing fracture risk, aligning with clinical guidelines. Long-term studies are needed to investigate potential effects on mortality during extended treatment periods.

Level of evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.90%
发文量
722
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® is a leading peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of new and important orthopaedic knowledge. CORR® brings readers the latest clinical and basic research, along with columns, commentaries, and interviews with authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信