Search

Summary: The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab over other treatments for osteoporosis. The results of this study suggest that the safety of denosumab and its efficacy in reducing fractures is not significantly different from bisphosphonates. Denosumab was, however, more effective in increasing bone mineral density. Introduction: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of denosumab over other pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis in individuals at risk of fracture. Methods: Randomised controlled trials comparing denosumab with another pharmacological treatment for osteoporosis were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. Identified articles were screened by two independent reviewers and assessed for inclusion. Data from included studies were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Results: Nine studies including a total of 4890 postmenopausal women were identified. The follow-up period varied from 12 to 24 months. In all studies except one, the comparator treatment was a bisphosphonate. There was no statistically significant difference between patients receiving denosumab and those receiving a bisphosphonate in terms of fracture risk (RR[95 % CI] = 1.15 [0.84-1.58]), adverse events (RR[95 % CI] = 0.99 [0.96-1.02]) or deaths (OR[95 % CI] = 0.58 [0.12-2.71]). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less frequent in denosumab than in other treatment groups but the difference did not reach statistical significance (OR[95 % CI] = 0.68 [0.45-1.04]). The percent change in bone mineral density at the total hip, lumbar spine, femoral neck and one-third radius was significantly higher in participants who received denosumab (e.g. mean difference [95 % CI] at the total hip: 1.06 [0.86-1.25]). Conclusions: These results suggest that, after 12 to 24 months, the safety and efficacy of denosumab for reducing fracture risk is not significantly different from bisphosphonates despite higher gains in bone mineral density. In a clinical setting, denosumab may demonstrate greater effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of two educational interventions on the intake of calcium and vitamin D supplements and modifiable risk factors for osteoporosis in women ≥50 years with a fragility fracture (FF). Within 6-8 months of fracture, women were randomized to one of three intervention groups: usual care (UC), written materials (WM), or videocassette and written materials (VC). The written materials for patients and their physician provided information on osteoporosis, FF, and available treatments; written materials for physician were provided through patients. The videocassette presented similar information as the written material, but in greater depth. Twelve months after randomization, the effectiveness of the interventions was assessed. The study cohort consisted of 1,175 women undiagnosed and untreated for osteoporosis. After 12 months, the mean intake of Ca supplements increased by 33, 93, and 91 mg/day for the UC, WM, and VC groups, respectively ( p value, WM vs UC = 0.163; VC vs UC = 0.026); the corresponding mean increases for vitamin D were 58, 105, and 118 IU/day ( p value, WM vs UC = 0.214; VC vs UC = 0.012). The proportion of women who increased their Ca and vitamin D intake by supplements was similar in all three groups. The intervention had a greater impact in those not taking supplements at randomization and had no impact on modifiable risk factors. In women without diagnosis and treatment for osteoporosis, the interventions seem effective at increasing the amounts of Ca and vitamin D supplements, but not effective at inciting more women to increase their consumption. Therefore, the clinical significance of the impact of the intervention is difficult to evaluate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: We used data from a large, prospective Canadian cohort to assess the association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and fracture. We found an increased risk of fractures in individuals who used SSRI or SNRI, even after controlling for multiple risk factors. Introduction: Previous studies have suggested an association between SSRIs and increasing risk of fragility fractures. However, the majority of these studies were not long-term analyses or were performed using administrative data and, thus, could not fully control for potential confounders. We sought to determine whether the use of SSRIs and SNRIs is associated with increased risk of fragility fracture, in adults aged 50 + . Methods: We used data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos), a prospective randomly selected population-based community cohort; our analyses focused on subjects aged 50+. Time to event methodology was used to assess the association between SSRI/SNRI use, modeled time-dependently, and fragility fracture. Results: Among 6,645 subjects, 192 (2.9 %) were using SSRIs or/and SNRIs at baseline. During the 10-year study period, 978 (14.7 %) participants experienced at least one fragility fracture. In our main analysis, SSRI/SNRI use was associated with increased risk of fragility fracture (hazard ratio (HR), 1.88; 95 % confidence intervals (CI), 1.48-2.39). After controlling for multiple risk factors, including Charlson score, previous falls, and bone mineral density hip and lumbar bone density, the adjusted HR for current SSRI/SNRI use remained elevated (HR, 1.68; 95 % CI, 1.32-2.14). Conclusions: Our results lend additional support to an association between SSRI/SNRI use and fragility fractures. Given the high prevalence of antidepressants use, and the impact of fractures on health, our findings may have a significant clinical impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Prevention of bone mineral density loss in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been associated with use of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, in this study, we could not demonstrate a reduction in the risk of non-vertebral fractures. Additional research is required to clarify the impact of biologic DMARDs on fracture risk in RA. Introduction: Small studies have suggested biologic DMARDs preserve bone mineral density at 6-12 months. Our objective was to determine the association between biologic DMARD use and the risk of non-vertebral osteoporotic fractures in RA subjects aged ≥50 years. Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted using Quebec physician billing and hospital discharge data. RA subjects were identified from International Classification of Disease-9/10 codes in billing and hospitalisation data and followed from cohort entry until the earliest of non-vertebral osteoporotic fracture, death, or end of study period. Controls were matched to cases (4:1 ratio) on age, sex, and date of cohort entry. Biologic DMARD exposure was defined as being on treatment for ≥180 days pre-fracture (index). Conditional logistic regression was used, adjusting for indicators of RA severity, comorbidity, drugs influencing fracture risk, and measures of health care utilisation. Results: Over the study period, 1,515 cases were identified (6,023 controls). The most frequent fracture site was hip/femur (42.3 %). In total, 172 subjects (49 cases and 123 controls) were exposed to biologic DMARDs. The median duration of exposure was 735 (interquartile range (IQR), 564) and 645 (IQR, 903) days in cases and controls, respectively. We were unable to demonstrate an association between biologic DMARDs and fracture risk (odds ratio, 1.03; 95 % confidence interval, 0.42-2.53). RA duration significantly increased the fracture risk. Conclusions: Despite the positive impact of biologic DMARDs on bone remodelling observed in small studies, we were unable to demonstrate a reduction in the risk of non-vertebral osteoporotic fractures in older adults with RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Physician-billing claims databases can be used to determine the incidence of fractures in the community. This study tested three algorithms designed to accurately and reliably identify fractures from a physician-billing claims database and concluded that they were useful for identifying all types of fractures, except vertebral, sacral, and coccyx fractures. Introduction: To develop and validate algorithms that identify fracture events from a physician-billing claims database (PCDs). Methods: Three algorithms were developed using physician's specialty, diagnostic, and medical service codes used in a PCD from the province of Quebec. Algorithm validity was assessed via calculation of positive predictive values (PPV; via verification of a sample of algorithm-identified cases with hospitalization files) and sensitivities (via cross-referencing respective algorithm-identified fracture cases with a well-characterized fracture cohort). Results: PPV and sensitivity varied across fracture sites. For most fracture sites, the PPV with algorithm 3 was higher than with algorithms 1 or 2. Except for knee fracture, the PPVs ranged from 0.81 to 0.96. Sensitivities were low at the vertebral, sacral, and coccyx sites (0.40-0.50), but high at all other fracture sites. For 95% of fractures, the fracture site identified by algorithm agreed with the fracture site from patients' medical records. Fracture dates identified by algorithm were within 2 days of the actual fracture date in 88% of fracture cases. Among cases identified by algorithm 3 to have had an open reduction ( N = 461), 95% underwent surgery according to their respective medical charts. Conclusion: Algorithms using PCDs are accurate and reliable for identifying incident fractures associated with osteoporosis-related fracture sites. The identification of these fractures in the community is important for helping to estimate the burden associated with osteoporosis and the utility of programs designed to reduce the rates of fragility fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]