Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Nov 19:2019:2594149.
doi: 10.1155/2019/2594149. eCollection 2019.

Bisphosphonates for Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Bisphosphonates for Secondary Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Lei Shi et al. Biomed Res Int. .

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the comparative efficacies of the five most commonly used bisphosphonates for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Methods: Five databases and the reference lists of all acquired articles from inception to July 2017 were searched. A Bayesian random-effects model was employed, and vertebral, hip and nonvertebral nonhip fractures were assessed by odds ratios (ORs) and 95%credible intervals. Furthermore, with respect to each endpoint, rank probabilities for each bisphosphonate were evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value.

Results: Thirteen eligible studies were identified involving 11,822 patients with osteoporotic fractures. Overall in the pairwise meta-analyses, bisphosphonate use significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral nonhip fractures, with ORs and 95% confidence intervals of 0.56 (0.49-0.64), 0.69 (0.48-0.98), and 0.82 (0.70-0.97), respectively. In network meta-analyses, significant differences were found between placebo and any one of the five bisphosphonates for new vertebral fractures. The rank probability plot and the SUCRA calculation results suggested that alendronate was the best intervention (14.6%) for secondary prevention of vertebral fractures, followed by zoledronate (15.3%) and etidronate (22.1%). In terms of the incidence of new hip fractures, alendronate was associated with the lowest incidence (18.5%), followed by zoledronate (43.1%) and risedronate (52.5%). However, zoledronate ranked lowest (16.6%) regarding the incidence of new nonvertebral nonhip fractures, followed by risedronate (23.8%) and alendronate (44.1%).

Conclusions: Bisphosphonates show significant efficacy for secondary prevention of new vertebral fractures, and alendronate is most likely to be successful at secondary prevention of vertebral and hip fractures compared with the other four bisphosphonates.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of review process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Evidence network of eligible comparisons for Bayesian network meta-analysis according to (a) new vertebral fractures, (b) new hip fractures, and (c) new nonvertebral nonhip fractures (A, Placebo; B, Alendronate; C, Ibandronate; D, Risedronate; E, Zoledronate; F, Etidronate).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for new vertebral fractures (A, Placebo; B, Alendronate; C, Ibandronate; D, Risedronate; E, Zoledronate; F, Etidronate).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot for new hip fractures (A, Placebo; B, Alendronate; C, Ibandronate; D, Risedronate; E, Zoledronate; F, Etidronate).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot for new nonvertebral nonhip fractures (A, Placebo; B, Alendronate; C, Ibandronate; D, Risedronate; E, Zoledronate; F, Etidronate).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of direct and indirect evidence (A, Placebo; B, Alendronate; C, Ibandronate; D, Risedronate; E, Zoledronate; F, Etidronate).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Larijani B., Tehrani M. R. M., Hamidi Z., Soltani A., Pajouhi M. Osteoporosis, prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Reproduction & Infertility. 2005;6
    1. Cummings S. R., Melton L. J. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet. 2002;359:1761–1767. - PubMed
    1. Nazrun A. S., Tzar M. N., Mokhtar S. A., Mohamed I. N. A systematic review of the outcomes of osteoporotic fracture patients after hospital discharge: morbidity, subsequent fractures, and mortality. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. 2014;10:937–948. doi: 10.2147/tcrm.s72456. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Iki M., Fujita Y., Kouda K., et al. Increased risk of osteoporotic fracture in community-dwelling elderly men 20 or more years after gastrectomy: the fujiwara-kyo osteoporosis risk in men (FORMEN) cohort study. Bone. 2019;127:250–259. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2019.06.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang G., Sui L., Gai P., Li G., Qi X., Jiang X. The efficacy and safety of vertebral fracture prevention therapies in post-menopausal osteoporosis treatment: which therapies work best? a network meta-analysis. Bone Joint Research. 2017;6(7):452–463. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.bjr-2016-0292.r1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types