Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatments to Prevent FracturesFREE
Osteoporosis is a major contributor to the propensity to fracture among older adults, and various pharmaceuticals are available to treat it.
To update a review about the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments used to prevent fractures in adults at risk.
Multiple computerized databases were searched between 2 January 2005 and 4 March 2014 for English-language studies.
Trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews.
Duplicate extraction and assessment of data about study characteristics, outcomes, and quality.
From more than 52 000 titles screened, 315 articles were included in this update. There is high-strength evidence that bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide reduce fractures compared with placebo, with relative risk reductions from 0.40 to 0.60 for vertebral fractures and 0.60 to 0.80 for nonvertebral fractures. Raloxifene has been shown in placebo-controlled trials to reduce only vertebral fractures. Since 2007, there is a newly recognized adverse event of bisphosphonate use: atypical subtrochanteric femur fracture. Gastrointestinal side effects, hot flashes, thromboembolic events, and infections vary among drugs.
Few studies have directly compared drugs used to treat osteoporosis. Data in men are very sparse. Costs were not assessed.
Good-quality evidence supports that several medications for bone density in osteoporotic range and/or preexisting hip or vertebral fracture reduce fracture risk. Side effects vary among drugs, and the comparative effectiveness of the drugs is unclear.
Primary Funding Source:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and RAND Corporation.
Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength, increasing the risk for fracture (1). Risk factors include, but are not limited to, increasing age, female sex, postmenopause for women, low body weight, parental history of a hip fracture, cigarette smoking, race, hypogonadism, certain medical conditions (particularly rheumatoid arthritis), and certain medications for chronic diseases (such as glucocorticoids).
During one's expected remaining life, 1 in 2 postmenopausal women and 1 in 5 older men are at risk for an osteoporosis-related fracture (2). The increasing prevalence and cost of osteoporosis have heightened interest in the effectiveness and safety of the many interventions currently available to prevent osteoporotic fracture. In 2007, we conducted a systematic review of the comparative effectiveness of treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis (3, 4). Since that time, new drugs have been approved for treatment, and new studies have been published about existing drugs. Additional issues about pharmacologic treatments for osteoporosis that have become particularly salient include the optimal duration of therapy; the safety of long-term therapy; and the role of bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, both for screening and for monitoring treatment. Therefore, we updated our original systematic review.
This article is a condensed and further updated version of an evidence review conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Centers program (5). This article focuses on the comparative benefits and risks of short- and long-term pharmacologic treatments for low bone density. In addition, we address issues regarding monitoring and duration of therapy. For this updated review, we followed the same methods as our 2007 review, with a few exceptions. A protocol for this review was developed and posted on the Effective Health Care Program Web site (6).
Data Sources and Searches
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the ACP Journal Club database, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) MedWatch database, and relevant pharmacologic databases from 2 January 2005 to 3 June 2011. The search strategy followed that of the original report, with the addition of terms for new FDA-approved drugs (such as denosumab) and newly reported adverse events. The full search strategies are in our evidence report (5). We later updated this search to 21 January 2013 and used a machine learning method that a previous study showed had high sensitivity for detecting relevant evidence for updating a search of the literature on osteoporosis treatments (7) and then updated the searches to 4 March 2014 using the full search strategy.
Eligible studies were systematic reviews and randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that studied FDA-approved pharmacotherapy (excluding calcitonin and etidronate) for women or men with osteoporosis that was not due to a secondary cause (such as glucocorticoid therapy and androgen-deprivation therapy) and also measured fractures as an outcome at a minimum follow-up of 6 months. In addition, we included observational studies with more than 1000 participants for adverse events and case reports for rare events. As in our original review, only English-language studies were included.
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
Reviews were done in duplicate by pairs of reviewers. Study characteristics were extracted in duplicate, and outcomes data (both benefits and harms) were extracted by the study statistician. Study quality was assessed as it was in the 2007 report using the Jadad scale for clinical trials (with several questions added to assess allocation concealment and other factors) and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies (8, 9). Systematic reviews were assessed using a modified version of the 11 AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria (the modifications included eliminating the requirements to list all of the excluded studies and assess the conflicts of interest for all of the included studies) (10). The assessments of efficacy and effectiveness used reduction in fracture (all, vertebral, nonvertebral, spine, hip, wrist, or other) as the outcome (studies reporting changes in BMD but not fracture were excluded).
Data Synthesis and Analysis
Evidence on efficacy and effectiveness was synthesized narratively. For adverse events, we pooled data as in the 2007 report: We compared agent versus placebo and agent versus agent for agents within the same class and across classes. For groups of events that occurred in 3 or more trials, we estimated the pooled odds ratio (OR) and its associated 95% CI. Because many events were rare, we used exact conditional inference to perform the pooling rather than applying the usual asymptotic methods that assume normality. StatXact PROCs software was used for the analysis (11, 12). Large cohort and case–control studies were included to assess adverse events. Strength of evidence was assessed using the criteria of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Centers program, which are similar to those proposed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group (13).
Role of the Funding Source
The update that included studies identified in the 3 June 2011 search was funded by AHRQ. Subsequent updating received no external funding. Although AHRQ formulated the initial study questions for the original report, it did not participate in the literature search, determination of study eligibility criteria, data analysis, or interpretation of the data. Staff from AHRQ reviewed and provided comments on the report.
The first search yielded 26 366 titles, 2440 of which were considered potentially relevant (Figure). Of these, 661 full-text articles were reviewed, resulting in 255 articles that were included in the update report. Of these, 174 articles were relevant to this article. The second update search plus hand searching initially yielded 16 589 titles, and machine learning and full-text review identified 107 as relevant. The third update yielded 12 131 titles. After title, abstract, and full-text screening, 34 were relevant. Thus, 55 086 titles were screened and 315 articles met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Not every eligible study is cited in this article. A complete list of studies that met eligibility criteria is available at www.rand.org/health/centers/epc.
Our previous review (3) identified 76 randomized trials and 24 meta-analyses and concluded that there was good-quality evidence that alendronate, etidronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, estrogen, parathyroid hormone, and raloxifene prevented osteoporotic fractures, although not all of these agents prevented hip fractures. The principal new efficacy findings since that time are additional data about zoledronic acid and data about a new agent, denosumab (Tables 1 and 2). The data for zoledronic acid came from 6 placebo-controlled studies of various doses in postmenopausal women (14–19), the 2 largest of which enrolled 7230 women (15) and 2127 women (14). Both studies showed statistically significant reductions in nearly all types of fractures assessed, with relative risk reductions ranging from 0.23 to 0.73 at time points from 24 to 36 months after initiation of treatment. The data for denosumab came from 2 placebo-controlled trials in postmenopausal women, one small (332 enrolled women) (20) and one much larger that followed 7521 women for 36 months (21). This latter study found statistically significant reductions in each anatomical fracture type measured (hip, nonvertebral, vertebral, and new clinical vertebral), with hazard ratios of 0.31 to 0.80. Many secondary analyses and open-label extension results of this trial report the effectiveness of denosumab in various subpopulations and other circumstances (22–28).
Despite some difficulties in comparing results across trials because of differences in the outcomes reported, high-strength evidence shows that bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid), denosumab, and teriparatide (the 1,34 amino acid fragment of the parathyroid hormone) reduce fractures compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, with relative risks for fractures generally in the range of 0.40 to 0.60 for vertebral fractures and 0.60 to 0.80 for nonvertebral fractures. This range translates into a number needed to treat of 60 to 89 to prevent 1 vertebral fracture and 50 to 67 to prevent 1 hip fracture over 1 to 3 years of treatment, using a pooled average of the incidence of these fractures in the placebo groups from included studies. The effect of ibandronate on hip fracture risk reduction is unclear because hip fracture was not a separately reported outcome in placebo-controlled trials of this agent. The selective estrogen receptor modulator raloxifene has been shown in placebo-controlled trials to reduce only vertebral fractures; reduction in the risk for hip or nonvertebral fractures was not statistically significant.
There is only one randomized, controlled trial of men with osteoporosis that was designed with a primary fracture reduction outcome. Nearly 1200 men with osteoporosis were randomly assigned to placebo or zoledronic acid intravenously once per year for 2 years. At follow-up, 1.6% of treated men had new radiologically detected vertebral fractures, compared with 4.9% of men treated with placebo, with a relative risk of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.16 to 0.70). Approximately 1.0% of actively treated men, compared with 1.8% of men treated with placebo, had a clinical vertebral or nonvertebral fracture (hazard ratio, 0.6 [CI, 0.2 to 1.5]) (29).
Head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies assessing fracture outcomes are rare, have either not reported statistical testing or fracture outcomes between groups (30), have not found significant differences (3), or have analyzed the comparisons on a per-protocol rather than an intention-to-treat basis (31, 32). Thus, there have been several attempts to estimate comparative effectiveness using network meta-analysis and indirect or mixed treatment comparisons. A recent network meta-analysis of 116 placebo-controlled or head-to-head trials assessing alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid, raloxifene, denosumab, teriparatide, vitamin D, and calcium concluded that any of the drugs were likely more effective than vitamin D or calcium; the evidence supporting raloxifene was not as strong as the evidence for the other drugs; and differences in vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk reduction among any of the bisphosphonates, denosumab, or teriparatide were not consistent or statistically significant (AMSTAR score, 10 of 11) (33).
A second network meta-analysis (AMSTAR score, 6 of 11) included 30 RCTs and found no significant differences in nonvertebral fracture risk in the indirect comparisons among alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid, raloxifene, denosumab, teriparatide, or strontium, although the authors noted that etidronate, ibandronate, and raloxifene lack direct evidence of superiority to placebo in preventing nonvertebral fractures (34).
A third network meta-analysis, both sponsored by and including coauthors from the manufacturer of one drug, included 21 studies and likewise found no statistically significant difference in indirect or mixed treatment comparisons in nonvertebral fracture risk reduction among alendronate, risedronate, etidronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid, raloxifene, denosumab, teriparatide, or strontium. These authors also noted that etidronate, raloxifene, and ibandronate did not have direct evidence of a reduction in nonvertebral fractures relative to placebo (AMSTAR score, 7 of 11) (35).
A fourth network meta-analysis (AMSTAR score, 3 of 11), this time assessing alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab and restricting inclusion to studies that reported clinical and morphometric vertebral fractures and had a treatment period of at least 3 years, included 9 RCTs and reported no statistically significant differences among drugs in the mixed treatment comparison (36).
A fifth network meta-analysis, sponsored by and including authors from the manufacturer of one drug, included 8 RCTs to assess the relative effectiveness of alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, etidronate, and zoledronic acid on many fracture outcomes (AMSTAR score, 6 of 11). Other than the sponsor's drug and the outcome of morphometric vertebral fractures, this analysis did not find any consistent significant differences among drugs for the various fracture outcomes (37).
All of these network meta-analyses are limited by the dearth of head-to-head studies; nevertheless, their conclusions are consistent with our narrative synthesis of the evidence. Raloxifene does not prevent nonvertebral fractures, and there is less evidence supporting nonvertebral fracture reduction efficacy for ibandronate than for the other bisphosphonates, denosumab, or teriparatide. Other differences in comparative effectiveness among drugs are likely to be small.
Atypical Subtrochanteric Fractures
An important new potential adverse event is the increased risk for atypical subtrochanteric fractures seen in patients treated with bisphosphonates (Table 3). At present, these associations come entirely from observational studies, and results are not completely consistent (38–71). An increased risk has not been seen in clinical trials, although even an analysis of data aggregated from 3 large trials (a total of 14 195 women) was underpowered to detect an effect (pooled relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 0.12 to 14.7]) (61). A systematic review of case and case series studies (AMSTAR score, 7 of 9) (66) identified 141 women with this fracture, and the FDA issued a warning about the possible link between bisphosphonate use and this adverse event (72).
Since then, a recent meta-analysis of 5 case–control studies and 6 cohort studies (AMSTAR score, 10 of 11) found an overall pooled risk ratio of 1.70 (CI, 1.22 to 2.37) (73). A 2013 analysis of the data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and other international drug safety databases reported a proportional reporting ratio of 4.51 (CI, 3.44 to 5.92) (74) for nonhealing femoral fractures. A 2014 update of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research task force concluded that evidence for a relationship has become more compelling since its 2010 report, particularly with longer bisphosphonate use (75). Despite the limitation created by the variation in the definition of atypical fracture across studies, data are sufficient to conclude that bisphosphonate use, especially long-term, increases risk for atypical femoral fractures, although the strength of evidence is low. It is important to note that the absolute risk for atypical fractures is 30- to 100-fold less than the risk for hip fracture among untreated persons at risk. In one study from Kaiser Permanente Southern California of 1 835 116 women aged 45 years or older over 5 years, there were 7430 typical hip fractures and 142 atypical femur fractures. The finding that the incidence rate of atypical fractures increased from 1.78 per 100 000 for women receiving bisphosphonates for less than 2 years to more than 100 per 100 000 for women receiving bisphosphonates for 8 years or more supports the idea that treatment duration may be a factor (52). Use of denosumab has also been linked with atypical femoral fractures (26).
We found low-strength signals of potential associations with various types of cancer, but additional data are needed. Four large observational studies have assessed a possible association between the use of bisphosphonates and esophageal cancer, 2 of which reported an increased risk (76, 77) and 2 of which did not (78, 79). Several large observational studies found that bisphosphonate use was associated with either no increased risk or, in some cases, a statistically significant decrease in the risk for all types of cancer in general (80–83) and certain types of cancer, specifically breast (81), colon, and other gastrointestinal cancer (80, 84). A meta-analysis of 4 studies (AMSTAR score, 8 of 11) concluded that there were statistically significantly increased odds (1.74) for esophageal cancer in patients treated with bisphosphonates (85), but another meta-analysis (AMSTAR score, 7 of 11) that included the same 4 studies and 3 additional ones found no association of risk for esophageal cancer with bisphosphonate use (86). The FDA has not concluded that patients receiving oral bisphosphonate drugs have an increased risk for esophageal cancer. An evaluation of osteosarcoma and teriparatide showed no relationship at 7-year follow-up (87).
An adverse event prominently discussed in 2007 was the potential for bisphosphonate use to cause atrial fibrillation. In 2008, the FDA concluded that “there was no clear association” between bisphosphonate use and atrial fibrillation. Since that time, most (88–92) but not all (93) original studies and meta-analyses have concluded that there is no increased risk, and concern about atrial fibrillation has faded. A retrospective cohort study using Danish registry data reported on the risk for a diagnosis of heart failure after bisphosphonate prescription. Risk increased with risedronate use and decreased with alendronate use, rendering interpretation of a causal relationship difficult (94).
Gastrointestinal Side Effects
In our previous review, we did a meta-analysis of adverse events that included 417 randomized trials. In this paper, we identified 31 new articles reporting adverse events, 17 of which contributed to updated pooled analyses (18, 32, 80, 95–108). These updated analyses showed increased risk for mild upper gastrointestinal side effects with use of alendronate (OR, 1.07 [CI, 1.01 to 1.14]), teriparatide (OR, 3.26 [CI, 2.82 to 3.78]), and denosumab (OR, 1.74 [CI, 1.29 to 2.38]). A network meta-analysis attempted to assess the comparative gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates and included 50 RCTs (49 of which were also included in our pooled analyses). For the outcome “treatment discontinuation due to adverse events,” this network meta-analysis did not find any statistically significant differences among any of the bisphosphonates included in our key questions (109). Consistent with our 2007 meta-analysis, a case–control study (804 case and 12 787 control participants) found no statistically significant association between oral alendronate or risedronate use and the risk for subsequent hospitalization for serious upper gastrointestinal diagnoses (perforations, ulcers, and bleeding) (110).
A pooled analysis of 4 trials of denosumab found an increased risk for infection (risk ratio [RR], 1.28 [CI, 1.02 to 1.60]) (111), and the FDA has issued a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for the drug. In the largest denosumab trial, there were imbalances between patients treated with denosumab and those receiving placebo for cellulitis, erysipelas, serious ear infections, infective arthritis, and endocarditis. A causal relationship has not been established.
Osteonecrosis of the Jaw
At the time of our previous review, 41 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw had been identified, nearly all associated with the use of intravenous bisphosphonates. Since that time, 23 publications have assessed this association (112–134) (not counting individual case reports), including a case series of 2408 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw that found that 88% were associated with intravenous bisphosphonates and 89% of patients were being treated for a malignant condition (135), a survey of practitioners that estimated an incidence of 28 cases per 100 000 person-years of exposure (129), and 4 systematic reviews (127, 132–134). The most recent of these systematic reviews identified 9 and 12 articles (133, 134), respectively, of studies about osteonecrosis of the jaw in noncancer patients. The first review (133) (AMSTAR score, 6 of 9) reported that limitations in case definition and the identification of the denominator led to wide variation in the reported incidence, from 0.028% to 4.3%, and these authors refrained from statistical pooling. The second review (134) (AMSTAR score, 6 of 11) pooled 12 studies with high heterogeneity and found an OR of 2.32 (CI, 1.30 to 3.91; I2 = 41%). This association was of similar magnitude in multiple sensitivity analyses. Osteonecrosis of the jaw has also been reported with denosumab use (26).
Our pooled analyses showed teriparatide to be associated with an increased risk for hypercalcemia (OR, 12.90 [CI, 10.49 to 16.00]) and zoledronic acid (OR, 7.22 [CI, 1.81 to 42.70]) to be associated with an increased risk for hypocalcemia (however, 85% of patients did not require supplemental calcium). Hot flashes (OR, 1.58 [CI, 1.35 to 1.84]), thromboembolic events (OR, 1.63 [CI, 1.36 to 1.98]), pulmonary embolism (OR, 1.82 [CI, 1.16 to 2.92]), and fatal strokes (OR, 1.56 [CI, 1.04 to 2.39]) have been associated with raloxifene use. Headaches (OR, 1.46 [CI, 1.27 to 1.69]) and renal-related adverse events have been associated with teriparatide use. Zoledronic acid infusion is associated with a constellation of symptoms that have been described as myalgia, arthralgia, pyrexia, chills, and influenza-like symptoms. A composite of these symptoms has a pooled OR of 6.39 (CI, 5.76 to 7.09). Table 1 displays the results of our pooled analyses of RCTs for all adverse events (adverse events were included if at least 3 trials discussed that event or if the RCTs regarding the event had sample sizes of at least 1000 patients in both the treatment and placebo group).
A study using a national registry in Denmark reported that the risk for inflammatory eye reactions in certain patients treated with bisphosphonates is low (136).
Only 2 large RCTs have compared shorter with longer durations of therapy. In the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-Term Extension (FLEX) study (the original RCT compared alendronate and placebo for 5 years among postmenopausal women), several subsequent analyses have addressed longer (10-year) versus shorter (5-year) therapy with alendronate. At 10-year follow-up, the cumulative risk for nonvertebral fractures was not significantly different between those continuing (19%) and discontinuing (19%) alendronate (137). However, among women who continued alendronate, there was a significantly lower risk for clinically recognized vertebral fractures (5.3% for placebo vs. 2.4% for alendronate; RR, 0.45 [CI, 0.24 to 0.85]) but no significant reduction in morphometric vertebral fractures.
In a recent post hoc analysis of the FLEX data, investigators assessed whether baseline BMD or preexisting fracture could influence the effects of longer duration of therapy (10 vs. 5 years). Among women without vertebral fracture at FLEX baseline, alendronate continuation reduced nonvertebral fracture among women with FLEX baseline femoral neck T-scores of −2.5 or less (RR, 0.50 [CI, 0.26 to 0.96]) but not among women with T-scores between −2.5 and −2.0 (RR, 0.79 [CI, 0.37 to 1.66]) or those with T-scores of greater than −2.0 (RR, 1.41 [CI, 0.75 to 2.66]; P for interaction, 0.019). Among women with a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline and a BMD T-score at 5 years of −2.5 or less, continued use of alendronate for 5 years decreased the incidence of new clinical vertebral fractures from 11.1% to 5.3%, compared with placebo. The investigators concluded that continuing with alendronate for 10 years instead of stopping after 5 years reduced nonvertebral fracture risk in women without prevalent vertebral fracture whose femoral neck T-scores, achieved after 5 years of alendronate, were −2.5 or less but did not reduce risk for nonvertebral fracture risk among women without prevalent vertebral fractures whose T-scores were greater than −2.0 (138).
In the Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence With Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly Pivotal Fracture Trial, approximately 1200 women who had received zoledronic acid for 3 years were randomly assigned to continue for another 3 years or be switched to placebo. Incidence of radiographically detected vertebral fracture was lower in the patients continuing zoledronic acid (3.0% vs. 6.2% in patients receiving placebo; OR, 0.51 [CI, 0.26 to 0.95]), but there were no differences between groups in clinical vertebral fractures, hip fractures, nonvertebral fractures, or all clinical fractures (139).
In a recent FDA review on this subject (which involved the FDA's own analysis and pooling of data from these 3 trials with an older and much smaller study of risedronate ), the FDA found that the rate of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in patients who received bisphosphonates for more than 6 years was 9.3% to 10.6% compared with 8.0% to 8.8% for patients who switched to placebo. The FDA concluded that “these data raise the question of whether continued bisphosphonate therapy imparts additional fracture-prevention benefit, relative to cessation of therapy after 5 years” (141). In an accompanying commentary, leading osteoporosis experts cautioned that these data came primarily from 2 large studies of alendronate and zoledronic acid, which were subsets of the original randomized cohorts, that they should not be extended to other bisphosphonates, and that FLEX patients with a BMD T-score of −2.5 or less received added benefits from continuing alendronate therapy beyond 5 years (142).
Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Monitoring
Little direct research has been done on the frequency of monitoring for osteoporosis or how often patients should be monitored once they begin antiresorptive therapy. Two population studies of persons not taking osteoporosis treatment showed that frequent monitoring for the development of osteoporosis may not be necessary, except in women with T-score of −2.0 to −2.49 (143, 144). For patients receiving antiresorptive therapy for whom serial BMD measurements have not shown an increase, or have even shown decrease in statistically significant, statistically significant benefits are still obtained in terms of fracture reduction (145–150). Despite a lack of evidence supporting frequent monitoring, one study found that among 549 women being followed at an academic medical center, patients received an average of 3.0 dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans over a mean of 2.4 years (for example, an average of >1 per year). A chart review of a random sample of 92 patients found that, for these women, the primary rationale listed for 177 of 196 scans (90%) was that they were “due”; no treatment change was made after 84% of the scans (151). This single-site study cannot support strong conclusions, but does highlight the need for more studies about the appropriate use of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry scans.
The principal conclusions of this update are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Compared with the evidence available at the time of the previous report, additional evidence has emerged about differences in antifracture efficacy among pharmacologic agents used to treat osteoporosis. Nonetheless, data about the comparative effectiveness or efficacy among agents are thin, and it is likely that differences among the bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide are modest. The side effect profiles vary among drugs, but many are associated with gastrointestinal effects. Bisphosphonate and possibly denosumab use carry the risk for very rare side effects, such as atypical subtrochanteric fracture or osteonecrosis of the jaw. There is evidence that women with an initial T-score of −1.49 or greater do not benefit from repeated BMD reassessment in less than 15 years. Among persons receiving FDA-approved osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, changes in BMD are not good predictors of antifracture effects. Likewise, the optimal duration of therapy remains murky, although evidence suggests that, at least for alendronate, some groups of patients can have the drug safely discontinued after 5 years of treatment.
There are many limitations to our review. The most important of these is the dearth of head-to-head comparisons of the benefits and harms of the agents. This has led several investigators to estimate comparative effectiveness using indirect methods. Although no consistent differences in efficacy have been found, this does not constitute proof that they do not exist. The lack of data in men leaves clinicians and policymakers to try to extrapolate from data in women, which may not be valid. Additional limitations common to all systematic reviews are the possibility of publication bias and heterogeneity in the definition of outcomes and adverse events. Limitations of this review include our reliance on English-language publications and no assessment of costs.
Osteoporosis treatment is an area of very active research. In addition to published studies of new drugs and combinations of drugs being tested for efficacy (152–155), studies are ongoing about the comparative effectiveness of some agents (156), the treatment of men (157), and the optimal duration of treatment (158).
NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis,and Therapy. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. JAMA. 2001;285:785-95. [PMID: 11176917] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:356-64. [PMID: 21242341] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-5-201103010-00307 LinkGoogle Scholar
MacLean C, Newberry S, Maglione M, McMahon M, Ranganath V, Suttorp M, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of treatments to prevent fractures in men and women with low bone density or osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:197-213. [PMID: 18087050] LinkGoogle Scholar
- 4. MacLean CA, Alexander A, Carter J, Chen S, Desai SB, Grossman J, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments To Prevent Fractures in Men and Women With Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis. Comparative Effectiveness Review no. 12. (Prepared by Southern California/RAND Evidence-based Practice Center under contract 290-02-000.) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. Accessed at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43160/pdf/TOC.pdf on 13 August 2014. Google Scholar
- 5. Crandall CJ, Newberry SJ, Diamant A, Lim YW, Gellad WF, Suttorp MJ, et al. Treatment To Prevent Fractures in Men and Women With Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis: An Update of a 2007 Report. Comparative Effectiveness Review no. 53. (Prepared by Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under contract HHSA-290-2007-10062-I.) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. Accessed at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/160/1007/CER53_LowBoneDensity_FinalReport_20120823.pdf on 25 August 1014. Google Scholar
- 6. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women with Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis—An Update of the 2007 Report. Evidence-based Practice Center Systematic Review Protocol. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. Accessed at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=441 on 18 August 2014. Google Scholar
Dalal SR, Shekelle PG, Hempel S, Newberry SJ, Motala A, Shetty KD. A pilot study using machine learning and domain knowledge to facilitate comparative effectiveness review updating. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:343-55. [PMID: 22961102] doi:10.1177/0272989X12457243 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12. [PMID: 8721797] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 9. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Accessed at www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp on 25 August 2014. Google Scholar
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. [PMID: 17302989] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 11. StatXact PROCs for SAS Users, Release 9.3. Cambridge, MA: SAS Institute; 2013. Google Scholar
Mehta CR, Patel NR, Gray R. Computing an exact confidence interval for the common odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1985;80:969-73. Google Scholar
Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Bass EB, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:513-23. [PMID: 19595577] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.009 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lyles KW, Colón-Emeric CS, Magaziner JS, Adachi JD, Pieper CF, Mautalen C, et al; HORIZON Recurrent Fracture Trial. Zoledronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1799-809. [PMID: 17878149] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R, Reid IR, Boonen S, Cauley JA, et al; HORIZON Pivotal Fracture Trial. Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1809-22. [PMID: 17476007] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chapman I, Greville H, Ebeling PR, King SJ, Kotsimbos T, Nugent P, et al. Intravenous zoledronate improves bone density in adults with cystic fibrosis (CF). Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2009;70:838-46. [PMID: 18823395] doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2008.03434.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Reid IR, Brown JP, Burckhardt P, Horowitz Z, Richardson P, Trechsel U, et al. Intravenous zoledronic acid in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:653-61. [PMID: 11870242] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bai H, Jing D, Guo A, Yin S. Randomized controlled trial of zoledronic acid for treatment of osteoporosis in women. J Int Med Res. 2013;41:697-704. [PMID: 23669294] doi:10.1177/0300060513480917 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chao M, Hua Q, Yingfeng Z, Guang W, Shufeng S, Yuzhen D, et al. Study on the role of zoledronic acid in treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis women. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29:1381-4. [PMID: 24550958] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Bone HG, Bolognese MA, Yuen CK, Kendler DL, Wang H, Liu Y, et al. Effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and bone turnover in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:2149-57. [PMID: 18381571] doi:10.1210/jc.2007-2814 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cummings SR, SanMartin J, McClung MR, Siris ES, Eastell R, Reid IR, et al; FREEDOM Trial. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:756-65. [PMID: 19671655] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0809493 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kendler D. Sustainability of anti-fracture efficacy and safety of denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24 Suppl 4S653-4. Google Scholar
Lippuner K, Roux C, Bone HG, Zapalowski C, Minisola S, Franek E, et al. Denosumab treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis for 7 years: Clinical fracture results from the first 4 years of the FREEDOM extension. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24 Suppl 1S39-40. Google Scholar
Palacios S, Rizzoli R, Zapalowski C, Resch H, Adami S, Adachi JD, et al. Denosumab reduced osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis with prior fracture: Results from freedom. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24 Suppl 1S299-300. Google Scholar
Papapoulos S, McClung MR, Franchimont N, Adachi JD, Bone HG, Benhamou CL, et al. Denosumab (DMab) treatment for 6 years maintains low fracture incidence in women (greater-than or equal to) 75 years with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). Osteoporos Int. 2013;24 SupplS45-6. Google Scholar
Bone HG, Chapurlat R, Brandi ML, Brown JP, Czerwinski E, Krieg MA, et al. The effect of three or six years of denosumab exposure in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from the FREEDOM extension. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:4483-92. [PMID: 23979955] doi:10.1210/jc.2013-1597 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Brown JP, Roux C, Törring O, Ho PR, BeckJensen JE, Gilchrist N, et al. Discontinuation of denosumab and associated fracture incidence: analysis from the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28:746-52. [PMID: 23109251] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1808 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 28. Discontinuing denosumab treatment does not increase fracture risk. Bonekey Rep. 2013;2:269. [PMID: 24422041] doi:10.1038/bonekey.2013.3 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Boonen S, Reginster JY, Kaufman JM, Lippuner K, Zanchetta J, Langdahl B, et al. Fracture risk and zoledronic acid therapy in men with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1714-23. [PMID: 23113482] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1204061 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hosoi T, Matsumoto T, Sugimoto T, Miki T, Gorai I, Yoshikawa H, et al. Results of 2-year data from denosumab fracture intervention randomized placebo controlled trial (direct). Osteoporos Int. 2013;24 Suppl 1S177. Google Scholar
Hagino H, Nakamura T, Ito M, Nakano T, Hashimoto J, Tobinai M, et al. Bone mineral density increases with monthly I.V. ibandronate injections contribute to its fracture risk reduction in primary osteoporosis: 3-year analysis of the phase III mover study. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24 Suppl 4S592-S3. Google Scholar
Nakamura T, Nakano T, Ito M, Hagino H, Hashimoto J, Tobinai M, et al; MOVER Study Group. Clinical efficacy on fracture risk and safety of 0.5 mg or 1 mg/month intravenous ibandronate versus 2.5 mg/day oral risedronate in patients with primary osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2013;93:137-46. [PMID: 23644930] doi:10.1007/s00223-013-9734-6 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Murad MH, Drake MT, Mullan RJ, Mauck KF, Stuart LM, Lane MA, et al. Clinical review. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1871-80. [PMID: 22466336] doi:10.1210/jc.2011-3060 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hopkins RB, Goeree R, Pullenayegum E, Adachi JD, Papaioannou A, Xie F, et al. The relative efficacy of nine osteoporosis medications for reducing the rate of fractures in post-menopausal women. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:209. [PMID: 21943363] doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-209 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Freemantle N, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Gitlin M, Radcliffe H, Shepherd S, et al. Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:209-17. [PMID: 22832638] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2068-9 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Migliore A, Broccoli S, Massafra U, Cassol M, Frediani B. Ranking antireabsorptive agents to prevent vertebral fractures in postmenopausal osteoporosis by mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013;17:658-67. [PMID: 23543450] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Jansen JP, Bergman GJ, Huels J, Olson M. The efficacy of bisphosphonates in the prevention of vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral-nonhip fractures in osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2011;40:275-84. [PMID: 20828791] doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2010.06.001 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fowler JR, Craig MR. Association of low-energy femoral shaft fractures and bisphosphonate use. Orthopedics. 2012;35:e38-40. [PMID: 22229611] doi:10.3928/01477447-20111122-06 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Thompson RN, Phillips JR, McCauley SH, Elliott JR, Moran CG. Atypical femoral fractures and bisphosphonate treatment: experience in two large United Kingdom teaching hospitals. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:385-90. [PMID: 22371548] doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B3.27999 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mulgund M, Beattie KA, Anaspure R, Matsos M, Patel A, Adachi JD. Atypical femoral fractures in patients taking long-term alendronate. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:2686-7. [PMID: 22134795] doi:10.3899/jrheum.110725 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Schneider JP, Hinshaw WB, Su C, Solow P. Atypical femur fractures: 81 individual personal histories. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:4324-8. [PMID: 23076349] doi:10.1210/jc.2012-2590 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
López-López L, Vilá LM. Atypical subtrochanteric fractures associated with long-term use of bisphosphonates. P R Health Sci J. 2011;30:211. [PMID: 22263304] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Warren C, Gilchrist N, Coates M, Frampton C, Helmore J, McKie J, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric fractures, bisphosphonates, blinded radiological review. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82:908-12. [PMID: 22943522] doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06199.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lee YK, Ha YC, Park C, Yoo JJ, Shin CS, Koo KH. Bisphosphonate use and increased incidence of subtrochanteric fracture in South Korea: results from the National Claim Registry. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:707-11. [PMID: 22618268] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2016-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shkolnikova J, Flynn J, Choong P. Burden of bisphosphonate-associated femoral fractures. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83:175-81. [PMID: 23216704] doi:10.1111/ans.12018 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lo JC, Huang SY, Lee GA, Khandelwal S, Khandewal S, Provus J, et al. Clinical correlates of atypical femoral fracture. Bone. 2012;51:181-4. [PMID: 22414379] doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.02.632 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ng YH, Gino PD, Lingaraj K, Das De S. Femoral shaft fractures in the elderly—role of prior bisphosphonate therapy. Injury. 2011;42:702-6. [PMID: 21316051] doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.12.019 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ward WG, Carter CJ, Wilson SC, Emory CL. Femoral stress fractures associated with long-term bisphosphonate treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:759-65. [PMID: 22125247] doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2194-2 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
La Rocca Vieira R, Rosenberg ZS, Allison MB, Im SA, Babb J, Peck V. Frequency of incomplete atypical femoral fractures in asymptomatic patients on long-term bisphosphonate therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:1144-51. [PMID: 22528906] doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7442 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hsiao FY, Huang WF, Chen YM, Wen YW, Kao YH, Chen LK, et al. Hip and subtrochanteric or diaphyseal femoral fractures in alendronate users: a 10-year, nationwide retrospective cohort study in Taiwanese women. Clin Ther. 2011;33:1659-67. [PMID: 22018450] doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.09.006 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kajino Y, Kabata T, Watanabe K, Tsuchiya H. Histological finding of atypical subtrochanteric fracture after long-term alendronate therapy. J Orthop Sci. 2012;17:313-8. [PMID: 21604044] doi:10.1007/s00776-011-0085-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Dell RM, Adams AL, Greene DF, Funahashi TT, Silverman SL, Eisemon EO, et al. Incidence of atypical nontraumatic diaphyseal fractures of the femur. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:2544-50. [PMID: 22836783] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1719 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Pazianas M, Abrahamsen B, Wang Y, Russell RG. Incidence of fractures of the femur, including subtrochanteric, up to 8 years since initiation of oral bisphosphonate therapy: a register-based cohort study using the US MarketScan claims databases. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:2873-84. [PMID: 22431012] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-1952-7 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Meier RP, Perneger TV, Stern R, Rizzoli R, Peter RE. Increasing occurrence of atypical femoral fractures associated with bisphosphonate use. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:930-6. [PMID: 22732749] doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1796 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sasaki S, Miyakoshi N, Hongo M, Kasukawa Y, Shimada Y. Low-energy diaphyseal femoral fractures associated with bisphosphonate use and severe curved femur: a case series. J Bone Miner Metab. 2012;30:561-7. [PMID: 22610061] doi:10.1007/s00774-012-0358-0 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yavropoulou MP, Giusti A, Ramautar SR, Dijkstra S, Hamdy NA, Papapoulos SE. Low-energy fractures of the humeral shaft and bisphosphonate use. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:1425-31. [PMID: 22407939] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1593 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Zafeiris CP, Stathopoulos IP, Kourkoumelis G, Gkikas E, Lyritis GP. Simultaneous bilateral atypical femoral fractures after alendronate therapy. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2012;12:262-4. [PMID: 23196269] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Adachi JD, Lyles K, Boonen S, Colón-Emeric C, Hyldstrup L, Nordsletten L, et al. Subtrochanteric fractures in bisphosphonate-naive patients: results from the HORIZON-recurrent fracture trial. Calcif Tissue Int. 2011;89:427-33. [PMID: 22038744] doi:10.1007/s00223-011-9543-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Murphy CG, O'Flanagan S, Keogh P, Kenny P. Subtrochanteric stress fractures in patients on oral bisphosphonate therapy: an emerging problem. Acta Orthop Belg. 2011;77:632-7. [PMID: 22187839] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Schilcher J, Michaëlsson K, Aspenberg P. Bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures of the femoral shaft. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1728-37. [PMID: 21542743] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1010650 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Black DM, Kelly MP, Genant HK, Palermo L, Eastell R, Bucci-Rechtweg C, et al; Fracture Intervention Trial Steering Committee. Bisphosphonates and fractures of the subtrochanteric or diaphyseal femur. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1761-71. [PMID: 20335571] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1001086 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Girgis CM, Sher D, Seibel MJ. Atypical femoral fractures and bisphosphonate use [Letter]. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1848-9. [PMID: 20463351] doi:10.1056/NEJMc0910389 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shane E, Burr D, Ebeling PR, Abrahamsen B, Adler RA, Brown TD, et al; American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:2267-94. [PMID: 20842676] doi:10.1002/jbmr.253 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 64. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Safety update for osteoporosis drugs, bisphosphonates, and atypical fractures. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2010. Accessed at www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm229009.htm on 18 August 2014. Google Scholar
Solomon DH, Hochberg MC, Mogun H, Schneeweiss S. The relation between bisphosphonate use and non-union of fractures of the humerus in older adults. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:895-901. [PMID: 18843515] doi:10.1007/s00198-008-0759-z CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Giusti A, Hamdy NA, Papapoulos SE. Atypical fractures of the femur and bisphosphonate therapy: A systematic review of case/case series studies. Bone. 2010;47:169-80. [PMID: 20493982] doi:10.1016/j.bone.2010.05.019 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Park-Wyllie LY, Mamdani MM, Juurlink DN, Hawker GA, Gunraj N, Austin PC, et al. Bisphosphonate use and the risk of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures in older women. JAMA. 2011;305:783-9. [PMID: 21343577] doi:10.1001/jama.2011.190 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Wang Z, Bhattacharyya T. Trends in incidence of subtrochanteric fragility fractures and bisphosphonate use among the US elderly, 1996-2007. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:553-60. [PMID: 20814954] doi:10.1002/jbmr.233 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsen B, Eiken P, Eastell R. Cumulative alendronate dose and the long-term absolute risk of subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femur fractures: a register-based national cohort analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95:5258-65. [PMID: 20843943] doi:10.1210/jc.2010-1571 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard P, Schwartz F, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Risk of femoral shaft and subtrochanteric fractures among users of bisphosphonates and raloxifene. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:993-1001. [PMID: 21165600] doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1512-y CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kim SY, Schneeweiss S, Katz JN, Levin R, Solomon DH. Oral bisphosphonates and risk of subtrochanteric or diaphyseal femur fractures in a population-based cohort. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26:993-1001. [PMID: 21542002] doi:10.1002/jbmr.288 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 72. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Safety update for osteoporosis drugs, bisphosphonates, and atypical fractures. 13 October 2010. Accessed at www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm229009.htm on 30 June 2014. Google Scholar
Gedmintas L, Solomon DH, Kim SC. Bisphosphonates and risk of subtrochanteric, femoral shaft, and atypical femur fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28:1729-37. [PMID: 23408697] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1893 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Edwards BJ, Bunta AD, Lane J, Odvina C, Rao DS, Raisch DW, et al. Bisphosphonates and nonhealing femoral fractures: analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and international safety efforts: a systematic review from the Research on Adverse Drug Events And Reports (RADAR) project. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:297-307. [PMID: 23426763] doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01181 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shane E, Burr D, Abrahamsen B, Adler RA, Brown TD, Cheung AM, et al. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29:1-23. [PMID: 23712442] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1998 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Green J, Czanner G, Reeves G, Watson J, Wise L, Beral V. Oral bisphosphonates and risk of cancer of oesophagus, stomach, and colorectum: case-control analysis within a UK primary care cohort. BMJ. 2010;341:c4444. [PMID: 20813820] doi:10.1136/bmj.c4444 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Wright E, Seed PT, Schofield P, Jones R. Bisphosphonates and cancer. More data using same database [Letter]. BMJ. 2010;341:c5315. [PMID: 20880919] doi:10.1136/bmj.c5315 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cardwell CR, Abnet CC, Cantwell MM, Murray LJ. Exposure to oral bisphosphonates and risk of esophageal cancer. JAMA. 2010;304:657-63. [PMID: 20699457] doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1098 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nguyen DM, Schwartz J, Richardson P, El-Serag HB. Oral bisphosphonate prescriptions and the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:3404-7. [PMID: 20397052] doi:10.1007/s10620-010-1198-1 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cardwell CR, Abnet CC, Veal P, Hughes CM, Cantwell MM, Murray LJ. Exposure to oral bisphosphonates and risk of cancer. Int J Cancer. 2012;131 5 E717-25 2011/12/14. doi:10.1002/ijc.27389. doi:PMC22161552 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J. Exposure to bisphosphonates and risk of common non-gastrointestinal cancers: series of nested case-control studies using two primary-care databases. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:795-806. [PMID: 23868009] doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.383 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Andrici J, Tio M, Eslick GD. Bisphosphonate use and the risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2013;144 Suppl 1S385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pazianas M, Abrahamsen B, Eiken PA, Eastell R, Russell RG. Reduced colon cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women treated with an oral bisphosphonate—Danish National Register Based Cohort Study. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:2693-701. [PMID: 22392160] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-1902-4 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J. Exposure to bisphosphonates and risk of gastrointestinal cancers: series of nested case-control studies with QResearch and CPRD data. BMJ. 2013;346:f114. [PMID: 23325866] doi:10.1136/bmj.f114 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Andrici J, Tio M, Eslick GD. Meta-analysis: oral bisphosphonates and the risk of oesophageal cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;36:708-16. [PMID: 22966908] doi:10.1111/apt.12041 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sun K, Liu JM, Sun HX, Lu N, Ning G. Bisphosphonate treatment and risk of esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:279-86. [PMID: 23052941] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2158-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Andrews EB, Gilsenan AW, Midkiff K, Sherrill B, Wu Y, Mann BH, et al. The US postmarketing surveillance study of adult osteosarcoma and teriparatide: study design and findings from the first 7 years. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:2429-37. [PMID: 22991313] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1768 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Arslan C, Aksoy S, Dizdar O, Dede DS, Harputluoglu H, Altundag K. Zoledronic acid and atrial fibrillation in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19:425-30. [PMID: 20358384] doi:10.1007/s00520-010-0868-z CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Barrett-Connor E, Swern AS, Hustad CM, Bone HG, Liberman UA, Papapoulos S, et al. Alendronate and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:233-45. [PMID: 21369791] doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1546-9 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Rhee CW, Lee J, Oh S, Choi NK, Park BJ. Use of bisphosphonate and risk of atrial fibrillation in older women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:247-54. [PMID: 21431993] doi:10.1007/s00198-011-1608-z CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kim SY, Kim MJ, Cadarette SM, Solomon DH. Bisphosphonates and risk of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12:R30. [PMID: 20170505] doi:10.1186/ar2938 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Loke YK, Jeevanantham V, Singh S. Bisphosphonates and atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Saf. 2009;32:219-28. [PMID: 19338379] doi:10.2165/00002018-200932030-00004 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sharma A, Chatterjee S, Arbab-Zadeh A, Goyal S, Lichstein E, Ghosh J, et al. Risk of serious atrial fibrillation and stroke with use of bisphosphonates: evidence from a meta-analysis. Chest. 2013;144:1311-22. [PMID: 23722644] doi:10.1378/chest.13-0675 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Grove EL, Abrahamsen B, Vestergaard P. Heart failure in patients treated with bisphosphonates. J Intern Med. 2013;274:342-50. [PMID: 23679231] doi:10.1111/joim.12087 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chen YM, Chen DY, Chen LK, Tsai YW, Chang LC, Huang WF, et al. Alendronate and risk of esophageal cancer: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan [Letter]. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:2379-81. [PMID: 22188086] doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03693.x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hartle JE, Tang X, Kirchner HL, Bucaloiu ID, Sartorius JA, Pogrebnaya ZV, et al. Bisphosphonate therapy, death, and cardiovascular events among female patients with CKD: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;59:636-44. [PMID: 22244796] doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.11.037 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Schwartz AV, Schafer AL, Grey A, Vittinghoff E, Palermo L, Lui LY, et al. Effects of antiresorptive therapies on glucose metabolism: results from the FIT, HORIZON-PFT, and FREEDOM trials. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28:1348-54. [PMID: 23322676] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1865 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lee WY, Sun LM, Lin MC, Liang JA, Chang SN, Sung FC, et al. A higher dosage of oral alendronate will increase the subsequent cancer risk of osteoporosis patients in Taiwan: a population-based cohort study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e53032. [PMID: 23300854] doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053032 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Etminan M, Forooghian F, Maberley D. Inflammatory ocular adverse events with the use of oral bisphosphonates: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ. 2012;184:E431-4. [PMID: 22470169] doi:10.1503/cmaj.111752 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard P. Occurrence of gastrointestinal cancer in users of bisphosphonates and other antiresorptive drugs against osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2011;89:434-41. [PMID: 22002678] doi:10.1007/s00223-011-9539-4 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chiang CH, Huang CC, Chan WL, Huang PH, Chen TJ, Chung CM, et al. Oral alendronate use and risk of cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: A nationwide study. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:1951-8. [PMID: 22532232] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1645 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shih AW, Weir MA, Clemens KK, Yao Z, Gomes T, Mamdani MM, et al. Oral bisphosphonate use in the elderly is not associated with acute kidney injury. Kidney Int. 2012;82:903-8. [PMID: 22695327] doi:10.1038/ki.2012.227 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Christensen S, Mehnert F, Chapurlat RD, Baron JA, Sørensen HT. Oral bisphosphonates and risk of ischemic stroke: a case-control study. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:1773-9. [PMID: 20945149] doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1395-y CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kang JH, Keller JJ, Lin HC. A population-based 2-year follow-up study on the relationship between bisphosphonates and the risk of stroke. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23:2551-7. [PMID: 22270858] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-1894-0 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Khalili H, Huang ES, Ogino S, Fuchs CS, Chan AT. A prospective study of bisphosphonate use and risk of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3229-33. [PMID: 22649131] doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.39.2670 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nakamura T, Sugimoto T, Nakano T, Kishimoto H, Ito M, Fukunaga M, et al. Randomized Teriparatide [human parathyroid hormone (PTH) 1-34] Once-Weekly Efficacy Research (TOWER) trial for examining the reduction in new vertebral fractures in subjects with primary osteoporosis and high fracture risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:3097-106. [PMID: 22723322] doi:10.1210/jc.2011-3479 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kumagai Y, Hasunuma T, Padhi D. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of denosumab administered subcutaneously to postmenopausal Japanese women. Bone. 2011;49:1101-7. [PMID: 21871589] doi:10.1016/j.bone.2011.08.007 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fujita T, Fukunaga M, Itabashi A, Tsutani K, Nakamura T. Once-weekly injection of low-dose teriparatide (28.2 µg) reduced the risk of vertebral fracture in patients with primary osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2014;94:170-5. [PMID: 23963633] doi:10.1007/s00223-013-9777-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Tadrous M, Wong L, Mamdani MM, Juurlink DN, Krahn MD, Lévesque LE, et al. Comparative gastrointestinal safety of bisphosphonates in primary osteoporosis: a network meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:1225-35. [PMID: 24287510] doi:10.1007/s00198-013-2576-2 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi A, Scotti L, Vedova GD, D'Oro LC, Lapi F, Cipriani F, et al; AIFA-BEST Investigators. Oral bisphosphonates do not increase the risk of severe upper gastrointestinal complications: a nested case-control study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014;14:5. [PMID: 24397769] doi:10.1186/1471-230X-14-5 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Toulis KA, Anastasilakis AD. Increased risk of serious infections in women with osteopenia or osteoporosis treated with denosumab [Letter]. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21:1963-4. [PMID: 20012939] doi:10.1007/s00198-009-1145-1 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lapi F, Cipriani F, Caputi AP, Corrao G, Vaccheri A, Sturkenboom MC, et al; Bisphosphonates Efficacy-Safety Tradeoff (BEST) study group. Assessing the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw due to bisphosphonate therapy in the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:697-705. [PMID: 22618266] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2013-y CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick SG, Stavropoulos MF, Bowers LM, Neuman AN, Hinkson DW, Green JG, et al. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of jaws in 3 osteoporotic patients with history of oral bisphosphonate use treated with single yearly zoledronic acid infusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:325-30. [PMID: 21723015] doi:10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.049 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
O'Ryan FS, Lo JC. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with oral bisphosphonate exposure: clinical course and outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:1844-53. [PMID: 22595135] doi:10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.033 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Otto S, Schreyer C, Hafner S, Mast G, Ehrenfeld M, Stürzenbaum S, et al. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws—characteristics, risk factors, clinical features, localization and impact on oncological treatment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40:303-9. [PMID: 21676622] doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2011.05.003 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bocanegra-Pérez MS, Vicente-Barrero M, Sosa-Henríquez M, Rodríguez-Bocanegra E, Limiñana-Cañal JM, López-Márquez A, et al. Bone metabolism and clinical study of 44 patients with bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:e948-55. [PMID: 22926469] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Park W, Lee SH, Park KR, Rho SH, Chung WY, Kim HJ. Characteristics of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after kidney transplantation. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:e510-4. [PMID: 22976726] doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825b33f6 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hansen PJ, Knitschke M, Draenert FG, Irle S, Neff A. Incidence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) in patients taking bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment—a grossly underestimated risk? Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1829-37. [PMID: 23114879] doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0873-3 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Tennis P, Rothman KJ, Bohn RL, Tan H, Zavras A, Laskarides C, et al. Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw among users of bisphosphonates with selected cancers or osteoporosis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:810-7. [PMID: 22711458] doi:10.1002/pds.3292 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Urade M, Tanaka N, Furusawa K, Shimada J, Shibata T, Kirita T, et al. Nationwide survey for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws in Japan. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:e364-71. [PMID: 21782307] doi:10.1016/j.joms.2011.03.051 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Diniz-Freitas M, López-Cedrún JL, Fernández-Sanromán J, García-García A, Fernández-Feijoo J, Diz-Dios P. Oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: Clinical characteristics of a series of 20 cases in Spain. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:e751-8. [PMID: 22549688] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Baillargeon J, Kuo YF, Lin YL, Wilkinson GS, Goodwin JS. Osteonecrosis of the jaw in older osteoporosis patients treated with intravenous bisphosphonates. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45:1199-206. [PMID: 21954448] doi:10.1345/aph.1Q239 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Almasan HA, Baciut M, Rotaru H, Bran S, Almasan OC, Baciut G. Osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with the use of bisphosphonates. Discussion over 52 cases. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2011;52:1233-41. [PMID: 22203928] MedlineGoogle Scholar
Villa A, Castiglioni S, Peretti A, Omodei M, Ferrieri GB, Abati S. Osteoporosis and bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw bone. ISRN Rheumatol. 2011;2011:654027. [PMID: 22389800] doi:10.5402/2011/654027 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Otto S, Abu-Id MH, Fedele S, Warnke PH, Becker ST, Kolk A, et al. Osteoporosis and bisphosphonates-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: not just a sporadic coincidence—a multi-centre study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011;39:272-7. [PMID: 20580566] doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2010.05.009 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vescovi P, Campisi G, Fusco V, Mergoni G, Manfredi M, Merigo E, et al. Surgery-triggered and non–surgery-triggered Bisphosphonate-related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws (BRONJ): A retrospective analysis of 567 cases in an Italian multicenter study. Oral Oncol. 2011;47:191-4. [PMID: 21292541] doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.11.007 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chamizo Carmona E, Gallego Flores A, Loza Santamaría E, Herrero Olea A, Rosario Lozano MP. Systematic literature review of bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with osteoporosis. Reumatol Clin. 2013;9:172-7. [PMID: 22784630] doi:10.1016/j.reuma.2012.05.005 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsen B. Bisphosphonate adverse effects, lessons from large databases. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2010;22:404-9. [PMID: 20473174] doi:10.1097/BOR.0b013e32833ad677 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lo JC, O'Ryan FS, Gordon NP, Yang J, Hui RL, Martin D, et al; Predicting Risk of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw with Oral Bisphosphonate Exposure (PROBE) Investigators. Prevalence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with oral bisphosphonate exposure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:243-53. [PMID: 19772941] doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.050 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Grbic JT, Landesberg R, Lin SQ, Mesenbrink P, Reid IR, Leung PC, et al; Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly Pivotal Fracture Trial Research Group. Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in the health outcomes and reduced incidence with zoledronic acid once yearly pivotal fracture trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:32-40. [PMID: 18167382] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Grbic JT, Black DM, Lyles KW, Reid DM, Orwoll E, McClung M, et al. The incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients receiving 5 milligrams of zoledronic acid: data from the health outcomes and reduced incidence with zoledronic acid once yearly clinical trials program. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141:1365-70. [PMID: 21037195] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Khan AA, Sándor GK, Dore E, Morrison AD, Alsahli M, Amin F, et al; Canadian Taskforce on Osteonecrosis of the Jaw. Bisphosphonate associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:478-90. [PMID: 19286860] doi:10.3899/jrheum.080759 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Solomon DH, Mercer E, Woo SB, Avorn J, Schneeweiss S, Treister N. Defining the epidemiology of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw: prior work and current challenges. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:237-44. [PMID: 22707065] doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2042-6 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lee SH, Chang SS, Lee M, Chan RC, Lee CC. Risk of osteonecrosis in patients taking bisphosphonates for prevention of osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:1131-9. [PMID: 24343364] doi:10.1007/s00198-013-2575-3 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Filleul O, Crompot E, Saussez S. Bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw: a review of 2,400 patient cases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136:1117-24. [PMID: 20508948] doi:10.1007/s00432-010-0907-7 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Pazianas M, Clark EM, Eiken PA, Brixen K, Abrahamsen B. Inflammatory eye reactions in patients treated with bisphosphonates and other osteoporosis medications: cohort analysis using a national prescription database. J Bone Miner Res. 2013;28:455-63. [PMID: 23044864] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1783 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Black DM, Schwartz AV, Ensrud KE, Cauley JA, Levis S, Quandt SA, et al; FLEX Research Group. Effects of continuing or stopping alendronate after 5 years of treatment: the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (FLEX): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2927-38. [PMID: 17190893] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Schwartz AV, Bauer DC, Cummings SR, Cauley JA, Ensrud KE, Palermo L, et al; FLEX Research Group. Efficacy of continued alendronate for fractures in women with and without prevalent vertebral fracture: the FLEX trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2010;25:976-82. [PMID: 20200926] doi:10.1002/jbmr.11 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Black DM, Reid IR, Boonen S, Bucci-Rechtweg C, Cauley JA, Cosman F, et al. The effect of 3 versus 6 years of zoledronic acid treatment of osteoporosis: a randomized extension to the HORIZON-Pivotal Fracture Trial (PFT). J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27:243-54. [PMID: 22161728] doi:10.1002/jbmr.1494 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mellström DD, Sörensen OH, Goemaere S, Roux C, Johnson TD, Chines AA. Seven years of treatment with risedronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2004;75:462-8. [PMID: 15455188] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Whitaker M, Guo J, Kehoe T, Benson G. Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis—where do we go from here? N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2048-51. [PMID: 22571168] doi:10.1056/NEJMp1202619 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Black DM, Bauer DC, Schwartz AV, Cummings SR, Rosen CJ. Continuing bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis—for whom and for how long? N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2051-3. [PMID: 22571169] doi:10.1056/NEJMp1202623 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Gourlay ML, Fine JP, Preisser JS, May RC, Li C, Lui LY, et al; Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Bone-density testing interval and transition to osteoporosis in older women. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:225-33. [PMID: 22256806] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1107142 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Berry SD, Samelson EJ, Pencina MJ, McLean RR, Cupples LA, Broe KE, et al. Repeat bone mineral density screening and prediction of hip and major osteoporotic fracture. JAMA. 2013;310:1256-62. [PMID: 24065012] doi:10.1001/jama.2013.277817 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Harris F, Genant HK, Ensrud K, LaCroix AZ, et al. Improvement in spine bone density and reduction in risk of vertebral fractures during treatment with antiresorptive drugs. Am J Med. 2002;112:281-9. [PMID: 11893367] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chapurlat RD, Palermo L, Ramsay P, Cummings SR. Risk of fracture among women who lose bone density during treatment with alendronate. The Fracture Intervention Trial. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16:842-8. [PMID: 15580479] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Watts NB, Geusens P, Barton IP, Felsenberg D. Relationship between changes in BMD and nonvertebral fracture incidence associated with risedronate: reduction in risk of nonvertebral fracture is not related to change in BMD. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20:2097-104. [PMID: 16294263] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Miller PD, Delmas PD, Huss H, Patel KM, Schimmer RC, Adami S, et al. Increases in hip and spine bone mineral density are predictive for vertebral antifracture efficacy with ibandronate. Calcif Tissue Int. 2010;87:305-13. [PMID: 20737140] doi:10.1007/s00223-010-9403-y CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sarkar S, Mitlak BH, Wong M, Stock JL, Black DM, Harper KD. Relationships between bone mineral density and incident vertebral fracture risk with raloxifene therapy. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17:1-10. [PMID: 11771654] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chen P, Miller PD, Delmas PD, Misurski DA, Krege JH. Change in lumbar spine BMD and vertebral fracture risk reduction in teriparatide-treated postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2006;21:1785-90. [PMID: 17002571] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Combs BP, Rappaport M, Caverly TJ, Matlock DD. “Due” for a scan: examining the utility of monitoring densitometry. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:2007-9. [PMID: 23877530] doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.8998 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
McClung MR, Grauer A, Boonen S, Bolognese MA, Brown JP, Diez-Perez A, et al. Romosozumab in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:412-20. [PMID: 24382002] doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1305224 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Papapoulos S, Bone H, Dempster D, Eisman J, Greenspan S, McClung M, et al. Phase 3 fracture trial of odanacatib for osteoporosis-baseline characteristics and study design. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24 Suppl 1S151. MedlineGoogle Scholar
Tsai JN, Uihlein AV, Lee H, Kumbhani R, Siwila-Sackman E, McKay EA, et al. Teriparatide and denosumab, alone or combined, in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: the DATA study randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;382:50-6. [PMID: 23683600] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60856-9 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nakamura T, Shiraki M, Fukunaga M, Tomomitsu T, Santora AC, Tsai R, et al. Effect of the cathepsin K inhibitor odanacatib administered once weekly on bone mineral density in Japanese patients with osteoporosis—a double-blind, randomized, dose-finding study. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:367-76. [PMID: 23716037] doi:10.1007/s00198-013-2398-2 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 156. VERtebral Fracture Treatment Comparisons in Osteoporotic Women (VERO). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 16 October 2012 [updated 11 July 2014]. Accessed at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01709110 on 24 July 2014. Google Scholar
- 157. Combination Risedronate–Parathyroid Hormone Trial in Male Osteoporosis (RPM). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 29 May 2012 [updated 15 January 2014]. Accessed at http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01611571. Google Scholar
- 158. Comparison of the Effect of an Ongoing Treatment With Alendronate or a Drug Holiday on the Fracture Risk in Osteoporotic Patients With Bisphosphonate Long Term Therapy (BILANZ). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 11 January 2012 [updated 21 March 2012]. Accessed at http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01512446 on 24 July 2014. Google Scholar
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
Carolyn J. Crandall,
From David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore; and RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge Roberta Shanman, MLS, for conducting the update searches and Kanaka Shetty, MD, and Michael Scarpati, PhD, for the use of machine learning for the 2013 update searches. In addition, they acknowledge the guidance provided by the technical expert panel members, Roberta Biegel, MA; Bruce Ettinger, MD; Theodore Hahn, MD; Marc Hochberg, MD, MPH; Hau Liu, MD; Catherine MacLean, MD, PhD; Paul Miller, MD; Eric Orwoll, MD; Marcel E. Salive, MD, MPH; and Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH.
Grant Support: By the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (HHSA290200710062I). No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Disclosures: All authors received grant support from AHRQ during the conduct of the study. Dr. Gellad reports grant support from Express Scripts outside the submitted work. Dr. Shekelle reports royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work and was an author of an American College of Physicians guideline on this topic. Disclosures can also be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M14-0317.
Corresponding Author: Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, Professor of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Avenue, 1st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024; e-mail, ccrandall@mednet.
Current Author Addresses: Drs. Crandall and Diamant: David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Avenue, 1st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
Dr. Newberry, Ms. Booth, and Ms. Motala: RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401.
Dr. Lim: Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore MD3, 16 Medical Drive, Singapore 117597.
Dr. Gellad: Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15240.
Dr. Shekelle: Veterans Affairs Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90073.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: C.J. Crandall, S.J. Newberry, A. Diamant, Y.W. Lim, P.G. Shekelle.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: C.J. Crandall, S.J. Newberry, A. Diamant, Y.W. Lim, W.F. Gellad, M.J. Booth, P.G. Shekelle.
Drafting of the article: C.J. Crandall, S.J. Newberry, A. Diamant, M.J. Booth, A. Motala, P.G. Shekelle.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: C.J. Crandall, S.J. Newberry, A. Diamant, W.F. Gellad, P.G. Shekelle.
Final approval of the article: C.J. Crandall, S.J. Newberry, A. Diamant, W.F. Gellad, P.G. Shekelle.
Statistical expertise: M.J. Booth.
Obtaining of funding: P.G. Shekelle.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: A. Motala, P.G. Shekelle.
Collection and assembly of data: S.J. Newberry, A. Diamant, Y.W. Lim, W.F. Gellad, A. Motala, M.J. Booth, P.G. Shekelle.
This article was published online first at www.annals.org on 9 September 2014.