Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis.
Osteoporos Int. 2013 Jan; 24(1):209-17.OI

Abstract

Network meta-analysis techniques (meta-analysis, adjusted indirect comparison, and mixed treatment comparison [MTC]) allow for treatment comparisons in the absence of head-to-head trials. In this study, conditional estimates of relative treatment efficacy derived through these techniques show important differences in the fracture risk reduction profiles of marketed pharmacologic therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION

This study illustrates how network meta-analysis techniques (meta-analysis, adjusted indirect comparison, and MTC) can provide comparisons of the relative efficacy of postmenopausal osteoporosis therapies in the absence of comprehensive head-to-head trials.

METHODS

Source articles were identified in MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Wiley Interscience; and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) between April 28, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Two reviewers identified English-language articles reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with on-label dosing of marketed osteoporosis agents and fracture endpoints. Trial design, population characteristics, intervention and comparator, fracture outcomes, and adverse events were abstracted for analysis. Primary analyses included data from RCTs with fracture endpoints. Sensitivity analyses also included studies with fractures reported through adverse event reports. Meta-analysis compared fracture outcomes for pharmacological therapies vs. placebo (fixed and random effects models); adjusted indirect comparisons and MTC assessed fracture risk in postmenopausal women treated with denosumab vs. other agents.

RESULTS

Using data from 34 studies, random effects meta-analysis showed that all agents except etidronate significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures compared with placebo; denosumab, risedronate, and zoledronic acid significantly reduced the risk for nonvertebral and hip fracture, while alendronate, strontium ranelate, and teriparatide significantly reduced the risk for nonvertebral fractures. MTC showed denosumab to be more effective than strontium ranelate, raloxifene, alendronate, and risedronate in preventing new vertebral fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

The conditional estimates of relative treatment efficacy indicate that there are important differences in fracture risk reduction profiles for marketed pharmacological therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, NW3 2PF, UK. nicholas.freemantle@ucl.ac.ukNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22832638

Citation

Freemantle, N, et al. "Results of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparison of Fracture Efficacy for Osteoporosis Treatments: a Meta-analysis." Osteoporosis International : a Journal Established as Result of Cooperation Between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, vol. 24, no. 1, 2013, pp. 209-17.
Freemantle N, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, et al. Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(1):209-17.
Freemantle, N., Cooper, C., Diez-Perez, A., Gitlin, M., Radcliffe, H., Shepherd, S., & Roux, C. (2013). Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis. Osteoporosis International : a Journal Established as Result of Cooperation Between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 24(1), 209-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2068-9
Freemantle N, et al. Results of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparison of Fracture Efficacy for Osteoporosis Treatments: a Meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(1):209-17. PubMed PMID: 22832638.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis. AU - Freemantle,N, AU - Cooper,C, AU - Diez-Perez,A, AU - Gitlin,M, AU - Radcliffe,H, AU - Shepherd,S, AU - Roux,C, Y1 - 2012/07/26/ PY - 2012/02/22/received PY - 2012/06/04/accepted PY - 2012/7/27/entrez PY - 2012/7/27/pubmed PY - 2013/6/12/medline SP - 209 EP - 17 JF - Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA JO - Osteoporos Int VL - 24 IS - 1 N2 - UNLABELLED: Network meta-analysis techniques (meta-analysis, adjusted indirect comparison, and mixed treatment comparison [MTC]) allow for treatment comparisons in the absence of head-to-head trials. In this study, conditional estimates of relative treatment efficacy derived through these techniques show important differences in the fracture risk reduction profiles of marketed pharmacologic therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: This study illustrates how network meta-analysis techniques (meta-analysis, adjusted indirect comparison, and MTC) can provide comparisons of the relative efficacy of postmenopausal osteoporosis therapies in the absence of comprehensive head-to-head trials. METHODS: Source articles were identified in MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Wiley Interscience; and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) between April 28, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Two reviewers identified English-language articles reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with on-label dosing of marketed osteoporosis agents and fracture endpoints. Trial design, population characteristics, intervention and comparator, fracture outcomes, and adverse events were abstracted for analysis. Primary analyses included data from RCTs with fracture endpoints. Sensitivity analyses also included studies with fractures reported through adverse event reports. Meta-analysis compared fracture outcomes for pharmacological therapies vs. placebo (fixed and random effects models); adjusted indirect comparisons and MTC assessed fracture risk in postmenopausal women treated with denosumab vs. other agents. RESULTS: Using data from 34 studies, random effects meta-analysis showed that all agents except etidronate significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral fractures compared with placebo; denosumab, risedronate, and zoledronic acid significantly reduced the risk for nonvertebral and hip fracture, while alendronate, strontium ranelate, and teriparatide significantly reduced the risk for nonvertebral fractures. MTC showed denosumab to be more effective than strontium ranelate, raloxifene, alendronate, and risedronate in preventing new vertebral fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The conditional estimates of relative treatment efficacy indicate that there are important differences in fracture risk reduction profiles for marketed pharmacological therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. SN - 1433-2965 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22832638/Results_of_indirect_and_mixed_treatment_comparison_of_fracture_efficacy_for_osteoporosis_treatments:_a_meta_analysis_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2068-9 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -