Richy F, Schacht E, Bruyere O, Ethgen O, Gourlay M, Reginster J-Y
Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Calcif Tissue Int. 2005 Mar;76(3):176-86. doi: 10.1007/s00223-004-0005-4. Epub 2005 Feb 7.
It has been suggested that early postmenopausal women and patients treated with steroids should receive preventive therapy (calcium, vitamin D, vitamin D analogs, estrogens, or bisphosphonates) to preserve their bone mineral density (BMD) and to avoid fragility fractures. We designed the present study to compare the effects of native vitamin D to its hydroxylated analogs alfacalcidol 1-alpha(OH)D and calcitriol 1,25(OH)(2)D. All randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials comparing oral native vitamin D and its analogs, alfacalcidol or calcitriol, to placebo or head-to-head trials in primary or corticosteroids-induced osteoporosis were included in the meta-analysis. Sources included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and a hand search of abstracts and references lists. The study period January 1985 to January 2003. Data were abstracted by two investigators, and methodological quality was assessed in a similar manner. Heterogeneity was extensively investigated. Results were expressed as effect-size (ES) for bone loss and as rate difference (RD) for fracture while allocated to active treatment or control. Publication bias was investigated. Fourteen studies of native vitamin D, nine of alfacalcidol, and ten of calcitriol fit the inclusion criteria. The two vitamin D analogs appeared to exert a higher preventive effect on bone loss and fracture rates in patients not exposed to glucocorticoids. With respect to BMD, vitamin D analogs versus placebo studies had an ES of 0.36 (P < 0.0001), whereas native vitamin D versus placebo had an ES of 0.17 (P = 0.0005), the interclass difference being highly significant (ANOVA-1, P < 0.05). When restricted to the lumbar spine, this intertreatment difference remained significant: ES = 0.43 (P = 0.0002) for vitamin D analogs and ES = 0.21 (P = 0.001) for native vitamin D (analysis of variance [ANOVA-1], P = 0.047). There were no significant differences regarding their efficacies on other measurement sites (ANOVA-1, P = 0.36). When comparing the adjusted global relative risks for fracture when allocated to vitamin D analogs or native vitamin D, alfacalcidol and calcitriol provided a more marked preventive efficacy against fractures: RD = 10% (95% Confidence interval [CI-2] to 17) compared to RD = 2% (95% CI, 1 to 2), respectively. The analysis of the spinal and nonspinal showed that fracture rates differed between the two classes, thereby confirming the benefits of vitamin D analogs, with significant 13.4% (95% CI 7.7 to 19.8) and. 6% (95% CI 1 to 12) lower fracture rates for vitamin D analogs, respectively. In patients receiving corticosteroid therapy, both treatments provided similar global ESs for BMD: ES = 0.38 for vitamin D analogs and ES = 0.41 for native vitamin D (ANOVA-1, P = 0.88). When restriced to spinal BMD, D analogs provided significant effects, whereas native vitamin D did not: ES = 0.43 (P < 0.0001) and ES = 0.33 (P = 0.21), respectively. The intertreatment difference was nonsignificant (ANOVA-1, P = 0.52). Neither D analogs for native vitamin D significantly prevented fractures in this subcategory of patients: RD = 2.6 (95%CI, -9.5 to 4.3) and RD = 6.4 (95%CI, -2.3 to 10), respectively. In head-to-head studies comparing D analogs and native vitamin D in patients receiving corticosteroids, significant effects favoring D analogs were found for femoral neck BMD: ES = 0.31 at P = 0.02 and spinal fractures: RD = 15% (95%CI, 6.5 to 25). Publication bias was not significant. Our analysis demonstrates a superiority of the D analogs atfacalcidol and calcitriol in preventing bone loss and spinal fractures in primary osteoporosis, including postmenopausal women. In corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis, the efficacy of D analogs differed depending on the comparative approach: indirect comparisons led to nonsignificant differences, whereas direct comparison did provide significant differences. In this setting, D analogs seem to prevent spinal fractures to a greater extent than do native vitamin D, but this assumption should be confirmed on a comprehensive basis in multiarm studies including an inactive comparator.
有人提出,绝经后早期女性和接受类固醇治疗的患者应接受预防性治疗(钙、维生素D、维生素D类似物、雌激素或双膦酸盐),以维持其骨矿物质密度(BMD)并避免脆性骨折。我们设计了本研究,以比较天然维生素D与其羟基化类似物阿法骨化醇1-α(OH)D和骨化三醇1,25(OH)(2)D的效果。所有比较口服天然维生素D及其类似物阿法骨化醇或骨化三醇与安慰剂的随机、对照、双盲试验,或原发性或皮质类固醇诱导的骨质疏松症的头对头试验都纳入了荟萃分析。资料来源包括Cochrane对照试验注册库、EMBASE、MEDLINE,以及对手稿摘要和参考文献列表的手工检索。研究时间段为1985年1月至2003年1月。数据由两名研究人员提取,并以类似方式评估方法学质量。对异质性进行了广泛研究。结果以骨丢失的效应量(ES)和骨折的率差(RD)表示,同时分配到活性治疗组或对照组。对发表偏倚进行了研究。14项关于天然维生素D的研究、9项关于阿法骨化醇的研究和10项关于骨化三醇的研究符合纳入标准。这两种维生素D类似物似乎对未接触糖皮质激素患者的骨丢失和骨折率具有更高的预防作用。关于骨矿物质密度,维生素D类似物与安慰剂研究相比效应量为0.36(P < 0.0001),而天然维生素D与安慰剂相比效应量为0.17(P = 0.0005),组间差异非常显著(方差分析-1,P < 0.05)。当仅限于腰椎时,这种治疗间差异仍然显著:维生素D类似物的效应量为0.43(P = 0.0002),天然维生素D的效应量为0.21(P = 0.001)(方差分析[ANOVA-1],P = 0.047)。它们在其他测量部位的疗效无显著差异(方差分析-1,P = 0.36)。当比较分配到维生素D类似物或天然维生素D时骨折的调整后总体相对风险时,阿法骨化醇和骨化三醇对骨折具有更显著的预防效果:率差分别为10%(95%置信区间[CI-2]至17)和2%(95%置信区间1至2)。对脊柱和非脊柱的分析表明,两类之间骨折率不同,从而证实了维生素D类似物的益处,维生素D类似物的骨折率分别显著降低13.4%(95%置信区间7.7至19.8)和6%(95%置信区间1至12)。在接受皮质类固醇治疗的患者中,两种治疗对骨矿物质密度的总体效应量相似:维生素D类似物为0.38,天然维生素D为0.41(方差分析-1,P = 0.88)。当仅限于脊柱骨矿物质密度时,维生素D类似物有显著效果,而天然维生素D没有:效应量分别为0.43(P < 0.0001)和0.33(P = 0.21)。治疗间差异不显著(方差分析-1,P = 0.52)。在接受皮质类固醇治疗的患者中,维生素D类似物和天然维生素D均未显著预防骨折:率差分别为2.6(95%置信区间,-9.5至4.3)和6.4(95%置信区间,-2.3至10)。在比较接受皮质类固醇治疗患者中维生素D类似物和天然维生素D的头对头研究中,发现维生素D类似物对股骨颈骨矿物质密度有显著效果:效应量为0.31,P = 0.02,对脊柱骨折有显著效果:率差为15%(95%置信区间,6.5至