School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
OPEN-Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
J Bone Miner Res. 2021 Jan;36(1):24-40. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4157. Epub 2020 Sep 19.
The cardiovascular safety of denosumab has not yet been evaluated in a systematic review. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to quantify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of denosumab (against comparators) reporting cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs) and examine the balance of CAEs between treatment arms. MEDLINE, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to October 26, 2019, for RCTs of denosumab versus comparators for any indication. Included trials were randomized, enrolled ≥100 participants, and reported bone-related outcomes. Primary outcome for analysis was all CAEs, a composite endpoint representing summation of all CAEs as reported by included trials. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Data were pooled using a fixed effects model to determine relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Of 554 records screened, 49 were included, while 36 reported CAEs. Twenty-seven included trials (12 eligible for meta-analysis) were conducted in 13,202 postmenopausal women. Compared with bisphosphonates, there was a 46% (95% CI 1.05 to 2.02) increase in CAEs (85/2136 events in denosumab-treated versus 58/2131 events in bisphosphonate-treated; seven trials). There was a similar imbalance in a five-point (stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) MACE endpoint (28/2053 versus 12/2050; RR = 2.33 [1.19 to 4.56]). Compared with placebo-treated women, there was no imbalance in total CAEs (439/4725 events in denosumab versus 399/4467 in placebo; RR = 0.79 [0.41 to 1.52]; seven trials). No imbalance in total AEs (versus bisphosphonates: 0.98 [0.92 to 1.04]; versus placebo: 0.99 [0.98 to 1.01]) occurred. Other indications showed no statistically significant results. The excess CAEs in postmenopausal women treated with denosumab compared with bisphosphonates, but not placebo, indirectly supports claims that bisphosphonates may suppress CAEs. Future trials should use standardized CAE reporting to better describe cardiovascular effects of bone active medications. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135414.) © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
地舒单抗的心血管安全性尚未在系统评价中进行评估。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在定量评估地舒单抗(与对照药物相比)的随机对照试验(RCT)报告的心血管不良事件(CAE)数量,并检查治疗组之间 CAE 的平衡。从成立到 2019 年 10 月 26 日,检索了 MEDLINE、Embase 和 clinicaltrials.gov 中的地舒单抗与任何适应证的对照药物的 RCT 研究。纳入的试验是随机的,纳入了≥100 名参与者,并报告了与骨骼相关的结局。分析的主要结局是所有 CAE,这是一个综合终点,代表纳入试验报告的所有 CAE 的总和。次要结局包括主要不良心血管事件(MACE)。使用固定效应模型汇总数据以确定相对风险(RR)和 95%置信区间(95%CI)。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。在筛选的 554 条记录中,有 49 条被纳入,其中 36 条报告了 CAE。27 项纳入的试验(12 项符合荟萃分析条件)在 13202 名绝经后妇女中进行。与双磷酸盐类药物相比,地舒单抗治疗组的 CAE 增加了 46%(95%CI 1.05 至 2.02)(地舒单抗治疗组 85/2136 例事件,双磷酸盐类药物治疗组 58/2131 例事件;7 项试验)。在包括卒中、心肌梗死、心血管死亡、心力衰竭和心房颤动在内的五分制(MACE)终点方面,也存在类似的不平衡(地舒单抗治疗组 28/2053 例,双磷酸盐类药物治疗组 12/2050 例;RR=2.33[1.19 至 4.56])。与安慰剂治疗组相比,地舒单抗治疗组的总 CAE 无不平衡(地舒单抗治疗组 439/4725 例事件,安慰剂治疗组 399/4467 例事件;RR=0.79[0.41 至 1.52];7 项试验)。与双磷酸盐类药物(RR=0.98[0.92 至 1.04])或安慰剂(RR=0.99[0.98 至 1.01])相比,总不良事件无不平衡。其他适应证未显示出统计学显著结果。与双磷酸盐类药物相比,地舒单抗治疗的绝经后妇女的 CAE 增加,但与安慰剂相比没有增加,这间接支持了双磷酸盐类药物可能抑制 CAE 的说法。未来的试验应使用标准化的 CAE 报告来更好地描述骨活性药物的心血管效应。(PROSPERO:CRD42019135414。)©2020 美国骨矿研究学会(ASBMR)。