School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Cardiovascular Research Methods Center, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 3;5(5):CD004523. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004523.pub4.
Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.
We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.
With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.
We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.
We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.
Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable. For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures. Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events. For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.
骨质疏松症是一种骨量异常减少和骨恶化导致骨折风险增加的疾病。利塞膦酸钠属于双膦酸盐类药物,通过干扰破骨细胞的活性来抑制骨吸收。这是对最初于 2003 年发表的 Cochrane 综述的更新。
我们评估了利塞膦酸钠在绝经后妇女中预防骨质疏松性骨折的一级和二级预防中的益处和危害。
我们采用更广泛和更新的策略,检索了 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE 和 Embase。还进行了灰色文献搜索,包括 ClinicalTrials.gov、国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)和药物批准机构在内的在线数据库,以及对相关系统评价的参考文献检查。纳入了 2021 年 3 月 24 日之前发表的随机对照试验。
我们纳入了评估利塞膦酸钠预防骨折的益处和危害的随机对照试验,这些试验针对绝经后妇女。参与者必须接受至少一年的利塞膦酸钠、安慰剂或其他抗骨质疏松药物治疗,无论是否同时使用钙/维生素 D。主要结局是临床椎体、非椎体、髋部和腕部骨折、因不良事件而退出以及严重不良事件。为了符合临床相关性和适用性,我们将如果其人群符合以下一个或多个分层标准,则将研究分类为二级预防:骨质疏松症的诊断、椎体骨折史、骨密度 T 评分≤-2.5 和年龄≥75 岁。如果没有符合这些标准,则该研究被认为是一级预防。
我们使用了 Cochrane 预期的标准方法。我们使用固定效应模型汇总了骨折的相对风险(RR),基于以下期望:各主要和次要预防研究的临床和方法学特征将是同质的,并且从之前的综述中得出的经验表明,研究数量将很少。基础案例包括每个安慰剂对照试验中最长治疗期的可用数据,并且认为 15%的相对变化具有临床意义。综述的主要发现以 GRADE 方法呈现为总结表。此外,我们还比较了利塞膦酸钠的不同剂量方案以及利塞膦酸钠与其他抗骨质疏松药物之间的益处和危害。
43 项试验符合纳入标准,其中 33 项研究(27348 名参与者)报告了可提取和定量综合的数据。我们对每项试验的特定偏倚风险领域表示关注。选择偏倚是最常见的问题,只有 24%的研究描述了适用于序列生成和分配隐藏的方法。分别有 50%和 39%的报告益处和危害结局的研究报告存在高风险。在定量综合中纳入的研究没有一个被认为在七个领域都存在低偏倚风险。以下描述的结果适用于每日利塞膦酸钠 5mg 与安慰剂的比较,该比较报告了主要结局。其他比较在全文中描述。对于一级预防,从四项研究(为期一到两年)中收集了来自骨折风险较低的 989 名绝经后妇女的低至非常低确定性证据。利塞膦酸钠 5mg/天可能对腕部骨折几乎没有影响或没有影响[RR0.48(95%CI0.03 至 7.50;两项研究,243 名参与者);绝对风险降低(ARR)1%少(95%CI1%少至 7%多)]和因不良事件而退出[RR0.67(95%CI0.38 至 1.18;三项研究,748 名参与者);ARR2%少(95%CI5%少至 1%多)],基于低确定性证据。然而,由于非常低的确定性证据,其对非椎体骨折和严重不良事件的预防效果尚不清楚。报告了零例临床椎体和髋部骨折,因此无法估计这些结局的利塞膦酸钠的效果。对于二级预防,9 项研究(为期一到三年)包括了 14354 名骨折风险较高的绝经后妇女,提供了证据。利塞膦酸钠 5mg/天可能预防非椎体骨折[RR0.80(95%CI0.72 至 0.90;六项研究,12173 名参与者);RRR20%(95%CI10%至 28%)和 ARR2%少(95%CI1%少至 3%少),中等确定性],并可能降低髋部骨折[RR0.73(95%CI0.56 至 0.94);RRR27%(95%CI6%至 44%)和 ARR1%少(95%CI0.2%少至 1%少),低确定性]。这些效果都可能具有临床意义。然而,由于报告的腕部骨折事件为零,我们尚不清楚利塞膦酸钠对腕部骨折的效果[RR0.64(95%CI0.33 至 1.24);三项研究,1746 名参与者);ARR1%少(95%CI2%少至 1%多),非常低确定性],并且由于报告的零事件,我们也无法对临床椎体骨折进行估计(低确定性)。利塞膦酸钠导致因不良事件而退出的差异无统计学意义[RR0.98(95%CI0.90 至 1.07;八项研究,9529 名参与者);ARR0.3%少(95%CI2%少至 1%多);16.9%在利塞膦酸钠组,17.2%在对照组,高确定性],并且可能导致严重不良事件的差异无统计学意义[RR1.00(95%CI0.94 至 1.07;六项研究,9435 名参与者);ARR0%少(95%CI2%少至 2%多;两组均为 29.2%,中等确定性]。
本次更新总结了我们之前的综述的关键发现,即对于二级预防,利塞膦酸钠 5mg/天可能预防非椎体骨折,并可能降低髋部骨折的风险。我们不确定利塞膦酸钠 5mg/天是否会降低临床椎体和腕部骨折的风险。与安慰剂相比,利塞膦酸钠可能不会增加严重不良事件的风险。对于一级预防,利塞膦酸钠的获益和危害得到了有限证据的支持,但存在高度不确定性。