Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Osteoporosis International 1/2013

01.01.2013 | Original Article

Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis

verfasst von: N. Freemantle, C. Cooper, A. Diez-Perez, M. Gitlin, H. Radcliffe, S. Shepherd, C. Roux

Erschienen in: Osteoporosis International | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Summary

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.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Moen MD, Keam SJ (2011) Denosumab: a review of its use in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Drugs Aging 28:63–82PubMedCrossRef Moen MD, Keam SJ (2011) Denosumab: a review of its use in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Drugs Aging 28:63–82PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC (2011) Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet 377:1276–1287PubMedCrossRef Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC (2011) Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet 377:1276–1287PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bonnick SL, Shulman L (2006) Monitoring osteoporosis therapy: bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, or both? Am J Med 119:S25–31PubMedCrossRef Bonnick SL, Shulman L (2006) Monitoring osteoporosis therapy: bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, or both? Am J Med 119:S25–31PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50:683–691PubMedCrossRef Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50:683–691PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu G, Ades AE (2004) Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 23:3105–3124PubMedCrossRef Lu G, Ades AE (2004) Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 23:3105–3124PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129 World Health Organization (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12PubMedCrossRef Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188PubMedCrossRef DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Whitehead A (2002) Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef Whitehead A (2002) Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, Abrams K, Cooper N, Welton N, Lu G (2006) Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1–19PubMedCrossRef Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, Abrams K, Cooper N, Welton N, Lu G (2006) Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1–19PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewiecki EM, Binkley N (2009) Evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, and common sense in the management of osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 15:573–579PubMedCrossRef Lewiecki EM, Binkley N (2009) Evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, and common sense in the management of osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 15:573–579PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC (2011) Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 14:417–428PubMedCrossRef Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC (2011) Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 14:417–428PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K (2008) Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 26:753–767PubMedCrossRef Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K (2008) Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 26:753–767PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D (2009) Indirect evidence: indirect treament comparisons in meta-analysis. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D (2009) Indirect evidence: indirect treament comparisons in meta-analysis. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Jansen JP, Bergman GJ, Huels J, Olson M (2009) Prevention of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: mixed treatment comparison of bisphosphonate therapies. Curr Med Res Opin 25:1861–1868PubMedCrossRef Jansen JP, Bergman GJ, Huels J, Olson M (2009) Prevention of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: mixed treatment comparison of bisphosphonate therapies. Curr Med Res Opin 25:1861–1868PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Brewer L, Williams D, Moore A (2011) Current and future treatment options in osteoporosis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 67:321–331PubMedCrossRef Brewer L, Williams D, Moore A (2011) Current and future treatment options in osteoporosis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 67:321–331PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewiecki EM (2009) Current and emerging pharmacologic therapies for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 18:1615–1626CrossRef Lewiecki EM (2009) Current and emerging pharmacologic therapies for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 18:1615–1626CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Brown JP, Prince RL, Deal C et al (2009) Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial. J Bone Miner Res 24:1–34CrossRef Brown JP, Prince RL, Deal C et al (2009) Comparison of the effect of denosumab and alendronate on bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: a randomized, blinded, phase 3 trial. J Bone Miner Res 24:1–34CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E (2007) Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 335:914–916PubMedCrossRef Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E (2007) Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 335:914–916PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Harvey N, Dennison E, Cooper C (2010) Osteoporosis: impact on health and economics. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6:99–105PubMedCrossRef Harvey N, Dennison E, Cooper C (2010) Osteoporosis: impact on health and economics. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6:99–105PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis
verfasst von
N. Freemantle
C. Cooper
A. Diez-Perez
M. Gitlin
H. Radcliffe
S. Shepherd
C. Roux
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2013
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Osteoporosis International / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2068-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

Osteoporosis International 1/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.