Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women
George A Wells,Shu-Ching Hsieh,Joan Peterson,Carine Zheng,Shannon E Kelly,Beverley Shea,Peter Tugwell
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003376.pub4
IF: 8.4
2024-04-11
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts – bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high). To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti‐osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti‐osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non‐vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T‐score (≤ ‐2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti‐osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo‐controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study. Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One‐quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti‐osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate‐ to very low‐certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non‐vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate‐certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low‐certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low‐certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal