PMID- 22313934
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20120523
LR  - 20151119
IS  - 1742-1241 (Electronic)
IS  - 1368-5031 (Linking)
VI  - 66
IP  - 4
DP  - 2012 Apr
TI  - Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between denosumab and alendronate in 
      postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a meta-analysis.
PG  - 399-408
LID - 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02806.x [doi]
AB  - The aim of this study was to perform a head-to-head comparison of efficacy and 
      safety profile between 60 mg denosumab (Den) subcutaneously (SC) per 6 months 
      (Q6M) and 70 mg alendronate (Aln) orally per week (QW) for postmenopausal women 
      with low bone mineral density. We searched electronic databases comparing 
      efficacy and safety of Den SC Q6M and Aln QW in postmenopausal women. The primary 
      outcomes of efficacy evaluation in included trials were incidence of clinical 
      fracture in both groups and bone mineral density (BMD) at different skeletal 
      sites. And adverse events (AEs), including incidence of neoplasms and infections, 
      were considered as secondary outcomes. Following the instructions of 'Cochrane 
      Handbook for systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.2', we identified eligible 
      studies, evaluated the methodological quality and abstracted relevant data. Four 
      heterogeneous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1942 women were 
      identified. The results of review showed low evidence quality that supported the 
      hypothesis the denosumab vs. alendronate could reduce risk of fracture [OR (95% 
      CI) 1.42 (0.84 to 2.40), 11 more women per 1000 (from 4 fewer to 36 more), p = 
      0.19] but the moderate to high quality evidence suggesting treatment with 60 mg 
      Den SC Q6M was more effective for postmenopausal women in increasing BMD [at 
      distal radius (DR), total hip (TH), lumbar spine (LS), and femoral neck (FN)]. 
      Hazards of neoplasms [OR (95% CI) 1.10 (0.65 to 1.86), 3 more per 1000 (from 10 
      fewer to 24 more), p = 0.62] or infections [OR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.79 to 1.15), 12 
      fewer per 1000 (from 53 fewer to 33 more,), p = 0.62] were appeared to be 
      similar.Our review suggested within 1 year 60 mg Den SC Q6M treatment was more 
      effective in increasing bone mass but could not reduce the fracture risk to a 
      greater extent than 70 mg Aln QW therapy. Also the Den SC Q6M therapy did not 
      increase the risks of neoplasms and infections compared with Aln QW.
CI  - (c) 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
FAU - Lin, T
AU  - Lin T
AD  - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of 
      Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
FAU - Wang, C
AU  - Wang C
FAU - Cai, X-Z
AU  - Cai XZ
FAU - Zhao, X
AU  - Zhao X
FAU - Shi, M-M
AU  - Shi MM
FAU - Ying, Z-M
AU  - Ying ZM
FAU - Yuan, F-Z
AU  - Yuan FZ
FAU - Guo, C
AU  - Guo C
FAU - Yan, S-G
AU  - Yan SG
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Meta-Analysis
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PT  - Review
DEP - 20120207
PL  - India
TA  - Int J Clin Pract
JT  - International journal of clinical practice
JID - 9712381
RN  - 0 (Antibodies, Monoclonal)
RN  - 0 (Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized)
RN  - 0 (Bone Density Conservation Agents)
RN  - 4EQZ6YO2HI (Denosumab)
RN  - X1J18R4W8P (Alendronate)
SB  - IM
MH  - Aged
MH  - Aged, 80 and over
MH  - Alendronate/*therapeutic use
MH  - Antibodies, Monoclonal/*therapeutic use
MH  - Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
MH  - Bone Density/drug effects
MH  - Bone Density Conservation Agents/*therapeutic use
MH  - Denosumab
MH  - Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Multicenter Studies as Topic
MH  - Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal/*drug therapy
MH  - Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
MH  - Risk Factors
MH  - Treatment Outcome
EDAT- 2012/02/09 06:00
MHDA- 2012/05/24 06:00
CRDT- 2012/02/09 06:00
PHST- 2012/02/09 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2012/02/09 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2012/05/24 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02806.x [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Int J Clin Pract. 2012 Apr;66(4):399-408. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02806.x. 
      Epub 2012 Feb 7.