Skip to main content
Top
Published 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

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

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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.
3.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
10.
go back to reference Whitehead A (2002) Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef Whitehead A (2002) Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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.
go back to reference 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
Metadata
Title
Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis
Authors
N. Freemantle
C. Cooper
A. Diez-Perez
M. Gitlin
H. Radcliffe
S. Shepherd
C. Roux
Publication date
01-01-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2068-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Osteoporosis International 1/2013 Go to the issue