DESIGN: A systematic review of primary qualitative studies. Seven databases were searched from inception to July 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of full-articles selected for inclusion were performed independently by two authors. A framework synthesis was applied to extracted data based on the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The TFA includes seven domains relating to sense-making, emotions, opportunity costs, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality and self-efficacy. Confidence in synthesis findings was assessed.
SETTING: Any developed country healthcare setting.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients, healthcare professionals, managers, payers and academics.
INTERVENTION: Experiences and views of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates.
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included, mostly describing perceptions of oral bisphosphonates. We identified, with high confidence, how patients and healthcare professionals make sense (coherence) of bisphosphonates by balancing perceptions of need against concerns, how uncertainty prevails about bisphosphonate perceived effectiveness and a number of individual and service factors that have potential to increase self-efficacy in recommending and adhering to bisphosphonates. We identified, with moderate confidence, that bisphosphonate taking induces concern, but has the potential to engender reassurance, and that both side effects and special instructions for taking oral bisphosphonates can result in treatment burden. Finally, we identified with low confidence that multimorbidity plays a role in people's perception of bisphosphonate acceptability.
CONCLUSION: By using the lens of acceptability, our findings demonstrate with high confidence that a theoretically informed, whole-system approach is necessary to both understand and improve adherence. Clinicians and patients need supporting to understand the need for bisphosphonates, and clinicians need to clarify to patients what constitutes bisphosphonate treatment success. Further research is needed to explore perspectives of male patients and those with multimorbidity receiving bisphosphonates, and patients receiving intravenous treatment.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019143526.
OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment for osteoporosis in people with beta-thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which includes references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries. Date of most recent search: 4 August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with beta-thalassaemia with: a BMD Z score below -2 standard deviations (SDs) for children aged under 15 years, adult males (aged 15 to 50 years) and premenopausal females aged over 15 years; or a BMD T score below -2.5 SDs for postmenopausal females and males aged over 50 years.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included RCTs, and extracted and analysed data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (298 participants). Active interventions included bisphosphonates (3 trials, 169 participants), zinc supplementation (1 trial, 42 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 63 participants), and strontium ranelate (1 trial, 24 participants). The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low and was downgraded mainly due to concerns surrounding imprecision (low participant numbers), but also risk of bias issues related to randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding. Bisphosphonates versus placebo or no treatment Two RCTs compared bisphosphonates to placebo or no treatment. After two years, one trial (25 participants) found that alendronate and clodronate may increase BMD Z score compared to placebo at the femoral neck (mean difference (MD) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.58) and the lumbar spine (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.23). One trial (118 participants) reported that neridronate compared to no treatment may increase BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip at six and 12 months; for the femoral neck, the study found increased BMD in the neridronate group at 12 months only. All results were of very low-certainty. There were no major adverse effects of treatment. Participants in the neridronate group reported less back pain; we considered this representative of improved quality of life (QoL), though the certainty of the evidence was very low. One participant in the neridronate trial (116 participants) sustained multiple fractures as a result of a traffic accident. No trials reported BMD at the wrist or mobility. Different doses of bisphosphonate compared One 12-month trial (26 participants) assessed different doses of pamidronate (60 mg versus 30 mg) and found a difference in BMD Z score favouring the 60 mg dose at the lumbar spine (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.76) and forearm (MD 0.87, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.51), but no difference at the femoral neck (very low-certainty evidence). This trial did not report fracture incidence, mobility, QoL, or adverse effects of treatment. Zinc versus placebo One trial (42 participants) showed zinc supplementation probably increased BMD Z score compared to placebo at the lumbar spine after 12 months (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.20; 37 participants) and 18 months (MD 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.40; 32 participants); the same was true for BMD at the hip after 12 months (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.19; 37 participants) and 18 months (MD 0.26, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.31; 32 participants). The evidence for these results was of moderate certainty. The trial did not report BMD at the wrist, fracture incidence, mobility, QoL, or adverse effects of treatment. Denosumab versus placebo Based on one trial (63 participants), we are unsure about the effect of denosumab on BMD Z score at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and wrist joint after 12 months compared to placebo (low-certainty evidence). This trial did not report fracture incidence, mobility, QoL, or adverse effects of treatment, but the investigators reported a reduction in bone pain measured on a visual analogue scale in the denosumab group after 12 months of treatment compared to placebo (MD -2.40 cm, 95% CI -3.80 to -1.00). Strontium ranelate One trial (24 participants) only narratively reported an increase in BMD Z score at the lumbar spine in the intervention group and no corresponding change in the control group (very low-certainty evidence). This trial also found a reduction in back pain measured on a visual analogue scale after 24 months in the strontium ranelate group compared to the placebo group (MD -0.70 cm (95% CI -1.30 to -0.10); we considered this measure representative of improved quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates may increase BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine, and forearm compared to placebo after two years' therapy. Zinc supplementation probably increases BMD at the lumbar spine and hip after 12 months. Denosumab may make little or no difference to BMD, and we are uncertain about the effect of strontium on BMD. We recommend further long-term RCTs on different bisphosphonates and zinc supplementation therapies in people with beta-thalassaemia-associated osteoporosis.
METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases) were searched up to and including July 2016. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD), and the secondary outcomes were changes in clinical attachment level (CAL) and bone defect (BD) fill. The mean differences (MD) of outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each variable were calculated using random effect model.
RESULTS: Eight clinical studies were included. Seven studies used alendronate as an adjunct to SRP; of these, four studies used topical application and three used oral alendronate. Considering the effects of adjunctive bisphosphonates as compared to SRP alone, a high degree of heterogeneity for PD (Q value = 39.6, P
METHODS: We carried a review of medical records of breast and lung cancer patients hospitalized in years 2003 and 2009 at Penang General Hospital, a public tertiary care center in Penang Island, north of Malaysia. Patients with hypercalcemia (defined as a calcium level above 10.5 mg/dl) at the time of cancer diagnosis or during cancer treatment had their medical history abstracted, including presence of metastasis, chemotherapy types and doses, calcium levels throughout cancer treatment, and other co-morbidity. The mean calcium levels at first hospitalization before chemotherapy were compared with calcium levels at the end of or at the latest chemotherapy treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Chi-square test for categorical data, logistic regression test for categorical variables, and Spearman correlation test, linear regression and the paired sample t tests for continuous data.
RESULTS: Of a total 1,023 of breast cancer and 814 lung cancer patients identified, 292 had hypercalcemia at first hospitalization or during cancer treatment (174 breast and 118 lung cancer patients). About a quarter of these patients had advanced stage cancers: 26.4% had mild hypercalcemia (10.5-11.9 mg/dl), 55.5% had moderate (12-12.9 mg/dl), and 18.2% severe hypercalcemia (13-13.9; 14-16 mg/dl). Chemotherapy lowered calcium levels significantly both in breast and lung cancer patients with hypercalcemia; in particular with chemotherapy type 5-flurouracil+epirubicin+cyclophosphamide (FEC) for breast cancer, and gemcitabine+cisplatin in lung cancer.
CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy decreases calcium levels in breast and lung cancer cases with hypercalcemia at cancer diagnosis, probably by reducing PTHrP levels.