Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moen MD, Keam SJ (2011) Denosumab: a review of its use in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Drugs Aging 28:63–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rachner TD, Khosla S, Hofbauer LC (2011) Osteoporosis: now and the future. Lancet 377:1276–1287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonnick SL, Shulman L (2006) Monitoring osteoporosis therapy: bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, or both? Am J Med 119:S25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sambrook P, Cooper C (2006) Osteoporosis. Lancet 367:2010–2018

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 50:683–691

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu G, Ades AE (2004) Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 23:3105–3124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 17:1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Whitehead A (2002) Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 24:1–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewiecki EM, Binkley N (2009) Evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, and common sense in the management of osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 15:573–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 14:417–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K (2008) Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 26:753–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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 25:1861–1868

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brewer L, Williams D, Moore A (2011) Current and future treatment options in osteoporosis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 67:321–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewiecki EM (2009) Current and emerging pharmacologic therapies for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 18:1615–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 24:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E (2007) Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 335:914–916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harvey N, Dennison E, Cooper C (2010) Osteoporosis: impact on health and economics. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6:99–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge James Matcham for the technical statistical support and Sally Wade and Mandy Suggitt, on behalf of Amgen Inc., for the writing and editorial support.

Conflicts of interest

This study was funded by Amgen Inc. NF has received research grants from Amgen Inc. and has served as a consultant for Amgen Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Wyeth, and Eli Lilly. CC has received consulting and lecture fees from Amgen Inc., GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Servier, and Alliance for Bone Health. AD-P has received honoraria from or consulted for Amgen Inc., Novartis, Eli Lilly, and MSD and received research grants from the Alliance of Bone Health and Amgen Inc. CR has received research grants and/or honoraria from Amgen, MSD, Servier, Novartis, and Lilly. MG, HR, and SS are employees of and have stock ownership in Amgen Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, NW3 2PF, UK

    N. Freemantle

  2. University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    C. Cooper

  3. Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    A. Diez-Perez

  4. Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA

    M. Gitlin

  5. Amgen Ltd., Cambridge, UK

    H. Radcliffe

  6. Amgen Ltd., Uxbridge, UK

    S. Shepherd

  7. Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

    C. Roux

Authors
  1. N. Freemantle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Diez-Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Gitlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Radcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. Roux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Freemantle.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 663 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Freemantle, N., Cooper, C., Diez-Perez, A. et al. Results of indirect and mixed treatment comparison of fracture efficacy for osteoporosis treatments: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 24, 209–217 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2068-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-012-2068-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation