The Clinical Effectiveness of Denosumab (Prolia®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women, Compared to Bisphosphonates, Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM), and Placebo: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs; bazedoxifene, raloxifene) or placebo, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women (PMW). Systematic searches were run in PubMed, Embase & Cochrane Library on 27-April-2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included osteoporotic PMW allocated to denosumab, SERMs, bisphosphonates, or placebo were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were appraised using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. Bayesian network and/or pairwise meta-analyses were conducted on predetermined outcomes (i.e. vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, adverse events [AEs], serious AEs (SAEs), withdrawals due to AEs, AEs caused by denosumab discontinuation). A total of 12 RCTs (k = 22 publications; n = 25,879 participants) were included in the analyses. Denosumab, reported a statistically significant increase in lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) BMD, compared to placebo. Similarly, denosumab also resulted in a statistically significant increase in TH BMD compared to the raloxifene and bazedoxifene. However, relative to denosumab, alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate resulted in significant improvements in both femoral neck (FN) and LS BMD. With regards to vertebral fractures and all safety outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between denosumab and any of the comparator. Relative to placebo, denosumab was associated with significant benefits in both LS and TH BMD. Additionally, denosumab (compared to placebo) was not associated with reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Finally, denosumab was not associated with improvement in safety outcomes, compared to placebo. These findings should be interpreted with caution as some analyses suffered from statistical imprecision.

The clinical effectiveness of denosumab (Prolia®) in patients with hormone-sensitive cancer receiving endocrine therapy, compared to bisphosphonates, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM), and placebo: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

This systematic review (SR) assessed the use of denosumab (Prolia®) to treat osteoporosis in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures and improve bone mineral density in cancer patients with osteoporosis. This is the first SR to assess treating osteoporotic cancer patients with denosumab. PURPOSE: This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of denosumab (Prolia®) compared to bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (bazedoxifene, raloxifene) and placebo for the treatment of osteoporosis in hormone-sensitive cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy (men with prostate cancer [MPC] on hormone ablation therapy [HAT], and women with breast cancer [WBC] on adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy [AAIT]). METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted in three biomedical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Frequentist network meta-analyses and/or pairwise meta-analyses were performed on predetermined outcomes (i.e., vertebral/nonvertebral fractures, bone mineral density [BMD], mortality, treatment-related adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], withdrawal due to treatment-related AEs). RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs (15 publications) were included. Denosumab was found to prevent vertebral fractures in cancer patients receiving endocrine therapy, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab, zoledronate, and alendronate improved BMD at the femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) in MPC on HAT, relative to placebo. Denosumab, ibandronate and risedronate improved BMD at the LS and total hip (TH) in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Denosumab and risedronate improved trochanteric (TRO) BMD in WBC on AAIT, relative to placebo. Similarly, denosumab improved FN BMD in WBC on AAIT. CONCLUSION: In MPC on HAT, denosumab (relative to placebo) was effective at preventing vertebral fractures and improving BMD at the FN and LS. Moreover, in WBC on AAIT, denosumab (relative to placebo) improved BMD at the FN, LS, TH, and TRO, as well as prevent vertebral fracture.

Association between habitual coffee consumption and multiple disease outcomes: A Mendelian randomisation phenome-wide association study in the UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Coffee is the most commonly consumed beverage in the world after water, however the debate as to whether coffee consumption is beneficial or detrimental to health continues. Current evidence of the link between coffee and health outcomes is predominately observational, thus subject to methodological issues such a confounding and reverse causation. METHODS: This Mendelian randomisation phenome-wide association study (MR-PheWAS) used information from up to 333,214 participants of White-British ancestry in the UK Biobank to examine the causal association between genetically instrumented habitual coffee consumption and the full range of disease outcomes. We constructed a genetic risk score for habitual coffee consumption and screened for associations with disease outcomes across 1117 case-control series. All signals under false discovery rate controlled threshold (5.8 × 10-4) were followed by Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses, with replication in independent data sources where possible. RESULTS: The initial phenome-wide association analysis identified signals for 13 outcomes representing five distinct diseases. The strongest signal was seen for gout (P = 2.3 × 10-12), but there was notable pleiotropy (Pdistortion <0.001) and MR analyses did not support an association with habitual coffee consumption (inverse variance weighted MR OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.25, P = 0.31). Support for a possible causal relationship between habitual coffee consumption was only obtained for four distinct disease outcomes, including an increased odds of osteoarthrosis (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.35), other arthropathies (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33) and overweight (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.56), and a lower odds of postmenopausal bleeding (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82). Evidence for an association between habitual coffee consumption and these four diseases was also supported by phenotypic associations with self-reported coffee consumption. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale MR-PheWAS provided little evidence for notable harm or benefit with respect to higher habitual coffee consumption. The only evidence for harm was seen with respect to osteoarthrosis, other arthropathies and obesity.