暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs).
METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.
METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases.
METHODS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings.
RESULTS: Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

UNASSIGNED: Patients with Cushing\'s disease (CD) often experience slow recovery of bone mineral density (BMD), and the effectiveness of anti-osteoporosis drugs in young CD patients who have achieved biochemical remission after surgery is not well understood. Therefore, we aimed to explore whether bisphosphonates could help accelerate the recovery of osteoporosis in young CD patients with remission.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively enrolled 34 young patients with CD who achieved postoperative biochemical remission. All patients suffered from osteoporosis before surgery and were divided into postoperative bisphosphonate treatment group (16 cases) and without bisphosphonate treatment group (18 cases). Clinical data, BMD (Z Value), and bone turnover markers were collected at the time of diagnosis and one year after successful tumor resection.
UNASSIGNED: The Z values in the lumbar spine showed slight improvement in both groups at follow-up compared to baseline, but this improvement was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference observed between the two groups at follow-up. One year after operation, bone formation markers (OC and P1NP) were significantly higher than those at baseline in both groups. However, OC and P1NP in the bisphosphonate treatment group were lower than those in control group at one year follow-up. In without bisphosphonate treatment group, β-CTX from follow-up visit was higher than that at baseline, while no significant difference was observed in the bisphosphonate treatment group before and after surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Young patients with Cushing\'s disease combined with osteoporosis might not benefit from bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis recovery in the first year after achieving biochemical remission.

The process of osteointegration of dental implants is a biological process. Systemic therapy can interfere with this process, affecting the growth and breakdown processes of the bone and ultimately leading to implant failure. This literature review focuses on specific groups of systemic drugs that directly impact osteointegration. The research in electronic literature was conducted using the National Library of Medicine\'s PubMed/MEDLINE database from March 2000 to February 2024. The following MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were used: \"implant osseointegration,\" \"bisphosphonates,\" \"non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,\" \"glucocorticoids,\" \"proton pump inhibitors,\" and \"selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).\" This search yielded 1,258 articles on implant osseointegration. Among these, 30 articles met our criteria for implant osseointegration and bisphosphonates, 2 articles for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 7 articles for glucocorticoids, 14 articles for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and 14 articles for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Clinicians considering implant therapy should be mindful of potential medication-related implant failures. The present systematic review has identified an association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), glucocorticoids, and bisphosphonates with an increased implant failure rate.

Chronic diffuse sclerosing osteomyelitis is a very rare condition, described as a non-suppurative, inflammatory disease of the bone and characterized by a proliferative endosteal reaction, which clinically reveals itself with cyclic pain of the jaw and swelling. We reported two clinical cases, where patients suffered recurrent swelling and pain at the mandible irradiating to the preauricular area, denying any previous trauma or significant medical history. Odontogenic causes were excluded. An initial treatment with antibiotics and NSAIDs temporarily relieved the symptoms without complete resolution, prompting further investigations. After a comprehensive array of diagnostic tools (X-rays, CT scans, scintigraphy, bone biopsy, serum markers), both patients were diagnosed with chronic diffuse sclerosing osteomyelitis of the mandible. Bisphosphonates (clodronate and zolendronate) with different treatment schemes were used to treat the condition, until a full recovery from symptoms was reported. Bisphosphonates could therefore represent an effective option in managing this rare but impactful condition. Further research is warranted to better understand the underlying mechanisms of the disease and to optimize treatment strategies.

UNASSIGNED: To analyze the density of the mandible in cancer patients during treatment with zoledronic acid.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included 45 patients with cancer aged 26-81 years (average age 55±12.88 years), of whom 14 patients had bone metastases (n=14) and took 4 mg of zolendronic acid once every 28 days. The patients underwent standard PET-CT examinations in the «whole body» mode, and the density of the mandible was examined on CT. Radiation therapy was performed by intracavitary administration of strontium 89 chloride; remote radiation therapy with cisplatin radiomodification. In the presence of bone metastases, patients received complex supportive therapy with zolendronic acid. The effect of zolendronic acid on the density of the mandible in the frontal and lateral sections was studied by multidimensional dispersion analysis.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (p=0.002) were revealed for density indicators according to CT scans of the mandible in the frontal region against the background of zolendronic acid therapy. We attribute the absence of statistically significant differences for the density of the mandible in the lateral sections (p=0.101 and p=0.082) against the background of zolendronic acid therapy to a measurement bias. We attribute the absence of statistically significant differences in density indices against the background of hormonal, radiation, targeted and chemotherapy to the design of the study.
CONCLUSIONS: Density measurement based on CT examination data can be recommended for use as an additional tool in assessing the effect of zolendronic acid on the density of the mandible. However, the method of measuring the density of the mandible in the lateral sections requires improvement to prevent measurement bias.
UNASSIGNED: Провести анализ плотности нижней челюсти у онкологических пациентов при лечении с применением золендроновой кислоты.
UNASSIGNED: В ретроспективное когортное исследование вошли 45 пациентов с онкологическим заболеванием в возрасте 26—81 лет (средний возраст 55±12,88 года), из них 14 пациентов имели костные метастазы (n=14) и принимали по 4 мг золендроновой кислоты 1 раз в 28 дней. Пациентам проводили стандартные ПЭТ-КТ исследования в режиме «все тело», на КТ исследовали плотность нижней челюсти. Лучевую терапию проводили путем внутриполостного введение стронция 89 хлорида; дистанционную лучевую терапию — с радиомодификацией цисплатином. При наличии костных метастазов пациенты получали комплексную поддерживающую терапию с золендроновой кислотой. Влияние золендроновой кислоты на плотность нижней челюсти во фронтальном и боковых отделах изучали методом многомерного дисперсионного анализа.
UNASSIGNED: Выявлены статистически значимые различия (p=0,002) для показателей плотности по данным КТ нижней челюсти во фронтальном отделе на фоне терапии золендроновой кислотой. Отсутствие статистически значимых различий для показателей плотности нижней челюсти в боковых отделах (p=0,101 и p=0,082) на фоне терапии золендроновой кислотой связано со смещением измерений. Отсутствие статистически значимых различий показателей плотности на фоне гормональной, лучевой, таргетной и химиотерапии авторы связывают с дизайном исследования.
UNASSIGNED: Измерение плотности по данным КТ-исследования может быть рекомендовано для использования в качестве дополнительного инструмента при оценке влияния золендроновой кислоты на плотность нижней челюсти. Однако методика измерения плотности нижней челюсти в боковых отделах требует доработки для предотвращения смещения измерений.

BACKGROUND: Prostate Cancer (PCa) is the commonest cancer in the UK. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a mainstay of treatment. It increases fragility fractures causing a huge burden to patients and the NHS. As men live longer with PCa, many require prolonged ADT. Reducing fracture risks and improving cancer survivorship is becoming increasingly important. Primary care plays an important role.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how fracture risk of PCa patients taking ADT (PCa-ADT) was assessed and managed in primary care.
METHODS: A retrospective multi-practice database study. PCa patients were identified using SNOMED codes from five sociodemographically diverse practices (registered population 49 400). Data were extracted by hand-searching records, including hospital letters, and included: demographics; a 10-year fragility fracture score (FRAX); NOGG intervention threshold; DEXA requests; and use of bisphosphonates.
RESULTS: Of the 261 PCa patients identified, 6% were Black African/Caribbean and 89% White British. Half had been prescribed ADT, 28% being current users. No fracture risk assessment was documented for any patients. ADT current users had significantly increased FRAX scores for both major osteoporotic fractures (MOF) (9.61%±1.12%) and hip fracture (HF) (5.30%±1.02%) compared with PCa patients without ADT (7.08%±0.57% [MOF] and 3.06%±0.46% [HF], P<0.001). For ADT current users, 39% showed intermediate fracture risk (NOGG amber), warranting a DEXA scan, with only 30% performed. Patients in more affluent areas received more DEXA scans and bisphosphonate treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated in men with PCa-ADT, especially in those with deprived backgrounds. There is an unmet need to manage the fracture prevention in this population.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are prone to reduced bone mineral density and elevated overall fracture risk. Osteopenia affects up to 40% of patients with IBD (high regional variability). Besides disease activity, IBD specialists must consider possible side effects of medication and the presence of associated diseases and extraintestinal manifestations. Osteopenia and osteoporosis remain frequent problems in patients with IBD and are often underestimated because of widely differing screening and treatment practices. Malnutrition, chronic intestinal inflammation and corticosteroid intake are the major pathophysiological factors contributing to osteoporosis. Patients with IBD are screened for osteoporosis using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which is recommended for all patients with a prolonged disease course of more than three months, with repeated corticosteroid administration, aged >40 years with a high FRAX risk score or aged <40 years with multiple risk factors. From a therapeutic perspective, besides good disease control, vitamin D supplementation and glucocorticoid sparing, several specific osteological options are available: bisphosphonates, receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) inhibitors (denosumab), parathyroid hormone (PTH) analogues and selective estrogen receptor modulators. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of IBD-associated bone loss.

Skeletal-related events due to bone metastases can be prevented by early diagnosis using radiological or nuclear imaging techniques. Nuclear medicine techniques such as Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) have been used for diagnostic imaging of bone for decades. Although it is widely recognized that conventional diagnostic imaging techniques such as Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have high sensitivity, low cost and wide availability, the specificity of both techniques is rather low compared to nuclear medicine techniques. Nuclear medicine techniques, on the other hand, have improved specificity when introduced as a hybrid imaging modality, as they can combine physiological and anatomical information. Two main radiopharmaceuticals are used in nuclear medicine: [99mTc]-methyl diphosphonate ([99mTc]Tc-MDP) from the generator and [18F]sodium fluoride ([18F]NaF) from the cyclotron. The former is used in SPECT imaging, while the latter is used in PET imaging. However, recent studies show that the role of radiolabeled bisphosphonates with gallium-68 (68Ga) and fluorine-18 (18F) may have a potential role in the future. This review, therefore, presents and discusses the brief method for producing current and future potential radiopharmaceuticals for bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients are at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) like spinal cord compression, pathologic fractures, bone surgery, and radiation to bone. Real-world data regarding SREs in MM are limited.
METHODS: We conducted a large, retrospective, nationwide cohort study using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database from 2007 to 2018.
RESULTS: Over a 12-year study period, we identified 6,717 patients who developed symptomatic MM. After a median follow-up of 35.1 months (interquartile range [IQR], 20.8-58.2 months), 43.6% of these patients experienced SREs, and 39.6% had four or more SREs. One in five patients (20.0%) experienced pathologic fractures within the first year of follow-up. The median time to first SRE was 9.6 months (IQR, 1.2-25.8 months), with 3.0 months in the group with prior SREs and 19.8 months in the group without prior SREs. During follow-up, 78.5% of patients received bisphosphonates. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed several factors associated with an increased risk of SREs, including being female (odds ratio [OR], 1.44), aged 50 or older (OR, 1.87), having cerebrovascular disease (OR, 1.34), undergoing first-line chemotherapy regimens not containing bortezomib or lenalidomide (OR, 1.49), and being in the group with prior SREs and bisphosphonate use (OR, 5.63), compared to the group without prior SREs and without bisphosphonate use.
CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study is the first to report the incidence and risk factors of SREs in Korean MM patients, which can be used to assess their bone health.