Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Aris 2000 {published data only}

Aris RM, Lester GE, Neuringer IP, Winders AW, Gott KK, Rea J, et al. Efficacy of pamidronate for osteoporosis in cystic fibrosis patients following lung transplantation [abstract]. Pediatric Pulmonology 1998;Suppl 17:365.
Aris RM, Lester GE, Renner JB, Winders A, Denene Blackwood A, Lark RK, et al. Efficacy of pamidronate for osteoporosis in patients with cystic fibrosis following lung transplantation. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2000;162(3 part 1):941‐6.
Aris RM, Ontjes DA, Winders AW, Blackwood D, Lester GE. Effect of pamidronate on bone biomarkers in post‐transplant osteoporotic cystic fibrosis patients [abstract]. Pediatric Pulmonology 1998;Suppl 17:364‐5.

Aris 2004 {published data only}

Aris RM, Lester GE, Camaniti M, Hensler M, Lark RK, Hecker TM, et al. Efficacy of alendronate in CF adults with low bone density. Pediatric Pulmonology 2003;S25:351.
Aris RM, Lester GE, Caminiti M, Blackwood AD, Hensler M, Lark RK, Hecker TM, Renner JB, Guillen U, Brown SA, Neuringer IP, Chalermskulrat W, Ontjes DA. Efficacy of alendronate in adults with cystic fibrosis with low bone density. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 2004;169(1):77‐82.

Boyle 2005 {published data only}

Boyle MP, Lechtzin N, Watts S. Zoledronate therapy for decreased bone density in adults with cystic fibrosis [abstract]. Pediatric Pulmonology 2005;40(S28):353.

Chapman 2008 {published data only}

Chapman I, Greville H, Ebeling PR, King SJ, Kotsimbos T, Nugent P, et al. Intravenous zoledronate improves bone density in adults with cystic fibrosis. Clinical Endocrinology(Early View) Sep 2008; Vol. Epublication.

Haworth 2001 {published data only}

Haworth CS, Selby PL, Adams JE, Mawer EB, Horrocks AW, Webb AK. Effect of intravenous pamidronate on bone mineral density in adults with cystic fibrosis. Thorax 2001;56(4):314‐6.
Haworth CS, Selby PL, Mawer EB, Adams JE, Verma A, Phillips A, et al. Pamidronate increases axial bone density in cystic fibrosis patients [abstract]. Pediatric Pulmonology 1999;Suppl 19:295.
Haworth CS, Selby PL, Mawer EB, Adams JE, Webb AK. Intravenous pamidronate increases axial bone density in cystic fibrosis adults [abstract]. Thorax 1999;54(Suppl 3):A67.
Haworth CS, Selby PL, Webb AK, Adams JE, Freemont TJ. Oral corticosteroids and bone pain after pamidronate in adults with cystic fibrosis [letter]. Lancet 1999;353(9167):1886.
Haworth CS, Selby PL, Webb AK, Mawer EB, Adams JE, Freemont TJ. Severe bone pain after intravenous pamidronate in adult patients with cystic fibrosis [letter]. Lancet 1998;352(9142):1753‐4.

Conway 2004 {published data only}

Conway SP, Oldroyd B, Morton A, Truscott JG, Peckham DG. Effect of oral bisphosphonates on bone mineral density and body composition in adult patients with cystic fibrosis: a pilot study. Thorax 2004;59(8):699‐703.

Hardin 2005 {published data only}

Hardin DS, Ahn C, Prestidge C, Seilheimer DK, Ellis KJ. Growth hormone improves bone mineral content in children with cystic fibrosis. Journal of paediatric endocrinology & metabolism: JPEM 2005;18(6):589‐95.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Papaioannou 2008 {published data only}

Papaioannou A, Kennedy CC, Freitag A, Ioannidis G, O'Neill J, Webber C, et al. Alendronate once weekly for the prevention and treatment of bone loss in Canadian adult cystic fibrosis patients (CFOS trial). Chest 2008;134(4):794‐800.

Aris 1996

Aris RM, Neuringer IP, Weiner MA, et al. Severe osteoporosis before and after lung transplantation. Chest 1996;109:1176‐1183.

Aris 1998

Aris RM, Renner JB, Winders AD, Buell HE, Riggs DB, Lester GE, et al. Increased rate of fractures and severe kyphosis: sequelae of living into adulthood with cystic fibrosis. Annals of Internal Medicine 1998;128(3):186‐93.

Aris 2005

Aris RM, Merkel PA, Bachrach LK, Borowitz DS, Boyle MP, et al. Consensus Statement: Guide to Bone Health and Disease in Cystic Fibrosis. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2005;90(3):1888‐1896.

Bianchi 2006

Bianchi ML, Romano G, Saraifoger S, Costantini D, Limonta C, Colombo C. BMD and body composition in children and young patients affected by cystic fibrosis. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 2006;21(3):388‐396.

Black 1996

Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Nevitt MC, et al. Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Lancet 1996;348(9041):1535‐41.

Boutsen 2001

Boutsen Y, Jamart J, Esselinckx W, Devogelaer JP. Primary prevention of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis with intravenous pamidronate and calcium: a prospective controlled 1‐year study comparing a single infusion, an infusion given once every 3 months, and calcium alone. Journal of Bone Mineral Research 2001;16(1):104‐12.

Boyle 2006

Boyle MP. Update on maintaining bone health in cystic fibrosis. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2006;12:453‐458.

Buntain 2004

Buntain HM, Greer RM, Schluter PJ, Wong JC, Batch JA, Potter JM, et al. Bone mineral density in Australian children, adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis: a controlled cross sectional study. Thorax 2004;59(2):149‐55.

Buntain 2006

Buntain HM, Schluter PJ, Bell SC, Greer RM, Wong JC, Batch J, et al. Controlled longitudinal study of bone mass accrual in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis. Thorax 2006;61(2):146‐54.

Caldeira 2008

Caldeira RJ, Fonseca VD, Gomes Junio SC, de Miranda Chaves CR. Prevalence of bone mineral disease among adolescents with cystic fibrosis. J Pediatr 2008;84(1):18‐25.

Cates 2003 [Computer program]

Cates C. Visual Rx. Online NNT Calculator. http://www.nntonline.net/: Cates C, 2003.

Colombo 2007

Colombo C. Liver disease in cystic fibrosis. Current opinion in pulmonary medicine 2007;13(6):529‐36.

Costa 2005

Costa M, Potvin S, Berthiaume Y, Gauthier L, Jeanneret A, Lavoie A, Levesque R, Chiasson J, Rabasa‐Lhoret R. Diabetes: a major co‐morbidity of cystic fibrosis. Diabetes & metabolism 2005;31(3 Pt 1):221‐32.

Cryer 2002

Cryer B, Bauer DC. Oral bisphosphonates and upper gastrointestinal tract problems: what is the evidence?. Mayo Clinic proceedings. Mayo Clinic 2002;77(10):1031‐43.

Cummings 1995

Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Stone K, Fox KM, Ensrud KE, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women: Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. New England Journal of Medicine 1995;332(12):767‐73.

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry 2006

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Patient Registry 2006 Annual Report. Bethesda, Maryland: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, 2006.

Cystic Fibrosis Trust Report 2007

Cystic Fibrosis Trust. Report of the UK Cystic Fibrosis Trust Bone Mineralisation Working Group. Report of the UK Cystic Fibrosis Trust Bone Mineralisation Working Group. Kent: Cystic Fibrosis Trust, February 2007.

Dif 2004

Dif F, Marty C, Baudoin C, de Vernejoul MC, Levi G. Severe osteopenia in CFTR‐null mice. Bone 2004;35(3):595‐603. [PUBMED: 15336594]

Eggelmeijer 1996

Eggelmeijer F, Papapoulos SE, van Paassen HC, Dijkmans BA, Valkema R, Westedt ML, et al. Increased bone mass with pamidronate treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a three‐year randomized, double‐blind trial.. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1996;39(3):396‐402.

Fromm 1991

Fromm G, Vega E, Plantalech L, Galich AM, Mautalen CA. Differential action of pamidronate on trabecular and cortical bone in women with involutional osteoporosis. Osteoporosis International 1991;1(3):129‐33.

Glorieux 1998

Glorieux FH, Bishop NJ, Plotkin H, Chabot G, Lanoue G, Travers R. Cyclic administration of pamidronate in children with severe osteogenesis imperfecta. The New England journal of medicine 1998;339(14):947‐52.

Greer 2003

Greer RM, Buntain HM, Potter JM, Wainwright CE, Wong JC, O'Rourke PK, et al. Abnormalities of the PTH‐vitamin D axis and bone turnover markers in children, adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis: comparison with healthy controls. Osteoporosis Int 2003;14(5):404‐11.

Higgins 2003

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60.

Higgins 2005

Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.4 [updated March 2005]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2005 The Cochrane Collaboration. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Higgins 2008

Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

ISCD Official Positions 2007

2007 ISCD Official Positions. International Society for Clinical Densitometry. http://www.iscd.org (accessed 7th August 2008)[Updated October 2007].

Jadad 1996

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Controlled clinical trials 1996;17(1):1‐12.

Kanis 1994

Kanis JA. Osteoporosis. Philadelphia: Blackwell Science, 1994.

Pendrys 2008

Pendrys DG, Silverman SL. Osteonecrosis of the jaws and bisphosphonates. Current osteoporosis reports 2008;6(1):31‐8.

Phillipi 2008

Phillipi CA, Remmington T, Steiner RD. Bisphosphonate therapy for osteogenesis imperfecta. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858]

Review Manager 2003 [Computer program]

The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 4.2 for Windows. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.

Review Manager 2008 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.

Riordan 1989

Riordan JR, Rommens JM, Kerem B, Alon N, Rozmahel R, Grzelczak Z, et al. Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: cloning and characteristics of complementary DNA. Science 1989;245(4922):1066‐73.

Russell 2006

Russell R.G. Bisphosphonates from bench to bedside. Annals New York Academy of Sciences 2006;1068:367‐401.

Russell 2007

Russell RG. Xia Z, Dunford JE, Oppermann U, Kwaasi A, et al. Bisphosphonates: An update on mechanisms of action and how these relate to clinical efficacy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2007;1117:209‐257.

Saag 1998

Saag KG, Emkey R, Schnitzer TJ, Brown JP, Hawkins F, Goemaere S, et al. Alendronate for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 1998;339(5):292‐9.

Sauty 1996

Sauty A, Pecherstorfer M, Zimmer‐Roth I, Fioroni P, Juillerat L, Markert M, Ludwig H, Leuenberger P, Burckhardt P, Thiebaud D. Interleukin‐6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels after bisphosphonates treatment in vitro and in patients with malignancy. Bone 1996;18(2):133‐9.

Sermet‐Gaudelus 2007

Sermet‐Gaudelus I, Souberbielle JC, Ruiz JC, Vrielynck S, Heullion B, Azhar I, et al. Low bone mineral density in young children with cystic fibrosis. American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine 2007;175(9):951‐7.

Steer 1997

Steer JH, Vuong Q, Joyce DA. Suppression of human monocyte tumour necrosis factor‐alpha release by glucocorticoid therapy: relationship to systemic monocytopaenia and cortisol suppression. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1997;43(4):383‐9.

Watts 1990

Watts NB, Harris ST, Genant HK, Wasnich RD, Miller PD, Jackson RD, et al. Intermittent cyclical etidronate treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;323(2):73‐9.

Wells 2008

Wells G, Cranney A, Peterson J, Boucher M, Shea B, Robinson V, Coyle D, Tugwell P. Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 2008;Jan 2(1):CD004523.

Yankaskas 1999

Yankaskas JR, Knowles MR. Cystic Fibrosis in Adults. Philadelphia: Lippincott‐Raven, 1999.

References to other published versions of this review

Brenckmann 2001

Brenckmann C, Papaioannou A. Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Aris 2000

Methods

Randomised controlled trial, parallel design, trial duration 2 years.
Randomised in a "blocks of four" design, stratified on basis of gender and severity of osteoporosis using spine z‐score of ‐3.0;
Participant and provider not blinded, not all outcome assessors were blinded, only the radiologist who interpreted the DXA scans;
Generation of allocation sequence was stated ("blocks of four" design). Allocation concealment was unclear;
3 participants died during the course of the study, before the first primary end point measurement, and were excluded from the analyses, including the final analysis of baseline characteristics. The causes of death were one each from sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome and obliterative bronchiolitis. It was not reported whether they received intervention;

Participants

Single centre, university hospital, USA;

Inclusion criteria:‐ CF, 1 to 12 months post‐lung transplantation, ambulatory;
Exclusion criteria:‐ primary graft failure or other post‐operative morbidities that precluded long‐term survival, renal insufficiency (serum creatinine > 3.0 mg/dl), or pregnancy;

N = 34 (16 in treatment group); 17 female (7 in treatment group).
Treatment group: mean (SD) age 27.5 years (6.6 years); control group mean (SD) age 29.1 years (6.4 years).

Groups similar in age, gender, baseline T‐scores, renal function, hospitalisation rates, immunosuppressant levels, change in lung function and body mass index over study period.

13 in treatment group and 12 controls had baseline T‐scores < ‐2.5 at a minimum of one site; all others ‐1 < T < ‐2.5 at a minimum of one site.

Interventions

Intravenous pamidronate (30 mg every 3 months) for study duration of 2 years;

All participants received oral vitamin D (800IU/day) and oral calcium (1g/day).

Outcomes

Primary outcome:
BMD (spine; 0, 6, 12, 18, 24 months; DXA Hologic QDR 1000/W Waltham MA).

Secondary outcomes:
BMD (femur; 0, 6, 12, 18, 24 months; DXA Hologic QDR 1000/W Waltham MA);
New fractures (number of fractures during study; long bone using clinical data, rib using posteroanterior chest radiographs, vertebral using lateral chest radiographs);
Kyphosis angles (degrees; 0, 24 months; thoracic spine curvature using lateral chest radiographs using a modification of method of Cobb);
Adverse events (number during study; thrombophlebitis, cellulitis, bone pain, fever, hypocalcaemia defined as serum calcium < 7.8 mg/dl, hypervitaminosis defined as serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D > 55 ng/ml);
Bone biomarkers (serum osteocalcin, urine cross‐linked N‐telopeptides of type 1 collagen, urine free deoxypyridinoline; 0, 3, 12, 24 months; also 2, 14 days after first pamidronate infusion in intervention group);
Serum calcium, vitamin D (25‐hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D) and PTH levels (0, 3, 12, 24 months);
Withdrawals;
Survival.

Notes

44 people with CF were eligible during the course of this study, 7 died immediately post‐operatively and were therefore not eligible for this trial. As outlined above, 3 people died during the course of the study before the first primary end point measurement. 34 people were included in the final analyses.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

"Blocks of four" design stated (stratified on basis of gender and severity of osteoporosis using spine z‐score of ‐3.0), but actual method of randomisation is not discussed.

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding?
All outcomes

High risk

Person(s) responsible for participants care and participants were not blinded. Of outcome assessors, only the radiologist who interpreted the DXA scans was blinded.

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

It was described that 3 participants died during the course of the study before the first primary end point measurement. These participants were excluded from the final analysis of baseline characteristics and outcome data. However, it was not reported which treatment group they were in.

Free of selective reporting?

High risk

Serum and urine biochemical measurements that were measured at 2 days (only after first pamidronate infusion in intervention group) were not reported.

Aris 2004

Methods

Randomised controlled trial; parallel design; double‐blind placebo‐controlled; trial duration 1 year for primary outcome measure (trial was intended to be 2 years duration).

Generation of allocation sequence was stated ("blocks of four" design). Allocation concealment was unclear.

Withdrawals ‐ before 6‐month DXA
5 participants in total, but not stated from which group, so 48 participants were evaluable. Reasons for dropping out:pregnancy (n=1); diarrhoea and weight loss (n=3); dysphagia (n=1). The three participants with diarrhoea reported abdominal cramping, loss of appetite, and diarrhoea before the medications began that worsened during the study but persisted after the study medications were discontinued, one participant was on alendronate and two on placebo.

Withdrawals ‐ between 6 and 12 months
Intervention group: 4 drop‐outs; reasons were: transplanted = 1; moved = 2; non‐compliance = 1.
Placebo group: 4 drop‐outs; reasons were: transplanted = 2; died = 1; moved = 1.

Withdrawals between 1 and 2 years
Intervention group: 9 drop‐outs; reasons were: moved = 2; committed to only 1 year = 7.
Placebo group: 7 drop‐outs; reasons were: moved = 1; committed to only one year = 6.

Participants

Single centre, adult CF centre, USA.

Inclusion criteria: CF, ambulatory, DXA showed a spine or femur T‐score  of ‐1 or less;
Exclusion criteria: primary graft failure or other post‐operative morbidities that precluded long‐term survival, renal insufficiency (serum creatinine > 3.0 mg/dl), active upper gastrointestinal disease, chronic oral glucocorticoid usage (>10 mg every day), organ transplantation, renal insufficiency (serum creatinine > 3.0mg/dl), a history of bisphosphonate intolerance or use, and pregnancy.

101 participants consented to be screened, 86 qualified and 53 started protocol and were randomised.

N = 48 (24 in treatment group); 23 female (9 in treatment group).
Treatment group: mean (SD) age 28 years (7 years); control group: mean (SD) age 27 years (9 years).

At baseline, osteoporosis was found in 3 participants and osteopenia was present in 20 participants in both the treatment and control group.

Interventions

Oral alendronate (10mg daily);

All participants received oral vitamin D (800IU/day) and oral calcium carbonate (1000mg/day).

Outcomes

Primary outcome:
BMD (spine; 0, 6, 12, 18, 24 months; DXA Hologic QDR 1000/W Waltham MA); with 12 months data as primary outcome.

Secondary outcomes:
BMD (femur; 0, 6, 12, 18, 24 months; DXA Hologic QDR 1000/W Waltham MA);
New fractures (number of fractures during study; long bone using clinical data, rib using posteroanterior chest radiographs, vertebral using lateral chest radiographs);
Adverse events (number during study; fever, bone pain);
Serum (parathyroid hormone, 25‐hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D, osteocalcin, bone‐specific ALP) and urine (cross‐linked N‐telopeptides and deoxypyridinoline) biochemical measurements;
Withdrawals;
Survival.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

"Blocks of four" design stated, but actual method of randomisation is not discussed.

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Described as "double‐blind".

Clinicians or persons delivering treatment: unclear if clinicians involved in the study and clinicians managing the medical problems of the participants were all blinded.

Participants: blinded.

Outcome assessors: stated that the musculoskeletal radiologist who analysed baseline and end‐of‐study chest radiographs for fracture were blinded, not specifically stated that other outcome assessors were blinded.

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Described that protocol was originally designed to be 2 years in length, but few participants were willing to consent to such a lengthy study, so protocol was revised to measure the primary endpoint at 12 months.

5 withdrawals between commencement of protocol and 6‐month outcome measures were described, but not delineated whether they were in treatment or control group.

4 withdrawals from each group (between 6 months and 12 months outcome measures) were described.

The primary end‐point measure was analysed in 40/53 (75%) participants, hence there is a risk of attrition bias.

Stated that an intention‐to‐treat principle was used in the analyses of the treatment endpoints.

Free of selective reporting?

Low risk

Outcome measures that were described in the methods section were reported in the results section.

Boyle 2005

Methods

Randomised, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial; parallel design. Trial duration 6 months (originally intended for 12 months).
Generation of allocation sequence and allocation concealment were unclear.

Participants

N = 40 planned for enrolment but only 5 enrolled (3 in treatment group) before study stopped by Data and Safety Monitoring Board (see notes).

Inclusion criteria: CF; osteopenia of the lumbar spine (T‐scores ‐1.0 to ‐2.5); serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥ 20ng/ml prior to infusion.
Exclusion criteria: existing osteoporosis, prior treatment with bisphosphonates or previous lung transplant.

Interventions

Intravenous zoledronate, 5 mg infusion administered on a single occasion over 20 minutes.

All participants received supplemental oral vitamin D (800 IU) and oral calcium (1000mg) daily.

Outcomes

BMD (lumbar spine) ‐ 0, 6 months (originally planned additionally for 12 month).

Change from baseline in serum C‐telopeptides at 3, 6 months (originally planned additionally for 9 and 12 months).

Notes

The study was stopped by its Data and Safety Monitoring Board after 3 participants experienced dramatic musculoskeletal pain, 2 requiring emergency room assessment. Symptoms began 6 to 8 hours after infusion, peaked at 12 to 18 hours, and were characterized by severe chest and back pain. Along with musculoskeletal pain, one participant also experienced a fever of 104oF lasting for several hours and a rise in Tumour Necrosis Factor‐α. Although the most severe symptoms resolved within 48 to 72 hours, participants reported continued arthralgias for up to a week.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Described as 'double‐blind'.

Participants: blinded.

Not discussed if clinicians or persons delivering treatment and outcome assessors were both blinded.

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

Based on interpretation of data, we have presumed that the 3 participants who had severe bone pain were the 3 in the treatment group. Clarification from the author was requested but not received.

Free of selective reporting?

High risk

Abstract only but outcome measures were described in the results.

Free of other bias?

Unclear risk

Insufficient data in abstract to be clear.

Chapman 2008

Methods

Randomised, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial; parallel design. Trial duration 24 months.
Generation of allocation sequence and allocation concealment were unclear.

Participants

Multientre, 2 sites, CF clinics, Australia.

Inclusion criteria: CF (diagnosis previously made by sweat chloride test and an appropriate CF phenotype); ≥ 18 years; bone density T‐score <‐1.5 in at least one of three sites (hip (femoral neck), lumbar spine 2 to 4 (L2 to L4) and distal forearm) in the month before study commencement.

Exclusion criteria: pre‐existing, symptomatic, fragility fractures; untreated hyperthyroidism, primary hyperparathyroidism or hypogonadism; bisphosphonate treatment in the three months before starting the study; serum calcium concentration below the lower limit of the laboratory normal range; serum creatinine concentration more than 1.5 times the upper limit of the laboratory normal range; serum ALT, ALP or bilirubin more than three times the upper limit of the laboratory normal range; on the waiting list for lung transplantation; pregnant or lactating; considered unlikely to complete the study.

N=22 (10 in treatment group); 17 male (7 in treatment group), 5 females (3 in treatment group).

Treatment group: mean (SD) age 30.1 (2.2) years; control group: mean (SD) age 28.6 (2.4) years. Age range over all: males 21 to 47 years, females 19 to 28 years.

Interventions

Treatment group: intravenous zoledronic acid (zoledronate) in 100mls of normal saline infused over 15 minutes every 3 months for 21 months (eight infusions in total). For 5 out of 63 doses, 4mg zoledronate was administered, then dose reduced to 2mg for subsequent doses (due to febrile reactions to the higher dose in several participants).

Placebo group: 100 mls normal saline as above.

All participants were prescribed calcium carbonate 600 mg and vitamin D2 1000 IU each twice daily at least 3 days before the first treatment infusion and continued throughout the study. All participants were prescribed prednisolone 25 mg orally per day for 3 days starting on the morning of the first infusion; repeated with subsequent infusions if a reaction to the first infusion was thought likely. If there were side effects of the study infusion that were considered to be possibly due to the infusion during the first or any subsequent infusion, at the discretion of the investigator and participant, oral analgesia (paracetamol) was also administered for subsequent infusions.

Outcomes

Bone density at hip (femoral neck), lumbar spine (L2‐L4) and distal forearm:‐ baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months.

Plain x‐rays of thoracic and lumbar spine: baseline and 24 months (additional films taken as indicated to confirm any suspected fractures).

Biochemical measurements (baseline and two weeks before the 6, 12, 18 and 24 months time‐points: urea; creatinine; ALP; ALT; bilirubin; calcium (corrected); calcium (ionised); phosphate; 25‐hydroxyvitamin D; PTH; complete blood count and differential.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Described as 'double‐blind'.

Participants: blinded.

Outcome assessors: DXA scans were performed and analysed by personnel blinded to treatment assignment.

Not specifically discussed if clinicians or persons delivering treatment and other outcome assessors were all blinded.

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Withdrawals described.

In the treatment group, 2 participants withdrew due to side‐effects, 1 due to psychiatric illness.

In the placebo group, one participant was lost to follow‐up, one participant's BMD decreased to withdrawal threshold, 2 participants were poorly compliant to study protocols and in one participant, both of the latter two reasons were applicable. However, it was unclear which specific participants had BMD measurements available at each time‐point, particularly for forearm measures (fewer measurements compared with lumbar spine and femoral neck).

Free of selective reporting?

Low risk

Outcome measures that were described in the methods section were reported in the results section.

Haworth 2001

Methods

Randomised controlled trial; parallel design. Trial duration planned for 1 year, but was shortened to 6 months because of adverse events.

Generation of allocation sequence and allocation concealment were unclear.

Not stated if participants, providers or outcome assessors (or all) were blinded.

3 participants did not complete the study (1 participant in the treatment group received a double lung transplant and 1 participant in each group died of respiratory failure).

Participants

Single centre, UK.

Inclusion criteria: CF; no organ transplantation; 70% of all eligible participants in a longitudinal BMD study recruited after one year of follow‐up; no prior treatment with bone sparing agents; BMD Z‐score of < or = ‐2 at lumbar spine, proximal femur or distal forearm.

N = 31 (15 in treatment group); 9 female (more in treatment group but exact number not reported).

Mean (SD) age 26.1 (5.8) years; BMI 21.1 (2.7) kg/m2; FEV1 50.9 (20.3) % of predicted treatment. Groups similar with respect to age, initial BMD, bone biochemistry and respiratory disease severity.

3 participants (2 from treatment group) withdrew.

Interventions

Intravenous pamidronate 30 mg every 3 months for 6 months (2 doses).

All participants with pancreatic insufficiency (relevant to all except one in control group) continued long term oral vitamin D (900 IU/day); all participants in both groups received oral calcium (1g daily).

Outcomes

BMD (lumbar spine; proximal femur (total hip); 0, 6 months; DXA Hologic QDR 4500 Waltham MA);
BMD (distal radius, ultradistal radius; 0, 6 months; SXA);
Adverse events (bone pain);
Withdrawals (total, due to adverse events);
Survival.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Adequate sequence generation?

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding?
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data addressed?
All outcomes

Low risk

Withdrawals were reported; one participant in each group died of respiratory failure and one participant in the treatment group underwent a double lung transplant.

Free of selective reporting?

Low risk

Outcome measures that were described in the methods section were reported in the results section.

Free of other bias?

Unclear risk

Given insufficient data, we are unclear of other bias.

ALP: alkaline phosphatase
ALT: alanine aminotransferase
BMD: bone mineral density
BMI: body mass index
CF: cystic fibrosis
DXA: dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry
FEV1: forced expiratory volume in one second
PTH: parathyroid hormone
SD: standard deviation
SXA:single energy x‐ray absorptiometry

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Conway 2004

This study was a prospective open design, not a randomised controlled trial.

Hardin 2005

This study assessed the effect of growth hormone on total‐body bone mineral content in pre‐pubertal children with CF. It did not assess the effect of bisphosphonates.

CF: cystic fibrosis

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

Papaioannou 2008

Methods

Randomized, placebo‐controlled trial. 6 Canadian CF specialty clinics.

Computer‐ generated randomization code (stratified according to institution) prepared by an independent randomization center (McMaster In‐Patient Pharmacy; Hamilton, ON, Canada), and block allocation employed to ensure equitable distribution to each treatment group. The medication treatment arm was concealed, and all participants, central and local site coordinators,
physicians, staff, and caregivers were blinded to treatment group allocation.

Participants who received at least 80% of the study drug were classified
as being adherent to the protocol. All analyses were performed as intention‐to‐treat and included all available data.

Stopping and study withdrawal rules were monitored by external Data Safety Monitoring Committee.

A medical physicist, who was blinded to the study treatment arm and study status, reviewed all DXA scans. Radiographs were sent to the central methods center, and read independently by two radiologists who were
blinded to the study treatment arm. Differences between radiologists were resolved by consensus.

Participants

56 adults randomised. Participants had CF confirmed by positive sweat test result or DNA acid analysis and a BMD T score of 1.0, as determined by dual‐energy radiograph absorptiometry.

Participants who had undergone organ transplantation; had endoscopy‐proven oesophagitis, gastritis, and ulceration; had metabolic bone disorders; had severe renal disease; had used systemic corticosteroids (dose, 7.5 mg/d) or other drugs known to influence bone metabolism in the previous 6 months; or had osteomalacia and other documented contraindications were excluded from the study.

Alendronate group: 27 randomised (17 male, 10 female) mean (SD) age 28.1 (7.7) years. 4 withdrew (2 non‐compliance, 1 due to adverse event, 1 withdrew consent). 23 completed study.

Placebo group: 29 randomised (17 male, 12 female) mean (SD) age 30.9 (9.7) years. 5 withdrew (2 non‐compliance, 2 due to adverse event, 1 lost to follow‐up). 24 completed study.

Interventions

Placebo or oral alendronate, 70 mg once weekly for 12 months.

Medication was taken while sitting upright and with water only on an empty stomach at least 30 min before first food or beverage of the day. In addition,
all participants received 800 IU of vitamin D and 1000 mg of calcium (500 mg supplementation, 500 mg from diet) daily.

Outcomes

Compliance was measured through pill counts at each visit and patient self‐report during telephone contact.

In‐clinic assessments at 6 and 12 months, and telephone follow‐up was conducted by study staff at months 3 and 9.

Clinic assessments at baseline and 12 months included a physical examination, vital signs, biochemistry (serum and urine) tests, pulmonary
function tests (including FEV1 and FVC), the Medical Outcomes
Study 36‐item short form, radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine, and DXA.

Adverse events and drug reactions reported spontaneously and responses elicited at each contact. Safety analyses included all vertebral fractures, osteoporosis‐related fractures, adverse reactions, and abnormal findings that
had been detected through laboratory tests and physical examinations.
Documentation for all adverse events were blinded and adjudicated by the external Data Safety Monitoring Committee. All adverse events were reported regardless of attribution to study medication.

Notes

BMD: bone mineral density
CF: cystic fibrosis
DXA: dual‐energy radiograph absorptiometry
FEV1: forced expiratory volume at one second
FVC: forced vital capacity
SD: standard deviation

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.

1.1 12 months

2

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 24 months

1

20

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.

2.1 12 months

2

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.18, 25.35]

2.2 24 months

1

20

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Total Fractures Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.

3.1 12 months

2

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.18, 25.35]

3.2 24 months

1

20

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (Time‐points) Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (Time‐points).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (Time‐points).

4.1 6 months

4

101

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.61 [3.90, 5.32]

4.2 12 months

2

59

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.38 [5.21, 7.54]

4.3 24 months

1

19

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.70 [4.55, 6.85]

5 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (End of study) Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (End of study).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (End of study).

5.1 End of study

4

92

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.90 [4.94, 6.87]

6 Percent change in BMD, total hip / femur, DXA (Time‐points) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Percent change in BMD, total hip / femur, DXA (Time‐points).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Percent change in BMD, total hip / femur, DXA (Time‐points).

6.1 6 months

3

96

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.35 [1.63, 5.07]

6.2 12 months

2

59

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.84 [2.73, 6.96]

6.3 24 months

1

19

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.73 [5.51, 7.95]

7 Percent change in BMD, total hip/femur, DXA (End of study) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Percent change in BMD, total hip/femur, DXA (End of study).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Percent change in BMD, total hip/femur, DXA (End of study).

7.1 End of study

3

87

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.58 [1.92, 7.24]

8 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (Time‐points) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (Time‐points).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (Time‐points).

8.1 6 months

2

48

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.49 [‐2.42, 1.45]

8.2 12 months

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.30, 0.94]

8.3 24 months

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.41, 2.59]

9 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (End of study) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (End of study).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (End of study).

9.1 End of study

2

42

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐3.12, 3.14]

10 Percent change in BMD, ultradistal radius, SXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 10 Percent change in BMD, ultradistal radius, SXA.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 10 Percent change in BMD, ultradistal radius, SXA.

10.1 6 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Bone pain Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 11 Bone pain.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 11 Bone pain.

11.1 Oral bisphosphonates

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.17 [3.64, 55.17]

11.3 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

4

108

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.17 [3.64, 55.17]

12 Fever Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 12 Fever.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 12 Fever.

12.1 Oral bisphosphonates

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

55

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

12.3 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

4

103

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

13 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 13 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 13 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.

13.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.95 [0.14, 108.09]

13.2 12 months

2

70

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.35 [0.31, 173.13]

13.3 24 months

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.35 [0.31, 173.13]

14 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 14 Withdrawals, total.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 14 Withdrawals, total.

14.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.83 [0.39, 20.73]

14.2 12 months

2

70

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.31, 3.73]

14.3 24 months

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.07, 2.50]

15 Survival Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 15 Survival.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 15 Survival.

15.1 6 months

2

36

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.05, 16.39]

15.2 12 months

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.13 [0.12, 80.68]

15.3 24 months

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.

1.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.

2.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Total Fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.

3.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA.

4.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Percent change in BMD, femur, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, femur, DXA.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, femur, DXA.

5.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Bone pain Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Bone pain.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Bone pain.

6.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.

8 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Withdrawals, total.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Withdrawals, total.

8.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Survival Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Survival.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Survival.

9.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (Time‐points).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (Time‐points).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (End of study).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (End of study).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Percent change in BMD, total hip / femur, DXA (Time‐points).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Percent change in BMD, total hip / femur, DXA (Time‐points).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Percent change in BMD, total hip/femur, DXA (End of study).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Percent change in BMD, total hip/femur, DXA (End of study).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (Time‐points).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (Time‐points).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (End of study).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (End of study).

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 10 Percent change in BMD, ultradistal radius, SXA.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 10 Percent change in BMD, ultradistal radius, SXA.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 11 Bone pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 11 Bone pain.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 12 Fever.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 12 Fever.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 13 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 13 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 14 Withdrawals, total.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 14 Withdrawals, total.

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 15 Survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 15 Survival.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 1 Vertebral fractures.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 2 Non‐vertebral fractures.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 3 Total Fractures.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, femur, DXA.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 5 Percent change in BMD, femur, DXA.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Bone pain.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 6 Bone pain.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Withdrawals, total.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 8 Withdrawals, total.

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Survival.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation), Outcome 9 Survival.

Comparison 1. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 12 months

2

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 24 months

1

20

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 12 months

2

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.18, 25.35]

2.2 24 months

1

20

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Total Fractures Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 12 months

2

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.18, 25.35]

3.2 24 months

1

20

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (Time‐points) Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 6 months

4

101

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.61 [3.90, 5.32]

4.2 12 months

2

59

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.38 [5.21, 7.54]

4.3 24 months

1

19

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.70 [4.55, 6.85]

5 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA (End of study) Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 End of study

4

92

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.90 [4.94, 6.87]

6 Percent change in BMD, total hip / femur, DXA (Time‐points) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 6 months

3

96

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.35 [1.63, 5.07]

6.2 12 months

2

59

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.84 [2.73, 6.96]

6.3 24 months

1

19

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

6.73 [5.51, 7.95]

7 Percent change in BMD, total hip/femur, DXA (End of study) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 End of study

3

87

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.58 [1.92, 7.24]

8 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (Time‐points) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 6 months

2

48

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.49 [‐2.42, 1.45]

8.2 12 months

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.30, 0.94]

8.3 24 months

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.5 [0.41, 2.59]

9 Percent change in BMD, distal radius, SXA (End of study) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 End of study

2

42

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐3.12, 3.14]

10 Percent change in BMD, ultradistal radius, SXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 6 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Bone pain Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Oral bisphosphonates

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.17 [3.64, 55.17]

11.3 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

4

108

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.17 [3.64, 55.17]

12 Fever Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Oral bisphosphonates

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12.2 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

55

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

12.3 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

4

103

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

13 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.95 [0.14, 108.09]

13.2 12 months

2

70

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.35 [0.31, 173.13]

13.3 24 months

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.35 [0.31, 173.13]

14 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.83 [0.39, 20.73]

14.2 12 months

2

70

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.31, 3.73]

14.3 24 months

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.07, 2.50]

15 Survival Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 6 months

2

36

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.05, 16.39]

15.2 12 months

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.13 [0.12, 80.68]

15.3 24 months

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation)
Comparison 2. Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Total Fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Percent change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Percent change in BMD, femur, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Bone pain Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Survival Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation)