Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Bisfosfonati za osteoporozu kod osoba s cističnom fibrozom

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

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. Pediatric Pulmonology 1998;Suppl 17:365. [CFGD REGISTER: CO30b] CENTRAL
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. [CFGD REGISTER: CO30c] CENTRAL
Aris RM, Ontjes DA, Winders AW, Blackwood D, Lester GE. Effect of pamidronate on bone biomarkers in post-transplant osteoporotic cystic fibrosis patients. Pediatric Pulmonology 1998;Suppl 17:364-5. [CFGD REGISTER: CO30a] CENTRAL

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;36 Suppl 25:351. [CFGD REGISTER: CO35a] CENTRAL
Aris RM, Lester GE, Caminiti M, Blackwood AD, Hensler M, Lark RK, et al. 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. [CFGD REGISTER: CO35b] CENTRAL
NCT00004489. Randomized study of alendronate in adult patients with cystic fibrosis related osteoporosis. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00004489 (first received 19 October 1999). [CFGD REGISTER: CO35c] CENTRAL

Bianchi 2013 {published data only}

Bianchi ML, Colombo C, Assael BM, Dubini A, Lombardo M, Quattrucci S, et al. Treatment of low bone density in young people with cystic fibrosis: a multicentre, prospective, open-label observational study of calcium and calcifediol followed by a randomised placebo-controlled trial of alendronate. Lancet. Respiratory Medicine 2013;1(5):377-85. [CENTRAL: 918279] [CFGD REGISTER: CO58a] CENTRAL [EMBASE: 2013502641]
NCT01812551. Treatment of low bone density in cystic fibrosis. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01812551 (first received 18 March 2013). [CFGD REGISTER: CO58b] CENTRAL

Boyle 2005 {published data only}

Boyle MP, Lechtzin N, Watts S. Zoledronate therapy for decreased bone density in adults with cystic fibrosis. Pediatric Pulmonology 2005;40(S28):353. [CFGD REGISTER: CO38] CENTRAL

Chapman 2009 {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 2009;70(6):838-46. [CFGD REGISTER: CO44] CENTRAL

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. [CFGD REGISTER: CO29d] CENTRAL
Haworth CS, Selby PL, Mawer EB, Adams JE, Verma A, Phillips A, et al. Pamidronate increases axial bone density in cystic fibrosis patients. Pediatric Pulmonology 1999;28 Suppl 19:295. [CFGD REGISTER: CO29b] CENTRAL
Haworth CS, Selby PL, Mawer EB, Adams JE, Webb AK. Intravenous pamidronate increases axial bone density in cystic fibrosis adults. Thorax 1999;54(Suppl 3):A67. [CFGD REGISTER: CO29c] CENTRAL
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. [CFGD REGISTER: CO29e] CENTRAL
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. [CFGD REGISTER: CO29a] CENTRAL

Haworth 2011 {published and unpublished data}

Haworth CS, Sharples L, Hughes V, Elkin SL, Hodson M, Conway S, et al. Two-year multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the effect of weekly Risedronate on bone mineral density in adults with CF. Pediatric Pulmonology 2010;45(Suppl 33):423. [CFGD REGISTER: CO45b] CENTRAL
Haworth CS, Sharples L, Hughes V, Elkin SL, Hodson ME, Conway SP, et al. Multicentre trial of weekly risedronate on bone density in adults with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2011;10(6):470-6. [CFGD REGISTER: CO45c] CENTRAL [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2011.07.007]
Haworth CS, Sharples L, Hughes V, Elsin SL, Hodson ME, Conway SP, et al. Multicentre randomised double blind placebo controlled trial assessing the effect of weekly risedronate on bone mineral density in adults with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2010;9(Suppl 1):S85. [CFGD REGISTER: CO45a] CENTRAL
ISRCTN36453336. A randomised double blind placebo controlled trial assessing the effect of once weekly risedronate on bone mineral density in adults with cystic fibrosis. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36453336 (first received 16 May 2005). [CFGD REGISTER: CO45d] CENTRAL

Krasovsky 2010 {published data only}

Krasovsky S, Baranova I, Demin N, Amelina E. Efficacy of alendronate/colecalciferol/calcium in adults with cystic fibrosis. In: European Respiratory Society Annual Congress; 2010 Sep 18-22; Barcelona, Spain. 2010:698s. [ABSTRACT NO.: E3909] [CENTRAL: 777311] [CFGD REGISTER: CO60] CENTRAL

Papaioannou 2008 {published data only}

NCT00157690. Study of alendronate to prevent and treat osteoporosis in cystic fibrosis patients. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00157690 (first received 12 September 2005). [CFGD REGISTER: CO40b] CENTRAL
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. [CFGD REGISTER: CO40a] CENTRAL

References to studies excluded from this review

Cawood 2005 {published data only}

Cawood TJ, McKenna MJ, Gallagher CG, Smith D, Wen YC, Gibney J, et al. Oral bisphosphonates improve bone mineral density in adults with cystic fibrosis. Irish Medical Journal 2005;98(9):270-3. CENTRAL

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. CENTRAL

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 2005;18(6):589-95. [CFGD REGISTER: GN126] CENTRAL

Haworth 1998 {published data only}

Haworth CS, Selby PS, Webb AK, Mawer EB, Adams JE, Freemont TJ. Severe bone pain after intravenous pamidronate in adult patients with cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1998;352(9142):1752-4. CENTRAL

NCT01702415 {published data only}NCT01702415

NCT01702415. Zoledronic acid in cystic fibrosis. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01702415 (first received 8 October 2012). [CFGD REGISTER: CO85] CENTRAL

NCT01882400 {unpublished data only}NCT01882400

NCT01882400. Assessment of response to treatment of osteoporosis with oral bisphosphonates in patients with muscular dystrophy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01882400 (first received 20 June 2013). CENTRAL

Ringuier 2004 {published data only}

Ringuier B, Lebouchera B, Leblanca M, Troussiera F, Duveaua E, Audranb M, et al. Effect of oral biphosphonates in patients with cystic fibrosis and low bone mineral density [Efficacité des biphosphonates oraux sur la déminéralisation osseuse des patients atteints de mucoviscidose]. Archives de Pédiatrie 2004;11(12):1445-9. CENTRAL

Rudge 2005 {published data only}

Rudge S, Hailwood S, Horne A, Lucas J, Wu F, Cundy T. Effects of once-weekly oral alendronate on bone in children on glucocorticoid treatment. Rheumatology 2005;44(6):813-8. [CENTRAL: 520987] [CFGD REGISTER: CO61] CENTRAL [EMBASE: 2005472726] [PMID: 15695300]

Alicandro 2014

Alicandro G, Bisogno A, Battezzati A, Bianchi ML, Corti F, Colombo C. Recurrent pulmonary exacerbations are associated with low fat free mass and low bone mineral density in young adults with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2014;13(3):328-34. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2013.11.001] [PMID: 24291530]

Allen 2016

Allen CS, Yeung JH, Vandermeer B, Homik J. Bisphosphonates for steroid-induced osteoporosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 10. Art. No: CD001347. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001347.pub2]

Ambroszkiewicz 2013

Ambroszkiewicz J, Sands D, Gajewska J, Chelchowska M, Laskowska-Klita T. Bone turnover markers, osteoprotegerin and RANKL cytokines in children with cystic fibrosis. Advances in Medical Sciences 2013;58(2):338-43. [DOI: 10.2478/ams-2013-0011] [PMID: 24277958]

Anabtawi 2019

Anabtawi A, Le T, Putman M, Tangpricha V, Bianchi ML. Cystic fibrosis bone disease: pathophysiology, assessment and prognostic implications. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2019;18 Suppl 2:S48-55. [PMID: 31679729]

Aris 1996

Aris RM, Neuringer IP, Weiner MA, Egan TM, Ontjes D. Severe osteoporosis before and after lung transplantation. Chest 1996;109(5):1176-83.

Aris 2005

Aris RM, Merkel PA, Bachrach LK, Borowitz DS, Boyle MP, Elkin SL, et al. Guide to bone health and disease in cystic fibrosis. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2005;90(3):1888-96. [DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-1629]

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):388-96.

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.

Boyle 2006

Boyle MP. Update on maintaining bone health in cystic fibrosis. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 2006;12(6):453-8.

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.

Cairoli 2019

Cairoli E, Eller-Vainicher C, Morlacchi LC, Tarsia P, Rossetti V, Pappalettera M, et al. Bone involvement in young adults with cystic fibrosis awaiting lung transplantation for end-stage respiratory failure. Osteoporosis International 2019;30(6):1255-63.

Caldeira 2008

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

Cates 2003 [Computer program]

Visual Rx. Online NNT calculator. Cates C, 2003. Available at www.nntonline.net/.

Choi 2020

Choi D, Choi S, Chang J, Park SM. Exposure to oral bisphosphonates and risk of gastrointestinal cancer. Osteoporosis International 2020;31(4):775-82.

Cosman 2014

Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, Lewiecki EM, Tanner B, Randall S, et al. Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis International 2014;25(10):2359-81.

Cremers 2019

Cremers S, Drake MT, Ebetino FH, Bilezikian JP, Russell RG. Pharmacology of bisphosphonates. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2019;85(6):1052-62. [PMID: 30650219]

Cryer 2002

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

Curtis 2017

Curtis EM, Moon RJ, Harvey NC, Cooper C. The impact of fragility fracture and approaches to osteoporosis risk assessment worldwide. Bone 2017;104:29-38.

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 2019

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Patient Registry 2018 Annual Report; 2019. Available at www.cff.org/medical-professionals/patient-registry.

De Boeck 2020

De Boeck K. Cystic fibrosis in the year 2020: a disease with a new face. Acta Paediatrica 2020;109(5):893-9. [PMID: 31899933]

Donadio 2013

Donadio MV, Souza GC, Tiecher G, Heinzmann-Filho JP, Paim TF, Hommerding PX, et al. Bone mineral density, pulmonary function, chronological age, and age at diagnosis in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis. Jornal de Pediatria 2013;89(2):151-7. [PMID: 23642425]

Dumortier 2021

Dumortier C, Danopoulos S, Velard F, Al Alam D. Bone cells differentiation: how CFTR mutations may rule the game of stem cells commitment? Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 2021;9:611921.

Dwan 2016

Dwan K, Phillipi CA, Steiner RD, Basel D. Bisphosphonate therapy for osteogenesis imperfecta. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 10. Art. No: CD005088. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005088.pub4]

Galindo‐Zavala 2020

Galindo-Zavala R, Bou-Torrent R, Magallares-López B, Mir-Perelló C, Palmou-Fontana N, Sevilla-Pérez B, et al. Expert panel consensus recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of secondary osteoporosis in children. Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal 2020;18(1):20.

Giger 2013

Giger EV, Castagner B, Leroux JC. Biomedical applications of bisphosphonates. Journal of Controlled Release 2013;167(2):175-88. [PMID: 23395668]

Glorieux 1998

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

Gore 2010

Gore AP, Kwon SH, Stenbit AE. A roadmap to the brittle bones of cystic fibrosis. Journal of Osteoporosis 2010;2011:926045. [PMID: 21209785]

Gui‐Feng 2018

Liu GF, Wang ZQ, Liu L, Zhang BT, Miao YY, Yu SN. A network meta-analysis on the short-term efficacy and adverse events of different anti-osteoporosis drugs for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 2018;119(6):4469-81.

Gupta 2017

Gupta S, Mukherjee A, Khadgawat R, Kabra M, Lodha R, Kabra SK. Bone mineral density of Indian children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis. Indian Pediatrics 2017;54(7):545-9.

Hall 2010

Hall WB, Sparks AA, Aris RM. Vitamin D deficiency in cystic fibrosis. International Journal of Endocrinology 2010;2010:218691. [PMID: 20148079]

Haworth 2010

Haworth CS. Impact of cystic fibrosis on bone health. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 2010;16(6):616-22. [PMID: 20739891]

Hayes 2011

Hayes M, Yaster M, Haythornthwaite JA, Riekert K, Nelson K, White E, et al. Pain is a common problem affecting clinical outcomes in adults with cystic fibrosis. Chest 2011;140(6):1598-603. [PMID: 21659431]

Higgins 2003

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

Higgins 2017

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). Cochrane, 2017. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.2.

Jadad 1996

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

Javier 2011

Javier RM, Jacquot J. Bone disease in cystic fibrosis: what's new? Joint, Bone, Spine: Revue du Rhumatisme 2011;78(5):445-50. [PMID: 21233000]

Kelsey 2019

Kelsey R, Manderson Koivula FN, McClenaghan NH, Kelly C. Cystic fibrosis-related diabetes: pathophysiology and therapeutic challenges. Clinical Medicine Insights. Endocrinology and Diabetes 2019;12:1179551419851770. [PMID: 31191067]

Kovvuru 2020

Kovvuru K, Kanduri SR, Vaitla P, Marathi R, Gosi S, Garcia Anton DF, et al. Risk factors and management of osteoporosis post-transplant. Medicina 2020;56(6):302.

Legroux‐Gerot 2012

Legroux-Gerot I, Leroy S, Prudhomme C, Perez T, Flipo RM, Wallaert B, et al. Bone loss in adults with cystic fibrosis: prevalence, associated factors, and usefulness of biological markers. Joint, Bone, Spine 2012;79(1):73-7. [PMID: 21733729]

Le Heron 2010

Le Heron L, Guillaume C, Velard F, Braux J, Touqui L, Moriceau S, et al. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) regulates the production of osteoprotegerin (OPG) and prostaglandin (PG) E2 in human bone. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2010;9(1):69-72. [PMID: 20005786]

Mitchell 2019

Mitchell AB, Glanville AR. Lung transplantation: a review of the optimal strategies for referral and patient selection. Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease 2019;13:1753466619880078. [DOI: 10.1177/1753466619880078]

Nguyen 2021

Nguyen PQ, Bouin M, Ste-Marie LG. Upper gastrointestinal safety of oral bisphosphonate in hospitalized patients. Osteoporosis International 2021;32(1):193-7.

Nishiyama 2018

Nishiyama KK, Agarwal S, Kepley A, Rosete F, Hu Y, Guo XE, et al. Adults with cystic fibrosis have deficits in bone structure and strength at the distal tibia despite similar size and measuring standard and relative sites. Bone 2018;107:181-7.

Paccou 2013

Paccou J, Fardellone P, Cortet B. Cystic fibrosis-related bone disease. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 2013;19(6):681-6. [PMID: 24060979]

Pendrys 2008

Pendrys DG, Silverman SL. Osteonecrosis of the jaws and bisphosphonates. Current Osteoporosis Reports 2008;6(1):31-8.

Putman 2019

Putman MS, Anabtawi A, Le T, Tangpricha V, Sermet-Gaudelus I. Cystic fibrosis bone disease treatment: current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2019;18 Suppl 2:S56-65. [PMID: 31679730]

Rafeeq 2017

Rafeeq MM, Murad HA. Cystic fibrosis: current therapeutic targets and future approaches. Journal of Translational Medicine 2017;15(1):84.

Reid 2018

Reid IR, Horne AM, Mihov B, Stewart A, Garratt E, Wong S, et al. Fracture prevention with zoledronate in older women with osteopenia. New England Journal of Medicine 2018;379(25):2407-16.

RevMan Web 2022 [Computer program]

Review Manager Web (RevMan Web). Version 4.17.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2022. Available at revman.cochrane.org.

Reyes 2016

Reyes C, Hitz M, Prieto-Alhambra D, Abrahamsen B. RIsks and benefits of bisphosphonate therapies. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 2016;117(1):20-8.

Robinson 2019

Robinson CA, Hofer M, Benden C, Schmid C. Evaluation of bone disease in patients with cystic fibrosis and end stage lung disease. Brazilian Journal of Pulmonology 2019;45(1):e20170280.

Russell 2006

Russell RG. Bisphosphonates from bench to bedside. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2006;1068:367-401.

Russell 2007

Russell RG, Xia Z, Dunford JE, Oppermann U, Kwaasi A, Hulley PA, 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;1117:209-57.

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.

Sakiani 2019

Sakiani S, Kleiner DE, Heller T, Koh C. Hepatic manifestations of cystic fibrosis. Clinics in Liver Disease 2019;23(2):263-77. [PMID: 30947876]

Saleh 2013

Saleh A, Hegde VV, Potty AG, Lane JM. Bisphosphonate therapy and atypical fractures. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 2013;44(2):137-51. [PMID: 23544820]

Schünemann 2017a

Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl E, et al, on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group and the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 11: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the confidence in or quality of the evidence. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.2.

Schünemann 2017b

Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group and the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.2.

Scotet 2020

Scotet V, L'Hostis C, Férec C. The changing epidemiology of cystic fibrosis: incidence, survival and impact of the CFTR gene discovery. Genes 2020;11(6):589.

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.

Sermet‐Gaudelus 2011

Sermet-Gaudelus I, Bianchi ML, Garabedian M, Aris RM, Morton A, Hardin DS, et al. European cystic fibrosis bone mineralisation guidelines. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2011;10 Suppl 2:S16-23. [PMID: 21658635]

Shead 2010

Shead EF, Haworth CS, Barker H, Bilton D, Compston JE. Osteoclast function, bone turnover and inflammatory cytokines during infective exacerbations of cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2010;9(2):93-8. [PMID: 20006563]

Shi 2016

Shi CG, Zhang Y, Yuan W. Efficacy of bisphosphonates on bone mineral density and fracture rate in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Therapeutics 2016;23(3):e894-904.

Sidhaye 2019

Sidhaye A, Goldswieg B, Kaminski B, Blackman SM, Kelly A. Endocrine complications after solid-organ transplant in cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 2019;18 Suppl 2:S111-9. [PMID: 31679722]

Smith 2017

Smith N, Lim A, Yap M, King L, James S, Jones A, et al. Bone mineral density is related to lung function outcomes in young people with cystic fibrosis - a retrospective study. Pediatric Pulmonology 2017;52(12):1558-64.

Stalvey 2013a

Stalvey MS, Clines KL, Havasi V, McKibbin CR, Dunn LK, Chung WJ, et al. Osteoblast CFTR inactivation reduces differentiation and osteoprotegerin expression in a mouse model of cystic fibrosis-related bone disease. PLOS One 2013;8(11):e80098. [PMID: 24236172]

Stalvey 2013b

Stalvey MS, Clines GA. Cystic fibrosis-related bone disease: insights into a growing problem. Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity 2013;20(6):547-52. [PMID: 24468756]

Starr 2018

Starr J, Tay Y, Shane E. Current understanding of epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of atypical femur fractures. Current Osteoporosis Reports 2018;16(4):519-29.

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.

Weitzmann 2013

Weitzmann MN. The role of inflammatory cytokines, the RANKL/OPG axis, and the immunoskeletal interface in physiological bone turnover and osteoporosis. Scientifica 2013;2013:125705. [PMID: 24278766]

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. Art. No: CD004523. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004523.pub2]

Conwell 2009

Conwell LS, Chang AB. Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4. Art. No: CD002010. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002010.pub2]

Conwell 2012

Conwell LS, Chang AB. Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. Art. No: CD002010. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002010.pub3]

Conwell 2014

Conwell LS, Chang AB. Bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. Art. No: CD002010. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002010.pub4]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Aris 2000

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised controlled trial, parallel design.

Trial duration 2 years.

Single centre, university hospital, USA.

Participants

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.

Total participants: n = 34 (17 female).
Treatment group: n = 16 (7 female); mean (SD) age 27.5 years (6.6 years).

Control group: n = 18 (10 female); 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 BMI over study period.

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

Interventions

Treatment group: intravenous pamidronate (30 mg every 3 months) plus oral vitamin D (800 IU/day) and oral calcium (1 g/day).

Control group: oral vitamin D (800 IU/day) and oral calcium (1 g/day).

Outcomes

Primary outcome

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

Secondary outcomes

  1. BMD femur (at 0, 6, 12, 18, 24 months; DXA Hologic QDR 1000/W Waltham MA).

  2. New fractures: number of fractures during study; long bone using clinical data, rib using postero‐anterior chest radiographs, vertebral using lateral chest radiographs.

  3. Kyphosis angles (degrees): thoracic spine curvature using lateral chest radiographs using a modification of method of Cobb (at 0, 24 months).

  4. 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.

  5. Bone biomarkers: serum osteocalcin, urine cross‐linked N‐telopeptides of type 1 collagen, urine free deoxypyridinoline (at 0, 3, 12, 24 months; also 2, 14 days after first pamidronate infusion in intervention group).

  6. Serum calcium, vitamin D (25‐hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D) and PTH levels (at 0, 3, 12, 24 months).

  7. Withdrawals.

  8. 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 endpoint measurement. 34 people were included in the final analyses.

Funding was provided by grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Verne S Caviness General Center for Clinical Research.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

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 (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
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 (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

It was described that 3 participants died during the course of the study before the first primary endpoint measurement (causes of death were 1 each from sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome and obliterative bronchiolitis). 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.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

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

Other bias

Unclear risk

None identified.

Aris 2004

Study characteristics

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).

Single centre, adult CF centre, USA.

Participants

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; a history of bisphosphonate intolerance or use; and pregnancy.

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

Total participants: n = 48 (23 female).
Treatment group: n = 24 (9 female); mean (SD) age 28 years (7 years).

Control group: n = 24 (14 female); 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 groups.

Interventions

Treatment group: oral alendronate (10 mg daily) plus oral vitamin D (800 IU/day) and oral calcium carbonate (1000 mg/day).

Control group: oral vitamin D (800 IU/day) and oral calcium carbonate (1000 mg/day).

Outcomes

Primary outcome

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

Secondary outcomes

  1. BMD femur (at 0, 6, 12, 18, 24 months; DXA Hologic QDR 1000/W Waltham MA).

  2. New fractures: number of fractures during study; long bone using clinical data, rib using postero‐anterior chest radiographs, vertebral using lateral chest radiographs.

  3. Adverse events: number during study; fever; bone pain.

  4. Biochemical measurements: serum (parathyroid hormone, 25‐hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D, osteocalcin, bone‐specific ALP) and urine (cross‐linked N‐telopeptides and deoxypyridinoline).

  5. Withdrawals.

  6. Survival.

Notes

Funded by the US Food and Drug Administration, Merck and Co. Inc., the Clinical Nutrition Research Unit, the Verne S Caviness General Center for Clinical Research at University of North Carolina, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

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

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Described as "double‐blind".

Participants: blinded.

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

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

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Withdrawals up to 6 months:

5 withdrawals in total, but not stated whether they were in treatment or control group, so 48 participants were evaluable. Reasons for dropping out: pregnancy (n = 1); diarrhoea and weight loss (n = 3); dysphagia (n = 1). The 3 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, 1 participant was on alendronate and 2 on placebo.

Withdrawals between 6 and 12 months:

4 withdrawals from each group were described.

Treatment group: 4 dropouts; reasons were: transplanted (n = 1); moved (n = 2); non‐compliance (n = 1).
Placebo group: 4 dropouts; reasons were: transplanted (n = 2); died (n = 1); moved (n = 1).

Withdrawals between 1 and 2 years:
Treatment group: 9 dropouts; reasons were: moved (n = 2); committed to only 1 year (n = 7).
Placebo group: 7 dropouts; reasons were: moved (n = 1); committed to only 1 year (n = 6).

The primary endpoint 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.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

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

Other bias

High 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.

Bianchi 2013

Study characteristics

Methods

2 phases:

1. observational phase ‐ 12‐month open‐label trial; followed by

2. intervention phase ‐ 12‐month, parallel, double‐blind randomised, placebo‐controlled trial (included some participants from the observational phase dependent upon criteria as below).

Multicentre: 10 CF regional centres in Italy.

Participants

Observational phase

  • Inclusion criteria: aged 2 to 30 years, clinically stable CF, regular menses in female participants who have been through menarche, low bone mineral apparent density age (defined as bone mineral apparent density Z score < ‐2.0 of aged < 18 years, or < ‐2.3 if aged > 18 years).

  • Exclusion criteria: 2 or more episodes of hypercalcaemia (serum calcium > 0.26 mmol/L) or hypercalciuria (urinary calcium:creatinine ratio > 0.3), contra‐indications to calcifediol or alendronate, transplantation within the past 3 months, other diseases or drugs (except glucocorticoids) associated with bone loss.

Total participants: n = 171 (84 female).
Age 5 to 18 years: n = 151.
Age 18 to 30 years: n= 20.

Intervention phase

  • Inclusion criteria: participants who after 12 months in the observational phase did not have an increase in bone mineral apparent density by 5% or more.

  • Exclusion criteria: participants who after 12 months in the observational phase had increased their bone mineral apparent density by 5% or more.

Total participants: n = 128 (63 female).
Age 5 to 18 years: n = 113.
Age 18 to 30 years: n = 15.

Interventions

Observational phase (12 months)

All participants:

  • received counselling to adjust their dietary calcium intake to the recommended daily allowance;

  • were prescribed oral calcifediol (15 ug/day if bodyweight < 20 kg; 25 ug/day if bodyweight 20 kg to 30 kg; 35 ug/day if bodyweight > 30 kg);

  • stopped previous vitamin D supplementation (cholecalciferol 400 IU/day).

Interventional phase (12 months)

  • Treatment group:

    • recommended daily allowance of dietary calcium;

    • oral calcifediol (15 ug/day if bodyweight < 20 kg; 25 ug/day if bodyweight 20 kg to 30 kg; 35 ug/day if bodyweight > 30 kg);

    • oral alendronate (5 mg/day if bodyweight < 25 kg or 10 mg/day if bodyweight > 25 kg).

  • Control group:

    • recommended daily allowance of dietary calcium;

    • oral calcifediol (15 ug/day if bodyweight < 20 kg; 25 ug/day if bodyweight 20 kg to 30 kg; 35 ug/day if bodyweight > 30 kg);

    • oral placebo.

Outcomes

Primary outcome

  • Lumbar spine bone mineral apparent density and Z score with reference (measured 6‐monthly with calculation of mean % change of bone mineral apparent density between baseline and 12 months and between 12 months and 24 months); each participant was always assessed with the same instrument (5 Holigic QDR 4500, 4 Holigic QDR 2000, and 1 Norland XR‐36); each centre had standardised protocols for positioning, scanning, data analysis and calibration.

Secondary outcomes

  • Vertebral radiographs after 12 months and 24 months ‐ to detect fractures (according to GEnant's method for vertebral morphometry).

  • Incident fractures, height, weight, Tanner pubertal stage were recorded 3‐monthly.

  • Biochemistry measures:

    • serum concentrations of calcium, phosphate, N‐parathyroid hormone, 25‐OH vitamin D, markers of bone turnover (osteocalcin, bone‐specific alkaline phosphatase, C‐terminal telopeptide of pro‐collagen 1), blood cell count, hepatic and renal function tests, protein electrophoresis ‐ measured 3‐monthly.

    • urinary measure of bone turnover (N‐terminal telopeptide of procollagen 1) ‐ measured 3‐monthly.

    • serum 1,25(OH) vitamin D ‐ measured at 6 months.

Notes

Funded by Telethon Foundation (Italy).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

The random allocation was undertaken centrally by a statistician using a computer‐generated list of random numbers.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

For each participant enrolled in the randomised phase, the centre of enrolment and participant code, age, and sex were sent to the co‐ordinating centre, which allocated the participant to the alendronate group (odd numbers) or placebo group (even numbers) and sent an unlabelled drug package for that participant. There were 10 centres involved, hence allocation would have been concealed.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Participants, caregivers and the co‐ordinator were masked to treatment allocation until completion of the trial.

The authors confirmed that outcome assessors (nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists) were also blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Every participant who was enrolled in the randomised phase of the study completed the study and their data were analysed and reported. There were no withdrawals and no participants lost to follow‐up. 

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Details of bone density and vertebral radiographs and biochemistry (bone turnover markers, serum calcium, PTH, 25OH vitamin D, 1,25 vitamin D and urinary calcium, phosphate) were reported.

Details of other biochemistry were not reported in details but stated that "no relevant biochemical or haematological anomalies").

Other bias

Unclear risk

There was a 12‐month observation phase in which all participants received counselling to adjust their dietary calcium intake to the recommended daily allowance, they were prescribed oral calcifediol (15 ug/day if bodyweight was under 20 kg; 25 ug/day if bodyweight was between 20 kg and 30 kg; and 35 ug/day if bodyweight was over 30 kg) and previous vitamin D supplementation (cholecalciferol 400 IU/day) was withdrawn (Bianchi 2013). The trial only included those participants in the intervention phase who did not have an increase in bone mineral apparent density by 5% or more after 12 months in the observational phase. If these participants were also included, it is possible the results of the antiresorptive intervention would have shown an even greater positive effect.

Boyle 2005

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial; parallel design.

Trial duration 6 months (originally intended for 12 months).

Unclear if single or multicentre trial.

Participants

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

N = 40 planned for enrolment but only 5 enroled (3 in treatment group, gender split not provided) before study stopped by Data and Safety Monitoring Board (see notes).

Interventions

Treatment group: intravenous zoledronate, 5 mg infusion administered on a single occasion over 20 minutes plus supplemental oral vitamin D (800 IU) and oral calcium (1000 mg) daily.

Control group: supplemental oral vitamin D (800 IU) and oral calcium (1000 mg) daily.

Outcomes

 

  1. BMD lumbar spine (at 0, 6 months (originally planned additionally for 12 months)).

  2. 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 characterised by severe chest and back pain. Along with musculoskeletal pain, 1 participant also experienced a fever of 104° F 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

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Described as randomised, but process not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
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 (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High 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.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Abstract only but outcome measures were described in the results. Did not report on fractures as an outcome however, which is curious for a study on bisphosphonate therapy to improve BMD, even to report that none occurred. 

Other bias

High risk

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 characterised by severe chest and back pain. Along with musculoskeletal pain, 1 participant also experienced a fever of 104° F 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.

Chapman 2009

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial; parallel design.

Trial duration 24 months.

Multicentre: 2 sites, CF clinics, Australia.

Participants

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 1 of 3 sites (hip (femoral neck), lumbar spine 2 to 4 (L2 to L4) and distal forearm) in the month before trial commencement.

Exclusion criteria: pre‐existing, symptomatic, fragility fractures; untreated hyperthyroidism, primary hyperparathyroidism or hypogonadism; bisphosphonate treatment in the 3 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 3 times the upper limit of the laboratory normal range; on the waiting list for lung transplantation; pregnant or lactating; considered unlikely to complete the trial.

Total participants: n = 22 (5 females). Age range over all: males 21 to 47 years, females 19 to 28 years.

Treatment group: n = 10 (3 female); mean (SD) age 30.1 (2.2) years.

Control group: n = 12 (2 females) mean (SD) age 28.6 (2.4) years.

Interventions

Treatment group: intravenous zoledronic acid (zoledronate) in 100 ml of normal saline infused over 15 minutes every 3 months for 21 months (8 infusions in total). For 5 out of 63 doses, 4 mg zoledronate was administered, then dose reduced to 2 mg for subsequent doses (due to febrile reactions to the higher dose in several participants).

Placebo group: 100 ml 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 trial. All participants were prescribed oral prednisolone 25 mg/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 (at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months).

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

  • Biochemical measurements: urea; creatinine; ALP; ALT; bilirubin; calcium (corrected); calcium (ionised); phosphate; 25‐hydroxyvitamin D; PTH; complete blood count and differential (at baseline and 2 weeks before the 6, 12, 18 and 24 months).

Notes

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd, Australia partly funded this trial.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Described as randomised, but process not discussed.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
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 (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Withdrawals described and equal across groups ‐ there were 3/10 in treatment group and 5/12 in control group.

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

In the placebo group, 1 participant was lost to follow‐up, 1 participant's BMD decreased to withdrawal threshold, 2 participants were poorly compliant to study protocols and in 1 participant, both of the latter 2 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).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

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

Other bias

Low risk

None identified.

Haworth 2001

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised controlled trial; parallel design.

Trial duration planned for 1 year, but was shortened to 6 months because of adverse events.

Single centre, UK.

Participants

Inclusion criteria: CF; no organ transplantation; 70% of all eligible participants in a longitudinal BMD study recruited after 1 year of follow‐up; no prior treatment with bone‐sparing agents; BMD Z score of ≦ ‐2 at lumbar spine, proximal femur or distal forearm.

Total participants: n = 31 (9 female); mean (SD) age 26.1 (5.8) years; mean (SD) BMI 21.1 (2.7) kg/m2; mean (SD) FEV1 50.9 (20.3) % of predicted treatment. Groups similar with respect to age, initial BMD, bone biochemistry and respiratory disease severity.

Treatment group: n = 15 (more females in this group but exact number not reported).

Control group: n = 16.

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).

Interventions

Treatment group: intravenous pamidronate 30 mg every 3 months for 6 months (2 doses) plus oral calcium (1 g daily).

Control group: oral calcium (1 g daily).

All participants with pancreatic insufficiency (relevant to all except 1 in control group) continued long‐term oral vitamin D (900 IU/day).

Outcomes

  • BMD lumbar spine, proximal femur (total hip) (at 0, 6 months; DXA Hologic QDR 4500 Waltham MA).

  • BMD distal radius, ultra distal radius (at 0, 6 months; SXA).

  • Adverse events (bone pain).

  • Withdrawals (total, due to adverse events).

  • Survival.

Notes

Received funding from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust in the UK.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Described as randomised, but process not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not discussed.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Not possible to blind as they did not give placebo infusions, so participants and clinicians would know who was in the treatment group and who in the control group.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Withdrawals were reported; 1 participant in each group died of respiratory failure and 1 participant in the treatment group underwent a double lung transplant.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Outcome measures that were described in the methods section were reported in the results section. Did not report on fractures as an outcome however, which is curious for a study on bisphosphonate therapy to improve BMD, even to report that none occurred. 

Other bias

High risk

Trial duration planned for 1 year, but was shortened to 6 months because of adverse events.

Haworth 2011

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial; parallel design.

Trial duration 24 months.

Multicentre: 4 sites in UK, 1 site in Ireland.

Participants

Inclusion criteria: CF (diagnosis on the basis of a positive sweat test or gene analysis and a consistent CF phenotype); >18 years, low BMD defined as lumbar spine, total hip or femoral neck BMD Z score < 1.

Exclusion criteria: prescription of daily oral glucocorticoids for 6 weeks or more in the 12 months preceding the study; breastfeeding, pregnancy, desire to become pregnant within 3 years; listed for, or recipient of solid organ transplant; history of gastroscopy proven oesophageal abnormalities; renal impairment (elevated serum creatinine and an estimated creatinine clearance of  30 ml/min or less); hypocalcaemia; previous prescription of bone active drugs (bisphosphonates, hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene, calcitriol, calcitonin, teriparatide); biochemical evidence of vitamin D deficiency in the 12 months prior to the screening visit (25‐hydroxyvitamin D level < 10 ng/ml and PTH > 45 pg/ml); previous poor clinic attendance; previous poor adherence; pre‐terminal illness or other serious concomitant illness.

Female participants of reproductive age were advised not to become pregnant for at least 12 months after study completion.

Total participants: n = 36 (9 females).

Treatment group: n = 17 (4 females); mean (SD) age 30.2 (12) years.

Control group: n = 19 (5 females); mean (SD) age 27.8 (8.0) years.

Interventions

Treatment group: once weekly oral risedronate 35 mg.

Control group: once weekly identical placebo.

Both groups were both prescribed Calcichew D3 Forte 2 tablets daily which provides 1000 mg calcium + 800 IU vitamin D3/day. Participants were advised to continue their standard multivitamin supplements.

Outcomes

  • BMD assessed by DXA at lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck (at baseline, 12 and 24 months).

  • Lateral thoracic and lumbar spine X‐rays to assess for new vertebral fractures (at baseline and 24 months).

  • Recorded X‐ray confirmed fractures (3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months).

  • Adverse events (at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months).

  • Biochemical measurements: serum concentration of C‐terminal cross‐linked telopeptide of collagen type 1 (CTX) (at baseline and 6‐month visits in 24 patients (12 risedronate, 12 placebo).

  • Withdrawals.

  • Survival.

Notes

Concomitant medications were recorded at study visits (3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months).

Pregnancy tests were performed in females at study visits (3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months).

Funded by unrestricted educational grants from Proctor & Gamble (Norwich, USA) and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, with support to investigators from the UK National Institute of Health and Care Research.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Participants were allocated to risedronate or placebo using a computer program to minimise differences between groups in treatment centre, sex and baseline lumbar spine BMD.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Only the study pharmacist had access to the treatment allocation.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Identical placebo used.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Withdrawals are described in full and fairly equally spread across groups.

Intervention group

In first 12 months: 3 out of 17 in the oral risedronate group withdrew from the trial completely (due to bone pain) and 3 participants discontinued the medication (1 citing bone pain and the other 2 participants citing muscle aches or generalised pain) but remained in the trial for follow‐up.

Between 12 and 24 months: 1 further participant withdrew, citing bone pain.

At 24 months: 12 participants in the intervention group remained in trial with 9 still taking the drug.

Placebo group

Immediately after randomisation: 1 participant in the placebo group withdrew consent before taking the medication. Therefore, only 18 participants were commenced on placebo.

In first 12 months: 2 participants in the placebo group withdrew consent and 1 participant had died.

By 24 months: 3 participants in the placebo group had withdrawn consent and 4 participants had died, hence at 24 months, 12 participants remained in the control group.

Primary outcome data included 12/17 of risedronate group (although only 9 still on drug); 12/19 placebo group. In the published abstract, it was not clear if the analysis included the 3 participants.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

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

Other bias

Low risk

None identified.

Krasovsky 2010

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised controlled trial; parallel design; open‐comparison. 

12‐month duration.

Participants

Inclusion criteria: CF, BMD Z score < ‐2 SD.

Exclusion criteria: not detailed.

Total participants: n = 20 (12 males, 8 females; age range 24 +/‐5 years).

Treatment group: n = 10 (7 males, 3 females; age range 23.4 +/‐ 2.46 years).

Control group: n = 10 (6 males, 4 females; age range 25.9 +/‐ 6.0 years).

Groups similar BMI, FEV1, bone density, Z score at study onset.

Interventions

Treatment group: alendronate/colecalciferol (70 mg/2800 ME) once a week + colecalciferol/calcium (200 ME/500 mg) twice a day.

Control group: colecalciferol/calcium (400 ME/500 mg) twice a day.

Outcomes

  • BMD assessed by DXA at lumbar spine and proximal femur (at baseline and 12 months).

  • Biochemical measurement: osteocalcin and beta‐cross laps (at baseline, 3 and 12 months). 

  • Vertebral and non‐vertebral fractures.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No mention of how sequence was generated.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No mention of concealment.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open comparison.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Does not explicitly mention whether or not there were withdrawals from the trial.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient detail in results.

Other bias

Unclear risk

No mention of funding or conflict of interest.

Papaioannou 2008

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised, placebo‐controlled trial, parallel design.

Trial duration: 12 months.

Multicentre: 6 Canadian CF specialty clinics.

Participants

Inclusion criteria: participants had CF confirmed by positive sweat test result or DNA acid analysis and a BMD T score of 1.0, as determined by DXA.

Exclusion criteria: organ transplantation; endoscopy‐proven oesophagitis, gastritis, and ulceration; metabolic bone disorders; severe renal disease; use of systemic corticosteroids (dose 7.5 mg/day) or other drugs known to influence bone metabolism in the previous 6 months; osteomalacia and other documented contraindications.

Total adults randomised: n = 56 (22 female). 9 withdrew, 47 completed trial.

Treatment group: n = 27 (10 female); mean (SD) age 28.1 (7.7) years. 4 withdrew, 23 completed trial.

Control group: n = 29 (12 female); mean (SD) age 30.9 (9.7) years. 5 withdrew, 24 completed trial.

Interventions

Treatment group: oral alendronate (70 mg) once weekly for 12 months.

Control group: placebo.

Medication was taken while sitting upright and with water only on an empty stomach at least 30 minutes 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

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

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

  2. Physical examination ‐ vital signs (at baseline, 6 and 12 months).

  3. Biochemical measurements: serum and urine tests (at baseline, 6 and 12 months).

  4. Pulmonary function tests: including FEV1 and FVC (at baseline, 6 and 12 months).

  5. Medical Outcomes Study 36‐item short form version 2 (SF‐36v2) (at baseline, 6 and 12 months).

  6. Radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine, and DXA (at baseline, 6 and 12 months).

  7. Adverse events and drug reactions (reported spontaneously and 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

Participants who received at least 80% of the drug were classified as being adherent to the protocol. 5 participants completed the trial protocol but received sub‐optimal dosing (< 80% adherence; treatment group, 3 participants; control group, 2 participants). 1 of the participants in the treatment group missed > 50% of doses.

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

During the trial, 3 participants in the treatment group used oral corticosteroids compared to none in the control group.

Study funding provided by Merck Frosst Canada.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated randomisation code, stratified according to institution was prepared by an independent randomisation centre and block allocation was employed to ensure equitable distribution to each treatment group.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

The randomisation code was prepared by an independent randomisation centre and the medication treatment arm was concealed from all participants, central and local site coordinators, physicians, staff, and caregivers.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Person(s) responsible for participants care, participants and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment group allocation.

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 centre, and read independently by 2 radiologists who were blinded to the study treatment arm. Differences between radiologists were resolved by consensus.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

All analyses were performed as intention‐to‐treat and included all available data. Withdrawals were described.

Treatment group: 27 randomised, 4 withdrew (2 non‐compliance, 1 due to adverse event, 1 withdrew consent). 23 completed study.

Control group: 29 randomised, 5 withdrew (2 non‐compliance, 2 due to adverse event, 1 lost to follow‐up). 24 completed study.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Outcome measures that were described in the methods section were reported in the results section. It was reported that there were no differences in baseline CRP, 25‐hydroxyvitamin D, PTH or CTX levels between the risedronate group who experienced bone pain and those that did not (but data not shown).

Other bias

Low risk

None identified.

ALP: alkaline phosphatase.
ALT: alanine aminotransferase.
BMD: bone mineral density.
BMI: body mass index.
CF: cystic fibrosis.
CRP: C‐reactive protein.
CTX: C‐terminal telopeptide.
DXA: dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry.
FEV1: forced expiratory volume in one second.
FVC: forced vital capacity.
IU: international units.
PTH: parathyroid hormone.
SD: standard deviation.
SF‐36v2: Medical Outcomes Study 36‐item short form, version 2.
SXA: single energy x‐ray absorptiometry.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Cawood 2005

Retrospective study, not randomised controlled trial.

Conway 2004

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

Hardin 2005

This trial 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.

Haworth 1998

Only examined side effect profile of bisphosphonates, did not assess treatment of disease.

NCT01702415

Funding withdrawn, study stopped before enrolling first participant.

NCT01882400

Single group assignment, not a randomised controlled trial.

Ringuier 2004

Retrospective study, not a randomised controlled trial.

Rudge 2005

The trial assessed the effects of once weekly oral alendronate for 12 months on bone in children on glucocorticoid treatment. Of the 22 included children, only 1 had CF and this participant was in the placebo group.

CF: cystic fibrosis.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Total fractures Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total fractures

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total fractures

1.1.1 12 months

5

142

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.13, 2.50]

1.1.2 24 months

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

1.2.1 12 months

4

95

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.18, 25.35]

1.2.2 24 months

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.3 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

1.3.1 12 months

5

142

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.02, 2.09]

1.3.2 24 months

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.4 % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA]

1.4.1 6 months

4

101

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.61 [3.90, 5.32]

1.4.2 12 months

6

171

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.31 [5.39, 7.22]

1.4.3 24 months

2

43

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.49 [4.38, 6.60]

1.5 % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] (end of trial data only) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] (end of trial data only)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] (end of trial data only)

1.5.1 End of trial

8

199

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.95 [5.17, 6.73]

1.6 % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] Show forest plot

6

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA]

1.6.1 6 months

3

96

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.58 [2.75, 4.40]

1.6.2 12 months

5

155

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.41 [3.44, 5.37]

1.6.3 24 months

2

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.49 [5.32, 7.66]

1.7 % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] (end of trial data only) Show forest plot

6

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] (end of trial data only)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] (end of trial data only)

1.7.1 End of trial

6

178

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.89 [4.06, 5.72]

1.8 % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA]

1.8.1 6 months

2

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.73, 0.78]

1.8.2 12 months

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.30, 0.94]

1.8.3 24 months

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.50 [0.41, 2.59]

1.9 % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] (end of trial data only) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] (end of trial data only)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] (end of trial data only)

1.9.1 End of study

2

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [‐0.21, 1.70]

1.10 % change in BMD, ultra distal 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) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 10: % change in BMD, ultra distal radius [SXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 10: % change in BMD, ultra distal radius [SXA]

1.10.1 6 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.11 QoL Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 11: QoL

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 11: QoL

1.11.1 Physical component

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.51 [‐1.38, 6.40]

1.11.2 Mental component

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.93 [‐11.73, ‐0.13]

1.12 Bone pain Show forest plot

7

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 12: Bone pain

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 12: Bone pain

1.12.1 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

7

206

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.49 [3.20, 22.56]

1.12.2 Oral bisphosphonates

4

146

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.98 [1.24, 20.09]

1.12.3 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.17 [3.64, 55.17]

1.13 Fever Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 13: Fever

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 13: Fever

1.13.1 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

5

118

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

1.13.2 Oral bisphosphonates

2

63

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.13.3 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

55

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

1.14 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 14: Withdrawals due to adverse events

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 14: Withdrawals due to adverse events

1.14.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.95 [0.14, 108.09]

1.14.2 12 months

5

177

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.07 [1.11, 14.90]

1.14.3 24 months

2

58

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

16.34 [1.98, 134.89]

1.15 Withdrawals (total) Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 15: Withdrawals (total)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 15: Withdrawals (total)

1.15.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.77 [0.27, 11.60]

1.15.2 12 months

5

177

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.45, 2.28]

1.15.3 24 months

2

58

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.34, 2.69]

1.16 Survival Show forest plot

7

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 16: Survival

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 16: Survival

1.16.1 6 months

2

36

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.05, 16.39]

1.16.2 12 months

4

155

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.98 [0.30, 29.84]

1.16.3 24 months

2

58

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.27 [0.43, 42.63]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Total fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 1: Total fractures

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 1: Total fractures

2.1.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.2 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 (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

2.2.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.3 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

2.3.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.4 % 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 (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

2.4.1 12 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.5 Bone or muscle pain Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 5: Bone or muscle pain

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 5: Bone or muscle pain

2.5.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.6 Fever Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 6: Fever

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 6: Fever

2.6.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.7 Gastrointestinal adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 7: Gastrointestinal adverse events

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 7: Gastrointestinal adverse events

2.7.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.8 Headache Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 8: Headache

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 8: Headache

2.8.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.9 Any adverse event Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 9: Any adverse event

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 9: Any adverse event

2.9.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.10 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 10: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 10: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

2.10.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.11 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 11: Withdrawals, total

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 11: Withdrawals, total

2.11.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.12 Survival Show forest plot

1

113

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 12: Survival

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 12: Survival

2.12.1 12 months

1

113

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Total Fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total Fractures

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total Fractures

3.1.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

3.2.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.3 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

3.3.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.4 % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

3.4.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.5 % change in BMD, femur, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, femur, DXA

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, femur, DXA

3.5.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.6 Bone pain Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: Bone pain

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: Bone pain

3.6.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

3.8 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: Withdrawals, total

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: Withdrawals, total

3.8.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.9 Survival Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: Survival

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: Survival

3.9.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Selection process for this update.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Selection process for this update.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison between bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1a Number of participants with any fracture.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison between bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1a Number of participants with any fracture.

Forest plot of comparison between bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1b i. Number of participants with non‐vertebral fractures.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison between bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1b i. Number of participants with non‐vertebral fractures.

Forest plot of comparison between bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1b ii. Number of participants with vertebral fractures.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison between bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation), Outcome 1b ii. Number of participants with vertebral fractures.

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total fractures

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA]

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] (end of trial data only)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] (end of trial data only)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA]

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] (end of trial data only)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] (end of trial data only)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA]

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] (end of trial data only)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] (end of trial data only)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 10: % change in BMD, ultra distal radius [SXA]

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 10: % change in BMD, ultra distal radius [SXA]

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 11: QoL

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 11: QoL

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 12: Bone pain

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 12: Bone pain

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 13: Fever

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 13: Fever

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 14: Withdrawals due to adverse events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 14: Withdrawals due to adverse events

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 15: Withdrawals (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 15: Withdrawals (total)

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 16: Survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 16: Survival

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 1: Total fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 1: Total fractures

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 5: Bone or muscle pain

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 5: Bone or muscle pain

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 6: Fever

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 6: Fever

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 7: Gastrointestinal adverse events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 7: Gastrointestinal adverse events

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 8: Headache

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 8: Headache

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 9: Any adverse event

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 9: Any adverse event

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 10: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 10: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 11: Withdrawals, total

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 11: Withdrawals, total

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 12: Survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2: Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age, Outcome 12: Survival

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total Fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 1: Total Fractures

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 2: Non‐vertebral fractures

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 3: Vertebral fractures

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 4: % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, femur, DXA

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 5: % change in BMD, femur, DXA

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: Bone pain

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 6: Bone pain

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 7: Withdrawals, due to adverse events

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: Withdrawals, total

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 8: Withdrawals, total

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: Survival

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3: Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over), Outcome 9: Survival

Summary of findings 1. Bisphosphonates compared with control for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant

Patient or population: adults with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant

Settings: outpatients
Intervention: bisphosphonatesa

Comparison: placebo or no bisphosphonatesb

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative 

effect (95% CI)

Number of 

participants

(studies)

Certainty of

the evidence

(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Bisphosphonates

New vertebral fractures

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

42 per 1000

9 per 1000

(1 to 88)

OR 0.22 

(0.02 to 2.09)

142

(5)

⊕⊝⊝⊝

very lowc,d

 

New non‐vertebral fractures

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

21 per 1000

44 per 1000

(4 to 532)

OR 2.11 

(0.18 to 25.35)

95

(4)

⊕⊝⊝⊝

very lowd,e

 

BMD: % change in BMD at the lumbar spine

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

The mean % change in BMD (lumbar spine) ranged across control groups

 from ‐1.8% to 0.7%

The mean % change in BMD in the intervention groups was 6.31% higher (5.39% higher to 7.22% higher)

NA

171

(6)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowf

 

BMD: % change in BMD at the hip or femur

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

The mean % change in BMD

(hip or femur) ranged across control groups from ‐2.8% to ‐0.7%

The mean % change in BMD in the intervention groups was 4.41% higher (3.44% higher to 5.37% higher)

NA

155

(5)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowf

 

QoL: change in physical and mental component scores (SF36v2)

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

The change in mean (SD) SF36 physical  score was ‐3.69 (8.33) in the control group

The mean change in SF36 physical score in the intervention group was 2.51 higher (1.38 lower to 6.40 higher) than in the control group

NA

47

(1)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowd,g

The results for the physical and mental components are heterogeneous

 

The change in mean (SD) SF36 mental score was 3.26 (12.27) in the control group

The mean change in SF36 mental score in the intervention group was 5.93 lower (11.73 lower to 0.13 higher) than in the control group

Adverse events: bone pain (all routes of bisphosphonate administration)

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

38 per 1000

323 per 1000

(122 to 857)

OR 8.49 (3.20 to 22.56)

206

(7)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

moderateh

Bone pain

Separating by route of administration did not change the results; both routes favoured control.

Oral bisphosphonates: MD 4.98 (1.24 to 20.09) and IV bisphosphonates: MD 14.17 (3.64 to 55.17)

 

Fever

Oral route: 2 trials of oral alendronate reported that none of the participants in either group experienced fever

IV route: 3 trials showed that bisphosphonates were associated with a higher occurrence of fever OR 12.64 (2.31 to 69.11)

 

GI adverse effects

Only measured in the oral bisphosphonates trials. At 12 months, 1 trial reported 3 occurrences of diarrhoea (1 in the bisphosphonate group and 2 in the placebo group) (Aris 2004)

1 trial reported no GI adverse effects in either group (Bianchi 2013)

1 trial reported 10 GI adverse events in the bisphosphonates group compared to 7 in the control group (Papaioannou 2008)

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

BMD: bone mineral density; CI: confidence interval; GI: gastrointestinal; IV: intravenous; MD: mean difference; NA: not applicable; OR: odds ratio; QoL: quality of life; SD: standard deviation; SF36v2: medical outcomes study 36‐item short form.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aTrials used different types and formulations of bisphosphonates: IV zoledronate (Boyle 2005Chapman 2009); IV pamidronate (Haworth 2001); oral alendronate (Aris 2004Bianchi 2013Krasovsky 2010Papaioannou 2008); oral risedronate (Haworth 2011).
bTrials used different comparators: placebo (Aris 2004Bianchi 2013Boyle 2005Chapman 2009Haworth 2011Papaioannou 2008); no bisphosphonate (cholecalciferol/calcium) (Krasovsky 2010), no bisphosphonate (oral calcium) (Haworth 2001).
cDowngraded twice due to risk of bias across some domains in 5/6 included trials. There were particular concerns around the process of randomisation and allocation concealment in 3 trials and lack of blinding in 1 trial.
dDowngraded once due to imprecision caused by low event rates and small sample size.
eDowngraded twice for risk of bias across some domains of all trials included for this outcome. There were particular concerns around randomisation and allocation concealment.
fDowngraded twice due to risk of bias across 1 or more domains in most of the trials included for this outcome. There were particular concerns around randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding.
gDowngraded once due to heterogeneity within the results.
hDowngraded once due to risk of bias within the included trials; 3/7 trials were at low risk of bias across most domains and particularly randomisation and allocation concealment therefore we did not feel it necessary to downgrade twice.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Bisphosphonates compared with control for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant
Summary of findings 2. Bisphosphonates compared with placebo for osteoporosis in children with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant

Patient or population: children with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: oral alendronate plus oral calcifediol and RDA dietary calcium

Comparison: oral placebo plus oral calcifediol and RDA dietary calcium

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect

(95% CI)

Number of 

participants

(studies)

Certainty of the 

evidence

(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Placebo

Bisphosphonates

New vertebral fractures

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

54 per 1000

17 per 1000

(2 to 169)

OR 0.32 (0.03 to 3.13)

113

(1)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowa

 

New non‐vertebral fractures

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

36 per 1000

7 per 1000

(1 to 145)

OR 0.19 (0.01 to 4.04)

113

(1)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowa

 

BMD: % change in BMD at the lumbar spine

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

The % change in BMD at the lumbar spine was higher in the treatment group than the control group, MD 14.50 (95% CI 12.91 to 16.09)

NA

113

(1)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowa

 

BMD: % change in BMD at the hip or femur

This outcome was not reported

 

QoL

This outcome was not reported

 

Adverse events

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

There was no difference in bone or muscle pain, OR 3.00 (95% CI 0.12 to 75.22); fever, OR 3.00 (95% CI 0.12 to 75.22); or GI adverse events OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.20 to 2.26)

NA

113

(1)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

lowa

 

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

BMD: bone mineral density; CI: confidence interval; GI: gastrointestinal; MD: mean difference; NA: not applicable; OR: odds ratio; QoL: quality of life; RDA: recommended daily allowance.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aDowngraded twice due to imprecision cause by small participant numbers and low event rates.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Bisphosphonates compared with placebo for osteoporosis in children with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant
Summary of findings 3. Bisphosphonates compared with no bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant

Patient or population: adults with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant

Settings: outpatients

Intervention: bisphosphonates (IV pamidronate plus oral vitamin D and oral calcium)

Comparison: oral vitamin D and oral calcium

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative

effect

(95% CI)

Number of 

participants

(studies)

Certainty of the

evidence

(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Bisphosphonates

New vertebral fractures

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

This outcome was not reported at 12 months ‐ see comments

1 study reported results at 24 months (Aris 2000) and found no difference in the number of participants with a vertebral fracture, OR 3.92 (95% CI 0.36 to 42.20)

New non‐vertebral fractures

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

This outcome was not reported at 12 months ‐ see comments

1 study reported results at 24 months (Aris 2000) and found no difference in the number of participants with a non‐vertebral fracture, OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.09 to 2.27)

BMD: % change in BMD at the lumbar spine

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

This outcome was not reported at 12 months ‐ see comments

1 study reported results at 24 months (Aris 2000) and found the % change in BMD was higher in the treatment group than the control group MD 6.20 (95% CI 4.28 to 8.12)

BMD: % change in BMD at the hip or femur

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

This outcome was not reported at 12 months ‐ see comments

1 study reported results at 24 months (Aris 2000) and found the % change in BMD was higher in the treatment group than the control group, MD 7.90 (95% CI 5.78 to 10.02).

QoL

This outcome was not reported at any time point

 

Adverse events

 

Follow‐up: 12 months

This outcome was not reported at 12 months ‐ see comment

1 study reported results at 24 months (Aris 2000) and found none of the participants in either group experienced bone pain or fever

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

BMD: bone mineral density; CI: confidence interval; IV: intravenous; MD: mean difference; OR: odds ratio; QoL: quality of life.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Bisphosphonates compared with no bisphosphonates for osteoporosis in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant
Comparison 1. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Total fractures Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1.1 12 months

5

142

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.57 [0.13, 2.50]

1.1.2 24 months

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.2.1 12 months

4

95

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.18, 25.35]

1.2.2 24 months

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.3 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.3.1 12 months

5

142

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.02, 2.09]

1.3.2 24 months

2

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.4 % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.4.1 6 months

4

101

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.61 [3.90, 5.32]

1.4.2 12 months

6

171

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.31 [5.39, 7.22]

1.4.3 24 months

2

43

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.49 [4.38, 6.60]

1.5 % change in BMD, lumbar spine [DXA] (end of trial data only) Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.5.1 End of trial

8

199

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.95 [5.17, 6.73]

1.6 % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] Show forest plot

6

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.6.1 6 months

3

96

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.58 [2.75, 4.40]

1.6.2 12 months

5

155

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.41 [3.44, 5.37]

1.6.3 24 months

2

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.49 [5.32, 7.66]

1.7 % change in BMD, total hip/femur [DXA] (end of trial data only) Show forest plot

6

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.7.1 End of trial

6

178

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.89 [4.06, 5.72]

1.8 % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.8.1 6 months

2

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.73, 0.78]

1.8.2 12 months

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.30, 0.94]

1.8.3 24 months

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.50 [0.41, 2.59]

1.9 % change in BMD, distal radius [SXA] (end of trial data only) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.9.1 End of study

2

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [‐0.21, 1.70]

1.10 % change in BMD, ultra distal radius [SXA] Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.10.1 6 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.11 QoL Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.11.1 Physical component

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.51 [‐1.38, 6.40]

1.11.2 Mental component

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.93 [‐11.73, ‐0.13]

1.12 Bone pain Show forest plot

7

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.12.1 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

7

206

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.49 [3.20, 22.56]

1.12.2 Oral bisphosphonates

4

146

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.98 [1.24, 20.09]

1.12.3 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

60

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

14.17 [3.64, 55.17]

1.13 Fever Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.13.1 All routes of bisphosphonate administration

5

118

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

1.13.2 Oral bisphosphonates

2

63

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.13.3 Intravenous bisphosphonates

3

55

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.64 [2.31, 69.11]

1.14 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.14.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.95 [0.14, 108.09]

1.14.2 12 months

5

177

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.07 [1.11, 14.90]

1.14.3 24 months

2

58

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

16.34 [1.98, 134.89]

1.15 Withdrawals (total) Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.15.1 6 months

2

53

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.77 [0.27, 11.60]

1.15.2 12 months

5

177

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.45, 2.28]

1.15.3 24 months

2

58

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.34, 2.69]

1.16 Survival Show forest plot

7

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.16.1 6 months

2

36

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.05, 16.39]

1.16.2 12 months

4

155

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.98 [0.30, 29.84]

1.16.3 24 months

2

58

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.27 [0.43, 42.63]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over)
Comparison 2. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Total fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.2.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.3 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.3.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.4 % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.4.1 12 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.5 Bone or muscle pain Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.5.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.6 Fever Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.6.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.7 Gastrointestinal adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.7.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.8 Headache Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.8.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.9 Any adverse event Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.9.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.10 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.10.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.11 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.11.1 12 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.12 Survival Show forest plot

1

113

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.12.1 12 months

1

113

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Bisphosphonates versus control (without lung transplantation) ‐ children up to 18 years of age
Comparison 3. Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Total Fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.2 Non‐vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.2.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.3 Vertebral fractures Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.3.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.4 % change in BMD, lumbar spine, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.4.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.5 % change in BMD, femur, DXA Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.5.1 24 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.6 Bone pain Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.6.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.7 Withdrawals, due to adverse events Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.8 Withdrawals, total Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.8.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.9 Survival Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.9.1 24 months

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Bisphosphonates versus control (with lung transplantation) ‐ adults (18 years and over)