Additive Effects of Exercise and Vitamin D Supplementation (with and without Calcium) on Bone Mineral Density in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Exercise is a recognized component in the prevention and therapy of osteoporosis. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of Vitamin D (Vit-D) added to exercise versus exercise alone on bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (LS) or hip in older adults. A systematic review based on six literature databases according to PRISMA included (a) exercise trials, with an exercise (EX) and a combined exercise + Vit-D group (EX + Vit-D), (b) intervention ≥ 6 months, and (c) BMD assessments at LS or hip. Effects sizes (MD) and 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI) were calculated using a random-effect model that includes the inverse heterogeneity model (IVhet). Five studies with 281 participants in the EX and 279 participants in the EX + Vit-D were included. No significant differences between EX versus EX + Vit-D were observed for BMD-LS (MD: 0.002, 95%-CI: -0.033 to 0.036) or BMD-hip (MD: 0.003, 95%-CI: -0.035 to 0.042). Heterogeneity between the trial results was moderate-substantial for LS (I2 = 0%) and moderate for hip-BMD (I2 = 35%). The funnel plot analysis suggests evidence for a publication/small study bias for BMD-LS and hip results. In summary, this present systematic review and meta-analysis were unable to determine significant positive interaction of exercise and Vit-D on LS- or hip-BMD. We predominately attribute this finding to (1) the less bone-specific exercise protocols of at least two of the five studies and (2) the inclusion criteria of the studies that did not consequently focus on Vit-D deficiency. This issue should be addressed in more detail by adequately powered exercise trials with promising exercise protocols and participants with Vit-D deficiency. This trial is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ID: CRD42022309813.

Effects of Hormone Therapy and Exercise on Bone Mineral Density in Healthy Women-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: There is some evidence that an adequate "anabolic hormonal milieu" is essential for the mechanosensitivity/transduction/response of bone tissue. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to determine whether enhancing hormone therapy (HT) with exercise increases the isolated effect of HT on bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (LS) and femoral neck (FN). METHODS: A comprehensive search of 6 electronic databases according to the PRISMA statement up to April 28, 2021, included controlled trials longer than 6 months with 3 study arms: (a) HT, (b) exercise, and (c) HT plus exercise (HT + E). Apart from HT, no pharmaceutic therapy or diseases with relevant osteoanabolic or osteocatabolic effect on bone metabolism were included. The present analysis was conducted as a random-effects meta-analysis. Outcome measures were standardized mean differences (SMD) for BMD changes at the LS and FN. RESULTS: Our search identified 6 eligible studies (n = 585). Although the effect of HT + E was more pronounced in the LS (SMD: 0.19; 95% C,: -0.15 to 0.53) and FN-BMD (0.18; -0.09 to 0.44) compared to the HT group, we did not observe significant differences between the 2 groups. We observed a low (I2: 29%) or moderate (I2: 49%) level of heterogeneity between the trials for FN or LS. CONCLUSION: We do not observe a significant effect of HT + E vs HT alone. We largely attribute this result to varying HT supplementation and hormonal status. Bearing in mind that synergistic/additive effects between HT and mechanical stimulation can only be expected in situations of hormonal insufficiency, further clinical studies should consider baseline endogenous estrogen production but also HT dosing more carefully.

Prevention of breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss in premenopausal women treated with zoledronic acid: Final 5-year results from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ProBONE II trial.

PURPOSE: Premenopausal women receiving chemotherapy or endocrine treatment for early breast cancer are at increased risk for cancer treatment induced bone loss (CTIBL). The aim of the randomized, double-blind ProBONE II trial was to investigate whether a 2-year adjuvant treatment with 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid (ZOL) every 3 months versus placebo would prevent CTIBL after a five-year period. METHODS: Thirty-one of the 34 participants in the ZOL arm and thirty-four of the 36 participants in the placebo arm were followed-up to the 5-year visit and completed the study as planned. The changes in Bone Mass Density (BMD) were assessed at baseline and each visit after treatment initiation. RESULTS: After 24 months, BMD at the lumbar spine showed a 2.9% increase in patients treated with ZOL vs. a 7.1% decrease in placebo-treated participants compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Over the 60-month study period, we found a decrease of 2.2% vs. 7.3% in the BMD at the lumbar spine in patients receiving ZOL and placebo respectively (p < 0.001). Over the 60-month study period, BMD in the placebo arm showed a continuous decrease at all sites (p < 0001), whereas patients treated with ZOL reached baseline BMD-values at the femoral neck and total hip. CONCLUSIONS: In ProBone II, a 2-year treatment with ZOL 4 mg intravenous every 3 months prevented cancer treatment induced bone loss in premenopausal women with breast cancer and maintained the BMD up to 3 years post-treatment.

Phase IV randomized preference study in patients eligible for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Preference for supplement formulation helps determine an individual's adherence to long-term medication and can improve clinical benefit for chronic illnesses such as osteoporosis. This study compared the preference, acceptability and tolerability of a reformulation of Calcichew D3 1 500 mg/400 IU and Calcichew D3 500 mg/800 IU (Takeda UK Ltd, Wobrun Green, UK) with Adcal-D3 2 500 mg/400 IU (ProStrakan Ltd, Galashiels, UK) and Kalcipos-D 500 mg/800 IU (Meda Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Bishop's Stortford, UK), respectively. METHOD: This phase IV, randomized, open-label, two-period, cross-over study was conducted at nine sites in the UK and Germany. Eligible subjects (≥65 years requiring calcium/vitamin D supplementation for prevention/treatment of deficiencies, or ≥18 years requiring supplementation as an adjunct to osteoporosis treatment) were randomly assigned to one of two 2 week treatment sequences - Group 1: Calcichew D3 500/400 then Adcal-D3 500/400 (or vice versa), or Group 2: Calcichew D3 500/800 then Kalcipos-D 500/800 (or vice versa). After each treatment period, patients rated the treatment for acceptability using 100 mm visual analogue scales. After the second treatment period, patients indicated their treatment preference. The primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a preference for each treatment, was analyzed with a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-six patients were randomly assigned by treatment sequence, 138 to each group. Preference questionnaires among patients who preferred Calcichew or comparator revealed the odds for patients preferring Calcichew 500/400 (77.6%) over Adcal-D3 was 3.46 ([95% CI 2.24, 5.36], p < 0.001) in Group 1, and Calcichew D3 500/800 (63.2%) over Kalcipos-D was 1.72 ([1.19, 2.47], p = 0.004) in Group 2. Adverse events were mostly gastrointestinal and were comparable between groups. The new formulation of Calcichew D3 is acceptable and consistent with its known tolerability profile. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term 30 day study, patients preferred Calcichew D3 500/400 and Calcichew D3 500/800 over respective comparators. A trend towards better compliance with Calcichew D3 preference observed in Group 1 warrants a longer term study to identify treatment compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02457247.