Does Routine Anti-Osteoporosis Medication Lower the Risk of Fractures in Male Subjects? An Updated Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Background: Several epidemiological articles have reported the correlations between anti-osteoporosis medication and the risks of fractures in male and female subjects, but the specific efficacy of anti-osteoporosis medication for male subjects remains largely unexplored. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between anti-osteoporosis medication and the risk of fracture in relation to low bone mass [including outcomes of osteoporosis, fracture, and bone mineral density (BMD) loss] in male subjects analyzed in studies within the updated literature. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the effectiveness of a treating prescription for male subjects with osteoporosis (or low BMD) and that focused on the outcomes of fracture were included. Relevant studies from Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Chinese database of CNKI were retrieved from inception to January 30th, 2019. Two staff members carried out the eligibility assessment and data extraction. The discrepancies were settled by consultation with another researcher. We calculated the pooled relative risks (RRs) based on 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Twenty-seven documents (28 studies) with 5,678 subjects were identified. For the category of bisphosphonates, significant results were observed in pooled analyses for decreased risk of the vertebral fracture domain (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62]), nonvertebral fracture domain (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.87]), and clinical fracture domain (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48-0.72]) compared with those of controls. Participants with bisphosphonates had a 56% (95% CI = 38-69%) lower risk of vertebral fractures, 37% (95% CI = 13-54%) lower risk of nonvertebral fractures, and 41% (95% CI = 28-52%) lower risk of clinical fractures. Furthermore, meta-analyses also demonstrated a decreased risk of the vertebral fracture domain via treatment with risedronate (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.28-0.72]) and alendronate (RR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23-0.74]), but not with calcitriol, calcitonin, denosumab, ibandronate, monofluorophosphate, strontium ranelate, teriparatide, or zoledronic acid, compared with that of controls. Conclusions: This systematic review confirms that bisphosphonates were connected with a decreased risk of vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fractures, and clinical fractures for male subjects with osteoporosis. Future research is needed to further elucidate the role of nonbisphosphonates in treating fractures of osteoporosis subjects.

Can increasing the prevalence of vegetable-based diets lower the risk of osteoporosis in postmenopausal subjects? A systematic review with meta-analysis of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Several epidemiological investigations have assessed the association between vegetable-based diet intake (VDI) and risk of osteoporosis in postmenopausal subjects (OPS), but the outcomes have been inconsistent. We performed a review of the updated literature to evaluate this correlation. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies published in September 2018 or earlier. Two researchers conducted eligibility assessment and data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved through consultation with a third expert. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Ten studies, which included 14,247 subjects, were identified. On comparing the highest category of VDI consumption with the lowest category of VDI consumption, the pooled OR for OPS was 0.73 (95% CI = 0.57-0.95), i.e., participants with a higher intake of vegetables had a 27% (95% CI = 5-43%) lower risk of OPS. Significant benefits were found on subgroup analyses of case-control studies (OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48-0.78]), but not on subgroup analyses of cross-sectional studies (OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.57-1.16]). The synthesized effect estimates were in the direction of decreased risk of OPS on subgroup analyses of the femoral region (OR, 0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.80) and the lumbar spine (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.38-0.81), but not on subgroup analyses of the calcaneus (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.33-2.16) and the lumbar and/or femoral region (OR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.79-1.38). Positive results were observed on pooled analyses of the Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurement method (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54-0.95]), but not on pooled analyses of the Standardized Quantitative Ultrasound (QUS) measurement method (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.33-2.16]). This might have resulted from a type II error due to wide confidence intervals and less number of included studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis seemingly confirms that higher consumption of VDI was associated with a lower risk of OPS. Taken together, these results highlight the need for future high-quality design-based trials on quantified vegetable intake and OPS.

Can Dietary Intake of Vitamin C-Oriented Foods Reduce the Risk of Osteoporosis, Fracture, and BMD Loss? Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses of Recent Studies.

Background: Several epidemiological studies have been performed to evaluate the association of dietary intake of vitamin C-oriented foods (DIVCF) with risk of fracture and bone mineral density (BMD) loss, but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis to assess this correlation. Methods: We searched EmBase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Chinese database CNKI for relevant articles published up to August 2019. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random- or fixed-effects model. Discrepancies were resolved by consultation with a third expert. Results: A total of 13 eligible articles (including 17 studies) with 19,484 subjects were identified for the present meta-analysis. The pooled RR of hip fracture for the highest vs. lowest category was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.47-0.94) for DIVCF, i.e., people with a greater frequency of Vitamin C uptake had a 34% (95% CI, 6%-53%) lower prevalence of hip fracture. In subgroup analyses stratified by study design, gender, and age, the negative associations were statistically significant. Furthermore, the statistical analysis of the association between DIVCF and risk of osteoporosis (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.92), BMD at the lumbar spine (pooled r, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.23), and BMD at the femoral neck (pooled r, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34) showed beneficial effects of DIVCF. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicates that DIVCF is negatively associated with the risk of hip fracture, osteoporosis, and BMD loss, suggesting that DIVCF decreases the risk of hip fracture, osteoporosis, and BMD loss.

Comparison of platelet-rich plasma vs hyaluronic acid injections in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a progressive joint disease involving intraarticular and periarticular structures. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the use of autologous growth factors, such as intraarticular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), to treat KOA. It is necessary to update the research and reevaluate the efficacy and safety of PRP to provide up-to-date evidence for KOA management. Therefore, we provide a protocol for a systematic review of PRP for KOA. METHODS: The aim of this study was to retrieve papers on the topic of PRP treatment for KOA in electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The search will include studies that were published from the time the databases were established until April 2018. The entire process will include study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: The literature will provide a high-quality analysis of the current evidence supporting PRP for KOA based on various comprehensive assessments including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, visual analog scale scores, International Knee Documentation Committee scores, Lequesne index scores, and adverse events. CONCLUSION: This proposed systematic review will provide up-to-date evidence to assess the effect of PRP treatment for patients with KOA. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018108825.

Platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for plantar fasciitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recently, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used as an alternative therapy for plantar fasciitis (PF) to reduce heel pain and improve functional restoration. We evaluated the current evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of PRP as a treatment for PF compared with the efficacy and safety of steroid treatments. METHODS: Databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library) were searched from their establishment to January 30, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP with steroid injections as treatments for PF. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool was used to assess the methodological quality. Outcome measurements were the visual analogue scale (VAS), Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale, and the Roles and Maudsley score (RMS). The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.5 software. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n = 430) were included in this meta-analysis. Significant differences in the VAS were not observed between the 2 groups after 4 [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -1.10 to 2.23, P = .51, I = 89%] or 12 weeks of treatment (WMD = -0.49, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.44, P = .30, I = 89%). However, PRP exhibited better efficacy than the steroid treatment after 24 weeks (WMD = -0.95, 95% CI: -1.80 to -0.11, P = .03, I = 85%). Moreover, no significant differences in the FADI, AOFAS, and RMS were observed between the 2 therapies (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Limited evidence supports the conclusion that PRP is superior to steroid treatments for long-term pain relief; however, significant differences were not observed between short and intermediate effects. Because of the small sample size and the limited number of high-quality RCTs, additional high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are required to validate this result.