ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2019
Effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections in a real-world setting: Subgroup analysis of a postmarketing observational study.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The therapeutic effect to eldecalcitol + bisphosphonate is superior to bisphosphonate alone in the treatment of osteoporosis: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Pooled it
- Two-year effectiveness of zoledronic acid with or without eldecalcitol in Japanese patients with osteoporosis: A randomized prospective study.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe favorable safety and consistent effectiveness of monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate injections was demonstrated in a prospective, postmarketing, observational study in Japanese patients with osteoporosis. Here, we present subgroup analyses from the study.
methodsLumbar spine (L2-4) bone mineral density (BMD) gains were assessed in the following subgroups: aged <75 or ≥75 years, absence or presence of vertebral fractures, previous bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, and concomitant versus naïve osteoporosis drug treatment. The cumulative incidence of fractures and relative change in bone turnover markers were also examined.
resultsOf 1062 enrolled patients, 1025 received monthly IV ibandronate 1 mg and were assessed for 12 months. BMD gains with ibandronate were comparable, irrespective of older age or prevalent fractures. Overall, 515 patients (50.2%) had previously received osteoporosis treatment; of these, 166 (16.1%) received other BPs. Mean BMD changes were 3.69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89%-6.50%) in patients previously treated with other BPs, and 4.26% (95% CI, 2.88%-5.64%) in patients who had not received prior osteoporosis treatment. Among the 510 patients (49.7%) concomitantly prescribed active vitamin D drugs, mean BMD changes were 5.74% (95% CI, 2.53%-8.95%) with eldecalcitol versus 3.54% (95% CI, 1.98%-5.10%) with ibandronate alone. The lowest fracture incidence was observed with the combination of ibandronate and eldecalcitol, but differences between the subgroups were not statistically significant.
conclusionsMonthly IV ibandronate demonstrated comparable BMD gains in the patient subgroups analyzed. Concomitant use of ibandronate with eldecalcitol showed a trend of higher BMD gains and lower fracture incidence than ibandronate alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.