Trial reportInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2021
Safety and Efficacy of Zoledronic Acid Treatment with and without Acetaminophen and Eldecalcitol for Osteoporosis.
Trial report in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two-year effectiveness of zoledronic acid with or without eldecalcitol in Japanese patients with osteoporosis: A randomized prospective study.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2022Article
- The Role of SIRT3 in the Osteoporosis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives We aimed to investigate the safety of zoledronic acid (ZOL) combined with acetaminophen (APAP) regarding both the adverse events and the efficacy of ZOL combined with an eldecalcitol (ELD) in a randomized clinical trial conducted in patients with primary osteoporosis. Methods A total of 109 patients were administered ZOL 5 mg and then were randomly assigned to the following groups (3:2:1): those treated with ZOL, those treated with ZOL combined with APAP and ELD, and those treated with ZOL combined with ELD. For the analyses, the groups were classified into four treatment groups: patients treated with APAP (APAP group) and without APAP (non-APAP group), and those treated with ELD (ELD group) and without ELD (non-ELD group). The incidence rates of symptomatic adverse events were compared between the APAP and non-APAP groups, and the efficacy was compared between the ELD and non-ELD groups. Results In the APAP and non-APAP groups, the incidence rates of symptomatic adverse events were 20.6% and 44.6% (p=0.009), respectively. Age and APAP use were found to be significant factors associated with adverse events. The percent changes in the bone mineral density values from baseline (ΔBMD) in the ELD and non-ELD groups at 12 months were 8.2% and 6.2% for the lumbar spine, 4.2% and 4.0% for the total hip, and 3.9% and 2.2% for the femoral neck, respectively. The ΔBMD of all sites did not differ significantly between the ELD and non-ELD groups. Conclusion In ZOL treatment, the co-administration of APAP should thus be considered as a therapeutic option to reduce the occurrence of symptomatic adverse events stemming from ZOL treatment in Japanese patients with primary osteoporosis, particularly in younger patients.
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.