The relative efficacy of nine osteoporosis medications for reducing the rate of fractures in post-menopausal women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect comparisons of randomized placebo-controlled trials may provide a viable option to assess relative efficacy. The purpose was to estimate the relative efficacy of reduction of fractures in post-menopausal women, and to assess robustness of the results.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature review of multiple databases identified randomized placebo-controlled trials with nine drugs for post-menopausal women. Odds ratio and 95% credibility intervals for the rates of hip, non-vertebral, vertebral, and wrist fractures for each drug and between drugs were derived using a Bayesian approach. A drug was ranked as the most efficacious if it had the highest posterior odds ratio, or had the highest effect size.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>30 studies including 59,209 patients reported fracture rates for nine drugs: alendronate (6 studies), denosumab (1 study), etidronate (8 studies), ibandronate (4 studies), raloxifene (1 study), risedronate (7 studies), strontium (2 study), teriparatide (1 study), and zoledronic acid (1 study). The drugs with the highest probability of reducing non-vertebral fractures was etidronate and teriparatide while the drugs with the highest probability of reducing vertebral, hip or wrist fractures were teriparatide, zoledronic acid and denosumab. The drugs with the largest effect size for vertebral fractures were zoledronic acid, teriparatide and denosumab, while the drugs with the highest effect size for non-vertebral, hip or wrist fractures were alendronate or risedronate. Estimates were consistent between Bayesian and classical approaches.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Teriparatide, zoledronic acid and denosumab have the highest probabilities of being most efficacious for non-vertebral and vertebral fractures, and having the greatest effect sizes. The estimates from indirect comparisons were robust to differences in methodology.</p

A guide to ancient protein studies

Palaeoproteomics is an emerging neologism used to describe the application of mass spectrometry-based approaches to the study of ancient proteomes. As with palaeogenomics (the study of ancient DNA), it intersects evolutionary biology, archaeology and anthropology, with applications ranging from the phylogenetic reconstruction of extinct species to the investigation of past human diets and ancient diseases. However, there is no explicit consensus at present regarding standards for data reporting, data validation measures or the use of suitable contamination controls in ancient protein studies. Additionally, in contrast to the ancient DNA community, no consolidated guidelines have been proposed by which researchers, reviewers and editors can evaluate palaeoproteomics data, in part due to the novelty of the field. Here we present a series of precautions and standards for ancient protein research that can be implemented at each stage of analysis, from sample selection to data interpretation. These guidelines are not intended to impose a narrow or rigid list of authentication criteria, but rather to support good practices in the field and to ensure the generation of robust, reproducible results. As the field grows and methodologies change, so too will best practices. It is therefore essential that researchers continue to provide necessary details on how data were generated and authenticated so that the results can be independently and effectively evaluated. We hope that these proposed standards of practice will help to provide a firm foundation for the establishment of palaeoproteomics as a viable and powerful tool for archaeologists, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists

Best Practices for Elderly Hip Fracture Patients: A Systematic Overview of the Evidence

OBJECTIVES: To determine evidence-based best practices for elderly hip fracture patients from the time of hospital admission to 6 months postfracture. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro, Ageline, NARIC, and CIRRIE databases were searched for potentially eligible articles published between 1985 and 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Two independent reviewers determined studies appropriate for inclusion using standardized selection criteria, extracted data, evaluated internal validity, and then rated studies according to levels of evidence. Only Level 1 or 2 evidence was included in our summary of clinical recommendations. RESULTS: Spinal anesthesia, pressure-relieving mattresses, perioperative antibiotics, and deep vein thromboses prophylaxes had consistent evidence of benefit. Routine preoperative traction was not associated with any benefits and should be abandoned. Types of surgical management, postoperative wound drainage, and even “multidisciplinary” care, lacked sufficient evidence to determine either benefit or harm. There was little evidence to either determine best subacute rehabilitation practices or to direct ongoing medical issues (e.g., nutrition). Studies conducted during the subacute recovery period were heterogeneous in terms of treatment settings, interventions, and outcomes studied and had no clear evidence for best treatment practices. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for perioperative practices is relatively robust and evidence-based perioperative treatment guidelines can be easily established. Conversely, more evidence is required to better guide the care of elderly patients with hip fracture during the subacute recovery period and convalescence