Does Alendronate reduce the risk of fracture in men? A meta-analysis incorporating prior knowledge of anti-fracture efficacy in women

BACKGROUND: Alendronate has been found to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women as demonstrated in multiple randomized controlled trials enrolling thousands of women. Yet there is a paucity of such randomized controlled trials in osteoporotic men. Our objective was to systematically review the anti-fracture efficacy of alendronate in men with low bone mass or with a history of prevalent fracture(s) and incorporate prior knowledge of alendronate efficacy in women in the analysis. METHODS: We examined randomized controlled trials in men comparing the anti-fracture efficacy of alendronate to placebo or calcium or vitamin D, or any combination of these. Studies of men with secondary causes of osteoporosis other than hypogonadism were excluded. We searched the following electronic databases (without language restrictions) for potentially relevant citations: Medline, Medline in Process (1966-May 24/2004), and Embase (1996–2004). We also contacted the manufacturer of the drug in search of other relevant trials. Two reviewers independently identified two trials (including 375 men), which met all inclusion criteria. Data were abstracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Results of the male trials were pooled using Bayesian random effects models, incorporating prior information of anti-fracture efficacy from meta-analyses of women. RESULTS: The odds ratios of incident fractures in men (with 95% credibility intervals) with alendronate (10 mg daily) were: vertebral fractures, 0.44 (0.23, 0.83) and non-vertebral fractures, 0.60 (0.29, 1.44). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, alendronate decreases the risk of vertebral fractures in men at risk. There is currently insufficient evidence of a statistically significant reduction of non-vertebral fractures, but the paucity of trials in men limit the statistical power to detect such an effect

Transdermal fentanyl for the treatment of pain caused by osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: an open, multicentre study

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the utility of transdermal fentanyl (TDF, Durogesic(®)) for the treatment of pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip, which was not adequately controlled by non-opioid analgesics or weak opioids. The second part of the trial, investigating TDF in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is reported separately. METHODS: Current analgesia was optimised during a 1-week run-in. Patients then received 28 days treatment with TDF starting at 25 μg/hr, with the option to increase the dose until adequate pain control was achieved. Metoclopramide was taken during the first week and then as needed. RESULTS: Of the 159 patients recruited, 75 with OA knee and 44 with OA hip completed the treatment phase, 30 knee and 18 hip patients entered the one-week taper-off phase. The most frequently used maximum dose of TDF was 25 μg/hr. The number of patients with adequate pain control increased during the run-in period from 4% to 27%, and further increased during TDF treatment to 88% on day 28. From baseline to endpoint, there were significant reductions in pain (p < 0.001) and improvements in functioning (p < 0.001) and physical (p < 0.001) and mental (p < 0.05) health. Scores for 'pain right now' decreased significantly within 24 hours of starting TDF treatment. TDF was assessed favourably and 84% of patients would recommend it for OA-related pain. Nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events (reported by 32% and 26% of patients respectively), despite prophylaxis with metoclopramide, which showed limited efficacy in this setting. CONCLUSION: TDF significantly increased pain control, and improved functioning and quality of life. Metoclopramide appeared to be of limited value in preventing nausea and vomiting; more effective anti-emetic treatment may enable more people to benefit from strong opioids such as TDF. This study suggests that four weeks is a reasonable period to test the benefit of adding TDF to improve pain control in OA patients and that discontinuing therapy in cases of limited benefit creates no major obstacles

Correlation versus Causation? Pharmacovigilance of the Analgesic Flupirtine Exemplifies the Need for Refined Spontaneous ADR Reporting

Annually, adverse drug reactions result in more than 2,000,000 hospitalizations and rank among the top 10 causes of death in the United States. Consequently, there is a need to continuously monitor and to improve the safety assessment of marketed drugs. Nonetheless, pharmacovigilance practice frequently lacks causality assessment. Here, we report the case of flupirtine, a centrally acting non-opioid analgesic. We re-evaluated the plausibility and causality of 226 unselected, spontaneously reported hepatobiliary adverse drug reactions according to the adapted Bradford-Hill criteria, CIOMS score and WHO-UMC scales. Thorough re-evaluation showed that only about 20% of the reported cases were probable or likely for flupirtine treatment, suggesting an incidence of flupirtine-related liver injury of 1∶ 100,000 when estimated prescription data are considered, or 0.8 in 10,000 on the basis of all 226 reported adverse drug reactions. Neither daily or cumulative dose nor duration of treatment correlated with markers of liver injury. In the majority of cases (151/226), an average of 3 co-medications with drugs known for their liver liability was observed that may well be causative for adverse drug reactions, but were reported under a suspected flupirtine ADR. Our study highlights the need to improve the quality and standards of ADR reporting. This should be done with utmost care taking into account contributing factors such as concomitant medications including over-the-counter drugs, the medical history and current health conditions, in order to avoid unjustified flagging and drug warnings that may erroneously cause uncertainty among healthcare professionals and patients, and may eventually lead to unjustified safety signals of useful drugs with a reasonable risk to benefit ratio

Dating the Origin of Language Using Phonemic Diversity

Language is a key adaptation of our species, yet we do not know when it evolved. Here, we use data on language phonemic diversity to estimate a minimum date for the origin of language. We take advantage of the fact that phonemic diversity evolves slowly and use it as a clock to calculate how long the oldest African languages would have to have been around in order to accumulate the number of phonemes they possess today. We use a natural experiment, the colonization of Southeast Asia and Andaman Islands, to estimate the rate at which phonemic diversity increases through time. Using this rate, we estimate that present-day languages date back to the Middle Stone Age in Africa. Our analysis is consistent with the archaeological evidence suggesting that complex human behavior evolved during the Middle Stone Age in Africa, and does not support the view that language is a recent adaptation that has sparked the dispersal of humans out of Africa. While some of our assumptions require testing and our results rely at present on a single case-study, our analysis constitutes the first estimate of when language evolved that is directly based on linguistic data