-
1.
Comparison of Paricalcitol and Calcitriol in Dialysis Patients With Secondary Hyperparathyroidism: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies.
Zhang, T, Ju, H, Chen, H, Wen, W
Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy. 2019;(1):73-79
Abstract
Paricalcitol and calcitriol are widely used for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in dialysis patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of paricalcitol and calcitriol for secondary hyperparathyroidism in dialysis patients. PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the efficacy of paricalcitol and calcitriol for secondary hyperparathyroidism in dialysis patients are included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effect model. Six randomized controlled trials are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with calcitriol treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism in dialysis patients, paricalcitol treatment has comparable ≥50% reduction of parathyroid hormone (risk ratio [RR] = 1.33; 95% CI = 0.93-1.91; P = 0.12), calcium concentration (standard mean difference [Std. MD] = -0.21; 95% CI = -0.94 to 0.52; P = 0.58), phosphate concentration (Std. MD = -0.17; 95% CI = -0.58 to 0.24; P = 0.42), calcium phosphate (Std. MD = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.49-0.34; P = 0.71), alkaline phosphatase (Std. MD = -0.21; 95% CI = -0.73-0.31; P = 0.43), hypercalcemia (RR = 1.43; 95% CI = 0.51 to 3.98; P = 0.49), adverse events (RR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.42-1.49; P = 0.47), and serious adverse events (RR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.47-1.30; P = 0.33). Paricalcitol and calcitriol result in similar ≥50% reduction of parathyroid hormone, calcium concentration, phosphate concentration, calcium phosphate, alkaline phosphatase, hypercalcemia, adverse events, and serious adverse events for secondary hyperparathyroidism in dialysis patients.
-
2.
Vitamin D and Calcium for the Prevention of Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Yao, P, Bennett, D, Mafham, M, Lin, X, Chen, Z, Armitage, J, Clarke, R
JAMA network open. 2019;(12):e1917789
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Vitamin D and calcium supplements are recommended for the prevention of fracture, but previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results, with uncertainty about optimal doses and regimens for supplementation and their overall effectiveness. OBJECTIVE To assess the risks of fracture associated with differences in concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) in observational studies and the risks of fracture associated with supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium in RCTs. DATA SOURCES PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other RCT databases were searched from database inception until December 31, 2018. Searches were performed between July 2018 and December 2018. STUDY SELECTION Observational studies involving at least 200 fracture cases and RCTs enrolling at least 500 participants and reporting at least 10 incident fractures were included. Randomized clinical trials compared vitamin D or vitamin D and calcium with control. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two researchers independently extracted data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and assessed possible bias. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Data extraction and synthesis took place between July 2018 and June 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Any fracture and hip fracture. RESULTS In a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies (39 141 participants, 6278 fractures, 2367 hip fractures), each increase of 10.0 ng/mL (ie, 25 nmol/L) in 25 (OH)D concentration was associated with an adjusted RR for any fracture of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and an adjusted RR for hip fracture of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86). A meta-analysis of 11 RCTs (34 243 participants, 2843 fractures, 740 hip fractures) of vitamin D supplementation alone (daily or intermittent dose of 400-30 000 IU, yielding a median difference in 25[OH]D concentration of 8.4 ng/mL) did not find a reduced risk of any fracture (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.14) or hip fracture (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98-1.32), but these trials were constrained by infrequent intermittent dosing, low daily doses of vitamin D, or an inadequate number of participants. In contrast, a meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (49 282 participants, 5449 fractures, 730 hip fractures) of combined supplementation with vitamin D (daily doses of 400-800 IU, yielding a median difference in 25[OH]D concentration of 9.2 ng/mL) and calcium (daily doses of 1000-1200 mg) found a 6% reduced risk of any fracture (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99) and a 16% reduced risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this systematic review and meta-analysis, neither intermittent nor daily dosing with standard doses of vitamin D alone was associated with reduced risk of fracture, but daily supplementation with both vitamin D and calcium was a more promising strategy.
-
3.
Vitamin D exposure and Risk of Breast Cancer: a meta-analysis.
Estébanez, N, Gómez-Acebo, I, Palazuelos, C, Llorca, J, Dierssen-Sotos, T
Scientific reports. 2018;(1):9039
Abstract
UNLABELLED The relationship between vitamin D and breast cancer is still controversial. The present meta-analysis examines the effects of the 25(OH)D, 1,25(OH)2D and vitamin D intake on breast cancer risk. For this purpose, a PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science-databases search was conducted including all papers published with the keywords "breast cancer" and "vitamin D" with at least one reported relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR). In total sixty eight studies published between 1998 and 2018 were analyzed. Information about type of study, hormonal receptors and menopausal status was retrieved. Pooled OR or RR were estimated by weighting individual OR/RR by the inverse of their variance Our study showed a protective effect between 25 (OH) D and breast cancer in both cohort studies (RR = 0.85, 95%CI:0.74-0.98) and case-control studies (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.56-0.76). However, analyzing by menopausal status, the protective vitamin D - breast cancer association persisted only in the premenopausal group (OR = 0.67, 95%CI: 0.49-0.92) when restricting the analysis to nested case-control studies. No significant association was found for vitamin D intake or 1,25(OH)2D. CONCLUSION This systematic review suggests a protective relationship between circulating vitamin D (measured as 25(OH) D) and breast cancer development in premenopausal women.
-
4.
Vitamin D in ankylosing spondylitis: review and meta-analysis.
Cai, G, Wang, L, Fan, D, Xin, L, Liu, L, Hu, Y, Ding, N, Xu, S, Xia, G, Jin, X, et al
Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry. 2015;:316-22
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of vitamin D in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is largely unknown. This paper aims to examine the association between serum vitamin D levels and susceptibility and disease activity of AS. METHODS We searched the relevant literatures in PubMed, Elsevier Science Direct, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang (Chinese) Database published before June 2014. Eight independent case-control studies with a total of 533 AS patients and 478 matching controls were selected into this meta-analysis. Standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the levels of serum vitamin D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), serum calcium and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) in cases and controls, respectively. Correlation coefficients (CORs) have been performed to value the correlationship between vitamin D and disease activity (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)) of AS patients. RESULTS Meta-analysis results suggested that vitamin D may play a protective role in AS (for total vitamin D: SMD=-0.71, P<0.001; for 25OHD: SMD=-0.66, P=0.002; for 1,25OHD: SMD=-0.72, P=0.19). Differences in PTH and serum calcium levels were not significant in AS (SMD=-0.10, P=0.67; SMD=0.12, P=0.17 respectively), while ALP was associated with AS susceptibility (SMD=0.20, P=0.04). The relationship between serum vitamin D levels and disease activity was statistically significant except for 25OHD versus (vs.) CRP or BASDAI (for CRP vs. 25OHD: COR=-0.22, P=0.08; for BASDAI vs. 25OHD: COR=-0.20, P=0.06, respectively). CONCLUSION The higher levels of serum vitamin D were associated with a decreased risk of AS, and showed an inverse relationship with AS activity.
-
5.
Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults.
Bjelakovic, G, Gluud, LL, Nikolova, D, Whitfield, K, Wetterslev, J, Simonetti, RG, Bjelakovic, M, Gluud, C
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014;(1):CD007470
Abstract
BACKGROUND Available evidence on the effects of vitamin D on mortality has been inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, we found evidence that vitamin D3 may decrease mortality in mostly elderly women. The present systematic review updates and reassesses the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of mortality. OBJECTIVES To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index-Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (all up to February 2012). We checked references of included trials and pharmaceutical companies for unidentified relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials that compared any type of vitamin D in any dose with any duration and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adult participants. Participants could have been recruited from the general population or from patients diagnosed with a disease in a stable phase. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or as an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Six review authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). To account for trials with zero events, we performed meta-analyses of dichotomous data using risk differences (RDs) and empirical continuity corrections. We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.To minimise the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Trial sequential analyses controlled the risk of random errors possibly caused by cumulative meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS We identified 159 randomised clinical trials. Ninety-four trials reported no mortality, and nine trials reported mortality but did not report in which intervention group the mortality occurred. Accordingly, 56 randomised trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine trials included postmenopausal women and 35 trials included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/mL). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/mL).Vitamin D decreased mortality in all 56 trials analysed together (5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). More than 8% of participants dropped out. 'Worst-best case' and 'best-worst case' scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D could be associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality. When different forms of vitamin D were assessed in separate analyses, only vitamin D3 decreased mortality (4,153/37,817 (11.0%) vs 4,340/38,110 (11.4%); RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98); P = 0.002; I(2) = 0%; 75,927 participants; 38 trials). Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol did not significantly affect mortality. A subgroup analysis of trials at high risk of bias suggested that vitamin D2 may even increase mortality, but this finding could be due to random errors. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over five years to prevent one additional death. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the effect of vitamin D on mortality in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared with trials at high risk of bias; of trials using placebo compared with trials using no intervention in the control group; of trials with no risk of industry bias compared with trials with risk of industry bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared with trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL at entry compared with trials including participants with vitamin D levels equal to or greater than 20 ng/mL at entry; of trials including ambulatory participants compared with trials including institutionalised participants; of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared with trials without calcium; of trials using a dose below 800 IU per day compared with trials using doses above 800 IU per day; and of trials including only women compared with trials including both sexes or only men. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly decreased cancer mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 44,492 participants; 4 trials). Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 42,876 participants; 4 trials). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.68); P = 0.02; I(2) = 17%; 710 participants; 3 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Vitamin D3 seemed to decrease mortality in elderly people living independently or in institutional care. Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol had no statistically significant beneficial effects on mortality. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased hypercalcaemia. Because of risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants and of outcome reporting bias due to a number of trials not reporting on mortality, as well as a number of other weaknesses in our evidence, further placebo-controlled randomised trials seem warranted.
-
6.
Comparison of intermittent intravenous and oral calcitriol in the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in chronic hemodialysis patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Haiyang Zhou, , Chenggang Xu,
Clinical nephrology. 2009;(3):276-85
Abstract
BACKGROUND Controversy exists regarding the optimal route and mode of calcitriol administration in the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and adverse reaction of calcitriol in the same mode (intermittent) but different route (intravenous versus oral) in the treatment of SHPT. METHODS Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Cochrane-controlled trials register, China Biological Medicine Disk (updated February 2008), and manual bibliographical searches were conducted. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermittent intravenous with intermittent oral calcitriol in the treatment of SHPT was performed. RESULTS 6 studies from 5 countries were finally considered for the meta-analysis, including a multicenter trial. The results of meta-analyses showed that there were no significant differences between the two routes in suppressing iPTH, AKP and rising Ca, P. In sensitivity analyses (baseline iPTH > or = 600 pg/ml, baseline iPTH < 600 pg/ml, and excluding the multicenter trial), the results were similar to those of the overall analyses. Results of the descriptive analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two routes in the incidence of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between intermittent intravenous and oral calcitriol in the treatment of SHPT, both in their efficacy and adverse reaction. Since the present studies had several limitations in methodological design and sample size, largescale and long-term comparisons of intermittent intravenous and oral treatment need to be done in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design to accurately evaluate their relative efficacy and safety.
-
7.
Differential effects of D-hormone analogs and native vitamin D on the risk of falls: a comparative meta-analysis.
Richy, F, Dukas, L, Schacht, E
Calcified tissue international. 2008;(2):102-7
Abstract
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the antifall efficacy of native vitamin D to that of its hydroxylated analogs alfacalcidol and calcitriol. Randomized clinical trials comparing oral native vitamin D and its analogs alfacalcidol and calcitriol to a placebo were included. Sources included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, a hand search of abstracts, as well as reference lists. The time range was January 1995 to May 2007. Data were abstracted and scored by two investigators. The core analysis was based on double-blind trials, while open trials were included as a robustness analysis. Relative risks (RRs) for falls while allocated to D-hormone analogs or vitamin D were calculated. Publication bias and robustness were formally tested. Fourteen trials including 21,268 subjects were included. Using double-blind data only, vitamin D-hormone analogs provided a statistically significant lower level of risk for falling compared to native vitamin D: RR = 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.96) vs. 0.94 (0.87-1.01) (intergroup difference P = 0.049). The dropout rates observed in the two sets of trials were comparable: 0.33% per month. Publication bias investigation did not report any significant trend for selective publication favoring active treatment arms. Upon current evidence, D-hormone analogs seem to prevent falls to a greater extent than their native compound. Long-term, prospective, head-to-head, confirmatory trials are required to address the exact role of vitamin D and D-hormone analogs in the prevention of falls and fractures.
-
8.
Vitamin D analogs versus native vitamin D in preventing bone loss and osteoporosis-related fractures: a comparative meta-analysis.
Richy, F, Schacht, E, Bruyere, O, Ethgen, O, Gourlay, M, Reginster, JY
Calcified tissue international. 2005;(3):176-86
Abstract
It has been suggested that early postmenopausal women and patients treated with steroids should receive preventive therapy (calcium, vitamin D, vitamin D analogs, estrogens, or bisphosphonates) to preserve their bone mineral density (BMD) and to avoid fragility fractures. We designed the present study to compare the effects of native vitamin D to its hydroxylated analogs alfacalcidol 1-alpha(OH)D and calcitriol 1,25(OH)(2)D. All randomized, controlled, double-blinded trials comparing oral native vitamin D and its analogs, alfacalcidol or calcitriol, to placebo or head-to-head trials in primary or corticosteroids-induced osteoporosis were included in the meta-analysis. Sources included the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and a hand search of abstracts and references lists. The study period January 1985 to January 2003. Data were abstracted by two investigators, and methodological quality was assessed in a similar manner. Heterogeneity was extensively investigated. Results were expressed as effect-size (ES) for bone loss and as rate difference (RD) for fracture while allocated to active treatment or control. Publication bias was investigated. Fourteen studies of native vitamin D, nine of alfacalcidol, and ten of calcitriol fit the inclusion criteria. The two vitamin D analogs appeared to exert a higher preventive effect on bone loss and fracture rates in patients not exposed to glucocorticoids. With respect to BMD, vitamin D analogs versus placebo studies had an ES of 0.36 (P < 0.0001), whereas native vitamin D versus placebo had an ES of 0.17 (P = 0.0005), the interclass difference being highly significant (ANOVA-1, P < 0.05). When restricted to the lumbar spine, this intertreatment difference remained significant: ES = 0.43 (P = 0.0002) for vitamin D analogs and ES = 0.21 (P = 0.001) for native vitamin D (analysis of variance [ANOVA-1], P = 0.047). There were no significant differences regarding their efficacies on other measurement sites (ANOVA-1, P = 0.36). When comparing the adjusted global relative risks for fracture when allocated to vitamin D analogs or native vitamin D, alfacalcidol and calcitriol provided a more marked preventive efficacy against fractures: RD = 10% (95% Confidence interval [CI-2] to 17) compared to RD = 2% (95% CI, 1 to 2), respectively. The analysis of the spinal and nonspinal showed that fracture rates differed between the two classes, thereby confirming the benefits of vitamin D analogs, with significant 13.4% (95% CI 7.7 to 19.8) and. 6% (95% CI 1 to 12) lower fracture rates for vitamin D analogs, respectively. In patients receiving corticosteroid therapy, both treatments provided similar global ESs for BMD: ES = 0.38 for vitamin D analogs and ES = 0.41 for native vitamin D (ANOVA-1, P = 0.88). When restriced to spinal BMD, D analogs provided significant effects, whereas native vitamin D did not: ES = 0.43 (P < 0.0001) and ES = 0.33 (P = 0.21), respectively. The intertreatment difference was nonsignificant (ANOVA-1, P = 0.52). Neither D analogs for native vitamin D significantly prevented fractures in this subcategory of patients: RD = 2.6 (95%CI, -9.5 to 4.3) and RD = 6.4 (95%CI, -2.3 to 10), respectively. In head-to-head studies comparing D analogs and native vitamin D in patients receiving corticosteroids, significant effects favoring D analogs were found for femoral neck BMD: ES = 0.31 at P = 0.02 and spinal fractures: RD = 15% (95%CI, 6.5 to 25). Publication bias was not significant. Our analysis demonstrates a superiority of the D analogs atfacalcidol and calcitriol in preventing bone loss and spinal fractures in primary osteoporosis, including postmenopausal women. In corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis, the efficacy of D analogs differed depending on the comparative approach: indirect comparisons led to nonsignificant differences, whereas direct comparison did provide significant differences. In this setting, D analogs seem to prevent spinal fractures to a greater extent than do native vitamin D, but this assumption should be confirmed on a comprehensive basis in multiarm studies including an inactive comparator.
-
9.
Efficacy of alphacalcidol and calcitriol in primary and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of their effects on bone mineral density and fracture rate.
Richy, F, Ethgen, O, Bruyere, O, Reginster, JY
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2004;(4):301-10
Abstract
Vitamin D metabolites alphacalcidol and calcitriol (D-hormones) have been investigated for two decades, but few and conflicting results are available from high-quality randomized controlled trials. Our objectives were to provide an evidence-based update quantitatively summarizing their efficacy on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture rate. We performed a systematic research of any randomized controlled trial containing relevant data, peer review, data extraction and quality scoring blinded for authors and data sources, and comprehensive meta-analyses of the relevant data. Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled study, calcitriol or alphacalcidol, BMD or fractures in healthy/osteopenic/osteoporotic patients exposed or not to corticosteroids (CS). Analyses were performed in a conservative fashion using professional dedicated softwares and stratified by outcome, target patients, study quality, and control-group type. Results were expressed as effect size (ES) for bone loss or relative risk (RR) for fracture while allocated to D-hormones vs control. Publication bias and robustness were investigated. Of the trials that were retrieved and subsequently reviewed, 17 papers fitted the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Quality scores ranged from 20 to 100%, the mean (standard deviation) being 72 (22)%. Calcitriol and alphacalcidol were found to have the same efficacy on all outcomes at p>0.13. We globally assessed D-hormones effects in preventing bone loss in patients not exposed to CS, and found positive effect: ES=0.39 ( p<0.001). For lumbar spine, this particular effect was 0.43 ( p<0.001). D-hormones significantly reduced the overall fracture rates: RR=0.52 (0.46; 0.59) and both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures: RR=0.53 (0.47; 0.60) and RR=0.34 (0.16; 0.71), respectively. No statistical difference in response was observed between results from studies on healthy and osteoporotic patients or depending on the fact that controls were allowed to calcium supplementation. Treatment with D-hormones was evaluated for maintaining spinal bone mass in five trials of patients with CS-induced osteoporosis, and provided ES=0.43 at p<0.001. Only two studies specifically addressed the effects of calcitriol on spinal fracture rate. None of them provided significant results, and the global RR did not reach the significance level as well: RR=0.33 (0.07; 1.51). Our data demonstrated efficacy for DH on bone loss and fracture prevention in patients not exposed to CS and on bone loss in patients exposed to CS, in the light of the most reliable scientific evidence. Their efficacy in reducing the number of fractures in patients exposed to CS remains to be determined.