Historically, osteoporosis has been viewed as a disease of women, with research, trials of interventions and guidelines predominantly focused as such. It is apparent, however, that this condition causes a substantial health burden in men also, and that its assessment and management must ultimately be addressed across both sexes. In this article, an international multidisciplinary working group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases presents GRADE-assessed recommendations for the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of osteoporosis in men. The recommendations are based on a comprehensive review of the latest research related to diagnostic and screening approaches for osteoporosis and its associated high fracture risk in men, covering disease burden, appropriate interpretation of bone densitometry (including the use of a female reference database for densitometric diagnosis in men) and absolute fracture risk, thresholds for treatment, and interventions that can be used therapeutically and their health economic evaluation. Future work should specifically address the efficacy of anti-osteoporosis medications, including denosumab and bone-forming therapies.

Objective Our aim was to assess the safety of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with COX-2 inhibitors in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs, drug-related AEs and mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once). Results Database searches identified 2149 records from which, after exclusions, 40 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The use of COX-2 inhibitors in OA was associated with a significant increased risk of drug-related AEs compared with placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.09–1.46; I² = 24%). The risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (including dyspepsia, gastritis and heartburn) was significantly increased with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03–1.38; I² = 0%), particularly for abdominal pain, which increased by 40% with COX-2 inhibitors (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08–1.80; I² = 0%). The risk of hypertension increased by 45% overall (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01–2.10; I² = 25%); however, when rofecoxib was removed from the analysis the risk of hypertension in the COX-2 inhibitor group was no longer significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80–1.83; I² = 20%). The overall risk of heart failure and edema was increased by nearly 70% with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.22–2.31; 0%) and this level of risk did not change appreciably when rofecoxib was excluded (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29; 0%). Conclusions In our analysis, COX-2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain. We also found an increased risk of cardiovascular AEs with COX-2 inhibitors, namely hypertension, heart failure and edema.

Background Some controversy exists regarding the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA). Objective The objective of this study was to re-assess the safety profile of IAHA in patients with OA, through a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with IAHA in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, cardiac, vascular, respiratory, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, musculoskeletal, renal and urinary disorders, infections and infestations, and hypersensitivity reaction. Results Database searches initially identified 1481 records. After exclusions according to the selection criteria, 22 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies having adequate data were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. From the studies excluded according to the pre-specified selection criteria, 21 with other pharmacological OA treatments permitted during the trials were a posteriori included in a parallel qualitative synthesis, from which eight studies with adequate data were finally included in a parallel meta-analysis. Since this meta-analysis was designed to assess safety, the exclusion criterion on concomitant anti-OA medication was crucial. However, due to the high number of studies that allowed mainly concomitant oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we decided to include them in a post hoc parallel analysis in order to compare the results from the two analyses. No statistically significant difference in odds was found between IAHA and placebo for all types of SOC-related disorders, except for infections and infestations, for which significantly lower odds were found with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.93; I² = 0%) and in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27–0.89). There were significant increased odds of reporting serious AEs with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.21–2.63; I² = 0%) and in studies with concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.10–2.89), but not in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 0.92–3.47). Conclusions Using the available data on studies without any concomitant anti-OA medication permitted during clinical trials, IAHA seems not to be associated with any safety issue in the management of OA. However, this evidence was associated with only a “low” to “moderate” certainty. A possible association with increased risk of serious AEs, particularly when used with concomitant OA medications, requires further investigation.

Objective We aimed to assess the safety of opioids in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with opioids in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, renal and urinary disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs and drug-related AEs. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once). Results Database searches identified 2189 records, from which, after exclusions, 17 papers were included in the meta-analysis. More disorders of the lower GI tract (constipation, fecaloma) were reported with both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release (ER) formulations of opioids versus placebo: IR opioids (relative risk [RR] 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42–7.89); ER opioids (RR 4.22, 95% CI 3.44–5.17). The risk of upper GI AEs increased fourfold with ER opioids compared with placebo (RR 4.03, 95% CI 0.87–18.62), and the risk of nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite increased four- to fivefold with both formulations: IR opioids (RR 3.39, 95% CI 2.22–5.18); ER opioids (RR 4.03, 95% CI 3.37–4.83). An increased risk of dermatologic AEs (rash and pruritis; IR opioids: RR 3.60, 95% CI 1.74–7.43; ER opioids: RR 7.87, 95% CI 5.20–11.89) and central nervous system disorders (dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, insomnia; IR opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.90–4.02; ER opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.19–3.47) was found with all opioid formulations versus placebo. Conclusions Our results confirm that there are considerable safety and tolerability issues surrounding the use of opioids in OA, and support the recommendation of international and national guidelines to use opioids in OA after other analgesic options, and for short time periods.

Oral bisphosphonates are a key intervention in the treatment of osteoporosis and in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Their use is supported by over 3 decades of evidence; however, patient adherence to oral bisphosphonates remains poor in part due to complex dosing instructions and adverse events, including upper gastrointestinal symptoms. This problem has led to the development of novel oral bisphosphonate formulations. Buffered, effervescent alendronate is dissolved in water and so seeks to reduce upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, and gastro-resistant risedronate aims to reduce the complexity of dosing procedure (e.g. fasting prior to consumption) whilst still maintaining the efficacy of fracture risk reduction. Clinical trials and real-world data have been employed to demonstrate some benefits in terms of reduced upper gastro-intestinal adverse events, adherence, persistence and health economic outcomes. This report describes the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores where oral bisphosphonates sit in current clinical practice guidelines, review their risk–benefit profile and the consequences of poor adherence before exploring novel oral bisphosphonate formulations and their potential clinical and health economic impact. Further research is required but there are signs that these novel, oral bisphosphonate formulations may lead to improved tolerance of oral bisphosphonates and thus, improved adherence and fracture outcomes.