SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Black women”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

205 records · Page 12Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

International study of coronary microvascular angina (iCorMicA): A registry-based diagnostic study and nested randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Angina is a debilitating condition caused by coronary artery disease and microvascular dysfunction. Following coronary angiography angina and no obstructive coronary arteries is a common outcome, and women are disproportionately affected. The objectives are first, to assess causes of angina in patients undergoing invasive management; and second, to assess effects of coronary function test-guided management on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is an international, multicenter, prospective, registry-based study and nested, randomized, controlled, triple-blind, and endpoint trial. Participants, community care providers, and outcomes assessors are masked. Consented participants enter the registry. Participants without obstructive coronary artery disease (luminal stenosis <50%, or fractional flow reserve >0.80) are eligible for randomization. Index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR; abnormal ≥25) and coronary flow reserve (CFR; abnormal <2.0; gray zone 2.0-2.5) are measured by bolus thermodilution, and results are disclosed (intervention) or not (control group) to the attending cardiologist. RESULTS: The primary outcome of the registry is the Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score at baseline described by coronary artery disease status. Secondary outcomes include the prevalence of obstructive coronary artery disease, patient reported outcome measures and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome of the randomized trial is the within-individual change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score at 12-months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include safety, diagnostic accuracy, patient reported outcome measures for quality of life, physical and psychological function, cardiovascular risk, clinical outcomes, health economics and mechanistic biomarkers. The first patient was screened on December 18, 2020 and the last patient was enrolled on June 30, 2026. Forty sites were included in the United Kingdom (n = 35), Republic of Ireland (n = 2), Holland (n = 2), and Poland (n = 1). In total, 1,483 participants were enrolled into the registry of whom 1,047 were randomized and 386 were not randomized (registry-only). CONCLUSION: This international, registry-based clinical trial will provide novel evidence on the natural history of angina and stratified therapy for angina with no obstructive coronary arteries. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04674449. UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT04674449.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2026

Ketoacidosis with SGLT2 inhibitors in routine clinical practice of type 2 diabetes: Scandinavian cohort and nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: SGLT2 inhibitors increase the risk of ketoacidosis, but data from routine clinical practice are scarce. We used nationwide registers with the aim of assessing the incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of ketoacidosis during SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this cohort and nested case-control study we used data from three Scandinavian countries. In a cohort of SGLT2 inhibitor-treatment episodes among patients with type 2 diabetes aged at least 18 years in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, we estimated ketoacidosis incidence. Using a nested case-control design (matched on age, sex, region of birth, calendar time, and time since treatment initiation), we assessed risk factors and precipitating or co-occurring events. Changes in diabetes medications were evaluated. FINDINGS: The study period was Jan 1, 2013, to Dec 31, 2021, in Denmark and Sweden, and Jan 1, 2013, to Dec 31, 2022, in Norway. We included 322 597 treatment episodes among 282 282 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age 63 years, 116 521 [36·1%] of 322 597 women). During a median (IQR) follow-up of 1·3 (0·7-2·8) years, 1452 ketoacidosis events occurred (incidence 2·43 per 1000 person-years). Although highest shortly after initiation, risk persisted throughout follow-up. Strong risk factors included high HbA1c (≥83 vs ≤52 mmol/mol: odds ratio [OR] 15·37 [95% CI 11·50-20·53]), malnutrition (OR 10·54 [7·32-15·18]), previous ketoacidosis (OR 10·40 [7·09-15·24]), low BMI (<20 kg/m2vs 20 to <25 kg/m2: OR 9·98 [5·68-17·53]), and recent hypoglycaemia (OR 5·22 [2·60-10·49]). Infection was the most common precipitating or co-occurring event (454 [31·8%] of 1428 vs 862 [6·1%] of 14 233 for ketoacidosis cases vs controls; OR 7·60 [6·62-8·71]). The strongest associations were observed for alcohol intoxication, acute renal events, acute abdomen, stroke, and major surgery, although associations for some transient exposures, particularly milder conditions, might have been overestimated because of under-registration among controls. Exploratory analyses suggested that the observed associations were largely general to patients with type 2 diabetes rather than specific to SGLT2 inhibitor use. At 1 year after ketoacidosis, 211 (25·1%) of 842 remained on SGLT2 inhibitors and insulin use increased from 269 (31·9%) of 842 to 615 (73·0%) of 842. INTERPRETATION: Ketoacidosis risk with SGLT2 inhibitors varies greatly by patient characteristics and is not confined to early in treatment. Risk should be assessed throughout treatment, and patients should be instructed to pause treatment during acute illness and stress. FUNDING: Region Stockholm, Swedish Society of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2026

A narrative systematic review of definitions and diagnostic criteria for disordered eating and eating disorders in type 1 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 1 diabetes and disordered eating (T1DE) affects 8-37.1% of adults and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The absence of a standardised case definition of T1DE and its severity hinders effective screening, diagnosis and treatment. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesise existing case definitions and diagnostic criteria for T1DE in adults and (2) identify key characteristics to inform consensus for future diagnostic criteria. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies involved adults (≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes assessing disordered eating; paediatric studies, mixed samples without disaggregated data, non-empirical designs and non-English publications were excluded. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched up to November 2025 for peer-reviewed studies involving adults with T1DE. Qualitative and quantitative data on definitions, diagnostic criteria and assessment tools were extracted. Study quality was appraised using a modified Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies (GATE) checklist. Due to heterogeneity of data, a narrative synthesis of findings was performed to describe current definitions of T1DE. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, with a pooled sample of 111,208 participants (76% women) from over 22 countries. T1DE was defined using a heterogeneous array of terms, diagnostic frameworks and assessment tools (29 distinct methods). The Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised (DEPS-R) was the most used questionnaire, but many studies relied on criteria adapted from general eating disorder classifications or generic questionnaires. Approximately three-quarters of the studies assessed insulin omission behaviours, but the operationalisation of the cognitions for insulin omission varied widely. Beyond physiological markers such as HbA1c and BMI, studies explored various diabetes-related and psychological constructs, although often considering diabetes and disordered eating separately rather than as an integrated condition. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This systematic review highlights the lack of a unified, evidence-based definition of T1DE, resulting in inconsistent screening, diagnostic and reporting practices. Establishing clear, consistent, evidence-based diagnostic criteria and screening questionnaires for T1DE is critical to improving early detection and developing targeted interventions. These findings provide a foundation for refining T1DE definitions as a stepping stone to an international consensus definition. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD420250223622 FUNDING: King's College London and King's College Hospital through the KMRT KCH Joint Research Committee studentship. This work was also conducted as part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; CS-2017-17-023)-funded STEADY project (Safe management of people with Type 1 diabetes and EAting Disorders studY). NZ's salary was part-funded by the NIHR via the NIHR Clinician Scientist award to MS; JT and KI are part-funded by the NIHR Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. MS was funded through her NIHR Clinician Scientist Fellowship (CS-2017-17-023).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Acute mild cold exposure with shivering reduces 24 h glucose levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes but not prediabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Repeated cold exposure with shivering has been proposed as a potential strategy to enhance glucose metabolism by increasing energy expenditure and substrate utilisation. However, acute effects/benefits of cold-induced shivering on glucose homeostasis in metabolically compromised individuals are unknown. Here, we aimed to determine whether cold exposure at two different intensities improves 24 h glucose homeostasis in individuals with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a randomised crossover trial conducted in the South Limburg/Maastricht region of the Netherlands, men and postmenopausal women with prediabetes (n=12) and stable type 2 diabetes (n=12), aged 40-75 years, body mass index ≥27 and ≤35 kg/m2, non-smoking and sedentary, underwent two whole-body cold exposure sessions using a water-perfused suit. Session order was randomised using an online randomisation tool (randomizer.org); participants were masked to the cold exposure intensity received, but investigators were not. Sessions were designed to elicit ~1.5-fold (mild, 15°C) and ~2.5-fold (moderate, 4°C) increases in resting metabolic rate (RMR). Continuous glucose monitoring assessed interstitial glucose concentrations over 24 h periods before and after each intervention, with controlled diet and activity. Shivering was confirmed via indirect calorimetry and electromyography. RESULTS: In both study groups and periods, RMR increased significantly vs baseline (p<0.001 for all). In prediabetes, the increase in the final 1 h of cold was 1.53 × RMR in mild and 1.94 × RMR in moderate cold. In type 2 diabetes, the increase was 1.57 × RMR and 2.09 × RMR in the final 1 h of mild and moderate cold, respectively. In prediabetes, neither mild nor moderate cold exposure altered mean 24 h glucose levels. In contrast, after mild cold exposure the type 2 diabetes group exhibited a significant reduction in mean 24 h glucose levels (-0.6 ± 0.5 mmol/l, p=0.003) and fasting glucose (-0.6 ± 0.8 mmol/l, p=0.019), as well as an increase in time in normal range (+8.8 ± 10.3%, p=0.013) and reduced time in hyperglycaemia (-10.9 ± 12.9%, p=0.014). Moderate cold did not significantly affect any of the glucose outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Baseline fasting glucose, age and ALT levels were predictors of the glucose-lowering response, suggesting greater benefits in individuals who have higher baseline glucose levels, are younger and/or have more optimal liver health, i.e. lower ALT. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Acute mild cold exposure with shivering reduced 24 h glucose levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes. No changes were observed in prediabetes. The observed effects appear to depend on baseline metabolic status rather than acute substrate utilisation during cold exposure. These findings support the potential of cold exposure as an adjunct non-pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetes, although further mechanistic studies and validation in larger cohorts are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05576025 FUNDING: Dutch Organisation for Knowledge and Innovation in Health, Healthcare and Well-being (ZonMw): 09120012010062.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of alixorexton, a selective orexin 2 receptor agonist for narcolepsy type 1 (Vibrance-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical potential of orexin 2 receptor (OX2R) agonism for improving measures of wakefulness and cataplexy in patients with narcolepsy type 1 has been described in a phase 2 study. Here, we aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of alixorexton, another oral OX2R agonist, in narcolepsy type 1. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, adult participants (aged 18-70 years) with narcolepsy type 1 were recruited from 46 hospitals and private research centres across the USA, Europe, and Australia. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) in blocks of four via an interactive response technology system stratified by region and baseline weekly cataplexy rate (WCR) to receive 4 mg, 6 mg, or 8 mg tablets of alixorexton or placebo once daily for 6 weeks, followed by an optional 7-week open-label extension. Participants had narcolepsy type 1, diagnosed per the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Third Edition, and confirmed by overnight polysomnography and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test or cerebrospinal hypocretin-1 concentrations. The sponsor, assessors, investigators, and participants were masked during the randomised double-blind treatment period. Efficacy and safety assessments were conducted in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 6 in mean sleep latency (MSL) on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06358950) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2024, and May 5, 2025, 153 individuals were screened and 92 participants were randomly assigned to receive alixorexton 4 mg (n=23), 6 mg (n=22), 8 mg (n=24), or placebo (n=23). Mean age was 33·5 years (SD 12·1), 57 (62%) were women, and 35 (38%) were men. At week 6, the observed MSL on the MWT was 2·3 min (SD 2·7) for placebo, 24·0 min (8·7) for alixorexton 4 mg, 25·9 min (9·4) for 6 mg, and 28·2 min (11·4) for 8 mg. Alixorexton improved MSL on the MWT, with a least-squares mean placebo-corrected change from baseline of 22·2 min (95% CI 17·2-27·2) for alixorexton 4 mg, 24·1 min (19·0-29·1) for 6 mg, and 26·0 min (21·0-31·0) for 8 mg (adjusted p=0·0099 for 4 mg, adjusted p<0·0001 for 6 mg and 8 mg). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 5% of participants given alixorexton and more frequently than those given placebo up to week 6 were pollakiuria (38 [55%]), insomnia (19 [28%]), salivary hypersecretion (17 [25%]), micturition urgency (ten [14%]), blurred vision (ten [14%]), and hyperhidrosis (five [7%]). INTERPRETATION: In this phase 2 trial, once-daily oral alixorexton provided clinically meaningful improvements at 6 weeks for participants with narcolepsy type 1, including in wakefulness, excessive daytime sleepiness, and cataplexy. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events consistent with the known on-target effects of OX2R agonists. Together, these findings support the further phase 3 evaluation of alixorexton as a potential therapeutic option for people with narcolepsy type 1. FUNDING: Alkermes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗