BackgroundBone metastases-induced skeletal complications result in reduced patient survival, lower quality of life, and an increase in healthcare costs. Previously, zoledronic acid (ZA) was the standard choice of treatment for bone metastases, but another drug, denosumab, has also shown promise. However, the clinical utility of these two drugs requires further exploration.Aim of the reviewDue to the lack of direct comparisons regarding the efficacy of these drugs in both solid tumors and multiple myeloma (MM), we herein tried to conduct a meta-analysis to compare their efficacy in parallel for bone metastases treatment in both solid tumor and MM patients.MethodsMultiple databases including Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported up to March 2019 directly comparing denosumab with ZA in solid tumors and MM. Information about the following events was primarily searched: time to first on-study skeletal-related event (SRE), time to first and subsequent SREs, and overall survival. Information about secondary outcomes including disease progression, pain, health-related quality of life, and adverse events was also recorded.ResultsOverall, we analyzed data from four distinct RCTs including 7441 patients, and our analysis revealed that patients in the denosumab group had a significantly delayed incidence to the first and subsequent SREs. In addition, denosumab resulted in a higher incidence of hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and a lower incidence of renal toxicity and acute phase reactions, in comparison to ZA.ConclusionOverall, denosumab showed superiority in delaying the first and subsequent SREs, and hence seems to be a promising choice for managing bone metastases in both solid tumors and MM. However, it can induce a higher incidence of ONJ and hypocalcaemia, but these are preventable and manageable effects.