Costs to Medicare of Nonrecommended Bone-Modifying Agent Use for Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) do not prevent skeletal-related events among patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC), but many patients receive BMAs unnecessarily. The costs to Medicare from overuse have not been assessed. METHODS: We used linked SEER-Medicare data 2011-2015 to measure the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab received during CSPC (between diagnosis and initiation of metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer therapy). We estimated excess BMA among patients who received BMA therapy for CSPC and did not have an indication for osteoporosis fracture prevention. We used the Medicare fee schedule for drug prices and peer-reviewed sources to estimate adverse event frequencies and costs. RESULTS: Median CSPC duration was 387 days (IQR, 253-573), during which time 42% of patients received ≥one dose of denosumab (mean doses, 7) and 18% received ≥one dose of ZA (mean doses, 7). Thirty-eight percent of those receiving denosumab and 47% of those receiving ZA had a history of osteoporosis, osteopenia, spine or hip fracture, or hypercalcemia. The estimated, annual excess BMA cost to Medicare was $44,105,041 in US dollars (USD), composed of $43,303,078 USD and $45,512 USD in drug costs for denosumab and ZA, respectively, and $682,865 USD and $75,585 USD in adverse event costs, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the estimate was most sensitive to denosumab dosing frequency (estimate range, $28,469,237 USD-$98,830,351 USD) and duration of CSPC (estimate range, $36,823,311 USD-$99,015,908 USD). CONCLUSION: BMA overuse in CSPC incurs substantial cost to Medicare, largely because of denosumab drug costs. Excess costs may be reduced by greater adherence to guideline-concordant BMA use.

Severe Hypocalcemia With Denosumab Among Older Female Dialysis-Dependent Patients.

Importance: Dialysis-dependent patients experience high rates of morbidity from fractures, yet little evidence is available on optimal treatment strategies. Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder is nearly universal in dialysis-dependent patients, complicating diagnosis and treatment of skeletal fragility. Objective: To examine the incidence and comparative risk of severe hypocalcemia with denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates among dialysis-dependent patients treated for osteoporosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of female dialysis-dependent Medicare patients aged 65 years or older who initiated treatment with denosumab or oral bisphosphonates from 2013 to 2020. Clinical performance measures including monthly serum calcium were obtained through linkage to the Consolidated Renal Operations in a Web-Enabled Network database. Exposures: Denosumab, 60 mg, or oral bisphosphonates. Main Outcomes and Measures: Severe hypocalcemia was defined as total albumin-corrected serum calcium below 7.5 mg/dL (1.88 mmol/L) or a primary hospital or emergency department hypocalcemia diagnosis (emergent care). Very severe hypocalcemia (serum calcium below 6.5 mg/dL [1.63 mmol/L] or emergent care) was also assessed. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted cumulative incidence, weighted risk differences, and weighted risk ratios were calculated during the first 12 treatment weeks. Results: In the unweighted cohorts, 607 of 1523 denosumab-treated patients and 23 of 1281 oral bisphosphonate-treated patients developed severe hypocalcemia. The 12-week weighted cumulative incidence of severe hypocalcemia was 41.1% with denosumab vs 2.0% with oral bisphosphonates (weighted risk difference, 39.1% [95% CI, 36.3%-41.9%]; weighted risk ratio, 20.7 [95% CI, 13.2-41.2]). The 12-week weighted cumulative incidence of very severe hypocalcemia was also increased with denosumab (10.9%) vs oral bisphosphonates (0.4%) (weighted risk difference, 10.5% [95% CI, 8.8%-12.0%]; weighted risk ratio, 26.4 [95% CI, 9.7-449.5]). Conclusions and Relevance: Denosumab was associated with a markedly higher incidence of severe and very severe hypocalcemia in female dialysis-dependent patients aged 65 years or older compared with oral bisphosphonates. Given the complexity of diagnosing the underlying bone pathophysiology in dialysis-dependent patients, the high risk posed by denosumab in this population, and the complex strategies required to monitor and treat severe hypocalcemia, denosumab should be administered after careful patient selection and with plans for frequent monitoring.

Comparability of Osteoporosis Treatment Groups Among Female Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States.

It is often difficult to obtain valid estimates of comparative treatment effectiveness and safety owing to differences across patient populations taking different medications in the real world. One approach for assessing comparability between treatment groups in effectiveness studies is to use negative control outcomes (NCOs). NCOs share similar sources of bias with the primary outcomes but have no plausible causal relationship to the treatment of interest. Observing differences in the risk of NCOs thus provides evidence for residual confounding between groups. This retrospective study assessed the comparability of postmenopausal women, treated with osteoporosis medications with various mechanisms of action such as denosumab (receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand [RANKL] inhibitor), zoledronic acid (bisphosphonate derivative), or oral bisphosphonates including alendronate. Administrative claims data were extracted from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Warehouse database (May 2010-December 2016). Propensity scores were used to match denosumab patients 1:1 to comparators. Four nonfracture NCOs and three early fracture NCOs (before substantial biologic effects of treatment would be expected) were assessed over 1-year and 3-month follow-up periods, respectively. According to comparability decision rules established a priori, patients initiating denosumab were comparable to those initiating zoledronic acid or alendronate, irrespective of prior osteoporosis treatment experience. Among new users, new switchers, and in the historical fracture subgroup, no meaningful differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of the seven NCOs comparing denosumab to zoledronic acid. This empirical examination can assist in the selection of appropriate comparator groups for future comparability research using real-world data. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Skeletal-related events after abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A population-based study using the SEER-Medicare linked dataset.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal-related events (SREs) from bone metastases disease carry significant morbidity in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The differential risk of SREs among patients receiving abiraterone acetate (AA) or enzalutamide (ENZ) is unknown. METHODS: To compare the risk of SREs among men with mCRPC receiving AA or ENZ, a retrospective cohort study using the SEER-Medicare Linked Database was conducted. Men with prostate cancer aged ≥65 years at first AA or ENZ prescription (index date) from 2011 to 2015 were identified. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of SRE, death, Medicare disenrollment, or December 31, 2016. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of SRE (pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or surgery or radiation to bone) after the index date. Multivariable logistic regressions including key demographic and clinical covariates with death as a competing risk were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 5,856 patients were identified (4,207 received AA and 1,649 received ENZ). Median age was 76.5 years (IQR 71.4-82.3), 4,557 (77.8%) were White, 1,112 (19.2%) had recent chemotherapy, and 2,730 (46.6%) had recent zoledronic acid or denosumab. Eight-hundred and thirty-seven (14.3%) patients had ≥1 SRE after index date. In multivariable analyses, there was no difference in SRE risk based on AA and ENZ (HR=0.99 for ENZ, 95%CI 0.84-1.16, P=0.890). Denosumab was associated with lower SRE risk (HR=0.75, 95%CI 0.64-0.88, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of men with mCRPC, there was no difference in risk of SRE between AA and ENZ. Decision-making should be informed by prior therapies, comorbidities, toxicity profiles, and patient preferences. Denosumab has evidence of benefit in preventing SREs in this real-world population.

One changing and challenging scenario: the treatment of cancer patients with bone metastases by bisphosphonates and denosumab, the cost-benefit evaluation of different options, and the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ).

Antiresorptive drugs (bisphosphonates and denosumab) have become the cornerstone of medical supportive treatment of bone metastases in solid cancer patients. In the beginning, the choice of available antiresorptive agents was limited to bisphosphonates and the treatment options restricted principally to monthly pamidronate and monthly zoledronic acid. Introduction of new antiresorptive therapies (monthly denosumab) and schedules (zoledronic acid every 3 months, upfront or after initial period of monthly infusion) in the last decade increased the range of available options, thus challenging treatment decision making. Direct and indirect costs of very different treatment options are difficult to interpret in a global cost-benefit analysis. In addition, awareness of the increased risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in bone metastatic cancer patients receiving long-term antiresorptive medications is likely to influence therapy choice in the real-life scenario. We discuss the possible threat of MRONJ risk underestimation and the need for long-term risk stratification of patients based on actuarial data, the role of bisphosphonates and denosumab in that scenario, and the emerging role of surgical therapy to successfully cure MRONJ, in the light of the improved quality of life and survival of patients with bone metastases from solid cancers.

Risk Analysis of Denosumab-Induced Hypocalcemia in Bone Metastasis Treatment: Renal Dysfunction Is Not a Risk Factor for Its Incidence in a Strict Denosumab Administration Management System with Calcium/Vitamin D Supplementation.

We have reported that a strict denosumab administration management system with oral calcium/vitamin D supplementation attenuates denosumab-induced hypocalcemia in 158 cancer patients with bone metastasis. In this report, 27.8% of the patients experienced hypocalcemia, including 0.6% with grade 2. So far, the risk factors for ≥grade 2 hypocalcemia incidence have been identified in denosumab-treated cancer patients, including patients without calcium/vitamin D supplementation. Therefore, the present study aimed to reveal the factors that affect all-grade hypocalcemia incidence with calcium/vitamin D supplementation and team medical care according to the management system. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested that the cutoff of baseline serum calcium level for all-grade hypocalcemia incidence was 9.3 mg/dL. Multivariate analysis revealed that age ≥65 years (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 2.57, 1.11-5.95, p = 0.03), grade 1 or higher serum alkaline phosphatase elevation (3.70, 1.71-8.00, p < 0.01), an adjusted serum calcium level of less than 9.3 mg/dL (3.21. 1.25-8.24, p = 0.02) at baseline, and co-administration of cytotoxic agents (2.33, 1.06-7.11, p = 0.03) are risk factors for the incidence of all-grade hypocalcemia. However, renal dysfunction, which has been suggested to be a risk factor in previous reports, was not a factor. In conclusion, we revealed the risk factors for all-grade hypocalcemia in calcium/vitamin D supplementation and awareness, as demonstrated by the management system. Moreover, renal dysfunction was not a risk factor in our strict denosumab administration management system. Our results support the value of early detection of hypocalcemia incidence to guide the selection of an appropriate management strategy.

[Pharmaceutical Intervention According to Strict Management System Can Normalize Decreased Serum Calcium Level by Denosumab and Prevent Its Aggravation].

Denosumab is a fully monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), and prevents skeletal-related events by bone metastasis. Hypocalcemia is the most typical adverse effect of denosumab use. We have developed a management system for the more efficient and safer management of denosumab administration, and evaluated pharmaceutical interventions for the better control of hypocalcemia. All pharmaceutical interventions in the system from April 2016 to March 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. We have also assessed the incidence of hypocalcemia in 158 patients who were administered denosumab for six months or more in the period. A total of 282 pharmaceutical interventions (7.0% of the total administration) were conducted. The most conducted intervention was regarding hypocalcemia, which involved the suspension of the injection and/or the increase of calcium and vitamin D supplement with 65% adoption and 17% temporary treatment suspensions. Other interventions were about hypercalcemia, request of laboratory examination and ordering supplements, dental consultation, and poor renal function. A total of 199 interventions (70.6%) were adopted, with 33 administrations suspended. The frequency of hypocalcemia was 27.8% with just one patient having grade 2 hypocalcemia, suggesting that there were no severe cases. Moreover, hypocalcemia was significantly normalized following pharmaceutical intervention and/or handling by physicians (p=0.02) according to the system. Conversely, the normalization rate in hypercalcemia did not differ according to the countermeasures. In conclusion, pharmaceutical interventions according to our management system benefit safe denosumab treatment, especially in severe hypocalcemia prevention.

[Necessity of Serum Calcium Concentration Measurement for Investigating Hypocalcemia Induced by Denosumab].

Denosumab is widely used for treating bone metastases in patients with advanced cancer. However, hypocalcemia has been reported as a serious adverse effect during this treatment. Therefore, monitoring serum calcium concentration is essential. During long-term continuous administration ofdenosumab, the burden ofeach blood sampling occasion and medical economics should be clarified; however, the appropriate blood sampling frequency has not yet been confirmed. In the present study, we performed a retrospective investigation of serum calcium concentration after denosumab administration. The results indicated that serum calcium concentration tended to increase with repeated administration. A significant increase was observed at the time ofthe third and sixth administration. This suggested that it was possible to reduce the frequency ofblood sampling during long-term administration ofdenosumab with appropriate calcium supplementation.

Eficácia e segurança do denosumabe comparado aos bifosfonados orais para tratamento de osteoporose e prevenção de fraturas: revisão rápida de evidências / Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared to oral biposphonates for treating osteoporosis and fracture prevention: rapid review of evidence

Tecnologia: Denosumabe e bifosfonados. Indicação: tratamento de osteoporose para prevenção de fraturas. Pergunta: O denosumabe é mais eficaz e seguro que os bifosfonados orais para tratamento da osteoporose e prevenção de fraturas secundárias à osteoporose? Métodos: Levantamento bibliográfico realizado na PUBMED seguindo estratégia de busca predefinida. Avaliação da qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas com a ferramenta AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foram selecionadas e incluídas 3 revisões sistemáticas, com pontuação de 9 a 11 no AMSTAR. Conclusão: Denosumabe tem menor risco relativo que alendronato e risedronato de sódio para fraturas vertebrais e maior efeito sobre densidade óssea mineral femoral, com risco similar de outros tipos de fratura e eventos adversos (infecções, transtornos cardiovasculares, óbito por infecção, morte cardiovascular ou por qualquer causa). Denosumabe evita 0,00154 fraturas, previne 0,00025 institucionalizações (ou cuidados permanentes de enfermagem no domicílio) e promove um ganho de 0,0018 anos de vida a mais que o alendronato de sódio por paciente tratado. Denosumabe é um pouco mais eficaz e tão seguro quanto os bifosfonados, mas a diferença de eficácia é mínima

Technology: Denosumab and bisphosphonates. Indication: osteoporosis treatment for fracture prevention. Question: Denosumab is more effective and safer than oral bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis and preventing fractures related to osteoporosis? Methods: Bibliographic search was performed on PUBMED, following predefined search strategies. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews was carried out using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. Results: We selected and included 3 systematic reviews. Their scores ranged from 9 to 11 on AMSTAR. Conclusion: Denosumab has a lower relative risk than sodium alendronate and risedronate for vertebral fractures and greater effect on femoral mineral bone density, with a similar risk for non-vertebral fractures and adverse events (infections, cardiovascular disorders, death caused by infection, cardiovascular death or any cause mortality). Denosumab avoids 0.00154 fractures, prevents 0.00025 nursing home/ residential care admissions and get 0.0018 years of life gained per treated patient more than sodium alendronate. Denosumab is slightly more effective and as safe as bisphosphonates, but the effectiveness difference is minimal

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in four European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy.

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120 mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy. Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study ("20090482") in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included. Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1-3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69-94%, 84-96%, 79-96%, and 50-92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively. Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data. Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America.

OBJECTIVE: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives. METHODS: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters. LIMITATIONS: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. CONCLUSION: Denosumab's efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.

Cross-Sectional Study of four Serological Bone Turnover Markers for the Risk Assessment of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw.

BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits related to the use of bisphosphonates and denosumab, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a serious complication. The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of 4 biochemical markers including serum c-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type I collagen (s-CTX), serum osteocalcin (s-OC), serum parathormon (s-PTH), and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (s-BAP) as useful clinical tools to help assess the risk for MRONJ prior to invasive oral surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients diagnosed with MRONJ and 20 controls who have been on antiresorptive therapies with no occurrence of MRONJ were included in this 2-arm cross-sectional study. The s-CTX, s-OC, s-PTH, and s-BAP values were measured. Mann-Whitney U test compared the s-CTX, s-OC, s-PTH, and s-BAP values of the MRONJ group and the controls (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Lower values were observed in the MRONJ group compared with the control group for s-CTX (130.00 pg/mL versus 230.0 pg/mL; P = 0.12) and for s-OC (10.6 ng/mL versus 14.80 ng/mL; P = 0.051) both without significance and for s-BAP (0.23 µkat/L versus 0.31 µkat/L; P = 0.002) with significance. By contrast, the median s-PTH value of the MRONJ group was higher (30.65 ng/L versus 25.50 ng/L; P = 0.89), but without significance. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the 4 biochemical markers showed that only the value of s-BAP was significantly decreased in the MRONJ patients compared with the controls. Presently, because of the lack of evidence, a routine check prior to oral surgery for the risk assessment of MRONJ cannot be recommended.

Assessment of Distal Radius Bone Mineral Density in Osteoporosis Patients Receiving Denosumab, Including Those with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Those Receiving Oral Glucocorticoids.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recently, the osteoporosis treatment has attracted attention, and several drugs have been developed. Among these, bisphosphonates (BPs), parathyroid hormone (PTH) and anti-receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL) monoclonal (MAb) denosumab (DMAb) are the major osteoporosis agents. Several studies demonstrated that the effect of osteoporosis agents is evaluated by lumar or hip dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). However, private clinic commonly use the radial DXA. On the other hand, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is sometimes associated with osteoporosis but there is no established treatment approach. In addition, glucocorticoids (GCs) are often used in the treatment of RA and sometimes induce osteoporosis. The present study assessed the effect of DMAb on osteoporosis in patients divided into RA and RA + GC patients by radial DXA. PATIENTS: The therapeutic effect of denosumab was assessed in female osteoporosis patients using radial dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (radial DXA) in three groups: those with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PO group), PO with rheumatoid arthritis (RA group), and PO with RA receiving glucocorticoids (RA + GC group). METHODS: In total, 427 PO patients 60 years of age or older with a young adult mean value of <70 %, as determined by radial DXA, were treated with denosumab. The denosumab treatment group comprised a PO group (n = 205), RA group (n = 156), and RA + GC group (n = 66). The control group comprised a PO group (n = 44) and RA group (n = 33) who received oral bisphosphonate. Bone mineral density (BMD) was determined by using radial DXA. The bone turnover marker type I collagen cross-linked N-telopeptide (NTx) was also measured. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Radial DXA revealed a significant increase in BMD in the denosumab treatment group but not in the bisphosphonate treatment group. The onset of an increase in BMD with denosumab was slower in the RA group than in those without RA. The effect of denosumab in preventing increased NTx levels was smaller in the RA and RA + GC groups than in the PO group. Adherence to denosumab treatment was statistically significantly greater than for bisphosphonate treatment.

Retrospective Audit: Does Prior Assessment by Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Reduce the Risk of Osteonecrosis of The Jaw in Patients Receiving Bone-Targeted Therapies for Metastatic Cancers to the Skeleton?--Part II.

Men who receive bone-targeted therapy for metastatic prostate cancer are at increased risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). Development of ONJ has been associated with the administration of bone-targeted therapies in association with other risk factors. ONJ can be distressing for a patient because it can cause pain, risk of jaw fracture, body image disturbance, difficultly eating, and difficulty maintaining good oral hygiene. The aim of this article is to report results of an audit of prior assessment by oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) before initiation of bone-targeted therapies and whether it may reduce the risk of ONJ in patients receiving bone-targeted therapies for advanced cancers.

[Bisphosphonate and denosumab-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Epidemiology, diagnosis and management]. / Ostéonécrose des maxillaires liée aux bisphosphonates et denosumab : épidémiologie, diagnostic et traitement.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw have been widely described. Denosumab has recently been associated to ONJ. Guidance to clinicians is based on criteria established by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). Treatment should be multidisciplinary. Two options are available and have to be discussed on the basis of associated therapeutic, patient's general state of health and possibility of therapeutic window during cancer treatment: conservative (medication and conservative surgery like superficial debridement) and extensive surgery. Therefore, we report an update about management strategies of osteonecrosis of the jaw and two cases of patients with a stage 2 osteonecrosis of the jaw only treated with mouth rinses, antibiotics and debridement and complete healing.

Comparison of the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of zoledronic acid and denosumab in the treatment of osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: Injectable osteoporosis drugs are increasing in popularity due to their efficacy and convenient administration. In this retrospective comparison of the two available treatments, denosumab (Prolia®) and zoledronic acid (ZA, Reclast®), we aimed to determine and compare the efficacy and tolerability of denosumab and ZA. METHODS: The charts of patients who received denosumab and ZA at Loyola Hospital were reviewed, and adverse events were noted. Of primary interest were myalgias, flu-like symptoms, back pain, and fractures. A questionnaire regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and treatment cost supplemented this chart review in a subset of study participants. Bone mineral density (BMD) changes, bone turnover markers, and questionnaire results were also compared. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 107 patients (51 denosumab, 56 ZA). The denosumab group had a greater mean increase in spine BMD at 1 year (0.060 g/cm2) than the ZA group (0.021 g/cm2; P = .04). The change in femur and spine BMD at 1 year were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The ZA group had a significantly greater incidence of mild flu-like symptoms (29% ZA group vs. 0% denosumab group; P = .04). CONCLUSION: The denosumab group had a higher mean increase in spine BMD, and the ZA group had a higher incidence of flu-like symptoms, but the study groups were statistically similar in terms of patient satisfaction. As denosumab is still a relatively new therapy, there were a limited number of patients with posttreatment data available for comparison. As more posttherapy data become available, it can be further investigated.