4.2 Article

Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw among users of bisphosphonates with selected cancers or osteoporosis

Journal

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages 810-817

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3292

Keywords

bisphosphonates; osteonecrosis; cancer; osteoporosis; pharmacoepidemiology

Funding

  1. Amgen, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To quantify the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) by bisphosphonate exposure among two cohorts of patients. Methods In a retrospective cohort study, we identified cohort members via health insurance claim diagnosis codes and identified potential cases of ONJ that were confirmed with medical record review. One cohort included patients aged =40?years with breast or prostate cancer or multiple myeloma; the other cohort included men aged =60?years and women =50?years with osteoporosis. For each cohort, we calculated sex- and age-standardized incidence of ONJ by exposure to oral bisphosphonates and intravenous bisphosphonates. Results In the cancer cohort (n?=?46?542), sex- and age-standardized incidence of ONJ (n?=?26 probable or possible cases) adjusted for abstraction proportion was 0.29 per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.070.52) among those unexposed to bisphosphonates and 5.3 (95%CI, 1.98.7) after intravenous bisphosphonate use. Controlling for covariates, the rate ratio for intravenous use versus no use was 8.8 (95%CI, 2.038). Patients with multiple myeloma had a rate 4.5 times that of patients with breast cancer. In the osteoporosis cohort (n?=?31?244), sex- and age-standardized ONJ (n?=?11 probable or possible cases) incidence was 0.26 per 1000 person-years (95%CI, 0.060.47) among those unexposed to bisphosphonate and 0.15 (95%CI, 0.000.36) after oral bisphosphonate use. Conclusion Among patients with selected cancers, incidence of ONJ was higher among those with multiple myeloma and users of intravenous bisphosphonates. Copyright (c) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available