4.3 Review

Salmon Calcitonin Use and Associated Cancer Risk

期刊

ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 47, 期 12, 页码 1675-1684

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1060028013509233

关键词

calcitonin; cancer; drug safety; fracture; osteoporosis; pharmacovigilance; salmon calcitonin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the strength of evidence supporting a possible association between salmon calcitonin (SCT) use and cancer incidence. Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, and EMBASE (January 1973 to September 20 I 3) were performed using the key search terms salmon calcitonin, humans, nasal calcitonin, and (for EM BASE only) randomized controlled trial. We also performed a manual review of data reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee in 2013. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All articles identified from the data sources were evaluated and all information deemed relevant was included for this review. Data Synthesis: Intranasal and injectable SCT are FDA-approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. After a safety signal suggested a possible link between SCT use and prostate cancer, the European Medicines Agency and FDA regulatory agencies conducted analyses of SCT randomized controlled trial data to assess cancer-related adverse events and to readdress the approval status of SCT. Eighteen studies were found that compared nasal or oral SCT and placebo. In 15 of the 18 studies, the percentage of malignancy was greater in the SCT arm. The studies varied in quality, outcomes, and length. Most of the studies had poor-quality methods to assess new cancer cases. Conclusions: Current evidence may suggest an association between SCT use and cancer incidence based on studies with poor-quality cancer assessment methods. However, considering the lack of demonstrated efficacy of SCT to reduce fractures, clinicians should consider discontinuing its use for osteoporosis treatment regardless of the FDA's final approval decision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据