4.4 Review

Osteoporosis treatments and adverse events

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 363-368

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e32832ca433

关键词

atrial fibrillation; atypical fractures; bisphosphonates; bone pain; osteonecrosis of the jaw; osteoporosis; osteosarcoma; teriparatide

资金

  1. NIH
  2. AHRO
  3. Arthritis Foundation and research
  4. Amgen and Abbott

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Osteoporosis treatments will be used with increasing frequency as the population ages; however, relatively little is known about their long-term safety. Recent case reports cite a range of potential adverse events. We review data regarding atrial fibrillation, bone pain, osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), atypical fractures, and osteosarcoma. Recent findings Incidence of bisphosphonate-related ONJ in osteoporosis patients is unclear, but several studies suggest rates may be higher than one in 100 000. Severe bone pain and esophageal cancer have been described among bisphosphonate users, but their relationship has not been carefully studied. The relationship between atrial fibrillation and bisphosphonates is unclear based on existing data, but the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) analyses suggest no clear association. Although several case series discuss atypical fractures associated with bisphosphonate use, one epidemiologic study found no association. Finally, one case of osteosarcoma has been reported in a woman using teriparatide. One case in over 200 000 users suggests no increase in risk beyond background risk, but further evaluation is necessary. Summary Although case reports of adverse events with osteoporosis medications suggest potential links, epidemiological analyses have largely failed to illuminate a strong, clear link between osteoporosis therapies and many adverse events, with ONJ an exception. Until further data are available, providers should be aware of these potential side effects, and inform their patients accordingly.

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

4.4
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