Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws: a therapeutic dilemma

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: an updated network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus non-aminobisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ) and hypocalcemia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase (September 2011 to July 2017) and the CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7) to identify all randomized controlled trial (RCT) in MM up to July 2017 using a combination of text and MeSH terms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo/no treatment/bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related ONJ in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) using a random-effects model. We used meta-regression to explore statistical heterogeneity. Network meta-analysis using Bayesian approach was conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included four new studies (601 participants), resulting in a total of 24 included studies.Twenty RCTs compared bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and four RCTs involved another bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 24 included RCTs enrolled 7293 participants. Pooled results showed that there was moderate-quality evidence of a reduction in mortality with on OS from 41% to 31%, but the confidence interval is consistent with a larger reduction and small increase in mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 14 studies; 2706 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I² = 65%) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a meta-regression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found an OS benefit with zoledronate but limited evidence of an effect on PFS. This provided a further rationale for performing a network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head-to-head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed evidence of a benefit for OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87) and placebo (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.91). However, there was no evidence for a difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates.The effect of bisphosphonates on disease progression (PFS) is uncertain. Based on the HR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; seven studies; 908 participants), 47% participants would experience disease progression without treatment compared with between 30% and 47% with bisphosphonates (low-quality evidence). There is probably a similar risk of non-vertebral fractures between treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; six studies; 1389 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated evidence for a difference favoring bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; seven studies; 1116 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and skeletal-related events (SREs) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 10 studies; 2141 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence for less pain with bisphosphonates was of very low quality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; eight studies; 1281 participants).Bisphosphonates may increase ONJ compared with placebo but the confidence interval is very wide (RR 4.61, 95% CI 0.99 to 21.35; P = 0.05; six studies; 1284 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from the network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for a difference in the incidence of ONJ (eight RCTs, 3746 participants) between bisphosphonates. Data from nine observational studies (1400 participants) reported an incidence of 5% to 51% with combination of pamidronate and zoledronate, 3% to 11% with zoledronate alone, and 0% to 18% with pamidronate alone.The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59; seven studies; 1829 participants; low-quality evidence).The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74; three studies; 1090 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of bisphosphonates in participants with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Bisphosphonates were associated with an increased risk of developing ONJ. For every 1000 participants treated with bisphosphonates, about one patient will suffer from the ONJ. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or non-aminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate was found to be better than placebo and first-generation bisposphonate (etidronate) in pooled direct and indirect analyses for improving OS and other outcomes such as vertebral fractures. Direct head-to-head trials of the second-generation bisphosphonates are needed to settle the issue if zoledronate is truly the most efficacious bisphosphonate currently used in practice.

Nasolabial Flap Improves Healing in Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw

PURPOSE

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is an adverse side effect of antiresorptive and antiangiogenic therapeutic agents that is difficult to treat owing to its high relapse rate. The aim of the present study was to determine whether patients with MRONJ treated using decortication and a nasolabial flap compared with those who underwent decortication with mucoperiosteal flaps have better outcomes regarding stable wound closure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups of patients with MRONJ and intraoral exposed bone were evaluated in a cohort clinical study retrospectively. The primary predictor variable was the treatment group. The experimental group used the nasolabial flap for wound closure, and the control group used the mucoperiosteal flap for closure. The outcome variable was successful wound closure defined as a symptomless and closed wound after at least 12 months. Other study variables included factors such as perioperative drug holiday, duration of postoperative oral antibiotic administration, and postoperative use of nasogastric feeding tubes. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to determine the factors independently associated with the dependent variable. The Mann-Whitney U test and χ² test were used for analyses regarding group-related data.

RESULTS

Both groups showed similar demographics. The 16 study patients receiving nasolabial flaps had a mean age of 69.9 years, and the 16 control patients receiving mucoperiosteal flaps had a mean age of 71.8 years. Both groups included 10 women and 6 men. Of the 16 patients in each group, 15 had received a bisphosphonate and 1, monoclonal antibody therapy. All evaluated patients underwent combined treatment, including decortication and intravenous antibiotics. Of the 16 patients receiving nasolabial flaps, symptomless intact wound closure was achieved in 68.8%. Of the 16 patients with mucoperiosteal closure, 18.7% achieved wound closure, with 81.2% developing a relapse of MRONJ, a statistically significant difference (P < .001). No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the demographic variables. The mean interval to relapse for the experimental and control groups was 13.6 ± 7.8 and 8.2 ± 7.9 months, respectively (P = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

MRONJ is a complication of antiosteoclastic treatment of mostly oncologic, palliative patients, which requires a very methodical approach to surgical treatment. A variety of different methods have been reported. The use of nasolabial flaps can be considered as a highly reliable option for coverage the bone wound with less morbidity than microvascular free flaps and better long-term results compared with mucoperiosteal flaps.

Case-Based Review of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ) and Application of the International Recommendations for Management From the International Task Force on ONJ

Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) has been associated with antiresorptive therapy in both oncology and osteoporosis patients. This debilitating condition is very rare and advances in diagnosis and management may now effectively reduce the risk of its development and offer valuable treatment options for affected patients. This paper provides a case-based review of ONJ and application of the International Task Force on ONJ (referred to as the "Task Force") recommendations for the diagnosis and management of ONJ. The Task Force was supported by 14 international societies and achieved consensus from representatives of these multidisciplinary societies on key issues pertaining to the diagnosis and management of ONJ. The frequency of ONJ in oncology patients receiving oncology doses of bisphosphonate (BP) or denosumab is estimated at 1%-15%, and the frequency in the osteoporosis patient population receiving much lower doses of BP or denosumab is estimated at 0.001%-0.01%. Although the diagnosis of ONJ is primarily clinical, imaging may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis and staging. In those with multiple risk factors for ONJ for whom major invasive oral surgery is being planned, interruption of BP or denosumab therapy (in cancer patients) is advised, if possible, before surgery, until the surgical site heals. Major oral surgery in this context could include multiple extractions if surgical extractions are required, not simple forceps extractions. ONJ development may be reduced by optimizing oral hygiene and postoperatively using topical and systemic antibiotics as appropriate. Periodontal disease should be managed before starting oncology doses of BP or denosumab. Local debridement may be successful in disease unresponsive to conservative therapy. Successful surgical intervention has been reported in those with stage 3 disease; less severe disease is best managed conservatively. Teriparatide may be helpful in healing ONJ lesions and may be considered in osteoporosis patients at a high fracture risk in the absence of contraindications. Resumption of BP or denosumab therapy following healing of ONJ lesions is recommended, and there have not been reports of subsequent local recurrence.

Surgical management of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: literature review

PURPOSE

Surgical management of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) has been performed in an attempt to increase healing rates of the affected cases. This literature review aimed to identify clinical studies of surgical management of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) in order to assess their surgical treatment modalities, outcome and the follow-up.

METHODS

A search in the PubMed (Medline) database using specific terms and/or phrases as "bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis" or "jaw osteonecrosis", and "surgical treatment" or "surgical management" was conducted in order to identify clinical trials and cases of surgical treatment of BRONJ. The review search covered the time period from 2004 to 2014. All studies identified in the search were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Relevant information was recorded according to the following items: author, year, number of patients, BRONJ clinical stage, surgical treatment modality, clinical success, and follow-up.

RESULTS

The initial database search yielded 345 titles. After filtering, 67 abstracts were selected culminating in 67 full text articles. A variety of surgical approach was found in this review: debridement, sequestrectomy bone resection, and bone reconstruction. Adjunctive therapies included hyperbaric oxygen, laser therapy, growth factors, and ozone.

CONCLUSION

Although there are many indexed studies about BRONJ, well-documented reports concerning surgical therapeutically techniques are scarce, resulting from a lack of well-established protocols. Considerable differences were found regarding sample size, surgical treatment modalities and outcomes. Clinical studies with larger number of patients and longer follow-up are required to provide best information for each surgical treatment modality and its outcomes.

Surgical Therapy for Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: Six-Year Experience of a Single Institution

PURPOSE

Bisphosphonates are drugs commonly used to treat osteoporosis, hypercalcemia of malignancy, and bone metastases. In some cases, its administration has been associated with osteonecrosis of the jaws. The management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) has not been completely elucidated, and its treatment can vary from no or limited surgery to more extensive surgery. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of surgical therapy for patients presenting with MRONJ.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted that evaluated all MRONJ cases resulting from bisphosphonate use and treated by surgery from 2006 to 2012. All patients underwent surgery under general anesthesia.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients with 46 MRONJ sites were evaluated. Most of the patients were women, with an age range of 39 to 83 years (mean 65.6 ± 10.6). Complete healing of the MRONJ region was observed in 40 of the 46 sites (87%), with partial improvement (symptom control and reduction of the exposed bone area) observed in 3 sites (6.5%), for a 93.5% clinical benefit rate. Of the remaining regions, 2 showed no significant changes, and 1 presented with a worse aspect compared with the patient's preoperative condition. Such cases were located in the posterior mandible region. The number of applications and type of bisphosphonate did not influence the treatment response.

CONCLUSION

The surgical approach to treating MRONJ showed a high rate of clinical control. Therefore, surgery should be considered as a therapy for some cases of this condition.

Platelet rich plasma in the treatment of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: personal experience and review of the literature

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are a class of synthetic drugs commonly used to treat bone metastasis and various bone diseases that cause osseous fragility (such as osteoporosis). Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) is a common complication in patients who received BPs, especially intravenously. Recently, osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) caused by chemotherapeutic not belonging to BPs drug class has been reported. For this reason, it has been proposed recently to rename BRONJ in antiresorptive agents related osteonecrosis of the jaw (ARONJ), to include a wider spectrum of drugs that may cause osteonecrosis of the jaw. The most debated topic about ARONJ/BRONJ is therapy. The most adequate procedure is far from being standardized and prevention seems to play a pivotal role. In our study, we considered 72 patients with BRONJ with nonsurgical therapy, surgical therapy, and surgical therapy with platelet rich plasma (PRP) gel to evaluate its therapeutic effect in promoting ONJ wounds healing. Good results showed by PRP in improving wound healing give away to case-control randomized studies that could give definitive evidence of its effectiveness.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus nonamino bisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw and hypocalcemia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE (December 2009 to October 2011) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (all years, latest Issue September 2011) to identify all randomized trials in MM up to October 2011 using a combination of text and MeSH terms. We also handsearched relevant meeting proceedings (December 2009 to October 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the role of bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) under a random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was explored using metaregression.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 2 studies (2464 patients) that were not part of our last Cochrane review published in 2010. In this review we included 16 RCTs comparing bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and 4 RCTs with a different bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 20 included RCTs enrolled 6692 patients. Overall methodological quality of reporting was moderate. Thirty per cent (6/20) of trials reported the method of generating the randomization sequence. Forty per cent (8/20) of trials had adequate allocation concealment. Withdrawals and dropouts were described in 60% (12/20) of trials. Pooled results showed no direct effect of bisphosphonates on OS compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; P = 0.64). However, there was a statistically significant heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I(2) = 55%, P = 0.01) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a metaregression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found indicating an OS benefit with zoledronate (P = 0.058). This provided a further rationale for performing network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head to head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed superior OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.86) and placebo (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.98). However, there was no difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate a beneficial effect of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment in improving PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.19; P = 0.18) There was no heterogeneity among trials reporting PFS estimates (I(2) = 35%, P = 0.20).Pooled analysis demonstrated a beneficial effect of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; I(2) = 7%), skeletal-related events (SRE) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; I(2) = 2%) and amelioration of pain (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; I(2) = 63%). The network meta-analysis did not show any difference in the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (5 RCTs, 3198 patients) between bisphosphonates. Rates of osteonecrosis of the jaw in observational studies (9 studies, 1400 patients) ranged from 0% to 51%. The pooled results (6 RCTs, 1689 patients) showed no statistically significant increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.60; P = 0.11).The pooled results (3 RCTs, 1002 patients) showed no statistically significant increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74). The network meta-analysis did not show any differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of bisphosphonates in patients with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Assuming a baseline risk of 20% to 50% for vertebral fracture without treatment, between 8 and 20 MM patients should be treated to prevent vertebral fracture(s) in one patient. Assuming a baseline risk of 31% to 76% for pain amelioration without treatment, between 5 and 13 MM patients should be treated to reduce pain in one patient. With a baseline risk of 35% to 86% for SREs without treatment, between 6 and 15 MM patients should be treated to prevent SRE(s) in one patient. Overall, there were no significant adverse effects associated with the administration of bisphosphonates identified in the included RCTs. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or nonaminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate appears to be superior to placebo and etidronate in improving OS.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws--a review

The aim was to evaluate the knowledge about bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ). A bibliographic search in Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Register of controlled clinical trials was performed between 2003 and 2010 by using the terms bisphosphonate and osteonecrosis of the jaw. The amount of publications per year, the type of journal for publication, and the evidence level of the trial were evaluated. Next to this the incidences and the success of treatment strategies for BRONJ were identified. A total of 671 publications were reviewed. Since 2006 more than 100 publications on BRONJ per year (with an upward trend) have been published, mostly in dental journals. The evidence level could be determined for 176 publications and only one grade Ia study was found. The studies showed a wide variety in design, most of them being retrospective. The incidence of BRONJ is strongly dependent on oral or intravenous application and varies between 0.0% and 27.5%. There is no scientific data to sufficiently support any specific treatment protocol for the management of BRONJ. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the incidence and treatment strategies at a higher level of evidence. Therefore uniform study protocols would be favourable.

Bisphosphonate osteonecrosis of the jaw: a literature review of UK policies versus international policies on the management of bisphosphonate osteonecrosis of the jaw

Despite the increasing number of cases of osteonecrosis of the jaws related to bisphosphonate therapy described in the literature there is a paucity of evidence-based treatment for the condition. In this second article on bisphosphonate-related jaw complications we discuss the different treatment strategies for the condition, review current literature, particularly in relation to the recommendations that have been published, and discuss the evidence behind them.

Low-level laser therapy supported teeth extractions of two patients receiving IV zolendronate

BRONJ (bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of jaws) is a frequently encountered disease, particularly in the maxillofacial region, and a consequence of bisphosphonate use. Treatment of BRONJ remains controversial, as efficiency of medical and surgical approaches as well as a combination of these methods with supportive treatments have not been clearly demonstrated in the literature. In recent years, laser usage alone or in combination with the main therapy methods, has become popular for the treatment of bisphosphonate-related osteo-necrosis of jaws. In this article, we present the successful management of two dental patients who had high potentials for BRONJ development as a result of chemo and radiotherapy combined with IV zoledronic acid application. Multiple consecutive teeth extractions followed with primary wound closure and LLLT applications were performed under high doses of antibiotics prophylaxis. Satisfactory wound healing in both the surrounding soft and hard tissues was achieved. LLLT application combined with atraumatic surgical interventions under antibiotics prophylaxis is a preferable approach in patients with a risk of BRONJ development. Adjunctive effect of LLLT in addition to careful infection control on preventing BRONJ was reported and concluded.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are currently used as supportive therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). However, the exact clinical role of bisphosphonates in MM remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This update of the first review published in 2002. We have also analyzed observational studies targeting osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the literature using the methods outlined in the previous review. We also searched observational studies or case reports examining ONJ.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs with a parallel design related to the use of bisphosphonate in myeloma. We also selected observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonates related to ONJ.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We have reported pooled data using either hazard ratio or risk ratio and, when appropriate, as absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to prevent or to cause a pathological event. We have assessed statistical heterogeneity and reported I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 17 trials with 1520 patients analyzed in bisphosphonates groups, and 1490 analyzed in control groups. In comparison with placebo/no treatment, the pooled analysis demonstrated the beneficial effect of bisphosphonates on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR= 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.89), P = 0.001), total skeletal related events (SREs) (RR= 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.89), P < 0.0001) and on amelioration of pain (RR = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.95), P = 0.01). We found no significant effect of bisphosphonates on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), hypercalcemia or on the reduction of non-vertebral fractures. The indirect meta-analyses did not find the superiority of any particular type of bisphosphonate over others. Only two RCTs reported ONJ. The identified observational studies suggested that ONJ may be a common event (range: 0% to 51%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adding bisphosphonates to the treatment of MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain but not mortality. Assuming the baseline risk of 20% to 50% for vertebral fracture without treatment, we estimate that between eight and 20 MM patients should be treated to prevent vertebral fracture(s) in one patient. Assuming the baseline risk of 31% to 76% for pain amelioration without treatment, we estimate that between five to 13 MM patients should be treated to reduce pain in one patient. Also, with the baseline risk of 35% to 86% for SREs without treatment, we estimate that between six and 15 MM patients should be treated to prevent SRE(s) in one patient. No bisphoshphonate appears to be superior to others.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw induced by oral administration of bisphosphonates in Asian population: five cases

SUMMARY

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) can occur irrespective of race. Old age and long-term use of corticosteroid may be a more reliable risk factor than racial characteristics.

INTRODUCTION

BRONJ is an increasingly common problem. Most BRONJ occurs following an intravenous administration of bisphosphonate treatment for malignant bone disease and metastatic cancer. As the incidence of BRONJ caused by oral administration of bisphosphonate is quite low, it is believed that this medication is relatively safe and effective in preventing complications of osteoporosis, such as hip or spine fractures. The many known risk factors for BRONJ can be classified as drug-related, local, demographic, and systemic. One demographic and systemic risk factor is race. Most of the case reports of BRONJ present elderly, white women.

METHODS

In this report, we describe five cases of BRONJ caused by oral administration of bisphosphonate in Asian population.

RESULTS

All the patients were female and over 65 years old. Three patients had been prescribed with corticosteroids for rheumatoid arthritis.

CONCLUSION

Irrespective of race, elderly women undergoing steroid therapy have an increased incidence of BRONJ even with oral administration of bisphosphonate.

Bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis: potential treatment or serious complication?

They are commonly used to treat osteoporosis and other diseases that involve osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, including Paget's disease and multiple myeloma. Their use in treating osteonecrosis of the femoral head has been studied and theoretically holds promise. There are complications associated with these medications, however, including the development of osteonecrosis in the jaw.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma treated with zoledronic acid

Intravenous bisphosphonates-the potent inhibitors of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption are among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the management of multiple myeloma (MM). Zoledronic acid (ZA) is a new generation potent intravenous bisphosphonate that has been approved for the treatment and prevention of bone lesions, and/or hypercalcemia associated with MM. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is an emerging serious side effect of the new generation bisphosphonates with a growing number of reports related to this pathological entity. ONJ usually appears following oral surgical and dental procedures but sometimes occur spontaneously. These cases are mostly seen and treated by dentists and oral surgeons. The aim of this study was to discuss the frequency, characteristics, risk factors, management and histopathological features of ZA induced ONJ based on the literature and illustrated with five own cases. Thirty-two patients with MM who received ZA for a median period of 26.5 +/- 18.7 months (min: 5 months, max: 76 months) were evaluated. ONJ was detected in five patients and mean drug duration time was 34 months. The frequency was 15% and the patients were usually symptomatic. There was no significant difference in terms of the duration of ZA in patients with and without ONJ. Management of these established cases were performed with medical treatment, minor debridement, sequestrectomy, and combining bone resection with autologous platelet rich plasma. Our data indicate that ZA therapy has a major role in the development of ONJ a fact that should be considered by physicians treating MM patients.

Bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaws: review, clinical implications and case report

The introduction of bisphosphonates has increased in the last decade following their indication for metastatic bone diseases, osteoporosis, hypercalcaemia of malignancy and Paget's disease. Although bisphosphonates have been used clinically for more than three decades there have been no documented long-term complications of their effects on the jaws until recently, where there is now growing evidence of the influence of bisphosphonates on osteonecrosis of the jaws. The aim of this paper is to report a case of this newly described complication, to review this phenomenon, including the clinical implications and to reiterate current clinical guidelines for management of patients in which bisphosphonate therapy is indicated. To the best of our knowledge this is the first reported case of bisphosphonate-induced necrosis of the jaw in South Africa.