Osteonecrosis of the jaws in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with zoledronic acid and thalidomide-dexamethasone

Myeloma Bone Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplastic clonal proliferation of plasma cells in the bone marrow microenvironment, characterized by overproduction of heavy- and light-chain monoclonal proteins (M-protein). These proteins are mainly found in the serum and/or urine. Reduction in normal gammaglobulins (immunoparesis) leads to an increased risk of infection. The primary site of origin is the bone marrow for nearly all patients affected by MM with disseminated marrow involvement in most cases. MM is known to involve bones and result in myeloma bone disease. Osteolytic lesions are seen in 80% of patients with MM which are complicated frequently by skeletal-related events (SRE) such as hypercalcemia, bone pain, pathological fractures, vertebral collapse, and spinal cord compression. These deteriorate the patient's quality of life and affect the overall survival of the patient. The underlying pathogenesis of myeloma bone disease involves uncoupling of the bone remodeling processes. Interaction of myeloma cells with the bone marrow microenvironment promotes the release of many biochemical markers including osteoclast activating factors and osteoblast inhibitory factors. Elevated levels of osteoclast activating factors such as RANK/RANKL/OPG, MIP-1-α., TNF-α, IL-3, IL-6, and IL-11 increase bone resorption by osteoclast stimulation, differentiation, and maturation, whereas osteoblast inhibitory factors such as the Wnt/DKK1 pathway, secreted frizzle related protein-2, and runt-related transcription factor 2 inhibit osteoblast differentiation and formation leading to decreased bone formation. These biochemical factors also help in development and utilization of appropriate anti-myeloma treatments in myeloma patients. This review article summarizes the pathophysiology and the recent developments of abnormal bone remodeling in MM, while reviewing various approved and potential treatments for myeloma bone disease.

Effect of intravenous administration of zoledronic acid on jaw bone density in cases having skeletal metastasis: A prospective clinical study

AIM

The objective is to evaluate the effect of intravenous (i.v.) administration of bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid) therapy on the jaw bone density and incidence of any other bony patholog.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Observational - prospective study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 57 patients having a history of bony metastasis (excluding the jaw bone) were enrolled following the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Each patient received six doses of 4 mg i.v. bisphosphonate once a month. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) of jawbones for each patient was performed before the start of therapy (baseline) and subsequently at 6 and 12 months. Bone density was assessed at 24 predetermined sites (8 sites in maxilla and 16 sites in mandible) and any pathological change in either of the jaw bones was noted.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Shapiro-Wilk test ,Pearson's Chisquare test and repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The result showed no statistically significant increase in mean bone density over a period of 1 year in maxilla and mandible. However, a significant increase in bone density was observed from 6 months to 1 year in mandibular anterior cancellous bone. The detailed observation of each MDCT scan showed no pathological change in either of the jaw bones during the study period.

CONCLUSION

The administration (i.v.) of six doses of 4 mg bisphosphonate did not lead to a significant change in bone density over a period of 1 year.

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.

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.

Bisphosphonate-Induced Osteonecrosis of the Jaw

Objective:

To review the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with bisphosphonates.

Data Sources:

A MEDLINE search (1966–January 2007) and a search of international Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–January 2007) were conducted to identify relevant literature. Additional references were reviewed from selected articles.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Articles related to bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw were reviewed and summarized. Inclusion criteria required that articles be either case studies or case series that were reporting actual cases linking osteonecrosis of the jaw with bisphosphonate use. Articles that addressed sites of osteonecrosis not involving the jaw, teaching cases (fictitious patients), and a retrospective claims analysis paper were excluded from consideration.

Data Synthesis:

Bisphosphonates have recently been linked to osteonecrosis of the jaw, with the greatest incidence seen with the intravenous preparations zoledronic acid and pamidronate. Osteonecrosis refers to death of a part of the bone, resulting in decreased bone density. Although the majority of occurrences have been associated with the intravenous bisphosphonates, oral bisphosphonates have also been implicated. Other risk factors noted from reported cases include dental extraction or trauma to the jaw exposing part of the bone. It is difficult to determine an exact incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw in the general population of patients prescribed bisphosphonates; however, the incidence in cancer patients is approximately 6–7%.

Conclusions:

Although discontinuation of intravenous bisphosphonates in cancer patients has been recommended, stopping oral bisphosphonates prior to dental work cannot be universally endorsed at this time, since it is unknown whether this is effective in reducing the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Treatment of this condition is not well established; therefore, efforts should be directed toward prevention. Pharmacists may further counsel patients to practice good oral hygiene and regularly follow up with their dentist during therapy. Current evidence suggests limited surgical debridement with systemic and local antibiotics as treatments.

Osteonecrosis of the Jaws (ONJ) after Bisphosphonate Treatment in Patients with Multiple Myeloma: Decreasing ONJ Incidence after Adoption of Preventive Measures

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are administered to Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients with bone lytic lesion. Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ) is a complication reported since 2003 in patients treated with intravenous (IV) BPs such as zoledronic acid and pamidronate, with 6%–26.3% frequency in early literature series, before some preventive measures were recommended. We evaluated the occurrence of ONJ with and without dental preventive measures in MM patients treated with BPs in our centre between 1996 and 2015. Since 2005, MM patients (already under treatment or before treatment) underwent a baseline mouth assessment (dental visit, Rx orthopantomography, and eventual tooth avulsion or dental care if necessary) and were followed by a multidisciplinary team. We reviewed the charts of 119 MM patients receiving IV BPs, classified into 3 groups: (a) “historic group” (21 patients who had started BP treatment in years before the awareness of ONJ); (b) “screening group” (20 patients starting BPs without baseline evaluation); and (c) “prevention group” (78 patients starting therapy only after baseline preventive assessment and eventual dental care measures). ONJ was observed in 3/21 patients (14.2%) from group a, in 2/20 patients (10%) from group b, and in no patients from group c (0%). Notably, the median number of IV BP administrations decreased after 2005. Our data confirmed a meaningful reduction of ONJ risk in MM patients treated with BPs if preventive measures are applied. Both implementation of prevention measures and reduction of cumulative doses of IV BPs could have contributed to a decreased incidence of ONJ.

Prevalence of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in Patients with Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, and Multiple Myeloma

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is a known side-effect of antiresorptive therapy in patients with malignant diseases. Nevertheless, the exact pathogenesis is still unknown and published prevalences show a significant range. The aim of the presented paper was to assess the prevalence of osteonecrosis (ONJ) in breast cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma patients receiving parenteral antiresorptive therapy. For this reason a PubMed search was performed and 69 matching articles comprising 29,437 patients were included in the analysis. Nine-hundred fifty-one cases of jaw necrosis were described. The overall ONJ-prevalence was 2.09% in the breast cancer group, 3.8% in the prostate cancer group, and 5.16% for multiple myeloma patients.

The Role of Antiangiogenic Therapy in the Development of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw

There is an increasing use of established and newer medications that have antiangiogenic properties. Inhibition of angiogenesis likely has either a primary or secondary role in the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). These medications are being used in the treatment of various cancers and in the treatment of several non-oncologic conditions. Antiangiogenic medications when used in combination with antiresorptive medications, such as nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates or denosumab, seem to increase the likelihood of osteonecrosis of the jaw. This review highlights the role of inhibitors of angiogenesis and their role in the development of osteonecrosis of the jaws.

Diagnosis and management of osteonecrosis of the jaw: a systematic review and international consensus

This work provides a systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to April 2014 pertaining to the incidence, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and offers recommendations for its management based on multidisciplinary international consensus. ONJ is associated with oncology-dose parenteral antiresorptive therapy of bisphosphonates (BP) and denosumab (Dmab). The incidence of ONJ is greatest in the oncology patient population (1% to 15%), where high doses of these medications are used at frequent intervals. In the osteoporosis patient population, the incidence of ONJ is estimated at 0.001% to 0.01%, marginally higher than the incidence in the general population (<0.001%). New insights into the pathophysiology of ONJ include antiresorptive effects of BPs and Dmab, effects of BPs on gamma delta T-cells and on monocyte and macrophage function, as well as the role of local bacterial infection, inflammation, and necrosis. Advances in imaging include the use of cone beam computerized tomography assessing cortical and cancellous architecture with lower radiation exposure, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scanning, and positron emission tomography, although plain films often suffice. Other risk factors for ONJ include glucocorticoid use, maxillary or mandibular bone surgery, poor oral hygiene, chronic inflammation, diabetes mellitus, ill-fitting dentures, as well as other drugs, including antiangiogenic agents. Prevention strategies for ONJ include elimination or stabilization of oral disease prior to initiation of antiresorptive agents, as well as maintenance of good oral hygiene. In those patients at high risk for the development of ONJ, including cancer patients receiving high-dose BP or Dmab therapy, consideration should be given to withholding antiresorptive therapy following extensive oral surgery until the surgical site heals with mature mucosal coverage. Management of ONJ is based on the stage of the disease, size of the lesions, and the presence of contributing drug therapy and comorbidity. Conservative therapy includes topical antibiotic oral rinses and systemic antibiotic therapy. Localized surgical debridement is indicated in advanced nonresponsive disease and has been successful. Early data have suggested enhanced osseous wound healing with teriparatide in those without contraindications for its use. Experimental therapy includes bone marrow stem cell intralesional transplantation, low-level laser therapy, local platelet-derived growth factor application, hyperbaric oxygen, and tissue grafting.

The "CROMa" Project: A Care Pathway for Clinical Management of Patients with Bisphosphonate Exposure

Aim. To describe 7 years of activity of “CROMa” (Coordination of Research on Osteonecrosis of the Jaws) project of “Sapienza” University of Rome. Materials and Methods. A preventive and therapeutic care pathway was created for patients with bisphosphonates (BPs) exposure. Demographic, social, behavioural, pharmacological, and clinical variables were registered in a dedicated database. Results. In the project, 502 patients, 403 females and 99 males, were observed. Bone pathologies were 79% osteometabolic diseases (OMD) and 21% metastatic cancer (CA). Females were 90% in OMD group and 41% in CA. BP administration was 54% oral, 31% IV, and 11% IM; 89% of BPs were amino-BP and 11% non-amino-BP. Consistently with bone pathology (OMD/CA), alendronate appears to be prevalent for OMD (40% relative), while zoledronate was indicated in 92% of CA patients. Out of 502 cases collected, 28 BRONJ were detected: 17 of them were related to IV BP treatment. Preventive oral assessment was required for 50% of CA patients and by 4% of OMD patients. Conclusions. The proposed care pathway protocols for BP exposed patients appeared to be useful to meet treatment and preventive needs, in both oncological and osteometabolic diseases patients. Patients' and physicians' prevention awareness can be the starting point of a multilevel prevention system.

Zoledronic acid in the management of bone disease as a consequence of multiple myeloma: a review

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological cancer associated with organ damage, essentially bone damage. MM continues to be considered an incurable disease and requires significant therapeutic resources.

AIM

This manuscript presents a literature review of the utility of zoledronic acid (zoledronate) in the management of bone disease in MM.

DISCUSSION

The clinical benefit of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone disease in MM has been demonstrated in the last 10 years. A recent network meta-analysis has evaluated 20 randomised clinical trials with nearly 7000 patients with myeloma enrolled and confirms the role of these agents in the prevention of pain, bone fractures and other skeletal-related events (SRE) in MM. However, their role on survival remains unclear. Zoledronate has shown significant reductions in SRE compared with placebo or other agents with acceptable tolerability, and recent studies have shown antitumoural effects for this agent, with a marginal survival benefit demonstrated in MM.

CONCLUSIONS

Zoledronate prevents SRE in MM and presents a marginal survival benefit that deserves further investigation in controlled studies. Current clinical guidelines should be followed regarding the appropriate use of zoledronate in MM, to enhance its effects and to minimise its potential toxicity.

Diagnosis and treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma: spotlight on spinal involvement

Bone disease is observed in almost 80% of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma patients, and spine is the bone site that is more frequently affected by myeloma-induced osteoporosis, osteolyses, or compression fractures. In almost 20% of the cases, spinal cord compression may occur; diagnosis and treatment must be carried out rapidly in order to avoid a permanent sensitive or motor defect. Although whole body skeletal X-ray is considered mandatory for multiple myeloma staging, magnetic resonance imaging is presently considered the most appropriate diagnostic technique for the evaluation of vertebral alterations, as it allows to detect not only the exact morphology of the lesions, but also the pattern of bone marrow infiltration by the disease. Multiple treatment modalities can be used to manage multiple myeloma-related vertebral lesions. Surgery or radiotherapy is mainly employed in case of spinal cord compression, impending fractures, or intractable pain. Percutaneous vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty can reduce local pain in a significant fraction of treated patients, without interfering with subsequent therapeutic programs. Systemic antimyeloma therapy with conventional chemotherapy or, more appropriately, with combinations of conventional chemotherapy and compounds acting on both neoplastic plasma cells and bone marrow microenvironment must be soon initiated in order to reduce bone resorption and, possibly, promote bone formation. Bisphosphonates should also be used in combination with antimyeloma therapy as they reduce bone resorption and prolong patients survival. A multidisciplinary approach is thus needed in order to properly manage spinal involvement in multiple myeloma.

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.

Potential pathophysiological mechanisms in osteonecrosis of the jaw

Bisphosphonates are used in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy, skeletal complications associated with metastastic bone disease, Paget's disease, and osteoporosis. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is a recently described clinical condition that has been associated with the use of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. Reports describing this entity first appeared in the literature in 2003. While there have been significant numbers of case reports and a limited number of retrospective and prospective studies examining risk factors associated with ONJ, the pathophysiology of this condition remains elusive. In this review, we explore proposed mechanisms underlying ONJ development and identify potential areas for future investigation.

Quality of life implications of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw

PURPOSE

Potentially debilitating, osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is an emerging complication of bisphosphonates. However, its effect on quality of life (QoL) is unknown. We determined the ONJ-related QoL decline in a cancer patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-four cancer patients with bisphosphonate-associated ONJ completed a telephone survey (October 2007 through May 2008). The Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP) retrospectively assessed participant oral health-related QoL before and after ONJ. Standardized ONJ descriptions were developed in a multidisciplinary, iterative process and were evaluated with three frequently used preference-based QoL measurement methods on a 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health) scale: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Time Trade-Off (TTO), and EQ-5D.

RESULTS

ONJ significantly (p < .001) increased OHIP scores (worse QoL) for additive (3.56-16.53) and weighted (7.0-17.5) methods. Seven individual OHIP items significantly increased (Bonferroni correction p < .0035): pain, eating discomfort, self-consciousness, unsatisfactory diet, interrupted meals, irritability, and decreased life satisfaction. Mean preference-based QoL values significantly decreased (p < .001) with worsening ONJ stage (VAS, TTO, and EQ-5D): no ONJ (0.76, 0.86, 0.82), ONJ stage 1 (0.69, 0.82, 0.78), ONJ stage 2 (0.51, 0.67, 0.55), and ONJ stage 3 (0.37, 0.61, 0.32). As ONJ worsened, EQ-5D domain scores significantly increased (p < .001). Pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression contributed most to declining QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

ONJ significantly affects QoL, a detriment that increases with worsening ONJ. QoL impairments for ONJ stages 2 and 3 are similar to other treatment side effects that influence decision-making. Bisphosphonate-associated ONJ QoL is an important consideration for patients, clinicians, and policy makers.

A review of the clinical implications of bisphosphonates in dentistry

Bisphosphonates are drugs that suppress bone turnover and are commonly prescribed to prevent skeletal related events in malignancy and for benign bone diseases such as osteoporosis. Bisphosphonate associated jaw osteonecrosis (ONJ) is a potentially debilitating, yet poorly understood condition. A literature review was undertaken to review the dental clinical implications of bisphosphonates. The present paper briefly describes the postulated pathophysiology of ONJ and conditions with similar clinical presentations. The implications of bisphosphonates for implantology, periodontology, orthodontics and endodontics are reviewed. Whilst bisphosphonates have potential positive applications in some clinical settings, periodontology particularly, further clinical research is limited by the risk of ONJ. Prevention and management are reviewed, including guidelines for reducing cumulative intravenous bisphosphonate dose, cessation of bisphosphonates prior to invasive dental treatment or after ONJ development, and the use of serum beta-CTX-1 in assessing risk. In the context of substantial uncertainty, the implications of bisphosphonate use in the dental clinical setting are still being determined.

Prevalence of bisphosphonate associated osteonecrosis of the jaws in multiple myeloma patients

BACKGROUND

Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws (BP-ONJ) is an adverse effect of bisphosphonate treatment with varying reported incidence rates.

METHODS

In two neighboring German cities, prevalence and additional factors of the development of BP-ONJ in multiple myeloma patients with bisphosphonates therapy were recorded using a retrospective (RS) and cross-sectional study (CSS) design. For the RS, all patients treated from Jan. 2000--Feb. 2006 were contacted by letter. In the CSS, all patients treated from Oct. 2006--Mar. 2008 had a physical and dental examination. Additionally, a literature review was conducted to evaluate all articles reporting on BP-ONJ prevalence. PubMed search terms were: bisphosphonat, diphosphonate, osteonecrosis, prevalence and incidence.

RESULTS

In the RS, data from 81 of 161 patients could be obtained; four patients (4.9%) developed BP-ONJ. In the CSS, 16 of 78 patients (20.5%) developed BP-ONJ. All patients with BP-ONJ had received zoledronate; 12 of these had had additional bisphosphonates. All except one had an additional trigger factor (tooth extraction [n = 14], dental surgical procedure [n = 2], sharp mylohyoid ridge [n = 3]).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of BP-ONJ may have been underestimated to date. The oral examination of all patients in this CSS might explain the higher prevalence, since even early asymptomatic stages of BP-ONJ and previously unnoticed symptomatic BP-ONJ were recorded. Since nearly all patients with BP-ONJ had an additional trigger factor, oral hygiene and dental care might help to reduce BP-ONJ incidence.

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.

Bisphosphonate-associated osteomyelitis of the jaw: guidelines for practicing clinicians

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the literature and discuss the risk factors, mechanisms, pathophysiologic aspects, and recommended management of bisphosphonate-associated osteomyelitis of the jaw (BAOMJ).

METHODS

More than 350 published articles, case reports mentioning BAOMJ, and independent histology slides from BAOMJ lesions were reviewed critically. The most pertinent publications are cited and discussed.

RESULTS

The incidence of BAOMJ increases after extraction of teeth, dentoalveolar surgical procedures, or recent oral trauma leading to exposed maxillary or mandibular bone. Contributory factors include poor oral hygiene, oral infections, periodontal disease; recent or ongoing corticosteroid administration or chemotherapy; compromised immune status; diabetes or vascular insufficiency; old age; chronic diseases; and malignancies. On average, 1 of every 100,000 patients treated with bisphosphonates orally for osteoporosis or Paget disease of bone may develop BAOMJ-like lesions. Patients with cancer often receive bisphosphonate doses 10 times or higher, and also more frequently, than those used in patients with osteoporosis or Paget disease of bone. Therefore, greater frequency of administration of bisphosphonates, higher dosages, and prolonged use (that is, for more than 2 years) are likely to be factors triggering BAOMJ.

CONCLUSION

The association of bisphosphonate therapy with BAOMJ is rare in noncancer patients and is likely to be a class effect that may occur with use of any bisphosphonate. Whether patients with cancer require such a high frequency of intravenously administered bisphosphonates needs to be investigated. Following established guidelines can decrease the risks of BAOMJ in vulnerable patients. Rather than necrotic bone, current evidence supports an infectious and perhaps immunologic underlying cause for BAOMJ. The estimated incidence of BAOMJ among noncancer patients receiving bisphosphonates is about 0.001%, whereas among patients with cancer receiving intravenous bisphosphonate therapy the incidence is between 0.5% and 4%, depending on the dose, frequency, and duration of therapy (on average, approximately 2%). Nevertheless, the benefits of bisphosphonates far outweigh the risks.

Biphosphonates-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Clinical and physiopathological considerations

Since osteonecrosis of the jaw was related to biphosphonate administration by Marx, studies showing clinical symptoms, drug and surgical therapies overwhelmed the literature. Furthermore, the literature demonstrated the correlation between chronic biphosphonate adsumption and osteonecrosis of the jaw onset. Nitrogen-containing biphosphonates are widely used for the management of metastatic cancer, for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, for the treatment of Paget's disease, and for the management of acute hypercalcemia. According to our experience, the treatment of BRON-J's lesions is difficult and prolonged. For this reason, in order to avoid these complications it is mandatory to perform a risk staging in patients who must undergo biphosphonate administration. When pharmacologic treatments with antibiotics and local antiseptics are not able to control the development of BRON-J's complications, the clinicians should perform radical surgical treatments such as the resection of the bone involved.

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.

Bisphosphonates: mechanism of action and role in clinical practice

Bisphosphonates are primary agents in the current pharmacological arsenal against osteoclast-mediated bone loss due to osteoporosis, Paget disease of bone, malignancies metastatic to bone, multiple myeloma, and hypercalcemia of malignancy. In addition to currently approved uses, bisphosphonates are commonly prescribed for prevention and treatment of a variety of other skeletal conditions, such as low bone density and osteogenesis imperfecta. However, the recent recognition that bisphosphonate use is associated with pathologic conditions including osteonecrosis of the jaw has sharpened the level of scrutiny of the current widespread use of bisphosphonate therapy. Using the key words bisphosphonate and clinical practice in a PubMed literature search from January 1, 1998, to May 1, 2008, we review current understanding of the mechanisms by which bisphosphonates exert their effects on osteoclasts, discuss the role of bisphosphonates in clinical practice, and highlight some areas of concern associated with bisphosphonate use.

Frequency and risk factors associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw in cancer patients treated with intravenous bisphosphonates

INTRODUCTION

Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) has been reported in patients treated with bisphosphonates. The incidence and risk factors associated with this disorder have not been clearly defined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 4019 patients treated with intravenous bisphosphonates between 1996 and 2004. Our goals were to estimate the frequency, understand the clinical presentation, and identify risk factors associated with ONJ development.

RESULTS

Sixteen of 1338 patients with breast cancer (1.2%) and 13 of 548 patients with multiple myeloma (2.4%) developed ONJ. The median dose and duration of treatment with pamidronate or zoledronic acid were significantly higher in patients with ONJ (p < 0.0001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis identified treatment with zoledronic acid (hazards ratio [HR], 15.01; 95% CI: 2.41-93.48; p = 0.0037), treatment with pamidronate followed by zoledronic acid (HR, 4.00; 95% CI: 0.86-18.70; p = 0.078), and dental extractions (HR, 53.19; 95% CI: 18.20-155.46; p < 0.0001) as significant risks for ONJ in breast cancer. In multiple myeloma, dental extractions (HR, 9.78; 95% CI: 3.07-31.14; p = 0.0001) and osteoporosis (HR, 6.11; 95% CI: 1.56-23.98; p = 0.0095) were significant risk factors while controlling for bisphosphonate therapy. Thirteen of 29 patients were followed for a median of 17.1 mo (range, 7-67 mo); lesions healed in 3 patients during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

ONJ is an uncommon but long-lasting disorder that occurs mainly in breast cancer and multiple myeloma patients treated with intravenous bisphosphonates. High cumulative doses of bisphosphonates, poor oral health, and dental extractions may be significant risk factors for ONJ development. ONJ resolved in 23% of patients with conservative therapy.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 clinical practice guideline update on the role of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma

PURPOSE

To update the recommendations for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma. The Update Committee expanded the guideline to include a discussion of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

METHODS

For the 2007 update, an Update Committee composed of members from the full panel completed a review and analysis of data published since 2002. Searches of Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were performed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For multiple myeloma patients who have, on plain radiograph(s) or imaging studies, lytic destruction of bone or spine compression fracture from osteopenia, intravenous pamidronate 90 mg delivered over at least 2 hours or zoledronic acid 4 mg delivered over at least 15 minutes every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended. Clodronate is an alternative bisphosphonate approved worldwide, except in the United States, for oral or intravenous administration. New dosing guidelines for patients with pre-existing renal impairment were added to the zoledronic acid package insert. Although no similar dosing guidelines are available for pamidronate, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians consider reducing the initial pamidronate dose in patients with pre-existing renal impairment. Zoledronic acid has not been studied in patients with severe renal impairment and is not recommended in this setting. The Update Committee suggests that bisphosphonate treatment continue for a period of 2 years. At 2 years, physicians should seriously consider discontinuing bisphosphonates in patients with responsive or stable disease, but further use is at the discretion of the treating physician. The Update Committee also discusses measures regarding ONJ.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ): run dental management designs and issues in diagnosis

Recently, jawbone osteonecrosis has been largely reported as a potential adverse effect of bisphosphonate (BP) administration. Because of the peculiar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic features of the BF (mainly for i.v. administration), their efficacy and large use, some major issues have to be taken into account extendedly both by oncologists and by dentists: 1) therapeutic dental protocol for patients with diagnosis of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ); 2) dental strategies for patients in former or current i.v. BF treatment and in absence of BRONJ signs; 3) strategies for patients before i.v. BF treatment. Clinical features and guidelines for the management of this condition have been investigated and reported, sometimes with unclear indications; hence, on the basis of the literature and our clinical experience, major end points of this paper are providing our run protocols for the issues above described and, finally, focusing on a crucial, but not extensively investigated point: the early and correct diagnosis of BRONJ versus metastatic jaw lesions in cancer patients.