Natalie H Beth-Tasdogan1, Benjamin Mayer2, Heba Hussein3, Oliver Zolk4, Jens-Uwe Peter4. 1. Institute of Pharmacology of Natural Products & Clinical Pharmacology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. 2. Institute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. 3. Department of Oral Medicine, Diagnosis, and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 4. Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Immanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic agents), and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, this adverse drug reaction may occur rarely (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment), or commonly (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. This is an update of our review first published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs. To assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 16 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (1668 participants) in this updated review, of which eight were new additions. The studies were clinically diverse and examined very different interventions, so meta-analyses could not be performed. We have low or very low certainty about available evidence on interventions for the prophylaxis or treatment of MRONJ. Prophylaxis of MRONJ Five RCTs examined different interventions to prevent the occurrence of MRONJ. One RCT compared standard care with regular dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39, 253 participants). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated. Dentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ and five RCTs tested various preventive measures to reduce the risk of postoperative MRONJ. The studies evaluated plasma rich in growth factors inserted into the postextraction alveolus in addition to standardised medical and surgical care versus standardised medical and surgical care alone (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51, 176 participants); delicate surgery and closure by primary intention versus non-traumatic tooth avulsion and closure by secondary intention (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin without primary wound closure (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); and subperiosteal wound closure versus epiperiosteal wound closure (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.56, 132 participants). Treatment of MRONJ Eight RCTs examined different interventions for the treatment of established MRONJ; that is, the effect on MRONJ cure rates. One RCT analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18, 46 participants). Healing rates from MRONJ were not significantly different between autofluorescence-guided bone surgery and conventional bone surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, 30 participants). Another RCT that compared autofluorescence- with tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ found no significant difference (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, 34 participants). Three RCTs investigated the effect of growth factors and autologous platelet concentrates on healing rates of MRONJ: platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery versus surgery alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22, 47 participants), bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin versus platelet-rich fibrin alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.29, 55 participants), and concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure versus primary wound closure only (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.34, 28 participants). Two RCTs focused on pharmacological treatment with teriparatide: teriparatide 20 μg daily versus placebo in addition to standard care (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.95, 33 participants) and teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly versus teriparatide 20 μg daily in addition to standard care (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.44, 12 participants). AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw One open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be very low. There is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ in patients with antiresorptive therapy undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Although some interventions suggested a potential large effect, the studies were underpowered to show statistical significance, and replication of the results in larger studies is pending. Treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw The available evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit, in addition to standard care, of any of the interventions studied for the treatment of MRONJ.
BACKGROUND: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic agents), and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, this adverse drug reaction may occur rarely (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment), or commonly (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. This is an update of our review first published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs. To assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 16 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (1668 participants) in this updated review, of which eight were new additions. The studies were clinically diverse and examined very different interventions, so meta-analyses could not be performed. We have low or very low certainty about available evidence on interventions for the prophylaxis or treatment of MRONJ. Prophylaxis of MRONJ Five RCTs examined different interventions to prevent the occurrence of MRONJ. One RCT compared standard care with regular dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39, 253 participants). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated. Dentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ and five RCTs tested various preventive measures to reduce the risk of postoperative MRONJ. The studies evaluated plasma rich in growth factors inserted into the postextraction alveolus in addition to standardised medical and surgical care versus standardised medical and surgical care alone (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51, 176 participants); delicate surgery and closure by primary intention versus non-traumatic tooth avulsion and closure by secondary intention (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin without primary wound closure (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); and subperiosteal wound closure versus epiperiosteal wound closure (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.56, 132 participants). Treatment of MRONJ Eight RCTs examined different interventions for the treatment of established MRONJ; that is, the effect on MRONJ cure rates. One RCT analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18, 46 participants). Healing rates from MRONJ were not significantly different between autofluorescence-guided bone surgery and conventional bone surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, 30 participants). Another RCT that compared autofluorescence- with tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ found no significant difference (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, 34 participants). Three RCTs investigated the effect of growth factors and autologous platelet concentrates on healing rates of MRONJ: platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery versus surgery alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22, 47 participants), bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin versus platelet-rich fibrin alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.29, 55 participants), and concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure versus primary wound closure only (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.34, 28 participants). Two RCTs focused on pharmacological treatment with teriparatide: teriparatide 20 μg daily versus placebo in addition to standard care (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.95, 33 participants) and teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly versus teriparatide 20 μg daily in addition to standard care (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.44, 12 participants). AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw One open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be very low. There is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ in patients with antiresorptive therapy undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Although some interventions suggested a potential large effect, the studies were underpowered to show statistical significance, and replication of the results in larger studies is pending. Treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw The available evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit, in addition to standard care, of any of the interventions studied for the treatment of MRONJ.
Authors: V Coviello; F Peluso; S Z Dehkhargani; F Verdugo; L Raffaelli; P F Manicone; A D' Addona Journal: J Biol Regul Homeost Agents Date: 2012 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 1.711
Authors: Valentina Guarneri; David Miles; Nicholas Robert; Véronique Diéras; John Glaspy; Ian Smith; Christoph Thomssen; Laura Biganzoli; Tanya Taran; PierFranco Conte Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-04-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: F Saad; J E Brown; C Van Poznak; T Ibrahim; S M Stemmer; A T Stopeck; I J Diel; S Takahashi; N Shore; D H Henry; C H Barrios; T Facon; F Senecal; K Fizazi; L Zhou; A Daniels; P Carrière; R Dansey Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 32.976