Home > DARE Reviews > Efficacy and safety of denosumab versus...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Efficacy and safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review published: 2013.

Bibliographic details: Sun L, Yu S.  Efficacy and safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013; 36(4): 399-403. [PubMed: 22772430]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Zoledronic acid (ZA) has been used as the standard treatment for patients with solid cancer or myeloma that has metastasized into bone. A new potential therapeutic strategy, denosumab, is being investigated in a variety of tumors. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of denosumab in comparison with ZA in patients with bone metastases secondary to malignancy.

METHODS: A systematic literature search of several electronic databases till July 2011 and a review of reference lists of relevant articles was conducted. Summary relative estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies.

RESULTS: Seven reports from 3 randomized controlled trials involving 5723 patients were identified. The pooled analysis showed that denosumab significantly delayed time to first on-study skeletal-related event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90, P < 0.001], time to multiple skeletal-related events (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90, P < 0.001), and pain worsening (HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99, P = 0.026) for patients with bone metastases compared with ZA. Similar results of the 2 groups were obtained with respect to overall survival (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.06), disease progression (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.09), and pain improvement. Summary of the adverse effects revealed similar safety profiles for the 2 drugs.

CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab is superior to ZA in preventing complications for patients with bone metastases. However, further studies are still needed to assess longer-term safety and efficacy of denosumab.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 22772430

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...