| Title |
Use and safety of denosumab in cancer patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-017-0455-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alba Manzaneque, Cristian Chaguaceda, Mireia Mensa, Carla Bastida, Natàlia Creus-Baró |
| Abstract |
Background Few data have been reported on the use and safety of denosumab in patients with solid tumors and bone metastasis in clinical practice. Objectives To describe the use of denosumab and to analyze its adverse effects (AE) in tertiary hospital cancer outpatients. Methods Retrospective study of patients who started denosumab between January 2013 and June 2015. We recorded demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables, as well as the reasons for discontinuation and AE. Results The study population comprised 104 patients, of whom 86 (82.7%) were receiving concomitant outpatient cancer treatment and 39 (38%) had previously received zoledronate. At baseline, albumin-corrected calcium levels were available for 48 patients (46.2%), and 70 (67.3%) were receiving calcium/vitamin D supplements. The median number of denosumab doses was 7.5 (range, 1-29). The main reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (20.2%) and AE (25%). Hypocalcaemia was recorded in 38.5% of patients and osteonecrosis of the jaw in 12.5%. Monitoring of calcium levels was poor at baseline and during follow-up. Conclusions We found a higher incidence of all-grade osteonecrosis of the jaw than reported in the literature. Adherence to published recommendations on calcium supplementation and guidelines on calcium monitoring was poor. In line with our findings, a protocol for use and monitoring of denosumab has been promoted in our hospital. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 46% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,863,951
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#684
of 1,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,584
of 309,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,100 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.