ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2016
Assessment of off-label use of denosumab 60 mg injection during the early postmarketing period using health insurance claims data.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledOff-label use of denosumab 60 milligram (mg) injection was assessed within an administrative claims database. The completeness of claims to assess off-label use was investigated with medical record review. Potential denosumab 60 mg off-label use was observed based on claims, but many had evidence of on-label indications based on medical record review.
introductionDenosumab 60 mg injection is approved in the USA to treat patients at high fracture risk due to postmenopausal osteoporosis, male osteoporosis, and hormone therapy for the treatment of prostate and breast cancers. Its RANK ligand-inhibiting effect makes it a candidate for the off-label treatment of other conditions mediated by the rate of bone resorption by osteoclasts. To better understand its utilization patterns, we assessed off-label use of denosumab 60 mg within an administrative claims database.
methodsDefinite, probable, and possible denosumab 60 mg users were identified during the early postmarketing period within a claims database of a US healthcare insurer. Medical record review confirmed a sample of these users. Off-label use among definite and probable users and all chart-confirmed users was classified using claims-derived age, dose interval, and diagnosis and treatment received relative to the administration date. Among chart-confirmed users classified as off-label, patient characteristics related to treatment indication were abstracted from medical records to investigate the completeness of claims to study off-label medication use.
resultsOff-label use was identified based on claims in approximately 25 % of definite and probable denosumab 60 mg users and 35 % of chart-confirmed users. Medical record review identified evidence of on-label indications in 81 % of chart-confirmed users classified as off-label in claims.
conclusionsMany of the off-label denosumab 60 mg users had diagnoses or treatment consistent with on-label indications based on medical record review, suggesting these are under-recorded in claims data. It is warranted to be cautious when using administrative databases to assess off-label medication use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.