Hypocalcemia Risk of Denosumab Across the Spectrum of Kidney Disease: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Denosumab can be used in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) but has been linked with cases of severe hypocalcemia. The incidence of and risk factors for hypocalcemia after denosumab use are not well established. Using linked health care databases at ICES, we conducted a population-based cohort study of adults >65 years old with a new prescription for denosumab or a bisphosphonate between 2012 and 2020. We assessed incidence of hypocalcemia within 180 days of drug dispensing and stratified results by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR in mL/min/1.73 m2). We used Cox proportional hazards to assess risk factors for hypocalcemia. There were 59,151 and 56,847 new denosumab and oral bisphosphonate users, respectively. Of the denosumab users, 29% had serum calcium measured in the year before their prescription, and one-third had their serum calcium checked within 180 days after their prescription. Mild hypocalcemia (albumin corrected calcium <2.00 mmol/L) occurred in 0.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6, 0.7) of new denosumab users and severe hypocalcemia (<1.8 mmol/L) in 0.2% (95% CI 0.2, 0.3). In those with an eGFR <15 or receiving maintenance dialysis, the incidence of mild and severe hypocalcemia was 24.1% (95% CI 18.1, 30.7) and 14.9% (95% CI 10.1, 20.7), respectively. In this group, kidney function and baseline serum calcium were strong predictors of hypocalcemia. We did not have information on over-the-counter vitamin D or calcium supplementation. In new bisphosphonate users, the incidence of mild hypocalcemia was 0.3% (95% CI 0.3, 0.3) with an incidence of 4.7% (95% CI 1.5, 10.8) in those with an eGFR <15 or receiving maintenance dialysis. In this large population-based cohort, we found that the overall risk of hypocalcemia with new denosumab use was low but increased substantially in those with eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2. Future studies should investigate strategies to mitigate hypocalcemia. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".