Advertisement
help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Oncologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, 84-87, January 2005; doi:10.1634/theoncologist.10-1-84
© 2005 AlphaMed Press

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berenson, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hirschberg, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Berenson, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hirschberg, R.

Letter to the Editor

In Response to Diel I, Bergner R. Letter to the Editor of The Oncologist Re: Safety and Convenience of a 15-Minute Infusion of Zoledronic Acid

James Berensona, Raimund Hirschbergb

a Institute for Myeloma & Bone Cancer Research, West Hollywood, California, USA; b Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA

Correspondence: James Berenson, M.D., Institute for Myeloma & Bone Cancer Research, 9201 W. Sunset Boulevard, Suite 300, West Hollywood, California 90069, USA. Telephone: 310-623-1214; Fax: 310-623-1120; e-mail: jberenson{at}myelomasource.org

Diel and Bergner take objection to some of the statements that were made in our manuscript [1]. In their letter, these two authors propose that we did not appropriately address renal safety concerns, especially with zoledronic acid (Zometa®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com) in comparison with ibandronate (Bondronat®; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Nutley, NJ, http://www.rocheusa.com). While we share their concern of the nephrotoxicity of i.v. bisphosphonates, we respectfully disagree with several imprecise remarks made by Diel and Bergner. In the manuscript, we reviewed in detail the renal safety findings from prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials, which is the accepted gold standard for the determination of clinical efficacy and safety of medicinal drugs. Those trials, which included more than 3,000 patients, have demonstrated the superior efficacy of zoledronic acid in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), exceeding that of pamidronate (Aredia®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com), and in the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with multiple myeloma or documented bone metastases from solid tumors [2–5]. Zoledronic acid is approved for the treatment of all these conditions and, hence, has the broadest U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval among all i.v. bisphosphonates. In contrast, i.v. ibandronate is not FDA approved, and data on the efficacy and safety of this bisphosphonate in patients with bone metastases are available only from one published prospective, randomized clinical trial, which enrolled 466 patients [6]. Moreover, clinical trial data providing a direct comparison of the efficacy and/or safety of i.v. ibandronate with those of pamidronate show only equivalent efficacy of ibandronate (4 mg) to pamidronate (60 mg) in the treatment of HCM [7]. In contrast, 4 mg zoledronic acid has been examined in two randomized, prospective trials in direct comparison with 90 mg pamidronate [2, 3]. In patients with HCM, the efficacy of zoledronic acid surpasses that of pamidronate in normalizing serum calcium [2]. In patients with breast cancer and documented bone metastases, 4 mg zoledronic acid was significantly more effective than 90 mg pamidronate in reducing the overall risk of developing an SRE [8, 9]. Neither ibandronate nor any other i.v. bisphosphonate has, to date, been shown to have greater or, in the least, similar overall efficacy.

Safety comparisons between two bisphosphonates are only meaningful when balanced for efficacy. As reviewed in our manuscript (page 322), 4 mg zoledronic acid was associated with slightly lower incidences of National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 4 (0% versus 1%) and grade 3 (2% versus 3%) serum creatinine levels in comparison with pamidronate in a pooled analysis of patients with HCM [2]. In patients with skeletal lesions from breast cancer or multiple myeloma, the incidence of stringently defined increases in serum creatinine levels with 4 mg zoledronic acid via a 15-minute infusion (8.9%) is similar to that of 90 mg pamidronate via a 2-hour infusion (8.2%) [3]. These data were also described in detail in the manuscript (page 324). In a large, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patients with bone metastases from lung cancer or other solid tumors, decreases in renal function (defined as a rise in serum creatinine by ≥0.5 mg/dl with normal baseline creatinine, ≥1.0 mg/dl with abnormal baseline creatinine, or ≥2 times baseline) were not statistically different between patients treated with zoledronic acid (4 mg/15 minutes; n = 254) and patients administered placebo (n = 247) in both incidence and time to first episode of increased serum creatinine [4]. No patient treated with 4 mg zoledronic acid experienced a grade 3/4 increase in serum creatinine, whereas two patients (0.9%) treated with placebo did experience such increases. Similarly, in a randomized, controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with metastatic prostate cancer, the relative risk for increased serum creatinine between patients treated with 4 mg zoledronic acid and those treated with placebo was 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.46–2.47; p = .882), indicating a slightly, nonsignificantly higher risk for decreased renal function compared with placebo [10].

Given the lack of direct safety and efficacy comparisons in prospective, randomized clinical trials of ibandronate with any other i.v. bisphosphonate in the treatment of patients with bone metastases to prevent SREs, safety comparisons with zoledronic acid in these populations can only be inferential and, therefore, not scientifically robust. Published data from randomized, controlled trials of i.v. ibandronate in comparison with placebo are available for patients with breast cancer and bone metastases [6]. However, in that report, the authors do not provide detailed information regarding the renal safety of ibandronate; only a brief statement that increased creatinine levels (defined as 300 mM*) occurred with ibandronate (6 mg/1–2 hours) numerically twice as often as with placebo. The 2-mg dose of ibandronate had a numerically lower incidence of a rise in serum creatinine than placebo, but this dose of ibandronate was ineffective. This lack of efficacy for the 2-mg ibandronate dose was also demonstrated in patients with multiple myeloma [11].

In contrast, in a recently published report of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of the efficacy of 4 mg zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal complications in 227 Japanese women with breast cancer and osteolytic bone metastases, only one (0.9%) patient treated with zoledronic acid experienced an increased serum creatinine level, with the caveat that inclusion criteria for patients in that trial required baseline serum creatinine levels of ≤2.0 mg/dl [12]. While understanding the pitfalls of cross-trial comparisons, zoledronic acid (4 mg/15 min) does not appear to be less safe than ibandronate (6 mg/1–2 hours). Moreover, in the pivotal zoledronic acid trials, the threshold that was used to define increased serum creatinine appears to have been more stringent.

Additionally, in their letter, Diel and Bergner cite experimental studies in rats purporting greater nephrotoxicity of zoledronic acid compared with ibandronate [13]. The limitations in the design and conduct of those studies have been discussed in detail elsewhere [14]. Briefly, both ibandronate and zoledronic acid were administered to rats by i.v. bolus injection (whereas zoledronic acid is always administered as an infusion in clinical use) at doses of 1 mg/kg and 1 or 3 mg/kg, respectively. Those doses were derived from subjective renal histology scores in a small pilot rat study and did not take into account the several-fold-higher potency of zoledronic acid. Moreover, the doses selected for zoledronic acid were several times higher than its clinically proven effective dose, whereas ibandronate was tested at only one dose far below such a multiple of its own clinical efficacy. Also, when single 1-mg/kg doses of zoledronic acid and ibandronate were compared, renal pathology was seen only with ibandronate. Therefore, the authors’ conclusion that renal injury depends on the specific renal tissue half-life and dosing interval are not supported by any data in the manuscript.

The arguments by Diel and Bergner that ibandronate shows less toxicity than zoledronic acid are in part based on the incorrect assumption that ibandronate has a shorter tissue half-life, leading to less accumulation of drug in the kidney. The reported ibandronate half-life is clearly an underestimate, owing to the acknowledged short sampling period and the limited sensitivity of bioanalytical methodology [15], whereas the reported terminal half-life of zoledronic acid, which is 146 hours, was derived from prolonged sampling for >1 month post-dose, therefore representing skeletal as well as soft-tissue components of the drug’s disposition [16].

Diel and Bergner also provide case series of decreases in renal function in patients receiving zoledronic acid and point out that these reports are more frequent with zoledronic acid than with other bisphosphonates. Zoledronic acid is the only third-generation bisphosphonate with worldwide regulatory approval for broad indications in patients, including tumor-induced hypercalcemia and advanced malignancies and bone metastases, and is the most commonly prescribed bisphosphonate. The authors of the letter omitted to mention that other third-generation, i.v. bisphosphonates, such as ibandronate, are not FDA approved for the treatment of bone metastases and, presumably, are also not as widely used in the treatment of these patients. Ibandronate, although approved for the treatment of hypercalcemia, is only approved in Europe for the treatment of bone metastases and only for the treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer. Markowitz and associates [17] reported six patients, most of whom had multiple myeloma, who developed renal insufficiency while receiving zoledronic acid, among other therapies. In those cases, toxic acute tubular necrosis was diagnosed, and circumstantial evidence implicated zoledronic acid as a causative or contributing agent. We were not able to include a discussion of that report because it was published after revised submission of our manuscript. In three of those six cases, other associated renal diseases that may have also contributed to the rise in serum creatinine were identified in biopsy specimens. Moreover, the increases in serum creatinine levels were ≤CTC grade 3, and all patients had subsequent recoveries of renal function. In addition, acute renal injury has also been reported with other bisphosphonates [18–22], which justifies our speculation as to a class effect of i.v. bisphosphonates.

Other retrospective, observational series that are presented in the letter by Diel and Bergner describe renal functional deterioration during therapy with zoledronic acid and pamidronate. Those reports are important but need to be placed into critical perspective. The studies lacked valid controls, rendering it impossible to assess the incidence of renal complications associated with bisphosphonate use compared with that intrinsic to the patient population that was evaluated, which is thought to have been rather substantial [23]. Moreover, Diel and Bergner’s interpretation of those reports, which were published only in abstract form, lacks scientific rigor [24–26]. In the report by Stein et al. [26], apparently none of the patients treated with zoledronic acid developed substantial renal insufficiency. With zoledronic acid and prior pamidronate exposure, serum creatinine rose by 0.14 ± 0.2 mg/dl (from 0.7 ± 0.2 to 0.8 ± 0.3), and without prior pamidronate exposure, it rose by 0.11 ± 0.3 (from 0.7 ± 0.2 to 0.8 ± 0.4) after a mean of 5–9 doses [26]. It is unclear what useful conclusion can be derived from these data. Mazj and Lichtman [25] reported a similar incidence of renal function deterioration in patients treated with either zoledronic acid or pamidronate to those reported in controlled clinical trials of zoledronic acid. These retrospective analyses were uncontrolled and were not corrected for associated comorbidities or other concurrent drugs with known nephrotoxicity. Furthermore, the background incidence of renal insufficiency in the study population was not reported, and no effort was made to evaluate causality. Moreover, the statement by Diel and Bergner regarding the study by Johnson et al.—that four patients died due to renal complications—does not correspond to the reference that is provided [24].

Diel and Bergner’s charge of "presenting a case for the renal safety of zoledronic acid by 5-minute infusion" misrepresents the content of our manuscript. Historically, this short infusion interval was used during clinical trials of zoledronic acid, and this fact is correctly discussed in the manuscript. Nevertheless, in several places in the paper, we repeatedly and categorically indicate that 4 mg zoledronic acid should be administered over no less than a 15-minute period, which is consistent with the approved labeling of the drug.

In summary, our manuscript provides a concise and comprehensive review of the efficacy and safety of i.v. bisphosphonates in the prevention of complications of malignancies [1]. Among third-generation bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid has the broadest efficacy, as demonstrated in the largest series of randomized and controlled clinical trials available for any bisphosphonate in oncology. The renal safety of zoledronic acid has also been examined in these studies. Renal toxicity has been observed in zoledronic acid clinical trials as well as in case reports and case series and has also been reported with other bisphosphonates. We agree with Diel and Bergner that renal function monitoring in patients with malignancies who undergo bisphosphonate therapy is strongly advised.

FOOTNOTE

*Perhaps this is a typographical error in the reference manuscript as well as in a subsequently published corrigendum [6] and should read "300 µM" (= 3.4 mg/dl). Either way, this would be a far less stringent definition of increased serum creatinine than that used in the zoledronic acid pivotal trials. The incidence of increased serum creatinine was 2.6% with 6 mg ibandronate versus 1.3% for placebo. Unfortunately, the published corrigendum, which listed the incidence of "clinically relevant" increases in serum creatinine, also failed to provide a definition of the term "clinically relevant," making assessment of renal safety criteria in that trial difficult [6].

REFERENCES

  1. Berenson J, Hirschberg R. Safety and convenience of a 15-minute infusion of zoledronic acid. The Oncologist 2004;9:319–329.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Major P, Lortholary A, Hon J et al. Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: a pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:558–567.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M et al. Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: a phase III, double-blind, comparative trial. Cancer J 2001;7:377–387.[Medline]
  4. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Tchekmedyian S et al. Zoledronic acid versus placebo in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial—the Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3150–3157.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Saad F, Gleason DM, Murray R et al. Long-term efficacy of zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:879–882.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Body JJ, Diel IJ, Lichinitser MR et al. Intravenous ibandronate reduces the incidence of skeletal complications in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1399–1405. Corrigendum published in Ann Oncol 2004;15:180.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Pecherstorfer M, Steinhauer EU, Rizzoli R et al. Efficacy and safety of ibandronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: a randomized multicentric comparison to pamidronate. Support Care Cancer 2003;11:539–547.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial. Cancer 2003;98:1735–1744.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Rosen LS, Gordon DH, Dugan W Jr et al. Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate for the treatment of bone metastases in breast carcinoma patients with at least one osteolytic lesion. Cancer 2004;100:36–43.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Saad F, Gleason DM, Murray R et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma. Zoledronic Acid Prostate Cancer Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1458–1468.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Menssen HD, Sakalova A, Fontana A et al. Effects of long-term intravenous ibandronate therapy on skeletal-related events, survival, and bone resorption markers in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2353–2359.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Kohno N, Aogi K, Minami H et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal complications in Japanese women with bone metastases from breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:43a.
  13. Pfister T, Atzpodien E, Bauss F. The renal effects of minimally nephrotoxic doses of ibandronate and zoledronate following single and intermittent intravenous administration in rats. Toxicology 2003;191:159–167.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Hirschberg R. Nephrotoxicity of third-generation, intravenous bisphosphonates. Toxicology 2004;196:165–167; author reply 169–170.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Barrett J, Worth E, Bauss F et al. Ibandronate: a clinical pharmacological and pharmacokinetic update. J Clin Pharmacol 2004;44:951–965.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Ibrahim A, Scher N, Williams G et al. Approval summary for zoledronic acid for treatment of multiple myeloma and cancer bone metastases. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:2394–2399.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Markowitz GS, Fine PL, Stack JI et al. Toxic acute tubular necrosis following treatment with zoledronate (Zometa). Kidney Int 2003;64:281–289.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Zazgornik J, Grafinger P, Biesenbach G et al. Acute renal failure and alendronate [letter]. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997;12:2797–2798.[Free Full Text]
  19. Bounameaux HM, Schifferli J, Montani JP et al. Renal failure associated with intravenous diphosphonates. Lancet 1983;1:471.
  20. Dumon JC, Magritte A, Body JJ. Efficacy and safety of the bisphosphonate tiludronate for the treatment of tumor-associated hypercalcemia. Bone Miner 1991;15:257–266.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Zojer N, Keck AV, Pecherstorfer M. Comparative tolerability of drug therapies for hypercalcaemia of malignancy. Drug Saf 1999;21:389–406.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Banerjee D, Asif A, Striker L et al. Short-term, high-dose pamidronate-induced acute tubular necrosis: the postulated mechanisms of bisphosphonate nephrotoxicity. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;41:E18.[CrossRef]
  23. Weinman EJ, Patak RV. Acute renal failure in cancer patients. Oncology (Huntingt) 1992;6:47–52; discussion 52–54.
  24. Johnson KB, Gable P, Kaime EH et al. Significant deterioration in renal function with the new bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:738.
  25. Mazj S, Litchtman SM. Renal dysfunction associated with bisphosphonate use: retrospective analysis of 293 patients with respect to age and other clinical characteristics. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:735.
  26. Stein S, Davidson R, Twee A et al. Renal dysfunction with iv bisphosphonates in patients with metastatic breast cancer—University of Pennsylvania. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:745.
Received September 1, 2004; accepted for publication November 29, 2004.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The OncologistHome page
P. Conte and V. Guarneri
In Response to Jackson Letter to the Editor Regarding "Safety of Intravenous and Oral Bisphosphonates and Compliance with Dosing Regimens"
Oncologist, May 1, 2005; 10(5): 315 - 316.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berenson, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hirschberg, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Berenson, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hirschberg, R.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS