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

Preclinical Perspectives on Bisphosphonate Renal Safety

^a Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; ^b Pre-clinical Research and Development, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland; ^c Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Pharma Research Penzberg, Penzberg, Germany

Key Words. Bone metastases • Bisphosphonates • Ibandronate • Renal safety • Preclinical

Correspondence: Jean-Jacques Body, M.D., Ph.D., Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1 Rue Héger-Bordet, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Telephone: 32-2-541-3303; Fax: 32-2-541-3311; e-mail: jj.body{at}bordet.be

Received August 1, 2005; accepted for publication August 29, 2005.

	ABSTRACT

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Renal insufficiency is not rare in cancer patients who may receive nephrotoxic medications as antineo-plastic agents or for comorbid conditions. Thus, the choice of a particular bisphosphonate for patients with metastatic bone disease should be based not only on efficacy but also on the risk for renal deterioration. Some i.v. bisphosphonates have been associated with occasional renal toxicity in the clinical setting. Preclinical studies have also shown that there may be considerable differences among bisphosphonate renal safety profiles. Comparative studies show variations in the risk for histopathologic damage and the ability to cause cumulative toxicity during intermittent dosing. Reasons for the differences among bisphosphonates are not fully understood; however, research shows that they may be influenced by pharmacokinetic properties such as renal tissue half-life or protein binding and intracellular potency. Further preclinical analyses are needed to confirm and evaluate differences among bisphosphonates.

	INTRODUCTION

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Bisphosphonates are widely used to treat skeletal complications of malignancy [1]. They target the underlying pathophysiology of metastatic bone disease by inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone resorption [2]. The long-term renal safety of bisphosphonates in clinical practice is important because of the significant morbidity associated with bone metastases and renal dysfunction experienced by many patients as a result of their underlying disease or treatment [3, 4].

The majority of the bisphosphonate that reaches the systemic circulation is rapidly bound to bone (40%–60%) [5]. Skeletal uptake of bisphosphonates depends on bone turnover, and bisphosphonate is deposited in areas of bone formation and destruction [6]. The remainder of the bisphosphonate is not metabolized and is eliminated unchanged by the kidneys through glomerular filtration and active tubular excretion [7, 8]. High doses accompanied by high molar concentrations (maximum plasma concentration [C_max]) of some bisphosphonates have been shown to overload the renal elimination mechanism, and the retained compound can damage renal cells [9, 10]. In animals, proteinuria and proximal tubular necrosis have been linked to reduced renal excretion and consequently to high concentrations of bisphosphonates, that is, pamidronate (Aredia^®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com), 5 mg/kg, and clodronate (Bonefos^®; Schering AG, Berlin, http://www.schering.de; and Ostac^®, Loron^®; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Swizerland, http://www.roche.com) 200 mg/kg, in renal tubular cells [11–13]. However, the doses used in those studies were 5–20 times higher than clinical doses.

It has been suggested that the mechanism of bisphosphonate-induced renal toxicity is precipitated bisphosphonate aggregation or calcium complexes in the kidney [6, 14]. However, no corpuscular precipitations were reported during kidney histopathological analyses in animals [12, 15–20]. Therefore, it has been postulated that a more likely pathomechanism is that bisphosphonates induce cell death in renal cells in a manner similar to their apoptotic effects in osteoclasts and possibly even cancer cells [16, 17]. Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, such as zoledronic acid (Zometa^®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation), alendronate (Fosamax^®; Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, http://www.merck.com), risedronate (Actonel^®; Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, http://www.pgpharma.com), and ibandronate (Bondronat^®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.), inhibit protein prenylation of small GTPases by blocking the mevalonate pathway, and the enzyme farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase in particular [21, 22]. Lipid prenylation anchors GTPases to intracellular membranes where they can interact in a variety of cellular processes, such as integrin signaling, endosomal trafficking, membrane ruffling, and apoptosis [21–26]. These common mechanisms of action might somehow also influence the renal safety of bisphosphonates.

Although all bisphosphonates have been shown to elicit some constrictive effects on the kidney in preclinical toxicity studies, their potentials to cause renal toxicity are not equal [27]. The present article reviews the preclinical data, outlining a rationale for the differences in bisphosphonate renal safety.

	PRECLINICAL EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERING RENAL SAFETY PROFILES

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Comparative preclinical studies have shown differences in the renal safety profiles of bisphosphonates. Pfister et al. [15] investigated the potential for subclinical renal damage following bisphosphonate treatment at clinically relevant levels. In that controlled, 25-week, preclinical study, groups of rats were given ibandronate (1 mg/kg) or zoledronic acid (1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg) intermittently—with a between-dose interval of 3 weeks—or as a single dose by i.v. injection. Doses were selected experimentally because of their ability to produce minimally nephrotoxic subclinical effects in the animals.

Both single and intermittent ibandronate dosing led to similar incidences of proximal tubular degeneration and single-cell necrosis. Histopathologic renal changes were similar in severity and incidence in rats receiving single or intermittent doses of ibandronate (Fig. 1). Intermittent dosing of zoledronic acid, however, induced a higher incidence and severity of renal damage than single dosing (Fig. 1). Accumulated renal damage also was observed for a lower intermittent dose of zoledronic acid (1 mg/kg) that did not produce histopathologic renal damage when given only once (Fig. 1). It was concluded that, unlike ibandronate, intermittently administered zoledronic acid was associated with a risk for causing accumulated renal damage over time in this rat model.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Histopathologic findings in the kidneys of rats after single or intermittent dosing of ibandronate or zoledronic acid [15]. Abbreviation: PCT, proximal convoluted tubules.

Other preclinical studies add to the weight of evidence supporting the renal safety of ibandronate. The effect of ibandronate on bone was investigated in rats with normal versus moderately impaired renal function induced by two-thirds nephrectomy [29]. Intermittent ibandronate prevented the reductions in bone mass, changes in bone structure, and reduced bone turnover in these partly nephrectomized rats without further deterioration of renal function.

The impact of urinary diversion using several types of intestinal segments on the bone metabolism of growing rats with renal insufficiency was examined by Brkovic et al. [30]. Uremic rats underwent enterocystoplasty using stomach, ileum, or colon. An additional group with colic augmentation received ibandronate. All groups undergoing subtotal nephrectomy by removing five-sixths of the renal mass had a decreased endogenous creatinine clearance of approximately 30%. Ibandronate (10 µg/kg per day for 12 weeks) prevented relative decreases in bone mineral density of the tibia and femur that occurred following ileocystoplasty without causing further deterioration of renal function.

	PATIENT BIOPSIES

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
The potential deleterious effects of bisphosphonate treatment on the kidney have been demonstrated by renal biopsies. Pamidronate-induced renal toxicity is characterized by collapsing focal segmented glomerulosclerosis [19, 31, 32]. High-dose pamidronate, however, was shown on one occasion to induce acute tubular necrosis, probably resulting from pre-existing renal impairment [17]. Renal toxicity characterized by acute tubular necrosis is more often seen with zoledronic acid. This potential toxicity was well demonstrated in six patients with multiple myeloma or Paget’s disease who had received i.v. zoledronic acid, 4 mg monthly over 15 minutes [20]. Renal biopsy revealed acute tubular necrosis characterized by tubular cell degeneration, loss of brush border, and apoptosis. No biopsy exhibited the pattern of collapsing focal segmented glomerulosclerosis observed with pamidronate nephrotoxicity. In this report, acute tubular necrosis with zoledronic acid occurred after a mean duration of 4.7 months (range, 3–9 months), in agreement with the cumulative renal toxicity described in rats [15]. There also have been clinical reports of renal failure occurring with zoledronic acid after just one dose [33]. It is, however, unclear whether the patients received previous bisphosphonate therapy or had pre-existing renal impairment that may have contributed to the cumulative toxic effects of zoledronic acid. There are two possible mechanisms by which zoledronic acid could elicit nephrotoxic effects: (a) an acute mechanism that damages renal cells, and (b) a progressive but potentially reversible increase in serum creatinine levels. It is not known whether reports of acute tubular necrosis result from a previously unseen or unconsidered increase in serum creatinine.

	RATIONALE FOR RENAL SAFETY DIFFERENCES

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that the renal safety profiles of bisphosphonates differ [15–17, 19, 20, 29–32, 34]. Several factors may explain these differences (Table 1). Clinical evidence for differences is discussed elsewhere [35].

In the same animal model, it was also shown that the factor between the lowest lethal dose and renal lowest observed effect level may also be relevant when considering a rationale for renal safety differences among bisphosphonates. This factor has been shown to indicate the safety margin between the first signs of renal toxicity and a dose that can cause lethal renal damage [15]. The factor between the lowest lethal dose and renal lowest observed effect level is larger for ibandronate (25) than for zoledronic acid (3.3). This difference may indicate that ibandronate has a broader renal safety margin and is less likely to cause renal damage when doses are increased [15]. In the clinical setting, phase II studies showed that intensive ibandronate dosing, 4 mg infused over four consecutive days [37] and 6 mg infused over three consecutive days as a loading dose followed by intermittent dosing every 3–4 weeks [38, 39], relieves moderate-to-severe metastatic bone pain without adverse renal effects.

Because bisphosphonates cause renal toxicity through their intracellular effects on renal tubular cells, their intra-cellular potencies and renal tissue kinetics are likely to be important when considering differences among renal safety profiles. The lower the intracellular concentration of a bisphosphonate needed for inhibition of osteoclasts, the lower the expected effects in other cells, including renal tubular cells. Consequently, the influx of bisphosphonate into the target cells, intracellular transport, and rate of elimination from the cell should be key determinants of bisphosphonate renal safety. This is supported by investigations in which the cellular influx of alendronate did not vary with dose, whereas a saturable transport system eliminated the drug from the cell [9]. Thus, dose and C_max will affect the intracellular concentration of the bisphosphonate and, consequently, increase the risk for cellular damage.

Protein binding also may be important for the renal safety of a bisphosphonate, but it is the least understood factor. Generally, since only non–protein-bound bisphosphonate can enter tubule cells, a high level of protein binding may reduce the intracellular disposition, and thus the risk of cumulative renal damage, by reducing or delaying the passage into renal cells. On the other hand, if dissociation of the drug–protein complex is very rapid, tubular secretion may not be significantly limited by protein binding. Ibandronate has a higher level of protein binding (87%) than zoledronic acid (56%), pamidronate (54%), and clodronate (36%). The relevance of different protein binding in the clinical setting is, however, unclear and requires further examination.

	CONCLUSIONS

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Preclinical studies have demonstrated distinct differences among bisphosphonates in the risk for histopathologic renal damage and the potential to cause cumulative toxicity over time [15, 16]. The precise reasons for these differences among bisphosphonates are not completely understood, yet available data indicate that they may be influenced by pharmacokinetic properties such as renal tissue half-life or protein binding and intracellular potency.

Clinical data appear to confirm these preclinical findings and suggest that the risk for renal toxicity is not the same for all bisphosphonates. Reports of renal failure with the clinical use of zoledronic acid contrast with data for ibandronate that suggest its renal safety is comparable with that of placebo [34]. Further investigation is necessary to compare the renal safety profiles of the agents in more detail.

	DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Dr. Body has acted as a consultant and performed contract work for Hoffmann-La Roche.

	REFERENCES

Top Abstract Introduction Preclinical Evidence for... Patient Biopsies Rationale for Renal Safety... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 

1. Body JJ, Mancini I. Bisphosphonates for cancer patients: why, how and when? Support Care Cancer 2002;10:399–407.[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Russell RG, Croucher PI, Rogers MJ. Bisphosphonates: pharmacology, mechanisms of action and clinical uses. Osteoporos Int 1999;9(suppl 2):S66–S80.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Corso A, Zappasodi P, Lazzarino M. Urinary proteins and renal dysfunction in patients with multiple myeloma. Biomed Pharmacother 2002;56:139–143.[Medline]
4. Kintzel PE. Anticancer drug-induced kidney disorders. Drug Saf 2001;24:19–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Bauss F, Russell RGG. Ibandronate in osteoporosis: preclinical data and rationale for intermittent dosing. Osteoporos Int 2004;15:423–433.[Medline]
6. Fleisch H. Bisphosphonates in bone disease: from the laboratory to the patient, 4th ed. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group Ltd., 2000:1–212.
7. Green JR, Seltenmeyer Y, Jaeggi KA et al. Renal tolerability profile of novel, potent bisphosphonates in two short-term rat models. Pharmacol Toxicol 1997;80:225–230.[Medline]
8. Troehler U, Bonjour J, Fleisch H. Renal transport of bisphosphonates: accumulation by renal cortical slices enhanced by calcium phosphate ions. J Lab Clin Med 1985;106:23–29.[Medline]
9. Kino I, Kato Y, Lin JH et al. Renal handling of bisphosphonate alendronate in rats. Biopharm Drug Dispos 1999;20:193–198.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Adami S, Zamberlan N. Adverse effects of bisphosphonates: a comparative review. Drug Saf 1996;14:158–170.[Medline]
11. Cal JC, Daley-Yates PT. Disposition and nephrotoxicity of 3-amino-1-hydroxypropylidene-1, bisphosphonate (APD), in rats and mice. Toxicology 1990;65:179–197.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Alden CL, Parker RD, Eastman DF. Development of an acute model for the study of chloromethanediphosphonate nephrotoxicity. Toxicol Pathol 1989;17:27–32.[Medline]
13. Brazy PC, Gullans SR, Mandel LJ et al. Metabolic requirement for inorganic phosphate by the rat proximal tubule. J Clin Invest 1982;70:53–62.[Medline]
14. Zojer N, Keck AV, Pecherstorfer M. Comparative tolerability of drug therapies for hypercalcaemia of malignancy. Drug Saf 1999;21:389–406.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. 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]
16. Pfister T, Atzpodien E, Bohrmann B et al. Acute nephrotoxicity of three intravenous bisphosphonates in the rat. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005 (in press).
17. 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][Medline]
18. Lockridge L, Papac RJ, Perazella MA. Pamidronate-associated nephrotoxicity in a patient with Langerhans’s histiocytosis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;40:E2.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Markowitz GS, Appel GB, Fine PL et al. Collapsing focal segmental glomerulosclerosis following treatment with high-dose pamidronate. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001;12:1164–1172.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. 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]
21. Rogers MJ, Gordon S, Benford HL et al. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates. Cancer 2000;88( suppl 12):2961–2978.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Rogers MJ. New insights into the molecular mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates. Curr Pharm Des 2003;9:2643–2658.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Zhang FL, Casey PJ. Protein prenylation: molecular mechanisms and dysfunctional consequences. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1997;37:143–166.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Clark EA, King WG, Brugge JS et al. Integrin-mediated signals regulated by members of the rho family of GTPases. J Cell Biol 1998;142:573–586.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Ridley AJ, Paterson HF, Johnston CL et al. The small GTP-binding protein rac regulates growth factor-induced membrane ruffling. Cell 1992;70:401–410.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Zhang D, Udagawa N, Nakamura I et al. The small GTP-binding protein, rho p21, is involved in bone resorption by regulating cytoskeletal organization in osteoclasts. J Cell Sci 1995;108:2285–2292.[Abstract]
27. Bauss F, Body JJ. Ibandronate in metastatic bone disease: a review of preclinical data. Anticancer Drugs 2005;16:107–118.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Alden CL, Burns JL, Parker RD et al. Characterization of the early ultra-structural and biochemical events occurring in dichloromethane diphosphonate nephrotoxicity. Toxicol Pathol 1990;18:661–666.[Medline]
29. Geng Z, Monier-Faugere MC, Bauss F et al. Short-term administration of the bisphosphonate ibandronate increases bone volume and prevents hyperparathyroid bone changes in mild experimental renal failure. Clin Nephrol 2000;54:45–53.[Medline]
30. Brkovic D, Seibel M, Juchem R et al. Effect of augmentation cystoplasty on bone metabolism in chronic uremic rats. J Urol 2004;171:921–925.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Desikan R, Veksler Y, Raza S et al. Nephrotic proteinuria associated with high-dose pamidronate in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2002;119:496–499.[CrossRef][Medline]
32. Kunin M, Kopolovic J, Avigdor A et al. Collapsing glomerulopathy induced by long-term treatment with standard-dose pamidronate in a myeloma patient. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19:723–726.[Free Full Text]
33. Chang JT, Green L, Beitz J. Renal failure with the use of zoledronic acid. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1676–1679.[Free Full Text]
34. Diel I, Body JJ, Bergström B. Renal safety of intravenous (i.v) ibandronate for up to 4 years of treatment in patients with metastatic bone disease. Ann Oncol 2004;15(suppl 3):iii224.
35. Bell R. Efficacy of ibandronate in metastatic bone disease: review of clinical data. The Oncologist 2005;10(suppl 1):8–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Pfister T. Comparative renal effects of two intravenously administered bisphosphonates. Toxicology 2004;196:169–170.[CrossRef]
37. Mancini I, Dumon JC, Body JJ. Efficacy and safety of ibandronate in the treatment of opioid-resistant bone pain associated with metastatic bone disease: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3587–3592.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Heidenreich A, Ohlmann C, Olbert P et al. High-dose ibandronate is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of pain and hypercalcaemia due to metastatic urologic cancer. Eur J Cancer 2003;1(suppl 5): S270.
39. Ohlmann C, Heidenreich A. Efficacy of ibandronate in the management of painful osseous metastases due to hormone refractory prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer 2003;11:396.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. M. Weiss, U. Pfaar, A. Schweitzer, H. Wiegand, A. Skerjanec, and H. Schran Biodistribution and Plasma Protein Binding of Zoledronic Acid Drug Metab. Dispos., October 1, 2008; 36(10): 2043 - 2049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. D. Ottewell, H. Monkkonen, M. Jones, D. V. Lefley, R. E. Coleman, and I. Holen Antitumor Effects of Doxorubicin Followed by Zoledronic Acid in a Mouse Model of Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, August 20, 2008; 100(16): 1167 - 1178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. von Moos, C. B. Caspar, B. Thurlimann, R. Angst, R. Inauen, R. Greil, B. Bergstrom, K. Schmieding, and M. Pecherstorfer Renal safety profiles of ibandronate 6 mg infused over 15 and 60 min: a randomized, open-label study Ann. Onc., July 1, 2008; 19(7): 1266 - 1270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Guise Bone Loss and Fracture Risk Associated with Cancer Therapy Oncologist, November 1, 2006; 11(10): 1121 - 1131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Q. Lacy, A. Dispenzieri, M. A. Gertz, P. R. Greipp, K. L. Gollbach, S. R. Hayman, S. Kumar, J. A. Lust, S. V. Rajkumar, S. J. Russell, et al. Mayo Clinic Consensus Statement for the Use of Bisphosphonates in Multiple Myeloma Mayo Clin. Proc., August 1, 2006; 81(8): 1047 - 1053. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-J. Body Bisphosphonates in Metastatic Bone Disease: Renal Safety Matters Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(suppl_1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Jackson Renal Safety of Ibandronate Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(suppl_1): 14 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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