Advertisement
help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow IMPORTANT FDA ADVISORY
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Conte, P.
Right arrow Articles by Guarneri, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Conte, P.
Right arrow Articles by Guarneri, V.
The Oncologist, Vol. 9, Suppl 4, 28–37, September 2004
© 2004 AlphaMed Press

Safety of Intravenous and Oral Bisphosphonates and Compliance With Dosing Regimens

PierFranco Conte, Valentina Guarneri

Department of Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital, Modena, Italy

Correspondence: PierFranco Conte, M.D., Department of Oncology and Hematology, University Hospital, via del Pozzo 71, 41100 Modena, Italy. Telephone: 39-059-4224538/4224019 (secretary); Fax: 39-059-4224429; e-mail: conte.pierfranco{at}unimore.it


   LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Top
 Learning Objectives
Abstract
 Introduction
 Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
 Compliance With Oral...
 Conclusions
 References
 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

  1. Describe the differences between oral and i.v. bisphosphonate therapy in terms of safety and side effects.
  2. Explain the renal effects of long-term i.v. bisphosphonate treatment.
  3. Discuss the importance of patient compliance in long-term disease management.

Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 hour of AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
Introduction
 Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
 Compliance With Oral...
 Conclusions
 References
 
Patients with advanced cancers—particularly breast and prostate cancers—are at high risk for bone metastasis, leading to accelerated bone resorption and clinically significant skeletal morbidity. Bisphosphonates are effective inhibitors of bone resorption and reduce the risk of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases. The standard routes of administration for bisphosphonates used in clinical practice are either oral or i.v. infusion. Oral administration of bisphosphonates is complicated by poor bioavailability (generally <5%) and poor gastrointestinal tolerability. First-generation bisphosphonates, such as clodronate (Bonefos®; Anthra Pharmaceuticals; Princeton, NJ), must be administered at high oral doses (1,600–3,200 mg/day) to achieve therapeutic effects, which leads to poor tolerability and compliance with oral dosing regimens. Infusion of bisphosphonates is associated with dose- and infusion-rate-dependent effects on renal function. In particular, high bisphosphonate doses (e.g., 1,500 mg clodronate) can cause severe renal toxicity unless infused slowly over many hours. In contrast, the newer, more potent bisphosphonates effectively inhibit bone resorption at micromolar concentrations, and the small doses required can be administered via relatively short i.v. infusions without adversely affecting renal function. Zoledronic acid (Zometa®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.; East Hanover, NJ) is a new generation bisphosphonate, and the recommended dose of 4 mg can be safely infused over 15 minutes. The 90-mg dose of pamidronate (Aredia®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.) and the 6-mg dose of ibandronate (Bondronat®; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Nutley, NJ) require 1- to 4-hour infusions. Intravenous bisphosphonates require less frequent dosing (once a month) and are generally well tolerated with long-term use in patients with bone metastases. Zoledronic acid has demonstrated the broadest clinical activity in patients with bone metastases.

Key Words. Advanced cancer • Bone metastases • Bisphosphonates • Zoledronic acid


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
 Compliance With Oral...
 Conclusions
 References
 
Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and are effective in the treatment of malignant bone disease [1]. Intravenous bisphosphonates are the current standard of care for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM) and for the prevention of skeletal complications associated with bone metastases. Currently, zoledronic acid (Zometa®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.; East Hanover, NJ) (4 mg via a 15-minute infusion) and pamidronate (Aredia®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.) (90 mg via a 2-hour infusion) are the only agents recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for the treatment of bone lesions from breast cancer and multiple myeloma [2]. Furthermore, zoledronic acid is approved by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products for the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with multiple myeloma or bone metastases secondary to a variety of solid tumors, including breast, prostate, and lung cancer [3].

Bisphosphonates have undergone considerable evolution since the early 1970s, and the potency of these compounds has been steadily improved with each successive generation [4]. The first-generation bisphosphonates, etidronate (Didronel®; Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cincinnati, OH) and clodronate (Bonefos®; Anthra Pharmaceuticals; Princeton, NJ)—which lack a nitrogen atom—require relatively high molar concentrations to achieve clinical activity. Etidronate and clodronate also have low therapeutic ratios. Therefore, at the high doses required to effectively inhibit bone resorption, etidronate has the potential to adversely affect bone mineralization and may cause osteomalacia [5]. The i.v. infusion of etidronate and clodronate has also been associated with acute renal failure [6]. Therapeutic doses of etidronate and clodronate must be infused slowly over many hours with careful monitoring of serum creatinine to ensure renal safety. The first nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, pamidronate and alendronate (Fosamax®; Merck and Company, Inc.; West Point, PA), were developed in the early 1980s and were found to be 10- to 100-fold more potent inhibitors of bone resorption than etidronate and clodronate [7, 8]. Ibandronate (Bondronat®; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Nutley, NJ) was subsequently developed and shown to be approximately 10-fold more potent than pamidronate. Zoledronic acid and risedronate (Actonel®; Proctor and Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) are members of the newest generation of bisphosphonates that contain heterocyclic side chains. Zoledronic acid is unique in that it contains two nitrogen atoms, and it has been shown to be 40- to 850-fold more potent than pamidronate in various preclinical models of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption [7].

The development of highly potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates improved the convenience of i.v. administration because it allowed infusion times to be dramatically shortened. Infusion of all bisphosphonates is associated with dose- and infusion-rate-dependent effects on renal function as evidenced by increases in serum creatinine [9, 10]. Therefore, the more potent agents, which achieve therapeutic activity at micromolar concentrations, require lower doses and shorter infusion times. Zoledronic acid has the shortest approved infusion time of any bisphosphonate (15 minutes), compared with the 1–4 hours required for pamidronate and ibandronate. In addition, zoledronic acid (4 mg) is unique among other bisphosphonates because it effectively reduces the incidence and delays the onset of skeletal complications in patients with osteolytic, mixed, and osteoblastic bone lesions from a wide range of primary malignancies, including multiple myeloma, breast, prostate, and lung cancer, as well as a variety of other solid tumors [11–15].

Bisphosphonates used to treat malignant bone disease are administered either orally or via an i.v. infusion. Each route has it advantages and disadvantages, and this review focuses on those issues. Although daily oral bisphosphonate therapy can be administered at home and may seem more convenient than i.v. administration for the patient, oral bisphosphonate therapy appears to be less effective and may not be any more convenient than monthly infusions [16–18]. Oral bisphosphonates are less effective for the treatment of HCM (i.e., less rapid and sustained normalization of serum calcium) and appear to have limited activity in patients with bone metastases compared with i.v. therapy [16, 17] (reviewed by Coleman [19]). Furthermore, the oral administration of bisphosphonates is limited by poor bioavailability (<5%) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (primarily esophagitis and diarrhea) [16, 18, 20]. Because of poor GI tolerability, compliance with oral bisphosphonate therapy is also an issue, and many patients require dose adjustments or discontinue therapy as a result, which can adversely affect efficacy. Therefore, in line with the updated ASCO guidelines on bisphosphonate therapy in breast cancer and multiple myeloma [2], as well as consensus guidelines and recommendations for bisphosphonate therapy in prostate cancer [21–23] and lung cancer [24], most physicians prefer i.v. bisphosphonates for the treatment of malignant bone disease, wherein strict compliance with the regimen is critical to achieve maximum therapeutic benefit.


   SAFETY PROFILE OF BISPHOSPHONATE THERAPY
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
Compliance With Oral...
 Conclusions
 References
 
Both the i.v. and oral administration of bisphosphonates are associated with adverse events, but the safety profile varies somewhat depending on the route of administration. Intravenous administration is associated with mild-to-moderate flu-like symptoms following the initial infusions, whereas oral administration is associated with a significant incidence of GI adverse events. Oral administration is generally not associated with adverse effects on renal function, whereas renal function can be affected by i.v. administration. However, when bisphosphonates are administered at the recommended doses and infusion rates, the incidence of elevated serum creatinine is generally low (<10%), and severe renal adverse events are rare.

Intravenous Bisphosphonates
In general, the i.v. administration of bisphosphonates is well tolerated with a predictable and manageable side-effect profile that may include acute-phase responses, fluctuations in serum ion levels (calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus), and occasional elevations in serum creatinine [9, 10]. However, i.v. bisphosphonates are associated with a low incidence of serious adverse events. In addition, there are no known interactions between bisphosphonates and anticancer agents. Self-limiting, transient, acute-phase reactions resulting in mild to moderate flu-like symptoms have been reported in approximately one-third of patients—primarily after the first infusion [9]. These reactions occur with similar frequencies among patients treated with all i.v. bisphosphonates and are characterized by transient low-grade fever, fatigue, arthralgia or myalgia, nausea, and increased bone pain. In the comparative phase III trial of 4 mg zoledronic acid versus 90 mg pamidronate in patients with breast cancer or multiple myeloma, the most common adverse events in both treatment groups were mild to moderate bone pain, nausea, fatigue, and fever, and these events occurred with similar frequencies in both treatment groups (Table 1Go) [11, 12]. In a recent study of i.v. ibandronate (2 or 6 mg) in patients with breast cancer, serious adverse events related to the study drug included bone pain, lung edema, and asthenia [25]. Intravenous bisphosphonates are also associated with a slightly higher incidence of mild anemia [13] and with serum electrolyte imbalances. The latter can be minimized with administration of vitamin D and calcium (500 mg/day) supplements [11, 13]. Ibandronate has also been associated with lymphocytosis [9].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Most frequently reported adverse events regardless of relationship to study drug
 
Recently, retrospective case studies have reported an association between long-term bisphosphonate therapy and osteonecrosis of the jaws [26–28]. The incidence of osteonecrosis was very rare, occurring in <1 in 10,000 patients receiving i.v. bisphosphonate therapy since 2001. Historically, the risk of developing osteonecrosis (at any site) is four times higher in cancer patients than in the normal population and has multiple risk factors, including previous/concomitant chemotherapy, steroid therapy, or radiation therapy, as well as trauma, infection, and a history of dental procedures [29]. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians assess the dental status of patients before administration of bisphosphonate therapy, avoid invasive dental procedures in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy, and monitor patients for good oral hygiene and the occurrence of jaw osteonecrosis. Importantly, a causal relationship between bisphosphonate use and osteonecrosis has not been established, and it is unclear as to why this condition develops preferentially in the jawbones. Furthermore, cases of osteonecrosis in patients receiving bisphosphonates have only been observed since 2001, indicating that new concomitant anticancer therapies could be contributing to the development of the disease.

Renal Effects of i.v. Bisphosphonates
All i.v. bisphosphonates are associated with dose- and infusion-rate-dependent effects on renal function [6, 9, 30]. Therefore, bisphosphonates should always be infused at the recommended doses and schedules, and renal function should be monitored. Doses of pamidronate higher than the recommended 90 mg have been associated with a higher risk of nephrotoxicity [31]. In addition, the infusion time for zoledronic acid was lengthened from 5 to 15 minutes and the 8-mg dose was discontinued because of renal safety concerns [11, 13, 14]. Patients receiving long-term bisphosphonate therapy may experience a rise in serum creatinine. In general, however, clinically significant serum creatinine increases are rare among patients treated with i.v. bisphosphonates.

The long-term safety of zoledronic acid was investigated in three large clinical trials involving more than 3,000 cancer patients with multiple myeloma, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and lung cancer or other solid tumors [12, 13, 32]. These trials used prospectively applied conservative criteria to evaluate notable serum creatinine increases after bisphosphonate infusion (defined as an increase ≥0.5 mg/dl for patients with normal baseline serum creatinine levels [<1.4 mg/dl], an increase ≥1.0 mg/dl for patients with abnormal baseline serum creatinine levels, or ≥2 times the baseline value). Importantly, changes in serum creatinine were defined according to baseline measurements. After 2 years of monthly infusions, overall renal safety was similar for patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma who were treated with either zoledronic acid or pamidronate [12]. More importantly, the renal safety profile of zoledronic acid was not significantly different than that of placebo in patients with prostate cancer or lung cancer and other solid tumors [13, 32].

In the comparative trial in patients with multiple myeloma or breast cancer, Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first notable serum creatinine increase (Fig. 1Go) demonstrated comparable risks for decreased renal function (risk ratio = 1.057; p = 0.839) for patients treated with zoledronic acid (4 mg via a 15-minute infusion) or pamidronate (90 mg via a 2-hour infusion) [12]. Furthermore, among patients with breast cancer receiving 4 mg zoledronic acid via a 15-minute infusion (n = 181), there were no National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 3 or 4 serum creatinine increases, and the percentage of patients receiving zoledronic acid who experienced a notable serum creatinine increase was similar to that of pamidronate (9.4% versus 6.5% for pamidronate) (Table 2Go) [33]. The long-term safety of zoledronic acid and pamidronate has also been demonstrated beyond 2 years of therapy. A subset analysis in 22 patients with multiple myeloma or breast cancer who received i.v. zoledronic acid or pamidronate therapy for a median of 3.6 years (range 2.2–6 years) showed no clinically relevant changes in complete blood cell count, platelet count, calcium analysis, electrolyte analysis, or kidney function tests, thus demonstrating that prolonged bisphosphonate therapy is well tolerated [34]. The renal safety of long-term zoledronic acid was confirmed by a recent analysis performed at our institution; 53 patients with breast cancer (44), multiple myeloma (7), or other tumor types (2) were treated with i.v. bisphosphonates for a median of 30 months (range 24+ to 124+ months), with CTC grade 1 renal toxicity observed in 7.5% of patients.



View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first notable serum creatinine increase in patients with multiple myeloma or breast cancer with bone metastases receiving 4 mg zoledronic acid or 90 mg pamidronate and Andersen-Gill multiple event analysis of the risk of elevated serum creatinine between treatment groups. *After start of study drug.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Percentage of breast cancer patients with notable serum creatinine increases* after 2 years of i.v. bisphosphonate therapy
 
Recently, the renal safety profile of i.v. ibandronate (6 mg via a 1- to 2-hour infusion every 3–4 weeks) in patients with breast cancer was reported, and it was similar to that of zoledronic acid in the breast cancer subset [25, 35]. In a post-hoc analysis using the same criteria defined in the zoledronic acid trials, 6% of patients receiving either ibandronate or placebo experienced a notable increase in serum creatinine after 2 years of therapy (Table 2Go) [35]. The incidences of clinically significant renal adverse events were also similar between the ibandronate and placebo groups (4.5% for ibandronate versus 4.0% for placebo), and none of these were considered serious adverse events [36]. However, the percentage of patients experiencing a decrease in creatinine clearance was twofold higher in the ibandronate group (2.6% versus 1.3% for placebo).

Zoledronic acid (4 mg via a 15-minute infusion) has also demonstrated a favorable renal safety profile when compared with placebo in two long-term, randomized trials [13, 32, 37]. In a study of 643 men with advanced prostate cancer, Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first notable serum creatinine increase (Fig. 2Go) demonstrated comparable risks of elevated serum creatinine for patients treated with zoledronic acid and those given placebo for 24 months (risk ratio = 1.137; p = 0.752) [37]. Similarly, in a study in patients with lung cancer or other solid tumors, the incidences of serum creatinine increases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer were similar in the zoledronic acid and placebo groups after 21 months of treatment (p = 0.920) [38]. Only one patient in each treatment group had a grade 3 serum creatinine increase, and no patient experienced a grade 4 increase.



View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first notable serum creatinine increase in patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases receiving 4 mg zoledronic acid or placebo and Andersen-Gill multiple event analysis of the risk of elevated serum creatinine between treatment groups. *After start of study drug.

 
Because of the potential for decreased renal function, guidelines for the long-term use of i.v. bisphosphonates in patients with malignant bone disease recommend that serum creatinine levels be monitored before each infusion [2]. In addition, the prescribing information for pamidronate, zoledronic acid, and ibandronate recommends monitoring serum creatinine or creatinine clearance [10, 39, 40]. If a patient receiving zoledronic acid or pamidronate has a notable serum creatinine increase, as defined in the zoledronic acid trials, infusion of the next dose should be withheld until serum creatinine returns to within 10% of baseline. Moreover, zoledronic acid and pamidronate are not recommended for patients with baseline serum creatinine levels >3.0 mg/dl unless the clinical benefit outweighs the risk [10, 39]. Infusion of ibandronate at a lower dose (2 mg) is recommended for patients with creatinine clearance <30 ml/minute; however, there is no evidence that this dose has clinical activity [25, 40]. In general, the use of i.v. bisphosphonates in patients with significantly impaired renal function is not recommended. Otherwise, i.v. bisphosphonates may be used in patients at risk for decreased renal function as long as serum creatinine is closely monitored. In particular, patients with multiple myeloma are at increased risk of renal failure because of the nature of their disease and use of nephrotoxic chemotherapy. Increasing the infusion time and addition of hydration therapy may be appropriate in some clinical situations to reduce the risk.

Oral Bisphosphonates
Oral bisphosphonates, including clodronate and ibandronate, are used for the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced breast cancer. However, bisphosphonates are poorly absorbed in the GI tract (<5% of the oral dose is typically absorbed) and can cause esophagitis and other GI adverse events [41]. Because of their low bioavailability, high oral doses may be required. This is particularly problematic for clodronate, which is one of the least potent bisphosphonates available. Consequently, patients must swallow several large tablets or capsules. In addition, oral bisphosphonates must be administered on an empty stomach to improve bioavailability. The typical daily dosing regimen specifies that the tablets be taken on an empty stomach with 6–8 ounces of water, and patients must fast and remain upright for at least 30 minutes to avoid epigastric pain. If not taken properly, oral bisphosphonates can cause a high incidence of GI adverse events, including esophagitis, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and may exacerbate the side effects of anticancer therapy.

Evidence of GI toxicity associated with oral bisphosphonate therapy is available from studies of clodronate and ibandronate in cancer patients and in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. In a long-term trial of oral clodronate (1,600 mg/day for 2 years) in patients with breast cancer, GI adverse events were significantly more common for patients receiving oral clodronate than for those receiving placebo (Table 3Go) [42, 43]. Although the overall incidences of adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups, the incidence of GI adverse events was significantly higher among patients treated with clodronate (57% versus 45% for placebo; p < 0.05). The incidence of upper GI adverse events was only slightly higher in the clodronate group (22% for clodronate versus 19% for placebo) [43], but diarrhea was significantly more common in the clodronate group, particularly during the treatment period (15% versus 7%; p < 0.05). In a pooled analysis of two recent trials of oral ibandronate in breast cancer patients with bone metastases, patients receiving ibandronate (50 mg/day) were twice as likely to experience treatment-related GI adverse events, including abdominal pain, dyspepsia, nausea, and esophagitis, than those receiving placebo (Table 4Go) [44]. A randomized trial of oral ibandronate in 240 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis also demonstrated that diarrhea was more common in patients receiving ibandronate than in those receiving placebo (10% and 11% for two different schedules of ibandronate versus 1% for placebo) [45, 46]. In addition, a higher percentage of patients in the daily ibandronate group experienced constipation than in the placebo group (6% versus 0%).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Most common gastrointestinal adverse events associated with oral clodronate therapy
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Most common treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events associated with oral ibandronate therapy
 

   COMPLIANCE WITH ORAL BISPHOSPHONATE THERAPY
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
 Compliance With Oral...
Conclusions
 References
 
A major issue with the use of oral bisphosphonate therapy is patient compliance with the dosing regimen. Compliance with oral medication is influenced by a variety of factors, including age, disease type and duration, lifestyle, treatment regimen, and tolerability [47, 48]. In addition, compliance rates reported from well-controlled clinical trials might be higher than those observed in "real-world" situations. Oral medications that elicit GI or other side effects that significantly affect quality of life are less likely to be taken than treatment regimens without major side effects. In addition, when the adverse events associated with an oral therapy can be directly attributed to the drug—for example, if adverse events occur in close temporal proximity to dosing—patients are less likely to comply. Oral bisphosphonate therapy has been associated with a fairly high rate of noncompliance and early study withdrawal because of its complicated treatment regimen and high rate of GI adverse events [40, 49–52].

The global rate of noncompliance with long-term oral bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis has been reported as >50% [53]. However, there are limited data on the rate of noncompliance with oral bisphosphonate therapy among patients with bone metastases from advanced cancer, which also involves chronic dosing. The only available data regarding compliance with oral bisphosphonate therapy in patients with bone metastases are from clinical trials of oral clodronate conducted in Europe. Because clodronate has a low potency and thus requires high doses to achieve therapeutic concentrations, treatment with oral clodronate (1,600 mg/day) is further complicated by the large tablets that are difficult for many patients to swallow. Although there are no studies that were specifically designed to evaluate compliance, several studies have reported data on compliance. In a clinical trial of oral clodronate in breast cancer patients with bone metastases (n = 173), compliance was evaluated in 78% of patients in the clodronate group who survived longer than 6 months. Of these, 74% were partially or fully compliant (i.e., self-administered the study medication during part or all of the study, respectively) and 26% were completely noncompliant with the oral regimen [49]. In addition, 16% of patients receiving clodronate and 18% of patients receiving placebo reported difficulty swallowing the capsules. In another study of oral clodronate in patients with metastatic bone pain (n = 55), overall compliance was reported as >90%, but a number of patients withdrew prematurely because of difficulty swallowing the capsules [50].

Another way to assess noncompliance is to examine the reasons for study termination and the extent to which bisphosphonate-related adverse events contribute to early withdrawal (Table 5Go). In the study cited above in 173 patients with breast cancer, 34% of patients in the clodronate group discontinued the study drug, including 22% of patients who withdrew because of early noncompliance (i.e., <6 weeks) [49]. A recent randomized trial of oral clodronate in the adjuvant setting for the prevention of bone metastasis in patients with breast cancer demonstrated higher incidences of GI adverse events and early study discontinuation due to adverse events in the clodronate group than in the placebo group [42]. In that large, multicenter trial, 1,079 patients were randomized to receive either oral clodronate (1,600 mg/day) or placebo for 2 years. GI adverse events resulted in early study withdrawal for 6.3% of patients in the clodronate group and for 3.9% of patients in the placebo group. Two additional studies have also reported high rates of study discontinuation among breast cancer patients receiving oral clodronate for the treatment of bone metastases [50, 51]. In one study involving 100 patients, 35% of patients discontinued the study drug, and 14% of patients treated with clodronate discontinued treatment because of GI adverse events (primarily nausea and diarrhea) [51]. In a study involving 55 patients, 37% of patients receiving oral clodronate withdrew from the study, and difficulty swallowing the capsules was reported to contribute to study withdrawal in 11% of patients [50]. These studies suggest that as many as one-third of patients may not receive the full benefit of oral clodronate either because of early withdrawal or noncompliance.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Summary of oral bisphosphonate studies and most common reasons for early study withdrawal
 
A high rate of early study withdrawal due to GI adverse events was also reported in a study of oral ibandronate in patients with metastatic bone disease [52]. That study involved 110 patients with bone metastases secondary to a variety of cancers, who received either oral ibandronate at doses ranging from 5–50 mg/day or placebo; 8% of patients discontinued within 1 month because of GI intolerability. During the first month of treatment, a dose-dependent incidence of GI adverse events was reported; 50% of patients treated with the 50-mg ibandronate dose experienced GI toxicity compared with 30% of patients in the placebo group. Notably, one patient treated with the 20-mg ibandronate dose developed radiographically confirmed esophageal ulceration. Similarly, in a pooled analysis of two recent trials of oral ibandronate (50 mg/day for up to 96 weeks) in breast cancer patients with bone metastases (n = 564), 10% of patients receiving ibandronate withdrew from the study because of adverse events [44].

Noncompliance can also adversely affect treatment outcome. If the dosing regimen for oral bisphosphonates is not followed and patients ingest food or beverages other than water within 30 minutes of taking a bisphosphonate, absorption will be further reduced resulting in decreased efficacy. In the case of oral ibandronate, patients must not ingest food for ≥1 hour after taking the drug to maintain efficacy. A study of oral ibandronate therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis investigated the effects of a 30-minute versus 60-minute postdose fasting period [54]. That study demonstrated that oral ibandronate was approximately half as effective, based on measurements of lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD), when patients ate within 30 minutes of taking the drug compared with the group that waited ≥1 hour before eating. However, the greater efficacy observed in the 60-minute fasting group was accompanied by a higher incidence of GI adverse events. In particular, the incidence of dyspepsia was more than twofold higher in the 60-minute fasting group (8.5% versus 3.7%).

Other studies assessing compliance with oral bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis have demonstrated that noncompliance can lead to reduced clinical efficacy and increases in the burden of disease. For example, the IMPACT study evaluated the effect of compliance on the efficacy of oral risedronate therapy in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 2,302) [55]. That study used bone resorption markers (urinary N-telopeptide and serum C-telopeptide) and changes in BMD to assess efficacy, and changes from baseline measurements were related to compliance using a proportional hazards model. The results showed a correlation between compliance with therapy and improvements in these clinical parameters. For example, at week 22 of treatment, C-telopeptide levels showed a reduction of >50% in 60% of compliant patients versus only approximately 20% of noncompliant patients. Therefore, noncompliance to oral bisphosphonate therapy can have significant effects on clinical outcomes.

Noncompliance with oral therapies can also have important health-economic implications. Although studies of the health-economic effects of noncompliance are limited, the available evidence suggests that noncompliance can result in increased morbidity and burden of disease, which increases health care costs. The increased health care costs stem from more frequent physician visits, diagnostic testing, hospital admissions, and longer hospital stays for patients who do not comply with their treatment regimen [47]. These increases in the economic burden of disease are unfortunate given that effective therapies exist, but patients are not receiving the full benefit of those available treatments. Noncompliance may also result in erroneous efficacy conclusions from clinical trials. An evaluation of the effect of noncompliance on efficacy and cost-effectiveness revealed that noncompliance always resulted in reduced efficacy, whereas the economic effects of noncompliance varied significantly among trials depending on the therapeutic agent and the disease being treated [56]. Among 22 clinical trials examined, the majority of the evaluations assumed that noncompliance with the dosing regimen altered the effectiveness of the investigational drug. However, most studies did not include any measures of compliance. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the magnitude of the effect of noncompliance on efficacy conclusions. In the studies examined, noncompliance also clearly affected the cost of treating the disease; however, the impact on cost was variable.


   CONCLUSIONS
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
 Compliance With Oral...
 Conclusions
References
 
Intravenous bisphosphonates are the standard of care for the treatment of HCM and the prevention of skeletal complications resulting from bone metastases. The i.v. administration of bisphosphonates is generally safe and well tolerated with long-term use, and the development of highly potent, new-generation bisphosphonates has greatly improved the safety and convenience of i.v. infusion. With these newer agents, the risk of decreased renal function is low when used at the recommended doses and infusion times, but serum creatinine monitoring is recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are also used for the treatment of bone metastases. Although oral bisphosphonates can be self-administered at home, the treatment regimens for these agents are complicated, and oral therapy can result in GI adverse events—one reason for patient noncompliance. The level of compliance with oral treatment regimens has not been extensively monitored in clinical trials; thus, it is difficult to fully evaluate the consequences of noncompliance. However, noncompliance has been shown to reduce clinical efficacy and may increase health care costs. In general, i.v. administration of bisphosphonates appears to be more effective in patients with HCM (i.e., more rapid onset of action) and for the prevention of skeletal complications. Furthermore, i.v. bisphosphonate therapy ensures full compliance, and monthly infusions—although they may require travel to an infusion center—may be more convenient than daily oral therapy for many patients. Moreover, home infusion of zoledronic acid by specialized care personnel is becoming increasingly popular in some European countries, making i.v. bisphosphonate therapy a favorable treatment option. For all these reasons, i.v. bisphosphonates should be the treatment of choice in patients with malignant bone disease.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
 Compliance With Oral...
 Conclusions
 References
 
PierFranco Conte receives a research grant from Novartis and is a lecturer and consultant for Novartis and Roche.


   References
Top
 Learning Objectives
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Safety Profile of Bisphosphonate...
 Compliance With Oral...
 Conclusions
 References
 

  1. Coleman RE. Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev 2001;27:165–176.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Chlebowski RT et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2003 update on the role of bisphosphonates and bone health issues in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4042–4057. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Lacerna L, Hohneker J. Zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer and other solid tumors. Semin Oncol 2003;30(suppl 16):150–160.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Green JR, Rogers MJ. Pharmacologic profile of zoledronic acid: a highly potent inhibitor of bone resorption. Drug Dev Res 2002;55:210–224.[CrossRef]
  5. Boyce BF, Smith L, Fogelman I et al. Focal osteomalacia due to low-dose diphosphonate therapy in Paget’s disease. Lancet 1984;1:821–824.[Medline]
  6. Bounameaux HM, Schifferli J, Montani JP et al. Renal failure associated with intravenous diphosphonates. Lancet 1983;1:471.
  7. Green JR, Müller K, Jaeggi KA. Preclinical pharmacology of CGP 42'446, a new, potent, heterocyclic bisphosphonate compound. J Bone Miner Res 1994;9:745–751.[Medline]
  8. Shinoda H, Adamek G, Felix R et al. Structure-activity relationships of various bisphosphonates. Calcif Tissue Int 1983;35:87–99.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Zojer N, Keck AV, Pecherstorfer M. Comparative tolerability of drug therapies for hypercalcaemia of malignancy. Drug Saf 1999;21:389–406.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Zometa® [package insert]. Zoledronic acid prescribing information. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 2003.
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. Saad F, Gleason DM, Murray R et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1458–1468.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. 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]
  15. Lipton A, Zheng M, Seaman J. Zoledronic acid delays the onset of skeletal-related events and progression of skeletal disease in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2003;98:962–969.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Major PP, Lipton A, Berenson J et al. Oral bisphosphonates: a review of clinical use in patients with bone metastases. Cancer 2000;88:6–14.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Body JJ, Bartl R, Burckhardt P et al. Current use of bisphosphonates in oncology. International Bone and Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3890–3899.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Body JJ. Dosing regimens and main adverse events of bisphosphonates. Semin Oncol 2001;28(suppl 11):49–53.
  19. Coleman RE. Bisphosphonates: clinical experience. The Oncologist 2004;9(suppl 4):14–27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Cryer B, Bauer DC. Oral bisphosphonates and upper gastrointestinal tract problems: what is the evidence? Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:1031–1043.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Carroll PR, Altwein J, Brawley O et al. Management of disseminated prostate cancer: In: Denis L, Bartsch G, Khoury S et al., eds. Prostate Cancer: 3rd International Consultation on Prostate Cancer—Paris. Paris, France: Health Publications, 2003:249–284.
  22. Eastham JA. Bisphosphonates and prostate cancer: maintaining bone integrity and quality of life. Am J Urol Rev 2004;2(suppl 2):5–8.
  23. Saad F. The role of intravenous bisphosphonates in the management of prostate cancer: treatment guidelines. Am J Urol Rev 2004;2(suppl 2):9–15.
  24. Wozniak AJ. Lung cancer: principles and practice. Management of bone metastases in lung cancer. Updates 2004;4:1–12.
  25. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Marx RE. Pamidronate (Aredia) and zoledronate (Zometa) induced avascular necrosis of the jaws: a growing epidemic. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:1115–1117.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Migliorati CA. Bisphosphonates and oral cavity avascular bone necrosis. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4253–4254.[Free Full Text]
  28. Ruggiero SL, Mehrotra B, Rosenberg TJ et al. Osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with the use of bisphosphonates: a review of 63 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:527–534.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Tarassoff P, Csermak K. Avascular necrosis of the jaws: risk factors in metastatic cancer patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:1238–1239.
  30. Berenson JR, Vescio RA, Rosen LS et al. A phase I dose-ranging trial of monthly infusions of zoledronic acid for the treatment of osteolytic bone metastases. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:478–485.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. 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]
  32. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Tchekmedyian NS et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma and other solid tumors: a randomized, phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Cancer 2004;100:2613–2621.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Lipton A, Dewar R, Conte PF et al. Long-term safety of zoledronic acid for the treatment of patients with breast cancer and bone metastases. Presented at the 4th European Breast Cancer Conference, March 16–19, 2004, Hamburg, Germany.
  34. Ali SM, Esteva FJ, Hortobagyi G et al. Safety and efficacy of bisphosphonates beyond 24 months in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3434–3437.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Bell R, Body JJ, Tripathy D et al. Ibandronate does not affect time to renal function deterioration over 2 years of treatment: phase III trial results. Bone 2004;34:S75.
  36. Diel I, Body JJ, Bergström B. Low nephrotoxicity of Ibandronate: evidence from clinical trials in metastatic bone disease. Bone 2004;34:S77.
  37. Saad F, Gleason D, Murray R et al. Zoledronic acid significantly reduces fractures in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association, May 25–30, 2002, Orlando, FL.
  38. Rosen L, Gordon D, Tchekmedyian S et al. Long-term zoledronic acid therapy is effective and safe for reducing the risk of skeletal complications in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and bone metastases. Presented at: What is new in bisphosphonates? Seventh workshop on bisphosphonates—from the laboratory to the patient, March 24–26, 2004, Davos, Switzerland.
  39. Aredia® [package insert]. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 2002.
  40. Bondronat® [package insert] ibandronic acid prescribing information. Hertfordshire, UK: Roche Registration Limited, 1996.
  41. Ezra A, Golomb G. Administration routes and delivery systems of bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone resorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2000;42:175–195.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Atula S, Powles T, Paterson A et al. Extended safety profile of oral clodronate after long-term use in primary breast cancer patients. Drug Saf 2003;26:661–671.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Powles T, Paterson S, Kanis JA et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of clodronate in patients with primary operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3219–3224.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Body JJ, Diel IJ, Lichinitzer M et al. Oral ibandronate reduces the risk of skeletal complications in breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease: results from two randomised, placebo-controlled phase III studies. Br J Cancer 2004;90:1133–1137.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Riis BJ, Ise J, von Stein T et al. Ibandronate: a comparison of oral daily dosing versus intermittent dosing in postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2001;16:1871–1878.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Schimmer RC, Bauss F. Effect of daily and intermittent use of ibandronate on bone mass and bone turnover in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of three phase II studies. Clin Ther 2003;25:19–34.[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Partridge AH, Avorn J, Wang PS et al. Adherence to therapy with oral antineoplastic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:652–661.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Ice R. Long-term compliance. Phys Ther 1985;65:1832–1839.
  49. Paterson AHG, Powles TJ, Kanis JA et al. Double-blind controlled trial of oral clodronate in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:59–65.[Abstract]
  50. Robertson AG, Reed NS, Ralston SH. Effect of oral clodronate on metastatic bone pain: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2427–2430.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Kristensen B, Ejlertsen B, Groenvold M et al. Oral clodronate in breast cancer patients with bone metastases: a randomized study. J Intern Med 1999;246:67–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Coleman RE, Purohit OP, Black C et al. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study of oral ibandronate in patients with metastatic bone disease. Ann Oncol 1999;10:311–316.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Compston JE. Do we need to monitor anti-osteoporosis treatment anyway? Presented at the 30th European Symposium on Calcified Tissues, May 8–12, 2003, Rome, Italy.
  54. Tankó LB, McClung MR, Schimmer RC et al. The efficacy of 48-week oral ibandronate treatment in postmenopausal osteoporosis when taken 30 versus 60 minutes before breakfast. Bone 2003;32:421–426.[Medline]
  55. Eastell R, Garnero P, Vrijens B et al. Influence of patient compliance with risedronate therapy on bone turnover marker and bone mineral density response: the IMPACT study. Presented at the 30th European Symposium on Calcified Tissues, May 8–12, 2003, Rome, Italy.
  56. Hughes DA, Bagust A, Haycox A et al. The impact of non-compliance on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2001;10:601–615.[CrossRef][Medline]
Received July 19, 2004; accepted for publication August 3, 2004.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Journal of RheumatologyHome page
G. FAVIA, G. P. PILOLLI, and E. MAIORANO
Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Correlated to Bisphosphonate Therapy in Non-oncologic Patients: Clinicopathological Features of 24 Patients
J Rheumatol, December 1, 2009; 36(12): 2780 - 2787.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
S. Beslija, J. Bonneterre, H. J. Burstein, V. Cocquyt, M. Gnant, V. Heinemann, J. Jassem, W. J. Kostler, M. Krainer, S. Menard, et al.
Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer
Ann. Onc., November 1, 2009; 20(11): 1771 - 1785.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
T. Van den Wyngaert, T. Claeys, M. T. Huizing, J. B. Vermorken, and E. Fossion
Initial experience with conservative treatment in cancer patients with osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and predictors of outcome
Ann. Onc., February 1, 2009; 20(2): 331 - 336.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
T. Van den Wyngaert, M. T. Huizing, E. Fossion, and J. B. Vermorken
Bisphosphonates in Oncology: Rising Stars or Fallen Heroes
Oncologist, February 1, 2009; 14(2): 181 - 191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cleveland Clinic Journal of MedicineHome page
J. J. CAREY and L. PALOMO
Bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaw: Innocent association or significant risk?
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, December 1, 2008; 75(12): 871 - 879.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
A. Mariotti
Bisphosphonates and Osteonecrosis of the Jaws
J Dent Educ., August 1, 2008; 72(8): 919 - 929.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Biomol ScreenHome page
M. Simonen, Y. Ibig-Rehm, G. Hofmann, J. Zimmermann, G. Albrecht, M. Magnier, V. Heidinger, and D. Gabriel
High-Content Assay to Study Protein Prenylation
J Biomol Screen, July 1, 2008; 13(6): 456 - 467.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
A. M. Brufsky
Cancer Treatment-Induced Bone Loss: Pathophysiology and Clinical Perspectives
Oncologist, February 1, 2008; 13(2): 187 - 195.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Oncol Pharm PractHome page
K. Olson and C. Van Poznak
Significance and impact of bisphosphonate-induced acute phase responses
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, December 1, 2007; 13(4): 223 - 229.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
P. Kothawala, E. Badamgarav, S. Ryu, R. M. Miller, and R. J. Halbert
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Adherence to Drug Therapy for Osteoporosis
Mayo Clin. Proc., December 1, 2007; 82(12): 1493 - 1501.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
D Aguiar Bujanda, U Bohn Sarmiento, M. Cabrera Suarez, and J Aguiar Morales
Assessment of renal toxicity and osteonecrosis of the jaws in patients receiving zoledronic acid for bone metastasis
Ann. Onc., March 1, 2007; 18(3): 556 - 560.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
T. Van den Wyngaert, M. T. Huizing, and J. B. Vermorken
Bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaw: cause and effect or a post hoc fallacy?
Ann. Onc., August 1, 2006; 17(8): 1197 - 1204.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
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]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
M. Botteman, V. Barghout, J. Stephens, J. Hay, J. Brandman, and M. Aapro
Cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the management of breast cancer patients with bone metastases
Ann. Onc., July 1, 2006; 17(7): 1072 - 1082.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
G. Carteni, R. Bordonaro, F. Giotta, V. Lorusso, S. Scalone, V. Vinaccia, R. Rondena, and D. Amadori
Efficacy and Safety of Zoledronic Acid in Patients with Breast Cancer Metastatic to Bone: A Multicenter Clinical Trial
Oncologist, July 1, 2006; 11(7): 841 - 848.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
T. Tanvetyanon and P. J. Stiff
Management of the adverse effects associated with intravenous bisphosphonates
Ann. Onc., June 1, 2006; 17(6): 897 - 907.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
L. B. Michaud and S. Goodin
Cancer-treatment-induced bone loss, part 2
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., March 15, 2006; 63(6): 534 - 546.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
R. Bell
Efficacy of Ibandronate in Metastatic Bone Disease: Review of Clinical Data
Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(suppl_1): 8 - 13.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
B. A. Chabner
Late Toxicities of Drugs: Bisphosphonates
Oncologist, May 1, 2005; 10(5): 301 - 303.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
G. Jackson
Safety and Compliance of Intravenous and Oral Dosing Regimens
Oncologist, May 1, 2005; 10(5): 313 - 314.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
J.-J. Body
Bisphosphonate Safety and Tolerability
Oncologist, May 1, 2005; 10(5): 317 - 317.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
P. Conte
Optimizing Bisphosphonate Therapy in Oncology
Oncologist, September 1, 2004; 9(suppl_4): 1 - 2.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
R. E. Coleman
Bisphosphonates: Clinical Experience
Oncologist, September 1, 2004; 9(suppl_4): 14 - 27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow IMPORTANT FDA ADVISORY
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Conte, P.
Right arrow Articles by Guarneri, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Conte, P.
Right arrow Articles by Guarneri, V.

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