Potential Adverse Effect of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) on Bisphosphonate Efficacy: An Exploratory Post Hoc Analysis From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Clodronate.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been reported to have weak but beneficial effects on bone health, including fracture risk, but many epidemiological studies are likely confounded. We explored the relationship between NSAIDs and fracture risk in a post hoc analysis of a well-documented, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the bisphosphonate, clodronate, in which treatment reduced osteoporotic fracture risk by 23%. Concurrent medication use at baseline was used to identify those prescribed oral NSAIDs. Only verified, incident fractures were included in the analysis. A total of 1082 (20.8%) women reported use of NSAIDs at baseline. They were slightly, but significantly, younger (mean 79 versus 80 years, p = 0.004), heavier (mean 66.7 versus 64.7 kg, p < 0.001) than nonusers, with slightly higher femoral neck bone mineral density (FN-BMD, 0.66 versus 0.64 g/cm2 , p < 0.001). In an adjusted model, NSAID use was associated with a significant increase in osteoporotic fracture risk over the 3-year study period (hazard ratio [HR] 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.62; p = 0.039). However, this increase in risk was not statistically significant in the placebo group (HR 1.11; 95% CI, 0.81-1.52). In women receiving clodronate, the effect of the bisphosphonate to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk was not observed in those receiving NSAIDs (HR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.65-1.41; p = 0.81) in contrast to those not using NSAIDs (HR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.89; p = 0.002). In a subset with hip BMD repeated at 3 years, BMD loss during clodronate therapy was greater in those women receiving NSAIDs than in nonusers (eg, total hip -2.75% versus -1.27%, p = 0.078; femoral neck -3.06% versus -1.12%, p = 0.028), and was not significantly different from that observed in women receiving placebo. The efficacy of the bisphosphonate, clodronate, to reduce fracture risk was largely negated in those receiving NSAIDs. Although the mechanism is unclear, this clinically significant observation requires exploration in studies of commonly used bisphosphonates. © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Bisphosphonates or RANK-ligand-inhibitors for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.

Phase III Randomized Trial of Bisphosphonates as Adjuvant Therapy in Breast Cancer: S0307.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant bisphosphonates, when given in a low-estrogen environment, can decrease breast cancer recurrence and death. Treatment guidelines include recommendations for adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients. SWOG/Alliance/Canadian Cancer Trials Group/ECOG-ACRIN/NRG Oncology study S0307 compared the efficacy of three bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III breast cancer were randomly assigned to 3 years of intravenous zoledronic acid, oral clodronate, or oral ibandronate. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) with overall survival as a secondary outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 6097 patients enrolled. Median age was 52.7 years. Prior to being randomly assigned, 73.2% patients indicated preference for oral vs intravenous formulation. DFS did not differ across arms in a log-rank test (P = .49); 5-year DFS was 88.3% (zoledronic acid: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.9% to 89.6%), 87.6% (clodronate: 95% CI = 86.1% to 88.9%), and 87.4% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 85.6% to 88.9%). Additionally, 5-year overall survival did not differ between arms (log rank P = .50) and was 92.6% (zoledronic acid: 95% CI = 91.4% to 93.6%), 92.4% (clodronate: 95% CI = 91.2% to 93.5%), and 92.9% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 91.5% to 94.1%). Bone as first site of recurrence did not differ between arms (P = .93). Analyses based on age and tumor subtypes showed no treatment differences. Grade 3/4 toxicity was 8.8% (zoledronic acid), 8.3% (clodronate), and 10.5% (ibandronate). Osteonecrosis of the jaw was highest for zoledronic acid (1.26%) compared with clodronate (0.36%) and ibandronate (0.77%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of differences in efficacy by type of bisphosphonate, either in overall analysis or subgroups. Despite an increased rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw with zoledronic acid, overall toxicity grade differed little across arms. Given that patients expressed preference for oral formulation, efforts to make oral agents available in the United States should be considered.

Spontaneous Healing of Clodronate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw.

Cases of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) have been more commonly associated with aminobiphosphonate therapy than with alkylbiphosphonate treatment. Here, we report a case of MRONJ in a subject who received an alkylbiphosphonate, clodronate, for the treatment of osteoporosis, and discuss the pathogenic mechanisms of alkylbiphosphonates and the possible reasons for the spontaneous and rapid remission of MRONJ occurring in our patient.

Adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer: consensus guidance for clinical practice from a European Panel.

Bisphosphonates have been studied in randomised trials in early breast cancer to investigate their ability to prevent cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) and reduce the risk of disease recurrence and metastasis. Treatment benefits have been reported but bisphosphonates do not currently have regulatory approval for either of these potential indications. This consensus paper provides a review of the evidence and offers guidance to breast cancer clinicians on the use of bisphosphonates in early breast cancer. Using the nominal group methodology for consensus, a systematic review of the literature was augmented by a workshop held in October 2014 for breast cancer and bone specialists to present and debate the available pre-clinical and clinical evidence for the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates. This was followed by a questionnaire to all members of the writing committee to identify areas of consensus. The panel recommended that bisphosphonates should be considered as part of routine clinical practice for the prevention of CTIBL in all patients with a T score of <-2.0 or ≥2 clinical risk factors for fracture. Compelling evidence from a meta-analysis of trial data of >18,000 patients supports clinically significant benefits of bisphosphonates on the development of bone metastases and breast cancer mortality in post-menopausal women or those receiving ovarian suppression therapy. Therefore, the panel recommends that bisphosphonates (either intravenous zoledronic acid or oral clodronate) are considered as part of the adjuvant breast cancer treatment in this population and the potential benefits and risks discussed with relevant patients.

Challenge test to bisphosphonates in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to drugs.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are a commonly used class of drugs with known efficacy in the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal and steroid-induced osteoporosis, Paget's disease of bone, hypercaelcemia of malignancy, osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma, and bone metastases. Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have a favourable tolerability and safety profile, cutaneous reactions have been reported. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series study, based on the analysis of data from 1429 patients admitted to the Allergy and Clinical Immunology Division of the University of Messina between January 2011 and December 2012. Most patients had previous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and referred to us for a challenge test with an alternative drug. RESULTS: We observed six patients with a past history of adverse drug reaction who needed to be tested for bisphosphonates: three patients for risedronate, two for clodronate and one for alendronate. In two years only two patients were referred to us for an adverse reaction to bisphosphonates: one to alendronate and one to risedronate. Another patient presented a previous reaction to strontium ranelate. The other three patients reported previous hypersensitivity reactions to at least two different classes of drugs. All the patients experienced no reaction using the tested drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience drug challenge tests for bisphosphonates are safe and reliable.

Safety of I.V. Nonnitrogen bisphosphonates on the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw: long-term follow-up on prostate cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to disclose information about the recently incorporated bisphosphonates therapies used to treat prostate cancer patients and their potential risks because the chemical nature and nitrogen content varies among the available drugs on the market. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred twenty-four consecutive prostate cancer patients were submitted to bisphosphonates therapy after antiandrogen treatment was started. Zoledronic acid was administered monthly (n = 45), bimonthly (n = 15), trimonthly (n = 19), and semestrally (n = 15), and monthly intravenous clodronate was administered in an additional 156 cases. Fourteen additional cases switched the drugs during the course of the treatment. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 54 ± 24 (control), 63 ± 7 (clodronate), and 54 ± 6 months (zoledronic acid), the only 2 patients (0.6%) who developed osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) occurred in those who switched the drug. CONCLUSION: This study is the longest and the largest ever reported on bisphosphonates usage in prostate cancer patients. ONJ seems to be exclusively related to nitrogen content bisphosphonates.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal safety in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study results.

Bisphosphonates are recommended in patients with osteolytic lesions secondary to multiple myeloma. We report on the safety of bisphosphonate therapy with long-term follow-up in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomised to zoledronic acid (ZOL; 4 mg intravenously every 21-28 d) or clodronate (CLO; 1600 mg/d orally) plus chemotherapy. Among 1960 patients (5.9-year median follow-up), both bisphosphonates were well tolerated. Acute renal failure events were similar between groups (ZOL 5.2% vs. CLO 5.8% at 2 years; incidence plateaued thereafter). The overall incidence of confirmed osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) was low, but higher with ZOL (ZOL 3.7% vs. CLO 0.5%; P < 0.0001). ONJ events were generally low grade and most occurred between 8 and 30 months (median time to ONJ, 23.7 months). Among 10 patients with ONJ recovery data, four patients in the ZOL group completely recovered, two patients improved, and three patients experienced no improvement; one CLO patient experienced no improvement. Dental surgery or trauma preceded ONJ in six ZOL patients. The incidence of renal adverse events was similar for ZOL and CLO. ONJ incidence remained low and was lower with CLO compared to ZOL. We have seen no further ONJ cases to date.

In vitro effect of bisphosphonates on oral keratinocytes and fibroblasts.

PURPOSE: Osteonecrosis of the jaws is a potential complication of bisphosphonate (BP) therapy. The underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Although most research has concentrated on the effects of BPs on osteoclast and osteoblast functions, the disease is diagnosed and classified based on of mucosal breakdown, suggesting that oral soft tissues may be involved in its pathogenesis. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of 3 different BP drugs (alendronate, zoledronate, and clodronate) on the function of oral keratinocytes and fibroblasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human oral keratinocytes (OKF6) and fetal foreskin fibroblasts (HFFF2) were exposed to each drug at several concentrations and the effect on cell proliferation was assessed by counting the viable cells after different lengths of treatment. The effect on cell migration was examined using Transwell migration assays. An organotypic coculture model using keratinocytes and fibroblasts, which recapitulated the morphology of the oral mucosa, was used to assess the effect of the drugs on epithelial stratification and differentiation. RESULTS: The 3 BPs affected the viability and proliferation of OKF6 and HFFF2 cells at concentrations in keeping with their known relative in vitro potencies. There was no effect on cell migration or tissue architecture in organotypic cultures at subtoxic concentrations. CONCLUSION: The lack of effect of these drugs on cell migration below concentrations known to affect cell viability suggests that BP-related osteonecrosis is not caused through suppression of keratinocyte or fibroblast motility.

Preliminary study of highly cross-linked hyaluronic acid-based combination therapy for management of knee osteoarthritis-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid has been extensively used for treatment of knee osteoarthritis due to its anti-inflammatory properties and its ability to act as a synovial lubricant. Furthermore, it has found application in combination with other drugs in the dermatological field and in pre-clinical studies in animal models of osteoarthritis. Experimental evidence suggests that a combination of this macromolecule with other drugs may act as a slow-release depot. However, to date, to the best of our knowledge, no one has tested local intra-articular delivery of highly cross-linked hyaluronic acid combined with bisphosphonate or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for management of knee osteoarthritis pain in the clinical setting. The aim of the present randomized double-blind study was to investigate, for the first time, the effect of a highly cross-linked hyaluronic acid, Variofill(®), alone or in combination with diclofenac sodium or sodium clodronate, for management of bilateral knee osteoarthritis-related pain. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with symptomatic bilateral medial tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II and III) and pain in both knees corresponding to a daily visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 30 in the month before the beginning of the study were included in this investigation. Patients were divided into three groups: group 1, treated with an injection of hyaluronic acid alone (66 mg) into each knee; group 2, treated with an injection of hyaluronic acid (49.5 mg) plus diclofenac sodium (5 mg) into each knee; group 3, treated with an injection of hyaluronic acid (49.5 mg) plus sodium clodronate (5 mg) into each knee. Patients also underwent blood tests for measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) immediately before and at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Hyaluronic acid alone and in combination with sodium clodronate or diclofenac sodium produced a significant improvement in mean VAS pain score at 3 and 6-month follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, therapy with hyaluronic acid plus sodium clodronate was the most beneficial in terms of percentage improvement in VAS pain score. A significant improvement in ESR and CRP was observed at 6-month follow-up in each treatment group. No significant difference was observed when the percentage change from baseline related to these parameters was compared among the groups. No dropout was observed in any group. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Further studies are necessary to determine the effect of a therapy based on hyaluronic acid combined with diclofenac sodium or sodium clodronate in larger cohorts of patients affected by knee osteoarthritis and in longer-term follow-up.

Pharmacokinetic and tolerability of i.m. disodium clodronate 200 mg/lidocaine 1%, given twice monthly, in comparison with i.m. disodium clodronate 100 mg/lidocaine 1%, given weekly, in healthy postmenopausal female patients.

BACKGROUND: Clodronate is a bisphosphonate effective in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Non-adherence to bisphosphonates, however, is a major issue in clinical practice. Simplifying dose regimens may increase compliance. OBJECTIVES: To assess bioequivalence between an intramuscular (i.m.) clodronate 200 mg/lidocaine 1% twice-a-month formulation and a clodronate 100 mg/lidocaine 1% weekly formulation in 32 postmenopausal women. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, two-way crossover study, test and reference formulations were administered in single dose, with a 2-week wash-out between administrations. The primary endpoint was clodronic acid cumulative excretion in the first 24 hours after injection (Xu0-24h). Cumulative excretion in the 72 hours post-dose (Xu0-72h) and maximum excretion rate (Ratemax) were also evaluated. Bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric means ratios of the dose-normalized parameters were within the 80.00 - 125.00% range. Local tolerability was evaluated. RESULTS: Mean Xu0-24h values were 114.03 ±23.13 mg and 55.22 ±9.73 mg for clodronate 200 mg and 100 mg. The 90% CIs for dose-normalized Xu0-24h, Xu0-72h and Ratemax ere 95 -110%, 94 -107% and 95 - 113%. Local tolerability of both treatments was good. The differences in pain intensity between formulations were not sigificantly different at most assessment times. Headache was the only treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Bioequivalence of the two formulations was confirmed in terms of dose-normalized rate and amount of clodronic acid excretion. This result, together with the favorable tolerability of the novel 200 mg formulation, suggests the possibility of reducing the number of i.m. administrations from once-a-week to twice-a-month.

Oral clodronate for adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol B-34): a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are thought to act through the osteoclast by changing bone microenvironment. Previous findings of adjuvant clodronate trials in different populations with operable breast cancer have been mixed. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) protocol B-34 aims to ascertain whether oral clodronate can improve outcomes in women with primary breast cancer. METHODS: NSABP B-34 is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 3323 women with stage 1-3 breast cancer. After surgery to remove the tumour, patients were stratified by age, axillary nodes, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either oral clodronate 1600 mg daily for 3 years (n=1662) or placebo (1661). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00009945. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 90·7 months (IQR 82·7-100·0) and 3311 patients had data for this period. Disease-free survival did not differ between groups (286 events in the clodronate group vs 312 in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·78-1·07; p=0·27). Moreover, no differences were recorded for overall survival (0·84, 0·67-1·05; p=0·13), recurrence-free interval (0·83, 0·67-1·04; p=0·10), or bone metastasis-free interval (0·77, 0·55-1·07; p=0·12). Non-bone metastasis-free interval was slightly increased with clodronate (0·74, 0·55-1·00; p=0·047). Analyses in women age 50 years or older on study entry showed benefits of clodronate for recurrence-free interval (0·75, 0·57-0·99; p=0·045), bone metastasis-free interval (0·62, 0·40-0·95; p=0·027), and non-bone metastasis-free interval (0·63, 0·43-0·91; p=0·014), but not for overall survival (0·80, 0·61-1·04, p=0·094). Adherence to treatment at 3 years was 56% for the clodronate group and 60% for the placebo group. Grade 3 or higher liver dysfunction was noted in 23 of 1612 patients in the clodronate group and 12 of 1623 patients in the placebo group; grade 3-4 diarrhoea was noted in 28 patients in the clodronate group and in ten in the placebo group. There was one possible case of osteonecrosis of the jaw in the clodronate group. INTERPRETATION: Findings of NSABP B-34 suggest that bisphosphonates might have anticancer benefits for older postmenopausal women. A meta-analysis of adjuvant bisphosphonate trials is suggested before recommendations for use in non-osteoporotic postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer are made. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Bayer Oy (formerly Schering Oy).

Effects of induction and maintenance plus long-term bisphosphonates on bone disease in patients with multiple myeloma: the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Trial.

The Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Trial (ISRCTNG8454111) examined traditional and thalidomide-based induction and maintenance regimens and IV zoledronic acid (ZOL) and oral clodronate (CLO) in 1960 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Overall survival (OS) and skeletal-related event (SRE) data have been reported for the overall trial population. The present analysis investigated optimal therapy regimens for different patient populations in Myeloma IX. Patients were assigned to intensive or nonintensive treatment pathways and randomized to induction cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (CVAD) versus cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD; intensive) or melphalan and prednisolone versus attenuated oral CTD (CTDa; nonintensive). Patients were also randomized to ZOL or CLO. In the nonintensive pathway, CTDa produced better responses and lower SRE rates than melphalan and prednisolone. ZOL improved OS compared with CLO independently of sex, stage, or myeloma subtype, most profoundly in patients with baseline bone disease or other SREs. In patients treated for ≥ 2 years, ZOL improved OS compared with CLO from randomization (median not reached for either; P = .02) and also from first on-study disease progression (median, 34 months for ZOL vs 27 months for CLO; P = .03). Thalidomide-containing regimens had better efficacy than traditional regimens, and ZOL demonstrated greater benefits than CLO.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid vs clodronic acid for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma from the United Kingdom healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4 mg 3-4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600 mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources. RESULTS: Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.

The Medical Research Council Myeloma IX trial: the impact on treatment paradigms.

Osteolytic bone disease is a hallmark of symptomatic multiple myeloma. Bisphosphonates have been the mainstay of treatment to preserve skeletal integrity and prevent skeletal-related events in patients with myeloma-related bone disease. Recently, the MRC Myeloma IX trial demonstrated for the first time improved survival and delayed disease progression with the use of an intravenous amino-bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, vs. an oral agent, clodronate, with intensive and non-intensive anti-myeloma treatment regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. These results validate a large body of preclinical, translational and other clinical data suggesting anti-myeloma effects of amino-bisphosphonates. In addition, this trial also provided the first head-to-head evidence for superiority of one bisphosphonate over another (zoledronic acid vs. clodronate) for reducing skeletal morbidity in patients with multiple myeloma, as well as a prospective comparison of toxicities. Despite the use of non-bortezomib containing anti-myeloma treatment regimens in the MRC Myeloma IX trial, these results are encouraging and provide an impetus to continue to evaluate current treatment guidelines for myeloma-associated bone disease.

Bisphosphonates and breast cancer incidence and recurrence.

Bisphosphonates are commonly used in patients with breast cancer to reduce skeletal-related events in metastatic disease and to mitigate bone loss associated with adjuvant therapy. Preclinical studies have shown that bisphosphonates may directly inhibit breast cancer cell proliferation and metastasis. Clinical trials evaluating the oral bisphosphonate clodronate as a component of adjuvant therapy identified a potential reduction in cancer recurrence. Subsequently, trials of zoledronic acid have demonstrated prolonged disease-free survival in postmenopausal or otherwise estrogen-depleted women with early breast cancer. In the ABCSG-12 trial, the addition of twice-yearly zoledronic acid (4 mg IV) to adjuvant endocrine therapy improved disease-free survival in premenopausal women undergoing ovarian suppression. Similar results were observed in postmenopausal women receiving aromatase inhibitors in the ZO-FAST trial, and in women who were at least 5 years past menopause in the AZURE trial. Four recent observational studies (2 cohort studies and 2 case-control analyses) generally support an association between oral bisphosphonate use and lower breast cancer incidence. Ongoing breast cancer adjuvant clinical trials are further evaluating bisphosphonates and, by their influence on contralateral cancers, may provide more evidence regarding the potential of bisphosphonates for breast cancer prevention.

Clinical utility of clodronate in the prevention and management of osteoporosis in patients intolerant of oral bisphosphonates.

Bisphosphonates have a long history in the treatment of osteoporosis and bone-related disease. This review focuses on the use of a specific nonaminobisphosphonate, clodronate, which appears to be much better tolerated than other bisphosphonates and free of high-risk contraindications. Specifically, this paper reviews its use in the prevention of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, taking into account its tolerability profile and recent safety issues arising regarding the use of bisphosphonates.