Effects of intravenous ibandronate injection on renal function in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk for renal disease--the DIVINE study

Evaluation of estimated glomerular function (eGFR) versus creatinine clearance (CrCl) to predict acute kidney injury when using zoledronate for the treatment of osteoporosis

Zoledronate could be contributing to the development of acute kidney injury in a small number of patients. Since estimated glomerular function (eGFR) is simpler to obtain and at least as good a predictor as creatinine clearance (CrCl), it should be used in everyday practice.

INTRODUCTION

Zoledronate is widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis. A potential side effect is acute kidney injury (AKI). Advice from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in 2019 stated that CrCl and not estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) should be used and that treatment should not be given if CrCl < 35 ml/min. The objective of this study was to compare our current method of assessing renal function (eGFR) with the method proposed by the MHRA (CrCl) for predicting AKI after zoledronate infusions.

METHODS

The evaluation was performed at the Metabolic Bone Centre in Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, UK. Data on all the patients who had zoledronate from 1/09/2015 to 1/10/2020 were included.

RESULTS

Data on 4405 patients were retrieved (total number of infusions 7660). Creatinine in the 14 days post-infusion was available for a total of 969 infusions and AKI was observed within 14 days following 45 infusions (4.6%). One patient died due to pneumonia. One patient needed continued haemodialysis. Severe AKI (threefold in creatinine and/or eGFR < 15 ml/min/173 m²) was observed within 1 year following 24 infusions. If the MHRA recommendations had been followed, 996 infusions with baseline CrCl < 35 ml/min would not have been given. Of these, follow-up data on serum creatinine within 14 days were available for 142 infusions, showing AKI in only four (2.8%). Logistic regression showed that both CrCl and eGFR were significant factors in predicting AKI within 14 days, but that the current recommended cut-off of CrCl 35 ml/min had poor sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Since eGFR is at least as good a predictor of AKI as CrCl, and permits the treatment of more patients at high fracture risk, we recommend that eGFR is used to determine renal function for zoledronate treatment. We suggest that the infusion is given over 30 min in patients with eGFR < 50 ml/min/1.73 m².

Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no treatment or usual care for osteoporosis in people with chronic kidney disease stages 3-5D

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for osteoporosis and is more prevalent among people with CKD than among people who do not have CKD. Although several drugs have been used to effectively treat osteoporosis in the general population, it is unclear whether they are also effective and safe for people with CKD, who have altered systemic mineral and bone metabolism.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for osteoporosis in patients with CKD stages 3-5, and those undergoing dialysis (5D).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 January 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any anti-osteoporotic drugs with a placebo, no treatment or usual care in patients with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality using the risk of bias tool, and extracted data. The main outcomes were the incidence of fracture at any sites; mean change in the bone mineral density (BMD; measured using dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry (DXA)) of the femoral neck, total hip, lumbar spine, and distal radius; death from all causes; incidence of adverse events; and quality of life (QoL). Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies involving 9164 randomised participants with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D met the inclusion criteria; all participants were postmenopausal women. Five studies included patients with CKD stages 3-4, and two studies included patients with CKD stages 5 or 5D. Five pharmacological interventions were identified (abaloparatide, alendronate, denosumab, raloxifene, and teriparatide). All studies were judged to be at an overall high risk of bias. Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.69; low certainty evidence). Anti-osteoporotic drugs probably makes little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; moderate certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; moderate certainty evidence). We were unable to incorporate studies into the meta-analyses for BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine and total hip as they only reported the percentage change in the BMD in the intervention group. Among patients with severe CKD stages 5 or 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low (MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02). Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.04, low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the included studies. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.56; very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in low certainty evidence. Anti-osteoporotic drugs make little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture and adverse events in moderate certainty evidence. Among patients with CKD stages 5 and 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture and death because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine in low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Larger studies including men, paediatric patients or individuals with unstable CKD-mineral and bone disorder are required to assess the effect of each anti-osteoporotic drug at each stage of CKD.

Safety and effectiveness of monthly intravenous ibandronate injections in a prospective, postmarketing, and observational study in Japanese patients with osteoporosis

OBJECTIVES

This postmarketing, observational study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of monthly intravenous (IV) ibandronate in Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Eligible patients received monthly IV ibandronate 1 mg for 12 months. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were evaluated. Changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTMs) were assessed using matched t-test analysis. Cumulative fracture rates were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methodology.

RESULTS

In total, 1062 patients were enrolled, of whom 1025 (n = 887 women, n = 138 men) were treated. Mean patient age was 77 years. Seventy-five ADRs were reported in 54 patients (5.26%). Four patients (0.39%) experienced serious ADRs, including one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Acute-phase reactions occurred in 21 patients (2.04%), and half of them arose after the first ibandronate injection. No new safety concerns were identified. Significant increases in BMD at 12 months relative to baseline were observed at the lumbar spine (4.84%, n = 187; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.47%-6.21%), femoral neck (2.73%, n = 166; 95% CI, 1.46%-4.01%), and total hip (1.93%, n = 133; 95% CI, 0.80%-3.07%). Significant reductions were observed in all BTMs at 12 months (n = 174 in tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-5b, n = 101 in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide at baseline). The cumulative incidence of nontraumatic, new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures was 3.16% (95% CI, 2.12%-4.70%). Analyses in women only showed similar results to the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm the favorable safety and consistent effectiveness of ibandronate, and indicate that monthly IV ibandronate would be beneficial in daily practice for the treatment of Japanese patients with osteoporosis.

Management of Osteoporosis in Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with coexisting osteoporosis are becoming common. Many of the therapeutic agents used to treat osteoporosis are known to be affected by the renal function. It is generally thought that osteoporosis in G1 to G3 CKD patients can be treated as in non-CKD patients with osteoporosis. In stage 4 or more advanced CKD patients and CKD patients on dialysis with osteoporosis, however, bisphosphonates must be used with caution, bearing in mind the potential development of such disorders as adynamic bone disease. The use of vitamin D preparations in low doses is relatively safe. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene must be administered with caution. When using denosumab, the serum calcium concentrations should be monitored carefully to prevent the development of hypocalcemia, and active vitamin D preparations should be administered concomitantly. The present article provides an overview of the management of osteoporosis in CKD patients.

Evaluation of a Modified Pamidronate Protocol for the Treatment of Osteogenesis Imperfecta

Intravenous pamidronate is widely used to treat children with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). In a well-studied protocol ('standard protocol'), pamidronate is given at a daily dose of 1 mg per kg body weight over 4 h on 3 successive days; infusion cycles are repeated every 4 months. Here, we evaluated renal safety of a simpler protocol for intravenous pamidronate infusions (2 mg per kg body weight given in a single infusion over 2 h, repeated every 4 months; 'modified protocol'). Results of 18 patients with OI types I, III, or IV treated with the modified protocol for 12 months were compared to 18 historic controls, treated with standard protocol. In the modified protocol, mild transient post-infusion increases in serum creatinine were found during each infusion but after 12 months serum creatinine remained similar from baseline [0.40 mg/dl (SD: 0.13)] to the end of the study [0.41 mg/dl (SD: 0.11)] (P = 0.79). The two protocols led to similar changes in serum creatinine during the first pamidronate infusion [modified protocol: +2% (SD: 21%); standard protocol: -3% (SD: 8%); P = 0.32]. Areal lumbar spine bone mineral density Z-scores increased from -2.7 (SD: 1.5) to -1.8 (SD: 1.4) with the modified protocol, and from -4.1 (SD: 1.4) to -3.1 (SD: 1.1) with standard protocol (P = 0.68 for group differences in bone density Z-score changes). The modified pamidronate protocol is safe and may have similar effects on bone density as the standard pamidronate protocol. More studies are needed with longer follow-up to prove anti-fracture efficacy.

Management of severe osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

Severe osteoporosis represents a disease of high mortality and morbidity. Recognition of what constitutes and causes severe osteoporosis and aggressive intervention with pharmacological agents with evidence to reduce fracture risk are outlined in this review.

AREAS COVERED

This review is a blend of evidence obtained from literature searches from PubMed and The National Library of Medicine (USA), clinical experience and the author's opinions. The review covers the recognition of what constitutes severe osteoporosis, and provides up-to-date references on this sub-set of high risk patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Severe osteoporosis can be classified by using measurements of bone densitometry, identification of prevalent fractures, and, knowledge of what additional risk factors contribute to high fracture risk. Once recognized, the potential consequences of severe osteoporosis can be mitigated by appropriate selection of pharmacological therapies and modalities to reduce the risk for falling.

Collapsing focal segmental glomerulosclerosis following long-term treatment with oral ibandronate: case report and review of literature

Background

Renal toxicity has been reported with bisphosphonates such as pamidronate and zolidronate but not with ibandronate, in the treatment of breast cancer patients with bone metastasis. One of the patterns of bisphosphonate-induced nephrotoxicity is focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) or its morphological variant, collapsing focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (CFSGS).

Case presentation

We describe a breast cancer patient who developed heavy proteinuria (protein/creatinine ratio 9.1) and nephrotic syndrome following treatment with oral ibandronate for 29 months. CFSGS was proven by biopsy. There was no improvement 1 month after ibandronate was discontinued. Prednisone and tacrolimus were started and she experienced a decreased in proteinuria.

Conclusion

In patient who develops ibandronate-associated CFSGS, proteinuria appears to be at least partially reversible with the treatment of prednisone and/or tacrolimus if the syndrome is recognized early and ibandronate is stopped.

Treatment of osteoporosis in renal insufficiency

Patients with osteoporosis often have chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD is associated with bone and mineral disturbances, renal osteodystrophy, which like osteoporosis leads to a higher risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates are first-line therapy for osteoporosis; however, these are contra-indicated in patients with a GFR <30 ml/min. In this article, we have reviewed the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in moderate to severe renal failure from data of clinical trials. Results have shown that osteoporosis patients and severe CKD with no signs of renal osteodystrophy, oral bisphosphonates (risedronate) seem to be a safe choice. Renal function and PTH should subsequently be monitored strictly. Denosumab, with regularly monitoring of calcium and adequate vitamin D levels or raloxifene are a possible second choice. In any case, one should be certain that there is no adynamic bone before treatment can be started. If there is any doubt, bone biopsies should be taken.

Chronic kidney disease and the skeleton

Fractures across the stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) could be due to osteoporosis, some form of renal osteodystrophy defined by specific quantitative histomorphometry or chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). CKD-MBD is a systemic disease that links disorders of mineral and bone metabolism due to CKD to either one or all of the following: abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone or vitamin D metabolism; abnormalities in bone turnover, mineralization, volume, linear growth or strength; or vascular or other soft-tissue calcification. Osteoporosis, as defined by the National Institutes of Health, may coexist with renal osteodystrophy or CKD-MBD. Differentiation among these disorders is required to manage correctly the correct disorder to reduce the risk of fractures. While the World Health Organization (WHO) bone mineral density (BMD) criteria for osteoporosis can be used in patients with stages 1-3 CKD, the disorders of bone turnover become so aberrant by stages 4 and 5 CKD that neither the WHO criteria nor the occurrence of a fragility fracture can be used for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. The diagnosis of osteoporosis in stages 4 and 5 CKD is one of the exclusion-excluding either renal osteodystrophy or CKD-MBD as the cause of low BMD or fragility fractures. Differentiations among the disorders of renal osteodystrophy, CKD-MBD or osteoporosis are dependent on the measurement of specific biochemical markers, including serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) and/or quantitative bone histomorphometry. Management of fractures in stages 1-3 CKD does not differ in persons with or without CKD with osteoporosis assuming that there is no evidence for CKD-MBD, clinically suspected by elevated PTH, hyperphosphatemia or fibroblast growth factor 23 due to CKD. Treatment of fractures in persons with osteoporosis and stages 4 and 5 CKD is not evidence-based, with the exception of post-hoc analysis suggesting efficacy and safety of specific osteoporosis therapies (alendronate, risedronate and denosumab) in stage 4 CKD. This review also discusses how to diagnose and manage fragility fractures across the five stages of CKD.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of ibandronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Several second-generation bisphosphonates (BPs) are approved in osteoporosis treatment. Efficacy and safety depends on potency of farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) inhibition, hydroxyapatite affinity, compliance and adherence. The latter may be influenced by frequency and route of administration. A literature search using “ibandronate”, “postmenopausal osteoporosis”, “fracture”, and “bone mineral density” (BMD) revealed 168 publications. The Phase III BONE study, using low dose 2.5 mg daily oral ibandronate demonstrated 49% relative risk reduction (RRR) in clinical vertebral fracture after 3 years. Non-vertebral fracture (NVF) reduction was demonstrated in a subgroup (pretreatment T-score ≤ −3.0; RRR 69%) and a meta-analysis of high annual doses (150 mg oral monthly or intravenous equivalent of ibandronate; RRR 38%). Hip fracture reduction was not demonstrated. Long-term treatment efficacy has been confirmed over 5 years. Long term safety is comparable to placebo over 3 years apart from flu-like symptoms which are more common with oral monthly and intravenous treatments. No cases of atypical femoral fracture or osteonecrosis of the jaw have been reported in randomized controlled trial studies. Ibandronate inhibits FPPS more than alendronate but less than other BPs which could explain rate of action onset. Ibandronate has a higher affinity for hydroxyapatite compared with risedronate but less than other BPs which could affect skeletal distribution and rate of action offset. High doses (150 mg oral monthly or intravenous equivalent) were superior to low doses (oral 2.5 mg daily) according to 1 year BMD change. Data are limited by patient selection, statistical power, under-dosing, and absence of placebo groups in high dose studies. Ibandronate treatment offers different doses and modalities of administration which could translate into higher adherence rates, an important factor when the two main limitations of BP treatment are initiation and adherence rates. However, lack of consistency in NVF reduction and absence of hip fracture data limits more generalized use of this agent.

Chronic kidney disease and osteoporosis: evaluation and management

Fractures across the stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) could be due to osteoporosis, some form of renal osteodystrophy defined by specific quantitative histomorphometry or chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). CKD-MBD is a systemic disease that links disorders of mineral and bone metabolism due to CKD to either one or all of the following: abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone or vitamin D metabolism; abnormalities in bone turnover, mineralization, volume, linear growth or strength; or vascular or other soft-tissue calcification. Osteoporosis, as defined by The National Institutes of Health, may coexist with renal osteodystrophy or CKD-MBD. Differentiation among these disorders is required to manage correctly the correct disorder to reduce the risk of fractures. While the World Health Organization (WHO) BMD criteria for osteoporosis can be used in patients with stages 1-3 CKD, the disorders of bone turnover become so aberrant by stages 4 and 5 CKD that neither the WHO criteria nor the occurrence of a fragility fracture can be used for the diagnosis of osteoporosis. The diagnosis of osteoporosis in stages 4 and 5 CKD is one of the exclusion-excluding either renal osteodystrophy or CKD-MBD as the cause of low BMD or fragility fractures. Differentiations among the disorders of renal osteodystrophy, CKD-MBD or osteoporosis are dependent on the measurement of specific biochemical markers, including serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) and/or quantitative bone histomorphometry. Management of fractures in stages 1-3 CKD does not differ in persons with or without CKD with osteoporosis assuming there is no evidence for CKD-MBD, clinically suspected by elevated PTH, hyperphosphatemia or fibroblast growth factor 23 due to CKD. Treatment of fractures in persons with osteoporosis and stages 4 and 5 CKD is not evidence based, with the exception of post hoc analysis suggesting efficacy and safety of specific osteoporosis therapies (alendronate, risedronate and denosumab) in stage 4 CKD. This review also discusses how to diagnose and manage fragility fractures across the five stages of CKD.

Bone Health in Patients with Breast Cancer: Recommendations from an Evidence-Based Canadian Guideline

Bone loss is common in patients with breast cancer. Bone modifying agents (BMAs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, have been shown to reverse or stabilize bone loss and may be useful in the primary and metastatic settings. The purpose of this review is to provide clear evidence-based strategies for the management of bone loss and its symptoms in breast cancer. A systematic review of clinical trials and meta-analyses published between 1996 and 2012 was conducted of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists were hand-searched for additional publications. Recommendations were developed based on the best available evidence. Zoledronate, pamidronate, clodronate, and denosumab are recommended for metastatic breast cancer patients; however, no one agent can be recommended over another. Zoledronate or any oral bisphosphonate and denosumab should be considered in primary breast cancer patients who are postmenopausal on aromatase inhibitor therapy and have a high risk of fracture and/or a low bone mineral density and in premenopausal primary breast cancer patients who become amenorrheic after therapy. No one agent can be recommended over another. BMAs are not currently recommended as adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer for the purpose of improving survival, although a major Early Breast Cancer Cooperative Trialists’ Group meta-analysis is underway which may impact future practice. Adverse events can be managed with appropriate supportive care.

Renal safety in patients treated with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a review

Bisphosphonates are widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis and are generally well tolerated. However, the United States Food and Drug Administration safety reports have highlighted the issue of renal safety in bisphosphonate-treated patients. All bisphosphonates carry labeled "warnings" or a contraindication for use in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 or <35 mL/min). Data from pivotal trials and their extension studies of bisphosphonates approved for the management of osteoporosis were obtained via PubMed, and were reviewed with support from published articles available on PubMed. Renal safety analyses of pivotal trials of oral alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate for postmenopausal osteoporosis showed no short-term or long-term effects on renal function. Transient postinfusion increases in serum creatinine have been reported in patients receiving intravenous ibandronate and zoledronic acid; however, studies showed that treatment with these agents did not result in long-term renal function deterioration in clinical trial patients with osteoporosis. All bisphosphonate therapies have "warnings" for use in patients with severe renal impairment. Clinical trial results have shown that even in elderly, frail, osteoporotic patients with renal impairment, intravenous bisphosphonate therapy administration in accordance with the prescribing information did not result in long-term renal function decline. Physicians should follow guidelines for bisphosphonate therapies administration at all times.

Osteoporosis treatment: why ibandronic acid?

INTRODUCTION

In this article, we have summarized the specific evidence on ibandronic acid (or ibandronate) efficacy, tolerability, and feasibility acquired from trials and clinical use.

AREAS COVERED

This critical review focuses on evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, surrogate markers, bridging trials, long-term extension studies, observational studies, clinical experiences in osteoporosis in addition to postmenopausal treatment adherence in clinical practice, and safety profile of ibandronic acid.

EXPERT OPINION

Pivotal studies on ibandronic acid efficacy in terms of antifracture effects on nonvertebral fractures had some intrinsic limitations. However, a large body of indirect evidence suggests that ibandronate has significantly sustained vertebral and nonvertebral antifracture efficacies in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis, in comparison to those observed with other nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates. Discrepancies in efficacy between the available bisphosphonate regimens appear to be a function of dose rather than to inherent differences in their respective therapeutic potential. Drugs or treatment regimens that minimize the risk of osteoporotic fractures and make the treatment of osteoporosis more convenient and suitable for patients are preferred: ibandronic acid marketed at oral doses of 150 mg once monthly and 3 mg quarterly as intravenous injection has these characteristics. The safety profile of ibandronic acid treatment appears to be good overall and in some cases better than that of other nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates.