Efficacy of Ibandronate in Metastatic Bone Disease: Review of Clinical Data

Pain prevalence and treatment in patients with metastatic bone disease

The accomplishment of successful pain treatment requires evaluation, characterization and quantification. The present study characterized pain and survival in a cohort of patients with cancer with bone metastasis who were treated with intravenous bisphosphonates. A total of 84 patients self-completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), between November 2010 and March 2011 with a 5-year survival follow-up as a surrogate marker of cancer burden. The median age was 62 years old (34–85), 64% of patients were female and 58% of these females had breast cancer. In the population, self-reported pain was 91.6%, with 29 patients (34.5%) reporting severe pain (score 7–10). Among these patients, only 13 (44.8%) presented a similar report to that of their clinical files and 5 were undergoing treatment with strong opioids (17.2%). A total of 45 patients (46%) had not been prescribed analgesic drugs, of these patients, 32 were treated with a weak opioid, and 13 with a strong opioid. An association was observed between pain records and the prescribed analgesic (P=0.031). BPI maximum pain and overall survival data were analyzed, and a significant association was identified between male patients presenting severe pain and decreased survival (P=0.004). Male survival was associated with severe pain, which is consistent with other data. The results revealed a skeletal-related events (SRE)-free survival (time elapsed from diagnosis of the first bone metastasis to the first SRE) of 9 months (4.39–13.73, 95% CI) with a statistically significant difference between subgroups of time since diagnosis of bone metastasis (P=0.005). The added value of the present study is the suggestion that complete and accurate pain narratives are mandatory and may contribute to the optimization of analgesia, and may help to increase survival rates. Optimal pain management for patients with cancer remains an urgent requirement.

The history of cancer pain and bone-targeted agents: 10 most commonly asked questions

The prevalence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease is high and an important factor, which contributes to decreased quality of life and low survival rate. Bone-targeted agents are well-established therapies to reduce the skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastasis. However, the analgesic effect of these medications is still controversial. The objective of this review is to summarize the existing evidence about the use of bone-targeted agents in the treatment of metastatic bone pain, trying to answer to the 10 most commonly asked questions in this matter. To achieve this goal, authors did a research of reviews published between January 2001 and January 2018, using the terms MeSH: “cancer pain” and bisphosphonates. The source used was the PubMed (NLM) database. The search yielded 36 reviews, but only 16 met the inclusion criteria. Even with the introduction of a new class of drugs, bisphosphonates and specially zoledronic acid are the most commonly used drugs in most oncology centers. Bisphosphonates and denosumab appear to be beneficial in preventing skeletal morbidity but their analgesic role and impact on quality of life and survival are not so well established.

Prolonged recovery time from zoledronic Acid induced acute tubular necrosis: a case report and review of the literature

Acute tubular necrosis (ATN) due to bisphosphonates has been reported with Zoledronic acid but the time to recovery (if any) has been usually less than 4 months. Possible recovery time from ATN of any cause is usually less than 6 months. In this paper, we present the case of a 59-year-old Caucasian female with metastatic breast cancer who had received 16 monthly injections of Zoledronic acid for treatment of tumor induced hypercalcemia and developed several episodes of mild acute kidney injury which resolved by withholding treatment. Unfortunately, after the sixteenth injection, the patient experienced severe acute kidney injury, with a peak serum creatinine of 8.0 mg/dL. Although urinalysis showed muddy brown casts, because of atypical recovery time and presence of eosinophiluria and subnephrotic range proteinuria, a kidney biopsy was performed. Diagnosis of typical acute tubular necrosis was confirmed without any other concomitant findings. The course was remarkable for an unusually slow recovery of renal function over 15 months without need for renal replacement therapy until the patient expired from her metastatic cancer two years later. We reviewed all the published cases of acute kidney injury due to Zoledronic acid and suggest recommendations for clinicians and researchers.

Renal safety of ibandronate 6 mg infused over 15 min versus 60 min in breast cancer patients with bone metastases: a randomized open-label equivalence trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the renal safety equivalence of ibandronate 6 mg infused over 15 min versus 60 min, in patients with bone metastases of breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were females having breast cancer with at least one bone metastasis. Exclusion criteria were renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min), tooth/jaw disorder or uncontrolled severe disease. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive nine ibandronate 6 mg i.v. infusions over either 15 min or 60 min. The primary outcome was the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in creatinine clearance between groups, 28 days after the last infusion. The equivalence margin was ±8 mL/min.

RESULTS

Overall 334 patients were randomized (165-15 min infusions vs. 169 to 60 min infusions, 325 (159 vs. 166) were analyzed by intent-to-treat, and 312 (151 vs. 161) were analyzed per protocol. Per protocol, the 15 min-60 min difference in creatinine clearance [95% CI] was -3.00 [-8.18, 2.18]. By intent-to-treat, this difference was-2.91 [-7.99, 2.16]. Death and serious adverse event rates did not differ between groups. Three serious adverse events were considered related to ibandronate: an osteonecrosis of the jaw (15-min group), a pain in jaw and an enamel cracking (60-min group). Two renal failures, reported in the 60 min group, were not considered related to ibandronate. None occurred in the 15 min group.

CONCLUSION

Ibandronate may be infused over 15 min without clinically significant consequence on renal safety.

Oral ibandronate in metastatic bone breast cancer: the Florence University experience and a review of the literature

Ibandronate is an amino-bisphosphonate approved in metastatic breast cancer to reduce skeletal complications and to alleviate bone pain. we report our experience about the safety of oral ibandronate and review the literature.We treated 44 patients and administered 524 cycles of oral ibandronate (a single cycle was defined as a 50 mg capsule once daily for 28 days) with a median of 12 cycles (range 6-24). At a median follow-up of 18.5 months (range 6-28) the mean pain score decreased from 1.59 (SD+/-0.97) at baseline to 0.41 (SD+/-0.72) after 48 weeks of treatment. The mean analgesic score was 1.89 (SD+/-1.37) at baseline and 1.46 (SD+/-1.62) after 48 weeks of treatment. Ibandronate was generally well-tolerated; we had no Grade 3-4 adverse events. No patients had deterioration of renal function. No patients developed bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. Our experience confirmed that ibandronate may be a useful and safe co-analgesic to conventional treatments for bone pain in selected metastatic breast cancer patients.

Prevention and management of bone metastases in lung cancer: a review

Approximately 30 to 40% of patients with advanced lung cancer will develop bone metastases in the course of their disease, resulting in a significant negative impact on both morbidity and survival. Skeletal complications of bone metastases include pain, pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Total medical care costs are greater among patients with bone metastases who develop skeletal complications. A randomized phase III trial of the third generation bisphosphonate zoledronic acid has shown clinical benefit in the management of a subgroup of patients with bone metastases from lung cancer. Zoledronic acid treatment was associated with a reduction in both the risk of, and time to, a skeletal-related event. One of the markers of bone resorption, N-telopeptide, is both prognositic for development of skeletal-related events and predictive for benefit from zoledronic acid. In preclinical models, bisphosphonates have also demonstrated antitumor activity and are therefore currently being evaluated in adjuvant trials. Inhibition of the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand-RANK pathway can reduce osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and trials comparing receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand inhibitors with bisphosphonates are ongoing, including patients with lung cancer. In this article, we review the management of bone metastases and hypercalcemia as well as potential future directions for bone directed therapies in patients with lung cancer.

Guidance on the use of bisphosphonates in solid tumours: recommendations of an international expert panel

Bisphosphonates (BP) prevent, reduce, and delay cancer-related skeletal complications in patients, and have substantially decreased the prevalence of such events since their introduction. Today, a broad range of BP with differences in potency, efficacy, dosing, and administration as well as approved indications is available. In addition, results of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of BP in cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) have been recently published. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence on the use of BP in solid tumours and provide clinical recommendations. An interdisciplinary expert panel of clinical oncologists and of specialists in metabolic bone diseases assessed the widespread evidence and information on the efficacy of BP in the metastatic and nonmetastatic setting, as well as ongoing research on the adjuvant use of BP. Based on available evidence, the panel recommends amino-bisphosphonates for patients with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer and zoledronic acid for patients with other solid tumours as primary disease. Dosing of BP should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. While i.v. administration is most often preferable, oral administration (clodronate, IBA) may be considered for breast cancer patients who cannot or do not need to attend regular hospital care. Early-stage cancer patients at risk of developing CTIBL should be considered for preventative BP treatment. The strongest evidence in this setting is now available for ZOL. Overall, BP are well-tolerated, and most common adverse events are influenza-like syndrome, arthralgia, and when used orally, gastrointestinal symptoms. The dose of BP may need to be adapted to renal function and initial creatinine clearance calculation is mandatory according to the panel for use of any BP. Subsequent monitoring is recommended for ZOL and PAM, as described by the regulatory authority guidelines. Patients scheduled to receive BP (mainly every 3-4 weeks i.v.) should have a dental examination and be advised on appropriate measures for reducing the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. BP are well established as supportive therapy to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from different cancers.

Multiple myeloma/hypercalcemia

Multiple myeloma, a cancer of plasma cells, is associated with excessive tumor-induced, osteoclast-mediated bone destruction. Hypercalcemia remains the most frequent metabolic complication of myeloma in patients, and excessive osteolysis plays a major contributory role in its pathogenesis. The clinical presentation of hypercalcemia in patients varies depending on the level of ionized calcium; it can be life threatening, as in the case of hypercalcemic crisis, requiring immediate medical treatment to prevent death. During the past few years there have been exciting developments in our understanding of the pathogenesis of myeloma bone disease; in particular, key mediators of the osteoclastic bone resorption in myeloma have been identified, including receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL) and macrophage inflammatory protein-1α. There is also increasing evidence that Dickkopf 1, which has been shown to be over-expressed in myeloma patients, is also a potent stimulator of osteoclast formation and activity. Importantly, the available data suggest that RANKL is the final common mediator of osteoclastic bone resorption, irrespective of the upstream initiator molecule. This brief review presents an overview of the roles played by these mediators in inducing osteolysis in myeloma bone disease, and it discusses targeting RANKL as a potential new treatment strategy in myeloma bone disease and myeloma-associated hypercalcemia.

Bisphosphonates: mode of action and pharmacology

The profound effects of the bisphosphonates on calcium metabolism were discovered over 30 years ago, and they are now well established as the major drugs used for the treatment of bone diseases associated with excessive resorption. Their principal uses are for Paget disease of bone, myeloma, bone metastases, and osteoporosis in adults, but there has been increasing and successful application in pediatric bone diseases, notably osteogenesis imperfecta. Bisphosphonates are structural analogues of inorganic pyrophosphate but are resistant to enzymatic and chemical breakdown. Bisphosphonates inhibit bone resorption by selective adsorption to mineral surfaces and subsequent internalization by bone-resorbing osteoclasts where they interfere with various biochemical processes. The simpler, non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (eg, clodronate and etidronate) can be metabolically incorporated into nonhydrolysable analogues of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that may inhibit ATP-dependent intracellular enzymes. In contrast, the more potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (eg, pamidronate, alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate) inhibit a key enzyme, farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase, in the mevalonate pathway, thereby preventing the biosynthesis of isoprenoid compounds that are essential for the posttranslational modification of small guanosine triphosphate (GTP)-binding proteins (which are also GTPases) such as Rab, Rho, and Rac. The inhibition of protein prenylation and the disruption of the function of these key regulatory proteins explains the loss of osteoclast activity. The recently elucidated crystal structure of farnesyl diphosphate reveals how bisphosphonates bind to and inhibit at the active site via their critical nitrogen atoms. Although bisphosphonates are now established as an important class of drugs for the treatment of many bone diseases, there is new knowledge about how they work and the subtle but potentially important differences that exist between individual bisphosphonates. Understanding these may help to explain differences in potency, onset and duration of action, and clinical effectiveness.

Ibandronate, an experimental intravenous bisphosphonate for osteoporosis, bone metastases, and hypercalcemia of malignancy

Ibandronate is an experimental intravenous bisphosphonate under study for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis and skeletal complications of bone metastases, as well as hypercalcemia of malignancy. To review the data on this drug, PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for pertinent studies in English; data from January 1986-October 2005 were reviewed. In preclinical studies, ibandronate was an extremely potent bisphosphonate compared with its predecessors and was active in all animal models of human postmenopausal and corticosteroid-associated osteoporosis. Similar to other bisphosphonates, ibandronate exhibits antitumor activity and prevents or reduces bone metastases. Forty to fifty percent of the dose is bound to bone; renal clearance of unchanged drug accounts for 70% of total body clearance. Early clinical trials demonstrated efficacy and tolerability of intravenous ibandronate in the prevention or treatment of postmenopausal and corticosteroid-associated osteoporosis when administered once every 3 months. Intravenous ibandronate also reduces skeletal complications of bone metastases, including pain, although the cumulative dose used is much higher than that used in osteoporosis, as the drug is administered every 3-4 weeks. Single doses of intravenous ibandronate are probably also effective in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy. The major tolerability issue with intravenous bisphosphonates is renal safety, thus the drugs generally require infusion (e.g., 0.25 hr for zoledronic acid, 2-24 hrs for pamidronate). However, intravenous ibandronate can be administered by bolus injection over a few minutes without an elevated risk of nephrotoxicity. The experimental intravenous dosage is 2 mg every 3 months for treatment or prevention of osteoporosis, and 2-6 mg every 3-4 weeks or in a single dose for treatment of bone metastases or hypercalcemia of malignancy, respectively. Ibandronate can be used in the presence of severe renal impairment with proper dosage adjustment. The drug will be an interesting addition to the available drugs for osteoporosis, bone metastases, and hypercalcemia of malignancy. Studies of intravenous ibandronate as an adjunctive treatment for cancers that tend to metastasize to bone are under way. Whether intravenous ibandronate will be a therapeutic advance is best answered by randomized, controlled trials. These are ongoing and should provide data with which to make better-informed choices concerning intravenous bisphosphonates.

Bisphosphonates: From Bench to Bedside

The discovery and development of the bisphosphonates (BPs) as a major class of drugs for the treatment of bone diseases has been a fascinating journey that is still not over. In clinical medicine, several BPs are established as the treatments of choice for various diseases of excessive bone resorption, including Paget's disease of bone, myeloma and bone metastases, and osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates are chemically stable analogues of inorganic pyrophosphate, and are resistant to breakdown by enzymatic hydrolysis. Bisphosphonates inhibit bone resorption by being selectively taken up and adsorbed to mineral surfaces in bone, where they interfere with the action of the bone-resorbing osteoclasts. Bisphosphonates are internalized by osteoclasts and interfere with specific biochemical processes. Bisphosphonates can be classified into at least two groups with different molecular modes of action. The simpler non-nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (such as clodronate and etidronate) can be metabolically incorporated into nonhydrolyzable analogues of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that may inhibit ATP-dependent intracellular enzymes. The more potent, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (such as pamidronate, alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and zoledronate) are not metabolized in this way but can inhibit enzymes of the mevalonate pathway, thereby preventing the biosynthesis of isoprenoid compounds that are essential for the posttranslational modification of small GTP-binding proteins (which are also GTPases) such as rab, rho, and rac. The inhibition of protein prenylation and the disruption of the function of these key regulatory proteins explain the loss of osteoclast activity and induction of apoptosis. The key target for bisphosphonates is farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) within osteoclasts, and the recently elucidated crystal structure of this enzyme reveals how BPs bind to and inhibit at the active site via their critical N atoms. In conclusion, bisphosphonates are now established as an important class of drugs for the treatment of many bone diseases, and their mode of action is being unraveled. As a result their full therapeutic potential is gradually being realized.

Preclinical Perspectives on Bisphosphonate Renal Safety

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