User login
FDA Keeping an Eye on New Malignancy Concerns With Lenalidomide
The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public that the agency is currently reviewing all available information on the potential for increased risk of new malignancies associated with lenalidomide in patients treated for multiple myeloma or myelodysplatic syndromes.
The agency plans to communicate any new recommendations once it has completed its review of existing data, according to a safety announcement released on April 8, 2011. "At this time, [the] FDA recommends that patients continue their Revlimid [lenalidomide] treatment as prescribed by their health care provider," it said.
The concerns appear to be based in part on results from the phase III Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 100104 trial of 460 patients with stage I-III multiple myeloma. In the trial, the estimated time to progression reached 42.3 months with lenalidomide maintenance following transplant vs. 21.8 months with placebo. (The results were reported at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.)
As of late 2010, though, 25 patients had new malignancies: 15 patients in the lenalidomide group, 6 on placebo, and 4 who developed these before randomization. The second cancers included five cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, three of which occurred in patients on lenalidomide maintenance.
Lenalidomide, a less-toxic thalidomide analogue, is one of the more important new therapies in multiple myeloma. In addition to the CALGB trial, results from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2005-02 trial also support maintenance lenalidomide.
Lenalidomide is indicated for the treatment of multiple myeloma, in combination with dexamethasone, in patients who have received at least one prior therapy. It is also indicated for patients with transfusion-dependent anemia due to low- or intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q abnormality with or without additional cytogenetic abnormalities.
"At this time, there is no recommendation to delay, modify, or restrict the use of Revlimid for patients being treated according to the FDA-approved indications," the agency noted. "[The] FDA believes the benefits of Revlimid continue to outweigh the potential risks."
The FDA is also currently reviewing all available information on this potential risk for thalidomide.
Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving lenalidomide to the FDA MedWatch program.
Cancer and Leukemia Group B, CALGB,
The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public that the agency is currently reviewing all available information on the potential for increased risk of new malignancies associated with lenalidomide in patients treated for multiple myeloma or myelodysplatic syndromes.
The agency plans to communicate any new recommendations once it has completed its review of existing data, according to a safety announcement released on April 8, 2011. "At this time, [the] FDA recommends that patients continue their Revlimid [lenalidomide] treatment as prescribed by their health care provider," it said.
The concerns appear to be based in part on results from the phase III Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 100104 trial of 460 patients with stage I-III multiple myeloma. In the trial, the estimated time to progression reached 42.3 months with lenalidomide maintenance following transplant vs. 21.8 months with placebo. (The results were reported at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.)
As of late 2010, though, 25 patients had new malignancies: 15 patients in the lenalidomide group, 6 on placebo, and 4 who developed these before randomization. The second cancers included five cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, three of which occurred in patients on lenalidomide maintenance.
Lenalidomide, a less-toxic thalidomide analogue, is one of the more important new therapies in multiple myeloma. In addition to the CALGB trial, results from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2005-02 trial also support maintenance lenalidomide.
Lenalidomide is indicated for the treatment of multiple myeloma, in combination with dexamethasone, in patients who have received at least one prior therapy. It is also indicated for patients with transfusion-dependent anemia due to low- or intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q abnormality with or without additional cytogenetic abnormalities.
"At this time, there is no recommendation to delay, modify, or restrict the use of Revlimid for patients being treated according to the FDA-approved indications," the agency noted. "[The] FDA believes the benefits of Revlimid continue to outweigh the potential risks."
The FDA is also currently reviewing all available information on this potential risk for thalidomide.
Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving lenalidomide to the FDA MedWatch program.
The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public that the agency is currently reviewing all available information on the potential for increased risk of new malignancies associated with lenalidomide in patients treated for multiple myeloma or myelodysplatic syndromes.
The agency plans to communicate any new recommendations once it has completed its review of existing data, according to a safety announcement released on April 8, 2011. "At this time, [the] FDA recommends that patients continue their Revlimid [lenalidomide] treatment as prescribed by their health care provider," it said.
The concerns appear to be based in part on results from the phase III Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 100104 trial of 460 patients with stage I-III multiple myeloma. In the trial, the estimated time to progression reached 42.3 months with lenalidomide maintenance following transplant vs. 21.8 months with placebo. (The results were reported at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.)
As of late 2010, though, 25 patients had new malignancies: 15 patients in the lenalidomide group, 6 on placebo, and 4 who developed these before randomization. The second cancers included five cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, three of which occurred in patients on lenalidomide maintenance.
Lenalidomide, a less-toxic thalidomide analogue, is one of the more important new therapies in multiple myeloma. In addition to the CALGB trial, results from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) 2005-02 trial also support maintenance lenalidomide.
Lenalidomide is indicated for the treatment of multiple myeloma, in combination with dexamethasone, in patients who have received at least one prior therapy. It is also indicated for patients with transfusion-dependent anemia due to low- or intermediate-1-risk myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q abnormality with or without additional cytogenetic abnormalities.
"At this time, there is no recommendation to delay, modify, or restrict the use of Revlimid for patients being treated according to the FDA-approved indications," the agency noted. "[The] FDA believes the benefits of Revlimid continue to outweigh the potential risks."
The FDA is also currently reviewing all available information on this potential risk for thalidomide.
Physicians are encouraged to report adverse events involving lenalidomide to the FDA MedWatch program.
Cancer and Leukemia Group B, CALGB,
Cancer and Leukemia Group B, CALGB,
Pomalidomide in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma and carfilzomib in refractory and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
--Jame Abraham, MD, Editor
1. Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia 2010;24:1934−1939.
2. Siegel DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.
3. Jakubowiak AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.
4. Singhal SB, Siegel DSD, Martin T, et al. Pooled safety analysis from phase 1 and 2 studies of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:1954.
Noopur Raje, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable bone marrow
cancer, survival rates have improved markedly over the past decade. An
understanding of MM pathobiology (Figure 1) and improvement in stem cell
transplantation, better supportive care, and novel therapies with
higher efficacy and lower toxicity are all responsible for this
improvement. The availability of a rich pipeline of novel agents
undergoing early-phase clinical trials in MM is an exciting and active
area of research.1
Current treatment
Over the past several years, five therapeutic strategies have
received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval either as
monotherapy or in combination for treating MM, with thalidomide
(Thalomid), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and bortezomib (Velcade) as
important backbone drugs in these approaches. In the upfront setting,
thalidomide with dexamethasone2 and bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisone3
increased the overall response rate and significantly prolonged time to
disease progression and are FDA approved. For treatment of relapsed MM,
bortezomib alone4 and in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil),5 as well as lenalidomide/dexamethasone,6
have been approved. Results of a recent phase III randomized clinical
trial suggest that lower doses of dexamethasone provide a survival
advantage, at least in the upfront setting, mainly due to the increased
toxicity of high doses of dexamethasone.7
The availability of these novel agents has not only provided us
with several treatment options but has had an important impact on the
overall survival of our patients. To improve upon current outcomes,
optimal combinations of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide are
currently under evaluation in phase II/III clinical trials.
Novel approaches
The preceding review refers to recent data on pomalidomide, the
newest immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) analog, which has shown single-agent
activity in phase I studies and was subsequently tested in a phase II
trial in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with
relapsed or refractory MM. Pomalidomide/dexamethasone was found to be
highly active and well tolerated, providing a clinical benefit in 47% of
patients and no grade 3 neuropathy. These findings have led to a large
phase II study, which has completed accrual and is awaiting analysis.
Another promising agent discussed here is the novel proteasome
inhibitor carfilzomib. Although bortezomib is an effective agent in MM,
about 20% of newly diagnosed patients are resistant to bortezomib, and,
ultimately, all patients relapse and develop resistance to the drug.
Carfilzomib irreversibly blocks chymotrypsin-like activity and in phase I
studies achieved more than 80% proteasome inhibition. Encouraging data
presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of
Hematology demonstrated that it was well tolerated and had an overall
clinical benefit rate of 36% in relapsed/refractory MM.8 In the upfront setting, carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide led to a 100% response rate.9
This combination with low-dose dexamethasone is currently
undergoing testing in a phase III registration trial. These data,
therefore, provide important therapeutic options among the armamentarium
of current and future antimyeloma therapies, helping transform MM into
an even more chronic disease than it is today and ultimately leading to a
cure.
References
1. Cirstea D, Vallet S, Raje N. Future novel single agent and combination therapies. Cancer J 2009;15:511-518.
2. Rajkumar
SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared
with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple
myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2171-2177.
3. San
Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and
prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med
2008;359:906-917.
4. Richardson
PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose
dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med
2005;352:2487-2498.
5. Orlowski
RZ, Nagler A, Sonneveld P, et al. Randomized phase III study of
pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib
alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy
improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3892-3901.
6. Dimopoulos
MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival
from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus
dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
Leukemia 2009;23:2147-2152.
7. Rajkumar
SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose
dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial
therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised
controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:29-37.
8. Siegel
DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label,
single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with
relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.
9. Jakubowiak
AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and
dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of
phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.
Dr. Raje can be reached at [email protected].
Noopur Raje, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable bone marrow
cancer, survival rates have improved markedly over the past decade. An
understanding of MM pathobiology (Figure 1) and improvement in stem cell
transplantation, better supportive care, and novel therapies with
higher efficacy and lower toxicity are all responsible for this
improvement. The availability of a rich pipeline of novel agents
undergoing early-phase clinical trials in MM is an exciting and active
area of research.1
Current treatment
Over the past several years, five therapeutic strategies have
received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval either as
monotherapy or in combination for treating MM, with thalidomide
(Thalomid), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and bortezomib (Velcade) as
important backbone drugs in these approaches. In the upfront setting,
thalidomide with dexamethasone2 and bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisone3
increased the overall response rate and significantly prolonged time to
disease progression and are FDA approved. For treatment of relapsed MM,
bortezomib alone4 and in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil),5 as well as lenalidomide/dexamethasone,6
have been approved. Results of a recent phase III randomized clinical
trial suggest that lower doses of dexamethasone provide a survival
advantage, at least in the upfront setting, mainly due to the increased
toxicity of high doses of dexamethasone.7
The availability of these novel agents has not only provided us
with several treatment options but has had an important impact on the
overall survival of our patients. To improve upon current outcomes,
optimal combinations of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide are
currently under evaluation in phase II/III clinical trials.
Novel approaches
The preceding review refers to recent data on pomalidomide, the
newest immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) analog, which has shown single-agent
activity in phase I studies and was subsequently tested in a phase II
trial in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with
relapsed or refractory MM. Pomalidomide/dexamethasone was found to be
highly active and well tolerated, providing a clinical benefit in 47% of
patients and no grade 3 neuropathy. These findings have led to a large
phase II study, which has completed accrual and is awaiting analysis.
Another promising agent discussed here is the novel proteasome
inhibitor carfilzomib. Although bortezomib is an effective agent in MM,
about 20% of newly diagnosed patients are resistant to bortezomib, and,
ultimately, all patients relapse and develop resistance to the drug.
Carfilzomib irreversibly blocks chymotrypsin-like activity and in phase I
studies achieved more than 80% proteasome inhibition. Encouraging data
presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of
Hematology demonstrated that it was well tolerated and had an overall
clinical benefit rate of 36% in relapsed/refractory MM.8 In the upfront setting, carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide led to a 100% response rate.9
This combination with low-dose dexamethasone is currently
undergoing testing in a phase III registration trial. These data,
therefore, provide important therapeutic options among the armamentarium
of current and future antimyeloma therapies, helping transform MM into
an even more chronic disease than it is today and ultimately leading to a
cure.
References
1. Cirstea D, Vallet S, Raje N. Future novel single agent and combination therapies. Cancer J 2009;15:511-518.
2. Rajkumar
SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared
with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple
myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2171-2177.
3. San
Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and
prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med
2008;359:906-917.
4. Richardson
PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose
dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med
2005;352:2487-2498.
5. Orlowski
RZ, Nagler A, Sonneveld P, et al. Randomized phase III study of
pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib
alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy
improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3892-3901.
6. Dimopoulos
MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival
from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus
dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
Leukemia 2009;23:2147-2152.
7. Rajkumar
SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose
dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial
therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised
controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:29-37.
8. Siegel
DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label,
single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with
relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.
9. Jakubowiak
AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and
dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of
phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.
Dr. Raje can be reached at [email protected].
Noopur Raje, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable bone marrow
cancer, survival rates have improved markedly over the past decade. An
understanding of MM pathobiology (Figure 1) and improvement in stem cell
transplantation, better supportive care, and novel therapies with
higher efficacy and lower toxicity are all responsible for this
improvement. The availability of a rich pipeline of novel agents
undergoing early-phase clinical trials in MM is an exciting and active
area of research.1
Current treatment
Over the past several years, five therapeutic strategies have
received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval either as
monotherapy or in combination for treating MM, with thalidomide
(Thalomid), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and bortezomib (Velcade) as
important backbone drugs in these approaches. In the upfront setting,
thalidomide with dexamethasone2 and bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisone3
increased the overall response rate and significantly prolonged time to
disease progression and are FDA approved. For treatment of relapsed MM,
bortezomib alone4 and in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil),5 as well as lenalidomide/dexamethasone,6
have been approved. Results of a recent phase III randomized clinical
trial suggest that lower doses of dexamethasone provide a survival
advantage, at least in the upfront setting, mainly due to the increased
toxicity of high doses of dexamethasone.7
The availability of these novel agents has not only provided us
with several treatment options but has had an important impact on the
overall survival of our patients. To improve upon current outcomes,
optimal combinations of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide are
currently under evaluation in phase II/III clinical trials.
Novel approaches
The preceding review refers to recent data on pomalidomide, the
newest immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) analog, which has shown single-agent
activity in phase I studies and was subsequently tested in a phase II
trial in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in patients with
relapsed or refractory MM. Pomalidomide/dexamethasone was found to be
highly active and well tolerated, providing a clinical benefit in 47% of
patients and no grade 3 neuropathy. These findings have led to a large
phase II study, which has completed accrual and is awaiting analysis.
Another promising agent discussed here is the novel proteasome
inhibitor carfilzomib. Although bortezomib is an effective agent in MM,
about 20% of newly diagnosed patients are resistant to bortezomib, and,
ultimately, all patients relapse and develop resistance to the drug.
Carfilzomib irreversibly blocks chymotrypsin-like activity and in phase I
studies achieved more than 80% proteasome inhibition. Encouraging data
presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of
Hematology demonstrated that it was well tolerated and had an overall
clinical benefit rate of 36% in relapsed/refractory MM.8 In the upfront setting, carfilzomib combined with lenalidomide led to a 100% response rate.9
This combination with low-dose dexamethasone is currently
undergoing testing in a phase III registration trial. These data,
therefore, provide important therapeutic options among the armamentarium
of current and future antimyeloma therapies, helping transform MM into
an even more chronic disease than it is today and ultimately leading to a
cure.
References
1. Cirstea D, Vallet S, Raje N. Future novel single agent and combination therapies. Cancer J 2009;15:511-518.
2. Rajkumar
SV, Rosinol L, Hussein M, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled study of thalidomide plus dexamethasone compared
with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed multiple
myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2171-2177.
3. San
Miguel JF, Schlag R, Khuageva NK, et al. Bortezomib plus melphalan and
prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med
2008;359:906-917.
4. Richardson
PG, Sonneveld P, Schuster MW, et al. Bortezomib or high-dose
dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med
2005;352:2487-2498.
5. Orlowski
RZ, Nagler A, Sonneveld P, et al. Randomized phase III study of
pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib
alone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: combination therapy
improves time to progression. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3892-3901.
6. Dimopoulos
MA, Chen C, Spencer A, et al. Long-term follow-up on overall survival
from the MM-009 and MM-010 phase III trials of lenalidomide plus
dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
Leukemia 2009;23:2147-2152.
7. Rajkumar
SV, Jacobus S, Callander NS, et al. Lenalidomide plus high-dose
dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone as initial
therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an open-label randomised
controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:29-37.
8. Siegel
DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label,
single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with
relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.
9. Jakubowiak
AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and
dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of
phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.
Dr. Raje can be reached at [email protected].
--Jame Abraham, MD, Editor
1. Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia 2010;24:1934−1939.
2. Siegel DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.
3. Jakubowiak AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.
4. Singhal SB, Siegel DSD, Martin T, et al. Pooled safety analysis from phase 1 and 2 studies of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:1954.
--Jame Abraham, MD, Editor
1. Lacy MQ, Hayman SR, Gertz MA, et al. Pomalidomide (CC4047) plus low dose dexamethasone (Pom/dex) is active and well tolerated in lenalidomide refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Leukemia 2010;24:1934−1939.
2. Siegel DSD, Martin T, Wang M, et al. Results of PX-171-003-A1, an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:985.
3. Jakubowiak AJ, Dytfeld D, Jagannath S, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: initial results of phase I/II MMRC trial. Blood 2010;116:862.
4. Singhal SB, Siegel DSD, Martin T, et al. Pooled safety analysis from phase 1 and 2 studies of carfilzomib (CFZ) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Blood 2010;116:1954.
NCCN Upgrades Rituximab Regimens for Follicular Lymphoma
HOLLYWOOD, FLA. – New data have led to upgrades of two rituximab regimens and radioimmunotherapy for follicular lymphoma in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s clinical practice guidelines for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Other changes include a section that addresses the utility of positron emission tomography in the assessment of follicular lymphoma and the addition of recommendations for the evaluation and management of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), according to Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
At the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s annual conference on clinical practice guidelines, he reported updates in the following areas on behalf of the NCCN’s 30-member panel on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma:
Rituximab plus bendamustine. The combination of rituximab (Rituxan) plus bendamustine (Treanda) has been upgraded from a category 2A to a category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma, a common form of NHL, Dr. Zelenetz announced.
The most widely used first-line regimen for follicular lymphoma has been R-CHOP (a combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin HCl, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone). In a study presented in 2009 at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting comparing the efficacy of the R-CHOP protocol with that of the rituximab-bendamustine (RB) combination, the complete remission rate among patients randomized to RB treatment was 73% vs. 39.6% in the R-CHOP arm, Dr. Zelenetz said (Blood [ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts] 2009 Nov.;114:405).
"The median progression-free survival was also higher [in the RB group], at 54.9 months compared with 34.8 months [in the R-CHOP arm]," a finding that he described as unexpected. "This study was designed as an equivalency study, and it certainly surprised many of us that rituximab-bendamustine was significantly better in terms of progression-free survival," he said.
Although there was no difference in overall survival between the two groups, he noted, the RB protocol was better tolerated with less hematologic toxicity and no alopecia.
Rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy. The panel also upgraded rituximab maintenance and chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy from a category 2B to a category 1 recommendation for the treatment of follicular lymphoma after the first remission. The guideline change regarding postremission management was sparked by the results of two recent studies, Dr. Zelenetz said.
The first demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence among patients who received rituximab maintenance after responding to induction with rituximab plus chemotherapy (Lancet 2011;377:42-51). The other, presented at the 2010 ASH meeting, showed that postremission radioimmunotherapy following chemotherapy significantly improved the complete response and progression-free survival rates relative to the experience in patients who received no additional treatment following remission (Blood [ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts] 2010 Nov.;116:594).
"Unfortunately, neither study was associated with improvement in overall survival," he said.
PET imaging. In the assessment of follicular lymphoma, "studies have shown that PET imaging can be used to distinguish between indolent and aggressive lymphoma and can help guide the site for optimal biopsy, "especially in patients in whom there is a concern about transformation from indolent to aggressive disease," Dr. Zelenetz said. While it cannot replace biopsy, "[PET imaging] can help identify the best vs. the most convenient lymph node to biopsy," he said(J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:4643-51; Ann. Oncol. 2009; 20:508-12).
In addition, PET–computed tomography (PET-CT) has a role in the assessment of treatment response because "the predictive power of posttreatment PET-CT is stronger than other prognostic factors," Dr. Zelenetz explained.
Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. PTLD "has emerged as a significant complication of solid organ and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation," according to Dr. Zelenetz.
The revised guidelines recommend outlining the procedure for establishing a diagnosis based on histology and immunophenotype, and categorizes relevant tests as essential or useful under certain circumstances. Among information deemed "essential," he said, is the determination of patients’ Epstein Barr virus (EBV) status, as well as their histopathology (polymorphic or monomorphic cells) and immunophenotype.
NCCN recommendations include reducing immunosuppression for patients with early lesions, which are usually associated with Epstein-Barr virus, and for those with polymorphic systemic and monomorphic disease. Treatment may include antiviral prophylaxis with gancyclovir (Cytovene), rituximab, or chemoimmunotherapy, depending on PTLD subtype, said Dr. Zelenetz, noting that "stem cell transplantation is usually reserved for relapse or refractory situations, as we would manage other aggressive lymphomas."
Dr. Zelenetz disclosed receiving grant and research support from companies including Amgen Inc., Celgene Corp., Cell Therapeutics Inc., Cephalon Inc., Genentech Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi-Aventis US.
positron emission tomography, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder, PTLD, Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Rituximab, bendamustine, R-CHOP
HOLLYWOOD, FLA. – New data have led to upgrades of two rituximab regimens and radioimmunotherapy for follicular lymphoma in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s clinical practice guidelines for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Other changes include a section that addresses the utility of positron emission tomography in the assessment of follicular lymphoma and the addition of recommendations for the evaluation and management of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), according to Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
At the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s annual conference on clinical practice guidelines, he reported updates in the following areas on behalf of the NCCN’s 30-member panel on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma:
Rituximab plus bendamustine. The combination of rituximab (Rituxan) plus bendamustine (Treanda) has been upgraded from a category 2A to a category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma, a common form of NHL, Dr. Zelenetz announced.
The most widely used first-line regimen for follicular lymphoma has been R-CHOP (a combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin HCl, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone). In a study presented in 2009 at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting comparing the efficacy of the R-CHOP protocol with that of the rituximab-bendamustine (RB) combination, the complete remission rate among patients randomized to RB treatment was 73% vs. 39.6% in the R-CHOP arm, Dr. Zelenetz said (Blood [ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts] 2009 Nov.;114:405).
"The median progression-free survival was also higher [in the RB group], at 54.9 months compared with 34.8 months [in the R-CHOP arm]," a finding that he described as unexpected. "This study was designed as an equivalency study, and it certainly surprised many of us that rituximab-bendamustine was significantly better in terms of progression-free survival," he said.
Although there was no difference in overall survival between the two groups, he noted, the RB protocol was better tolerated with less hematologic toxicity and no alopecia.
Rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy. The panel also upgraded rituximab maintenance and chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy from a category 2B to a category 1 recommendation for the treatment of follicular lymphoma after the first remission. The guideline change regarding postremission management was sparked by the results of two recent studies, Dr. Zelenetz said.
The first demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence among patients who received rituximab maintenance after responding to induction with rituximab plus chemotherapy (Lancet 2011;377:42-51). The other, presented at the 2010 ASH meeting, showed that postremission radioimmunotherapy following chemotherapy significantly improved the complete response and progression-free survival rates relative to the experience in patients who received no additional treatment following remission (Blood [ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts] 2010 Nov.;116:594).
"Unfortunately, neither study was associated with improvement in overall survival," he said.
PET imaging. In the assessment of follicular lymphoma, "studies have shown that PET imaging can be used to distinguish between indolent and aggressive lymphoma and can help guide the site for optimal biopsy, "especially in patients in whom there is a concern about transformation from indolent to aggressive disease," Dr. Zelenetz said. While it cannot replace biopsy, "[PET imaging] can help identify the best vs. the most convenient lymph node to biopsy," he said(J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:4643-51; Ann. Oncol. 2009; 20:508-12).
In addition, PET–computed tomography (PET-CT) has a role in the assessment of treatment response because "the predictive power of posttreatment PET-CT is stronger than other prognostic factors," Dr. Zelenetz explained.
Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. PTLD "has emerged as a significant complication of solid organ and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation," according to Dr. Zelenetz.
The revised guidelines recommend outlining the procedure for establishing a diagnosis based on histology and immunophenotype, and categorizes relevant tests as essential or useful under certain circumstances. Among information deemed "essential," he said, is the determination of patients’ Epstein Barr virus (EBV) status, as well as their histopathology (polymorphic or monomorphic cells) and immunophenotype.
NCCN recommendations include reducing immunosuppression for patients with early lesions, which are usually associated with Epstein-Barr virus, and for those with polymorphic systemic and monomorphic disease. Treatment may include antiviral prophylaxis with gancyclovir (Cytovene), rituximab, or chemoimmunotherapy, depending on PTLD subtype, said Dr. Zelenetz, noting that "stem cell transplantation is usually reserved for relapse or refractory situations, as we would manage other aggressive lymphomas."
Dr. Zelenetz disclosed receiving grant and research support from companies including Amgen Inc., Celgene Corp., Cell Therapeutics Inc., Cephalon Inc., Genentech Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi-Aventis US.
HOLLYWOOD, FLA. – New data have led to upgrades of two rituximab regimens and radioimmunotherapy for follicular lymphoma in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s clinical practice guidelines for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Other changes include a section that addresses the utility of positron emission tomography in the assessment of follicular lymphoma and the addition of recommendations for the evaluation and management of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), according to Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
At the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s annual conference on clinical practice guidelines, he reported updates in the following areas on behalf of the NCCN’s 30-member panel on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma:
Rituximab plus bendamustine. The combination of rituximab (Rituxan) plus bendamustine (Treanda) has been upgraded from a category 2A to a category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma, a common form of NHL, Dr. Zelenetz announced.
The most widely used first-line regimen for follicular lymphoma has been R-CHOP (a combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin HCl, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone). In a study presented in 2009 at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting comparing the efficacy of the R-CHOP protocol with that of the rituximab-bendamustine (RB) combination, the complete remission rate among patients randomized to RB treatment was 73% vs. 39.6% in the R-CHOP arm, Dr. Zelenetz said (Blood [ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts] 2009 Nov.;114:405).
"The median progression-free survival was also higher [in the RB group], at 54.9 months compared with 34.8 months [in the R-CHOP arm]," a finding that he described as unexpected. "This study was designed as an equivalency study, and it certainly surprised many of us that rituximab-bendamustine was significantly better in terms of progression-free survival," he said.
Although there was no difference in overall survival between the two groups, he noted, the RB protocol was better tolerated with less hematologic toxicity and no alopecia.
Rituximab maintenance and radioimmunotherapy. The panel also upgraded rituximab maintenance and chemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy from a category 2B to a category 1 recommendation for the treatment of follicular lymphoma after the first remission. The guideline change regarding postremission management was sparked by the results of two recent studies, Dr. Zelenetz said.
The first demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence among patients who received rituximab maintenance after responding to induction with rituximab plus chemotherapy (Lancet 2011;377:42-51). The other, presented at the 2010 ASH meeting, showed that postremission radioimmunotherapy following chemotherapy significantly improved the complete response and progression-free survival rates relative to the experience in patients who received no additional treatment following remission (Blood [ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts] 2010 Nov.;116:594).
"Unfortunately, neither study was associated with improvement in overall survival," he said.
PET imaging. In the assessment of follicular lymphoma, "studies have shown that PET imaging can be used to distinguish between indolent and aggressive lymphoma and can help guide the site for optimal biopsy, "especially in patients in whom there is a concern about transformation from indolent to aggressive disease," Dr. Zelenetz said. While it cannot replace biopsy, "[PET imaging] can help identify the best vs. the most convenient lymph node to biopsy," he said(J. Clin. Oncol. 2005;23:4643-51; Ann. Oncol. 2009; 20:508-12).
In addition, PET–computed tomography (PET-CT) has a role in the assessment of treatment response because "the predictive power of posttreatment PET-CT is stronger than other prognostic factors," Dr. Zelenetz explained.
Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. PTLD "has emerged as a significant complication of solid organ and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation," according to Dr. Zelenetz.
The revised guidelines recommend outlining the procedure for establishing a diagnosis based on histology and immunophenotype, and categorizes relevant tests as essential or useful under certain circumstances. Among information deemed "essential," he said, is the determination of patients’ Epstein Barr virus (EBV) status, as well as their histopathology (polymorphic or monomorphic cells) and immunophenotype.
NCCN recommendations include reducing immunosuppression for patients with early lesions, which are usually associated with Epstein-Barr virus, and for those with polymorphic systemic and monomorphic disease. Treatment may include antiviral prophylaxis with gancyclovir (Cytovene), rituximab, or chemoimmunotherapy, depending on PTLD subtype, said Dr. Zelenetz, noting that "stem cell transplantation is usually reserved for relapse or refractory situations, as we would manage other aggressive lymphomas."
Dr. Zelenetz disclosed receiving grant and research support from companies including Amgen Inc., Celgene Corp., Cell Therapeutics Inc., Cephalon Inc., Genentech Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi-Aventis US.
positron emission tomography, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder, PTLD, Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Rituximab, bendamustine, R-CHOP
positron emission tomography, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder, PTLD, Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Rituximab, bendamustine, R-CHOP
FROM THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK
Plastic Surgery Groups Remove Cancer-Implant Webinar After Complaints
Two plastic surgery professional organizations have removed a members-only webinar in the wake of complaints by an advocacy group that the program downplayed the risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) in women who have breast implants.
Public Citizens Health Research Group wrote to the Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 17 to urge the agency to take action against the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS).
The Washington-based nonprofit said that the groups held the webinar in the wake of the FDA’s Jan. 26 announcement that there were a growing number of cases of ALCL in women with implants.
Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a Feb. 28 letter (pdf) to Public Citizen that it had viewed the webinar and "spoke with representatives of both organizations." Dr. Shuren added that, "They informed us of their plans to remove the webinar from their Web site."
Both organizations said that they were not instructed by the FDA to take the webinar down, but that it was a voluntary decision.
In a March 2 statement, the ASAPS said that it removed the webinar "as newer information became available a week ago." That information, according to ASAPS president Felmont F. Eaves III, is "an independent, systematic review of ALCL, which will be published in an upcoming edition of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery."
Dr. Eaves said in an interview that the Rand Corp. conducted the review and that it is his understanding that the article will be available some time in June. For the time being, the advanced copy of the article is available only to ASAPS members.
The ASPS said in a March 2 statement, "It was never our intention to downplay the risk of a very rarely occurring cancer associated with breast implants." Rather, said the Society, "We did not want to unnecessarily alarm patients when the risk of ALCL associated with breast implants is so low."
According to Public Citizen, ASPS president Phil Haeck explained in the webinar that ALCL should not be referred to as a tumor or a malignancy, but as a "condition." Dr. Haeck said, "I would recommend that you use the same terms with your patients rather than disturb them by saying this is a cancer, this is a malignancy. The best word is this is a condition," according to Public Citizen. Dr. Haeck added, "And I think you are certainly justified, with what we know now, in downplaying the malignant potential of these."
Public Citizen also objected to the webinar telling members that "surgery was curative," for ALCL.
In his response to Public Citizen, the FDA’s Dr. Shuren said, "the FDA believes the optimal treatment regimen has not been established and that additional data collection is needed to fully understand the possible relationship between ALCL and breast implants, as well as the risk factors, optimal treatment plan, and prognosis."
The FDA is asking health care providers to report confirmed cases of ALCL. The agency also notes that ASPS and others are collaborating with the agency to develop a registry tracking ALCL and implants. ASAPS said in late January that it also is supporting the registry. Details are still being worked out.
Two plastic surgery professional organizations have removed a members-only webinar in the wake of complaints by an advocacy group that the program downplayed the risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) in women who have breast implants.
Public Citizens Health Research Group wrote to the Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 17 to urge the agency to take action against the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS).
The Washington-based nonprofit said that the groups held the webinar in the wake of the FDA’s Jan. 26 announcement that there were a growing number of cases of ALCL in women with implants.
Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a Feb. 28 letter (pdf) to Public Citizen that it had viewed the webinar and "spoke with representatives of both organizations." Dr. Shuren added that, "They informed us of their plans to remove the webinar from their Web site."
Both organizations said that they were not instructed by the FDA to take the webinar down, but that it was a voluntary decision.
In a March 2 statement, the ASAPS said that it removed the webinar "as newer information became available a week ago." That information, according to ASAPS president Felmont F. Eaves III, is "an independent, systematic review of ALCL, which will be published in an upcoming edition of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery."
Dr. Eaves said in an interview that the Rand Corp. conducted the review and that it is his understanding that the article will be available some time in June. For the time being, the advanced copy of the article is available only to ASAPS members.
The ASPS said in a March 2 statement, "It was never our intention to downplay the risk of a very rarely occurring cancer associated with breast implants." Rather, said the Society, "We did not want to unnecessarily alarm patients when the risk of ALCL associated with breast implants is so low."
According to Public Citizen, ASPS president Phil Haeck explained in the webinar that ALCL should not be referred to as a tumor or a malignancy, but as a "condition." Dr. Haeck said, "I would recommend that you use the same terms with your patients rather than disturb them by saying this is a cancer, this is a malignancy. The best word is this is a condition," according to Public Citizen. Dr. Haeck added, "And I think you are certainly justified, with what we know now, in downplaying the malignant potential of these."
Public Citizen also objected to the webinar telling members that "surgery was curative," for ALCL.
In his response to Public Citizen, the FDA’s Dr. Shuren said, "the FDA believes the optimal treatment regimen has not been established and that additional data collection is needed to fully understand the possible relationship between ALCL and breast implants, as well as the risk factors, optimal treatment plan, and prognosis."
The FDA is asking health care providers to report confirmed cases of ALCL. The agency also notes that ASPS and others are collaborating with the agency to develop a registry tracking ALCL and implants. ASAPS said in late January that it also is supporting the registry. Details are still being worked out.
Two plastic surgery professional organizations have removed a members-only webinar in the wake of complaints by an advocacy group that the program downplayed the risk of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) in women who have breast implants.
Public Citizens Health Research Group wrote to the Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 17 to urge the agency to take action against the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS).
The Washington-based nonprofit said that the groups held the webinar in the wake of the FDA’s Jan. 26 announcement that there were a growing number of cases of ALCL in women with implants.
Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a Feb. 28 letter (pdf) to Public Citizen that it had viewed the webinar and "spoke with representatives of both organizations." Dr. Shuren added that, "They informed us of their plans to remove the webinar from their Web site."
Both organizations said that they were not instructed by the FDA to take the webinar down, but that it was a voluntary decision.
In a March 2 statement, the ASAPS said that it removed the webinar "as newer information became available a week ago." That information, according to ASAPS president Felmont F. Eaves III, is "an independent, systematic review of ALCL, which will be published in an upcoming edition of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery."
Dr. Eaves said in an interview that the Rand Corp. conducted the review and that it is his understanding that the article will be available some time in June. For the time being, the advanced copy of the article is available only to ASAPS members.
The ASPS said in a March 2 statement, "It was never our intention to downplay the risk of a very rarely occurring cancer associated with breast implants." Rather, said the Society, "We did not want to unnecessarily alarm patients when the risk of ALCL associated with breast implants is so low."
According to Public Citizen, ASPS president Phil Haeck explained in the webinar that ALCL should not be referred to as a tumor or a malignancy, but as a "condition." Dr. Haeck said, "I would recommend that you use the same terms with your patients rather than disturb them by saying this is a cancer, this is a malignancy. The best word is this is a condition," according to Public Citizen. Dr. Haeck added, "And I think you are certainly justified, with what we know now, in downplaying the malignant potential of these."
Public Citizen also objected to the webinar telling members that "surgery was curative," for ALCL.
In his response to Public Citizen, the FDA’s Dr. Shuren said, "the FDA believes the optimal treatment regimen has not been established and that additional data collection is needed to fully understand the possible relationship between ALCL and breast implants, as well as the risk factors, optimal treatment plan, and prognosis."
The FDA is asking health care providers to report confirmed cases of ALCL. The agency also notes that ASPS and others are collaborating with the agency to develop a registry tracking ALCL and implants. ASAPS said in late January that it also is supporting the registry. Details are still being worked out.
Results of a Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Trial Evaluating Infusion Duration of Zoledronic Acid in Multiple Myeloma Patients (the ZMAX Trial)
Original research
James R. Berenson MD
Abstract
Zoledronic acid, an intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate, is a standard treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) but may exacerbate preexisting renal dysfunction. The incidence of zoledronic acid–induced renal dysfunction may correlate with infusion duration. In this randomized, multicenter, open-label study, 176 patients with MM, at least one bone lesion, and stable renal function with a serum creatinine (SCr) level <3 mg/dL received zoledronic acid 4 mg (in 250 mL) as a 15- or 30-minute IV infusion every 3–4 weeks. At month 12, 20% (17 patients) in the 15-minute and 16% (13 patients) in the 30-minute arm experienced a clinically relevant but nonsignificant SCr-level increase (P = 0.44). By 24 months, the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant SCr-level increase was similar between arms (15-minute 28% [24 patients] vs 30-minute 27% [23 patients], P = 0.9014). Median zoledronic acid end-of-infusion concentrations were higher with the shorter infusion (15-minute 249 ng/mL vs 30-minute 172 ng/mL), and prolonging the infusion beyond 15 minutes did not influence adverse events related to zoledronic acid. For patients with MM, the safety profile of IV zoledronic acid is similar between those receiving a 15- or 30-minute infusion; therefore, determining the appropriate infusion duration of zoledronic acid should be based on individual patient considerations.
Article Outline
Considerable research has focused on preventive and/or treatment strategies to reduce bone complications in MM patients. In a large, international, randomized, phase III trial of MM patients with at least one osteolytic bone lesion, zoledronic acid (Zometa), a potent intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate that inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, reduced the overall risk of developing skeletally related events (SREs) including HCM by 16% (P = 0.03) compared with standard-dose pamidronate 90 mg (Aredia), another less potent IV bisphosphonate.[5] and [6] As a result of this study and others, monthly infusion of zoledronic acid at 4 mg over at least 15 minutes has become a common treatment for MM patients with bone involvement.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved zoledronic acid use for patients with MM, documented bone metastases from solid tumors, or HCM.[5], [6], [7] and [8] The FDA-approved dose for MM patients is 4 mg administered as an IV infusion over at least 15 minutes every 3–4 weeks for patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) of >60 mL/min; when treating HCM, zoledronic acid 4 mg is administered as a single IV infusion.[5], [6], [7] and [8]
Zoledronic acid is primarily excreted intact through the kidney.9 Preexisting kidney disease and receipt of multiple cycles of bisphosphonate therapy are risk factors for subsequent kidney injury.7 In animal studies, IV bisphosphonates have been shown by histology to precipitate renal tubular injury when administered as a single high dose or when administered more frequently at lower doses.[10] and [11] Additionally, renal dysfunction, as evidenced by increased serum creatinine (SCr) levels, was reported among patients treated at a dose of 4 mg with an infusion time of 5 minutes.[7] and [12] When 4 mg zoledronic acid was administered with a longer infusion time of 15 minutes in large randomized trials, no significant difference between the renal safety profiles of zoledronic acid and pamidronate was reported.6
One hypothesis about the development of kidney injury associated with zoledronic acid is that it may be related to the peak plasma concentration as determined by infusion time. Results of a study evaluating patients with MM or other cancer types and bone metastases demonstrated that prolonging the infusion time of zoledronic acid reduced the end-of-infusion peak plasma concentration (Cmax) by 35%.9 Another theory about the development of kidney dysfunction is that insoluble precipitates may form when the blood is exposed to high concentrations of bisphosphonates as this has been shown to occur in vitro.[9] and [13] Therefore, the current management of renal adverse events (AEs) related to IV bisphosphonates is based on these theories so that reducing the peak plasma concentration of zoledronic acid may prevent the possible formation of insoluble precipitates through (1) lowering the dose, (2) slowing the infusion rate, or (3) increasing the volume of infusate.[5], [12] and [14]
Because MM patients are predisposed to experience deterioration of renal function, it is critical to ensure that zoledronic acid does not contribute to, or exacerbate, a decline in kidney function. To determine if increasing the duration of zoledronic acid infusion further results in improved renal safety, a multicenter, open-label, randomized study was designed to compare a 15-minute vs a 30-minute infusion time with an increased volume of infusate from 100 to 250 mL administered every 3–4 weeks to MM patients with osteolytic bone disease.
Patients and Methods
Patient Population
Men and women (≥18 years of age) with a diagnosis of MM, at least one bone lesion on plain film radiographs, stable kidney function (defined as two SCr level determinations of <3 mg/dL obtained at least 7 days apart during the screening period), calculated CrCl of at least 30 mL/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less, and a life expectancy of at least 9 months were eligible. The study excluded patients with prolonged IV bisphosphonate use (defined as use of zoledronic acid longer than 3 years or pamidronate longer than 1 year [total bisphosphonate duration could not exceed 3 years]), corrected serum calcium level at first visit of <8 or ≥12 mg/dL, or diagnosis of amyloidosis. Additionally, patients who had known hypersensitivity to zoledronic acid or other bisphosphonates; were pregnant or lactating; had uncontrolled cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes mellitus; or had a history of noncompliance with medical regimens were not eligible.
Study Design
This open-label, randomized pilot study was conducted at 45 centers in the United States. Before randomization, patients were stratified based on length of time of prior bisphosphonate treatment (bisphosphonate-naive vs ≤1 year prior bisphosphonate therapy vs >1 year prior bisphosphonate therapy) and baseline calculated CrCl (>75 vs >60–75 vs ≥30–≤60 mL/min).
Treatment and Evaluation
Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid 4 mg as either a 15- or a 30-minute IV infusion. The volume of infusate was increased from the standard 100 to 250 mL to provide additional hydration; infusions were administered every 3–4 weeks for up to 24 months. At the time this study was developed, the 4 mg dose was used because the dose adjustments for renal dysfunction in the current FDA labeling for zoledronic acid were not yet available.7 Patients were required to take a calcium supplement containing 500 mg of calcium and a multivitamin containing 400–500 IU of vitamin D, orally, once daily, for the duration of zoledronic acid therapy.
HCM during the trial was defined as a corrected serum calcium level ≥12 mg/dL or a lower level of hypercalcemia accompanied by symptoms and/or requiring active treatment other than rehydration. If HCM occurred more than 14 days after a zoledronic acid infusion, patients could receive a zoledronic acid infusion as treatment for HCM, even if this required administration before the next scheduled dose. Patients were allowed to remain in the study provided that HCM did not persist or recur. However, zoledronic acid treatment was immediately discontinued if patients developed HCM ≤14 days after study drug infusion; these patients received HCM treatment at the discretion of their treating physician. Also, patients experiencing HCM discontinued calcium and vitamin D supplements.
Within 2 weeks before each dose, enrolled patients were assessed for increase in SCr levels. For patients experiencing a clinically relevant increase in SCr level (defined as a rise of 0.5 mg/dL or more or a doubling of baseline SCr levels), administration of zoledronic acid was suspended until the SCr level fell to within 10% of the baseline value. During the delay, SCr levels were monitored at each regularly scheduled study visit (every 3–4 weeks) or more frequently if deemed necessary by the investigator. If the SCr level fell to within 10% of the baseline value within the subsequent 12 weeks, zoledronic acid was restarted with an infusion time that was increased by 15 minutes over the starting duration. If the rise in SCr level did not resolve within 12 weeks or if the patient experienced a second clinically relevant increase in SCr level after modification of the infusion time, treatment was permanently discontinued. Otherwise, patients were followed for 24 months. A final safety assessment, including a full hematology and chemistry profile, was performed 28 days after the last infusion.
A pretreatment dental examination with appropriate preventive dentistry was suggested for all patients with known risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) (eg, cancer chemotherapy, corticosteroids, poor oral hygiene, dental extraction, or dental implants). Throughout the study, patients reporting symptoms that could be consistent with ONJ were referred to a dental professional for assessment; if exposed bone was noted on dental examination, the patient was referred to an oral surgeon for further evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. A diagnosis of ONJ required cessation of zoledronic acid therapy and study discontinuation.
Pharmacokinetic Sampling
At the first infusion visit (visit 2), pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were measured. If PK samples were not obtained at visit 2, they could be obtained at visit 3 (otherwise, they were recorded as not done). All blood samples for PK analysis were drawn from the contralateral arm. For patients receiving the 15-minute zoledronic acid infusion, the protocol specified that PK samples were to be drawn at exactly 10 and 15 minutes from the start of the infusion; patients receiving the 30-minute zoledronic acid infusion were to have blood samples drawn at exactly 25 and 30 minutes from the start of the infusion. The second blood sample for PK analysis was taken before the study drug infusion was stopped in both groups. PK analysis was performed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics France (Rueil-Malmaison, France) and SGS Cephac (Geneva Switzerland), using a competitive radioimmunoassay that has a lower limit of quantification of 0.04 ng/mL and an upper limit of quantification of 40 ng/mL.
Statistical Analysis
The primary study end point was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 12 months. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the primary end point; in addition, an exploratory analysis with a logistic regression model, using treatment group, prior bisphosphonate therapy, and baseline CrCl, was performed.
Additional secondary safety end points included the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 24 months, time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level, and the PK profile of zoledronic acid. The proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 24 months was summarized using descriptive statistics. Time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method at the time of the primary analysis (12 months) and at 24 months. Plasma concentration data were evaluated by treatment group and baseline kidney function using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables of baseline and demographic characteristics between treatment groups were compared using a two-sample t-test; between-group differences in discrete variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test.
The primary analysis included all randomized patients who received at least one zoledronic acid infusion and who had valid postbaseline data for assessment. All study subjects who had evaluable PK parameters were included in a secondary PK analysis. Efficacy assessments were not included in this trial.
This pilot trial was designed to obtain additional preliminary data to support the hypothesis that a longer infusion is associated with less kidney dysfunction than a shorter infusion; therefore, a sample size of 90 patients per treatment group was selected. All statistical tests employed a significance level of 0.05 against a two-sided alternative hypothesis.
The institutional review boards of participating institutions approved the study, and all patients provided written informed consent before study entry.
Results
Study Population
Between October 2004 and October 2007, 179 MM patients with SCr <3 mg/dL were randomized to receive either a 15- or a 30-minute infusion of zoledronic acid. Of these, 176 patients (88 in each group) received at least one dose of study drug. Because of protocol violations, postbaseline data from one site were excluded from analyses, leaving 85 assessable patients in the 15-minute group and 84 patients in the 30-minute group.
Overall, the study groups were representative of a general population with MM. About two-thirds of patients had received prior bisphosphonate therapy; the duration of therapy was greater than 1 year for most of these patients (Table 1). The most common concomitant therapies included dexamethasone, thalidomide, and melphalan. Although the median age, proportion of patients who were 65 years of age or older, and ratio of men to women were greater in the 15-minute infusion group, none of the differences in baseline demographics was statistically significant. All other baseline demographics and disease characteristics, including prior bisphosphonate use and baseline CrCl values, were similar between the two groups (see Table 1). During the study, six patients in the 15-minute treatment group and one patient in the 30-minute treatment group experienced HCM. Three of the six patients in the 15-minute treatment group and one patient in the 30-minute treatment group discontinued the study as a result of HCM.
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%)a | ||
|---|---|---|
| CHARACTERISTIC | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 88)b | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 88)b |
| Age (years) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 64 | 64 |
| Median | 66 | 64 |
| Range | 37–91 | 27–86 |
| Age category (years) | ||
| <65 | 39 (44) | 47 (53) |
| ≥65 | 49 (56) | 41 (47) |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 56 (64) | 49 (56) |
| Female | 32 (36) | 39 (44) |
| Race | ||
| White | 70 (80) | 69 (78) |
| Black | 9 (10) | 13 (15) |
| Asian | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| Other | 8 (9) | 5 (6) |
| Time since diagnosis (months) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 12 (24) (n = 86) | 10 (14) (n = 87) |
| Median | 4 | 6 |
| Range | 0–186 | 0–98c |
| Prior bisphosphonate use | ||
| Naive | 28 (32) | 28 (32) |
| ≤1 year | 12 (14) | 14 (16) |
| >1 year | 48 (55) | 39 (44) |
| Missing | 0 (0) | 7 (8) |
| Calculated CrCl (mL/min) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 87 (33) | 89 (40) |
| Median | 84 | 83 |
| Range | 33–210 | 31–224 |
| Calculated CrCl category (mL/min) | ||
| CrCl ≥75 | 54 (61) | 49 (56) |
| 60 < CrCL < 75 | 13 (15) | 15 (17) |
| 30 < CrCl ≤ 60 | 21 (24) | 24 (27) |
| CrCl <30 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
CrCl = creatinine clearance; IV = intravenous; SD = standard deviation
a Unless otherwise notedb Safety populationc One patient had a screening visit date before the date of initial diagnosis
Protocol violations and/or deviations (n = 658) occurred during this study, affecting 139 patients. The types of protocol violations/deviations were related to protocol adherence (n = 404), timing of visits (n = 210), protocol adherence/timing of visits (n = 2), exclusion criteria (n = 22), inclusion criteria (n = 10), and informed consent (n = 1); 9 violations were unclassified. Notably, one protocol adherence deviation that occurred was incorrect infusion duration despite the patient having a stable SCr level. In the 15-minute treatment group, 15% of infusions administered were longer than 15 minutes. Among the longer infusions, 7% of the infusions correctly occurred per protocol following an SCr-level increase, whereas 7% of the prolonged infusions were 20 minutes or longer in the absence of an SCr-level increase. Similarly, in the 30-minute treatment group, 5% of patients received infusions lasting at least 35 minutes in the absence of an SCr-level increase.
Renal Safety
At 12 months, slightly fewer patients (n = 13 [16%]) in the 30-minute infusion group had a clinically relevant increase in SCr level than in the 15-minute infusion group (n = 17 [20%]); but this difference was not statistically significant, and for approximately 35% of patients in each group there were no SCr data available (Table 2). The median time to a clinically relevant increase in SCr by Kaplain-Meier was not reached in either group (data not shown). Neither previous bisphosphonate use nor baseline CrCl significantly affected the results (P = 0.5837 and P = 0.9371, respectively).
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CLINICALLY RELEVANT INCREASE IN SCR | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 85)a | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 84)a | P VALUEb |
| 12 Months | 0.6892 | ||
| Yes | 17 (20) | 13 (16) | |
| No | 38 (45) | 42 (50) | |
| Unknown | 30 (35) | 29 (35) | |
| 24 Months | 0.9750 | ||
| Yes | 24 (28) | 23 (27) | |
| No | 22 (26) | 23 (27) | |
| Unknown | 39 (46) | 38 (45) | |
CI = confidence interval; IV = intravenous; SCr = serum creatinine
a Safety population, excluding patients with protocol violationsb P value calculated based on chi-squared test
After 24 months of treatment, the proportion of patients experiencing a clinically relevant increase in SCr level was similar between treatment groups, although for approximately 45% of patients in each group there were no SCr data available (see Table 2). Moreover, the difference in time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level was not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.55) (Figure 1). However, among patients with a clinically significant rise in SCr level, the median time to SCr rise was slightly longer in the 30-minute group than in the 15-minute group (22 vs 24 weeks), but this was not statistically significant.
Increases in SCr relative to baseline led to treatment discontinuation in 20 patients (24%) receiving a 15-minute infusion and 14 patients (17%) receiving a 30-minute infusion. In these cases, the treating physician either considered the SCr level too high for continued treatment or the SCr level was persistently high despite treatment interruption.
Pharmacokinetics
Median zoledronic acid concentrations, as anticipated, were higher with the 15-minute infusion time at both sampling time points (during infusion: 15-minute group 231 ng/mL [at 10 minutes] vs 30-minute group 186 ng/mL [at 25 minutes]; end-of-infusion: 15-minute group, 249 ng/mL vs 30-minute group 172 ng/mL).
Adverse Events
Overall, the incidence and severity of AEs were as anticipated for MM patients. The most commonly reported AEs included fatigue, anemia, nausea, constipation, and back pain (Table 3). Although many AEs were reported more frequently in the 30-minute infusion group, the incidence rates of AEs suspected to be related to zoledronic acid were similar between the two groups. Toxicities were graded as mild, moderate, or severe; proportions of AEs categorized by these grades were comparable. Nonfatal serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 26% of patients receiving the 15-minute infusion and 35% of patients receiving the 30-minute infusion; however, only one patient in the 15-minute group and two patients in the 30-minute group had SAEs suspected to be related to study medication.
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TYPE OF AE | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 85) | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 84) | TOTAL (N = 169) |
| Blood and lymphatic system disorders | |||
| Anemia | 19 (22) | 27 (32) | 46 (27) |
| Neutropenia | 6 (7) | 12 (14) | 18 (11) |
| Gastrointestinal disorders | |||
| Constipation | 20 (24) | 21 (25) | 41 (24) |
| Diarrhea | 14 (17) | 20 (24) | 34 (20) |
| Nausea | 18 (21) | 27 (32) | 45 (27) |
| Vomiting | 10 (12) | 14 (17) | 24 (14) |
| General disorders | |||
| Fatigue | 30 (35) | 41 (49) | 71 (42) |
| Pain | 7 (8) | 10 (12) | 17 (10) |
| Pain in extremity | 14 (17) | 16 (19) | 30 (18) |
| Peripheral edema | 13 (15) | 20 (24) | 33 (20) |
| Pyrexia | 15 (18) | 19 (23) | 34 (20) |
| Infections and infestations | |||
| Pneumonia | 11 (13) | 7 (8) | 18 (11) |
| Upper respiratory tract infection | 13 (15) | 13 (16) | 26 (15) |
| Metabolism and nutrition disorders | |||
| Anorexia | 8 (9) | 9 (11) | 17 (10) |
| Hypokalemia | 12 (14) | 13 (15) | 25 (14) |
| Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | |||
| Arthralgia | 10 (11) | 16 (19) | 26 (15) |
| Asthenia | 9 (10) | 13 (16) | 22 (13) |
| Back pain | 19 (22) | 20 (24) | 39 (23) |
| Bone pain | 10 (12) | 11 (13) | 21 (12) |
| Nervous system disorders | |||
| Dizziness | 11 (13) | 10 (12) | 21 (12) |
| Peripheral neuropathy | 7 (8) | 15 (18) | 22 (13) |
| Psychiatric disorders | |||
| Insomnia | 10 (12) | 14 (17) | 24 (14) |
| Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders | |||
| Cough | 13 (15) | 15 (18) | 28 (17) |
| Dyspnea | 15 (18) | 17 (20) | 32 (19) |
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | |||
| Rash | 9 (11) | 12 (14) | 21 (12) |
AE = adverse event; IV = intravenous
a Safety population excluding patients with protocol violations
The numbers of deaths, trial discontinuations, and treatment interruptions due to AEs were similar between the two groups as well. Deaths (9 [10.6%] 15-minute group vs 6 [7.1%] 30-minute group) were not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid. Eight patients in each treatment group discontinued therapy because of an AE; events leading to treatment discontinuation that were suspected to be related to zoledronic acid occurred in two patients in the 15-minute group (skeletal pain and ONJ) and one patient in the 30-minute group (jaw pain). AEs that required treatment interruption occurred in eight and nine patients in the 15-minute and 30-minute groups, respectively.
AEs of special interest included those related to kidney dysfunction, cardiac arrhythmias, SREs, and ONJ. The number of patients reporting overall kidney and urinary disorders was the same in the two treatment groups (14 patients in each group); however, acute renal failure was reported more frequently in patients receiving the 15-minute infusion compared with the 30-minute infusion (four patients [5%] vs one patient [1%] in 30-minute group). Details of these five patients are presented in Table 4. AEs related to cardiac rhythm occurred in 20 patients while on study; however, only one case of bradycardia was suspected to be related to zoledronic acid therapy (in the 30-minute group). The incidence of SREs at 2 years was comparable in the two groups (19% in 15-minute group vs 21% in 30-minute group). The time to onset of SREs was longer in the 15-minute group (222 vs 158 days), but this was not statistically significant. A total of 10 patients with suspected ONJ were identified, with three patients in the 15-minute group (all moderate) and seven patients in the 30-minute group (mild [n = 5], moderate [n = 1], severe [n = 1]). Six of these patients received bisphosphonates before entering the study (four patients received no prior bisphosphonates), but the length of previous bisphosphonate therapy varied (0–30 months). Patients with suspected ONJ were assessed by clinicians and referred to dental professionals for further evaluation.
| PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS | TYPE OF MM | MEDICAL HISTORY | CONCURRENT MEDICATIONSa | ACUTE RENAL FAILURE DETAILS | OUTCOME |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoledronic acid 4 mg IV for 15 minutes | |||||
| 73-year-old female Caucasian | IgG | Anemia, cardiomyopathy, CHF, cholecystectomy, benign breast lump removal, CAD, DM, dyslipidemia, central venous catheterization, chronic renal failure, GERD, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, hysterectomy, mycobacterial infection, hemorrhoids, B-cell lymphoma, seborrheic keratosis, tonsillectomy | At start of study: aspirin, losartan, digoxin, hydrochlorothiazide/lorsartan, fluconazole, folic acid, atorvastatin, vitamins, warfarinDuring study: ethambutol dihydrochloride, moxifloxacin, rifabutin, fenofibrate, omeprazole, diuretics, nitroglycerin patch, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, hydroxyzine, loratadine, furosemide, vancomycin, pantoprozole, piperacillin/tazobactam, clarithromycin | Myeloma kidney mass consistent with myeloma kidney found during study; approximately 2 weeks later the patient developed severe infection that culminated in septic shock, with acute renal failure | Nephrologist considered renal insufficiency to be partly related to past history of large-cell lymphoma and chemotherapy; patient was discharged to hospice and died of acute renal failure secondary to myeloma |
| 71-year-old female Caucasian | IgA | Back pain, cholecystectomy, constipation, CAD, NIDDM, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, insomnia, left knee operation, neuralgia, obesity, osteoarthritis, hysterectomy, hypoacusis, seasonal allergies, urinary incontinence | At start of study: zolpidem, amitriptyline, loratidine, tolterodine l-tartrate, valsartan, metrotoprolol, furosemide, ibuprofen, clonazepam, gabapentin, liodcaine, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, quinine sulfate, simvastatin During study: calcium, multivitamins, lactulose, trazodone, hydromorphone, cyclobenzaprine, glipizide, macrogol, lorazepam, methadone, potassium, lisinopril, furosemide, meperidine, promethazine | Developed moderate acute renal failure on the day of her first dose; considered not associated with zoledronic acid | Renal ultrasound showed arterial stenosis; resolved approximately 1 month after diagnosis |
| 65-year-old male Caucasian | IgG | Oxycodone hypersensitivity, anemia, back pain, spine metastases, spinal compression fracture, depression, fatigue, inguinal hernia repair, spinal fusion (L1–L3) surgery, bilateral hip arthroplasty, pain, pneumonia, staphylococcal infection | At start of study: fluconazole, morphine sulfate, oxycodone/acetaminophen During study: naproxen, darbepoietin alfa, sodium ferrifluconate, calcium with vitamin D, cephalexin, dexamethasone, alginic acid, docusate, heparin, sodium polystyrene, levofloxacin, filgrastim, lansoprazole | After 5 doses of zoledronic acid, patient developed severe acute renal failure with elevated SCr; not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid | Resolved 9 days later following treatment with cephalexin and dexamethasone |
| 56-year-old female Caucasian | IgA | Osteolysis, cataract surgery, constipation, bone lesions, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, musculoskeletal pain, anorexia | At start of study: ibuprofen, oxycodone, propoxyphene/acetaminophen, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, valsartan, calcium/vitamin D, potassium chloride, docusate sodiumDuring study: vancomycin, acyclovir | Approximately 1 week after 9th zoledronic acid dose, patient developed acute renal failure with an increased SCr (12.5 mg/dL); not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid | Resulted from myeloma progression to plasma cell leukemia; emergency dialysis performed; catheter-related sepsis occurred approximately 1 month later, and patient died of sepsis and disease progression |
| Zoledronic acid 4 mg IV for 30 minutes | |||||
| 80-year-old male African American | IgG | Anemia, arteriosclerotic heart disease, bilateral ankle swelling/pain, degenerative joint disease, dyspnea on exertion, fatigue, GERD, HTN, neutropenia, shoulder pain, vasovagal syncope | At start of study: aspirin, atenolol, multivitamin, doxazosin, fosinopril, hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine besylate, simvastatinDuring study: darbepoietin alfa, warfarin sodium, furosemide, omeprazole, calcium carbonate | Approximately 1 month after 2nd dose, patient experienced increased SCr (2.9 mg/dL, 53% increase from baseline); relationship to zoledronic acid unknown | Discontinued from study after 2nd dose, and SCr remained elevated for 2 months following discontinuation |
CAD = coronary artery disease; CHF = congestive heart failure; DM = diabetes mellitus; GERD = gastroesophageal reflux disease; HTN = hypertension; MM = multiple myeloma; NIDDM = non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; SCr = serum creatinine
Discussion
During the past decade, bisphosphonate therapy has become an important adjunctive treatment to prevent the emergence, or worsening, of SREs in patients with MM involving the bone.15 Kidney failure is a common and severe complication of MM that may be exacerbated by chronic administration of zoledronic acid.7 A study evaluating zoledronic acid in patients with cancer and bone metastases suggests that increasing the infusion time decreases the Cmax, which may result in fewer renal AEs.[9] and [12] This study was designed to assess whether prolonging the infusion time of zoledronic acid from the recommended 15 to 30 minutes would improve kidney safety in MM patients, as evidenced by fewer rises in SCr levels. To our knowledge, this is the only trial that has been designed to evaluate the impact of infusion duration on renal effects in this population.
The 12-month results of this pilot study showed a trend toward improved renal safety with the longer infusion time, this difference not being statistically significant. By 24 months, however, there were no differences in SCr level elevations between the two groups. The clinically relevant SCr increases observed in our study, however, differ from those reported by Rosen and colleagues,[5] and [6] who first evaluated zoledronic acid for patients with MM. In that study, 4%–11% of patients experienced kidney function deterioration, manifested by SCr increases, which is much lower than the rate observed in our study. However, several differences exist between our trial and the Rosen study. The Rosen study included both breast cancer patients with at least one bone metastasis and Durie-Salmon stage 3 MM patients with at least one osteolytic lesion, whereas our study only included MM patients with at least one bone lesion. Additionally, the criteria for defining a clinically relevant SCr increase differ between the two studies; therefore, one cannot directly compare the incidence of kidney dysfunction between these two studies. Although in our study the sample size was small, confidence intervals were wide, and protocol deviations did not permit a robust comparison, the results of this pilot study suggest that the longer infusion time of 30 minutes every 3–4 weeks for 2 years for MM patients with bone disease is also safe and well-tolerated.
As expected, PK data showed that the median zoledronic acid concentrations were greater in the samples obtained from the 15-minute group compared to those from the 30-minute group. This effect was observed in samples obtained both 5 minutes before the end of infusion and at the end of infusion.
Increasing the infusion time did not significantly alter the AE profile and was not associated with any new or unexpected AEs. The incidence rates of deaths, SAEs, treatment-related AEs, and overall AEs were generally comparable between treatment groups. Overall, the incidence rates of reported SREs and ONJ were as expected for this patient population, which are important factors when considering zoledronic acid for patients with MM, where the goal of ongoing monthly IV bisphosphonate therapy is to prevent the development of new SREs without increasing the risk of AEs, such as ONJ.
Finally, the FDA-approved current labeling for zoledronic acid recommends decreasing the dose of this bisphosphonate based on baseline kidney function.7 Because these recommendations were not in place at the time that this study was designed, whether the implementation of these dosing guidelines for patients with MM along with varying infusion durations would have impacted the results observed in our study cannot be ascertained.
In summary, the results of this study suggest that the safety profile of IV zoledronic acid is similar regardless of a 15-minute or a 30-minute infusion duration. However, because the study was not powered to detect statistical significance and the current renal dosing guidelines for zoledronic acid were not used in this study, large randomized studies, using current dosing recommendations, will be required to further assess the effects on kidney safety of prolonging the infusion time of ongoing monthly IV zoledronic acid therapy for patients with MM.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Syntaxx Communications, Inc., specifically, Kristin Hennenfent, PharmD, MBA, BCPS, and Lisa Holle, PharmD, BCOP, who provided manuscript development and medical writing services, and Holly Matthews, BS, who provided editorial services, with support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. We also thank all participating patients and study personnel. Research support was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (East Hanover, NJ).
References
1 A. Jemal, R. Siegel and J. Xu et al., Cancer statistics, 2010, CA Cancer J Clin 60 (2010), pp. 277–300. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (543)
2 R.A. Kyle, M.A. Gertz and T.E. Witzig et al., Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Mayo Clin Proc 78 (1) (2003), pp. 21–33. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (396)
3 A. Corso, P. Zappasodi and C. Pascutto et al., Urinary proteins in multiple myeloma: correlation with clinical parameters and diagnostic implications, Ann Hematol 82 (8) (2003), pp. 487–491. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)
4 V. Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou, A. Bamias and D. Gika et al., Renal failure in multiple myeloma: incidence, correlations, and prognostic significance, Leuk Lymphoma 48 (2) (2007), pp. 337–341. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35)
5 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and M. Kaminski 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 7 (5) (2001), pp. 377–387. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (461)
6 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and M. Kaminski 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 98 (8) (2003), pp. 1735–1744. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (329)
7 , Zometa (package insert), Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Corporation, East Hanover, NJ (2008).
8 P. Major, A. Lortholary and J. Han et al., Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: a pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials, J Clin Oncol 19 (2) (2001), pp. 558–567. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (325)
9 T. Chen, J. Berenson and R. Vescio et al., Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zoledronic acid in cancer patients with bone metastases, J Clin Pharmacol 42 (11) (2002), pp. 1228–1236. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (139)
10 T. Pfister, E. Atzpodien and F. Bauss, The renal effects of minimally nephrotoxic doses of ibandronate and zoledronate following single and intermittent intravenous administration in rats, Toxicology 191 (2003), pp. 159–167. Article | 
11 T. Pfister, E. Aztpodien, B. Bohrmann and F. Bauss, Acute renal effects of intravenous bisphosphonates in the rat, Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 97 (2005), pp. 374–381. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)
12 F. Saad, D.M. Gleason and R. Murray et al., A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma, J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (19) (2002), pp. 1458–1468. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (650)
13 S. Kautiainen, S. Luurila, P. Ylitalo and R. Ylitalo, Transformation of bisphosphonates into insoluble material in human blood in vitro, Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 20 (4) (1998), pp. 289–295. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)
14 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and S. Tchekmedyian 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 21 (16) (2003), pp. 3150–3157. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (251)
15 M.A. Hussein, Multiple myeloma: most common end-organ damage and management, J Natl Compr Canc Netw 5 (2) (2007), pp. 170–178. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)
Appendix
The following ZMAX Trial principal investigators participated in this study: Bart Barlogie, MD, Myeloma Institute For Research and Therapy; James Berenson, MD, Oncotherapeutics; Robert Bloom, MD, Providence Cancer Center, Clinical Trials Department; Ralph Boccia, MD, Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders; Donald Brooks, MD, Arizona Clinical Research Center, Inc.; Robert Brouillard, MD, Robert P. Brouillard, MD, and Delvyn Case, MD, Maine Center for Cancer Medicine and Blood Disorders, Pharmacy; Veena Charu, MD, Pacific Cancer Medical Center; Naveed Chowhan, MD, Cancer Care Center, Inc; Robert Collins, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Thomas Cosgriff, MD, Hematology and Oncology Specialists, LLC; Jose Cruz, MD, Joe Arrington Cancer Research and Treatment Center; Surrinder Dang, MD, Oncology Specialties; Sheldon Davidson, MD, North Valley H/O; Tracy Dobbs, MD, Baptist Regional Cancer Center; Luke Dreisbach, MD, Desert Hematology Oncology Medical Group; Isaac Esseesse, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates of Central Brevard, Laboratory; Mark Fesen, MD, Hutchinson Clinic, PA; George Geils, Jr., MD, Charleston Hematology Oncology Associates, PA; Michael Greenhawt, MD, South Florida Oncology-Hematology; Manuel Guerra, MD, ORA; Rita Gupta, MD, Oncology-Hematology Associates, PA; Vicram Gupta, MD, Saint Joseph Oncology; Alexandre Hageboutros, MD, Cancer Institute of New Jersey at Cooper Hospital; Vincent Hansen, MD, Utah Hematology Oncology; David Henry, MD, Pennsylvania Oncology Hematology Associates; Benjamin Himpler, MD, Syracuse Hematology/Oncology PC; Winston Ho, MD, Hematology/Oncology Group of Orange County; William Horvath, MD, Haematology Oncology Associates of Ohio and Michigan, PC; Paul Hyman, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates of Western Suffolk; Min Kang, MD, Western Washington Oncology; Mark Keaton, MD, Augusta Oncology Associates, PC; Howard Kesselheim, MD, The Center for Cancer and Hematologic Disease; Kapisthalam Kumar, MD, Pasco Hernando Oncology Associates, PA; Edward Lee, MD, Maryland Oncology-Hematology, PA; André Liem, MD, Pacific Shore Medical Group; Timothy Lopez, MD, New Mexico Cancer Care Associates, Cancer Institute of New Mexico; Paul Michael, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada; Michael Milder, MD, Swedish Cancer Institute; Barry Mirtsching, MD, Center for Oncology Research & Treatment, PA; Ruben Niesvizky, MD, New York Presbyterian Hospital; Jorge Otoya, MD, Osceola Cancer Center; Joseph Pascuzzo, MD, California Oncology of the Central Valley; Ravi Patel, MD, Comprehensive Blood and Cancer Center Lab; Allen Patton, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates, PA; Kelly Pendergrass, MD, Kansas City Cancer Center, LLC; Anthony Phillips, MD, Fox Valley Hematolgy Oncology, SC; Robert Raju, MD, Dayton Oncology and Hematology, PA; Harry Ramsey, MD, Berks Hematology Oncology Associates; Ritesh Rathore, MD, Roger Williams Hospital Medical Center; Phillip Reid, MD, Central Jersey Oncology Center; Robert Robles, MD, Bay Area Cancer Research Group, LLC; Stephen Rosenoff, MD, Oncology and Hematology Associates of Southwest Virginia, Inc; Martin Rubenstein, MD, Southbay Oncology Hematology Partners; Mansoor Saleh, MD, Georgia Cancer Specialists; Sundaresan Sambandam, MD, Hematology and Oncology Associates of RI; Mukund Shah, MD, Antelope Valley Cancer Center; David Siegel, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center; Nelida Sjak-Shie, MD, The Center for Cancer Care and Research; Michael Stone, MD, Greeley Medical Clinic; Stefano Tarantolo, MD, Nebraska Methodist Hospital; Joseph Volk, MD, Palo Verde Hematology Oncology, Ltd; Mitchell Weisberg, MD, MetCare Oncology; Ann Wierman, MD, Nevada Cancer Center; Donald Woytowitz, Jr., MD, Florida Cancer Specialists; Peter Yu, MD, Camino Medical Group.
Original research
James R. Berenson MD
Abstract
Zoledronic acid, an intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate, is a standard treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) but may exacerbate preexisting renal dysfunction. The incidence of zoledronic acid–induced renal dysfunction may correlate with infusion duration. In this randomized, multicenter, open-label study, 176 patients with MM, at least one bone lesion, and stable renal function with a serum creatinine (SCr) level <3 mg/dL received zoledronic acid 4 mg (in 250 mL) as a 15- or 30-minute IV infusion every 3–4 weeks. At month 12, 20% (17 patients) in the 15-minute and 16% (13 patients) in the 30-minute arm experienced a clinically relevant but nonsignificant SCr-level increase (P = 0.44). By 24 months, the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant SCr-level increase was similar between arms (15-minute 28% [24 patients] vs 30-minute 27% [23 patients], P = 0.9014). Median zoledronic acid end-of-infusion concentrations were higher with the shorter infusion (15-minute 249 ng/mL vs 30-minute 172 ng/mL), and prolonging the infusion beyond 15 minutes did not influence adverse events related to zoledronic acid. For patients with MM, the safety profile of IV zoledronic acid is similar between those receiving a 15- or 30-minute infusion; therefore, determining the appropriate infusion duration of zoledronic acid should be based on individual patient considerations.
Article Outline
Considerable research has focused on preventive and/or treatment strategies to reduce bone complications in MM patients. In a large, international, randomized, phase III trial of MM patients with at least one osteolytic bone lesion, zoledronic acid (Zometa), a potent intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate that inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, reduced the overall risk of developing skeletally related events (SREs) including HCM by 16% (P = 0.03) compared with standard-dose pamidronate 90 mg (Aredia), another less potent IV bisphosphonate.[5] and [6] As a result of this study and others, monthly infusion of zoledronic acid at 4 mg over at least 15 minutes has become a common treatment for MM patients with bone involvement.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved zoledronic acid use for patients with MM, documented bone metastases from solid tumors, or HCM.[5], [6], [7] and [8] The FDA-approved dose for MM patients is 4 mg administered as an IV infusion over at least 15 minutes every 3–4 weeks for patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) of >60 mL/min; when treating HCM, zoledronic acid 4 mg is administered as a single IV infusion.[5], [6], [7] and [8]
Zoledronic acid is primarily excreted intact through the kidney.9 Preexisting kidney disease and receipt of multiple cycles of bisphosphonate therapy are risk factors for subsequent kidney injury.7 In animal studies, IV bisphosphonates have been shown by histology to precipitate renal tubular injury when administered as a single high dose or when administered more frequently at lower doses.[10] and [11] Additionally, renal dysfunction, as evidenced by increased serum creatinine (SCr) levels, was reported among patients treated at a dose of 4 mg with an infusion time of 5 minutes.[7] and [12] When 4 mg zoledronic acid was administered with a longer infusion time of 15 minutes in large randomized trials, no significant difference between the renal safety profiles of zoledronic acid and pamidronate was reported.6
One hypothesis about the development of kidney injury associated with zoledronic acid is that it may be related to the peak plasma concentration as determined by infusion time. Results of a study evaluating patients with MM or other cancer types and bone metastases demonstrated that prolonging the infusion time of zoledronic acid reduced the end-of-infusion peak plasma concentration (Cmax) by 35%.9 Another theory about the development of kidney dysfunction is that insoluble precipitates may form when the blood is exposed to high concentrations of bisphosphonates as this has been shown to occur in vitro.[9] and [13] Therefore, the current management of renal adverse events (AEs) related to IV bisphosphonates is based on these theories so that reducing the peak plasma concentration of zoledronic acid may prevent the possible formation of insoluble precipitates through (1) lowering the dose, (2) slowing the infusion rate, or (3) increasing the volume of infusate.[5], [12] and [14]
Because MM patients are predisposed to experience deterioration of renal function, it is critical to ensure that zoledronic acid does not contribute to, or exacerbate, a decline in kidney function. To determine if increasing the duration of zoledronic acid infusion further results in improved renal safety, a multicenter, open-label, randomized study was designed to compare a 15-minute vs a 30-minute infusion time with an increased volume of infusate from 100 to 250 mL administered every 3–4 weeks to MM patients with osteolytic bone disease.
Patients and Methods
Patient Population
Men and women (≥18 years of age) with a diagnosis of MM, at least one bone lesion on plain film radiographs, stable kidney function (defined as two SCr level determinations of <3 mg/dL obtained at least 7 days apart during the screening period), calculated CrCl of at least 30 mL/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less, and a life expectancy of at least 9 months were eligible. The study excluded patients with prolonged IV bisphosphonate use (defined as use of zoledronic acid longer than 3 years or pamidronate longer than 1 year [total bisphosphonate duration could not exceed 3 years]), corrected serum calcium level at first visit of <8 or ≥12 mg/dL, or diagnosis of amyloidosis. Additionally, patients who had known hypersensitivity to zoledronic acid or other bisphosphonates; were pregnant or lactating; had uncontrolled cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes mellitus; or had a history of noncompliance with medical regimens were not eligible.
Study Design
This open-label, randomized pilot study was conducted at 45 centers in the United States. Before randomization, patients were stratified based on length of time of prior bisphosphonate treatment (bisphosphonate-naive vs ≤1 year prior bisphosphonate therapy vs >1 year prior bisphosphonate therapy) and baseline calculated CrCl (>75 vs >60–75 vs ≥30–≤60 mL/min).
Treatment and Evaluation
Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid 4 mg as either a 15- or a 30-minute IV infusion. The volume of infusate was increased from the standard 100 to 250 mL to provide additional hydration; infusions were administered every 3–4 weeks for up to 24 months. At the time this study was developed, the 4 mg dose was used because the dose adjustments for renal dysfunction in the current FDA labeling for zoledronic acid were not yet available.7 Patients were required to take a calcium supplement containing 500 mg of calcium and a multivitamin containing 400–500 IU of vitamin D, orally, once daily, for the duration of zoledronic acid therapy.
HCM during the trial was defined as a corrected serum calcium level ≥12 mg/dL or a lower level of hypercalcemia accompanied by symptoms and/or requiring active treatment other than rehydration. If HCM occurred more than 14 days after a zoledronic acid infusion, patients could receive a zoledronic acid infusion as treatment for HCM, even if this required administration before the next scheduled dose. Patients were allowed to remain in the study provided that HCM did not persist or recur. However, zoledronic acid treatment was immediately discontinued if patients developed HCM ≤14 days after study drug infusion; these patients received HCM treatment at the discretion of their treating physician. Also, patients experiencing HCM discontinued calcium and vitamin D supplements.
Within 2 weeks before each dose, enrolled patients were assessed for increase in SCr levels. For patients experiencing a clinically relevant increase in SCr level (defined as a rise of 0.5 mg/dL or more or a doubling of baseline SCr levels), administration of zoledronic acid was suspended until the SCr level fell to within 10% of the baseline value. During the delay, SCr levels were monitored at each regularly scheduled study visit (every 3–4 weeks) or more frequently if deemed necessary by the investigator. If the SCr level fell to within 10% of the baseline value within the subsequent 12 weeks, zoledronic acid was restarted with an infusion time that was increased by 15 minutes over the starting duration. If the rise in SCr level did not resolve within 12 weeks or if the patient experienced a second clinically relevant increase in SCr level after modification of the infusion time, treatment was permanently discontinued. Otherwise, patients were followed for 24 months. A final safety assessment, including a full hematology and chemistry profile, was performed 28 days after the last infusion.
A pretreatment dental examination with appropriate preventive dentistry was suggested for all patients with known risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) (eg, cancer chemotherapy, corticosteroids, poor oral hygiene, dental extraction, or dental implants). Throughout the study, patients reporting symptoms that could be consistent with ONJ were referred to a dental professional for assessment; if exposed bone was noted on dental examination, the patient was referred to an oral surgeon for further evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. A diagnosis of ONJ required cessation of zoledronic acid therapy and study discontinuation.
Pharmacokinetic Sampling
At the first infusion visit (visit 2), pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were measured. If PK samples were not obtained at visit 2, they could be obtained at visit 3 (otherwise, they were recorded as not done). All blood samples for PK analysis were drawn from the contralateral arm. For patients receiving the 15-minute zoledronic acid infusion, the protocol specified that PK samples were to be drawn at exactly 10 and 15 minutes from the start of the infusion; patients receiving the 30-minute zoledronic acid infusion were to have blood samples drawn at exactly 25 and 30 minutes from the start of the infusion. The second blood sample for PK analysis was taken before the study drug infusion was stopped in both groups. PK analysis was performed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics France (Rueil-Malmaison, France) and SGS Cephac (Geneva Switzerland), using a competitive radioimmunoassay that has a lower limit of quantification of 0.04 ng/mL and an upper limit of quantification of 40 ng/mL.
Statistical Analysis
The primary study end point was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 12 months. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the primary end point; in addition, an exploratory analysis with a logistic regression model, using treatment group, prior bisphosphonate therapy, and baseline CrCl, was performed.
Additional secondary safety end points included the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 24 months, time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level, and the PK profile of zoledronic acid. The proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 24 months was summarized using descriptive statistics. Time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method at the time of the primary analysis (12 months) and at 24 months. Plasma concentration data were evaluated by treatment group and baseline kidney function using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables of baseline and demographic characteristics between treatment groups were compared using a two-sample t-test; between-group differences in discrete variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test.
The primary analysis included all randomized patients who received at least one zoledronic acid infusion and who had valid postbaseline data for assessment. All study subjects who had evaluable PK parameters were included in a secondary PK analysis. Efficacy assessments were not included in this trial.
This pilot trial was designed to obtain additional preliminary data to support the hypothesis that a longer infusion is associated with less kidney dysfunction than a shorter infusion; therefore, a sample size of 90 patients per treatment group was selected. All statistical tests employed a significance level of 0.05 against a two-sided alternative hypothesis.
The institutional review boards of participating institutions approved the study, and all patients provided written informed consent before study entry.
Results
Study Population
Between October 2004 and October 2007, 179 MM patients with SCr <3 mg/dL were randomized to receive either a 15- or a 30-minute infusion of zoledronic acid. Of these, 176 patients (88 in each group) received at least one dose of study drug. Because of protocol violations, postbaseline data from one site were excluded from analyses, leaving 85 assessable patients in the 15-minute group and 84 patients in the 30-minute group.
Overall, the study groups were representative of a general population with MM. About two-thirds of patients had received prior bisphosphonate therapy; the duration of therapy was greater than 1 year for most of these patients (Table 1). The most common concomitant therapies included dexamethasone, thalidomide, and melphalan. Although the median age, proportion of patients who were 65 years of age or older, and ratio of men to women were greater in the 15-minute infusion group, none of the differences in baseline demographics was statistically significant. All other baseline demographics and disease characteristics, including prior bisphosphonate use and baseline CrCl values, were similar between the two groups (see Table 1). During the study, six patients in the 15-minute treatment group and one patient in the 30-minute treatment group experienced HCM. Three of the six patients in the 15-minute treatment group and one patient in the 30-minute treatment group discontinued the study as a result of HCM.
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%)a | ||
|---|---|---|
| CHARACTERISTIC | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 88)b | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 88)b |
| Age (years) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 64 | 64 |
| Median | 66 | 64 |
| Range | 37–91 | 27–86 |
| Age category (years) | ||
| <65 | 39 (44) | 47 (53) |
| ≥65 | 49 (56) | 41 (47) |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 56 (64) | 49 (56) |
| Female | 32 (36) | 39 (44) |
| Race | ||
| White | 70 (80) | 69 (78) |
| Black | 9 (10) | 13 (15) |
| Asian | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| Other | 8 (9) | 5 (6) |
| Time since diagnosis (months) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 12 (24) (n = 86) | 10 (14) (n = 87) |
| Median | 4 | 6 |
| Range | 0–186 | 0–98c |
| Prior bisphosphonate use | ||
| Naive | 28 (32) | 28 (32) |
| ≤1 year | 12 (14) | 14 (16) |
| >1 year | 48 (55) | 39 (44) |
| Missing | 0 (0) | 7 (8) |
| Calculated CrCl (mL/min) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 87 (33) | 89 (40) |
| Median | 84 | 83 |
| Range | 33–210 | 31–224 |
| Calculated CrCl category (mL/min) | ||
| CrCl ≥75 | 54 (61) | 49 (56) |
| 60 < CrCL < 75 | 13 (15) | 15 (17) |
| 30 < CrCl ≤ 60 | 21 (24) | 24 (27) |
| CrCl <30 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
CrCl = creatinine clearance; IV = intravenous; SD = standard deviation
a Unless otherwise notedb Safety populationc One patient had a screening visit date before the date of initial diagnosis
Protocol violations and/or deviations (n = 658) occurred during this study, affecting 139 patients. The types of protocol violations/deviations were related to protocol adherence (n = 404), timing of visits (n = 210), protocol adherence/timing of visits (n = 2), exclusion criteria (n = 22), inclusion criteria (n = 10), and informed consent (n = 1); 9 violations were unclassified. Notably, one protocol adherence deviation that occurred was incorrect infusion duration despite the patient having a stable SCr level. In the 15-minute treatment group, 15% of infusions administered were longer than 15 minutes. Among the longer infusions, 7% of the infusions correctly occurred per protocol following an SCr-level increase, whereas 7% of the prolonged infusions were 20 minutes or longer in the absence of an SCr-level increase. Similarly, in the 30-minute treatment group, 5% of patients received infusions lasting at least 35 minutes in the absence of an SCr-level increase.
Renal Safety
At 12 months, slightly fewer patients (n = 13 [16%]) in the 30-minute infusion group had a clinically relevant increase in SCr level than in the 15-minute infusion group (n = 17 [20%]); but this difference was not statistically significant, and for approximately 35% of patients in each group there were no SCr data available (Table 2). The median time to a clinically relevant increase in SCr by Kaplain-Meier was not reached in either group (data not shown). Neither previous bisphosphonate use nor baseline CrCl significantly affected the results (P = 0.5837 and P = 0.9371, respectively).
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CLINICALLY RELEVANT INCREASE IN SCR | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 85)a | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 84)a | P VALUEb |
| 12 Months | 0.6892 | ||
| Yes | 17 (20) | 13 (16) | |
| No | 38 (45) | 42 (50) | |
| Unknown | 30 (35) | 29 (35) | |
| 24 Months | 0.9750 | ||
| Yes | 24 (28) | 23 (27) | |
| No | 22 (26) | 23 (27) | |
| Unknown | 39 (46) | 38 (45) | |
CI = confidence interval; IV = intravenous; SCr = serum creatinine
a Safety population, excluding patients with protocol violationsb P value calculated based on chi-squared test
After 24 months of treatment, the proportion of patients experiencing a clinically relevant increase in SCr level was similar between treatment groups, although for approximately 45% of patients in each group there were no SCr data available (see Table 2). Moreover, the difference in time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level was not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.55) (Figure 1). However, among patients with a clinically significant rise in SCr level, the median time to SCr rise was slightly longer in the 30-minute group than in the 15-minute group (22 vs 24 weeks), but this was not statistically significant.
Increases in SCr relative to baseline led to treatment discontinuation in 20 patients (24%) receiving a 15-minute infusion and 14 patients (17%) receiving a 30-minute infusion. In these cases, the treating physician either considered the SCr level too high for continued treatment or the SCr level was persistently high despite treatment interruption.
Pharmacokinetics
Median zoledronic acid concentrations, as anticipated, were higher with the 15-minute infusion time at both sampling time points (during infusion: 15-minute group 231 ng/mL [at 10 minutes] vs 30-minute group 186 ng/mL [at 25 minutes]; end-of-infusion: 15-minute group, 249 ng/mL vs 30-minute group 172 ng/mL).
Adverse Events
Overall, the incidence and severity of AEs were as anticipated for MM patients. The most commonly reported AEs included fatigue, anemia, nausea, constipation, and back pain (Table 3). Although many AEs were reported more frequently in the 30-minute infusion group, the incidence rates of AEs suspected to be related to zoledronic acid were similar between the two groups. Toxicities were graded as mild, moderate, or severe; proportions of AEs categorized by these grades were comparable. Nonfatal serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 26% of patients receiving the 15-minute infusion and 35% of patients receiving the 30-minute infusion; however, only one patient in the 15-minute group and two patients in the 30-minute group had SAEs suspected to be related to study medication.
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TYPE OF AE | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 85) | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 84) | TOTAL (N = 169) |
| Blood and lymphatic system disorders | |||
| Anemia | 19 (22) | 27 (32) | 46 (27) |
| Neutropenia | 6 (7) | 12 (14) | 18 (11) |
| Gastrointestinal disorders | |||
| Constipation | 20 (24) | 21 (25) | 41 (24) |
| Diarrhea | 14 (17) | 20 (24) | 34 (20) |
| Nausea | 18 (21) | 27 (32) | 45 (27) |
| Vomiting | 10 (12) | 14 (17) | 24 (14) |
| General disorders | |||
| Fatigue | 30 (35) | 41 (49) | 71 (42) |
| Pain | 7 (8) | 10 (12) | 17 (10) |
| Pain in extremity | 14 (17) | 16 (19) | 30 (18) |
| Peripheral edema | 13 (15) | 20 (24) | 33 (20) |
| Pyrexia | 15 (18) | 19 (23) | 34 (20) |
| Infections and infestations | |||
| Pneumonia | 11 (13) | 7 (8) | 18 (11) |
| Upper respiratory tract infection | 13 (15) | 13 (16) | 26 (15) |
| Metabolism and nutrition disorders | |||
| Anorexia | 8 (9) | 9 (11) | 17 (10) |
| Hypokalemia | 12 (14) | 13 (15) | 25 (14) |
| Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | |||
| Arthralgia | 10 (11) | 16 (19) | 26 (15) |
| Asthenia | 9 (10) | 13 (16) | 22 (13) |
| Back pain | 19 (22) | 20 (24) | 39 (23) |
| Bone pain | 10 (12) | 11 (13) | 21 (12) |
| Nervous system disorders | |||
| Dizziness | 11 (13) | 10 (12) | 21 (12) |
| Peripheral neuropathy | 7 (8) | 15 (18) | 22 (13) |
| Psychiatric disorders | |||
| Insomnia | 10 (12) | 14 (17) | 24 (14) |
| Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders | |||
| Cough | 13 (15) | 15 (18) | 28 (17) |
| Dyspnea | 15 (18) | 17 (20) | 32 (19) |
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | |||
| Rash | 9 (11) | 12 (14) | 21 (12) |
AE = adverse event; IV = intravenous
a Safety population excluding patients with protocol violations
The numbers of deaths, trial discontinuations, and treatment interruptions due to AEs were similar between the two groups as well. Deaths (9 [10.6%] 15-minute group vs 6 [7.1%] 30-minute group) were not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid. Eight patients in each treatment group discontinued therapy because of an AE; events leading to treatment discontinuation that were suspected to be related to zoledronic acid occurred in two patients in the 15-minute group (skeletal pain and ONJ) and one patient in the 30-minute group (jaw pain). AEs that required treatment interruption occurred in eight and nine patients in the 15-minute and 30-minute groups, respectively.
AEs of special interest included those related to kidney dysfunction, cardiac arrhythmias, SREs, and ONJ. The number of patients reporting overall kidney and urinary disorders was the same in the two treatment groups (14 patients in each group); however, acute renal failure was reported more frequently in patients receiving the 15-minute infusion compared with the 30-minute infusion (four patients [5%] vs one patient [1%] in 30-minute group). Details of these five patients are presented in Table 4. AEs related to cardiac rhythm occurred in 20 patients while on study; however, only one case of bradycardia was suspected to be related to zoledronic acid therapy (in the 30-minute group). The incidence of SREs at 2 years was comparable in the two groups (19% in 15-minute group vs 21% in 30-minute group). The time to onset of SREs was longer in the 15-minute group (222 vs 158 days), but this was not statistically significant. A total of 10 patients with suspected ONJ were identified, with three patients in the 15-minute group (all moderate) and seven patients in the 30-minute group (mild [n = 5], moderate [n = 1], severe [n = 1]). Six of these patients received bisphosphonates before entering the study (four patients received no prior bisphosphonates), but the length of previous bisphosphonate therapy varied (0–30 months). Patients with suspected ONJ were assessed by clinicians and referred to dental professionals for further evaluation.
| PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS | TYPE OF MM | MEDICAL HISTORY | CONCURRENT MEDICATIONSa | ACUTE RENAL FAILURE DETAILS | OUTCOME |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoledronic acid 4 mg IV for 15 minutes | |||||
| 73-year-old female Caucasian | IgG | Anemia, cardiomyopathy, CHF, cholecystectomy, benign breast lump removal, CAD, DM, dyslipidemia, central venous catheterization, chronic renal failure, GERD, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, hysterectomy, mycobacterial infection, hemorrhoids, B-cell lymphoma, seborrheic keratosis, tonsillectomy | At start of study: aspirin, losartan, digoxin, hydrochlorothiazide/lorsartan, fluconazole, folic acid, atorvastatin, vitamins, warfarinDuring study: ethambutol dihydrochloride, moxifloxacin, rifabutin, fenofibrate, omeprazole, diuretics, nitroglycerin patch, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, hydroxyzine, loratadine, furosemide, vancomycin, pantoprozole, piperacillin/tazobactam, clarithromycin | Myeloma kidney mass consistent with myeloma kidney found during study; approximately 2 weeks later the patient developed severe infection that culminated in septic shock, with acute renal failure | Nephrologist considered renal insufficiency to be partly related to past history of large-cell lymphoma and chemotherapy; patient was discharged to hospice and died of acute renal failure secondary to myeloma |
| 71-year-old female Caucasian | IgA | Back pain, cholecystectomy, constipation, CAD, NIDDM, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, insomnia, left knee operation, neuralgia, obesity, osteoarthritis, hysterectomy, hypoacusis, seasonal allergies, urinary incontinence | At start of study: zolpidem, amitriptyline, loratidine, tolterodine l-tartrate, valsartan, metrotoprolol, furosemide, ibuprofen, clonazepam, gabapentin, liodcaine, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, quinine sulfate, simvastatin During study: calcium, multivitamins, lactulose, trazodone, hydromorphone, cyclobenzaprine, glipizide, macrogol, lorazepam, methadone, potassium, lisinopril, furosemide, meperidine, promethazine | Developed moderate acute renal failure on the day of her first dose; considered not associated with zoledronic acid | Renal ultrasound showed arterial stenosis; resolved approximately 1 month after diagnosis |
| 65-year-old male Caucasian | IgG | Oxycodone hypersensitivity, anemia, back pain, spine metastases, spinal compression fracture, depression, fatigue, inguinal hernia repair, spinal fusion (L1–L3) surgery, bilateral hip arthroplasty, pain, pneumonia, staphylococcal infection | At start of study: fluconazole, morphine sulfate, oxycodone/acetaminophen During study: naproxen, darbepoietin alfa, sodium ferrifluconate, calcium with vitamin D, cephalexin, dexamethasone, alginic acid, docusate, heparin, sodium polystyrene, levofloxacin, filgrastim, lansoprazole | After 5 doses of zoledronic acid, patient developed severe acute renal failure with elevated SCr; not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid | Resolved 9 days later following treatment with cephalexin and dexamethasone |
| 56-year-old female Caucasian | IgA | Osteolysis, cataract surgery, constipation, bone lesions, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, musculoskeletal pain, anorexia | At start of study: ibuprofen, oxycodone, propoxyphene/acetaminophen, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, valsartan, calcium/vitamin D, potassium chloride, docusate sodiumDuring study: vancomycin, acyclovir | Approximately 1 week after 9th zoledronic acid dose, patient developed acute renal failure with an increased SCr (12.5 mg/dL); not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid | Resulted from myeloma progression to plasma cell leukemia; emergency dialysis performed; catheter-related sepsis occurred approximately 1 month later, and patient died of sepsis and disease progression |
| Zoledronic acid 4 mg IV for 30 minutes | |||||
| 80-year-old male African American | IgG | Anemia, arteriosclerotic heart disease, bilateral ankle swelling/pain, degenerative joint disease, dyspnea on exertion, fatigue, GERD, HTN, neutropenia, shoulder pain, vasovagal syncope | At start of study: aspirin, atenolol, multivitamin, doxazosin, fosinopril, hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine besylate, simvastatinDuring study: darbepoietin alfa, warfarin sodium, furosemide, omeprazole, calcium carbonate | Approximately 1 month after 2nd dose, patient experienced increased SCr (2.9 mg/dL, 53% increase from baseline); relationship to zoledronic acid unknown | Discontinued from study after 2nd dose, and SCr remained elevated for 2 months following discontinuation |
CAD = coronary artery disease; CHF = congestive heart failure; DM = diabetes mellitus; GERD = gastroesophageal reflux disease; HTN = hypertension; MM = multiple myeloma; NIDDM = non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; SCr = serum creatinine
Discussion
During the past decade, bisphosphonate therapy has become an important adjunctive treatment to prevent the emergence, or worsening, of SREs in patients with MM involving the bone.15 Kidney failure is a common and severe complication of MM that may be exacerbated by chronic administration of zoledronic acid.7 A study evaluating zoledronic acid in patients with cancer and bone metastases suggests that increasing the infusion time decreases the Cmax, which may result in fewer renal AEs.[9] and [12] This study was designed to assess whether prolonging the infusion time of zoledronic acid from the recommended 15 to 30 minutes would improve kidney safety in MM patients, as evidenced by fewer rises in SCr levels. To our knowledge, this is the only trial that has been designed to evaluate the impact of infusion duration on renal effects in this population.
The 12-month results of this pilot study showed a trend toward improved renal safety with the longer infusion time, this difference not being statistically significant. By 24 months, however, there were no differences in SCr level elevations between the two groups. The clinically relevant SCr increases observed in our study, however, differ from those reported by Rosen and colleagues,[5] and [6] who first evaluated zoledronic acid for patients with MM. In that study, 4%–11% of patients experienced kidney function deterioration, manifested by SCr increases, which is much lower than the rate observed in our study. However, several differences exist between our trial and the Rosen study. The Rosen study included both breast cancer patients with at least one bone metastasis and Durie-Salmon stage 3 MM patients with at least one osteolytic lesion, whereas our study only included MM patients with at least one bone lesion. Additionally, the criteria for defining a clinically relevant SCr increase differ between the two studies; therefore, one cannot directly compare the incidence of kidney dysfunction between these two studies. Although in our study the sample size was small, confidence intervals were wide, and protocol deviations did not permit a robust comparison, the results of this pilot study suggest that the longer infusion time of 30 minutes every 3–4 weeks for 2 years for MM patients with bone disease is also safe and well-tolerated.
As expected, PK data showed that the median zoledronic acid concentrations were greater in the samples obtained from the 15-minute group compared to those from the 30-minute group. This effect was observed in samples obtained both 5 minutes before the end of infusion and at the end of infusion.
Increasing the infusion time did not significantly alter the AE profile and was not associated with any new or unexpected AEs. The incidence rates of deaths, SAEs, treatment-related AEs, and overall AEs were generally comparable between treatment groups. Overall, the incidence rates of reported SREs and ONJ were as expected for this patient population, which are important factors when considering zoledronic acid for patients with MM, where the goal of ongoing monthly IV bisphosphonate therapy is to prevent the development of new SREs without increasing the risk of AEs, such as ONJ.
Finally, the FDA-approved current labeling for zoledronic acid recommends decreasing the dose of this bisphosphonate based on baseline kidney function.7 Because these recommendations were not in place at the time that this study was designed, whether the implementation of these dosing guidelines for patients with MM along with varying infusion durations would have impacted the results observed in our study cannot be ascertained.
In summary, the results of this study suggest that the safety profile of IV zoledronic acid is similar regardless of a 15-minute or a 30-minute infusion duration. However, because the study was not powered to detect statistical significance and the current renal dosing guidelines for zoledronic acid were not used in this study, large randomized studies, using current dosing recommendations, will be required to further assess the effects on kidney safety of prolonging the infusion time of ongoing monthly IV zoledronic acid therapy for patients with MM.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Syntaxx Communications, Inc., specifically, Kristin Hennenfent, PharmD, MBA, BCPS, and Lisa Holle, PharmD, BCOP, who provided manuscript development and medical writing services, and Holly Matthews, BS, who provided editorial services, with support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. We also thank all participating patients and study personnel. Research support was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (East Hanover, NJ).
References
1 A. Jemal, R. Siegel and J. Xu et al., Cancer statistics, 2010, CA Cancer J Clin 60 (2010), pp. 277–300. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (543)
2 R.A. Kyle, M.A. Gertz and T.E. Witzig et al., Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Mayo Clin Proc 78 (1) (2003), pp. 21–33. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (396)
3 A. Corso, P. Zappasodi and C. Pascutto et al., Urinary proteins in multiple myeloma: correlation with clinical parameters and diagnostic implications, Ann Hematol 82 (8) (2003), pp. 487–491. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)
4 V. Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou, A. Bamias and D. Gika et al., Renal failure in multiple myeloma: incidence, correlations, and prognostic significance, Leuk Lymphoma 48 (2) (2007), pp. 337–341. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35)
5 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and M. Kaminski 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 7 (5) (2001), pp. 377–387. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (461)
6 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and M. Kaminski 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 98 (8) (2003), pp. 1735–1744. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (329)
7 , Zometa (package insert), Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Corporation, East Hanover, NJ (2008).
8 P. Major, A. Lortholary and J. Han et al., Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: a pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials, J Clin Oncol 19 (2) (2001), pp. 558–567. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (325)
9 T. Chen, J. Berenson and R. Vescio et al., Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zoledronic acid in cancer patients with bone metastases, J Clin Pharmacol 42 (11) (2002), pp. 1228–1236. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (139)
10 T. Pfister, E. Atzpodien and F. Bauss, The renal effects of minimally nephrotoxic doses of ibandronate and zoledronate following single and intermittent intravenous administration in rats, Toxicology 191 (2003), pp. 159–167. Article |
11 T. Pfister, E. Aztpodien, B. Bohrmann and F. Bauss, Acute renal effects of intravenous bisphosphonates in the rat, Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 97 (2005), pp. 374–381. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)
12 F. Saad, D.M. Gleason and R. Murray et al., A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma, J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (19) (2002), pp. 1458–1468. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (650)
13 S. Kautiainen, S. Luurila, P. Ylitalo and R. Ylitalo, Transformation of bisphosphonates into insoluble material in human blood in vitro, Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 20 (4) (1998), pp. 289–295. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)
14 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and S. Tchekmedyian 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 21 (16) (2003), pp. 3150–3157. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (251)
15 M.A. Hussein, Multiple myeloma: most common end-organ damage and management, J Natl Compr Canc Netw 5 (2) (2007), pp. 170–178. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)
Appendix
The following ZMAX Trial principal investigators participated in this study: Bart Barlogie, MD, Myeloma Institute For Research and Therapy; James Berenson, MD, Oncotherapeutics; Robert Bloom, MD, Providence Cancer Center, Clinical Trials Department; Ralph Boccia, MD, Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders; Donald Brooks, MD, Arizona Clinical Research Center, Inc.; Robert Brouillard, MD, Robert P. Brouillard, MD, and Delvyn Case, MD, Maine Center for Cancer Medicine and Blood Disorders, Pharmacy; Veena Charu, MD, Pacific Cancer Medical Center; Naveed Chowhan, MD, Cancer Care Center, Inc; Robert Collins, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Thomas Cosgriff, MD, Hematology and Oncology Specialists, LLC; Jose Cruz, MD, Joe Arrington Cancer Research and Treatment Center; Surrinder Dang, MD, Oncology Specialties; Sheldon Davidson, MD, North Valley H/O; Tracy Dobbs, MD, Baptist Regional Cancer Center; Luke Dreisbach, MD, Desert Hematology Oncology Medical Group; Isaac Esseesse, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates of Central Brevard, Laboratory; Mark Fesen, MD, Hutchinson Clinic, PA; George Geils, Jr., MD, Charleston Hematology Oncology Associates, PA; Michael Greenhawt, MD, South Florida Oncology-Hematology; Manuel Guerra, MD, ORA; Rita Gupta, MD, Oncology-Hematology Associates, PA; Vicram Gupta, MD, Saint Joseph Oncology; Alexandre Hageboutros, MD, Cancer Institute of New Jersey at Cooper Hospital; Vincent Hansen, MD, Utah Hematology Oncology; David Henry, MD, Pennsylvania Oncology Hematology Associates; Benjamin Himpler, MD, Syracuse Hematology/Oncology PC; Winston Ho, MD, Hematology/Oncology Group of Orange County; William Horvath, MD, Haematology Oncology Associates of Ohio and Michigan, PC; Paul Hyman, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates of Western Suffolk; Min Kang, MD, Western Washington Oncology; Mark Keaton, MD, Augusta Oncology Associates, PC; Howard Kesselheim, MD, The Center for Cancer and Hematologic Disease; Kapisthalam Kumar, MD, Pasco Hernando Oncology Associates, PA; Edward Lee, MD, Maryland Oncology-Hematology, PA; André Liem, MD, Pacific Shore Medical Group; Timothy Lopez, MD, New Mexico Cancer Care Associates, Cancer Institute of New Mexico; Paul Michael, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada; Michael Milder, MD, Swedish Cancer Institute; Barry Mirtsching, MD, Center for Oncology Research & Treatment, PA; Ruben Niesvizky, MD, New York Presbyterian Hospital; Jorge Otoya, MD, Osceola Cancer Center; Joseph Pascuzzo, MD, California Oncology of the Central Valley; Ravi Patel, MD, Comprehensive Blood and Cancer Center Lab; Allen Patton, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates, PA; Kelly Pendergrass, MD, Kansas City Cancer Center, LLC; Anthony Phillips, MD, Fox Valley Hematolgy Oncology, SC; Robert Raju, MD, Dayton Oncology and Hematology, PA; Harry Ramsey, MD, Berks Hematology Oncology Associates; Ritesh Rathore, MD, Roger Williams Hospital Medical Center; Phillip Reid, MD, Central Jersey Oncology Center; Robert Robles, MD, Bay Area Cancer Research Group, LLC; Stephen Rosenoff, MD, Oncology and Hematology Associates of Southwest Virginia, Inc; Martin Rubenstein, MD, Southbay Oncology Hematology Partners; Mansoor Saleh, MD, Georgia Cancer Specialists; Sundaresan Sambandam, MD, Hematology and Oncology Associates of RI; Mukund Shah, MD, Antelope Valley Cancer Center; David Siegel, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center; Nelida Sjak-Shie, MD, The Center for Cancer Care and Research; Michael Stone, MD, Greeley Medical Clinic; Stefano Tarantolo, MD, Nebraska Methodist Hospital; Joseph Volk, MD, Palo Verde Hematology Oncology, Ltd; Mitchell Weisberg, MD, MetCare Oncology; Ann Wierman, MD, Nevada Cancer Center; Donald Woytowitz, Jr., MD, Florida Cancer Specialists; Peter Yu, MD, Camino Medical Group.
Original research
James R. Berenson MD
Abstract
Zoledronic acid, an intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate, is a standard treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) but may exacerbate preexisting renal dysfunction. The incidence of zoledronic acid–induced renal dysfunction may correlate with infusion duration. In this randomized, multicenter, open-label study, 176 patients with MM, at least one bone lesion, and stable renal function with a serum creatinine (SCr) level <3 mg/dL received zoledronic acid 4 mg (in 250 mL) as a 15- or 30-minute IV infusion every 3–4 weeks. At month 12, 20% (17 patients) in the 15-minute and 16% (13 patients) in the 30-minute arm experienced a clinically relevant but nonsignificant SCr-level increase (P = 0.44). By 24 months, the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant SCr-level increase was similar between arms (15-minute 28% [24 patients] vs 30-minute 27% [23 patients], P = 0.9014). Median zoledronic acid end-of-infusion concentrations were higher with the shorter infusion (15-minute 249 ng/mL vs 30-minute 172 ng/mL), and prolonging the infusion beyond 15 minutes did not influence adverse events related to zoledronic acid. For patients with MM, the safety profile of IV zoledronic acid is similar between those receiving a 15- or 30-minute infusion; therefore, determining the appropriate infusion duration of zoledronic acid should be based on individual patient considerations.
Article Outline
Considerable research has focused on preventive and/or treatment strategies to reduce bone complications in MM patients. In a large, international, randomized, phase III trial of MM patients with at least one osteolytic bone lesion, zoledronic acid (Zometa), a potent intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate that inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, reduced the overall risk of developing skeletally related events (SREs) including HCM by 16% (P = 0.03) compared with standard-dose pamidronate 90 mg (Aredia), another less potent IV bisphosphonate.[5] and [6] As a result of this study and others, monthly infusion of zoledronic acid at 4 mg over at least 15 minutes has become a common treatment for MM patients with bone involvement.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved zoledronic acid use for patients with MM, documented bone metastases from solid tumors, or HCM.[5], [6], [7] and [8] The FDA-approved dose for MM patients is 4 mg administered as an IV infusion over at least 15 minutes every 3–4 weeks for patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) of >60 mL/min; when treating HCM, zoledronic acid 4 mg is administered as a single IV infusion.[5], [6], [7] and [8]
Zoledronic acid is primarily excreted intact through the kidney.9 Preexisting kidney disease and receipt of multiple cycles of bisphosphonate therapy are risk factors for subsequent kidney injury.7 In animal studies, IV bisphosphonates have been shown by histology to precipitate renal tubular injury when administered as a single high dose or when administered more frequently at lower doses.[10] and [11] Additionally, renal dysfunction, as evidenced by increased serum creatinine (SCr) levels, was reported among patients treated at a dose of 4 mg with an infusion time of 5 minutes.[7] and [12] When 4 mg zoledronic acid was administered with a longer infusion time of 15 minutes in large randomized trials, no significant difference between the renal safety profiles of zoledronic acid and pamidronate was reported.6
One hypothesis about the development of kidney injury associated with zoledronic acid is that it may be related to the peak plasma concentration as determined by infusion time. Results of a study evaluating patients with MM or other cancer types and bone metastases demonstrated that prolonging the infusion time of zoledronic acid reduced the end-of-infusion peak plasma concentration (Cmax) by 35%.9 Another theory about the development of kidney dysfunction is that insoluble precipitates may form when the blood is exposed to high concentrations of bisphosphonates as this has been shown to occur in vitro.[9] and [13] Therefore, the current management of renal adverse events (AEs) related to IV bisphosphonates is based on these theories so that reducing the peak plasma concentration of zoledronic acid may prevent the possible formation of insoluble precipitates through (1) lowering the dose, (2) slowing the infusion rate, or (3) increasing the volume of infusate.[5], [12] and [14]
Because MM patients are predisposed to experience deterioration of renal function, it is critical to ensure that zoledronic acid does not contribute to, or exacerbate, a decline in kidney function. To determine if increasing the duration of zoledronic acid infusion further results in improved renal safety, a multicenter, open-label, randomized study was designed to compare a 15-minute vs a 30-minute infusion time with an increased volume of infusate from 100 to 250 mL administered every 3–4 weeks to MM patients with osteolytic bone disease.
Patients and Methods
Patient Population
Men and women (≥18 years of age) with a diagnosis of MM, at least one bone lesion on plain film radiographs, stable kidney function (defined as two SCr level determinations of <3 mg/dL obtained at least 7 days apart during the screening period), calculated CrCl of at least 30 mL/min, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less, and a life expectancy of at least 9 months were eligible. The study excluded patients with prolonged IV bisphosphonate use (defined as use of zoledronic acid longer than 3 years or pamidronate longer than 1 year [total bisphosphonate duration could not exceed 3 years]), corrected serum calcium level at first visit of <8 or ≥12 mg/dL, or diagnosis of amyloidosis. Additionally, patients who had known hypersensitivity to zoledronic acid or other bisphosphonates; were pregnant or lactating; had uncontrolled cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes mellitus; or had a history of noncompliance with medical regimens were not eligible.
Study Design
This open-label, randomized pilot study was conducted at 45 centers in the United States. Before randomization, patients were stratified based on length of time of prior bisphosphonate treatment (bisphosphonate-naive vs ≤1 year prior bisphosphonate therapy vs >1 year prior bisphosphonate therapy) and baseline calculated CrCl (>75 vs >60–75 vs ≥30–≤60 mL/min).
Treatment and Evaluation
Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid 4 mg as either a 15- or a 30-minute IV infusion. The volume of infusate was increased from the standard 100 to 250 mL to provide additional hydration; infusions were administered every 3–4 weeks for up to 24 months. At the time this study was developed, the 4 mg dose was used because the dose adjustments for renal dysfunction in the current FDA labeling for zoledronic acid were not yet available.7 Patients were required to take a calcium supplement containing 500 mg of calcium and a multivitamin containing 400–500 IU of vitamin D, orally, once daily, for the duration of zoledronic acid therapy.
HCM during the trial was defined as a corrected serum calcium level ≥12 mg/dL or a lower level of hypercalcemia accompanied by symptoms and/or requiring active treatment other than rehydration. If HCM occurred more than 14 days after a zoledronic acid infusion, patients could receive a zoledronic acid infusion as treatment for HCM, even if this required administration before the next scheduled dose. Patients were allowed to remain in the study provided that HCM did not persist or recur. However, zoledronic acid treatment was immediately discontinued if patients developed HCM ≤14 days after study drug infusion; these patients received HCM treatment at the discretion of their treating physician. Also, patients experiencing HCM discontinued calcium and vitamin D supplements.
Within 2 weeks before each dose, enrolled patients were assessed for increase in SCr levels. For patients experiencing a clinically relevant increase in SCr level (defined as a rise of 0.5 mg/dL or more or a doubling of baseline SCr levels), administration of zoledronic acid was suspended until the SCr level fell to within 10% of the baseline value. During the delay, SCr levels were monitored at each regularly scheduled study visit (every 3–4 weeks) or more frequently if deemed necessary by the investigator. If the SCr level fell to within 10% of the baseline value within the subsequent 12 weeks, zoledronic acid was restarted with an infusion time that was increased by 15 minutes over the starting duration. If the rise in SCr level did not resolve within 12 weeks or if the patient experienced a second clinically relevant increase in SCr level after modification of the infusion time, treatment was permanently discontinued. Otherwise, patients were followed for 24 months. A final safety assessment, including a full hematology and chemistry profile, was performed 28 days after the last infusion.
A pretreatment dental examination with appropriate preventive dentistry was suggested for all patients with known risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) (eg, cancer chemotherapy, corticosteroids, poor oral hygiene, dental extraction, or dental implants). Throughout the study, patients reporting symptoms that could be consistent with ONJ were referred to a dental professional for assessment; if exposed bone was noted on dental examination, the patient was referred to an oral surgeon for further evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. A diagnosis of ONJ required cessation of zoledronic acid therapy and study discontinuation.
Pharmacokinetic Sampling
At the first infusion visit (visit 2), pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were measured. If PK samples were not obtained at visit 2, they could be obtained at visit 3 (otherwise, they were recorded as not done). All blood samples for PK analysis were drawn from the contralateral arm. For patients receiving the 15-minute zoledronic acid infusion, the protocol specified that PK samples were to be drawn at exactly 10 and 15 minutes from the start of the infusion; patients receiving the 30-minute zoledronic acid infusion were to have blood samples drawn at exactly 25 and 30 minutes from the start of the infusion. The second blood sample for PK analysis was taken before the study drug infusion was stopped in both groups. PK analysis was performed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics France (Rueil-Malmaison, France) and SGS Cephac (Geneva Switzerland), using a competitive radioimmunoassay that has a lower limit of quantification of 0.04 ng/mL and an upper limit of quantification of 40 ng/mL.
Statistical Analysis
The primary study end point was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 12 months. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the primary end point; in addition, an exploratory analysis with a logistic regression model, using treatment group, prior bisphosphonate therapy, and baseline CrCl, was performed.
Additional secondary safety end points included the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 24 months, time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level, and the PK profile of zoledronic acid. The proportion of patients with a clinically relevant increase in SCr level at 24 months was summarized using descriptive statistics. Time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method at the time of the primary analysis (12 months) and at 24 months. Plasma concentration data were evaluated by treatment group and baseline kidney function using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables of baseline and demographic characteristics between treatment groups were compared using a two-sample t-test; between-group differences in discrete variables were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test.
The primary analysis included all randomized patients who received at least one zoledronic acid infusion and who had valid postbaseline data for assessment. All study subjects who had evaluable PK parameters were included in a secondary PK analysis. Efficacy assessments were not included in this trial.
This pilot trial was designed to obtain additional preliminary data to support the hypothesis that a longer infusion is associated with less kidney dysfunction than a shorter infusion; therefore, a sample size of 90 patients per treatment group was selected. All statistical tests employed a significance level of 0.05 against a two-sided alternative hypothesis.
The institutional review boards of participating institutions approved the study, and all patients provided written informed consent before study entry.
Results
Study Population
Between October 2004 and October 2007, 179 MM patients with SCr <3 mg/dL were randomized to receive either a 15- or a 30-minute infusion of zoledronic acid. Of these, 176 patients (88 in each group) received at least one dose of study drug. Because of protocol violations, postbaseline data from one site were excluded from analyses, leaving 85 assessable patients in the 15-minute group and 84 patients in the 30-minute group.
Overall, the study groups were representative of a general population with MM. About two-thirds of patients had received prior bisphosphonate therapy; the duration of therapy was greater than 1 year for most of these patients (Table 1). The most common concomitant therapies included dexamethasone, thalidomide, and melphalan. Although the median age, proportion of patients who were 65 years of age or older, and ratio of men to women were greater in the 15-minute infusion group, none of the differences in baseline demographics was statistically significant. All other baseline demographics and disease characteristics, including prior bisphosphonate use and baseline CrCl values, were similar between the two groups (see Table 1). During the study, six patients in the 15-minute treatment group and one patient in the 30-minute treatment group experienced HCM. Three of the six patients in the 15-minute treatment group and one patient in the 30-minute treatment group discontinued the study as a result of HCM.
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%)a | ||
|---|---|---|
| CHARACTERISTIC | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 88)b | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 88)b |
| Age (years) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 64 | 64 |
| Median | 66 | 64 |
| Range | 37–91 | 27–86 |
| Age category (years) | ||
| <65 | 39 (44) | 47 (53) |
| ≥65 | 49 (56) | 41 (47) |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 56 (64) | 49 (56) |
| Female | 32 (36) | 39 (44) |
| Race | ||
| White | 70 (80) | 69 (78) |
| Black | 9 (10) | 13 (15) |
| Asian | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
| Other | 8 (9) | 5 (6) |
| Time since diagnosis (months) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 12 (24) (n = 86) | 10 (14) (n = 87) |
| Median | 4 | 6 |
| Range | 0–186 | 0–98c |
| Prior bisphosphonate use | ||
| Naive | 28 (32) | 28 (32) |
| ≤1 year | 12 (14) | 14 (16) |
| >1 year | 48 (55) | 39 (44) |
| Missing | 0 (0) | 7 (8) |
| Calculated CrCl (mL/min) | ||
| Mean (SD) | 87 (33) | 89 (40) |
| Median | 84 | 83 |
| Range | 33–210 | 31–224 |
| Calculated CrCl category (mL/min) | ||
| CrCl ≥75 | 54 (61) | 49 (56) |
| 60 < CrCL < 75 | 13 (15) | 15 (17) |
| 30 < CrCl ≤ 60 | 21 (24) | 24 (27) |
| CrCl <30 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
CrCl = creatinine clearance; IV = intravenous; SD = standard deviation
a Unless otherwise notedb Safety populationc One patient had a screening visit date before the date of initial diagnosis
Protocol violations and/or deviations (n = 658) occurred during this study, affecting 139 patients. The types of protocol violations/deviations were related to protocol adherence (n = 404), timing of visits (n = 210), protocol adherence/timing of visits (n = 2), exclusion criteria (n = 22), inclusion criteria (n = 10), and informed consent (n = 1); 9 violations were unclassified. Notably, one protocol adherence deviation that occurred was incorrect infusion duration despite the patient having a stable SCr level. In the 15-minute treatment group, 15% of infusions administered were longer than 15 minutes. Among the longer infusions, 7% of the infusions correctly occurred per protocol following an SCr-level increase, whereas 7% of the prolonged infusions were 20 minutes or longer in the absence of an SCr-level increase. Similarly, in the 30-minute treatment group, 5% of patients received infusions lasting at least 35 minutes in the absence of an SCr-level increase.
Renal Safety
At 12 months, slightly fewer patients (n = 13 [16%]) in the 30-minute infusion group had a clinically relevant increase in SCr level than in the 15-minute infusion group (n = 17 [20%]); but this difference was not statistically significant, and for approximately 35% of patients in each group there were no SCr data available (Table 2). The median time to a clinically relevant increase in SCr by Kaplain-Meier was not reached in either group (data not shown). Neither previous bisphosphonate use nor baseline CrCl significantly affected the results (P = 0.5837 and P = 0.9371, respectively).
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CLINICALLY RELEVANT INCREASE IN SCR | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 85)a | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 84)a | P VALUEb |
| 12 Months | 0.6892 | ||
| Yes | 17 (20) | 13 (16) | |
| No | 38 (45) | 42 (50) | |
| Unknown | 30 (35) | 29 (35) | |
| 24 Months | 0.9750 | ||
| Yes | 24 (28) | 23 (27) | |
| No | 22 (26) | 23 (27) | |
| Unknown | 39 (46) | 38 (45) | |
CI = confidence interval; IV = intravenous; SCr = serum creatinine
a Safety population, excluding patients with protocol violationsb P value calculated based on chi-squared test
After 24 months of treatment, the proportion of patients experiencing a clinically relevant increase in SCr level was similar between treatment groups, although for approximately 45% of patients in each group there were no SCr data available (see Table 2). Moreover, the difference in time to first clinically relevant increase in SCr level was not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.55) (Figure 1). However, among patients with a clinically significant rise in SCr level, the median time to SCr rise was slightly longer in the 30-minute group than in the 15-minute group (22 vs 24 weeks), but this was not statistically significant.
Increases in SCr relative to baseline led to treatment discontinuation in 20 patients (24%) receiving a 15-minute infusion and 14 patients (17%) receiving a 30-minute infusion. In these cases, the treating physician either considered the SCr level too high for continued treatment or the SCr level was persistently high despite treatment interruption.
Pharmacokinetics
Median zoledronic acid concentrations, as anticipated, were higher with the 15-minute infusion time at both sampling time points (during infusion: 15-minute group 231 ng/mL [at 10 minutes] vs 30-minute group 186 ng/mL [at 25 minutes]; end-of-infusion: 15-minute group, 249 ng/mL vs 30-minute group 172 ng/mL).
Adverse Events
Overall, the incidence and severity of AEs were as anticipated for MM patients. The most commonly reported AEs included fatigue, anemia, nausea, constipation, and back pain (Table 3). Although many AEs were reported more frequently in the 30-minute infusion group, the incidence rates of AEs suspected to be related to zoledronic acid were similar between the two groups. Toxicities were graded as mild, moderate, or severe; proportions of AEs categorized by these grades were comparable. Nonfatal serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 26% of patients receiving the 15-minute infusion and 35% of patients receiving the 30-minute infusion; however, only one patient in the 15-minute group and two patients in the 30-minute group had SAEs suspected to be related to study medication.
| NUMBER OF PATIENTS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TYPE OF AE | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 15 MINUTES (N = 85) | ZOLEDRONIC ACID 4 MG IV FOR 30 MINUTES (N = 84) | TOTAL (N = 169) |
| Blood and lymphatic system disorders | |||
| Anemia | 19 (22) | 27 (32) | 46 (27) |
| Neutropenia | 6 (7) | 12 (14) | 18 (11) |
| Gastrointestinal disorders | |||
| Constipation | 20 (24) | 21 (25) | 41 (24) |
| Diarrhea | 14 (17) | 20 (24) | 34 (20) |
| Nausea | 18 (21) | 27 (32) | 45 (27) |
| Vomiting | 10 (12) | 14 (17) | 24 (14) |
| General disorders | |||
| Fatigue | 30 (35) | 41 (49) | 71 (42) |
| Pain | 7 (8) | 10 (12) | 17 (10) |
| Pain in extremity | 14 (17) | 16 (19) | 30 (18) |
| Peripheral edema | 13 (15) | 20 (24) | 33 (20) |
| Pyrexia | 15 (18) | 19 (23) | 34 (20) |
| Infections and infestations | |||
| Pneumonia | 11 (13) | 7 (8) | 18 (11) |
| Upper respiratory tract infection | 13 (15) | 13 (16) | 26 (15) |
| Metabolism and nutrition disorders | |||
| Anorexia | 8 (9) | 9 (11) | 17 (10) |
| Hypokalemia | 12 (14) | 13 (15) | 25 (14) |
| Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | |||
| Arthralgia | 10 (11) | 16 (19) | 26 (15) |
| Asthenia | 9 (10) | 13 (16) | 22 (13) |
| Back pain | 19 (22) | 20 (24) | 39 (23) |
| Bone pain | 10 (12) | 11 (13) | 21 (12) |
| Nervous system disorders | |||
| Dizziness | 11 (13) | 10 (12) | 21 (12) |
| Peripheral neuropathy | 7 (8) | 15 (18) | 22 (13) |
| Psychiatric disorders | |||
| Insomnia | 10 (12) | 14 (17) | 24 (14) |
| Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders | |||
| Cough | 13 (15) | 15 (18) | 28 (17) |
| Dyspnea | 15 (18) | 17 (20) | 32 (19) |
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | |||
| Rash | 9 (11) | 12 (14) | 21 (12) |
AE = adverse event; IV = intravenous
a Safety population excluding patients with protocol violations
The numbers of deaths, trial discontinuations, and treatment interruptions due to AEs were similar between the two groups as well. Deaths (9 [10.6%] 15-minute group vs 6 [7.1%] 30-minute group) were not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid. Eight patients in each treatment group discontinued therapy because of an AE; events leading to treatment discontinuation that were suspected to be related to zoledronic acid occurred in two patients in the 15-minute group (skeletal pain and ONJ) and one patient in the 30-minute group (jaw pain). AEs that required treatment interruption occurred in eight and nine patients in the 15-minute and 30-minute groups, respectively.
AEs of special interest included those related to kidney dysfunction, cardiac arrhythmias, SREs, and ONJ. The number of patients reporting overall kidney and urinary disorders was the same in the two treatment groups (14 patients in each group); however, acute renal failure was reported more frequently in patients receiving the 15-minute infusion compared with the 30-minute infusion (four patients [5%] vs one patient [1%] in 30-minute group). Details of these five patients are presented in Table 4. AEs related to cardiac rhythm occurred in 20 patients while on study; however, only one case of bradycardia was suspected to be related to zoledronic acid therapy (in the 30-minute group). The incidence of SREs at 2 years was comparable in the two groups (19% in 15-minute group vs 21% in 30-minute group). The time to onset of SREs was longer in the 15-minute group (222 vs 158 days), but this was not statistically significant. A total of 10 patients with suspected ONJ were identified, with three patients in the 15-minute group (all moderate) and seven patients in the 30-minute group (mild [n = 5], moderate [n = 1], severe [n = 1]). Six of these patients received bisphosphonates before entering the study (four patients received no prior bisphosphonates), but the length of previous bisphosphonate therapy varied (0–30 months). Patients with suspected ONJ were assessed by clinicians and referred to dental professionals for further evaluation.
| PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS | TYPE OF MM | MEDICAL HISTORY | CONCURRENT MEDICATIONSa | ACUTE RENAL FAILURE DETAILS | OUTCOME |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoledronic acid 4 mg IV for 15 minutes | |||||
| 73-year-old female Caucasian | IgG | Anemia, cardiomyopathy, CHF, cholecystectomy, benign breast lump removal, CAD, DM, dyslipidemia, central venous catheterization, chronic renal failure, GERD, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, hysterectomy, mycobacterial infection, hemorrhoids, B-cell lymphoma, seborrheic keratosis, tonsillectomy | At start of study: aspirin, losartan, digoxin, hydrochlorothiazide/lorsartan, fluconazole, folic acid, atorvastatin, vitamins, warfarinDuring study: ethambutol dihydrochloride, moxifloxacin, rifabutin, fenofibrate, omeprazole, diuretics, nitroglycerin patch, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, hydroxyzine, loratadine, furosemide, vancomycin, pantoprozole, piperacillin/tazobactam, clarithromycin | Myeloma kidney mass consistent with myeloma kidney found during study; approximately 2 weeks later the patient developed severe infection that culminated in septic shock, with acute renal failure | Nephrologist considered renal insufficiency to be partly related to past history of large-cell lymphoma and chemotherapy; patient was discharged to hospice and died of acute renal failure secondary to myeloma |
| 71-year-old female Caucasian | IgA | Back pain, cholecystectomy, constipation, CAD, NIDDM, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, insomnia, left knee operation, neuralgia, obesity, osteoarthritis, hysterectomy, hypoacusis, seasonal allergies, urinary incontinence | At start of study: zolpidem, amitriptyline, loratidine, tolterodine l-tartrate, valsartan, metrotoprolol, furosemide, ibuprofen, clonazepam, gabapentin, liodcaine, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, quinine sulfate, simvastatin During study: calcium, multivitamins, lactulose, trazodone, hydromorphone, cyclobenzaprine, glipizide, macrogol, lorazepam, methadone, potassium, lisinopril, furosemide, meperidine, promethazine | Developed moderate acute renal failure on the day of her first dose; considered not associated with zoledronic acid | Renal ultrasound showed arterial stenosis; resolved approximately 1 month after diagnosis |
| 65-year-old male Caucasian | IgG | Oxycodone hypersensitivity, anemia, back pain, spine metastases, spinal compression fracture, depression, fatigue, inguinal hernia repair, spinal fusion (L1–L3) surgery, bilateral hip arthroplasty, pain, pneumonia, staphylococcal infection | At start of study: fluconazole, morphine sulfate, oxycodone/acetaminophen During study: naproxen, darbepoietin alfa, sodium ferrifluconate, calcium with vitamin D, cephalexin, dexamethasone, alginic acid, docusate, heparin, sodium polystyrene, levofloxacin, filgrastim, lansoprazole | After 5 doses of zoledronic acid, patient developed severe acute renal failure with elevated SCr; not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid | Resolved 9 days later following treatment with cephalexin and dexamethasone |
| 56-year-old female Caucasian | IgA | Osteolysis, cataract surgery, constipation, bone lesions, hypercholesterolemia, HTN, musculoskeletal pain, anorexia | At start of study: ibuprofen, oxycodone, propoxyphene/acetaminophen, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, valsartan, calcium/vitamin D, potassium chloride, docusate sodiumDuring study: vancomycin, acyclovir | Approximately 1 week after 9th zoledronic acid dose, patient developed acute renal failure with an increased SCr (12.5 mg/dL); not suspected to be related to zoledronic acid | Resulted from myeloma progression to plasma cell leukemia; emergency dialysis performed; catheter-related sepsis occurred approximately 1 month later, and patient died of sepsis and disease progression |
| Zoledronic acid 4 mg IV for 30 minutes | |||||
| 80-year-old male African American | IgG | Anemia, arteriosclerotic heart disease, bilateral ankle swelling/pain, degenerative joint disease, dyspnea on exertion, fatigue, GERD, HTN, neutropenia, shoulder pain, vasovagal syncope | At start of study: aspirin, atenolol, multivitamin, doxazosin, fosinopril, hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine besylate, simvastatinDuring study: darbepoietin alfa, warfarin sodium, furosemide, omeprazole, calcium carbonate | Approximately 1 month after 2nd dose, patient experienced increased SCr (2.9 mg/dL, 53% increase from baseline); relationship to zoledronic acid unknown | Discontinued from study after 2nd dose, and SCr remained elevated for 2 months following discontinuation |
CAD = coronary artery disease; CHF = congestive heart failure; DM = diabetes mellitus; GERD = gastroesophageal reflux disease; HTN = hypertension; MM = multiple myeloma; NIDDM = non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; SCr = serum creatinine
Discussion
During the past decade, bisphosphonate therapy has become an important adjunctive treatment to prevent the emergence, or worsening, of SREs in patients with MM involving the bone.15 Kidney failure is a common and severe complication of MM that may be exacerbated by chronic administration of zoledronic acid.7 A study evaluating zoledronic acid in patients with cancer and bone metastases suggests that increasing the infusion time decreases the Cmax, which may result in fewer renal AEs.[9] and [12] This study was designed to assess whether prolonging the infusion time of zoledronic acid from the recommended 15 to 30 minutes would improve kidney safety in MM patients, as evidenced by fewer rises in SCr levels. To our knowledge, this is the only trial that has been designed to evaluate the impact of infusion duration on renal effects in this population.
The 12-month results of this pilot study showed a trend toward improved renal safety with the longer infusion time, this difference not being statistically significant. By 24 months, however, there were no differences in SCr level elevations between the two groups. The clinically relevant SCr increases observed in our study, however, differ from those reported by Rosen and colleagues,[5] and [6] who first evaluated zoledronic acid for patients with MM. In that study, 4%–11% of patients experienced kidney function deterioration, manifested by SCr increases, which is much lower than the rate observed in our study. However, several differences exist between our trial and the Rosen study. The Rosen study included both breast cancer patients with at least one bone metastasis and Durie-Salmon stage 3 MM patients with at least one osteolytic lesion, whereas our study only included MM patients with at least one bone lesion. Additionally, the criteria for defining a clinically relevant SCr increase differ between the two studies; therefore, one cannot directly compare the incidence of kidney dysfunction between these two studies. Although in our study the sample size was small, confidence intervals were wide, and protocol deviations did not permit a robust comparison, the results of this pilot study suggest that the longer infusion time of 30 minutes every 3–4 weeks for 2 years for MM patients with bone disease is also safe and well-tolerated.
As expected, PK data showed that the median zoledronic acid concentrations were greater in the samples obtained from the 15-minute group compared to those from the 30-minute group. This effect was observed in samples obtained both 5 minutes before the end of infusion and at the end of infusion.
Increasing the infusion time did not significantly alter the AE profile and was not associated with any new or unexpected AEs. The incidence rates of deaths, SAEs, treatment-related AEs, and overall AEs were generally comparable between treatment groups. Overall, the incidence rates of reported SREs and ONJ were as expected for this patient population, which are important factors when considering zoledronic acid for patients with MM, where the goal of ongoing monthly IV bisphosphonate therapy is to prevent the development of new SREs without increasing the risk of AEs, such as ONJ.
Finally, the FDA-approved current labeling for zoledronic acid recommends decreasing the dose of this bisphosphonate based on baseline kidney function.7 Because these recommendations were not in place at the time that this study was designed, whether the implementation of these dosing guidelines for patients with MM along with varying infusion durations would have impacted the results observed in our study cannot be ascertained.
In summary, the results of this study suggest that the safety profile of IV zoledronic acid is similar regardless of a 15-minute or a 30-minute infusion duration. However, because the study was not powered to detect statistical significance and the current renal dosing guidelines for zoledronic acid were not used in this study, large randomized studies, using current dosing recommendations, will be required to further assess the effects on kidney safety of prolonging the infusion time of ongoing monthly IV zoledronic acid therapy for patients with MM.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Syntaxx Communications, Inc., specifically, Kristin Hennenfent, PharmD, MBA, BCPS, and Lisa Holle, PharmD, BCOP, who provided manuscript development and medical writing services, and Holly Matthews, BS, who provided editorial services, with support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. We also thank all participating patients and study personnel. Research support was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (East Hanover, NJ).
References
1 A. Jemal, R. Siegel and J. Xu et al., Cancer statistics, 2010, CA Cancer J Clin 60 (2010), pp. 277–300. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (543)
2 R.A. Kyle, M.A. Gertz and T.E. Witzig et al., Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Mayo Clin Proc 78 (1) (2003), pp. 21–33. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (396)
3 A. Corso, P. Zappasodi and C. Pascutto et al., Urinary proteins in multiple myeloma: correlation with clinical parameters and diagnostic implications, Ann Hematol 82 (8) (2003), pp. 487–491. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)
4 V. Eleutherakis-Papaiakovou, A. Bamias and D. Gika et al., Renal failure in multiple myeloma: incidence, correlations, and prognostic significance, Leuk Lymphoma 48 (2) (2007), pp. 337–341. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (35)
5 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and M. Kaminski 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 7 (5) (2001), pp. 377–387. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (461)
6 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and M. Kaminski 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 98 (8) (2003), pp. 1735–1744. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (329)
7 , Zometa (package insert), Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Corporation, East Hanover, NJ (2008).
8 P. Major, A. Lortholary and J. Han et al., Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: a pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials, J Clin Oncol 19 (2) (2001), pp. 558–567. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (325)
9 T. Chen, J. Berenson and R. Vescio et al., Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zoledronic acid in cancer patients with bone metastases, J Clin Pharmacol 42 (11) (2002), pp. 1228–1236. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (139)
10 T. Pfister, E. Atzpodien and F. Bauss, The renal effects of minimally nephrotoxic doses of ibandronate and zoledronate following single and intermittent intravenous administration in rats, Toxicology 191 (2003), pp. 159–167. Article |
11 T. Pfister, E. Aztpodien, B. Bohrmann and F. Bauss, Acute renal effects of intravenous bisphosphonates in the rat, Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 97 (2005), pp. 374–381. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)
12 F. Saad, D.M. Gleason and R. Murray et al., A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma, J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (19) (2002), pp. 1458–1468. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (650)
13 S. Kautiainen, S. Luurila, P. Ylitalo and R. Ylitalo, Transformation of bisphosphonates into insoluble material in human blood in vitro, Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 20 (4) (1998), pp. 289–295. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)
14 L.S. Rosen, D. Gordon and S. Tchekmedyian 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 21 (16) (2003), pp. 3150–3157. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (251)
15 M.A. Hussein, Multiple myeloma: most common end-organ damage and management, J Natl Compr Canc Netw 5 (2) (2007), pp. 170–178. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)
Appendix
The following ZMAX Trial principal investigators participated in this study: Bart Barlogie, MD, Myeloma Institute For Research and Therapy; James Berenson, MD, Oncotherapeutics; Robert Bloom, MD, Providence Cancer Center, Clinical Trials Department; Ralph Boccia, MD, Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders; Donald Brooks, MD, Arizona Clinical Research Center, Inc.; Robert Brouillard, MD, Robert P. Brouillard, MD, and Delvyn Case, MD, Maine Center for Cancer Medicine and Blood Disorders, Pharmacy; Veena Charu, MD, Pacific Cancer Medical Center; Naveed Chowhan, MD, Cancer Care Center, Inc; Robert Collins, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; Thomas Cosgriff, MD, Hematology and Oncology Specialists, LLC; Jose Cruz, MD, Joe Arrington Cancer Research and Treatment Center; Surrinder Dang, MD, Oncology Specialties; Sheldon Davidson, MD, North Valley H/O; Tracy Dobbs, MD, Baptist Regional Cancer Center; Luke Dreisbach, MD, Desert Hematology Oncology Medical Group; Isaac Esseesse, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates of Central Brevard, Laboratory; Mark Fesen, MD, Hutchinson Clinic, PA; George Geils, Jr., MD, Charleston Hematology Oncology Associates, PA; Michael Greenhawt, MD, South Florida Oncology-Hematology; Manuel Guerra, MD, ORA; Rita Gupta, MD, Oncology-Hematology Associates, PA; Vicram Gupta, MD, Saint Joseph Oncology; Alexandre Hageboutros, MD, Cancer Institute of New Jersey at Cooper Hospital; Vincent Hansen, MD, Utah Hematology Oncology; David Henry, MD, Pennsylvania Oncology Hematology Associates; Benjamin Himpler, MD, Syracuse Hematology/Oncology PC; Winston Ho, MD, Hematology/Oncology Group of Orange County; William Horvath, MD, Haematology Oncology Associates of Ohio and Michigan, PC; Paul Hyman, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates of Western Suffolk; Min Kang, MD, Western Washington Oncology; Mark Keaton, MD, Augusta Oncology Associates, PC; Howard Kesselheim, MD, The Center for Cancer and Hematologic Disease; Kapisthalam Kumar, MD, Pasco Hernando Oncology Associates, PA; Edward Lee, MD, Maryland Oncology-Hematology, PA; André Liem, MD, Pacific Shore Medical Group; Timothy Lopez, MD, New Mexico Cancer Care Associates, Cancer Institute of New Mexico; Paul Michael, MD, Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada; Michael Milder, MD, Swedish Cancer Institute; Barry Mirtsching, MD, Center for Oncology Research & Treatment, PA; Ruben Niesvizky, MD, New York Presbyterian Hospital; Jorge Otoya, MD, Osceola Cancer Center; Joseph Pascuzzo, MD, California Oncology of the Central Valley; Ravi Patel, MD, Comprehensive Blood and Cancer Center Lab; Allen Patton, MD, Hematology Oncology Associates, PA; Kelly Pendergrass, MD, Kansas City Cancer Center, LLC; Anthony Phillips, MD, Fox Valley Hematolgy Oncology, SC; Robert Raju, MD, Dayton Oncology and Hematology, PA; Harry Ramsey, MD, Berks Hematology Oncology Associates; Ritesh Rathore, MD, Roger Williams Hospital Medical Center; Phillip Reid, MD, Central Jersey Oncology Center; Robert Robles, MD, Bay Area Cancer Research Group, LLC; Stephen Rosenoff, MD, Oncology and Hematology Associates of Southwest Virginia, Inc; Martin Rubenstein, MD, Southbay Oncology Hematology Partners; Mansoor Saleh, MD, Georgia Cancer Specialists; Sundaresan Sambandam, MD, Hematology and Oncology Associates of RI; Mukund Shah, MD, Antelope Valley Cancer Center; David Siegel, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center; Nelida Sjak-Shie, MD, The Center for Cancer Care and Research; Michael Stone, MD, Greeley Medical Clinic; Stefano Tarantolo, MD, Nebraska Methodist Hospital; Joseph Volk, MD, Palo Verde Hematology Oncology, Ltd; Mitchell Weisberg, MD, MetCare Oncology; Ann Wierman, MD, Nevada Cancer Center; Donald Woytowitz, Jr., MD, Florida Cancer Specialists; Peter Yu, MD, Camino Medical Group.
Rituximab Maintenance Approved in Follicular Lymphoma
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
Rituximab Maintenance Approved in Follicular Lymphoma
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
Rituximab Maintenance Approved in Follicular Lymphoma
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.
The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.
The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation
GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.
All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.
Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.
The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.
Neutropenia and the White Blood Cells
FDA warns of possible link between breast implants and ALCL
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after a review of reported cases of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), warns that there may be a link between silicone and saline breast implants and the rare cancer.
People with breast implants “may have a very small but significant risk of ALCL in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant,” according to the agency.
The FDA based its announcement on a review of literature published between January 1997 and May 2010 that identified 34 unique cases of ALCL in women with either type of breast implant.
William Maisel, MD, chief scientist and deputy director for science in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said, “We need more data and are asking that healthcare professionals tell us about any confirmed cases they identify.”
Of the 34 unique ALCL cases reviewed, 24 had silicone and 7 had saline implants; 3 implants did not have the type specified. The women ranged in age from 28 to 87 years, with a median age of 51 years.
ALCL occurred in 19 women who received implants for aesthetic augmentation, 11 for reconstruction, and 4 had no reason recorded for the implant.
The women developed ALCL in a median of 8 years from time of implant, ranging from 1 year to 23 years. Most of the patients were diagnosed because they had implant-related symptoms, such as seromas, capsular contractures, or peri-implant masses that needed implant revision surgery.
Physicians found lymphoma cells in the seroma surrounding the implant, in the fibrous capsule, or within a peri-implant mass in all of the ALCL cases.
According to the FDA report, CD30 status was positive in all 29 of the cases that included this information, which is consistent with an ALCL diagnosis. ALCL cases in the rest of the body can be either ALK-positive or ALK-negative. The 26 reports of ALCL in women with breast implants that included ALK status were all ALK-negative.
The FDA recommends that physicians consider an ALCL diagnosis if patients present with capsular contracture or masses adjacent to the breast implant. Physicians should report all confirmed cases of ALCL in people with breast implants to Medwatch.
The FDA does not recommend removing breast implants in patients without symptoms, which include pain, lumps, swelllng, or asymmetry that develop after the surgical site is fully healed. The agency plans to update its review of silicone breast implants in spring 2011.
ALCL occurs in about 1 in 500,000 women each year in the United States, according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute. In the breast, ALCL occurs in approximately 3 in 100,000,000 women annually in the US. 
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after a review of reported cases of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), warns that there may be a link between silicone and saline breast implants and the rare cancer.
People with breast implants “may have a very small but significant risk of ALCL in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant,” according to the agency.
The FDA based its announcement on a review of literature published between January 1997 and May 2010 that identified 34 unique cases of ALCL in women with either type of breast implant.
William Maisel, MD, chief scientist and deputy director for science in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said, “We need more data and are asking that healthcare professionals tell us about any confirmed cases they identify.”
Of the 34 unique ALCL cases reviewed, 24 had silicone and 7 had saline implants; 3 implants did not have the type specified. The women ranged in age from 28 to 87 years, with a median age of 51 years.
ALCL occurred in 19 women who received implants for aesthetic augmentation, 11 for reconstruction, and 4 had no reason recorded for the implant.
The women developed ALCL in a median of 8 years from time of implant, ranging from 1 year to 23 years. Most of the patients were diagnosed because they had implant-related symptoms, such as seromas, capsular contractures, or peri-implant masses that needed implant revision surgery.
Physicians found lymphoma cells in the seroma surrounding the implant, in the fibrous capsule, or within a peri-implant mass in all of the ALCL cases.
According to the FDA report, CD30 status was positive in all 29 of the cases that included this information, which is consistent with an ALCL diagnosis. ALCL cases in the rest of the body can be either ALK-positive or ALK-negative. The 26 reports of ALCL in women with breast implants that included ALK status were all ALK-negative.
The FDA recommends that physicians consider an ALCL diagnosis if patients present with capsular contracture or masses adjacent to the breast implant. Physicians should report all confirmed cases of ALCL in people with breast implants to Medwatch.
The FDA does not recommend removing breast implants in patients without symptoms, which include pain, lumps, swelllng, or asymmetry that develop after the surgical site is fully healed. The agency plans to update its review of silicone breast implants in spring 2011.
ALCL occurs in about 1 in 500,000 women each year in the United States, according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute. In the breast, ALCL occurs in approximately 3 in 100,000,000 women annually in the US.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after a review of reported cases of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), warns that there may be a link between silicone and saline breast implants and the rare cancer.
People with breast implants “may have a very small but significant risk of ALCL in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant,” according to the agency.
The FDA based its announcement on a review of literature published between January 1997 and May 2010 that identified 34 unique cases of ALCL in women with either type of breast implant.
William Maisel, MD, chief scientist and deputy director for science in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said, “We need more data and are asking that healthcare professionals tell us about any confirmed cases they identify.”
Of the 34 unique ALCL cases reviewed, 24 had silicone and 7 had saline implants; 3 implants did not have the type specified. The women ranged in age from 28 to 87 years, with a median age of 51 years.
ALCL occurred in 19 women who received implants for aesthetic augmentation, 11 for reconstruction, and 4 had no reason recorded for the implant.
The women developed ALCL in a median of 8 years from time of implant, ranging from 1 year to 23 years. Most of the patients were diagnosed because they had implant-related symptoms, such as seromas, capsular contractures, or peri-implant masses that needed implant revision surgery.
Physicians found lymphoma cells in the seroma surrounding the implant, in the fibrous capsule, or within a peri-implant mass in all of the ALCL cases.
According to the FDA report, CD30 status was positive in all 29 of the cases that included this information, which is consistent with an ALCL diagnosis. ALCL cases in the rest of the body can be either ALK-positive or ALK-negative. The 26 reports of ALCL in women with breast implants that included ALK status were all ALK-negative.
The FDA recommends that physicians consider an ALCL diagnosis if patients present with capsular contracture or masses adjacent to the breast implant. Physicians should report all confirmed cases of ALCL in people with breast implants to Medwatch.
The FDA does not recommend removing breast implants in patients without symptoms, which include pain, lumps, swelllng, or asymmetry that develop after the surgical site is fully healed. The agency plans to update its review of silicone breast implants in spring 2011.
ALCL occurs in about 1 in 500,000 women each year in the United States, according to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute. In the breast, ALCL occurs in approximately 3 in 100,000,000 women annually in the US.