74
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of zoledronic acid versus clodronic acid on skeletal morbidity in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Bisphosphonates are the standard of care for reducing the risk of skeletal-related events in patients with bone lesions from multiple myeloma. The MRC Myeloma IX study was designed to compare the effects of zoledronic acid versus clodronic acid in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Here, we report the secondary outcomes relating to skeletal events.

          Methods

          Patients (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were enrolled from 120 centres in the UK and received intensive or non-intensive antimyeloma treatment. A computer-generated randomisation sequence was used to allocate patients in a 1:1 ratio, through an automated telephone service to intravenous zoledronic acid (4 mg every 21–28 days) or oral clodronic acid (1600 mg/day), and the drugs were continued at least until disease progression. No investigators, staff, or patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoints—overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate—and adverse events have been reported previously. We assessed between-group differences with Cox proportional hazards models for time to first skeletal-related event and incidence of skeletal-related events. These were defined as fractures, spinal cord compression, radiation or surgery to bone, and new osteolytic lesions. Data were analysed until disease progression. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN68454111.

          Findings

          1960 patients were randomly assigned and analysed—981 in the zoledronic acid group and 979 in the clodronic acid group. This trial is fully enrolled, and follow-up continues. At a median follow-up of 3·7 years (IQR 2·9–4·7), patients in the zoledronic acid group had a lower incidence of skeletal-related events than did those in the clodronic acid group (265 [27%] vs 346 [35%], respectively; hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·62–0·87; p=0·0004). Zoledronic acid was also associated with a lower risk of any skeletal-related event in the subsets of patients with (233 [35%] of 668 vs 292 [43%] of 682 with clodronic acid; 0·77, 0·65–0·92; p=0·0038) and without bone lesions at baseline (29 [10%] of 302 vs 48 [17%] of 276 with clodronic acid; 0·53, 0·33–0·84; p=0·0068). Fewer patients in the zoledronic acid group had vertebral fractures than did those in the clodronic acid group (50 [5%] in the zoledronic acid group vs 88 [9%] in the clodronic acid group; p=0·0008), other fractures (45 [5%] vs 66 [7%]; p=0·04), and new osteolytic lesions (46 [5%] vs 95 [10%]; p<0·0001).

          Interpretation

          The results of this study support the early use of zoledronic acid rather than clodronic acid in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma for the prevention of skeletal-related events, irrespective of bone disease status at baseline.

          Funding

          Medical Research Council (London, UK), Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, and Ortho Biotech.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): a randomised controlled trial

          Summary Background Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of skeletal events in patients with malignant bone disease, and zoledronic acid has shown potential anticancer effects in preclinical and clinical studies. We aimed to establish whether bisphosphonates can affect clinical outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma. Methods Patients of age 18 years or older with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were enrolled from 120 centres in the UK. Computer-generated randomisation sequence was used to allocate patients equally, via an automated telephone service, to receive 4 mg zoledronic acid as an infusion every 3–4 weeks or 1600 mg oral clodronic acid daily. Patients also received intensive or non-intensive induction chemotherapy. No investigators, staff, or patients were masked to treatment allocation, and bisphosphonate and maintenance therapy continued at least until disease progression. The primary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate. We assessed between-group differences with Cox proportional hazards models for progression-free survival and overall survival, and with logistic regression models for overall response rate. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN68454111. Findings 1970 patients were enrolled between May, 2003, and November, 2007, of whom 1960 were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 981 in the zoledronic acid group (555 on intensive chemotherapy, 426 on non-intensive chemotherapy); and 979 on clodronic acid (556 on intensive chemotherapy, 423 on non-intensive chemotherapy). The treatment cutoff was Oct 5, 2009, with patients receiving bisphosphonates for a median of 350 days (IQR 137–632) before disease progression, with a median of 3·7 years' follow-up (IQR 2·9–4·7). Zoledronic acid reduced mortality by 16% (95% CI 4–26) versus clodronic acid (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84, 95% CI 0·74–0·96; p=0·0118), and extended median overall survival by 5·5 months (50·0 months, IQR 21·0 to not reached vs 44·5 months, IQR 16·5 to not reached; p=0·04). Zoledronic acid also significantly improved progression-free survival by 12% (95% CI 2–20) versus clodronic acid (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·80–0·98; p=0·0179), and increased median progression-free survival by 2·0 months (19·5 months, IQR 9·0–38·0 vs 17·5 months, IQR 8·5–34·0; p=0·07). Rates of complete, very good partial, or partial response did not differ significantly between the zoledronic acid and clodronic acid groups for patients receiving intensive induction chemotherapy (432 patients [78%] vs 422 [76%]; p=0·43) or non-intensive induction chemotherapy (215 [50%] vs 195 [46%]; p=0·18). Both bisphosphonates were generally well tolerated, with similar occurrence of acute renal failure and treatment-emergent serious adverse events, but zoledronic acid was associated with higher rates of confirmed osteonecrosis of the jaw (35 [4%]) than was clodronic acid (3 [<1%]). Interpretation Consistent with the potential anticancer activity of zoledronic acid, overall survival improved independently of prevention of skeletal-related events, showing that zoledronic acid has treatment benefits beyond bone health. These findings support immediate treatment with zoledronic acid in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, not only for prevention of skeletal-related events, but also for potential antimyeloma benefits. Funding Medical Research Council (London, UK), with unrestricted educational grants from Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, and Ortho Biotech.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reduction of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) after implementation of preventive measures in patients with multiple myeloma treated with zoledronic acid.

            Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is a well-described complication of bisphosphonates use in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We investigated whether the occurrence of ONJ decreased after the implementation of preventive measures in 128 patients with MM who received zoledronic acid. Patients with MM who received zoledronic acid were included in this analysis. Patients with a previous use of other bisphosphonates were excluded; patients were stratified into group A (n=38) and group B (n=90) if treatment was started before or after the implementation of preventive measures. One hundred and twenty-eight patients were included in this analysis. Sixteen patients (12.5%) developed ONJ--group A: 8 (26.3%), group B: 2 (6.7%) (P=0.002). The incidence rate (IR) was 0.671/100 person-months for group A and 0.230/100 person-months for group B [IR ratio 2.92, P=0.029, 95% confidence interval 1.06-8.03]. No patient in group B developed stage III ONJ. In conclusion, the risk of developing ONJ after treatment of zoledronic acid is reduced (but not deleted) by the implementation of preventive measures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Management of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma: updated Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) consensus guidelines.

              Multiple myeloma is a malignant plasma cell neoplasm that affects more than 20,000 people each year and is the second most common hematologic malignancy. It is part of a spectrum of monoclonal plasma cell disorders, many of which do not require active therapy. During the past decade, considerable progress has been made in our understanding of the disease process and factors that influence outcome, along with development of new drugs that are highly effective in controlling the disease and prolonging survival without compromising quality of life. Identification of well-defined and reproducible prognostic factors and introduction of new therapies with unique modes of action and impact on disease outcome have for the first time opened up the opportunity to develop risk-adapted strategies for managing this disease. Although these risk-adapted strategies have not been prospectively validated, enough evidence can be gathered from existing randomized trials, subgroup analyses, and retrospective studies to develop a working framework. This set of recommendations represents such an effort-the development of a set of consensus guidelines by a group of experts to manage patients with newly diagnosed disease based on an interpretation of the best available evidence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Oncol
                Lancet Oncol
                The Lancet Oncology
                Lancet Pub. Group
                1470-2045
                1474-5488
                August 2011
                August 2011
                : 12
                : 8
                : 743-752
                Affiliations
                [a ]Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [b ]Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [c ]University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [d ]St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
                [e ]Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust, Huddersfield, UK
                [f ]Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield, UK
                [g ]Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, University of Southampton, Salisbury, UK
                [h ]Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
                [i ]Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
                [j ]Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
                [k ]University of Newcastle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Gareth Morgan, Section of Haemato-Oncology, Institute of Cancer Research, Brookes Lawley Building, 15 Cotswold Road, London, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK gareth.morgan@ 123456icr.ac.uk
                [‡]

                Joint first authorship

                Article
                LANONC70157
                10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70157-7
                3148431
                21771568
                754f4f96-87d8-4175-a5cf-d5b46d684a94
                © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article