GOALS OF WORK: We set out to assess the preference of patients with common cancers involving bone receiving intravenousbisphosphonate therapy for either pamidronate (P) or zoledronic acid (Z) and their preference for the location of the infusion (clinic or home). We also aimed to monitor these patients' renal safety, and to compare their time in clinic to receive P and Z infusions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 184 patients, and all received initial infusions of Z (so any first infusion reactions did not confound preferences for P). For their second and third infusions, patients were randomized to receive Z then P or P then Z, and questioned on their preferences. For up to 1 year they continued on Z infusions every 3-4 weeks, while their renal safety was monitored. Where practical, later infusions were given at home (rather than in the clinic) and patients questioned on their preferred infusion location. In a convenience subset of 43 patients, clinic use for Z and P infusions was also measured by timing infusions and other procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Of 144 patients who received a third infusion, 138 responded to questions onbisphosphonate preference, and of these 138, 92% (127) preferred Z to P, because shorter infusions caused less disruption to their day. Only 12% of eligible patients (16/138) received home infusions, but 13/14 questioned preferred this location. Among 184 patients, 19 episodes of renal impairment were noted, mostly owing to disease progression (e.g. obstructive uropathy), with none linked to Z therapy. The mean clinic time taken to receive Z and any concomitant therapy was about half that for P (78 vs 161 min). CONCLUSIONS:Cancer patients prefer shorter bisphosphonate infusions-and at home, where practical. Regular Z 4 mg infusions appear to be safe in these patients, with routine monitoring of serum creatinine. Using Z rather than P could save busy cancer centres time and improve patient satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
GOALS OF WORK: We set out to assess the preference of patients with common cancers involving bone receiving intravenous bisphosphonate therapy for either pamidronate (P) or zoledronic acid (Z) and their preference for the location of the infusion (clinic or home). We also aimed to monitor these patients' renal safety, and to compare their time in clinic to receive P and Z infusions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 184 patients, and all received initial infusions of Z (so any first infusion reactions did not confound preferences for P). For their second and third infusions, patients were randomized to receive Z then P or P then Z, and questioned on their preferences. For up to 1 year they continued on Z infusions every 3-4 weeks, while their renal safety was monitored. Where practical, later infusions were given at home (rather than in the clinic) and patients questioned on their preferred infusion location. In a convenience subset of 43 patients, clinic use for Z and P infusions was also measured by timing infusions and other procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Of 144 patients who received a third infusion, 138 responded to questions on bisphosphonate preference, and of these 138, 92% (127) preferred Z to P, because shorter infusions caused less disruption to their day. Only 12% of eligible patients (16/138) received home infusions, but 13/14 questioned preferred this location. Among 184 patients, 19 episodes of renal impairment were noted, mostly owing to disease progression (e.g. obstructive uropathy), with none linked to Z therapy. The mean clinic time taken to receive Z and any concomitant therapy was about half that for P (78 vs 161 min). CONCLUSIONS:Cancerpatients prefer shorter bisphosphonate infusions-and at home, where practical. Regular Z 4 mg infusions appear to be safe in these patients, with routine monitoring of serum creatinine. Using Z rather than P could save busy cancer centres time and improve patient satisfaction.
Authors: L S Rosen; D Gordon; M Kaminski; A Howell; A Belch; J Mackey; J Apffelstaedt; M Hussein; R E Coleman; D J Reitsma; J J Seaman; B L Chen; Y Ambros Journal: Cancer J Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Fred Saad; Donald M Gleason; Robin Murray; Simon Tchekmedyian; Peter Venner; Louis Lacombe; Joseph L Chin; Jeferson J Vinholes; J Allen Goas; Bee Chen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: H K Marr; C R Stiles; M A Boyar; T C Braun; N A Hagen; C Janzen; L M Whitten; J L Pereira Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Ingo J Diel; Rudolf Weide; Hubert Köppler; Lucia Antràs; Michael Smith; Jesse Green; Neil Wintfeld; Maureen Neary; Mei Sheng Duh Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Evangelos Terpos; Gareth Morgan; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Matthew T Drake; Suzanne Lentzsch; Noopur Raje; Orhan Sezer; Ramón García-Sanz; Kazuyuki Shimizu; Ingemar Turesson; Tony Reiman; Artur Jurczyszyn; Giampaolo Merlini; Andrew Spencer; Xavier Leleu; Michele Cavo; Nikhil Munshi; S Vincent Rajkumar; Brian G M Durie; G David Roodman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Louise Rath; Maria Pia Campagna; Jim Stankovich; Julian Ellis; Vilija Jokubaitis; Denise McCarthy; Cassie Nesbitt; Wei Zhen Yeh; Michael Zhong; Robb Wesselingh; Mastura Monif; Janene Richards; Viet Bui Minh; Olga Skibina; Helmut Butzkueven; Anneke van der Walt Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2020-12-31
Authors: Karen Kaiser; Susan E Yount; Christa E Martens; Kimberly A Webster; Sara Shaunfield; Amy Sparling; John Devin Peipert; David Cella; Scott T Rottinghaus; Bonnie M K Donato; Richard Wells; Ioannis Tomazos Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-04-05 Impact factor: 2.711