PURPOSE: This retrospective study compared renal impairment rates in breast cancer, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer and non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with ibandronate or zoledronic acid. STUDY DESIGN: Medical records in two German oncology clinics from May 2001 to March 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Creatinine measurements were analyzed from baseline (before bisphosphonate treatment) to last available measurement for each patient. The Cox proportional hazards model and the Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox model for multiple events analysis were used for multivariate analysis, which controlled for age, clinic site, primary cancer type, baseline SCr or GFR value, prior bisphosphonate use, concomitant use of drugs associated with acute renal failure, and renal-related comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 333 patients, 109 received ibandronate and 256 received zoledronic acid (32 patients had both drugs). Compared with ibandronate, the zoledronic acid group had a significantly better baseline renal function and fewer patients had a history of renal disease. Zoledronic acid treatment increased the relative risk (RR) and the incidence rate (IR) of renal impairment by approximately 1.5-fold in all assessed patients (all tumors) compared with ibandronate. Multivariate analysis found significantly higher hazards ratios for zoledronic acid over ibandronate (two to sixfold), after adjusting for differences in characteristics between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, patients were significantly more likely to experience renal impairment with zoledronic acid than with ibandronate.
PURPOSE: This retrospective study compared renal impairment rates in breast cancer, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer and non-small cell lung cancerpatients treated with ibandronate or zoledronic acid. STUDY DESIGN: Medical records in two German oncology clinics from May 2001 to March 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Creatinine measurements were analyzed from baseline (before bisphosphonate treatment) to last available measurement for each patient. The Cox proportional hazards model and the Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox model for multiple events analysis were used for multivariate analysis, which controlled for age, clinic site, primary cancer type, baseline SCr or GFR value, prior bisphosphonate use, concomitant use of drugs associated with acute renal failure, and renal-related comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 333 patients, 109 received ibandronate and 256 received zoledronic acid (32 patients had both drugs). Compared with ibandronate, the zoledronic acid group had a significantly better baseline renal function and fewer patients had a history of renal disease. Zoledronic acid treatment increased the relative risk (RR) and the incidence rate (IR) of renal impairment by approximately 1.5-fold in all assessed patients (all tumors) compared with ibandronate. Multivariate analysis found significantly higher hazards ratios for zoledronic acid over ibandronate (two to sixfold), after adjusting for differences in characteristics between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, patients were significantly more likely to experience renal impairment with zoledronic acid than with ibandronate.
Authors: B Chern; D Joseph; D Joshua; K Pittman; G Richardson; M Schou; S Lowe; M Copeman; R De Abreu Lourenco; K Lynch Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2004-04-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J-J Body; I J Diel; M R Lichinitser; E D Kreuser; W Dornoff; V A Gorbunova; M Budde; B Bergström Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Sachin R Shah; Gary W Jean; Sidney V Keisner; Sarah M Gressett Ussery; Jonathan E Dowell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: S Schmitt; T Hielscher; C Baldus; K Neben; G Egerer; J Hillengaß; M Raab; D Hose; A D Ho; R Bergner; H Goldschmidt; T M Moehler Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 2.490
Authors: Allan Lipton; Robert Uzzo; Robert J Amato; Georgiana K Ellis; Behrooz Hakimian; G David Roodman; Matthew R Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Seok Hui Kang; Hyeon Seok Hwang; Hoon Suk Park; In O Sun; Sun Ryoung Choi; Byung Ha Chung; Bum Soon Choi; Chul Woo Yang; Yong Soo Kim; Chang Ki Min; Cheol Whee Park Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: H Shibata; S Kato; I Sekine; K Abe; N Araki; H Iguchi; T Izumi; Y Inaba; I Osaka; S Kato; A Kawai; S Kinuya; M Kodaira; E Kobayashi; T Kobayashi; J Sato; N Shinohara; S Takahashi; Y Takamatsu; K Takayama; K Takayama; U Tateishi; H Nagakura; M Hosaka; H Morioka; T Moriya; T Yuasa; T Yurikusa; K Yomiya; M Yoshida Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2016-03-16
Authors: Zongyou Yang; Wei Chen; Zhidao Xia; Yueju Liu; Shaun Peggrem; Tao Geng; Zhaoxu Yang; Han Li; Bin Xu; Chi Zhang; James T Triffitt; Yingze Zhang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohammed M Al-Bogami; Mohammed A Alkhorayef; Jonas Bystrom; Olufunso A Akanle; Nasra K Al-Adhoubi; Ali S Jawad; Rizgar A Mageed Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.484