Pharmacokinetic and clinical equivalence of oral and intravenous ibandronate for metastatic bone disease

Bisphosphonates, Old Friends of Bones and New Trends in Clinics

Bisphosphonates, used for a long time in osteoporosis management, are currently the target of intensive research, from pre-formulation studies to more advanced stages of clinical practice. This review presents an overview of the contributions of this family of compounds to human health, starting with the chemistry and clinical uses of bisphosphonates. Following this, their pharmacology is described, highlighting administration-borne handicaps and undesirable effects. The last three sections of the review describe the research efforts that seek to curb delivery-related issues and expand bisphosphonate use. Innovative routes and strategies of administration, such as nano-encapsulation for oral intake or injectable cements for local or in-bone delivery are presented, as well as the latest results of case studies or preclinical studies proposing new therapeutic indications for the clinically approved bisphosphonates. Finally, a selection of anti-infectious bisphosphonate new drug candidates is shown, with focus on the molecules reported in the last two decades.

Ibandronate to treat skeletal-related events and bone pain in metastatic bone disease or multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have given contradictory results about the efficacy and safety of ibandronate in treating metastatic bone disease (MBD) or multiple myeloma. This review meta-analysed the literature to gain a more comprehensive picture.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ibandronate compared with placebo or zoledronate.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs published up to March 2015 evaluating ibandronate to treat MBD or multiple myeloma.

REVIEW METHOD

10 RCTs involving 3474 patients were included. Six RCTs were placebo-controlled and four compared ibandronate with zoledronate. The studies included in this review were mainly from European countries.

RESULTS

Intravenous ibandronate (6 mg) or oral drug (50 mg) decreased the risk of skeletal-related events compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p=0.002). It also reduced the bone pain score below baseline significantly more than did placebo at 96 weeks (weighted mean difference -0.41, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.27, p<0.001). The incidence of diarrhoea, nausea and adverse renal events was similar between the ibandronate and placebo groups, but ibandronate was associated with greater risk of abdominal pain. Ibandronate was associated with similar risk of skeletal-related events as another bisphosphonate drug, zoledronate (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, p=0.87). The incidence of nausea, jaw osteonecrosis and fatigue was similar for the two drugs, but the incidence of adverse renal events was significantly lower in the ibandronate group.

CONCLUSIONS

Ibandronate significantly reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and bone pain in patients with MBD or multiple myeloma relative to placebo. It is associated with a similar incidence of skeletal-related events as zoledronate.

Development of bisphosphonates controlled delivery systems for bone implantation: influence of the formulation and process used on in vitro release

The present study investigates the development of controlled drug delivery devices by association of bisphosphonates (BPs) with calcium-deficient apatite (CDA) to obtain a prolonged drug delivery. In a first part, we studied the microencapsulation of methylene bisphosphonic acid, our model of BPs, in biodegradable PLGA by the double emulsion (w/o/w) solvent evaporation/extraction process. Secondly, we associated BPs, either in a free form or microencapsulated, with calcium phosphate biomaterials. The association of free BPs with CDA was performed by isostatic compression at 80 MPa and we tested the interest of adding a binder, HPMC, in the formulation to reinforce the association. In parallel, microparticles were associated with calcium-deficient apatite, either by simple mixture or by isostatic compression. To compare the different formulations, in vitro dissolution studies were performed. All the formulations tested appear to be efficient to produce BPs loaded biomaterials able to deliver the drug slowly and at a constant rate. The slowest release rate (2.7% in 14 days) was obtained with the blend of microencapsulated BPs with CDA.

Is there a role for ibandronate in the treatment of prostate cancer patients with bony metastases?

PURPOSE

Zoledronic acid is widely accepted as the treatment of choice for a number of cancers which metastasise to bone and is the only bisphosphonate licensed for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, drug related nephrotoxicity, although rare, does pose a significant complication when using zoledronic acid. Prostate cancer patients are generally older than 65 years of age and already exhibit some form of impaired renal function. Thus, for prostate cancer patients who are unable to tolerate zoledronic acid there is a need for an alternative bisphosphonate. One possibility could be ibandronate which is also a potent third generation, nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate and is an attractive choice for some patients due to the fact it is available in both intravenous and oral preparations.

METHODS

This article reviews the current published literature regarding the use of ibandronate in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Preliminary data emerging from small Phase II studies suggests ibandronate may provide a therapeutic alternative for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer when zoledronic acid is deemed unsuitable.

CONCLUSION

Further in vivo research with ibandronate in prostate cancer is urgently needed in order to elucidate whether this bisphosphonate may play a role in the treatment and palliative management of metastatic prostate cancer.

Oral versus intravenous ibandronic acid: a comparison of treatment options for metastatic bone disease

PURPOSE

This trial is the first to compare directly the clinical response to and safety of oral and intravenous (IV) ibandronic acid for metastatic bone disease.

METHODS

Patients > or =18 years with breast, prostate, lung, urogenital or colon cancer received IV ibandronic acid 6 mg infused over 15 min every 28 days or oral ibandronic acid 50 mg/day. Clinical response was determined using bone scintigraphy, radiography and serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (S-CTX) at months 3-6. Adverse events and biochemical safety measures were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 84.6 and 88.5% of patients had a complete/partial response to IV and oral ibandronic acid, respectively. Median percentage decreases in S-CTX were -39 and -35%, respectively. Bone pain scores decreased and analgesic use increased from month 0-3 and were stable from months 3-6. Both formulations improved physical and functioning scores.

CONCLUSION

Oral and IV ibandronic acid for bone metastases have similar efficacy and tolerability.

Ibandronate: efficacy in the treatment of metastatic bone disease

Ibandronate is a bisphosphonate treatment for metastatic bone disease. In Phase III trials in breast cancer patients, intravenous and oral formulations of ibandronate lowered the incidence of skeletal-related events, reduced metastatic bone pain scores throughout 2 years of treatment, and had significant positive effects on patient quality of life, demonstrating its efficacy in this condition. Recent pilot studies in other primary cancers suggest that a loading dose of ibandronate may relieve severe or opioid-resistant metastatic bone pain. In safety analyses, ibandronate was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to placebo. Ibandronate therefore represents a treatment choice with documented efficacy and safety in metastatic bone disease from breast cancer.