Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 575

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Morgan, Gareth J, Davies, Faith E, Gregory, Walter M, Cocks, Kim, Bell, Sue E, Szubert, Alex J, Navarro-Coy, Nuria, Drayson, Mark T, Owen, Roger G, Feyler, Sylvia, Ashcroft, A John, Ross, Fiona, Byrne, Jennifer, Roddie, Huw, Rudin, Claudius, Cook, Gordon, Jackson, Graham H, Child, J Anthony·2010·The Lancet

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62051-x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 575

Metadata

Authors
Morgan, G. J., Davies, F. E., Gregory, W. M., Cocks, K., Bell, S. E., Szubert, A. J., Navarro-Coy, N., Drayson, M. T., Owen, R. G., Feyler, S., Ashcroft, A. J., Ross, F., Byrne, J., Roddie, H., Rudin, C., Cook, G., Jackson, G. H., & Child, J. A.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-12
Volume
376
Issue
9757
Pages
1989-1999
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2103011422
Cited by
575
References
1
FWCI
26.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): a randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62051-x
The paper
Morgan, G. J., Davies, F. E., Gregory, W. M., Cocks, K., Bell, S. E., Szubert, A. J., Navarro-Coy, N., Drayson, M. T., Owen, R. G., Feyler, S., Ashcroft, A. J., Ross, F., Byrne, J., Roddie, H., Rudin, C., Cook, G., Jackson, G. H., & Child, J. A. (2010). First-line treatment with zoledronic acid as compared with clodronic acid in multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62051-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.