Our data suggest that the addition of mannitol to saline hydration increased the risk of cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury (adjusted RR 2,446; 95% CI 0,614-9,741, p value = 0,204). Age ≥ 40 years old was concluded to be confounding factors.
The results of this study were consistent with the study from Santoso, et al (17) in the United States. This randomized controlled clinical trial found that decreased renal function, in this study assessed by 24 hours creatinine clearance, occurred more heavily in the group given the combination of hydration and mannitol than hydration alone (31 ml/min vs 5,4 ml/min, p value = 0,04). This study was discontinued prematurely because of higher tendency of nephrotoxicity in mannitol group, so that the expected sample size was not achieved (there were only 49 subjects). The discontinuation of study showed that nephrotoxicity potency of mannitol. However, the limitation of Santoso study was renal function parameters used, which was 24 hours creatinine clearance which required urine storage for 24 hours. Therefore, the potential of adherence-related bias in accommodating urine was a weakness of this study.
Our study also support the result of Leu et al (33), who reported the tendency of greater risk of nephrotoxicity in saline and mannitol group versus saline only (the decrease of creatinine clearance was 38, 9 ml/min vs. 33,9 ml/min, p = 0,09) (33). However, Leu included the subjects treated with low dose cisplatin (40–75 mg/ m2), who were excluded in our study.
Our results differ from those of Hayes et al. (16), Morgan et al. (34), and McKibbin et al (35). However, the studies from Hayes (16) was non-comparative trial (no comparison data with patients receiving saline only), so it was difficult to analyze whether the nephroprotective outcome came from mannitol or adequate hydration only. Meanwhile, study from Morgan, reported the higher risk of nephrotoxicity from the group without mannitol (OR 2,646 (95% CI 1,008 − 6,944; p = 0.048) was a retrospective study and had small sample size (only 47 patients received high dose cisplatin). The study from McKibbin et al, (35) which support nephroprotective effect of mannitol after multivariate analysis (odds ratio of third grade nephrotoxicity in mannitol group was 0,16 ; 95% CI 0,04 − 0,65, p value = 0.01) had a limitation in the analysis of concomitant use of nephrotoxic substance due to missing data because of the retrospective nature of study. Our study also differs from a more recent study by Begin et al. which included stated that there was no difference in AKI incidence between subject which was given mannitol in addition to hydration and hydration alone (HR 1.17 [0.75–1.82]) after administration of Cisplatin ≥ 75 mg/m2. The different hydration protocol in this study i.e., 3 L before and 1 L after Cisplatin compared to 1 L in our study, might be one of the reasons of this different outcome (37).
The underlying mechanisms of nephrotoxicity of mannitol was through the osmotic effect of mannitol which inhibits the reabsorption of water in the proximal tubule, resulted in urinary dilution and an increased diuresis. In one side, this effect decreased the contact time of cisplatin with renal tubular cells and increased the clearance of necrotic cell debris at renal tubules after injured by cisplatin. However, this mechanism seemed to have nephrotoxic potential, which was related with hemodynamic changes in the kidney. Mannitol triggered a marked decrease in the reabsorption of water and salt along the renal tubules, resulted in increased flow of water and salts from the proximal tubules, followed by increased sodium reabsorption in loop of Henle, distal tubules and collecting ducts. Increased excretion of urine solutes induced by the mannitol osmotic diuretic effect lead to increased tubuloglomerular feedback which stimulate afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction, hence resulted in decrease of glomerular filtration rate (42,43). Besides that, mannitol would lead the osmotic nephrosis effect on renal tubules. Histologically, tubular cells with toxic effects of mannitol appeared to contain vacuoles resulting in edema, called osmotic nephrosis. Pathophysiologically, the mechanism was through the pinocytosis effect of mannitol into the proximal tubular cell at high osmolality which then causes tubular cell vacuolization. These vacuoles would become fused and develop an edematous cell, resulting an obstruction of renal tubules (44), then led to a decline in glomerular flow and acute kidney injury. Meta-analysis of Bo Yang et al. (31) in 626 subjects revealed that intravascular mannitol administration did not provide additional benefit than adequate hydration alone in patients at risk of AKI, however in contrast-induced nephropathy, the effect was even detrimental (31).
We controlled age as confounding variables. Decreased renal function as an increasing of age was associated with decreased plasma flow velocity in glomerular capillaries and glomerular capillary ultrafiltration coefficient. In addition, there were hemodynamic changes associated with structural changes such as decreased renal mass, increased sclerotic glomeruli and tubulointerstitial fibrosis (45). The Davies and Shock study of inulin clearance reported a glomerular filtration rate decrease of 8 ml / min / 1.73 m2 in each year from the age of 40 years old (46). The increasing trend of incidence of AKI with age was consistent with previous research results from Prasaja et al, which reported that over 50 years of age have a higher risk of nephrotoxicity after four cycles of chemotherapy (OR 3,433; 95% CI 1,363-8,645) (47). The study from Perazella et al (48), Caglar et al (22), and de Jongh et al (49), revealed same result, that advancing age was one of the factors that increased the risk of nephrotoxicity (48).
Our study supports the potential nephrotoxic effect of mannitol after cisplatin chemotherapy. Our study had a larger sample size than Santoso’s study and stronger association between mannitol addition to saline and the incidence of post cisplatin acute kidney injury than Leu study. Our study only included subjects who received high doses of chemotherapy and excluded subjects who received nephrotoxic drugs simultaneously, two important things that became a limitation in previous studies. For the outcome of renal function, we used serum creatinine parameters, as recommended by the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v 4.0) grading scale for chemotherapy to minimize bias due to other measures, such as using 24-hour clearance creatinine (41).
There are several other things to consider when evaluating these results. Most notably, because of cohort nature of this study, we did not randomize patients to receive or not receive mannitol, rather we submit a decision based on clinical judgement of responsible physician. Besides that, our study did not analyze fluid intake at home and excess fluid loss caused by vomiting as a side effect of cisplatin chemotherapy. However, all our subjects had the same approach of post chemotherapy nausea and vomiting; the medication for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis was given to all subjects. There is a need for future prospective study where fluid intake and water balance are strictly controlled to determine better the magnitude of risk from mannitol.
We hope the results of our study might become a consideration regarding the policy of addition of mannitol to hydration in cisplatin chemotherapy. This might have an added benefit in the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy if administration of mannitol is no longer routinely given in high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy nowadays.