Hundie Tesfaye1, Romana Branova1, Eva Klapkova1, Richard Prusa1, Daniela Janeckova2, Petr Riha3, Petr Sedlacek3, Petra Keslova3, Josef Malis3. 1. Department of Medical Chemistry and Clinical Biochemistry, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty Hospital in Motol, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. Department of Paediatric Hematology and Oncology, Faculty Hospital in Motol, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Faculty Hospital in Motol, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic., Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Series of observations indicate PK/PD variability challenging the accuracy of the body-weight based busulfan (Bu) dosing schedule for (HSCT) conditioning therapy. The purpose of this communication is to describe the frequency of dose changes in initially body-weight-based fixed IV Bu dose and to emphasize the importance of TDM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-two children (ages 2 months-18 years) were treated with IV busulfan doses based on body weight for myeloablation. TDM utilizing a limited sample strategy (trough concentration immediately before the 5th dose, followed by samples immediately after the end of the 2-h infusion peak, 4 h, and 6 h from initiation of the infusion) was performed in 46 of 62 subjects. Busulfan concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). AUC was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule. RESULTS: We observed trough levels of 25-1244 µg/L, peak levels of 849-4586 µg/L, and AUC of 2225-12818 µg/L·h following body weight-based high-dose busulfan. The doses were changed in 54% of cases. AUC in 5 of 9 patients with VOD were within target, in 3 patients AUS was higher, and in 1 patient AUC was lower. One of the 2 patients with neurotoxicity had higher AUC. Engraftment was 100%, but relapse occurred in 25% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that even with IV busulfan, intra-individual PK/PD variability is challenging. Although AUC does not necessarily correspond with outcomes (due to the role of other factors the fact that doses were changed in 54% of cases underlines the importance of TDM.
BACKGROUND: Series of observations indicate PK/PD variability challenging the accuracy of the body-weight based busulfan (Bu) dosing schedule for (HSCT) conditioning therapy. The purpose of this communication is to describe the frequency of dose changes in initially body-weight-based fixed IV Bu dose and to emphasize the importance of TDM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-two children (ages 2 months-18 years) were treated with IV busulfan doses based on body weight for myeloablation. TDM utilizing a limited sample strategy (trough concentration immediately before the 5th dose, followed by samples immediately after the end of the 2-h infusion peak, 4 h, and 6 h from initiation of the infusion) was performed in 46 of 62 subjects. Busulfan concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). AUC was calculated according to the trapezoidal rule. RESULTS: We observed trough levels of 25-1244 µg/L, peak levels of 849-4586 µg/L, and AUC of 2225-12818 µg/L·h following body weight-based high-dose busulfan. The doses were changed in 54% of cases. AUC in 5 of 9 patients with VOD were within target, in 3 patients AUS was higher, and in 1 patient AUC was lower. One of the 2 patients with neurotoxicity had higher AUC. Engraftment was 100%, but relapse occurred in 25% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that even with IV busulfan, intra-individual PK/PD variability is challenging. Although AUC does not necessarily correspond with outcomes (due to the role of other factors the fact that doses were changed in 54% of cases underlines the importance of TDM.
Authors: Kana Mizuno; Min Dong; Tsuyoshi Fukuda; Sharat Chandra; Parinda A Mehta; Scott McConnell; Elias J Anaissie; Alexander A Vinks Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: M Philippe; S Goutelle; J Guitton; X Fonrose; C Bergeron; P Girard; Y Bertrand; N Bleyzac Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Maria C Guimaro; Rozeneide M Alves; Ester Rose; Alessandro O Sousa; Ana de Cássia Rosa; Mariana M Hecht; Marcelo V Sousa; Rafael R Andrade; Tamires Vital; Jiří Plachy; Nadjar Nitz; Jiří Hejnar; Clever C Gomes; Antonio R L Teixeira Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2014-12-18
Authors: Daniel Gonzalez; Gauri G Rao; Stacy C Bailey; Kim L R Brouwer; Yanguang Cao; Daniel J Crona; Angela D M Kashuba; Craig R Lee; Kathryn Morbitzer; J Herbert Patterson; Tim Wiltshire; Jon Easter; Scott W Savage; J Robert Powell Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Khalil Ben Hassine; Madeleine Powys; Peter Svec; Miroslava Pozdechova; Birgitta Versluys; Marc Ansari; Peter J Shaw Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 3.418