Michael Neely1, Michael Philippe, Teresa Rushing, Xiaowei Fu, Michael van Guilder, David Bayard, Alan Schumitzky, Nathalie Bleyzac, Sylvain Goutelle. 1. *Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics and Bioinformatics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of Southern California Children's Hospital Los Angeles; †Institute of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology; ‡Pharmacy department, Institute of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Hospices Civils de Lyon; §Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, UMR CNRS 5558, Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France; ¶Pharmacy Department; and ‖Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Southern California Children's Hospital Los Angeles.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Busulfan dose adjustment is routinely guided by plasma concentration monitoring using 4-9 blood samples per dose adjustment, but a pharmacometric Bayesian approach could reduce this sample burden. METHODS: The authors developed a nonparametric population model with Pmetrics. They used it to simulate optimal initial busulfan dosages, and in a blinded manner, they compared dosage adjustments using the model in the BestDose software to dosage adjustments calculated by noncompartmental estimation of area under the time-concentration curve at a national reference laboratory in a cohort of patients not included in model building. RESULTS: Mean (range) age of the 53 model-building subjects was 7.8 years (0.2-19.0 years) and weight was 26.5 kg (5.6-78.0 kg), similar to nearly 120 validation subjects. There were 16.7 samples (6-26 samples) per subject to build the model. The BestDose cohort was also diverse: 10.2 years (0.25-18 years) and 46.4 kg (5.2-110.9 kg). Mean bias and imprecision of the 1-compartment model-predicted busulfan concentrations were 0.42% and 9.2%, and were similar in the validation cohorts. Initial dosages to achieve average concentrations of 600-900 ng/mL were 1.1 mg/kg (≤12 kg, 67% in the target range) and 1.0 mg/kg (>12 kg, 76% in the target range). Using all 9 concentrations after dose 1 in the Bayesian estimation of dose requirements, the mean (95% confidence interval) bias of BestDose calculations for the third dose was 0.2% (-2.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.85), compared with the standard noncompartmental method based on 9 concentrations. With 1 optimally timed concentration 15 minutes after the infusion (calculated with the authors' novel MMopt algorithm) bias was -9.2% (-16.7% to -1.5%, P = 0.02). With 2 concentrations at 15 minutes and 4 hours bias was only 1.9% (-0.3% to 4.2%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: BestDose accurately calculates busulfan intravenous dosage requirements to achieve target plasma exposures in children up to 18 years of age and 110 kg using only 2 blood samples per adjustment compared with 6-9 samples for standard noncompartmental dose calculations.
BACKGROUND:Busulfan dose adjustment is routinely guided by plasma concentration monitoring using 4-9 blood samples per dose adjustment, but a pharmacometric Bayesian approach could reduce this sample burden. METHODS: The authors developed a nonparametric population model with Pmetrics. They used it to simulate optimal initial busulfan dosages, and in a blinded manner, they compared dosage adjustments using the model in the BestDose software to dosage adjustments calculated by noncompartmental estimation of area under the time-concentration curve at a national reference laboratory in a cohort of patients not included in model building. RESULTS: Mean (range) age of the 53 model-building subjects was 7.8 years (0.2-19.0 years) and weight was 26.5 kg (5.6-78.0 kg), similar to nearly 120 validation subjects. There were 16.7 samples (6-26 samples) per subject to build the model. The BestDose cohort was also diverse: 10.2 years (0.25-18 years) and 46.4 kg (5.2-110.9 kg). Mean bias and imprecision of the 1-compartment model-predicted busulfan concentrations were 0.42% and 9.2%, and were similar in the validation cohorts. Initial dosages to achieve average concentrations of 600-900 ng/mL were 1.1 mg/kg (≤12 kg, 67% in the target range) and 1.0 mg/kg (>12 kg, 76% in the target range). Using all 9 concentrations after dose 1 in the Bayesian estimation of dose requirements, the mean (95% confidence interval) bias of BestDose calculations for the third dose was 0.2% (-2.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.85), compared with the standard noncompartmental method based on 9 concentrations. With 1 optimally timed concentration 15 minutes after the infusion (calculated with the authors' novel MMopt algorithm) bias was -9.2% (-16.7% to -1.5%, P = 0.02). With 2 concentrations at 15 minutes and 4 hours bias was only 1.9% (-0.3% to 4.2%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: BestDose accurately calculates busulfan intravenous dosage requirements to achieve target plasma exposures in children up to 18 years of age and 110 kg using only 2 blood samples per adjustment compared with 6-9 samples for standard noncompartmental dose calculations.
Authors: R W Jelliffe; A Schumitzky; D Bayard; M Milman; M Van Guilder; X Wang; F Jiang; X Barbaut; P Maire Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: L B Grochow; R J Jones; R B Brundrett; H G Braine; T L Chen; R Saral; G W Santos; O M Colvin Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 1989 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: S P Dix; J R Wingard; R E Mullins; I Jerkunica; T G Davidson; C E Gilmore; R C York; L S Lin; S M Devine; R B Geller; L T Heffner; C D Hillyer; H K Holland; E F Winton; R Saral Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: J T Slattery; J E Sanders; C D Buckner; R L Schaffer; K W Lambert; F P Langer; C Anasetti; W I Bensinger; L D Fisher; F R Appelbaum Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Michael N Neely; Lauren Kato; Gilmer Youn; Lironn Kraler; David Bayard; Michael van Guilder; Alan Schumitzky; Walter Yamada; Brenda Jones; Emi Minejima Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 5.191
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: Kristina M Brooks; Paul Jarosinski; Thomas Hughes; Elizabeth Kang; Nirali N Shah; John B Le Gall; Dennis D Hickstein; Suk See De Ravin; Jomy M George; Parag Kumar Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.126