Ahmed Nader1,2, Noran Zahran3, Aya Alshammaa3, Heba Altaweel3, Nancy Kassem4, Kyle John Wilby3. 1. Qatar University College of Pharmacy, Doha, Qatar. naderpgp@gmail.com. 2. AbbVie, Inc, North Chicago, USA. naderpgp@gmail.com. 3. Qatar University College of Pharmacy, Doha, Qatar. 4. Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical response to methotrexate in cancer is variable and depends on several factors including serum drug exposure. This study aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model describing methotrexate disposition in cancer patients using retrospective chart review data available from routine clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for cancer patients in Qatar. Relevant data (methotrexate dosing/concentrations from multiple occasions, patient history, and laboratory values) were extracted and analyzed using NONMEM VII®. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed and used to estimate inter-individual and inter-occasion variability terms on methotrexate pharmacokinetic parameters, as well as patient factors affecting methotrexate pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Methotrexate disposition was described by a two-compartment model with clearance (CL) of 15.7 L/h and central volume of distribution (V c) of 79.2 L. Patient weight and hematocrit levels were significant covariates on methotrexate V c and CL, respectively. Methotrexate CL changed by 50 % with changes in hematocrit levels from 23 to 50 %. Inter-occasion variability in methotrexate CL was estimated for patients administered the drug on multiple occasions (48 and 31 % for 2nd and 3rd visits, respectively). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic drug monitoring data collected during routine clinical practice can provide a useful tool for understanding factors affecting methotrexate pharmacokinetics. Patient weight and hematocrit levels may play a clinically important role in determining methotrexate serum exposure and dosing requirements. Future prospective studies are needed to validate results of the developed model and evaluate its usefulness to predict methotrexate exposure and optimize dosing regimens.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical response to methotrexate in cancer is variable and depends on several factors including serum drug exposure. This study aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model describing methotrexate disposition in cancerpatients using retrospective chart review data available from routine clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for cancerpatients in Qatar. Relevant data (methotrexate dosing/concentrations from multiple occasions, patient history, and laboratory values) were extracted and analyzed using NONMEM VII®. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed and used to estimate inter-individual and inter-occasion variability terms on methotrexate pharmacokinetic parameters, as well as patient factors affecting methotrexate pharmacokinetics. RESULTS:Methotrexate disposition was described by a two-compartment model with clearance (CL) of 15.7 L/h and central volume of distribution (V c) of 79.2 L. Patient weight and hematocrit levels were significant covariates on methotrexate V c and CL, respectively. Methotrexate CL changed by 50 % with changes in hematocrit levels from 23 to 50 %. Inter-occasion variability in methotrexate CL was estimated for patients administered the drug on multiple occasions (48 and 31 % for 2nd and 3rd visits, respectively). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic drug monitoring data collected during routine clinical practice can provide a useful tool for understanding factors affecting methotrexate pharmacokinetics. Patient weight and hematocrit levels may play a clinically important role in determining methotrexate serum exposure and dosing requirements. Future prospective studies are needed to validate results of the developed model and evaluate its usefulness to predict methotrexate exposure and optimize dosing regimens.
Authors: J Durant; P Clevenbergh; P Halfon; P Delgiudice; S Porsin; P Simonet; N Montagne; C A Boucher; J M Schapiro; P Dellamonica Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-06-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M Joerger; A D R Huitema; H J G D van den Bongard; P Baas; J H Schornagel; J H M Schellens; J H Beijnen Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: T Minematsu; E Sugiyama; M Kusama; S Hori; Y Yamada; H Ohtani; Y Sawada; H Sato; T Takayama; Y Sugawara; M Makuuchi; T Iga Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Shan Pan; Lisa K Stamp; Stephen B Duffull; Murray L Barclay; Judith M Dalrymple; Jill Drake; Mei Zhang; Julia Korell Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Ryan J Beechinor; Patrick A Thompson; Michael F Hwang; Ryan C Vargo; Lisa R Bomgaars; Jacqueline G Gerhart; ZoAnn E Dreyer; Daniel Gonzalez Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Marc Ghannoum; Darren M Roberts; David S Goldfarb; Jesper Heldrup; Kurt Anseeuw; Tais F Galvao; Thomas D Nolin; Robert S Hoffman; Valery Lavergne; Paul Meyers; Sophie Gosselin; Tudor Botnaru; Karine Mardini; David M Wood Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 10.614
Authors: Catherine E DeFino; Jason N Barreto; Amanda G Pawlenty; Michael W Ruff; Ivan D Carabenciov; Kristin C Mara; Carrie A Thompson Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Jason N Barreto; Joel M Reid; Carrie A Thompson; Kristin C Mara; Andrew D Rule; Kianoush B Kashani; Nelson Leung; Thomas R Larson; Renee M McGovern; Thomas E Witzig; Erin F Barreto Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Usman Arshad; Max Taubert; Tamina Seeger-Nukpezah; Sami Ullah; Kirsten C Spindeldreier; Ulrich Jaehde; Michael Hallek; Uwe Fuhr; Jörg Janne Vehreschild; Carolin Jakob Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 4.430