AIMS: The aims of the study were: (i) to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of doxorubicin (DOX) and doxorubicinol (DOXol) in patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) using a population approach; (ii) to evaluate the influence of various covariates on the PK of DOX; and (iii) to evaluate the role of DOX and DOXol exposure in haematological toxicity. METHODS: Population PK modelling (using NONMEM) was performed using DOX and DOXol plasma concentration-time data from 45 NHL patients treated with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone). The influence of drug exposure on haematological toxicity was analysed using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: A five-compartment model, three for DOX and two for DOXol, with first-order distribution and elimination for both entities best described the data. Population estimates for parent drug (CL) and metabolite (CLm ) clearance were 62 l h-1 and 27 l h-1 , respectively. The fraction metabolized to DOXol (Fm ) was estimated at 0.22. While bilirubin and aspartate aminotransferase showed an influence on the CL and CLm , the objective function value decrease was not statistically significant. A trend towards an association between the total area under the concentration-time curve (AUCtotal ), the area under the concentration-time curve for DOX (AUC) plus the area under the concentration-time curve for DOXol (AUCm ), and the neutropenia grade (P = 0.068) and the neutrophil counts (P = 0.089) was observed, according to an exponential relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The PK of DOX and DOXol were well characterized by the model developed, which could be used as a helpful tool to optimize the dosage of this drug. The results suggest that the main active metabolite of DOX, DOXol, is involved in the haematological toxicity of the parent drug.
AIMS: The aims of the study were: (i) to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of doxorubicin (DOX) and doxorubicinol (DOXol) in patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) using a population approach; (ii) to evaluate the influence of various covariates on the PK of DOX; and (iii) to evaluate the role of DOX and DOXol exposure in haematological toxicity. METHODS: Population PK modelling (using NONMEM) was performed using DOX and DOXol plasma concentration-time data from 45 NHLpatients treated with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone). The influence of drug exposure on haematological toxicity was analysed using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: A five-compartment model, three for DOX and two for DOXol, with first-order distribution and elimination for both entities best described the data. Population estimates for parent drug (CL) and metabolite (CLm ) clearance were 62 l h-1 and 27 l h-1 , respectively. The fraction metabolized to DOXol (Fm ) was estimated at 0.22. While bilirubin and aspartate aminotransferase showed an influence on the CL and CLm , the objective function value decrease was not statistically significant. A trend towards an association between the total area under the concentration-time curve (AUCtotal ), the area under the concentration-time curve for DOX (AUC) plus the area under the concentration-time curve for DOXol (AUCm ), and the neutropenia grade (P = 0.068) and the neutrophil counts (P = 0.089) was observed, according to an exponential relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The PK of DOX and DOXol were well characterized by the model developed, which could be used as a helpful tool to optimize the dosage of this drug. The results suggest that the main active metabolite of DOX, DOXol, is involved in the haematological toxicity of the parent drug.
Authors: Jonás Samuel Pérez-Blanco; María del Mar Fernández de Gatta; Jesús María Hernández-Rivas; María José García Sánchez; María Luisa Sayalero Marinero; Francisco González López Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: A L Wong; K Y Seng; E M Ong; L Z Wang; H Oscar; M T Cordero; R Copones; L Fan; S H Tan; B C Goh; S C Lee Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: G L Rosner; J B Hargis; D R Hollis; D R Budman; R B Weiss; I C Henderson; R L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sophie Callies; Dinesh P de Alwis; James G Wright; Alan Sandler; Michael Burgess; Leon Aarons Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2003-01-10 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Markus Joerger; Alwin D R Huitema; Dick J Richel; Christian Dittrich; Nikolas Pavlidis; Evangelos Briasoulis; Jan B Vermorken; Elena Strocchi; Andrea Martoni; Roberto Sorio; Henk P Sleeboom; Miguel A Izquierdo; Duncan I Jodrell; Régine Féty; Ernst de Bruijn; Georg Hempel; Mats Karlsson; Brigitte Tranchand; Ad H G J Schrijvers; Chris Twelves; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Shweta R Urva; Beom Soo Shin; Victor C Yang; Joseph P Balthasar Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Patrick A Thompson; Gary L Rosner; Katherine K Matthay; Theodore B Moore; Lisa R Bomgaars; Kenneth J Ellis; Jamie Renbarger; Stacey L Berg Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Yao Wu; Farshad Tehrani; Hazhir Teymourian; John Mack; Alexander Shaver; Maria Reynoso; Jonathan Kavner; Nickey Huang; Allison Furmidge; Andrés Duvvuri; Yuhang Nie; Lori M Laffel; Francis J Doyle; Mary-Elizabeth Patti; Eyal Dassau; Joseph Wang; Netzahualcóyotl Arroyo-Currás Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 8.008
Authors: Daniela Rodrigues; Luke Coyle; Barbara Füzi; Sofia Ferreira; Heeseung Jo; Bram Herpers; Seung-Wook Chung; Ciarán Fisher; Jos C S Kleinjans; Danyel Jennen; Theo M de Kok Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Anna H-X P Chan Kwong; Elisa A M Calvier; David Fabre; Florence Gattacceca; Sonia Khier Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 2.745