| Literature DB >> 34580398 |
M Y Eileen C van der Stoep1,2, Dagmar Berghuis3, Robbert G M Bredius3, Emilie P Buddingh3, Alexander B Mohseny3, Frans J W Smiers3, Henk-Jan Guchelaar4, Arjan C Lankester3, Juliette Zwaveling4.
Abstract
Treosulfan is increasingly used as myeloablative agent in conditioning regimen prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). In our pediatric HSCT program, myalgia was regularly observed after treosulfan-based conditioning, which is a relatively unknown side effect. Using a natural language processing and text-mining tool (CDC), we investigated whether treosulfan compared with busulfan was associated with an increased risk of myalgia. Furthermore, among treosulfan users, we studied the characteristics of given treatment of myalgia, and studied prognostic factors for developing myalgia during treosulfan use. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) until 28 days after HSCT were screened using the CDC for myalgia and 22 synonyms. Time to myalgia, location of pain, duration, severity and drug treatment were collected. Pain severity was classified according to the WHO pain relief ladder. Logistic regression was performed to assess prognostic factors. 114 patients received treosulfan and 92 busulfan. Myalgia was reported in 37 patients; 34 patients in the treosulfan group and 3 patients in the busulfan group (p = 0.01). In the treosulfan group, median time to myalgia was 7 days (0-12) and median duration of pain was 19 days (4-73). 44% of patients needed strong acting opiates and adjuvant medicines (e.g. ketamine). Hemoglobinopathy was a significant risk factor, as compared to other underlying diseases (OR 7.16 95% CI 2.09-30.03, p = 0.003). Myalgia appears to be a common adverse effect of treosulfan in pediatric HSCT, especially in hemoglobinopathy. Using the CDC, EHRs were easily screened to detect this previously unknown side effect, proving the effectiveness of the tool. Recognition of treosulfan-induced myalgia is important for adequate pain management strategies and thereby for improving the quality of hospital stay.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34580398 PMCID: PMC8476488 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98669-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | Treosulfan (n = 114) | Busulfan (n = 92) |
|---|---|---|
| Age at SCT (years, median (range)) | 5.4 (0.2–18.2) | 8.5 (0.4–17.8) |
| Sex (M/F) (%) | 62/38 | 58/42 |
| Beta-thalassemia (%) | 35 (30.7) | 6 (6.5) |
| Sickle cell disease (%) | 20 (17.5) | 0 (0) |
| Inborn errors of immunity (%) | 32 (28.1) | 10 (10.9) |
| Hematological malignancy (%) | 18 (15.8) | 63 (68.5) |
| Bone marrow failure (%) | 9 (7.9) | 13 (14.1) |
| MSD (%) | 36 (31.6) | 18 (19.6) |
| MUD (≥ 9/10) (%) | 62 (54.4) | 69 (75.0) |
| MMFD (haplo) (%) | 16 (14.0) | 5 (5.4) |
| BM (%) | 85 (74.6) | 63 (68.5) |
| PBSC (%) | 14 (12.3) | 14 (15.2) |
| CB (%) | 15 (13.2) | 15 (16.3) |
| Treo-Flu-Thiotepa (%) | 76 (66.7) | – |
| Treo-Flu (%) | 36 (31.6) | – |
| Treo-Other (%) | 2 (1.7) | – |
| Bu-Flu-Clo (%) | – | 54 (58.7) |
| Bu-Flu (%) | – | 28 (30.4) |
| Bu-Flu-Thiotepa (%) | 7 (7.6) | |
| Bu-Cy-Mel (%) | – | 3 (3.3) |
| ATG (%) | 77 (67.5) | 71 (77.2) |
| Alemtuzumab (%) | 27 (23.7) | 7 (7.6) |
| No (%) | 10 (8.8) | 14 (15.2) |
| CsA + MTX(%) | 60 (52.6) | 57 (62.0) |
| PTCy + MMF + CsA (%) | 16 (14.0) | 0 (0) |
| CsA + Pred (%) | 9 (7.9) | 11 (12.0) |
| CsA (%) | 9 (7.9) | 3 (3.3) |
| Other (%) | 13 (11.4) | 16 (17.4) |
| None (%) | 7 (6.1) | 5 (5.4) |
MSD matched sibling donor, MUD matched unrelated donor, MMFD mismatched family donor, BM bone marrow, PBSC peripheral blood stem cells, CB cord blood, Treo treosulfan, Flu fludarabine, Thio thiotepa, Bu busulfan, Clo clofarabine, ATG Anti thymocyte globulin, GvHD Graft-versus-Host Disease, CsA Cyclosporine A, MTX methotrexate, PTCy Post-transplant cyclophosphamide, MMF mycophenolate mofetil, Pred prednisolone.
Figure 1Study design. HSCT Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, TREO treosulfan, BU busulfan, EHR Electronic Health Record.
Myalgia characteristics in the treosulfan cohort and busulfan cohort.
| Characteristic | Treosulfan (n = 34) | Busulfan (n = 3) |
|---|---|---|
| Age at SCT (years, median (range)) | 12.2 (1.8–18.2) | 11.5 (10.9–17.2) |
| Sex (n: M/F) | 20/14 | 67/33 |
| Beta-thalassemia (%) | 15 (44) | – |
| Sickle cell disease (%) | 13 (38) | – |
| Inborn errors of immunity (%) | 1 (3) | – |
| Hematological malignancy (%) | 4 (12) | 3 (100) |
| Bone marrow failure (%) | 1 (3) | – |
| Treo-Flu-Thiotepa (%) | 28 (82) | – |
| Treo-Flu (%) | 5 (15) | – |
| Treo-Other (%) | 1 (3) | – |
| Bu-Flu-Clo (%) | – | 3 (100) |
| Leg (%) | 33 (97) | 3 (100) |
| Arm (%) | 28 (82) | 3 (100) |
| Knee / ankle (%) | 16 (47) | – |
| Elbow (%) | 9 (26) | – |
| Neck (%) | 9 (26) | – |
| Back (%) | 8 (24) | – |
| Shoulder (%) | 7 (21) | – |
| Foot (%) | 15 (44) | – |
| Hand (%) | 8 (24) | – |
| ≤ 7 days (%) | 4 (12) | 1 (33) |
| 8–14 days (%) | 7 (20) | 2 (67) |
| 15–21 days (%) | 8 (24) | – |
| > 21 days (%) | 15 (44) | – |
| Paracetamol/acetaminophen | 34 (100) | 3 (100) |
| NSAIDs | 4 (12) | 1 (33) |
| Tramadol | 32 (94) | 2 (67) |
| Opiate, oral | 5 (15) | 1 (33) |
| Opiate, intravenous | 21 (62) | 1 (33) |
| Antiepileptics (e.g. gabapentin, pregabalin) | 8 (24) | – |
| Other (e.g. ketamine, clonidine, benzodiazepines) | 13 (38) | 1 (33) |
| Step 1 (paracetamol) | 2 (6) | |
| Step 2 (paracetamol + tramadol) | 11 (32) | 1 (33) |
| Step 3 (addition of strong acting opiate) | 6 (18) | 1 (33) |
| Step 4 (addition of adjuvant medicines) | 15 (44) | 1 (33) |
Treo treosulfan, Flu fludarabine, Thio thiotepa, Bu busulfan, Clo clofarabine.
Figure 2Distribution (in %) of pain severity (classified as steps in the WHO pain relief ladder) in patients with myalgia in the TREO cohort (Pcm paracetamol).
Univariable and multivariable analysis of the treosulfan cohort.
| Variable | OR 95% CI | p-value | Adjusted OR 95% CI* | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hemoglobinopathy | 9.16 (3.58–26.97) | < 0.001 | 7.16 (2.09–30.03) | 0.003 |
| > 3 years of age | 10.3 (3.34–45.50) | < 0.001 | 8.98 (2.04–64.54) | 0.01 |
| Treo-Flu | 0.28 (0.09–0.74) | 0.02 | 0.64 (0.14–2.92) | 0.57 |
| Treo-Other | 1.71 (0.07–44.50) | 0.71 | 1.73 (0.05–71.17) | 0.75 |
| Treosulfan exposure (AUC0-∞) (for every 500 mg*hr/L increase in AUC0-∞) | 0.34 (0.17–0.64) | 0.002 | 0.61 (0.26–1.33) | 0.23 |
Treo treosulfan, Flu fludarabine, AUC Area under the concentration curve.
Adjusted for underlying disease, age, conditioning regimen and treosulfan exposure.
Figure 3Pain severity (classified as steps in the WHO pain relief ladder) according to underlying disease in the TREO cohort (SCD sickle cell disease, IEI inborn errors of immunity, BMF bone marrow failure).