Literature DB >> 36205743

Challenges associated with test dose pharmacokinetic predictions of high dose melphalan exposure in patients with multiple myeloma.

Christa Ellen Nath1,2,3, Andrew Grigg4, Sebastian P A Rosser5,6, Jane Estell7,8, Elizabeth Newman7, Campbell Tiley9, Sundra Ramanathan10, Shir Jing Ho10,11, Stephen Larsen12,8, John Gibson12,8, Peter Presgrave13, Peter John Shaw6,8, Judith Trotman7,8.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of melphalan test dose pharmacokinetic (PK) predictions of the subsequent high dose (HDM) area under the concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) and to identify sources of prediction error (PE).
METHODS: A prospective multicentre PK study was conducted in 40 myeloma patients of median age 60 (range:35-71) years using a 20 mg/m2 test dose administered 1-3 days prior to HDM (predominantly 180 mg/m2). PK data were collected post the test and high doses to compare predicted versus actual AUCs determined using the trapezoidal rule. Test and high dose infusion concentration, volume and duration and the time from preparation to infusion were compared using the paired Wilcoxin rank sign test. The impact of Melphalan administration parameters on PE was evaluated using the Mann-Whitney test. The predictive capacity of a previously published population PK (PopPK) model was also examined.
RESULTS: Predicted HDM AUC was within 15% of the observed values in only 63% of patients when analysed using the trapezoidal rule and 70% of patients using PopPK. Test dose infusion concentration, volume, duration and time from preparation to infusion were significantly lower than for HDM (p < 0.005). Test dose administration within 15 min of reconstitution (n = 5) was associated with significantly lower PE than administration times of 16-60 min (n = 22), p < 0.05. Test and HDM infusion concentrations were lower in patients with large PE (> ± 15%), but the differences were not significant (p = 0.078, 0.228, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Test dose PK has the potential to predict subsequent HDM exposure to achieve a target AUC once melphalan administration parameters are optimised to account for stability issues in the formulation.
© 2022. Crown.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Melphalan; Myeloma; Pharmacokinetic predictions; Test dose

Year:  2022        PMID: 36205743     DOI: 10.1007/s00228-022-03396-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0031-6970            Impact factor:   3.064


  27 in total

Review 1.  Stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: current and future status.

Authors:  Sergio Giralt
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2011

2.  Relevance of the hydrolysis and protein binding of melphalan to the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  S Gera; E Musch; H K Osterheld; U Loos
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.333

3.  Prospective randomised trial of amifostine cytoprotection in myeloma patients undergoing high-dose melphalan conditioned autologous stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  A Spencer; N Horvath; J Gibson; H M Prince; R Herrmann; J Bashford; D Joske; A Grigg; J McKendrick; I Prosser; R Lowenthal; S Deveridge; K Taylor
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.483

4.  Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Antonio Palumbo; Federica Cavallo; Francesca Gay; Francesco Di Raimondo; Dina Ben Yehuda; Maria Teresa Petrucci; Sara Pezzatti; Tommaso Caravita; Chiara Cerrato; Elena Ribakovsky; Mariella Genuardi; Anna Cafro; Magda Marcatti; Lucio Catalano; Massimo Offidani; Angelo Michele Carella; Elena Zamagni; Francesca Patriarca; Pellegrino Musto; Andrea Evangelista; Giovannino Ciccone; Paola Omedé; Claudia Crippa; Paolo Corradini; Arnon Nagler; Mario Boccadoro; Michele Cavo
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Results of autologous stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients with renal failure.

Authors:  A Badros; B Barlogie; E Siegel; J Roberts; C Langmaid; M Zangari; R Desikan; M J Shaver; A Fassas; S McConnell; F Muwalla; Y Barri; E Anaissie; N Munshi; G Tricot
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 6.998

6.  Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone with Transplantation for Myeloma.

Authors:  Michel Attal; Valerie Lauwers-Cances; Cyrille Hulin; Xavier Leleu; Denis Caillot; Martine Escoffre; Bertrand Arnulf; Margaret Macro; Karim Belhadj; Laurent Garderet; Murielle Roussel; Catherine Payen; Claire Mathiot; Jean P Fermand; Nathalie Meuleman; Sandrine Rollet; Michelle E Maglio; Andrea A Zeytoonjian; Edie A Weller; Nikhil Munshi; Kenneth C Anderson; Paul G Richardson; Thierry Facon; Hervé Avet-Loiseau; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Philippe Moreau
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Treatment of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 66.675

8.  Renal clearance and protein binding of melphalan in patients with cancer.

Authors:  P A Reece; H S Hill; R M Green; R G Morris; B M Dale; D Kotasek; R E Sage
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 9.  Fifty years of melphalan use in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  Ulas D Bayraktar; Qaiser Bashir; Muzaffar Qazilbash; Richard E Champlin; Stefan O Ciurea
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  Current status of autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Rama Al Hamed; Abdul Hamid Bazarbachi; Florent Malard; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Mohamad Mohty
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 11.037

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.