Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Algorithms for Oral Busulphan Area Under the Concentration–Time Curve Limited Sampling Estimate

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the first dose of busulphan during conditioning prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation provides the possibility of improving the clinical outcome via dose adjustment of subsequent doses. The plasma area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) for busulphan is generally accepted as the parameter that gives the best exposure estimate; however, the sampling frequency needed for reliable AUC calculation remains controversial. The aim of the present investigation was to develop and evaluate a limited sampling model for oral busulphan.

Methods

We have compared models using three to four samples with standard WinNonlin® adaptive compartment modeling based on eight samples as reference. The evaluated study population included both adult and pediatric patients, but the linear model was devised using analysis of only pediatric patient plasma concentrations. The present model was developed using data from 23 patients with a mean age of 38 years (range 13–59 years) and was evaluated in 20 pediatric patients with a mean age of 6 years (range 0.1–13 years) as well as 23 adult patients (mean age 43 years; range 18–67 years).

Results

In 23 patients, the mean AUC from a curve fitting model (Purves method) and a single compartment model had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.947. From a log–log plot of AUC values it was evident that using this estimate of the AUC would affect dose adjustment decisions for very few of the patients. Applying the linear model using three samples resulted in an ICC of 0.932, mostly due to worse performance in the adult population.

Conclusions

The present results support the use of limited sampling in clinical TDM for oral busulphan provided adequate algorithms and sampling times are used. Moreover, they also demonstrate the caution that is needed when transferring a pharmacokinetic model from a pediatric population to an adult population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hassan M, Ljungman P, Bolme P, et al. Busulfan bioavailability. Blood. 1994;84(7):2144–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grochow LB, Jones RJ, Brundrett RB, et al. Pharmacokinetics of busulfan: correlation with veno-occlusive disease in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;25(1):55–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hassan Z, Ljungman P, Ringdén O, et al. Pharmacokinetics of liposomal busulphan in man. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;27(5):479–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hassan M, Nilsson C, Hassan Z, et al. A phase II trial of liposomal busulphan as an intravenous myeloablative agent prior to stem cell transplantation: 500 mg/m(2) as a optimal total dose for conditioning. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;30(12):833–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kashyap A, Wingard J, Cagnoni P, et al. Intravenous versus oral busulfan as part of a busulfan/cyclophosphamide preparative regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: decreased incidence of hepatic venoocclusive disease (HVOD), HVOD-related mortality, and overall 100-day mortality. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2002;8(9):493–500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Robertson GR, Liddle C, Clarke SJ. Inflammation and altered drug clearance in cancer: transcriptional repression of a human CYP3A4 transgene in tumor-bearing mice. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83(6):894–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartelink I, Bredius R, Belitser S, et al. Association between busulfan exposure and outcome in children receiving intravenous busulfan before hematologic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:231–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartelink I, Bredius R, Bierings M, et al. Targeting to an optimal AUC of intravenous busulfan prevents graft failure in transplantation in children with non-malignant diseases. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009;15:76–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCune J, Holmberg L. Busulfan in hematopoietic stem cell transplant setting. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009;5:957–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Malar R, Sjoo F, Rentsch K, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring is essential for intravenous busulfan therapy in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell recipients. Pediatr Transplant. 2011;15(6):580–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ljungman P, Hassan M, Békássy AN, et al. High busulfan concentrations are associated with increased transplant-related mortality in allogeneic bone marrow transplant patients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;20(11):909–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vassal G. Pharmacologically-guided dose adjustment of busulfan in high-dose chemotherapy regimens: rationale and pitfalls (review). Anticancer Res. 1994;14(6A):2363–70.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gabrielsson JL, Weiner DL. Methodology for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data analysis. Pharm Sci Technol Today. 1999;2(6):244–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chattergoon DS, Saunders EF, Klein J, et al. An improved limited sampling method for individualised busulphan dosing in bone marrow transplantation in children. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;20(5):347–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hassan M, Fasth A, Gerritsen B, et al. Busulphan kinetics and limited sampling model in children with leukemia and inherited disorders. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;18(5):843–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sandström M, Karlsson MO, Ljungman P, et al. Population pharmacokinetic analysis resulting in a tool for dose individualization of busulphan in bone marrow transplantation recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;28(7):657–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schuler U, Schroer S, Kühnle A, et al. Busulfan pharmacokinetics in bone marrow transplant patients: is drug monitoring warranted? Bone Marrow Transplant. 1994;14(5):759–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Vassal G, Deroussent A, Challine D, et al. Is 600 mg/m2 the appropriate dosage of busulfan in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation? Blood. 1992;79(9):2475–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Balasubramanian P, Chandy M, Krishnamoorthy R, et al. Evaluation of existing limited sampling models for busulfan kinetics in children with beta thalassaemia major undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;28(9):821–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nieto Y, Vaughan WP. Pharmacokinetics of high-dose chemotherapy. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33(3):259–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Purves RD. Optimum numerical integration methods for estimation of area-under-the-curve (AUC) and area-under-the-moment-curve (AUMC). J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;20(3):211–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nerella NG, Block LH, Noonan PK. The impact of lag time on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters. 1. One-compartment open model. Pharm Res. 1993;10(7):1031–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gill P, Murray W. Algorithms, for solution, of non-linear least-squares problem. SIAM J Numer Anal. 1978;1978:977–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferraty F, Hall P, Vieu P. Most-predictive design points for functional data predictors. Biometrika. 2010;97(4):807–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Karalis V, Macheras P. Current regulatory approaches of bioequivalence testing. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2012;8(8):929–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sjöö F, Aschan J, Barkholt L, et al. N-acetyl-L-cysteine does not affect the pharmacokinetics or myelosuppressive effect of busulfan during conditioning prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;32(4):349–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sjöö F, Hassan Z, Abedi-Valugerdi M, et al. Myeloablative and immunosuppressive properties of treosulfan in mice. Exp Hematol. 2006;34(1):115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chunduri S, Dobogai L, Peace D, et al. Fludarabine/i.v. BU conditioning regimen: myeloablative, reduced intensity or both? Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;41:935–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lindley C, Shea T, McCune J, et al. Intraindividual variability in busulfan pharmacokinetics in patients undergoing a bone marrow transplant: assessment of a test dose and first dose strategy. Anticancer Drugs. 2004;15(5):453–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grochow LB. Busulfan disposition: the role of therapeutic monitoring in bone marrow transplantation induction regimens. Semin Oncol. 1993;20(4 Suppl 4):18–25 (quiz 26).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tsuruta H, Fukumoto M, Bax L, et al. Limited sampling strategies to estimate the area under the concentration–time curve. Biases and a proposed more accurate method. Methods Inf Med. 2012;51:383–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Canal P, Chatelut E, Guichard S. Practical treatment guide for dose individualisation in cancer chemotherapy. Drugs. 1998;56(6):1019–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present investigation was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Foundation (CF) and the Swedish Childhood Cancer Society (BCF).

None of the authors has any conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Experimental Cancer Medicine, Karolinska Institutet Huddinge, Novum, 141 86, Stockholm, Sweden

    Fredrik Sjöö, Ibrahim El-Serafi, Johan Liwing & Moustapha Hassan

  2. Hematology Section, Capio S:t Görans Hospital, S:t Göransplan 1, 112 81, Stockholm, Sweden

    Fredrik Sjöö & Jon Enestig

  3. Center for Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation (CAST), Karolinska University Hospital-Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden

    Jonas Mattsson

  4. Clinical Research Center, Novum, Karolinska University Hospital-Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden

    Moustapha Hassan

Authors
  1. Fredrik Sjöö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibrahim El-Serafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jon Enestig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonas Mattsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Johan Liwing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Moustapha Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fredrik Sjöö or Moustapha Hassan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sjöö, F., El-Serafi, I., Enestig, J. et al. Comparison of Algorithms for Oral Busulphan Area Under the Concentration–Time Curve Limited Sampling Estimate. Clin Drug Investig 34, 43–52 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-013-0148-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-013-0148-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation