Pharmacokinetic analysis for model-supported therapeutic drug monitoring of busulfan in Japanese pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients

Impact of prophylactic echinocandin on the development of neurological complications in patients receiving busulfan-containing conditioning regimens for stem cell transplantation: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although neurotoxicity is a major adverse event associated with busulfan, little information is available regarding the association between drug interactions and neurological symptoms during busulfan-based regimens. This study evaluated the association between prophylactic echinocandins and neurological complications in patients receiving busulfan-containing conditioning regimens for stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively included consecutive patients who administered intravenous busulfan as a conditioning regimen at our facility between 2007 and 2022. Prophylactic echinocandin use was defined as the use of an echinocandin antifungal drug to prevent invasive fungal disease in SCT recipients. The primary outcome was the incidence of neurological complications within 7 days of busulfan initiation and was compared between the echinocandin group (patients received prophylactic echinocandin) and nonechinocandin group (patients received prophylactic antifungal drugs other than echinocandin and those without antifungal prophylaxis).

RESULTS

Among the 59 patients included in this study, the incidence of neurological complications in the echinocandin (n = 26) and nonechinocandin groups (n = 33) was 30.8% and 63.6%, respectively. We observed a negative association between prophylactic echinocandin use and the development of neurological complications after adjusting for the propensity score for receiving prophylactic echinocandins (adjusted odds ratio 0.294, 95% confidence interval 0.090 to 0.959). We observed a lower incidence of neurological complications in the echinocandin group than in the nonechinocandin group.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested that the choice of antifungal prophylaxis is associated with busulfan neurotoxicity.

Can Published Population Pharmacokinetic Models of Busulfan Be Used for Individualized Dosing in Chinese Pediatric Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation? An External Evaluation

Busulfan is a bifunctional alkylating agent that is widely used before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), in combination with other chemotherapeutic drugs. As of 2020, there is no population pharmacokinetic (popPK) model for busulfan in Chinese pediatric patients. A systemic external evaluation of 11 published popPK models was conducted in Chinese pediatric patients undergoing HSCT. Forty pediatric patients were enrolled in this study, with a total of 183 blood concentrations. The relative prediction error (PE%), median PE%, median absolute PE%, and percentage of PE% within ±20% and ±30% were calculated in prediction-based diagnostics. Simulation-based diagnostics were conducted through a prediction- and variability-corrected visual predictive check and the normalized prediction distribution error. The relative individual prediction error was calculated using Bayesian forecasting with 1 to 3 concentration points. The 1-compartment open linear popPK model, which was built by Su-jin Rhee et al (model H), incorporating the patient's body surface area, age, dosing day, and aspartate aminotransferase as significant covariates had preferable predictability than other popPK models. In prediction-based diagnostics, the median PE%, percentage of PE% within ±20%, and percentage of PE% within ±30% of model H were 8.48%, 45.35%, and 59.56%, respectively. The normalized prediction distribution error of model H showed that it followed the normal distribution. Based on Bayesian forecasting, model H showed good predictive performance. Thus, model H was the most appropriate model that can be used clinically for individualized dosage adjustments in Chinese pediatric HSCT patients.

Two-point blood sampling is sufficient and necessary to estimate the area under the concentration-time curve for intravenous busulfan in infants and young children

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic drug monitoring for busulfan is important to prevent adverse events and improve outcomes in stem cell transplantation. We investigated intravenous busulfan pharmacokinetics and evaluated the utility of limited sampling strategy (LSS) as a simple method to estimate the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC).

PROCEDURE

The study comprised 87 busulfan measurements in 54 children who received intravenous busulfan between August 2015 and May 2020. AUCs were calculated from three to five blood sampling points in each patient, and the correlation between AUC and plasma concentrations (ng/mL) at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 h after initiating busulfan infusion (C₁ , C₂ , C₃ , C₄ , and C₆ , respectively).

RESULTS

By one-point sampling strategy, the most relevant predicted AUC was based on C₆ (r²  = 0.789; precision, 11.0%) in all patients. The predicted AUC based on C₆ was acceptable (r²  = 0.937; precision, 5.9%) for adolescent patients weighing >23 kg, but the correlation was poor in infants and young children weighing ≤ 23 kg (r²  = 0.782; precision, 11.4%). By two-point sampling strategy, the predicted AUC based on C₃ and C₆ showed the most relevant concentrations (r²  = 0.943; precision, 6.4%), even in infants and young children, whereas the predicted AUC based on C₃ and C₆ was acceptable (r²  = 0.963; precision, 5.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The AUC of busulfan can be predicted based on C₆ in adolescent patients. However, there was substantial interindividual variation in busulfan pharmacokinetics in infants and young children, in whom two-point LSS was necessary for accurate AUC prediction.

Total Body Irradiation Forever? Optimising Chemotherapeutic Options for Irradiation-Free Conditioning for Paediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia

Total-body irradiation (TBI) based conditioning prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is generally regarded as the gold-standard for children >4 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). Retrospective studies in the 1990's suggested better survival with irradiation, confirmed in a small randomised, prospective study in the early 2000's. Most recently, this was reconfirmed by the early results of the large, randomised, international, phase III FORUM study published in 2020. But we know survivors will suffer a multitude of long-term sequelae after TBI, including second malignancies, neurocognitive, endocrine and cardiometabolic effects. The drive to avoid TBI directs us to continue optimising irradiation-free, myeloablative conditioning. In chemotherapy-based conditioning, the dominant myeloablative effect is provided by the alkylating agents, most commonly busulfan or treosulfan. Busulfan with cyclophosphamide is a long-established alternative to TBI-based conditioning in ALL patients. Substituting fludarabine for cyclophosphamide reduces toxicity, but may not be as effective, prompting the addition of a third agent, such as thiotepa, melphalan, and now clofarabine. For busulfan, it's wide pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and narrow therapeutic window is well-known, with widespread use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to individualise dosing and control the cumulative busulfan exposure. The development of first-dose selection algorithms has helped achieve early, accurate busulfan levels within the targeted therapeutic window. In the future, predictive genetic variants, associated with differing busulfan exposures and toxicities, could be employed to further tailor individualised busulfan-based conditioning for ALL patients. Treosulfan-based conditioning leads to comparable outcomes to busulfan-based conditioning in paediatric ALL, without the need for TDM to date. Future PK evaluation and modelling may optimise therapy and improve outcome. More recently, the addition of clofarabine to busulfan/fludarabine has shown encouraging results when compared to TBI-based regimens. The combination shows activity in ALL as well as AML and deserves further evaluation. Like busulfan, optimization of chemotherapy conditioning may be enhanced by understanding not just the PK of clofarabine, fludarabine, treosulfan and other agents, but also the pharmacodynamics and pharmacogenetics, ideally in the context of a single disease such as ALL.

Review of the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Intravenous Busulfan in Paediatric Patients

We aimed to review the pharmacokinetics (PK) of intravenous busulfan in paediatric patients, identify covariate factors influencing exposure, investigate evidence of changes in PK behaviour over time, and correlate exposure with efficacy and toxicity outcomes. A literature review was undertaken of original research published between 2007 and 2019, investigating the PK and pharmacodynamics (PD) of intravenous busulfan in patients ≤ 18 years of age. The review identified 41 publications characterising the PK, and 45 publications describing the PD, of busulfan. Median typical clearance (CL) was 0.22 L/h/kg and median typical volume of distribution was 0.69 L/kg. Patient weight, age, glutathione-S-transferase A1 (GSTA1) genotype and busulfan dosing day/time were the most commonly identified factors affecting CL. Of nine studies investigating changes in CL, seven reported reduced CL over the 4-day course of treatment. Exposure monitoring methods and therapeutic targets were heterogeneous across studies. Relationships between busulfan exposure and patient outcomes were observed in five studies. One study observed a cumulative area under the concentration-time curve over all days of treatment of between 78 and 101 mg/L·h, and two studies observed an average concentration at first dose of < 600 ng/mL improved overall survival, transplant-related mortality, or relapse. One study observed increased sinusoidal obstructive syndrome with maximum busulfan concentration > 1.88 ng/mL. Patient weight, age and GSTA1 genotype are important covariates to consider when individualising busulfan therapy. Reduced busulfan CL over time may need to be accounted for, particularly in patients not receiving phenytoin co-therapy. Standardised monitoring of busulfan exposure over the entire course of treatment and further investigation of the role of busulfan metabolites and pharmacogenomics is warranted.