Association of Antiepileptic Medications with Outcomes after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation with Busulfan/Cyclophosphamide Conditioning

Treosulfan is a safe and effective alternative to busulfan for conditioning in adult allogeneic HSCT patients: Data from a single center

INTRODUCTION

Type of conditioning regimen impacts the outcome of patients who undergo allogeneic HSCT since graft versus host disease (GVHD), infections, regimen related toxicities (RRT) are important causes of post-transplant mortality. Despite the RRT profile of busulfan, it is frequently used worldwide. Treosulfan has advantages in terms of dose of administration, lower incidence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and lower neurotoxicity. We retrospectively investigated outcomes of patients who underwent allogeneic HSCT with treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens in our institution.

METHODS

Treosulfan was administered to 94 patients while 85 patients received busulfan. Our outcomes were RRT, chronic and acute GVHD, relapse related mortality (RRM), non-relapse mortality, and fungal infection. The clinical follow up data, regarding the primary and secondary endpoints of our study, of the patients who received treosulfan or busulfan based conditioning regimens were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 14 months for the treosulfan group while it was 11 months for the busulfan group (p = 0.16). RRT was 11.7% and 7.1% for treosulfan and busulfan respectively. The incidence of extensive chronic GVHD was less frequent in the treosulfan group compared to the busulfan group (15.7% vs. 32.1%) (p < 0.001). The incidence of acute GVHD (Grade 3 or higher) was 32.2% in the treosulfan group while it was 31.6% in the busulfan group. The RRM was 17% in the treosulfan group while it was 34% in the busulfan group. The non-relapse mortality was 35.5% and 29.4% in the treosulfan group and in the busulfan group respectively (p = 0.962).

CONCLUSION

Treosulfan, with a lower RRM, lower chronic GVHD incidence and with a similar RRT profile appears to be a safe alternative to busulfan.

Immunosuppressant adherence in adult outpatient hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Medication nonadherence continues to be challenging for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients. The risk and severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are associated with low immunosuppressant concentrations (which can be improved with model-informed precision dosing (MIPD)) and with immunosuppressant nonadherence (which can be improved with acceptable interventions).

METHODS

With the goals of improving adherence and achieving therapeutic concentrations of immunosuppressants to eliminate GVHD, we characterized the feasibility of using the Medication Event Monitoring (MEMS®) Cap in adult HCT recipients.

RESULTS

Of the 27 participants offered the MEMS® Cap at the time of hospital discharge, 7 (25.9%) used it, which is below our a priori threshold of 70%. These data suggest the MEMS® Cap is not feasible for HCT recipients. The MEMS® Cap data were available for a median of 35 days per participant per medication (range: 7-109 days). The average daily adherence per participant ranged from 0 to 100%; four participants had an average daily adherence of over 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPD may be supported by MEMS® technology to provide the precise time of immunosuppressant self-administration. The MEMS® Cap was used by only a small percentage (25.9%) of HCT recipients in this pilot study. In accordance with larger studies using less accurate tools to evaluate adherence, immunosuppressant adherence varied from 0% to 100%. Future studies should establish the feasibility and clinical benefit of combining MIPD with newer technology, specifically the MEMS® Button, which can inform the oncology pharmacist of the time of immunosuppressant self-administration.

The presence of busulfan metabolites and pharmacometabolomics in plasma drawn immediately before allograft infusion in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Busulfan is hepatically metabolized through glutathione (GSH) conjugation; in vitro, this process depletes hepatocyte GSH stores and generates the cytotoxic metabolite γ-glutamyldehydroalanylglycine, which is too unstable to be quantitated in vivo. We sought to evaluate if pre-graft (i.e., immediately before allograft infusion) concentrations of busulfan metabolites' and of endogenous metabolomic compounds (EMCs) representing the glutathione pathway were associated with clinical outcomes in hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients receiving busulfan. The clinical outcomes evaluated were relapse, acute graft versus host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality, and neutrophil nadir. In pre-graft samples obtained from patients immediately before allograft infusion, our objectives were to evaluate for: (1) the presence of busulfan and its metabolites tetrahydrothiophenium ion (THT+), tetrahydrothiophene 1-oxide, sulfolane, and 3-hydroxysulfolane (N = 124); (2) EMCs using a global metabolomics assay (N = 77); and (3) the association of the busulfan metabolites and the EMCs with clinical outcomes. In the pre-graft samples, busulfan and THT+ could not be detected. THT 1-oxide, sulfolane, and 3-hydroxysulfolane were quantitated in 9.6%, 26%, and 58% of pre-graft samples; their concentrations were not associated with clinical outcomes. Four pre-graft EMCs were statistically significantly associated with the neutrophil nadir. The pre-graft EMCs were not associated with the other clinical outcomes. In conclusion, busulfan's metabolites are present in patients' plasma immediately before allograft infusion; the neutrophil nadir is associated with pre-graft EMCs. Future research should investigate the association of clinical outcomes with the concentrations of busulfan's metabolites and EMCs in the pre-graft plasma from allogeneic HCT recipients.

Individualizing busulfan dose in specific populations and evaluating the risk of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions

INTRODUCTION

Busulfan is an alkylating agent widely used in the conditioning of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation possessing a complex metabolism and a large interindividual and intra-individual variability, especially in children. Combined with the strong rationale of busulfan PK/PD relationships, factors altering its clearance (e.g., weight, age, and GST-A genetic polymorphism mainly) can also affect clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on busulfan pharmacokinetics, its pharmacokinetics variabilities in pediatric populations, drug-drug interactions (DDI), and their consequences regarding dose individualization. This review was based on medical literature up until October 2021.

EXPERT OPINION

To ensure effective busulfan exposure in pediatrics, different weight-based nomograms have been established to determine busulfan dosage and provided improved results (65 - 80% of patients correctly exposed). In addition to nomograms, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of busulfan measuring plasmatic concentrations to estimate busulfan pharmacokinetic parameters can be used. TDM is now widely carried out in routine practices and aims to ensure the targeting of the reported therapeutic windows by individualizing busulfan dosing based on the clearance estimations from a previous dose.

Optimal regimen of levetiracetam for prevention of busulfan-induced seizure in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of available evidence

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to summarize the available data and offer a practical recommendation regarding the optimal regimen of levetiracetam (LEV) for the prevention of busulfan-induced seizure (BIS) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

DATA SOURCES

Published articles by searching databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect) were reviewed. All types of original studies performed in pediatric and adult populations have been investigated and required data was extracted.

DATA SUMMARY

Eleven articles were eligible to be included in this review. A loading dose was not used in any of the studies. LEV had been started from 6 to 48 h before busulfan (Bu) initiation and continued up to 24 to 48 h after its termination. The dose range of LEV was 10 to 20 mg/kg/day divided every 12 h in pediatrics and 500 to 1000 mg twice daily in adults. Both oral and intravenous (IV) routes of administration were used. Except for three studies, no seizure had occurred in patients who had received LEV.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available evidence, LEV with the dose range from 500 to 1000 mg twice daily in adults and 10 mg/kg twice daily (20 mg/kg/day in 2 divided doses) in children orally or IV started from 6 to 24 h before Bu initiation up to 24 to 48 h after the last dose of Bu seems to prevent BIS appropriately. More prospective clinical trials with a larger population are needed to validate the optimal dosing of LEV for BIS prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT.

Phenytoin as seizure prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with busulfan conditioning

Background

Phenytoin is widely used as primary seizure prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients undergoing myeloablative conditioning with busulfan. Because of the negative side effects of phenytoin, we abandoned phenytoin use in these patients. To assess the effect of this change, we performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients receiving busulfan.

Methods

We included 139 patients who underwent conditioning with busulfan for hematopoietic stem cell therapy. We registered the use of phenytoin, as well as the occurrence of seizures, until 7 days after busulfan administration. We compared seizure incidence between patients who received phenytoin and those who did not.

Results

Of the 43 patients who received phenytoin prophylaxis, four patients (9.3%) had a seizure during the conditioning regimen, of which two patients had cerebral non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Furthermore, all these 4 patients had very high levels of phenytoin (intoxication). Of the 96 patients that did not receive phenytoin prophylaxis, three patients (3.1%) had a seizure, and one of these patients had an undefined cerebral lesion. Phenytoin did not relate to seizure prevention in a logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

We conclude that phenytoin prophylaxis in patients treated with busulfan is obsolete and possibly harmful, as phenytoin intoxication can occur. We recommend discontinuing the use of phenytoin as primary seizure prophylaxis in these patients.

Relevant pharmacological interactions between alkylating agents and antiepileptic drugs: Preclinical and clinical data

Seizures are relatively common in cancer patients, and co-administration of chemotherapeutic and antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is highly probable and necessary in many cases. Nonetheless, clinically relevant interactions between chemotherapeutic drugs and AEDs are rarely summarized and pharmacologically described. These interactions can cause insufficient tumor and seizure control or lead to unforeseen toxicity. This review focused on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between alkylating agents and AEDs, helping readers to make a rational choice of treatment optimization, and thus improving patients' quality of life. As an example, phenobarbital, phenytoin, and carbamazepine, by increasing the hepatic metabolism of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and busulfan, yield smaller peak concentrations and a reduced area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of the prodrugs; alongside, the maximum concentration and AUC of their active products were increased with the possible onset of severe adverse drug reactions. On the other side, valproic acid, acting as histone deacetylase inhibitor, showed synergistic effects with temozolomide when tested in glioblastoma. The present review is aimed at providing evidence that may offer useful suggestions for rational pharmacological strategies in patients with seizures symptoms undertaking alkylating agents. Firstly, clinicians should avoid the use of enzyme-inducing AEDs in combination with alkylating agents and prefer the use of AEDs, such as levetiracetam, that have a low or no impact on hepatic metabolism. Secondly, a careful therapeutic drug monitoring of both alkylating agents and AEDs (and their active metabolites) is necessary to maintain therapeutic ranges and to avoid serious adverse reactions.

Highlights of Pharmacist Roles in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy

Patients with hematological malignancies receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are known to have complex pharmacotherapy. To ensure safe and effective care in preventing and managing drug-related problems, pharmacists trained in HSCT and CAR T-cell therapy fulfill various roles in providing care for these patients. With polypharmacy and complex medication regimens, drug interactions are one of the major aspects that pharmacists review regularly to ensure the efficacy of treatment while minimizing toxicity. Pharmacists anticipate various complex drug interactions, understanding the possible mechanisms of drug interactions, and manage these complex drug regimens in patients undergoing HSCT and CAR T-cell therapy. In addition, antimicrobial prophylaxis is also important supportive care for immunocompromised patients. Pharmacists are capable of evaluating the risk of opportunistic infections, anticipating the type of antimicrobial prophylaxis required, and setting a policy with a robust antimicrobial regime. This can promote consistency in patient care and improve patient outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality associated with opportunistic infections. Lastly, pharmacists are equipped with a skillset to ensure a seamless transition of care, provide education for patients and healthcare providers, promote medication adherence, and contribute to research and quality improvement.

Higher Starting Dose of Ciclosporin Optimized Therapeutic Levels in Patients Receiving Phenytoin for Busulfan-induced Seizure Prophylaxis

Background

Despite understanding the drug-drug interaction between phenytoin and ciclosporin (CsA), there is no recommended CsA dosing in patients receiving phenytoin as seizure prophylaxis in busulfan-based conditioning regimens. This drug-drug interaction has resulted in patients with sub-therapeutic levels at day 0 (D0) of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) and at risk for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD).

Objective/Methods

A single-center historical-control study was conducted at Singapore General Hospital between March 2010 and July 2019 to evaluate a new dosing strategy. Patients with phenytoin received a higher starting dose of intravenous CsA (4 mg/kg/dose twice daily instead of 3 mg/kg/dose twice daily). The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with therapeutic CsA levels at D0. Secondary endpoints included median CsA level on D-1 and D0, time to the therapeutic target, incidence and severity of aGVHD, and safety profile.

Results

A total of 91 patients were included in this study. Patients with therapeutic CsA at D0 was higher (66.7%) in the study arm than in the control arm (24.7 %) (p = 0.006). The median CsA concentration at D0 in the study arm was 284 ng/mL (range, 144-441 ng/mL) as compared to the control arm, 255 ng/mL (range, 104-580). There was no difference in the time to therapeutic range and the cumulative incidence of aGVHD. There were no significant differences in the safety outcomes.

Conclusion

The new strategy with higher dosing based on the actual body weight should be adopted as it resulted in a higher proportion of patients with therapeutic CsA at D0, without an increase in CsA-related adverse events.

Epileptic Seizures After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Technique in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has greatly advanced over the past decades, which has led to an increase in the number of patients receiving transplantation, but the complex procedure places these transplant recipients at high risk of a large spectrum of complications including neurologic involvement. As a common manifestation of neurological disorders, epileptic seizures after transplantation have been of great concern to clinicians because it seriously affects the survival rate and living quality of those recipients. The aim of this review is to elucidate the incidence of seizures after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and to further summarize in detail its etiologies, possible mechanisms, clinical manifestations, therapeutic schedule, and prognosis, hoping to improve doctors' understandings of concurrent seizures following transplantation, so they can prevent, process, and eventually improve the survival and outlook for patients in a timely manner and correctly.

Comparison of levetiracetam versus phenytoin/fosphenytoin for busulfan seizure prophylaxis at a pediatric institution

INTRODUCTION

Busulfan is a chemotherapy agent used in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) conditioning regimens. Busulfan is associated with tonic-clonic seizures in ~10% of patients if administered without seizure prophylaxis. Historically, phenytoin was the most commonly utilized seizure prophylaxis agent; however, phenytoin is associated with CYP450 drug interactions and potentially increases the clearance of busulfan. Levetiracetam is being used more recently for busulfan seizure prophylaxis and is not associated with drug-drug interactions; however, data supporting use in pediatric patients are limited. The primary objective is to determine whether there is any difference in seizure rates or safety profile between phenytoin and levetiracetam when used for seizure prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review including patients who received busulfan between 2010 and 2019 were identified. The data were evaluated to compare the incidence of busulfan-induced seizures in HSCT patients receiving either phenytoin or levetiracetam and to determine the impact of drug-drug interactions on treatment outcomes/adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 342 patients were included with a median age of six years. Overall, five patients within the phenytoin group (n = 126) (4%) and zero patients in the levetiracetam group (n = 216) experienced a seizure (P = .007). There were no differences in liver enzyme elevations, recurrence rates of primary disease, and veno-occlusive disease.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is effective at preventing seizures associated with busulfan administration with no clinically significant adverse effects when compared to phenytoin.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of intravenous busulfan in Thai children undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A pilot study

Busulfan (Bu) is commonly used in myeloablative conditioning regimens for children undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The standard target area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of Bu is approximately 900-1500 µM min. In previous studies using five fixed doses (0.8-1.2 mg/kg) for Bu without dose adjustment, 75% patients achieved the target AUC. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the percentage of target AUC for intravenous (IV) Bu in Thai children. IV Bu was administered every 6 h over 16 doses. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis after the first, ninth, and thirteenth doses of Bu. Seven patients (2-14 years; median 6 years) were diagnosed with thalassemia (n = 4), acute myeloid leukemia (n = 2), and pure red cell aplasia. Three, two, and two patients received Bu at 1.1, 1.2, and 0.8 mg/kg, respectively. The AUC of Bu varied from 292-1714 µM min (median = 804). Nine (42.86%), eleven (52.38%), and one (4.76%) AUC values were within, below, and above the target, respectively. The median (range) Bu clearance was 5.93 (1.91-14.65) mL/min/kg. In this study, 42.86% AUC value achieved the target, which was lower than that in previous studies. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of Bu should be considered in Thai children receiving five fixed doses of IV Bu, and dose adjustment should be performed as necessary. Further PK studies for Bu with a larger sample size are warranted for confirming the necessity of TDM in every step dose of Bu.(Trial registration numbers; TCTR20190528003).

Prediction of Acute Graft versus Host Disease and Relapse by Endogenous Metabolomic Compounds in Patients Receiving Personalized Busulfan-Based Conditioning

Busulfan-based conditioning is the most commonly used high-dose conditioning regimen for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). The alkylating agent busulfan has a narrow therapeutic index, with busulfan doses personalized to a target plasma exposure (targeted busulfan). Using a global pharmacometabonomics approach, we sought to identify novel biomarkers of relapse or acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) in a cohort of 84 patients receiving targeted busulfan before allogeneic HCT. A total of 763 endogenous metabolomic compounds (EMCs) were quantitated in 230 longitudinal blood samples before, during, and shortly after intravenous busulfan administration. We performed both univariate linear regression and pathway enrichment analyses using global testing. The cysteine/methionine pathway and the glycine, serine, and threonine metabolism pathway were most associated with relapse. The latter be explained by the fact that glutathione S-transferases conjugate both busulfan and glutathione, which contains glycine as a component. The d-arginine and d-ornithine metabolism pathway and arginine and proline metabolism pathway were most associated with acute GVHD. None of these associations were significant after correcting for false discovery rate (FDR) with a strict cutoff of FDR-adjusted p < 0.1. Although larger studies are needed to substantiate these findings, the results show that EMCs may be used as predictive biomarkers in HCT patients.