Accurately Achieving Target Busulfan Exposure in Children and Adolescents With Very Limited Sampling and the BestDose Software

BACKGROUND

Busulfan dose adjustment is routinely guided by plasma concentration monitoring using 4-9 blood samples per dose adjustment, but a pharmacometric Bayesian approach could reduce this sample burden.

METHODS

The authors developed a nonparametric population model with Pmetrics. They used it to simulate optimal initial busulfan dosages, and in a blinded manner, they compared dosage adjustments using the model in the BestDose software to dosage adjustments calculated by noncompartmental estimation of area under the time-concentration curve at a national reference laboratory in a cohort of patients not included in model building.

RESULTS

Mean (range) age of the 53 model-building subjects was 7.8 years (0.2-19.0 years) and weight was 26.5 kg (5.6-78.0 kg), similar to nearly 120 validation subjects. There were 16.7 samples (6-26 samples) per subject to build the model. The BestDose cohort was also diverse: 10.2 years (0.25-18 years) and 46.4 kg (5.2-110.9 kg). Mean bias and imprecision of the 1-compartment model-predicted busulfan concentrations were 0.42% and 9.2%, and were similar in the validation cohorts. Initial dosages to achieve average concentrations of 600-900 ng/mL were 1.1 mg/kg (≤12 kg, 67% in the target range) and 1.0 mg/kg (>12 kg, 76% in the target range). Using all 9 concentrations after dose 1 in the Bayesian estimation of dose requirements, the mean (95% confidence interval) bias of BestDose calculations for the third dose was 0.2% (-2.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.85), compared with the standard noncompartmental method based on 9 concentrations. With 1 optimally timed concentration 15 minutes after the infusion (calculated with the authors' novel MMopt algorithm) bias was -9.2% (-16.7% to -1.5%, P = 0.02). With 2 concentrations at 15 minutes and 4 hours bias was only 1.9% (-0.3% to 4.2%, P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

BestDose accurately calculates busulfan intravenous dosage requirements to achieve target plasma exposures in children up to 18 years of age and 110 kg using only 2 blood samples per adjustment compared with 6-9 samples for standard noncompartmental dose calculations.

Two general methods for population pharmacokinetic modeling: non-parametric adaptive grid and non-parametric Bayesian

Population pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling methods can be statistically classified as either parametric or nonparametric (NP). Each classification can be divided into maximum likelihood (ML) or Bayesian (B) approaches. In this paper we discuss the nonparametric case using both maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches. We present two nonparametric methods for estimating the unknown joint population distribution of model parameter values in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) dataset. The first method is the NP Adaptive Grid (NPAG). The second is the NP Bayesian (NPB) algorithm with a stick-breaking process to construct a Dirichlet prior. Our objective is to compare the performance of these two methods using a simulated PK/PD dataset. Our results showed excellent performance of NPAG and NPB in a realistically simulated PK study. This simulation allowed us to have benchmarks in the form of the true population parameters to compare with the estimates produced by the two methods, while incorporating challenges like unbalanced sample times and sample numbers as well as the ability to include the covariate of patient weight. We conclude that both NPML and NPB can be used in realistic PK/PD population analysis problems. The advantages of one versus the other are discussed in the paper. NPAG and NPB are implemented in R and freely available for download within the Pmetrics package from www.lapk.org.