© 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.
Clinical Case Study |
Which Dose of Busulfan Is Best?
1 Department of Pathology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT; 2 Intermountain Health Care, Salt Lake City, UT; 3 ARUP Laboratories, Institute of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT.
aAddress correspondence to this author at: ARUP Laboratories, 500 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108. Fax 801-584-5207; e-mail mcmillga{at}aruplab.com.
CASE
A 24-year-old woman with advanced Hodgkin disease received the standard dosing protocol for busulfan/cyclophosphamide before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)1 from a matched unrelated donor. The target area under the plasma concentration vs time curve (AUC) for busulfan was set at 950 µmol · L–1 · min–1, near the low end of the therapeutic interval of 900–1350 µmol · L–1 · min–1. The patient’s body mass index (BMI) was 45.5 kg/m2 (height, 170.2 cm; weight, 132.0 kg), so the dose was based on the patient’s ideal body weight. The patient received 2-hour intravenous infusions of busulfan every 6 h for 4 days (16 doses total). The patient was concurrently prescribed multiple medications, including an immunosuppressant, an antiviral, an antifungal, an antidepressant, an anxiolytic, a β-blocker, and a muscle relaxant, as well as antibiotics, warfarin, opioids, and antiepileptic drugs.
After the first dose (51 mg Busulfex®; Otsuka Pharmaceutical), timed plasma samples were collected after infusion to determine the AUC. Pharmacokinetics (PK) analysis was performed, and the AUC was determined to be 642 µmol · L–1 · min–1. According to these results, the predicted busulfan dosage required to achieve the target AUC was 75 mg per dose for the remaining 14 scheduled doses. Because of the large change in dosage, additional PK monitoring of busulfan was performed after the fifth dose (day 2). The fifth dose was selected to allow time to reach a steady-state concentration (Css) after the dosage adjustment and to avoid challenges in interpretation due to possible circadian variation in busulfan concentrations (1). Samples for monitoring were collected at the same time of day as the first monitoring dose. The AUC after the fifth dose was 1342 µmol · L–1 · min–1.
On the basis of the PK data from the fifth dose, dose 7 was changed from 75 mg to 53 mg, close to the original calculated dose of 51 mg. Of note is that the patient was started on an oral antifungal agent (fluconazole, 400 mg/day) after dose 6. Additional monitoring of busulfan was performed immediately after the ninth dose because of another change in dose and potential reduced clearance through busulfan interaction with fluconazole. The AUC after dose 9 was 1306 µmol · L–1 · min–1. The busulfan dose was decreased to 39 mg for the remaining doses because the AUC was near the high end of the therapeutic range and because clearance was reduced between the fifth and ninth doses. Monitoring was performed after the 14th dose to verify the adjustment; an AUC of 871 µmol · L–1 · min–1 was observed. No further dose adjustments were made. The busulfan half-life and elimination constant were relatively stable throughout the dosing regimen (Table 1
).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 1. Summary of dosing schedule and PK variables.
|
DISCUSSION
Busulfan is a cytotoxic compound commonly used in preparing patients for standard myeloablative preparative regimens before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Busulfan PK studies have demonstrated wide intra- and interpatient variation in drug disposition, metabolism, and clearance. Individualized therapeutic drug monitoring must be performed to ensure that busulfan concentrations are optimal for treatment and to reduce the risk for graft rejection, disease relapse, and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS), previously known as veno-occlusive disease. A high first-dose AUC (>1500 µmol · L–1 · min–1) is associated with the occurrence of SOS in 33% of adult HSCT patients (2). The incidence of SOS decreased when the busulfan distribution was assessed after the initial dose and dose adjustments were implemented by the fifth dose (3). A study by Tran et al. (4) also showed that busulfan exposure could be projected from the AUC after the first dose. In this study, two-thirds of the patients achieved the targeted AUC after the first dose, and the median values for the fifth and ninth doses were within the targeted AUC interval. This result suggests that the Css of busulfan can be calculated for most patients from the AUC after the first intravenous busulfan dose.
Busulfan PK are affected by age, weight, disease status, hepatic function, drug interactions, and sample handling. The current practice for busulfan monitoring assumes that Css are achieved after the first dose. Busulfan has a mean half-life of 2.5 h. Most drugs require at least 5 half-lives to reach a Css. Dose adjustments based on first-dose PK will underestimate plasma busulfan concentrations if the patient has not reached a Css and therefore may put the patient at risk for busulfan overdose if a dose adjustment is made. The consequence of a slowed time to a Css is a failure to accurately predict busulfan PK and dose requirements. The failure to reach a Css during the first dose in the case presented here is likely accounted for by the large BMI (45.5 kg/m2) for the patient.
Busulfan is a lipophilic drug and adjusting the dose to account for obesity has been applied in clinical practice. According to Gibbs et al. (5), 32% of obese patients had increased busulfan clearance compared with patients of typical weight. Normalizing the dose to the adjusted ideal body weight can minimize the discrepancy in clearance among underweight, typical-weight, obese, and severely obese patients. Because clearance and the volume of distribution (Vd) are related, patients who are severely obese (BMI >35 kg/m2) have a larger Vd for the drug, which may affect the time to reach a Css. Therefore, the dose predictions based on first-dose PK most likely underestimated the AUC and overestimated the required dose.
The patient in this case did not achieve a Css after the first dose. The first-dose PK analysis identified a high Vd, approximately 35% higher than that observed after the fifth dose. The AUC was 642 µmol · L–1 · min–1, approximately 32% below the target AUC of 950 µmol · L–1 · min–1. The predicted busulfan concentrations with the dose adjustment based on the first-dose PK data should have been therapeutic. As per the standard of care, a dose adjustment was made, and a concern was raised regarding whether the patient truly had achieved a Css. As shown in Fig. 1
, however, the busulfan concentrations measured at dose 5 were approximately 30% higher than anticipated. Thus, an additional dose adjustment was made, bringing the dose close to the initial dose calculated for this patient. Most likely, the initial dose would have been appropriate for this patient without therapeutic monitoring, except for the potential impact of drug–drug interactions on the Css of busulfan. Cotherapy with the antifungal fluconazole was initiated with dose 6; therefore, subsequent monitoring was pursued with samples collected immediately after dose 9.
 View larger version (18K): [in a new window] |
Figure 1. Busulfan concentrations were predicted from PK data after doses 1, 5, 9, and 14 by means of a 1-compartment model assuming an infusion with no lag time, first-order elimination kinetics, and the first-dose Vd and elimination constant. The predicted concentrations are illustrated by the solid line; open circles represent the observed concentrations. Doses are shown in the bar above the graph. The target AUC was 950 µmol · L–1 · min–1, which corresponds to a target Css of 650 µg/L (dashed line).
|
In addition to fluconazole, the dosing regimen for this patient may also have been complicated by the coadministration of other drugs. The patient had been prescribed antibiotics, an immunosuppressant, and opioids, which are also substrates for the CYP3A4 enzyme. Drug–drug interactions, such as inhibiting metabolism, can occur when 2 or more drugs are metabolized by the same enzyme. Such interactions can thereby lead to delayed drug clearance. Coadministered drugs can also interact with the metabolism of busulfan by depleting glutathione or by inducing glutathione S-transferases. The patient was prescribed several medications with the potential to delay busulfan clearance. Other factors that could have altered busulfan PK include dose-administration errors and improper sample collection.
The data presented here demonstrate that first-dose PK with busulfan dosing every 6 h may not accurately predict intravenous busulfan dose requirements for patients with a large BMI and/or at high risk for drug–drug interactions. Moreover, this case supports the need for more frequent monitoring and more conservative dose adjustments, as well as for an improved definition of the optimal therapeutic targets after the first dose for high-risk patients. The current practice at our institution is to hold the dose and evaluate the PK with samples collected at dose 5 for patients who are suspected not to have achieved busulfan Css after the first dose. Failure to reach a Css after the first-dose PK analysis may be attenuated as clinical practice moves toward once-daily (every 24 h) or twice-daily dosing for busulfan.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
- 1. When is the appropriate time to measure plasma busulfan concentrations in a patient? During the distribution phase of the drug or when the patient has reached a Css?
- 2. Should busulfan dose adjustments be based on first-dose PK?
- 3. What factors can affect drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion in patients?
- 4. Can the coadministration of multiple drugs during busulfan therapy affect the PK of busulfan?
POINTS TO REMEMBER
- 1. The therapeutic dose of intravenous busulfan is best predicted when the patient has achieved a Css. Busulfan dosing is often optimized through determination of the AUC, which is typically done after the first dose because of the intra- and interpatient variation in drug disposition, as well as the drug’s narrow therapeutic interval.
- 2. Individualized therapeutic drug monitoring must be performed to ensure that busulfan concentrations are optimal for treatment and to reduce the risk for SOS and graft rejection.
- 3. Busulfan PK are affected by age, weight, disease status, hepatic function, drug interactions, and sample handling.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions: All authors confirmed they have contributed to the intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 3 requirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting or revising the article for intellectual content; and (c) final approval of the published article.
Authors’ Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest: No authors declared any potential conflicts of interest.
Role of Sponsor: The funding organizations played a direct role in the design of the study, the choice of enrolled patients, the review and interpretation of data, and the preparation and final approval of the manuscript.
Footnotes
1 Nonstandard abbreviations: HSCT, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; AUC, area under the plasma concentration vs time curve; BMI, body mass index; PK, pharmacokinetics; Css, steady-state concentration; SOS, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome; Vd, volume of distribution. 
References
- Vassal G, Challine D, Koscielny S, Hartmann O, Deroussent A, Boland I, et al. Chronopharmacology of high-dose busulfan in children. Cancer Res 1993;53:1534-1537.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Dix SP, Wingard JR, Mullins RE, Jerkunica I, Davidson TG, Gilmore CE, et al. Association of busulfan area under the curve with veno-occlusive disease following HSCT. Bone Marrow Transplant 1996;17:225-230.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Grochow LB. Busulfan disposition: the role of therapeutic monitoring in bone marrow transplantation induction regimens. Semin Oncol 1993;20:18-25.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Tran HT, Madden T, Petropoulos D, Worth LL, Feliz EA, Sprigg-Saenz HA, et al. Individualizing high-dose oral busulfan: prospective dose adjustment in a pediatric population undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation for advanced hematologic malignancies. Bone Marrow Transplant 2000;26:463-470.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Gibbs JP, Gooley T, Corneau B, Murray G, Stewart P, Appelbaum FR, et al. The impact of obesity and disease on busulfan oral clearance in adults. Blood 1999;12:4436-4440.
- Hassan M, Oberg G, Ehrsson H, Ehrnebo M, Wallin I, Smedmyr B, et al. Pharmacokinetics and metabolic studies of high-dose busulphan in adults. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1989;36:525-530.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Krivoy N, Hoffer E, Tabak A, Elhasid R, Arush MW, Stein J, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of busulfan in pediatric bone marrow transplantation. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2002;19:31-37.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Nilsson C, Aschan J, Hentschke P, Ringdén O, Ljungman P, Hassan M. The effect of metronidazole on busulfan pharmacokinetics in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2003;31:429-435.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Eiden C, Peyrière H, Cociglio M, Djezzar S, Hansel S, Blayac JP, Hillaire-Buys D, . for the French Pharmacovigilance Centers. Adverse effects of voriconazole: analysis of the French Pharmacovigilance Database. Ann Pharmacother 2007;41:755-763.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Nguyen L, Leger F, Lennon S, Puozzo C. Intravenous busulfan in adults prior to haemotopoietic stem cell transplantation: a population pharmacokinetic study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2006;57:191-198.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||