Cargando…

Population pharmacokinetic analysis of 17-dimethylaminoethylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-DMAG) in adult patients with solid tumors

PURPOSE: To identify sources of exposure variability for the tumor growth inhibitor 17-dimethylaminoethylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-DMAG) using a population pharmacokinetic analysis. METHODS: A total 67 solid tumor patients at 2 centers were given 1 h infusions of 17-DMAG either as a single...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aregbe, Abdulateef O., Sherer, Eric A., Egorin, Merrill J., Scher, Howard I., Solit, David B., Ramanathan, Ramesh K., Ramalingam, Suresh, Belani, Chandra P., Ivy, Percy S., Bies, Robert R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383947/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22450873
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00280-012-1859-1
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To identify sources of exposure variability for the tumor growth inhibitor 17-dimethylaminoethylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17-DMAG) using a population pharmacokinetic analysis. METHODS: A total 67 solid tumor patients at 2 centers were given 1 h infusions of 17-DMAG either as a single dose, daily for 3 days, or daily for 5 days. Blood samples were extensively collected and 17-DMAG plasma concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of the 17-DMAG plasma concentration with time was performed using nonlinear mixed effect modeling to evaluate the effects of covariates, inter-individual variability, and between-occasion variability on model parameters using a stepwise forward addition then backward elimination modeling approach. The inter-individual exposure variability and the effects of between-occasion variability on exposure were assessed by simulating the 95 % prediction interval of the AUC per dose, AUC(0–24 h), using the final model and a model with no between-occasion variability, respectively, subject to the five day 17-DMAG infusion protocol with administrations of the median observed dose. RESULTS: A 3-compartment model with first order elimination (ADVAN11, TRANS4) and a proportional residual error, exponentiated inter-individual variability and between occasion variability on Q2 and V1 best described the 17-DMAG concentration data. No covariates were statistically significant. The simulated 95% prediction interval of the AUC(0–24 h) for the median dose of 36 mg/m(2) was 1,059–9,007 mg/L h and the simulated 95 % prediction interval of the AUC(0–24 h) considering the impact of between-occasion variability alone was 2,910–4,077 mg/L h. CONCLUSIONS: Population pharmacokinetic analysis of 17-DMAG found no significant covariate effects and considerable inter-individual variability; this implies a wide range of exposures in the population and which may affect treatment outcome. Patients treated with 17-DMAG may require therapeutic drug monitoring which could help achieve more uniform exposure leading to safer and more effective therapy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00280-012-1859-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.