Cargando…

Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Busulfan (Bu) is an old drug, but is still well recommended as an alkylating agent during conditioning therapy, before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Although its dose administration is standardized and based on patient weight, therapeutic drug monitoring is requ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Gregori, Simona, Tinelli, Carmine, Manzoni, Federica, Bartoli, Antonella
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7811982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33231835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13318-020-00660-2
_version_ 1783637570344714240
author De Gregori, Simona
Tinelli, Carmine
Manzoni, Federica
Bartoli, Antonella
author_facet De Gregori, Simona
Tinelli, Carmine
Manzoni, Federica
Bartoli, Antonella
author_sort De Gregori, Simona
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Busulfan (Bu) is an old drug, but is still well recommended as an alkylating agent during conditioning therapy, before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Although its dose administration is standardized and based on patient weight, therapeutic drug monitoring is required in order to maintain its exposure [as area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from 0 to infinity AUC(0–∞)] within a narrow therapeutic range and, if necessary, to adjust the dose with as short a lead time as possible. The aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement (as calculated AUC) between a gold standard analytical method and a new one that is faster and easier. METHODS: We analyzed 221 plasma samples from 37 children (0.25–16 years; 4–62.5 kg) and 11 adults (21–59 years; 45–80 kg), corresponding to 52 AUC values (ng h/mL). The drug exposure was calculated, simultaneously, by two validated analytical methods. The reference method was a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay combined with an ultraviolet detector (UV). The test method had a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (MS) as detector; the clean-up procedures of the samples were different and faster. RESULTS: The agreement between the two methods (reference and test) was evaluated in terms of Bu exposure differences based on Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and represented by the Bland–Altman plot. The CCC between the AUC of the two methods was excellent (0.868; 95% CI: 0.802–0.935). The precision of the measures (expressed by Pearson's italic "r") was 0.872, and the accuracy (accounted by the bias correction factor) was 0.996. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that the HPLC–MS/MS assay represents a very good alternative to the reference.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7811982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78119822021-01-25 Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring De Gregori, Simona Tinelli, Carmine Manzoni, Federica Bartoli, Antonella Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet Short Communication BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Busulfan (Bu) is an old drug, but is still well recommended as an alkylating agent during conditioning therapy, before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Although its dose administration is standardized and based on patient weight, therapeutic drug monitoring is required in order to maintain its exposure [as area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from 0 to infinity AUC(0–∞)] within a narrow therapeutic range and, if necessary, to adjust the dose with as short a lead time as possible. The aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement (as calculated AUC) between a gold standard analytical method and a new one that is faster and easier. METHODS: We analyzed 221 plasma samples from 37 children (0.25–16 years; 4–62.5 kg) and 11 adults (21–59 years; 45–80 kg), corresponding to 52 AUC values (ng h/mL). The drug exposure was calculated, simultaneously, by two validated analytical methods. The reference method was a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay combined with an ultraviolet detector (UV). The test method had a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (MS) as detector; the clean-up procedures of the samples were different and faster. RESULTS: The agreement between the two methods (reference and test) was evaluated in terms of Bu exposure differences based on Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and represented by the Bland–Altman plot. The CCC between the AUC of the two methods was excellent (0.868; 95% CI: 0.802–0.935). The precision of the measures (expressed by Pearson's italic "r") was 0.872, and the accuracy (accounted by the bias correction factor) was 0.996. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that the HPLC–MS/MS assay represents a very good alternative to the reference. Springer International Publishing 2020-11-24 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7811982/ /pubmed/33231835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13318-020-00660-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Short Communication
De Gregori, Simona
Tinelli, Carmine
Manzoni, Federica
Bartoli, Antonella
Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
title Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
title_full Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
title_fullStr Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
title_short Comparison of Two Analytical Methods for Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
title_sort comparison of two analytical methods for busulfan therapeutic drug monitoring
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7811982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33231835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13318-020-00660-2
work_keys_str_mv AT degregorisimona comparisonoftwoanalyticalmethodsforbusulfantherapeuticdrugmonitoring
AT tinellicarmine comparisonoftwoanalyticalmethodsforbusulfantherapeuticdrugmonitoring
AT manzonifederica comparisonoftwoanalyticalmethodsforbusulfantherapeuticdrugmonitoring
AT bartoliantonella comparisonoftwoanalyticalmethodsforbusulfantherapeuticdrugmonitoring