ArticleClinical drug investigation2014
Comparison of algorithms for oral busulphan area under the concentration-time curve limited sampling estimate.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Altered Busulphan Exposure Associated with Concomitant Omeprazole during Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Conditioning: A Two-Case Report.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- Vitamin D levels and busulphan kinetics in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, a multicenter study.Bone marrow transplantation · 2021Article
- Impact ofPharmaceutics · 2019Article
- The effect of N-acetyl-l-cysteine (NAC) on liver toxicity and clinical outcome after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTherapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the first dose of busulphan during conditioning prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation provides the possibility of improving the clinical outcome via dose adjustment of subsequent doses. The plasma area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for busulphan is generally accepted as the parameter that gives the best exposure estimate; however, the sampling frequency needed for reliable AUC calculation remains controversial. The aim of the present investigation was to develop and evaluate a limited sampling model for oral busulphan.
methodsWe have compared models using three to four samples with standard WinNonlin(®) adaptive compartment modeling based on eight samples as reference. The evaluated study population included both adult and pediatric patients, but the linear model was devised using analysis of only pediatric patient plasma concentrations. The present model was developed using data from 23 patients with a mean age of 38 years (range 13-59 years) and was evaluated in 20 pediatric patients with a mean age of 6 years (range 0.1-13 years) as well as 23 adult patients (mean age 43 years; range 18-67 years).
resultsIn 23 patients, the mean AUC from a curve fitting model (Purves method) and a single compartment model had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.947. From a log-log plot of AUC values it was evident that using this estimate of the AUC would affect dose adjustment decisions for very few of the patients. Applying the linear model using three samples resulted in an ICC of 0.932, mostly due to worse performance in the adult population.
conclusionsThe present results support the use of limited sampling in clinical TDM for oral busulphan provided adequate algorithms and sampling times are used. Moreover, they also demonstrate the caution that is needed when transferring a pharmacokinetic model from a pediatric population to an adult population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24178237What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.