Article

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic determinants and considerations in chemotherapy selection and dosing in infants.

University of Toronto, Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto ON, M5G 1X8, Canada.
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism &amp Toxicology (Impact Factor: 2.94). 04/2012; 8(6):709-22. DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2012.680884
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of high-quality data regarding optimal chemotherapy dosage regimens among infants. Dosing regimens for chemotherapy during the first year of life are commonly based on empiric recommendations extrapolated from older children; however, balancing efficacy and toxicity is critical as severe adverse drug reactions may lead to treatment failure or reduced adherence to needed medications. AREAS COVERED: This review describes pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic considerations when administering chemotherapeutic agents to infants. Examples of commonly used agents are provided with practical recommendations for dosing adjustments. EXPERT OPINION: Optimal chemotherapy for children and infants in particular has lagged behind the remarkable progress in cancer treatment and it is clear that far more basic and clinical research are needed with respect to the mechanistic basis of age-dependent differences in pharmacokinetic parameters. More recent studies which have combined pharmacokinetic data with clinical toxicity and outcome data have resulted in a number of more evidence-based guidelines at least for the initial chemotherapy dosing; however, at present, the dosing of chemotherapy drugs in neonates and infants remains largely empiric.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
63 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1. Cyclophosphamide pharmacokinetics were measured in 38 children with cancer. 2. A high degree of inter-patient variation was seen in all pharmacokinetic parameters. Cyclophosphamide half-life varied between 1.1 and 16.8 h, clearance varied between 1.2 and 10.61 h-1 m-2 and volume of distribution varied between 0.26 and 1.48 1 kg-1. 3. The half-life of cyclophosphamide was prolonged at high dose levels (P = 0.008). 4. Children who had received prior treatment with dexamethasone showed a mean increase in clearance of 2.51 h-1 m-2 (P = 0.001) presumably as a result of CYP450 enzyme induction. 5. Treatment with allopurinol or chlorpromazine was associated with a significant increase in cyclophosphamide half-life (P < 0.001 in both cases). 6. Dose and concurrent treatment may influence cyclophosphamide metabolism in vivo and thus potentially alter the drugs therapeutic effect.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 02/1996; 41(1):13-19. · 3.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early response to multiagent chemotherapy, including mercaptopurine, as measured by minimal residual disease is an important prognostic factor for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) is involved in the metabolism of mercaptopurine and subject to genetic polymorphism, with heterozygous individuals having intermediate and homozygous mutant individuals having very low TPMT activity. To assess the association of TPMT genotype with minimal residual disease load before and after treatment with mercaptopurine in the early treatment course of childhood ALL. TPMT genotyping of childhood ALL patients (n = 814) in Germany consecutively enrolled in the ALL-BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster) 2000 study from October 1999 to September 2002. Minimal residual disease was analyzed on treatment days 33 and 78 for risk-adapted treatment stratification. A 4-week cycle of mercaptopurine was administered between these 2 minimal residual disease measurements. Patients (n = 4) homozygous for a mutant TPMT allele, and consequently deficient in TPMT activity, were treated with reduced doses of mercaptopurine and, therefore, not included in the analyses. Minimal residual disease load before (day 33) and after (day 78) mercaptopurine treatment. Loads smaller than 10(-4) were defined as negative. Patients (n = 55) heterozygous for allelic variants of TPMT conferring lower enzyme activity had a significantly lower rate of minimal residual disease positivity (9.1%) compared with patients (n = 755) with homozygous wild-type alleles (22.8%) on day 78 (P = .02). This translated into a 2.9-fold reduction in risk for patients with wild-type heterozygous alleles (relative risk, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.86). TPMT genotype has a substantial impact on minimal residual disease after administration of mercaptopurine in the early course of childhood ALL, most likely through modulation of mercaptopurine dose intensity. Our findings support a role for minimal residual disease analyses in the assessment of genotype-phenotype associations in multiagent chemotherapeutic trials.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 04/2005; 293(12):1485-9. · 29.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The efficacy of drug therapy results from the complex interplay of multiple processes that govern drug disposition and response. Most studies to date have focused on the contribution of drug-metabolizing enzymes to the drug disposition process. However, over the past decade, it has become increasingly apparent that carrier-mediated processes, or transporters, also play critical roles in the overall disposition of numerous drugs in clinical use. In addition to their roles in xenobiotic transport, drug transporters often mediate important physiologic functions via transport of endogenous substrates such as amino acids, bile acids, and hormones that are critical for maintenance of normal homeostasis. In this review we focus on the emerging field of transporter proteins in relation to the drug disposition process, with particular emphasis on clinical implications of transporters to drug-drug interactions and subsequent development of adverse effects, interindividual variability in drug response, and human disease.
    Clinical Pharmacology &#38 Therapeutics 10/2005; 78(3):260-77. · 6.85 Impact Factor