No abstract

Background During inflammation, elevated total (unbound plus protein-bound) clozapine plasma concentrations have been observed. Elevated alpha-1-acid glycoprotein concentrations during inflammation are suggested to cause increased plasma clozapine-alpha-1-acid glycoprotein binding, resulting in elevated total clozapine plasma concentrations without significant changes in unbound concentrations. Here, we investigated the association between alpha-1-acid glycoprotein plasma concentrations and clozapine unbound fraction. Methods First, 25 and 60 µL of alpha-1-acid glycoprotein solution (20 mg/mL) were added to plasma samples ( n = 3) of clozapine users (spiking experiment). Second, the association between alpha-1-acid glycoprotein plasma concentration and clozapine unbound fraction was assessed in patient samples (patient study). Samples were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Data were analyzed with a paired t test (spiking experiment) and an unpaired t test (patient study). Results The spiking experiment showed significantly lower mean unbound fractions following 25- and 60-µL alpha-1-acid glycoprotein spikes (relative reductions of 28.3%, p = 0.032 and 43.4%, p = 0.048). In the patient study, total clozapine plasma concentrations were 10% higher in elevated ( n = 6) compared with normal alpha-1-acid glycoprotein ( n = 20) samples [525 µg/L vs. 479 µg/L, mean difference = 47 µg/L (95% confidence interval −217 to 310), p = 0.72]. Elevated alpha-1-acid glycoprotein samples had a 26% lower mean unbound fraction compared with normal samples [1.22% vs. 1.65%, mean difference = −0.43% (95% confidence interval −0.816 to −0.0443), p = 0.03]. Conclusions Both the spiking experiment and patient study showed a significant association between elevated alpha-1-acid glycoprotein plasma concentrations and a lower clozapine unbound fraction. Future studies should include clinical data to examine whether this association is clinically relevant, suggesting any clozapine dose adjustments.

Busulfan exposure has previously been linked to clinical outcomes, hence the need for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Study objective was to evaluate the effect of day 1 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1) versus days 1 + 2 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1 + 2) on attaining adequate busulfan exposure. In this observational study, we included all children receiving busulfan based allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients achieving busulfan target attainment in both TDM regimens. Secondary outcomes were the variance in busulfan exposure and day-4 clearance (Clday4) estimates between both TDM regimens and dosing day 1 and 2. In regimen d1, 84.3% (n = 91/108) attained a therapeutic busulfan exposure, while in regimen d1 + 2 a proportion of 90.9% was found (n = 30/33, not-significant). Variance of Clday4 estimate based on busulfan day 2 concentrations was significantly smaller than the variance of Clday4 estimates based on day 1 concentrations (p < 0.001). Therefore, day 1-guided TDM (pharmacometric-model based) of busulfan may be sufficient for attaining optimal target exposure, provided that subsequent TDM is carried out if required. However, performing TDM on subsequent days may be beneficial, as measurements on day 2 seemed to reduce the variance in the estimated clearance as compared to day 1 sampling.

Busulfan exposure has previously been linked to clinical outcomes, hence the need for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Study objective was to evaluate the effect of day 1 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1) versus days 1 + 2 TDM-guided dosing (regimen d1 + 2) on attaining adequate busulfan exposure. In this observational study, we included all children receiving busulfan based allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients achieving busulfan target attainment in both TDM regimens. Secondary outcomes were the variance in busulfan exposure and day-4 clearance (Clday4) estimates between both TDM regimens and dosing day 1 and 2. In regimen d1, 84.3% (n = 91/108) attained a therapeutic busulfan exposure, while in regimen d1 + 2 a proportion of 90.9% was found (n = 30/33, not-signi cant). Variance of Clday4 estimate based on busulfan day 2 concentrations was signi cantly smaller than the variance of Clday4 estimates based on day 1 concentrations (p < 0.001). Therefore, day 1-guided TDM (pharmacometric-model based) of busulfan may be su cient for attaining optimal target exposure, provided that subsequent TDM is carried out if required. However, performing TDM on subsequent days may be bene cial, as measurements on day 2 seemed to reduce the variance in the estimated clearance as compared to day 1 sampling.