Dose banding of intravenous ganciclovir: Banding scheme proposal and audit of toxicity and efficiency

Rodríguez-Reyes, Montserrat; López‐Cabezas, Carmen; Calvo‐Cidoncha, Elena; Soy-Muner, Dolors

doi:10.1111/jcpt.13347

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, clinicians are more cautious in their application to child patients. Studies have shown that intravenous infusion of ganciclovir and other drugs can achieve good curative effect, but it will also lead to an increase in adverse reactions [ 20 ]. In order to reduce the possible adverse reactions in children, all children in this study were treated with slow intravenous infusion (the infusion time was more than 1 hour).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Difference between Acyclovir and Ganciclovir in the Treatment of Children with Epstein–Barr Virus-Associated Infectious Mononucleosis

Zhang

Zhu

Jin

et al. 2021

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To investigate the efficacy differences between acyclovir and ganciclovir in the treatment of children with Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)- associated infectious mononucleosis (IM). Methods. A total of 128 children with EBV-IM who were admitted to our hospital from February 2019 to February 2021 were selected and randomly divided into the acyclovir group (n = 64) and the ganciclovir group (n = 64) according to the random number table method. All the children were given symptomatic treatments such as protecting the liver and reducing fever. On this basis, the acyclovir group was given an intravenous drip of acyclovir, while the ganciclovir group was given an intravenous drip of ganciclovir. The treatment was continued for 7 days. After the treatment, the clinical efficacy, disappearance time of symptoms and signs, related blood routine indexes, EBV-DNA negative conversion rate, and the incidence of adverse reactions during the treatment were compared between the two groups. Results. After treatment, the total effective rate of the ganciclovir group (92.19%) was higher than that of the acyclovir group (73.44%) and the difference was statistically significant P < 0.05 . The disappearance time for the symptoms and signs of angina, fever, lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly, and splenomegaly in the ganciclovir group was lower than that in the acyclovir group, and the difference was statistically significant P < 0.05 . After treatment, the levels of atypical lymphocyte proportion, lymphocyte proportion, and WBC count in the two groups were lower than those before treatment, the levels in the ganciclovir group were lower than those in the acyclovir group, and the difference was statistically significant P < 0.05 . After treatment, the EBV-DNA negative conversion rate (81.25%) in the ganciclovir group was higher than that in the acyclovir group (60.93%) and the difference was statistically significant P < 0.05 . During treatment, the incidence of adverse reactions in the ganciclovir group was significantly lower than that in the acyclovir group and the difference was statistically significant P < 0.05 . Conclusion. In the treatment of children with EBV-IM, the therapeutic effect of ganciclovir is obviously superior to that of acyclovir. Ganciclovir can quickly eliminate the symptoms of angina, fever, enlarged lymph nodes, and other signs in children, can improve abnormal blood indicators, and has a higher negative conversion rate of EBV and less adverse reactions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Difference between Acyclovir and Ganciclovir in the Treatment of Children with Epstein–Barr Virus-Associated Infectious Mononucleosis

Zhang

Zhu

Jin

et al. 2021

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DB is a system whereby individually calculated doses of intravenous cytotoxic drugs are grouped within defined bands (dose ranges) and predetermined standard doses (band midpoint) are prepared and dispensed 6. Standardised doses are the most frequently prescribed doses rounded to 7.5%, although it is recommended that the maximum variation between the exact dose prescribed and the adjusted dose is not more than ±10% 7 8. DB thus allows the preparation of standardised products in series.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance evaluation of the HPLC diode array and evaporative light scattering detection for the implementation of dose-banded gemcitabine infusion bags

Stalder

André²,

Mahi³

et al. 2023

Eur J Hosp Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDose banding (DB) was used to optimise the individualisation of patient treatments with gemcitabine (Gem) in order to improve workload planning at the pharmacy of the University Hospital Centre of Besançon (UHCB). A new simple and fast high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method was also developed for the quantification of Gem without dilution of the infusion bags.MethodsIndividual doses of Gem preparations were retrospectively analysed over a 1-year period to determine the frequency of prepared doses. Using a maximum gap of 7.5% around the doses chosen, the selected Gem standard doses were 1400 mg, 1600 mg, 1800 mg and 2000 mg. Following the DB scheme, the frequency of prescription of standard and individualised Gem doses was analysed over a period of 10 months. The four selected Gem standard doses were aseptically prepared in polyolefin infusion bags. Each series of 20 bags was stocked under refrigerated storage conditions (4°C) for up to 84 days. The quantification of Gem without dilution of the infusion bags was obtained by the development of a HPLC method coupled to a diode array detector (DAD) or an evaporative light scattering detector (ELSD).ResultsDuring the 10-month period following implementation of the DB, 75.6% of the 1266 prescribed doses were covered by the four standardised preparations. The number of different Gem doses was reduced from 183 to 55. Concerning the Gem quantification, both heteroscedasticity and non-linearity were observed with DAD. Using an ELSD, the trueness values were between 98.59% and 101.52% with excellent repeatability values between 0.66% and 1.42%.ConclusionA new HPLC method has been developed for the quantification of Gem without dilution of the infusion bags prepared in advance as a result of a target DB scheme successfully implemented in our pharmacy department.

show abstract

Dose banding of intravenous ganciclovir: Banding scheme proposal and audit of toxicity and efficiency

Cited by 2 publications

References 8 publications

Difference between Acyclovir and Ganciclovir in the Treatment of Children with Epstein–Barr Virus-Associated Infectious Mononucleosis

Difference between Acyclovir and Ganciclovir in the Treatment of Children with Epstein–Barr Virus-Associated Infectious Mononucleosis

Performance evaluation of the HPLC diode array and evaporative light scattering detection for the implementation of dose-banded gemcitabine infusion bags

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About