Pharmacokinetic Disposition and Clinical Outcomes in Infants and Children Receiving Intravenous Busulfan for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a retrospective pharmacokinetic analysis of i.v. busulfan in children undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and describe its relation to transplantation outcomes. Forty-five children (median age, 3 yr) underwent HSCT at The Hospital for Sick Children from April 2003 through January 2006 and received i.v. busulfan every 6 h as part of their conditioning regimen. Initial busulfan doses were based on actual patient weight: <9 kg, 0.95 mg/kg per dose; 9-16 kg, 1.2 mg/kg per dose; 16-23 kg, 1.1 mg/kg per dose; 24-34 kg, 0.95 mg/kg per dose; >34 kg, 0.8 mg/kg per dose. Plasma busulfan concentrations were obtained after the first dose. The fourth and subsequent busulfan doses were adjusted to achieve an area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) of 900-1500 microM.min. Development of hepatic venous occlusive disease (HVOD; modified Baltimore criteria) and engraftment (absolute neutrophil count >or=0.5 x 10(9)/L) were evaluated. Busulfan pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using 1-compartment methods. Mean busulfan pharmacokinetic parameters were maximum concentration (C(max); 4.7 +/- 0.75 microM), volume of distribution at steady state (0.68 +/- 0.17 L/kg), elimination rate constant (0.0051 +/- 0.0010 min(-1)), total body clearance (3.5 +/- 1.23 mL/[min.kg]), and AUC (1271 +/- 280 microM.min). Mean volume of distribution at steady state was larger in children <1 yr of age (0.77 +/- 0.24 vs 0.64 +/- 0.11 L/kg; P = .040) and children <4 yr of age (0.73 +/- 0.18 vs 0.60 +/- 0.11 L/kg; P = .001) than in older children. Compared with older children, mean weight-adjusted total body clearance was higher in children <4 yr of age (3.8 +/- 1.40 versus 3.0 +/- 0.76 mL/[min.kg]). HVOD was diagnosed in 8 children (18%), including 4 children <1 yr of age. Children who developed HVOD achieved a lower C(max) than did those without HVOD (4.2 +/- 0.68 versus 4.8 +/- 0.73 microM; P = .035). Other than C(max), no association was observed between busulfan disposition and development of HVOD in children for whom i.v. busulfan doses were adjusted to achieve a target AUC. The influence of factors other than busulfan disposition on transplantation outcomes, such as genetic polymorphisms, should be evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".