4.6 Article

MTXPK.org: A Clinical Decision Support Tool Evaluating High-Dose Methotrexate Pharmacokinetics to Inform Post-Infusion Care and Use of Glucarpidase

期刊

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 635-643

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.1957

关键词

-

资金

  1. BTG International

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methotrexate (MTX), an antifolate, is administered at high doses to treat malignancies in children and adults. However, there is considerable interpatient variability in clearance of high-dose (HD) MTX. Patients with delayed clearance are at an increased risk for severe nephrotoxicity and life-threatening systemic MTX exposure. Glucarpidase is a rescue agent for severe MTX toxicity that reduces plasma MTX levels via hydrolysis of MTX into inactive metabolites, but is only indicated when MTX concentrations are > 2 SDs above the mean excretion curve specific for the given dose together with a significant creatinine increase (> 50%). Appropriate administration of glucarpidase is challenging due to the ambiguity in the labeled indication. A recent consensus guideline was published with an algorithm to provide clarity in when to administer glucarpidase, yet clinical interpretation of laboratory results that do not directly correspond to the algorithm prove to be a limitation of its use. The goal of our study was to develop a clinical decision support tool to optimize the administration of glucarpidase for patients receiving HD MTX. Here, we describe the development of a novel 3-compartment MTX population pharmacokinetic (PK) model using 31,672 MTX plasma concentrations from 772 pediatric patients receiving HD MTX for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and its integration into the online clinical decision support tool, MTXPK.org. This web-based tool has the functionality to utilize individualized demographics, serum creatinine, and real-time drug concentrations to predict the elimination profile and facilitate model-informed administration of glucarpidase.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据