4.3 Article

Modeling the effect of succimer (DMSA; dimercaptosuccinic acid) chelation therapy in patients poisoned by lead

期刊

CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 133-141

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2016.1263855

关键词

Chelation; chelation lead therapy model; dimercaptosuccinic acid; DMSA; intoxication; lead; PBK model; poisoning; succimer

资金

  1. National Dutch Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) [S/660021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Kinetic models could assist clinicians potentially in managing cases of lead poisoning. Several models exist that can simulate lead kinetics but none of them can predict the effect of chelation in lead poisoning. Our aim was to devise a model to predict the effect of succimer (dimercaptosuccinic acid; DMSA) chelation therapy on blood lead concentrations. Materials and methods: We integrated a two-compartment kinetic succimer model into an existing PBPK lead model and produced a Chelation Lead Therapy (CLT) model. The accuracy of the model's predictions was assessed by simulating clinical observations in patients poisoned by lead and treated with succimer. The CLT model calculates blood lead concentrations as the sum of the background exposure and the acute or chronic lead poisoning. The latter was due either to ingestion of traditional remedies or occupational exposure to lead-polluted ambient air. The exposure duration was known. The blood lead concentrations predicted by the CLT model were compared to the measured blood lead concentrations. Results: Pre-chelation blood lead concentrations ranged between 99 and 150 g/dL. The model was able to simulate accurately the blood lead concentrations during and after succimer treatment. The pattern of urine lead excretion was successfully predicted in some patients, while poorly predicted in others. Conclusions: Our model is able to predict blood lead concentrations after succimer therapy, at least, in situations where the duration of lead exposure is known.

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

4.3
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