Busulfan Interlaboratory Proficiency Testing Program Revealed Worldwide Errors in Drug Quantitation and Dose Recommendations.

BACKGROUND The clinical outcomes of busulfan-based conditioning regimens for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) have been improved by personalizing the doses to target narrow busulfan plasma exposure. An interlaboratory proficiency test program for the quantitation, pharmacokinetic modeling, and busulfan dosing in plasma was developed. Previous proficiency rounds (ie, the first 2) found that 67%-85% and 71%-88% of the dose recommendations were inaccurate, respectively. METHODS A proficiency test scheme was developed by the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories (SKML) and consisted of 2 rounds per year, with each round containing 2 busulfan samples. In this study, 5 subsequent proficiency tests were evaluated. In each round, the participating laboratories reported their results for 2 proficiency samples (ie, low and high busulfan concentrations) and a theoretical case assessing their pharmacokinetic modeling and dose recommendations. Descriptive statistics were performed, with ±15% for busulfan concentrations and ±10% for busulfan plasma exposure. The dose recommendations were deemed accurate. RESULTS Since January 2020, 41 laboratories have participated in at least 1 round of this proficiency test. Over the 5 rounds, an average of 78% of the busulfan concentrations were accurate. Area under the concentration-time curve calculations were accurate in 75%-80% of the cases, whereas only 60%-69% of the dose recommendations were accurate. Compared with the first 2 proficiency test rounds (PMID 33675302, October, 2021), the busulfan quantitation results were similar, but the dose recommendations worsened. Some laboratories repeatedly submit results that deviated by more than 15% from the reference values. CONCLUSIONS The proficiency test showed persistent inaccuracies in busulfan quantitation, pharmacokinetic modeling, and dose recommendations. Additional educational efforts have yet to be implemented; regulatory efforts seem to be needed. The use of specialized busulfan pharmacokinetic laboratories or a sufficient performance in busulfan proficiency tests should be required for HCT centers that prescribe busulfan.

[1]  A. Verstraete,et al.  Automation in Busulfan Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: Evaluation of an Immunoassay on two Routine Chemistry Analyzers , 2021, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[2]  E. V. van Maarseveen,et al.  Quality Control of Busulfan Plasma Quantitation, Modeling and Dosing: An Interlaboratory Proficiency Testing Program. , 2021, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[3]  R. Aarnoutse,et al.  First international quality control programme for laboratories measuring antimicrobial drugs to support dose individualization in critically ill patients , 2020, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[4]  Y. Daali,et al.  Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Busulfan for the Management of Pediatric Patients: Cross-Validation of Methods and Long-Term Performance , 2017, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[5]  A. Paci,et al.  Personalizing Busulfan-Based Conditioning: Considerations from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Practice Guidelines Committee. , 2016, Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

[6]  A. Egberts,et al.  Association of busulfan exposure with survival and toxicity after haemopoietic cell transplantation in children and young adults: a multicentre, retrospective cohort analysis. , 2016, The Lancet. Haematology.

[7]  J. Cortes,et al.  Better leukemia-free and overall survival in AML in first remission following cyclophosphamide in combination with busulfan compared with TBI. , 2013, Blood.

[8]  F. Wit,et al.  Adherence to HIV Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Guidelines in The Netherlands , 2011, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[9]  P. Vicini,et al.  Development of a Population Pharmacokinetics‐Based Sampling Schedule to Target Daily Intravenous Busulfan for Outpatient Clinic Administration , 2010, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[10]  J. McCune,et al.  Busulfan in hematopoietic stem cell transplant setting , 2009, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[11]  B. Andersson,et al.  High busulfan exposure is associated with worse outcomes in a daily i.v. busulfan and fludarabine allogeneic transplant regimen. , 2008, Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

[12]  Y. Bertrand,et al.  Influence of Underlying Disease on Busulfan Disposition in Pediatric Bone Marrow Transplant Recipients: A Nonparametric Population Pharmacokinetic Study , 2007, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[13]  H. Deeg,et al.  Optimization of allogeneic transplant conditioning: not the time for dogma , 2006, Leukemia.

[14]  F. Appelbaum,et al.  Busulfan concentration and graft rejection in pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation , 2002, Bone Marrow Transplantation.

[15]  J. Gibbs,et al.  Plasma Concentration Monitoring of Busulfan , 2000 .

[16]  B. Bostrom,et al.  An evaluation of engraftment, toxicity and busulfan concentration in children receiving bone marrow transplantation for leukemia or genetic disease , 2000, Bone Marrow Transplantation.

[17]  H. Deeg,et al.  Marrow transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia: the influence of plasma busulfan levels on the outcome of transplantation. , 1997, Blood.

[18]  F. Appelbaum,et al.  Graft-rejection and toxicity following bone marrow transplantation in relation to busulfan pharmacokinetics. , 1995, Bone marrow transplantation.