Analysis of lomustine drug content in FDA-approved and compounded lomustine capsules.

OBJECTIVE To determine the lomustine content (potency) in compounded and FDA-approved lomustine capsules. DESIGN Evaluation study. SAMPLE 2 formulations of lomustine capsules (low dose [7 to 11 mg] and high dose [40 to 48 mg]; 5 capsules/dose/source) from 3 compounders and from 1 manufacturer of FDA-approved capsules. PROCEDURES Lomustine content was measured by use of a validated high-pressure liquid chromatography method. An a priori acceptable range of 90% to 110% of the stated lomustine content was selected on the basis of US Pharmacopeia guidelines. RESULTS The measured amount of lomustine in all compounded capsules was less than the stated content (range, 59% to 95%) and was frequently outside the acceptable range (failure rate, 2/5 to 5/5). Coefficients of variation for lomustine content ranged from 4.1% to 16.7% for compounded low-dose capsules and from 1.1% to 10.8% for compounded high-dose capsules. The measured amount of lomustine in all FDA-approved capsules was slightly above the stated content (range, 104% to 110%) and consistently within the acceptable range. Coefficients of variation for lomustine content were 0.5% for low-dose and 2.3% for high-dose FDA-approved capsules. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Compounded lomustine frequently did not contain the stated content of active drug and had a wider range of lomustine content variability than did the FDA-approved product. The sample size was small, and larger studies are needed to confirm these findings; however, we recommend that compounded veterinary formulations of lomustine not be used when appropriate doses can be achieved with FDA-approved capsules or combinations of FDA-approved capsules.

Lomustine and melphalan cannot be replaced by cyclophosphamide and etoposide without reducing efficacy in MOPPEBVCAD chemotherapy for advanced Hodgkin's disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility, toxicity and preliminary results of a potentially less toxic variant of the MOPPEBVCAD chemotherapy regimen for advanced Hodgkin's disease: MOPPEBVCyED, in which cyclophosphamide and etoposide replace lomustine and melphalan, respectively, with the remaining components being unaltered. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was multicenter, prospective and randomized, and enrolled 67 patients with newly diagnosed stage IIB, III, IV Hodgkin's disease (62 were expected on the grounds of statistical considerations). Radiotherapy was restricted to sites of bulky involvement or to areas that responded incompletely to chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 48 months. RESULTS: Comparing MOPPEBVCAD vs. MOPPEBVCyED, the results were as follows: complete remissions 35/35 vs. 30/32 (plus one partial remission and one disease progression); relapses 5 vs. 8; deaths 2 (one of myelodysplasia) vs. 2; delivered mean dose intensity (DI): lomustine 0.79+/-0.67 vs. cyclophosphamide 0.82+/-0.32; melphalan 0.80+/-0.13 vs. etoposide 0.86+/-0.18; average DI of the 7 drugs common to both regimens 0.73+/-0.10 vs. 0.83+/-0.11; all 9 drugs 0.75+/-0.13 vs. 0.84+/-0.09 (p=0.002); projected 5-year failure-free survival 0.79 vs 0.62; second cancers, two myelodysplasias vs. one carcinoma of the kidney. Toxicities were not statistically different except for heavier thrombocytopenia being recorded with MOPPEBVCAD. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: The higher cumulative and single drug DI recorded with MOPPEBVCyED may reflect better short-term tolerability, but it does not lead to better disease control. Its late toxicity may be expected to be lower in the future but at present it does not seem to be a sufficient reason to substitute MOPPEBVCyED for MOPPEBVCAD.