Screening for viral hepatitis prior to rituximab chemotherapy.

In 2008, the CDC published guidelines recommending screening of all persons undergoing treatment with rituximab to identify persons at risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We evaluated implementation of this recommendation in veterans, who are at increased risk of HBV, and determined characteristics of those screened. We also evaluated a control setting, rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening among the same rituximab-treated patients. There are no guidelines that recommend HCV screening prior to initiation of rituximab. Medical records of patients receiving rituximab between January 2006 and December 2012 were reviewed according to two time periods: 2006-2008 (period 1, pre-guidelines) and 2009-2012 (period 2, post-guidelines). Patient demographics, concomitant chemotherapy regimen (protocol, dose, duration), treatment indication, risk factors for hepatitis infection (substance abuse, homelessness, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)), and HBV/HCV screening status were documented. During the study period, 102 patients were treated with rituximab (49 in period 1 and 53 in period 2). During periods 1 and 2, 22 and 32 % of rituximab-treated patients were screened for HBV, respectively (p = 0.375). Treatment during 2009 was the only significant predictor of HBV screening in the adjusted model (p = 0.01). For HCV during periods 1 and 2, 22 and 21 % of patients were screened, respectively (p = 1.00). There were no significant predictors of HCV screening. Rates of screening for HBV among rituximab-treated patients were low, both before and after dissemination of guidelines recommending universal HBV screening of rituximab-treated patients.

The single-point method of dosage prediction: pharmacokinetic basis and method optimization.

Based on the principle of superposition an expression has been established relating a drug concentration at steady-state to a concentration after a single dose. This relationship applies for drugs with linear pharmacokinetics given at equal dosage intervals and it is independent of the route of administration. The relationship provides theoretical justification for the single-point method of dosage prediction reported in the literature. The test conditions in the method can therefore be optimized and the limits of the method defined. The expression can also be used for individualized prediction of maintenance dose after estimation of drug half-life in the patient with no limit to half-life values to which it can be applied.

Pharmacokinetics of zimelidine in humans--plasma levels and urinary excretion of zimelidine and norzimelidine after intravenous and oral administration of zimelidine.

Five healthy adults were administered zimelidine orally (150 mg) and by intravenous infusion (20 mg) in a crossover design. Blood and urine samples were collected for a period of 28 hours after dosing and the concentrations of zimelidine and norzimelidine determined. There was no significant difference in terminal phase half-life of zimelidine after oral (4.7 h +/- 1.3 SD) or intravenous dosing (5.1 h +/- 0.7 SD). An average of 50% of the ingested oral dose reached the systemic circulation. Excretion of unchanged zimelidine in urine was on average 1.26% of the intravenous dose. It appears that zimelidine is completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and "first-pass metabolism" in the liver reduces the bioavailability to 50%. The mean plasma half-life for norzimelidine was 22.8 h. The area under the plasma concentration time curve for norzimelidine after oral administration was 92% of that after intravenous administration. The plasma concentration of both zimelidine and norzimelidine are predicted to approach steady-state within 3--5 days.