| Title |
Carboxypeptidase G2 rescue in patients with methotrexate intoxication and renal failure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of Cancer, January 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602337 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S Buchen, D Ngampolo, R G Melton, C Hasan, A Zoubek, G Henze, U Bode, G Fleischhack |
| Abstract |
The methotrexate (MTX) rescue agent carboxypeptidase G2 (CPDG2) rapidly hydrolyses MTX to the inactive metabolite DAMPA (4-[[2,4-diamino-6-(pteridinyl)methyl]-methylamino]-benzoic acid) and glutamate in patients with MTX-induced renal failure and delayed MTX excretion. DAMPA is thought to be an inactive metabolite of MTX because it is not an effective inhibitor of the MTX target enzyme dihydrofolate reductase. DAMPA is eliminated more rapidly than MTX in these patients, which suggests a nonrenal route of elimination. In a phase II study (May 1997-March 2002), CPDG2 was administered intravenously to 82 patients at a median dose of 50 U kg(-1) (range 33-60 U kg(-1)). Eligible patients for this study had serum MTX concentrations of >10 microM at 36 h or >5 microM at 42 h after start of MTX infusion and documented renal failure (serum creatinine > or =1.5 times the upper limit of normal). Immediately before CPDG2 administration, a median MTX serum level of 11.93 microM (range 0.52-901 microM) was documented. Carboxypeptidase G2 was given at a median of 52 h (range 25-178 h) following the start of an MTX infusion of 1-12 g m(-2) 4-36 h(-1) and resulted in a rapid 97% (range 73-99%) reduction of the MTX serum level. Toxicity related to CPDG2 was not observed. Toxicity related to MTX was documented in about half the patients; four patients died despite CPDG2 administration due to severe myelosuppression and septic complications. In conclusion, administration of CPDG2 is a well-tolerated, safe and a very effective way of MTX elimination in delayed excretion due to renal failure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 18% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,445
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Cancer
#9,641
of 10,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,252
of 141,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Cancer
#73
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 141,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.