Neoral monitoring by simplified sparse sampling area under the concentration-time curve: Its relationship to acute rejection and cyclosporine nephrotoxicity early after kidney transplantation

Transplantation

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 55-62

  Mahalati, Kamran ^a   Belitsky, Philip ^a,b   Sketris, Ingrid ^a   West, Kenneth ^a   Panek, Romauld ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b QUEEN ELIZABETH II HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AZATHIOPRINE; CYCLOSPORIN; CYCLOSPORIN A; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; PLACEBO; PREDNISONE; RAPAMYCIN;

ADULT; ANTIBODY PRODUCTION; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG MONITORING; FEMALE; HLA SYSTEM; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEPHROTOXICITY; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 0033565808     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00007890-199907150-00011     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Nankivell BJ, Hibbins M, Chapman JR. Diagnostic utility of whole blood cyclosporine measurements in renal transplantation using triple therapy. Transplantation 1994; 28: 271.
2. Oellerich M, Armstrong VW, Kahan B, et al. Lake Louise consensus conference on cyclosporine monitoring in organ transplantation: report of the consensus panel. Ther Drug Monit 1995; 17: 642.
3. Grevel J Welsh MS, Kahan B. Cyclosporine monitoring in renal transplantation: area under the curve monitoring is superior to trough-level monitoring. Ther Drug Monit 1989; 11: 246.
4. Meyer MM, Munar M, Udeaja J, Bennett W. Efficacy of area under the curve cyclosporine monitoring in renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 1993; 4: 1306.
5. Lindholm A, Kahan BD. Influence of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics trough concentrations, and AUC monitoring on outcome after kidney transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 205.
6. Kasiske BL, Heim-Duthoy K, Rao KV, Awni WM. The relationship between cyclosporine pharmacokinetic parameters and subsequent acute rejection in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1988; 46: 716.
7. Kovarik JM, Mueller EA, Niese D. Clinical development of a cyclosporine microemulsion in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 1996; 18: 429.
8. Holt DW, Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, van Bree JB, Kutz K. The pharmacokinetics of Sandimmun Neoral: a new formulation of cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1994; 26: 2935.
9. Kahan BD, Dunn J, Fitts C, et al. The Neoral formulation: improved correlation between cyclosporine trough levels and exposure in stable renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1994; 26: 2940.
10. Barone G, Bunke CM, Choc MG, et al. The pharmacokinetics of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in primary renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1996; 61: 875.
11. Sketris IS, Lawen JG, Beauregard-Zollinger L, et al. Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine Sandimmune with Sandimmune Neoral in stable renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 1994; 26: 2961.
12. Niese D. A double-blind randomized study of Sandimmun Neoral versus Sandimmun in new renal transplant recipients: results after 12 months. Transplant Proc 19954; 27: 1849.
13. Lodge JPA, Pollard SG. Neoral vs Sandimmun: interim results of a randomized trial of efficacy and safety in preventing acute rejection in new renal transplant recipients. The U.K. Neoral Study Group. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 272.
14. Keown PA. Use of cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) in de novo and stable renal transplantation: clinical impact, pharmacokinetic consequences and economic benefits. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 2147.
15. Abendroth D, Buchholz B, Land W, et al. Comparison of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Neoral vs Sandimmun in de novo renal transplantation over 24 months' treatment. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 275.
16. Barone G, Bunke CM, Choc MG, et al. Safety and tolerability of Neoral vs Sandimmune: 1-year data in primary renal allograft recipients. Neoral Study Group. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 2183.
17. Barone G, Bunke CM, Choc MG, et al. The safety and tolerability of cyclosporine emulsion versus cyclosporine in a randomized, double-blind comparison in primary renal allograft recipients: The Neoral Study Group. Transplantation 1996; 61: 968.
18. Keown P, Landsberg D, Halloran P, et al. A randomized, prospective multicenter pharmacoepidemiologic study of cyclosporine microemulsion in stable renal graft recipients. Transplantation 1996; 62: 1744.
19. Serino F, Citterio F, Pozzetto U, Grevel J, Castagneto M. Abbreviated three-point kinetic profile in the 12-hour area under the curve for pharmacokinetic monitoring of cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1994; 26: 2807.
20. Grevel J, Kahan B. Abbreviated kinetic profiles in area under the curve monitoring of cyclosporine therapy. Clin Chem 1991; 37: 1905.
21. Gaspari F, Anedda MF, Signorini O, Remuzzi G, Perico N. Prediction of cyclosporine area under the curve using a three point sampling strategy after Neoral administration. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997; 8: 647.
22. Kahan BD, Dunn J, Fitts C, et al. The Neoral formulation: improved correlation between cyclosporine trough levels and exposure in stable renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1994; 26: 2940.
23. Kovarik JM, Mueller EA, Van BreeJB, Tetzloff W, Kutz K. Reduced inter and intraindividual variability in cyclosporine pharmacokinetics from a microemulsion formulation. J Pharm Sci 1994; 83: 444.
24. Kovarik J, Mueller EA, Richard F, et al. Evidence for earlier stabilization of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in de novo renal transplant patients receiving a microemulsion formulation. Transplantation 1996; 62: 759.
25. Kovarik JM, Mueller EA, Van Bree JB, Arns W, Renner E, Kutz K. Within-day consistency in cyclosporine pharmacokinetics from a microemulsion formulation in renal transplant patients. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 232.
26. Lindholm A, Dahlqvist R, Groth GG, Sjoqvist F. A prospective study of cyclosporine concentration in relation to its therapeutic effect and toxicity after renal transplantation. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 30: 443.
27. Kennedy M, Yee GC, McGuire TR, Leonard TM, Crowley JJ, Deeg HJ. Correlation of serum cyclosporine concentration with renal dysfunction in marrow transplant recipients. Transplantation 1985; 40: 249.
28. Klintmalm G, Sawe J, Ringden O, Von Bahr C, Magnussen A. Cyclosporine plasma levels in renal transplant patients. Transplantation 1985; 39: 132.
29. Amante AJ, Kahan BD. Abbreviated AUC strategy for monitoring cyclosporine microemulsion therapy in the immediate posttransplant period. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 2162.
30. Almond PS, Matas A, Gillingham K, et al. Risk factors for chronic rejection in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1993; 55: 752.
31. Cecka JM, Cho YW, Terasaki PI. Analysis of the UNOS scientific renal transplant registry at three years: early events affecting transplant success. Transplantation 1992; 53: 59.
32. Hong JH, Sumrani N, Delaney V, Davis R, Dibenedetto A, Butt KMH. Causes of renal allograft failure in the ciclosporin era. Nephron 1992; 62: 272.
33. Amante AJ, Kahan BD. Abbreviated area under the curve strategy for monitoring cyclosporine microemulsion therapy in the immediate posttransplant period. Clin Chem 1996; 42: 1294.
34. Halloran PF, Aprille MA, Farewell V, et al. Early function as the principal correlate of graft survival. Transplantation 1988; 46: 223.