Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs in kidney transplantation

Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 657-663

  Holt, David W ^a  

^a ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Drug pharmacokinetics; Immunosuppressive drugs; Therapeutic drug monitoring

Indexed keywords

CYCLOSPORIN A; EVEROLIMUS; HYPERICUM PERFORATUM EXTRACT; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; RAPAMYCIN; TACROLIMUS;

ANALYTIC METHOD; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CYTOKINE RELEASE; DIARRHEA; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG MONITORING; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; META ANALYSIS; NEPHROTOXICITY; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ANIMALS; CYCLOSPORINE; DRUG MONITORING; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; SIROLIMUS; TACROLIMUS;

EID: 0036860335     PISSN: 10624821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00041552-200211000-00014     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Armstrong VW, Oellerich M. New developments in the immunosuppressive drug monitoring of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and azathioprine. Clin Biochem 2001; 34:9-16.
2. Johnston A, Holt DW. Immunosuppressant drugs: The role of therapeutic drug monitoring. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52 (Suppl 1):61S-73S.
3. Shaw LM, Holt DW, Keown P, et al. Current opinions on therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs. Clin Ther 1999; 21:1632-1652.
4. Shaw LM, Korecka M, DeNofrio D, Brayman KL. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and outcome investigations as the basis for mycophenolic acid therapeutic drug monitoring in renal and heart transplant patients. Clin Biochem 2001; 34:17-22.
5. Holt DW. Sirolimus: Has it gained from experience with older drugs? Therapie 2002; 57:30-34.
6. Holt DW, Armstrong VW, Griesmacher A, et al. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry/International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology Working Group on Immunosuppressive Drug Monitoring. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24:59-67.
7. Nashan B. Early clinical experience with a novel rapamycin derivative. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24:53-58.
8. Holt DW, Johnston A, Kahan BD, et al. New approaches to cyclosporine monitoring raise further concerns about analytical techniques. Clin Chem 2000; 46:872-874.
9. Holt DW, Denny K, Lee T, Johnston A. Cyclosporin measurement: Who cares about inaccuracy? Accred Qual Assur 2001; 6:405-408.
10. Leaver N, Rose ML. EMIT 2000 tacrolimus assay: A critical evaluation [abstract]. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 466:467.
11. Volosov A, Napoli KL, Soldin SJ. Simultaneous simple and fast quantification of three major immunosuppressants by liquid chromatography-tandem massspectrometry. Clin Biochem 2001; 34:285-290.
12. Streit F, Armstrong VW, Oellerich M. Rapid liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry routine method for simultaneous determination of sirolimus, everolimus, tacrolimus, and cyclosporin A in whole blood. Clin Chem 2002; 48:955-958.
13. Vogeser M, Fleischer C, Meiser B, et al. Quantification of sirolimus by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using on-line solid-phase extraction. Clin Chem Lab Med 2002; 40:40-45.
14. Holt DW, Lee T, Jones K, Johnston A. Validation of an assay for routine monitoring of sirolimus using HPLC with mass spectrometric detection. Clin Chem 2000; 46:1179-1183.
15. Brignol N, McMahon LM, Luo S, Tse FL. High-throughput semi-automated 96-well liquid/liquid extraction and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometric analysis of everolimus (RAD 001) and cyclosporin a (CsA) in whole blood. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2001; 15:898-907.
16. Deters M, Kirchner G, Resch K, Kaever V. Simultaneous quantification of sirolimus, everolimus, tacrolimus and cyclosporine by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Clin Chem Lab Med 2002; 40:285-292.
17. Wallemacq PE, Konig J, Henry de Frahan E, et al. Validation of free MPA determination by ultrafiltration followed by a modified EMIT method in renal transplantation [abstract]. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:474.
18. Shaw LM, Korecka M. Ultrasensitive measurement of free mycophenolic acid using HPLC with mass spectrometry detection [abstract]. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:471.
19. Levy GA. C(2) monitoring strategy for optimising cyclosporin immunosuppression from the neoral(r) formulation. BioDrugs 2001; 15:279-290.
20. Lindholm A, Kahan BD. Influence of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics, trough concentrations, and AUC monitoring on outcome after kidney transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54:205-218.
21. David OJ, Johnston A. Limited sampling strategies for estimating cyclosporin area under the concentration-time curve: Review of current algorithms. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:100-114.
22. Holt DW, Johnston A. Cyclosporin microemulsion: A guide to usage and monitoring. BioDrugs 1997; 7:175-197.
23. Johnston A, David OJ, Cooney GF. Pharmacokinetic validation of neoral absorption profiling. Transplant Proc 2000; 32:53S-56S.
24. Cantarovich M, Besner JG, Barkun JS, et al. Two-hour cyclosporine level determination is the appropriate tool to monitor Neoral therapy. Clin Transplant 1998; 12:243-249.
25. 0.
26. 2 monitoring is valid in the early period following kidney transplantation.
27. 2 group.
28. Perner F. Cyclosporin microemulsion (Neoral) absorption profiling and sparse-sample predictors during the first 3 months after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2002; 2:148-156.
29. Holt DW. Cyclosporin monitoring based on C2 sampling. Transplantation 2002; 73:840-841.
30. Kahan BD, Keown P, Levy GA, Johnston A. Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs in clinical practice. Clin Ther 2002; 24:330-350.
31. Levy G, Thervet E, Lake J, Uchida K. Patient management by Neoral C(2) monitoring: An international consensus statement. Transplantation 2002; 73:S12-S18. The first consensus document on the background and implementation of C2 monitoring in kidney transplantation.
32. Cole E, Midtvedt K, Johnston A, et al. Recommendations for the implementation of Neoral C(2) monitoring in clinical practice. Transplantation 2002; 73:S19-S22.
33. Mahalati K, Kahan BD. Pharmacological surrogates of allograft outcome. Ann Transplant 2000; 5:14-23.
34. Wong KM, Shek CC, Chau KF, Li CS. Abbreviated tacrolimus area-under-the-curve monitoring for renal transplant recipients. Am J Kidney Dis 2000; 35:660-666.
35. Macchi-Andanson M, Charpiat B, Jelliffe RW, et al. Failure of traditional trough levels to predict tacrolimus concentrations. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:129-133.
36. McAlister VC, Mahalati K, Peltekian KM, et al. A clinical pharmacokinetic study of tacrolimus and sirolimus combination immunosuppression comparing simultaneous to separated administration. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24:346-350. A useful starting point for assessing the implications of monitoring both sirolimus and tacrolimus.
37. Jergensen KA, Povlsen JV, Poutsen JH. Optimal time for determination of blood tacrolimus level. Transplant Proc 2001; 33:3164-3165.
38. Dietemann J, Berthoux P, Gay-Montchamp JP, et al. Comparison of ELISA method versus MEIA method for daily practice in the therapeutic monitoring of tacrolimus. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16:2246-2249.
39. Staatz C, Taylor P, Tett S. Low tacrolimus concentrations and increased risk of early acute rejection in adult renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16:1905-1909.
40. Venkataramanan R, Shaw LM, Sarkozi L, et al. Clinical utility of monitoring tacrolimus blood concentrations in liver transplant patients. J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 41:542-551. An exemplary study addressing some fundamental issues for drug concentration data analysis.
41. Margreiter R. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus compared with cyclosporin microemulsion in renal transplantation: A randomised multicentre study. Lancet 2002; 359:741-746.
42. Bolley R, Zulke C, Kammerl M, et al. Tacrolimus-induced nephrotoxicity unmasked by induction of the CYP3A4 system with St John's wort [letter]. Transplantation 2002; 73:1009.
43. Ernst E. St John's wort supplements endanger the success of organ transplantation. Arch Surg 2002; 137:316-319.
44. van Gelder T, Hilbrands LB, Vanrenterghem Y, et al. A randomized double-blind, multicenter plasma concentration controlled study of the safety and efficacy of oral mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68:261-266.
45. Oellerich M, Shipkova M, Schutz E, et al. Pharmacokinetic and metabolic investigations of mycophenolic acid in pediatric patients after renal transplantation: Implications for therapeutic drug monitoring. German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil Therapy in Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22:20-26.
46. Shaw LM, Holt DW, Oellerich M, et al. Current issues in therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid: Report of a roundtable discussion. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:305-315.
47. Holt DW. Monitoring mycophenolic acid: A personal view. Ann Clin Biochem 2002; 39:173-183. A useful summary for those contemplating the introduction of mycophenolate monitoring.
48. Cattaneo D, Gaspari F, Ferrari S, et al. Pharmacokinetics help optimizing mycophenolate mofetil dosing in kidney transplant patients. Clin Transplant 2001; 15:402-409. A further study to find both AUC and Co relate lo efficacy of mycophenolic acid better than prescribed dose.
49. Filler G, Lepage N, Delisle B, Mai I. Effect of cyclosporine on mycophenolic acid area under the concentration-time curve in pediatric kidney transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:514-519.
50. van Gelder T, Klupp J, Barten MJ, et al. Co-administration of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil does not increase mycophenolic acid (MPA) exposure, but co-administration of cyclosporine inhibits the enterohepatic recirculation of MPA, thereby decreasing its exposure. J Heart Lung Transplant 2001; 20:160-161.
51. Holt DW, Ostraat O, Grinyo JM, et al. MMF may be given at lower doses when used in association with sirolimus in renal transplant recipients [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2001; 1 (Suppl 1):247.
52. Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, Kuypers D, et al. Effect of cyclosporine withdrawal on mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in kidney transplant recipients with deteriorating renal function: Preliminary report. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:717-721. An important contribution to the evolving explanation for lower mycophenolate exposure in patients receiving concomitant cyclosporin therapy.
53. van Gelder T, Klupp J, Barten MJ, et al. Comparison of the effects of tacrolimus and cyclosporine on the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:119-128.
54. Wieland E, Shipkova M, Schellhaas U, et al. Induction of cytokine release by the acyl glucuronide of mycophenolio acid: A link to side effects? Clin Biochem 2000; 33:107-113.
55. Maes B, Oetlerich M, Ceuppens JL, et al. A new acute inflammatory syndrome related to the introduction of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with Wegener's granulomatosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17:923-926.
56. Behrend M. Adverse gastrointestinal effects of mycophenolate mofetil: Aetiology, incidence and management. Drug Saf 2001; 24:645-663.
57. Fruhwirth M, Fischer H, Simma B, Ellemunter H. Elevated tacrolimus trough leveis in association with mycophenolate mofetil-induced diarrhoea: A case report. Pediatr Transplant 2001; 5:132-134.
58. Hosotsubo H, Takahara S, Imamura R, et al. Analytic validation of the enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique for the determination of mycophenolic acid in plasma from renal transplant recipients compared with a high-performance liquid chromatographic assay. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:669-674.
59. Weber LT, Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, et al. Comparison of the Emit immunoassay with HPLC for therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in pediatric renal-transplant recipients on mycophenolate mofetil therapy. Clin Chem 2002; 48:517-525.
60. Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, Kiehl MG, et al. Quantification of mycophenolic acid in plasma samples collected during and immediately after intravenous administration of mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Chem 2001; 47:1485-1488.
61. Schuurman HJ, Pally C, Fringeli-Tanner M, Papageorgiou C. Comparative efficacy of mycophenolate sodium (MPS) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) with and without cyclosporine in rat transplantation models. Transplantation 2001; 72:1776-1783.
62. Bjarnason I. Enteric coating of mycophenolate sodium: A rational approach to limit topical gastrointestinal lesions and extend the therapeutic index of mycophenolate. Transplant Proc 2001; 33;3238-3240.
63. Napoli KL, Taylor PJ. From beach to bedside: A history of the development of sirolimus. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:559-586. An authoritative review on the basic science and monitoring of sirolimus.
64. Jones K, Johnston A, Holt DW. Proficiency testing issues relating to sirolimus. Clin Ther 2000; 22:122-131.
65. Morelon E, Mamzer-Bruneel MF, Peraldi MN, Kreis H. Sirolimus: A new promising immunosuppressive drug: Towards a rationale for its use in renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16:18-20.
66. Johnson RW, Kreis H, Oberbauer R, et al. Sirolimus allows early cyclosporine withdrawal in renaltransplantation resulting in improved renal function and lower blood pressure. Transplantation 2001; 72:777-786. A pivotal study on the use of sirolimus in kidney transplantation, underpinning the use of this drug in Europe.
67. Reitamo S, Spuls P, Sassolas B, et al. Efficacy of sirolimus (rapamycin) administered concomitantly with a subtherapeutio dose of cyclosporin in the treatment of severe psoriasis: A randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145:438-445.
68. Hartwig T, Pridohl O, Witzigmann H, et al. Low-dose sirolimus and tacrolimus in kidney transplantation: First results of a single-center experience. Transplant Proc 2001; 33:3226-3228.
69. Kaplan B, Meier-Kriesche HU, Napoli KL, Kahan BD. The effects of relative timing of sirolimus and cyclosporine microemulsion formulation coadministration on the pharmacokinetics of each agent. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 63:48-53.
70. Kahan BD, Kaplan B, Lorber MI, et al. RAD in de novo renal transplantation: Comparison of three doses on the incidence and severity of acute rejection. Transplantation 2001; 71:1400-1406. The initial dose ranging study of everolimus in kidney transplantation.
71. Nashan B. The role of Certican (everolimus, rad) in the many pathways of chronic rejection. Transplant Proc 2001; 33:3215-3220.
72. Kovarik JM, Kaplan B, Tedesco SH, et al. Exposure-response relationships for everolimus in de novo kidney transplantation: Defining a therapeutic range. Transplantation 2002; 73:920-925. The definitive paper to document appropriate concentrations of everolimus in kidney transplant patients.
73. Kovarik JM, Sabia HD, Figueiredo J, et al. Influence of hepatic impairment on everolimus pharmacokinetics: Implications for dose adjustment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 70:425-430.
74. Kovarik JM, Hsu CH, McMahon L, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of everolimus in de novo renal transplant patients: Impact of ethnicity and comedications. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 70:247-254.
75. Kovarik JM, Kalbag J, Figueiredo J, et al. Differential influence of two cyclosporine formulations on everolimus pharmacokinetics: A clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction. J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 42:95-99.
76. Ensom MH, Chang TK, Patel P. Pharmacogenetics: The therapeutic drug monitoring of the future? Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40:783-802. An excellent background paper on the potential impact of identifying genetic polymorphisms for drug metabotic enzymes on traditional drug monitoring.
77. Furness PN, Taub N. International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: Report of the CERTPAP Project. Kidney Int 2001; 60:1998-2012. A paper that sets out the pitfalls involved in grading histological features of biopsy samples. Underlines the need for caution when monitoring trends in rejection rates, both within and between-centre.