New concepts in cyclosporine monitoring

Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 619-626

  Keown, Paul A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cyclosporine; Immunosuppression; Kidney; Therapeutic drug monitoring; Transplantation

Indexed keywords

BASILIXIMAB; CREATININE; CYCLOSPORIN; CYCLOSPORIN A; DILTIAZEM; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; PREDNISONE;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; CHRONIC GRAFT REJECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CLONAL VARIATION; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG TRANSPORT; GRAFT FAILURE; HEART TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; META ANALYSIS; MICROEMULSION; NEPHROTOXICITY; PHARMACODYNAMICS; PHLEBOTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; WELLBEING;

CYCLOSPORINE; DRUG MONITORING; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION;

EID: 0036860975     PISSN: 10624821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00041552-200211000-00008     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, et al. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:605-612.
2. Canadian Organ Replacement Registry. 2002 Report, Vol. 2. Organ donation and transplantation. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2002.
3. Keown PA. Improving quality of life: The new target for transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 72:SS67-SS75.
4. Dunn CJ, Wagstaff AJ, Perry CM, et al. Cyclosporine: an updated review of the pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy and tolerability of a microemulsion-based formulation (Neoral) in organ transplantation. Drugs 2001; 61:1957-2016.
5. Keown PA. New immunosuppressive strategies. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1998; 7:659-663.
6. Wilkinson A. Progress in the clinical application of immunosuppressive drugs in renal transplantation. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2001; 10:763-770.
7. Rush D, Somorjai R, Deslauriers R, et al. Subclinical rejection - A potential surrogate marker for chronic rejection - May be diagnosed by protocol biopsy or urine spectroscopy. Ann Transplant 2000; 5:44-49.
8. Ishikawa A, Flechner SM, Goldfarb DA, et al. Quantitative assessment of the first acute rejection as a predictor of renal transplant outcome. Transplantation 1999; 68:1318-1324.
9. 2 monitoring strategy for optimizing cyclosporine immunosuppression from the Neoral formulation. BioDrugs 2001; 15:279-290.
10. Belitsky P, Dunn S, Johnson A, Levy G, Impact of absorption profiling on efficacy and safety of cyclosporin therapy in transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000; 39:117-125.
11. Mahalati K, Kahan BD, Pharmacological surrogates of allograft outcome. Ann Transplant 2000; 5:14-23.
12. Merton G, Jones K, Lee M, et al. Accuracy of cyclosporin measurements made in capillary blood samples obtained by skin puncture. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22:594-598.
13. Shaw LM, Holt D, Keown P, et al. Current opinions on therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs. Clin Ther 1999; 21:1632-1652.
14. Morris AG, Lam AK. Cyclosporin monitoring in Australasia: Survey of laboratory practices in 2000. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24:471-478.
15. Cyclosporine International Proficiency Testing Scheme. Analytical Report no. 208. www.bioanalytics.co.uk/CYA/cys208.html; 2002.
16. Keevil BG, Tierney DP, Cooper DP, Morris MR. Rapid liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for routine analysis of cyclosporin A over an extended concentration range. Clin Chem 2002; 48:69-76.
17. Volosov A, Napoli KL, Soldin SJ. Simultaneous simple and fast quantification of three major immunosuppressants by liquid chromatography-tandem mass-spectrometry. Clin Biochem 2001; 34:285-290.
18. Tredger JM, Roberts N, Sherwood R, et al. Comparison of five cyclosporin immunoassays with HPLC. Clin Chem Lab Med 2000; 38:1205-1207.
19. Hamwi A, Salomon A, Steinbrugger R, et al. Cyclosporine metabolism in patients after kidney, bone marrow, heart-lung, and liver transplantation in the early and late posttransplant periods. Am J Clin Pathol 2000; 114:536-543.
20. Steimer W. Performance and specificity of monoclonal immunoassays for cyclosporine monitoring: How specific is specific? Clin Chem 1999; 45:371-381.
21. Fernandez-Marmiesse A, Hermida J, Tutor JC. Comparison of predose vs. 2-h postdose blood metabolites/cyclosporine ratios in kidney and liver transplant patients. Clin Biochem 2000; 33:383-386.
22. Kahan BD, Keown P, Levy GA, Johnston A. Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs in clinical practice. Clin Ther 2002; 24:330-350; discussion 329.
23. Debord J, Risco E, Harel M, et al. Application of a gamma model of absorption to oral cyclosporin. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40:375-382.
24. Hall SD, Thummel KE, Watkins PB, et al. Molecular and physical mechanisms of first-pass extraction. Drug Metab Disposit 1999; 27:161-166.
25. Wacher VJ, Silverman JA, Zhang Y, Benet LZ. Role of p-glycoprotein and cytochrome P450 3A in limiting oral absorption of peptides and peptidomimetics. J Pharm Sci 1998; 87:1322-1330.
26. 2 levels above 1500 μg/l during the first week, but high in those below these thresholds.
27. International Neoral Study Group. Cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) absorption profiling and sparse-sample predictors during the first 3 months after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2002; 2:148-156.
28. Primmett DRN, Levine M, Kovarik JM, et al. Cyclosporine monitoring in renal transplant patients: Two- or three-point methods that estimate AUC are superior to trough levels in predicting drug exposure. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20:276-283.
29. David OJ, Johnston A. Limited sampling strategies for estimating cyclosporine area under the concentration-time curve: Review of current algorithms. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:100-114.
30. Leger F, Debord J, Meur Y, et al. Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of oral cyclosporin phamacokinetics in patients with stable renal transplants. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 41:71-80.
31. Scholten E, Cremers S, Schoemaker R, et al. A population pharmacokinetic model of sampling and Bayesian fitting in kidney transplant and simultaneous pancreas kidney transplant recipients [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2002; 2 (Suppl. 3):186A.
32. Wacke R, Rohde B, Engel G, et al. Comparison of several approaches of therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine A based on individual pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56:43-48.
33. Mahalati K, Belitsky P, Sketris I, et al. 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 1999; 68:55-62.
34. Kelles A, Herman J, Tjandra-Maga TB, Van Damme-Lombaerts R. Sandimmune to Neoral conversion and value of abbreviated AUC monitoring in stable pediatric kidney transplants. Pediatr Transplant 2000; 4:2-5.
35. Meier-Kriesche HU, Kaplan B, Brannan P, et al. A limited sampling strategy for the estimation of eight-hour Neoral areas under the curve in renal transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20:401-407.
36. Meier-Kriesche HU, Bonilla-Felix MA, Ferris ME, et al. A limited sampling strategy for the estimation of Neoral AUCs in pediatric patients. Pediatr Nephrol 1999; 13:742-747.
37. 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.
38. Kahan BD, Welsh M, Schoenberg L, et al. Variable oral absorption of cyclosporine. A biopharmaceutical risk factor for chronic renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1996; 62:599-606.
39. Vathsala A, Lu YM. Abbreviated cyclosporine pharmacokinetic profiling in clinical renal transplantation; from principles to practice. Transplant Proc 2001; 33:3137-3139.
40. 0-4 values 4400-5500 μg.h/l) within the first 3-5 days post-transplant).
41. 2' cyclosporine levels and time to initiation of cyclosporine therapy on outcomes in patients receiving Neoral® and Simulect® [abstract]. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:703A.
42. 2 level and the relative absorption of cyclosporine in the first week post-transplant.
43. Buchler M, Chadban S, Jost L, et al., for the Mo2art study group. Excellent renal tolerability of Neoral C-2 h monitoring in de novo transplantation: Initial results of the Mo2art trial [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2002; 3 (Suppl. 2):399A.
44. Barama A, Gough J, McKenna R, et al. Correlation between cyclosporin pharmacokinetics parameters and histological findings in protocol biopsies [abstract]. Proceedings 2001: A Transplant Odyssey 2001; 1098A.
45. 0) in long-term renal transplant recipients. Proceedings 10th Congress of the European Society for Organ Transplantation 2001; 159:659.
46. 2 monitoring may permit optimization of long term Neoral® exposure in stable renal transplant recipients. Proceedings 10th Congress of the European Society for Organ Transplantation, 2001; 159:659.
47. 2 monitoring: Six month follow-up. Am J Transplant 2002; 2 (Suppl. 3):377.
48. David-Neto E, Lemos FB, Furusawa EA, et al. Impact of cyclosporin A pharmacokinetics on the presence of side effects in pediatric renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11:343-349.
49. Mahalati K, Lawen K, Kiberd B, Belitsky P. Improved recovery from DGF in Neoral treated renal transplant recipients monitored by absorption profiling versus trough levels. Joint Meeting of AST/ASTS, 2001; 1071.
50. Filler G, Mai I, Filler S, Ehrich JH. Abbreviated cyclosporine AUCs on Neoral - The search continues! Pediatr Nephrol 1999; 13:98-102.
51. Morris RG, Russ GR, Cervelli MJ, et al. Comparison of trough, 2-hour, and limited AUC blood sampling for monitoring cyclosporin (Neoral) at day 7 post-renal transplantation and incidence of rejection in the first month. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24:479-486.
52. 2 levels were significantly related to the probability of rejection.
53. Margreiter R. Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus compared with ciclosporin microemulsion in renal transplantation: A randomized multicentre study. Lancet 2002; 359:741-746.
54. MacDonald AS, for the Rapamune Global Study Group. A world-wide, phase III, randomized, controlled, safety and efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary mismatched renal allografts. Transplantation 2001; 71:271-280.
55. Cibrik DM, Kaplan B, Meier-Kriesche HU. Role of interleukin-2 receptor antibodies in kidney transplantation. BioDrugs 2001; 15:655-666.
56. 2 single-point sampling to evaluate cyclosporine exposure in long-term renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2001; 33:3133-3136.
57. 2 monitoring in stable renal transplant recipients may reduce cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Am J Transplant 2002; 2 (Suppl. 3):379.
58. Nashan B, Cole E, Levy G, Thervet E. Clinical validation studies of Neoral C(2) monitoring: A review. Transplantation 2002; 73(9 Suppl.):S3-S11.
59. Keown PA, Johnston A. Cyclosporine exposure using a fast/food test may be a sensitive tool for identifying absorption profile differences between Neoral and generic formulations. 2001: A Transplant Odyssey 2001.
60. 2 monitoring: An international consensus statement. Transplantation 2002; 73:S12-S18.
61. 2 monitoring in clinical practice. Transplantation 2002; 73 (Suppl.):S19-S22.
62. Oellerich M, Armstrong VW. Two-hour cyclosporine concentration determination: An appropriate tool to monitor Neoral therapy? Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24:40-46.
63. max) correlate with freedom from liver graft rejection: Results of a prospective, randomized comparison of neoral and sandimmune for liver transplantation (NOF-8). Transplantation 1999; 67:1133-1137.
64. 2 levels durin9 the first 5 days was critically important in minimizing the occurrence of rejection, and that achieving these levels did not compromise renal function.
65. 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.
66. Cantarovich M, Barkun JS, Tchervenkov JI, et al. Comparison of Neoral dose monitored with cyclosporine trough levels versus 2-hour levels in stable liver transplant patients. Transplantation 1998; 66:1621-1627.
67. Cantarovich M, Elstein E, de Varennes B, Barkun JS. Clinical benefit of neoral dose monitoring with cyclosporine 2-hr post-dose levels compared with trough levels in stable heart transplant patients. Transplantation 1999; 68:1839-1842.
68. del Mar Fernandez De Gatta M, Santos-Buelga D, Dominguez-Gil A, Garcia MJ. Immunosuppressive therapy for paediatric transplant patients: Pharmacokinetic considerations. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 41:115-135.
69. Yatscoff RW, Aspeslet LJ. The monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs: A pharmacodynamic approach. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20:459-463.
70. Zacher T, Thiele B, Wassmuth R, Albert FW. Cyclosporine A sensitivity in vitro and P-glycoprotein expression in patients on dialysis and after kidney transplantation. Transplant Immunol 2000; 8:147-150.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Halloran PF, Helms LM, Kung L, Noujaim J. The temporal profile of calcineurin inhibition by cyclosporine in vitro. Transplantation 1999; 68:1356-1361.
74. Sindhi R, LaVia MF, Paulling E, et al. Stimulated response of peripheral lymphocytes may distinguish cyclosporine effect in renal transplant recipients receiving a cyclosporine+rapamycin regimen. Transplantation 2000; 69:432-436.
75. Caruso R, Perico N, Cattaneo D, et al. Whole-blood calcineurin activity is not predicted by cyclosporine blood concentration in renal transplant recipients. Clin Chem 2001; 47:1679-1687.
76. Armstrong VW, Oellerich M. New developments in the immunosuppressive drug monitoring of cyclosporine, tacrolimus and azathioprine. Clin Biochem 2001; 34:9-16.