Is C2 monitoring or another limited sampling strategy superior to C0 monitoring in improving clinical outcomes in adult liver transplant recipients?

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 637-642

  Marin, Judith Geneviève ^b   Levine, Marc ^a   Ensom, Mary H H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Children's and Women's Hospitals of British Columbia   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOSPORIN A;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG MONITORING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; INFECTION; KIDNEY DISEASE; KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION; LIVER DYSFUNCTION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MICROEMULSION; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AREA UNDER CURVE; CYCLOSPORINE; DRUG MONITORING; HUMANS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 33749818836     PISSN: 01634356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ftd.0000243965.97964.ca     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Dumont RJ, Ensom MHH. Methods for clinical monitoring of cyclosporin in transplant patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;38:427-444.
2. Fritsche L, Dragun D, Neumayer HH, Budde K. Impact of cyclosporine on the development of immunosuppressive therapy. Transplant Proc. 2004;36:130S-134S.
3. Belitsky P, Dunn S, Johnston A, et al. Impact of absorption profiling on efficacy and safety of cyclosporin therapy in transplantation recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;39:117-125.
4. Del Tacca M. Prospect for personalized immunosuppression: pharmacologic tools-a review. Transplant Proc. 2004;36:687-689.
5. Dunn CJ, Wagstaff AJ, Perry CM, et al. Cyclosporin; 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.
6. Wiederrecht G, Lam E, Hung S, et al. The mechanism of action of FK506 and cyclosporin A. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1993;696:9.
7. Grant D, Kneteman N, Tchervenkov J, et al. Peak cyclosporin levels (Cmax) correlate with freedom from liver graft rejection: results form a prospective, randomized comparison of Neoral and Sandimmune for liver transplantation (NOF-8). Transplant. 1999;67:1133-1137.
8. 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.
9. Kahan BD, Welsh M, Schoenberg L, et al. Variable oral absorption of cyclosporine. A biopharmaceutical risk factor for chronic allograft rejection. Transplant. 1996;62:599-606.
10. Halloran PF, Helms LM, Kung L, et al. The temporal profile of calcineurin inhibition by cyclosporine in vivo. Transplant. 1999;68:1356-1361.
11. Sindhi R, LaVia MF, Paulling E. Stimulated response of peripheral lymphocytes may distinghish cyclsoporine effect in renal transplant recipients receiving a cyclosporin+rapamycin regimen. Transplant. 2000;69:432-436.
12. Citterio F. Evolution of the therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine. Transplant Proc. 2004;36:420S-25S.
13. Oellerich M, Armstrong VW. Two-hour cyclosporine concentration determination: an appropriate tool to monitor Neoral therapy? Ther Drug Monit. 2002;24:40-46.
14. Hoyer PF. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporine A: should we use the area under the concentration-time curve and trough levels? Ped Transplant. 2000;4:2-5.
15. Gaspari F, Caruso R, Cattaneo D, et al. Optimization of cyclosporine therapy in the Neoral era: abbreviated AUC, single blood sampling? Transplant Proc. 2001;33:3117-3119.
16. 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.
17. Paul Keown Landsberg D, Halloran P, et al. A randomized, prospective multicenter pharmacoepidemiologic study of cyclosporine microemulsion in stable renal graft recipients. Transplant. 1996;62:1744-1752.
18. Aikawa A, Arai K, Tajima E, et al. Cyclosporine Neoral Profiling in Japanese Renal Transplant Recipients. Transplant Proc. 2001;33:3142-3145.
19. International Neoral Renal Transplantation Study Group. Cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral®) absorption profiling and sparse-sample predictors during the 3 first months after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2002;2:148-156.
20. Levy G, Thervet E, Lake J, et al. Patient management by Neoral C2 monitoring: an international Consensus statement. Transplant. 2002;73:S12-S18.
21. Johnston A. Sparse-sampling-a practical method for measurement of AUCs. In: Rashid A, ed. Focus on Medicine. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd., 1998:7-10.
22. Langers P, Cremers SCLM, den Hartigh J, et al. Easy-to-use, accurate and flexible individualized Bayesian limited sampling method without fixed time points for ciclosporin monitoring after liver transplantation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21:549-557.
23. Mahalati K, Belitsky P, West K, et al. Approaching the therapeutic window for cyclosporine in kidney transplantation: a prospective study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:828-833.
24. Levy GA. C2 monitoring strategy for optimising cyclosporine immunosuppression from the Neoral formulation. Bio Drugs. 2001;15:279-290.
25. Cantarovich M, Barkun J, Besner JG, et al. Cyclosporin peak levels provide a better correlation with the area-under-the-curve than through levels in liver transplant patients treated with Neoral. Transplant Proc. 1998;30:1462-1463.
26. Barakat O, Peaston R, Rai R, et al. Clinical benefit of monitoring cyclosporin C2 and C4 in long term liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2002; 34:1535-1537.
27. Langers P, Cremers CLM, den Hartigh J, et al. Switching monitoring of emulsified cyclosporine from through level to 2-hour level in stable liver transplant patients. Liver Transplantation. 2004;10:183-189.
28. Santoyo J, Suarez MA, Perez-Daga JA, et al. Efficacy of C2 monitoring of cyclosporine Neoral in adult liver transplantation: a comparative study. Transplant Proc. 2001;33:3096-3097.
29. Sterneck M, Zadeh KM, Grotelüschen R, et al. Clinical use of C2 monitoring in long-term liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2002;34:3304-3306.
30. Cantarovich M, Barkun JS, Tchervenkov JI, et al. Comparison of Neoral dose monitoring with cyclosporine through levels versus 2-hr postdose levels in stable liver transplant patients. Transplant. 1998;66:1621-1627.
31. Levy G, Burra P, Cavallari A, et al. Improved clinical outcomes for liver transplant recipients using cyclosporine monitoring based on 2-hr post-dose level (C2). Transplant. 2002;73:953-959.
32. Lake JR. Benefits of cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) C2 monitoring are sustained at 1 year in de novo liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2001;33:3092-3093.
33. Anon. Banff schema for grading liver allograft rejection: an international consensus document. Hepatology. 1997;25:658-663.
34. Wiesner RH. Advances in diagnosis, prevention and management of hepatic allograft rejection. Clin Chem. 1994;40:2174-2185.
35. Campbell SB, Johnson DW. Patient management by cyclosporine C2 monitoring: not enough science yet to justify the practice. Transplant. 2003;75:1917-1918.