Comparison of 3 estimation methods of mycophenolic acid auc based on a limited sampling strategy in renal transplant patients

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 224-232

  Hulin, Anne ^a   Blanchet, Benoît ^f   Audard, Vincent ^b   Barau, Caroline ^c   Furlan, Valérie ^c   Durrbach, Antoine ^d   Taïeb, Fabrice ^f   Lang, Philippe ^b   Grimbert, Philippe ^b   Tod, Michel ^e,f  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

^c Service d'Accueil des Urgences Adultes   (United States)

^d BICÊTRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^e UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^f Institut Cochin   (France)

Author keywords

Monolix software; Mycophenolate mofetil; Population pharmacokinetics; Therapeutic drug monitoring

Indexed keywords

METHYLPREDNISOLONE; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; PREDNISOLONE; PREDNISONE; TACROLIMUS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG CLEARANCE; DRUG DOSE REDUCTION; DRUG DOSE TITRATION; DRUG ELIMINATION; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG MONITORING; FEMALE; GAMMA ABSORPTION MODEL; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MULTILINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; POPULATION MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; VALIDATION STUDY; BLOOD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; BAYES THEOREM; DRUG MONITORING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 65349134085     PISSN: 01634356     EISSN: 15363694     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31819c077c     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporine and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet. 1995;345:1321-1325.
2. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. A blinded randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation. 1996;61:1029-1037.
3. Bullingham R, Monroe S, Nicholls A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of mycophenolate mofetil in healthy volunteers subjects after a single-dose oral and IV administration. J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;36:315-324.
4. Jain A, Venkataramanan R, Hamad IS, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid after mycophenolate mofetil administration in liver transplant patients treated with tacrolimus. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;41:268-276.
5. Borrows R, Chusney G, Loucaidou M, et al. Mycophenolic acid 12-h trough level monitoring in renal transplantation: association with acute rejection and toxicity. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:121-128.
6. Mourad M, Malaise J, Chaib Eddour D, et al. Pharmacokinetic basis for the efficient and safe use of low-dose mycophenolate mofetil in combination with tacrolimus in kidney transplantation. Clin Chem. 2001;47:1241-1248.
7. Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Roy ES, et al. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998;64:672-683.
8. 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.
9. van Gelder T, Le Meur Y, Shaw LM, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit. 2006;28:145-154.
10. Le Meur Y, Büchler M, Thierry A, et al. Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:2496-2503.
11. de Winter BC, Mathôt RA, van Hest RM, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid: does it improve patient outcome? Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2007;3:251-261.
12. Pawinski T, Hale M, Korecka M, et al. Limited sampling strategy for the estimation of MPA area under the curve in adult renal transplant patients treated with concomitant tacrolimus. Clin Chem. 2002;48:1497-1504.
13. Premaud A, Le Meur Y, Debord J, et al. Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of MPA pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients at different postgrafting periods. Ther Drug Monit. 2005;27:354-361.
14. Prémaud A, Debord J, Rousseau A, et al. A double absorption-phase model adequately describes mycophenolic acid plasma profiles in de novo renal transplant recipients given oral mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44:837-847.
15. Le Guellec C, Bourgoin H, Büchler M, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and Bayesian estimation of MPA concentrations in stable renal transplant patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43:253-266.
16. Purves RD. Multiple solutions, illegal parameter values, local minima of the sum of squares, and anomalous parameter estimates in least-squares fitting of the two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with absorption. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1996;24:79-101.
17. Delyon B, Lavielle M, Moulines E. Convergence of a stochastic approximation version of the EM algorithm. Ann Stat. 1999;27:94-128.
18. The Monolix Group. Available at: http://www.math.u-psud.fr/~lavielle/ monolix. Accessed January 30, 2009.
19. Mentré F, Escolano S. Prediction discrepancies for the evaluation of non-linear mixed-effects models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2006;33:345-367.
20. White DB, Walawander CA, Liu DY, et al. Evaluation of hypothesis testing for comparing two populations using NONMEM analysis. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;20:295-313.
21. Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1983;21:709-720.
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
23. Merle Y, Mentre F. Bayesian design criteria: computation, comparison, and application to a pharmacokinetic and a pharmacodynamic model. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1995;23:101-125.
24. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, et al. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
25. Kuypers DRJ, Vanrenterghem Y, Squifflet JP, et al. Twelve-month evaluation of the clinical pharmacokinetics of total and free mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolites in renal allograft recipients on low dose tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil. Ther Drug Monit. 2003;25:609-622.
26. Pou L, Brunet M, Cantarell C, et al. Mycophenolic acid plasma concentrations: influence of comedication. Ther Drug Monit. 2001;23:35-38.
27. Karlsson MO, Sheiner LB. The importance of modelling interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993;21:735-750.
28. Vozeh S, Steiner C. Estimates of the population pharmacokinetic parameters and performance of Bayesian feedback: a sensitivity analysis. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1987;15:511-528.
29. Satoh S, Tada H, Murakami M, et al. Circadian pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and implication of genetic polymorphisms for early clinical events in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2006;82:486-493.
30. Budde K, Glander P, Diekman F, et al. Review of the immunosuppressant enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004;5:1333-1345.