Differences in clearance of mycophenolic acid among renal transplant recipients, hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, and patients with autoimmune disease

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 606-614

  De Winter, Brenda C M ^a   Mathot, Ron A A ^a   Sombogaard, Ferdi ^a   Neumann, Irmgard ^b   Van Hest, Reinier M ^a   Doorduijn, Jeanette K ^a   Van Gelder, Teun ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Renal Transplant Unit ^*  (Austria)

Author keywords

autoimmune disease; clearance; hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; mycophenolate mofetil; mycophenolic acid; pharmacokinetics; renal transplantation; therapeutic drug monitoring

Indexed keywords

CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR; CREATININE; CYCLOSPORIN A; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER; TACROLIMUS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE; CREATININE CLEARANCE; DATA ANALYSIS; DOSE TIME EFFECT RELATION; DRUG CLEARANCE; FEMALE; GRAFT REJECTION; HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES; CYCLOSPORINE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; FEMALE; GRAFT REJECTION; HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; SERUM ALBUMIN; TACROLIMUS;

EID: 77957267846     PISSN: 01634356     EISSN: 15363694     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181efd715     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Cox VC, Ensom MH. Mycophenolate mofetil for solid organ transplantation: does the evidence support the need for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring? Ther Drug Monit. 2003;25:137-157.
2. Bullingham RE, Nicholls AJ, Kamm BR. Clinical pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998;34:429-455.
3. Allison AC, Eugui EM. Purine metabolism and immunosuppressive effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Clin Transplant. 1996;10:77-84.
4. de Winter BC, Mathot 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.
5. van Gelder T, Silva HT, de Fijter JW, et al. Comparing mycophenolate mofetil regimens for de novo renal transplant recipients: the fixed-dose concentration-controlled trial. Transplantation. 2008;86:1043-1051.
6. Le Meur Y, Buchler 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.
7. Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Bullingham RE, et al. The pharmacokinetic- pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998;64:672-683.
8. Staatz CE, Duffull SB, Kiberd B, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid during the first week after renal transplantation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;61:507-516.
9. van Hest RM, van Gelder T, Vulto AG, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in renal transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44:1083-1096.
10. Shaw LM, Korecka M, Aradhye S, et al. Mycophenolic acid area under the curve values in African American and Caucasian renal transplant patients are comparable. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;40:624-633.
11. van Hest RM, Mathot RA, Pescovitz MD, et al. Explaining variability in mycophenolic acid exposure to optimize mycophenolate mofetil dosing: a population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis of mycophenolic acid in renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:871-880.
12. Filler G, Zimmering M, Mai I. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil are influenced by concomitant immunosuppression. Pediatr Nephrol. 2000;14:100-104.
13. Hesselink DA, van Hest RM, Mathot RA, et al. Cyclosporine interacts with mycophenolic acid by inhibiting the multidrug resistance-associated protein 2. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:987-994.
14. Knoll G. Trends in kidney transplantation over the past decade. Drugs. 2008;68(Suppl 1):3-10.
15. Meier-Kriesche HU, Steffen BJ, Hochberg AM, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine therapy is associated with a significant protection against long-term renal allograft function deterioration. Transplantation. 2003;75:1341-1346.
16. Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation. 1995; 60:225-232.
17. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. Transplantation. 1996;61:1029-1037.
18. Niederwieser D, Maris M, Shizuru JA, et al. Low-dose total body irradiation (TBI) and fludarabine followed by hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from HLA-matched or mismatched unrelated donors and postgrafting immunosuppression with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) can induce durable complete chimerism and sustained remissions in patients with hematological diseases. Blood. 2003;101:1620-1629.
19. Bornhauser M, Schuler U, Porksen G, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine as graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation. Transplantation. 1999;67:499-504.
20. Appel GB, Contreras G, Dooley MA, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for induction treatment of lupus nephritis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20:1103-1112.
21. Stassen PM, Cohen Tervaert JW, Stegeman CA. Induction of remission in active ANCA-associated vasculitis with mycophenolate mofetil in patients who cannot be treated with cyclophosphamide. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66: 798-802.
22. van Hest RM, Doorduijn JK, de Winter BC, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit. 2007;29:353-360.
23. deWinter BC, Neumann I, van Hest RM, et al. Limited sampling strategies for therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil therapy in patients with autoimmune disease. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31:382-390.
24. 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.
25. Neumann I, Fuhrmann H, Fang IF, et al. Association between mycophenolic acid 12-h trough levels and clinical endpoints in patients with autoimmune disease on mycophenolate mofetil. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:3514-3520.
26. Sombogaard F, Peeters AMA, Baan CC, et al. IMPDH mRNA expression is correlated to clinical outcomes in MMF treated kidney transplant patients whereas IMPDH activity is not. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31: 549-556.
27. Sombogaard F, van Schaik RH, Mathot RA, et al. Interpatient variability in IMPDH activity in MMF-treated renal transplant patients is correlated with IMPDH type II 3757T.C polymorphism. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009;19:626-634.
28. Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. Xpose-an S-PLUS based population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model building aid for NONMEM. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1999;58:51-64.
29. Brendel K, Comets E, Laffont C, et al. Metrics for external model evaluation with an application to the population pharmacokinetics of gliclazide. Pharm Res. 2006;23:2036-3049.
30. Wahlby U, Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. Comparison of stepwise covariate model building strategies in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. AAPS Pharm Sci. 2002;4:E27.
31. Ette EI, Williams PJ, Kim YH, et al. Model appropriateness and population pharmacokinetic modeling. J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;43: 610-623.
32. Bonate PL. Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Simulation. New York: Springer; 2006.
33. Jadhav PR, Gobburu JV. A new equivalence based metric for predictive check to qualify mixed-effects models. AAPS J. 2005;7:E523-E531.
34. Holford N. The Visual Predictive Check-Superiority to Standard Diagnostic (Rorschach) Plots [poster]. Population Approache Group Europe Meeting; 2005; Pamplona, Spain.
35. Karlsson MO, Savic RM. Diagnosing model diagnostics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82:17-20.
36. deWinter BC, van Gelder T, Sombogaard F, et al. Pharmacokinetic role of protein binding of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolite in renal transplant recipients. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2009;36: 541-564.
37. van Hest R, van Gelder T, Bouw R, et al. Time-dependent clearance of mycophenolic acid in renal transplant recipients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:741-752.