Development and validation of limited sampling strategies for the estimation of mycophenolic acid area under the curve in adult kidney and liver transplant recipients receiving concomitant enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and tacrolimus

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 760-769

  Pawinski, Tomasz ^a   Luszczynska, Paulina ^a   Durlik, Magdalena ^a   Majchrzak, Jadwiga ^a   Baczkowska, Teresa ^a   Chrzanowska, Maria ^b   Sobiak, Joanna ^b   Glyda, Maciej ^c   Kuriata Kordek, Magdalena ^d   Kamińska, Dorota ^d   Krajewska, Magdalena ^d   Klinger, Marian ^d  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b POZNAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Poland)

^c District Hospital   (Poland)

^d WROCLAW MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

Author keywords

Limited sampling strategy; Mycophenolate sodium; Mycophenolic acid; Pharmacokinetics; Renal and liver transplantation; Tacrolimus

Indexed keywords

MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; TACROLIMUS;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG LIVER LEVEL; ENTEROHEPATIC CIRCULATION; FEMALE; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION; MEAN RESIDENCE TIME; MORNING DOSAGE; PLASMA CONCENTRATION-TIME CURVE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STEADY STATE; TIME TO MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; CHROMATOGRAPHY, HIGH PRESSURE LIQUID; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TABLETS, ENTERIC-COATED; TACROLIMUS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84889240591     PISSN: 01634356     EISSN: 15363694     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31829b88f5     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Shaw LM, Korecka M, Venkataramanan R, et al. Mycophenolic acid pharmacodynamicsand pharmacokinetics provide a basis for rational monitoring strategies. Am J Transplant. 2003;3:534-542. (Pubitemid 36612836)
2. de Jonge H, Naesens M, Kuypers DRJ. New insights into the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the calcineurin inhibitors and mycophenolic acid: possible consequences for therapeutic drug monitoring in solid organ transplantation. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31:416-435.
3. Kuypers DRJ, Le Meur Y, Cantarovich M, et al. Consensus report on therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in solid organ transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5:341-358.
4. Johnston A, He X, Holt DW. Bioequivalence of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil: a meta-analysis of three studies in stable renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2006;82: 1413-1418. (Pubitemid 44967621)
5. Budde K, Bauer S, Hambach P, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil in maintenance renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:888-898. (Pubitemid 46481185)
6. Arns W, Breuer S, Choudhury S, et al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium delivers bioequivalent MPA exposure compared with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Transplant. 2005;19:199-206. (Pubitemid 40424890)
7. Hummel M, Yonan N, Ross H, et al. Pharmacokinetics and variability of mycophenolic acid from enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium compared with mycophenolate mofetil in de novo heart transplant recipients. Clin Transplant. 2007;21:18-23. (Pubitemid 46189583)
8. Cattaneo D, Cortinovis M, Baldelli S, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate sodium and comparison with the mofetil formulation in stable kidney transplant recipients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2:1147-1155.
9. de Winter BC, van Gelder T, Glander P, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid: a comparison between enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2008;47:827-838.
10. Budde K, Tedesco-Silva H, Pestana JM, et al. Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium provides higher mycophenolic acid predose levels compared with mycophenolate mofetil: implications for therapeutic drug monitoring. Ther Drug Monit. 2007;29:381-384. (Pubitemid 47262272)
11. Budde K, Bauer S, Hambach P, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil in maintenance renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:888-898. (Pubitemid 46481185)
12. Sallas WM. Development of limited sampling strategies for characteristics of a pharmacokinetic profile. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1995;23: 515-529. (Pubitemid 26116535)
13. Johnston A, Sketris I, Mersden JT, et al. A limited sampling strategy for the measurement of cyclosporine AUC. Transplant Proc. 1990;22:1345-1346. (Pubitemid 20205533)
14. Ting LSL, Villeneuve E, Ensom MHH. Beyond cyclosporine: a systematic review of limited sampling strategies for other immunosuppressants. Ther Drug Monit. 2006;28:419-430. (Pubitemid 44314932)
15. Cox VC, Ensom MHH. Mycophenolate mofetil for solid organ transplantation: does the evidence support the need for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring? Ther Drug Monit. 2003;25:137-157. (Pubitemid 36373421)
16. Budde K, Glander P, Krämer BK, et al. Conversion from mycophenolate mofetil to enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in maintenance renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus: clinical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamics outcomes. Transplantation. 2007;83:417-424. (Pubitemid 46667845)
17. de Winter BCM, van Gelder T, Mathot RAA, et al. Limited sampling strategies drawn within 3 hours postdose poorly predict mycophenolic acid area-under-the-curve after enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31:585-591.
18. Sommerer C, Müller-Krebs S, Schaier M, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium: limited sampling strategies and clinical outcome in renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;69:346-357.
19. Capone D, Tarantino G, Kadili I, et al. Evaluation of mycophenolic acid systemic exposure by limited sampling strategy in kidney transplant recipients receiving enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) and cyclosporine. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:3019-3025.
20. Fleming DH, Mathew BS, Prasanna S, et al. A possible simplification for the estimation of area under the curve (AUC0-12) of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus. Ther Drug Monit. 2011;33:165-170.
21. Fructuoso AIS, Perez-Flores I, Calvo N, et al. Limited-sampling strategy for mycophenolic acid in renal transplant recipients receiving entericcoated mycophenolate sodium and tacrolimus. Ther Drug Monit. 2012; 34:298-305.
22. Djabarouti S, Duffau P, Lazaro E, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2010;11:689-699.
23. Wallemacq P, Armstrong VW, Brunet M, et al. Opportunities to optimize tacrolimus therapy in solid organ transplantation: report of the European consensus conference. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31:139-152.
24. Kuypers DRJ, Claes K, Evenepoel P, et al. Long-term changes in mycophenolic acid exposure in combination with tacrolimus and corticosteroids are dose dependent and not reflected by trough plasma concentration: a prospective study in 100 de novo renal allograft recipients. J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;43:866-880. (Pubitemid 36886107)
25. First MR. First clinical experience with the new once-daily formulation of tacrolimus. Ther Drug Monit. 2008;30:159-166. (Pubitemid 351521642)
26. Hougardy JM, Broeders N, Kianda M, et al. Conversion from Prograf to Advagraf among kidney transplant recipients results in sustained decrease in tacrolimus exposure. Transplantation. 2011;91:566-569.
27. Shaw LM, Korecka M, van Breeman R, et al. Analysis, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid. Clin Biochem. 1998;31:323-328. (Pubitemid 28385229)
28. Sheiner LB, Beal SL. Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1981;9:503-512.
29. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307-310. (Pubitemid 16134762)