Limited Sampling Strategies for Predicting Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve of Mycophenolic Acid in Islet Transplant Recipients

Abstract

Spanish

French

BACKGROUND

Mycophenolate mofetil is widely used in islet transplant recipients and its active metabolite, mycophenolic acid (MPA), exhibits wide pharmacokinetic variability. However, to our knowledge, no limited sampling strategy (LSS) exists for monitoring MPA in this subpopulation.

OBJECTIVE

To define optimal LSSs for MPA monitoring and to test their predictive performance in islet transplant recipients.

METHODS

After written informed consent was obtained and upon administration of a steady-state morning mycophenolate mofetil dose, blood samples were collected at 0, 0.3, 0.6, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 hours from 16 stable islet transplant recipients. MPA concentrations were measured by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method with ultraviolet detection and pharmacokinetic parameters analyzed by noncompartmental modeling. All 16 patients' profiles were used to develop the LSSs via multiple regression analysis. Potential LSSs were restricted to ones having R² 0.90 or greater and 3 or fewer time points within the first 4 hours postdose. Resulting equations were validated for their predictive performance using the jackknife method, with acceptable criteria for bias and precision preset to within ±15%. In addition, 14 published LSSs (in the renal transplant population) were tested in our islet transplant patients.

RESULTS

Five LSSs met preset criteria and had conventional sampling times:

\begin{matrix} AUC = 1.783 + 1.248 C 1 + 0.888 C 2 + 8.027 C 4 \\ (R^{2} = 0.98, bias = - 3.09 %, precision = 9.53 %) \\ AUC = 2.778 + 1.413 C 1 + 0.963 C 3 + 7.511 C 4 \\ (R^{2} = 0.97, bias = - 3.22 %, precision = 11.02 %) \\ AUC = 1.448 + 1.239 C 1 + 0.271 C 1.5 + 9.108 C 4 \\ (R^{2} = 0.96, bias = - 1.90 %, precision = 11.46) \\ AUC = 1.410 - 0.259 C 0 + 1.443 C 1 + 9.622 C 4 \\ R^{2} = 0.96, bias = - 268 %, precision = 11.53 % \\ AUC = 1.547 + 1.417 C 1 + 9.448 C 4 (R^{2} = 0.96, bias = - 2.46 %, precision = 11.14 %) \end{matrix}

where AUC = area under the concentration-time curve. None of the other published LSSs in the renal transplant population met the preset criteria for bias and precision.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, these are the first precise and accurate LSSs for predicting MPA AUC developed specifically for islet transplant recipients. The LSS that we recommend is the one utilizing 2 concentrations: AUC = 1.547 + 1.417C1 + 9.448C4. This equation is convenient and clinically feasible. Other islet transplant centers may wish to validate our equation in their population or use our template as a guide to develop accurate and precise LSSs specific to their patient population.

Keywords

islet transplant limited sampling strategy mycophenolic acid therapeutic drug monitoring

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Staatz

Tett

SE.

Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007;46:13–58.

2. Knight

Morris

PJ.

Does the evidence support the use of mycophenolate mofetil therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice? A systematic review. Transplantation 2008;85:1675–85.

3. Shaw

Korecka

Venkataramanan

Goldberg

Bloom

Brayman

KL.

Mycophenolic acid pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics provide a basis for rational monitoring strategies. Am J Transplant 2003;3:534–42.

4. Johnson

Rigby

Taylor

The kinetics of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolite in adult kidney transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999;66:492–500.

5. Yeung

Tong

Tsang

Determination of mycophenolate area under the curve by limited sampling strategy. Transplant Proc 2001;33:1052–3.

6. Pawinski

Hale

Korecka

Fitzsimmons

Shaw

LM.

Limited sampling strategy for the estimation of mycophenolic acid area under the curve in adult renal transplant patients treated with concomitant tacrolimus. Clin Chem 2002;48:1497–504.

7. Le Guellec

Büchler

Giraudeau

Simultaneous estimation of cyclosporin and mycophenolic acid areas under the curve in stable renal transplant patients using a limited sampling strategy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002;57:805–11.

8. Cho

Han

Kim

Burckart

Venkataramanan

JM.

Pharmacokinetic study of mycophenolic acid in Korean kidney transplant patients. J Clin Pharmacol 2004;44:743–50.

9. van Hest

Mathôt

RAA

Vulto

Le Meur

van Gelder

Mycophenolic acid in diabetic renal transplant recipients: pharmacokinetics and application of a limited sampling strategy. Ther Drug Monit 2004;26:620–5.

10.

10. Fleming

Mathew

John

Chandy

Manivannan

Jeyaseelan

A six-hour extrapolated sampling strategy for monitoring mycophenolic acid in renal transplant patients in the Indian subcontinent. J Postgrad Med 2006;52:248–52.

11.

11. Zicheng

Peijun

Xianghui

Hongzhuan

Investigation on pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in Chinese adult renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006;62:446–52.

12.

12. Zhou

Wang

Shao

Zhao

JP.

Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and estimation of exposure using multiple linear regression equations in Chinese renal allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007;46:389–401.

13.

13. Jiao

Zhong

Zhang

Shi

Total and free mycophenolic acid and its 7-O-glucuronide metabolite in Chinese adult renal transplant patients: pharmacokinetics and application of limited sampling strategies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:27–37.

14.

14. Miura

Satoh

Niioka

Limited sampling strategy for simultaneous estimation of the area under the concentration-time curve of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in adult renal transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30:52–9.

15.

15. Mohammadpour

Nazemian

Abtahi

Estimation of abbreviated mycophenolic acid area under the concentration-time curve during early posttransplant period by limited sampling strategy. Transplant Proc 2008;40:3668–72.

16.

16. Muller

Solari

Zuniga

Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in kidney transplant patients: an abbreviated sampling strategy. Transplant Proc 2007;39:596–9.

17.

17. Figurski

Nawrocki

Pescovitz

Bouw

Shaw

LM.

Development of a predictive limited sampling strategy for estimation of mycophenolic acid area under the concentration time curve in patients receiving concomitant sirolimus or cyclosporine. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30:445–55.

18.

18. Chen

Chen

Mao

Zhang

Fan

Models for the prediction of mycophenolic acid area under the curve using a limited-sampling strategy and an enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique in Chinese patients undergoing liver transplantation. Clin Ther 2008;30:2387–401.

19.

19. Ting

Partovi

Levy

Ignaszewski

Ensom

MH.

Performance of limited sampling strategies for predicting mycophenolic acid area under the curve in thoracic transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 2008;27:325–8.

20.

20. Ting

LSL

Partovi

Levy

Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and its phenolic-glucuronide and acyl glucuronide metabolites in stable thoracic transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30:282–91.

21.

21. Ting

LSL

Villeneuve

Ensom

MHH.

Beyond cyclosporine: a systematic review of limited sampling strategies for other immunosuppressants. Ther Drug Monit 2006;28:419–30.

22.

22. Prémaud

Le Meur

Debord

Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients at different postgrafting periods. Ther Drug Monit 2005;27:354–61.

23.

23. Gaston

Kaplan

Shah

Fixed-or controlled-dose mycophenolate mofetil with standard-or reduced-dose calcineurin inhibitors: the Opticept trial. Am J Transplant 2009;9:1607–19.

24.

24. van Gelder

Silva

de Fijter

Comparing mycophenolate mofetil regimens for de novo renal transplant recipients: the fixed-dose concentration-controlled trial. Transplantation 2008;86:1043–51.

25.

25. van Gelder

Mycophenolate blood level monitoring: recent progress. Am J Transplant 2009;9:1495–9.

26.

26. Oremus

Zeidler

Ensom

MHH

Utility of monitoring mycophenolic acid in solid organ transplant patients. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2008;164:1–131.

27.

27. Bruchet

Ensom

MHH.

Limited sampling strategies for mycophenolic acid in solid organ transplantation: a systematic review. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2009;5:1079–97.

28.

28. van Gelder

Klupp

Barten

Christians

Morris

RE.

Comparison of the effects of tacrolimus and cyclosporine on the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid. Ther Drug Monit 2001;23:119–28.

29.

29. Cox

, Ensom

MHH

. Mycophenolate mofetil for solid organ transplantation: does the evidence support the need for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring? Ther Drug Monit 2003;25: 137–57.

30.

30. Ting

LSL

, Partovi

, Levy

, Riggs

, Ensom

MHH

. Limited sampling strategy for predicting area under the concentration-time curve of mycophenolic acid in adult lung transplant recipients. Pharmacotherapy 2006;26: 1232–40.

31.

31. Kaczmarek

, Bigdeli

, Vogeser

Defining algorithms for efficient therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2008;30: 419–27.

32.

32. Bullingham

, Shah

, Goldblum

, Schiff

. Effects of food and antacid on the pharmacokinetics of single doses of mycophenolate mofetil in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996;41: 513–6.

33.

33. Le Meur

, Büchler

, Thierry

Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2007;11: 2496–503.