Longitudinal Pharmacokinetics of Mycophenolic Acid in Elderly Renal Transplant Recipients Compared to a Younger Control Group: Data from the nEverOld Trial
- 90 Downloads
Background and Objectives
Elderly patients are increasingly likely to be recipients of transplants. However, the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid (MPA) in this population are yet to be studied in detail. The objective of this study was to assess whether there were differences in MPA pharmacokinetic parameter values between elderly recipients and younger-adult recipients during the 6 months immediately following renal transplantation.
In this analysis, the longitudinal 12-h pharmacokinetics of MPA, administered as enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS), were evaluated in 44 elderly renal transplant recipients and compared with the corresponding pharmacokinetics of MPA in 31 younger adult recipients. Measurements were performed at 7, 30, 60, 90, and 180 days post-transplantation. All patients received tacrolimus and prednisone.
The elderly patients were 30 years older than the younger controls, with a predominance of males and Caucasians. Elderly patients had lower serum albumin than the younger controls during the first 6 months after transplantation. The mean estimated total body MPA clearance of the elderly recipients was not significantly different from that of the controls at any analyzed time point (the mean clearance across all time points was 0.31 ± 0.17 vs 0.30 ± 0.25 L/h/kg). MPA exposure, as evaluated from the area under the 12-h time versus measured MPA concentration (adjusted for dose/body weight) curve, did not differ between the groups at any time point (mean exposure across all time points was 4.68 ± 3.61 vs 5.95 ± 4.29 µg·h/mL per mg/kg for the elderly recipients and the controls).
These data show that the pharmacokinetics of MPA in elderly renal transplant recipients were no different to those of younger-adult recipients in this study population.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
The nEverOld study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Novartis Pharma Brazil as an Investigator Initiated Trial. Novartis had no role in the study design, data collection, and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.
All procedures used in this study were in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hospital das Clínicas (CAPPESQ # 26423). Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT 01631058.
Written informed consent was obtained from all of the patients included in this study, or their caregivers.
- 2.Allison AC, Eugui EM. Mechanisms of action of mycophenolate mofetil in preventing acute and chronic allograft rejection. Transplantation. 2005;80(2 Suppl):S181–90.Google Scholar
- 3.Holt CD, Sievers TM, Ghobrial RM, Rossi SJ, Goss JA, McDiarmid SV. Mycophenolate mofetil: effects on clinical transplantation. BioDrugs. 1998;10(5):373–84.Google Scholar
- 4.European Mycophenolate Mofetil Cooperative Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation: 3-year results from the placebo-controlled trial. Transplantation. 1999;68(3):391–6.Google Scholar
- 5.US Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Mycophenolate mofetil in cadaveric renal transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999;34(2):296–303.Google Scholar
- 6.Langman LJ, LeGatt DF, Halloran PF, Yatscoff RW. Pharmacodynamic assessment of mycophenolic acid-induced immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 1996;62(5):666–72.Google Scholar
- 7.Lorber MI, Mulgaonkar S, Butt KM, Elkhammas E, Mendez R, Rajagopalan PR, et al. Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study. Transplantation. 2005;80(2):244–52.Google Scholar
- 8.Shaw LM, Korecka M, Venkataramanan R, Goldberg L, Bloom R, Brayman KL. Mycophenolic acid pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics provide a basis for rational monitoring strategies. Am J Transplant. 2003;3(5):534–42.Google Scholar
- 9.Filler G. Value of therapeutic drug monitoring of MMF therapy in pediatric transplantation. Pediatr Transplant. 2006;10(6):707–11.Google Scholar
- 10.van Gelder T, Le Meur Y, Shaw LM, Oellerich M, DeNofrio D, Holt C, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit. 2006;28(2):145–54.Google Scholar
- 11.Knight SR, Morris PJ. Does the evidence support the use of mycophenolate mofetil therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice? A systematic review. Transplantation. 2008;85(12):1675–85.Google Scholar
- 12.Mourad M, Malaise J, Chaib Eddour D, De Meyer M, Konig J, Schepers R, et al. Correlation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetic parameters with side effects in kidney transplant patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Chem. 2001;47(1):88–94.Google Scholar
- 13.Weber LT, Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, Wagner N, Schutz E, Mehls O, et al. The pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic relationship for total and free mycophenolic acid in pediatric renal transplant recipients: a report of the German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil Therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13(3):759–68.Google Scholar
- 14.Gaston RS, Kaplan B, Shah T, Cibrik D, Shaw LM, Angelis M, et al. Fixed- or controlled-dose mycophenolate mofetil with standard- or reduced-dose calcineurin inhibitors: the Opticept trial. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(7):1607–19.Google Scholar
- 15.van Gelder T, Silva HT, de Fijter JW, Budde K, Kuypers D, Tyden G, et al. Comparing mycophenolate mofetil regimens for de novo renal transplant recipients: the fixed-dose concentration-controlled trial. Transplantation. 2008;86(8):1043–51.Google Scholar
- 16.Le Meur Y, Buchler M, Thierry A, Caillard S, Villemain F, Lavaud S, et al. Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(11):2496–503.Google Scholar
- 17.Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LYC, Held PJ, Port FK. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1725–30.Google Scholar
- 18.Segev DL, Kucirka LM, Oberai PC, Parekh RS, Boulware LE, Powe NR, et al. Age and comorbidities are effect modifiers of gender disparities in renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(3):621–8.Google Scholar
- 19.Rosenberger J, van Dijk JP, Nagyova I, Zezula I, Geckova AM, Roland R, et al. Predictors of perceived health status in patients after kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2006;81(9):1306–10.Google Scholar
- 20.Ginsberg G, Hattis D, Russ A, Sonawane B. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors that can affect sensitivity to neurotoxic sequelae in elderly individuals. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(9):1243–9.Google Scholar
- 24.David-Neto E, Romano P, Triboni AHK, Ramos F, Agena F, Ebner PAR, et al. Longitudinal pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in elderly compared with younger recipients in the first 6 months after renal transplantation. Transplantation. 2017;101(6):1365–72.Google Scholar
- 26.David-Neto E, Takaki KM, Agena F, Romano P, Sumita NM, Mendes ME, et al. Diminished mycophenolic acid exposure caused by omeprazole may be clinically relevant in the first week posttransplantation. Ther Drug Monit. 2012;34(3):331–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0b013e31824d6e8e.
- 27.Miura M, Satoh S, Inoue K, Kagaya H, Saito M, Suzuki T, et al. Influence of lansoprazole and rabeprazole on mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics one year after renal transplantation. Ther Drug Monit. 2008;30(1):46–51.Google Scholar
- 28.Kofler S, Deutsch MA, Bigdeli AK, Shvets N, Vogeser M, Mueller TH, et al. Proton pump inhibitor co-medication reduces mycophenolate acid drug exposure in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28(6):605–11.Google Scholar
- 29.Rupprecht K, Schmidt C, Raspe A, Schweda F, Shipkova M, Fischer W, et al. Bioavailability of mycophenolate mofetil and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium is differentially affected by pantoprazole in healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;49(10):1196–201.Google Scholar
- 30.Tang JT, de Winter BC, Hesselink DA, Sombogaard F, Wang LL, van Gelder T. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate mofetil in younger and elderly renal transplant recipients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83(4):812–22.Google Scholar
- 31.Miura M, Satoh S, Kagaya H, Saito M, Inoue T, Tsuchiya N, et al. No impact of age on dose-adjusted pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid and prednisolone 1 month after renal transplantation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;65(10):1047–53.Google Scholar
- 32.Wang CX, Meng FH, Chen LZ, Ren B, Li SX, Fei JG, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in senile Chinese kidney transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2007;39(5):1392–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.02.082.Google Scholar
- 33.David-Neto E, Agena F, Ramos F, Triboni AH, Altona M, Coelho V, et al. Abstract 288: Everolimus/low tacrolimus (TAC) compared to MPA/regular TAC for renal transplantation in the elderly recipient—preliminary analysis of the nEverOld trial. Am J Transplant. 2016;16(suppl 3):305.Google Scholar
- 34.van Gelder T, Hilbrands LB, Vanrenterghem Y, Weimar W, de Fijter JW, Squifflet JP, 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(2):261–6.Google Scholar
- 35.Danovitch GM, Cohen DJ, Weir MR, Stock PG, Bennett WM, Christensen LL, et al. Current status of kidney and pancreas transplantation in the United States, 1994–2003. Am J Transplant. 2005;5(4 Pt 2):904–15.Google Scholar
- 36.WHO. Proposed working definition of an older person in Africa for the MDS Project. Geneva: WHO; 2004.Google Scholar
- 37.Zoli M, Magalotti D, Bianchi G, Gueli C, Orlandini C, Grimaldi M, et al. Total and functional hepatic blood flow decrease in parallel with ageing. Age Ageing. 1999;28(1):29–33.Google Scholar
- 39.Haubner R, Vera DR, Farshchi-Heydari S, Helbok A, Rangger C, Putzer D, et al. Development of 68Ga-labelled DTPA galactosyl human serum albumin for liver function imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(8):1245–55.Google Scholar
- 41.David-Neto E, Araujo LM, Lemos FC, David DS, Mazzucchi E, Nahas WC, et al. Introduction of mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporin reduction in children with chronic transplant nephropathy. Pediatr Transplant. 2001;5(4):302–9.Google Scholar
- 42.Kovarik JM, Koelle EU. Cyclosporin pharmacokinetics in the elderly. Drugs Aging. 1999;15(3):197–205.Google Scholar
- 43.Staatz CE, Tett SE. Pharmacokinetic considerations relating to tacrolimus dosing in the elderly. Drugs Aging. 2005;22(7):541–57.Google Scholar
- 44.Goodman, Gilman’s A. The phases of drug metabolism; conjugated enzymes; phase 2 reactions. In: Chapter 6: Drug metabolism. In: Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC, editors. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.Google Scholar
- 45.Kroemer HK, Klotz U. Glucuronidation of drugs. A re-evaluation of the pharmacological significance of the conjugates and modulating factors. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1992;23(4):292–310.Google Scholar
- 46.Patwardhan RV, Johnson RF, Hoyumpa A, Sheehan JJ, Desmond PV, et al. Normal metabolism of morphine in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 1981;81:1006.Google Scholar
- 47.Sellers EMGD, Giles HG, Naranjo CA, Kaplan H, MacLeod SM. Chlordiazepoxide and oxazepam disposition in cirrhosis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;26:240–6.Google Scholar
- 48.Pereira LM. Interference of calcineurin inhibitors on the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in renal transplantation. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo; 2006.Google Scholar