Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 375–382 | Cite as

Application of a Gamma Model of Absorption to Oral Cyclosporin

  • Jean DebordEmail author
  • Eléonore Risco
  • Michel Harel
  • Yannick Le Meur
  • Mathias Büchler
  • Gérard Lachâtre
  • Chantal Le Guellec
  • Pierre Marquet
Original Research Article


Background: Some drugs, such as cyclosporin, exhibit flat and delayed absorption profiles, with a correlation between the delay and the peak width. Such profiles can be described by an absorption model in which the absorption rate is derived from a gamma distribution (of which the classical first-order absorption model is a special case).

Objective: To develop a model for the pharmacokinetics of extravascular administration of cyclosporin and apply it to a study of the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporin microemulsion in stable renal transplant recipients.

Patients and participants: 21 renal transplant patients receiving oral cyclosporin microemulsion 75 to 175mg twice daily.

Methods: The equation of the plasma concentration-time curve after oral administration was expressed as a convolution product between the absorption rate and a multi-exponential impulse response. The convolution integral was computed analytically and expressed in terms of the incomplete gamma function. Cyclosporin was assayed by liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry. The model was fitted by nonlinear regression, using a specially developed program.

Results: The gamma model yielded a good fit in all of the 21 patients studied. Attempts to fit the same data by a classical exponential with lag-time model failed in most patients.

Conclusions: This model could simplify the Bayesian monitoring of cyclosporin therapy.


Cyclosporin Incomplete Gamma Function Gamma Model Oral Cyclosporin Cyclosporin Microemulsion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This study was supported in part by the University Hospital of Limoges, France. We are indebted to Drs J. Gobburu and M. Weiss for providing some bibliographic references.


  1. 1.
    Cantarovitch M, Elstein E, De Varennes B, et al. Clinical benefit of Neoral dose monitoring with cyclosporine 2-hr post-dose levels compared with trough levels in stable heart transplant patients. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1839–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grevel J, Welsh MS, Kahan BD. Cyclosporine monitoring in renal transplantation: area under the curve monitoring is superior to trough-level monitoring. Ther Drug Monit 1989; 11: 246–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kahan BD, Welsh M, Rutzky LP. Challenges in cyclosporine therapy: the role of therapeutic monitoring by area under the curve monitoring. Ther Drug Monit 1995; 17: 621–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowles MJ, Waters JB, Lechler RI, et al. Do cyclosporine profiles provide useful information in the management of renal transplant recipients? Nephrol Dial Transplant 1996; 11: 1597–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson JE, Munday AS, Kelman AW, et al. Evaluation of a Bayesian approach to the pharmacokinetic interpretation of cyclosporin concentrations in renal allograft recipients. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 160–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahan BD, Kramer WG, Williams C, et al. Application of Bayesian forecasting to predict appropriate cyclosporine dosing regimens for renal allograft recipients. Transplant Proc 1986; 18: 200–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruggeri A, Martinelli M. A program for the optimization of cyclosporine therapy using population kinetics modeling. Comput Prog Biomed 2000; 61: 61–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nelder JA, Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 1964; 7: 308–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wagner JG. Pharmacokinetics for the pharmaceutical scientist. Lancaster: Technomic, 1993: 69Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dodge WF, Jelliffe RW, Richardson J, et al. Gentamicin population pharmacokinetic models for low birth weight infants using a new nonparametric method. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 50: 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dodge WF, Jelliffe RW, Richardson J, et al. Population pharmacokinetic models: measures of central tendency. Drug Invest 1993; 5: 206–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dodge W, Jelliffe RW, Zwischenberger J, et al. Population pharmacokinetic models: effect of explicit versus assumed constant serum concentration assay error patterns upon parameter values of gentamicin in infants on and off extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 552–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovarik JM, Mueller EA, Van Bree JB, et al. Within-day consistency of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics from a microemulsion formulation in renal transplant patients. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 232–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wahlberg J, Wilczek HE, Fauchald P, et al. Consistent absorption of cyclosporine from a microemulsion formulation assessed in stable renal transplant recipients over a one-year study period. Transplantation 1995; 60: 648–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krejcie TC, Jacquez JA, Avram MJ, et al. Use of parallel Erlang density functions to analyze first-pass pulmonary uptake of multiple indicators in dogs. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1996; 24: 569–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun YN, Jusko WJ. Transit compartments versus gamma distribution function to model signal transduction processes in pharmacokinetics. J Pharm Sci 1998: 732-7Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiss M. A novel extravascular input function for the assessment of drug absorption in bioavailability studies. Pharm Res 1996; 13: 1547–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, et al. Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee KL, Lee KT, Chung HM, et al. Estimation of mean relative bioavailability of cyclosporine Sandimmune and Neoral using NONMEM in renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 1998: 30: 3526–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ducharme MP, Verret L, Brouillette D, et al. Ability of a first-pass pharmacokinetic model to characterize cyclosporine blood concentrations after administrations of Sandimmune or Neoral formulations. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20: 165–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parke J, Charles BG. NONMEM population pharmacokinetic modeling of orally administered cyclosporine from routine drug monitoring data after heart transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20: 284–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Serre-Debeauvais F, Iliadis A, Tranchand B, et al. Bayesian estimation of cyclosporine clearance in bone marrow graft. Ther Drug Monit 1990; 12: 16–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kovarik JM, Vernillet L, Mueller EA, et al. Cyclosporine disposition and metabolite profiles in renal transplant patients receiving a microemulsion formulation. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 519–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Debord
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eléonore Risco
    • 1
  • Michel Harel
    • 2
  • Yannick Le Meur
    • 3
  • Mathias Büchler
    • 3
  • Gérard Lachâtre
    • 1
  • Chantal Le Guellec
    • 4
  • Pierre Marquet
    • 5
  1. 1.Service de Pharmacologie-ToxicologieHôpital DupuytrenLimogesFrance
  2. 2.Institut Universitaire de Formation des MaîtresLimogesFrance
  3. 3.Service de NéphrologieHôpital DupuytrenLimogesFrance
  4. 4.Service de PharmacologieCHU BretonneauToursFrance
  5. 5.Service de NéphrologieCHU BretonneauToursFrance

Personalised recommendations