Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 277–284 | Cite as

Pharmacokinetic Study of Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Design of Bayesian Estimator Using Limited Sampling Strategies

  • Noël Zahr
  • Zahir Amoura
  • Jean Debord
  • Jean-Sébastien Hulot
  • Franck Saint-Marcoux
  • Pierre Marquet
  • Jean Charles Piette
  • Philippe Lechat
Original Research Article


Background: Monitoring of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of mycophenolic acid (MPA) has been developed for individual dose adjustment of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in renal allograft recipients. MMF is currently used as an off-label drug in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but factors of its exposition may be different in these patients and need to be determined for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) purposes.

Objective: The aim of the study was to develop a maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) Bayesian estimator of MPA exposition in patients with SLE, with the objective of TDM based on a limited sample strategy.

Methods: Twenty adult patients with SLE given a stable 1 g/day, 2 g/day or 3 g/day dose of MMF orally for at least 10 weeks were included in the study. MPA was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to a photodiode array detector (11 plasma measurements over 12 hours post-dose per patient). Free MPA concentrations were measured by HPLC with fluorescence detection. Two different one-compartment models with first-order elimination were tested to fit the data: one convoluted with a double γ distribution to describe secondary concentrations peaks, and one convoluted with a triple γ distribution to model a third, later peak.

Results: A large interindividual variability in MPA concentration-time profiles was observed. The mean maximum plasma concentration, trough plasma concentration, time to reach the maximum plasma concentration and AUC from 0 to 12 hours (AUC12) were 13.6 ± 8.4 μg/mL, 1.4 ±1.2 μg/mL, 1.1 ± 1.2 hours and 32.2 ± 17.1 μg · h/mL, respectively. The mean free fraction of MPA was 1.7%. The one-compartment model with first-order elimination convoluted with a triple γ distribution best fitted the data. Accurate Bayesian estimates of the AUC12 were obtained using three blood samples collected at 40 minutes, 2 hours and 3 hours, with a coefficient of correlation (R) = 0.95 between the observed and predicted AUC12 and with a difference of <20% in 16 of the 20 patients.

Conclusions: A specific pharmacokinetic model was built to accurately fit MPA blood concentration-time profiles after MMF oral dosing in SLE patients, which allowed development of an accurate Bayesian estimator of MPA exposure that should allow MMF monitoring based on the AUC12 in these patients. The predictive value of targeting one specific or different AUC values on patients’ outcome using this estimator in SLE will need to be evaluated.



No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.


  1. 1.
    van Gelder T, LeMeur Y, Shaw LM, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 2006; 28: 145–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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: 261–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    LeGuellec C, Bourgoin H, Buchler M, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and Bayesian estimation of mycophenolic acid concentrations in stable renal transplant patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43: 253–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen H, Peng C, Yu Z, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and determination of area under the curve by abbreviated sampling strategy in Chinese liver transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007; 46: 175–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pawinski T, Hale M, Korecka M, et al. 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: 1497–504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zicheng Y, Weixia Z, Hao C, et al. Limited sampling strategy for the estimation of mycophenolic acid area under the plasma concentration-time curve in adult patients undergoing liver transplant. Ther Drug Monit 2007; 29: 207–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ng J, Rogosheske J, Barker J, et al. A limited sampling model for estimation of total and unbound mycophenolic acid (MPA) area under the curve (AUC) in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Ther Drug Monit 2006; 28: 394–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Filler G, Mai I. Limited sampling strategy for mycophenolic acid area under the curve. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22: 169–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weber LT, Hoecker B, Armstrong VW, et al. Validation of an abbreviated pharmacokinetic profile for the estimation of mycophenolic acid exposure in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2006; 28: 623–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Filler G. Abbreviated mycophenolic acid AUC from CO, C1, C2, and C4 is preferable in children after renal transplantation on mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus therapy. Transpl Int 2004; 17: 120–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monchaud C, Rousseau A, Leger F, et al. Limited sampling strategies using Bayesian estimation or multilinear regression for cyclosporin AUC(0–12) monitoring in cardiac transplant recipients over the first year post-transplantation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 58: 813–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Premaud A, LeMeur Y, Debord J, et al. Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients at different postgrafting periods. Ther Drug Monit 2005; 27: 354–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allison AC, Eugui EM. Mycophenolate mofetil and its mechanisms of action. Immunopharmacology 2000; 47: 85–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Appel GB, Radhakrishnan J, Ginzler EM. Use of mycophenolate mofetil in autoimmune and renal diseases. Transplantation 2005; 80(2 Suppl.): S265–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chan TM, Li FK, Tang CS, et al. Efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis. Hong Kong-Guangzhou Nephrology Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1156–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Contreras G, Pardo V, Leclercq B, et al. Sequential therapies for proliferative lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 971–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ginzler E.M, Dooley MA, Aranow C, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil or intravenous cyclophosphamide for lupus nephritis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2219–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smak Gregoor PJ, van Gelder T, Hesse CJ, et al. Mycophenolic acid plasma concentrations in kidney allograft recipients with or without cyclosporin: a cross-sectional study. Nephral Dial Transplant 1999; 14: 706–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patel CG, Harmon M, Gohh RY, et al. Concentrations of mycophenolic acid and glucuronide metabolites under concomitant therapy with cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Ther Drug Monit 2007; 29: 87–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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: 987–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kobayashi M, Saitoh H, Kobayashi M, et al. Cyclosporin A, but not tacrolimus, inhibits the biliary excretion of mycophenolic acid glucuronide possibly mediated by multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2004; 309: 1029–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neumann I, Haidinger M, Jager H, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with autoimmune diseases compared renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14: 721–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The American College of Rheumatology response criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials: measures of overall disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50: 3418-26Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Westley IS, Sallustio BC, Morris RG. Validation of a high-performance liquid chromatography method for the measurement of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolites in plasma. Clin Biochem 2005; 38: 824–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen J, Jiao Z, Yu YQ, et al. Quantification of total and free mycophenolic acid in human plasma by liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2005; 817: 207–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alvinerie M, Sutra JF, Galtier P, et al. Simultaneous measurement of Prednisone, prednisolone and hydrocortisone in plasma by high performance liquid chromatography. Ann Biol Clin (Paris) 1990; 48: 87–90Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Debord J, Risco E, Harel M, et al. Application of a gamma model of absorption to oral cyclosporin. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40: 375–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steimer JL, Mallet A, Golmard JL, et al. Alternative approaches to estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters: comparison with the nonlinear mixedeffect model. Drug Metab Rev 1984; 15: 265–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    D’Argenio DZ. Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1981; 9: 739–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zucker K, Rosen A, Tsaroucha A, et al. Unexpected augmentation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in combination therapy, and analogous in vitro findings. Transpl Immunol 1997; 5: 225–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cattaneo D, Merlini S, Zenoni S, et al. Influence of co-medication with sirolimus or cyclosporine on mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 2937–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pisupati J, Jain A, Burckart G, et al. Intraindividual and interindividual variations in the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in liver transplant patients. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45: 34–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Filler G, Zimmering M, Mai I. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil are influenced by concomitant immunosuppression. Pediatr Nephrol 2000; 14: 100–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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: 871–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Gelder T, Shaw LM. The rationale for and limitations of therapeutic drug monitoring for mycophenolate mofetil in transplantation. Transplantation 2005; 80: S244–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cattaneo D, Perico N, Gaspari F, et al. Glucocorticoids interfere with mycophenolate mofetil bioavailability in kidney transplantation. Kidney Int 2002; 62: 1060–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noël Zahr
    • 1
  • Zahir Amoura
    • 2
  • Jean Debord
    • 3
  • Jean-Sébastien Hulot
    • 1
  • Franck Saint-Marcoux
    • 3
  • Pierre Marquet
    • 3
  • Jean Charles Piette
    • 2
  • Philippe Lechat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology, Pitié-Salpêtriére Hospital, Faculté Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VIAssistance Publique Hôpitaux de ParisParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Pitié-Salpêtriére Hospital, Faculté Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VIAssistance Publique Hôpitaux de ParisParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacology-ToxicologyUniversity HospitalLimogesFrance

Personalised recommendations