Transplant International pp 305-307 | Cite as
Predicting patients’ exposure to cyclosporin
- 1 Citations
- 46 Downloads
Abstract
The introduction of a new formulation of cyclosporin, Neoral, has reduced pharmacokinetic variability and it may be possible to simplify area-under-curve (AUC) measurements using a limited sampling strategy. We have examined the timing of blood samples necessary to obtain accurate AUC predictions for cyclosporin using limited data from stable renal transplant patients dosed twice daily with Neoral. Best subset regression of blood concentration profile data obtained from ten patients at steady state indicated that two samples, timed at 2 and 8 h post-dose, accounted for 97% of the variance in AUC. The accuracy of this prediction was tested using profile data collected in a further 36 patients on three occasions separated by 4 and 44 weeks. Using the regression, AUC = 1.96 × [2 h] + 11.5 × [8 h] + 355.2, the mean (95% CI) prediction errors of the three occasions were 1.7% (− 2.1–5.4%),3.3% (− 2.6–9.2%) and 0.4% (− 3.4–4.2%). Data are presented that suggest AUC monitoring with a single blood sample could be feasible in a clinical setting.
Keywords
Cyclosporin AUC Therapeutic drug monitoring Blood concentrationPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Grevel J, Kahan BD (1991) Abbreviated 4. kinetic profiles in area-under-the-curve monitoring of cyclosporin therapy. Clin Chem 37: 1905–1909PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Holt DW, Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, Bree JB van, Kutz K (1994) The pharmacokinetics of Sandimmun Neoral: a new for- 5. mulation of cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 26: 2935–2939PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Holt DW, Mueller EA, Kovarik JM, Bree JB van, Richard F, Kutz K (1995) Sandimmun Neoral pharmacokinetics: impact of the new oral formulation. Transplant Proc 27: 1434–1437PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Johnston A, Sketris I, Marsden JT, Galustian CG, Fashola T, Taube D, Pepper J, Holt DW (1990) A limited sampling strategy for the measurement of cyclosporine AUC. Transplant Proc 22: 1345–1346PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kahan BD, Dunn J, Fitts C, Buren D van, Wombolt D, Pollak R, Carson R, Alexander JW, Choc M, Wong R, Hwang DS (1995) Reduced inter-and intrasubject variability in cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients treated with a microemulsion formulation in conjunction with fasting, low-fat meals or high-fat meals. Transplantation 59: 505–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Keown PA (1995) Pharmacokinetic, economic, and pharmacoepidemiological analysis of Neoral in renal transplantation in Canada. In: Neoral. The new microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine. World Medical Press, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
- 7.Lindholm A, Kahan BD (1993) Influ- ence of cyclosporin pharmacokinetics, trough concentration, and AUC moni- toring on outcome of kidney transplan- tation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 54: 205–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar