OBJECTIVE: To develop a maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) Bayesian estimator for the pharmacokinetics of oral cyclosporin, based on only three timepoints, and evaluate its performance with respect to a full-profile nonlinear regression approach. PATIENTS: 20 adult patients with stable renal transplants given orally administered microemulsified cyclosporin and mycophenolate. METHODS: Cyclosporin was assayed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Nonlinear regression and MAP Bayesian estimation were performed using a home-made program and a previously designed pharmacokinetic model including an S-shaped absorption profile described by a gamma distribution. OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: MAP Bayesian estimation using the best limited sampling strategy (before administration, and 1 and 3 hours after administration) was compared with nonlinear regression (taken as the reference method) for the prediction of the different pharmacokinetic parameters and exposure indices. Median relative prediction error was -0.49 and -3.42% for area under the concentration-time curve over the administration interval of 12 hours (AUC12) and estimated peak drug concentration (Cmax), respectively (nonsignificant). Relative precision was 2.00 and 4.32%, and correlation coefficient (r) was 0.985 and 0.955, for AUC12 and Cmax, respectively. CONCLUSION: This paper reports preliminary results in a stable renal transplant patient population, showing that MAP Bayesian estimation can allow accurate prediction of AUC12 and Cmax with only three samples (0, 1 and 3 hours). Although these results require confirmation by further studies in other clinical settings, using other drug combinations, other analytical methods and commercially available pharmacokinetic software, the method seems promising as a tool for the therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin in clinical practice or for exposure-controlled studies.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a maximum a posteriori probability (MAP) Bayesian estimator for the pharmacokinetics of oral cyclosporin, based on only three timepoints, and evaluate its performance with respect to a full-profile nonlinear regression approach. PATIENTS: 20 adult patients with stable renal transplants given orally administered microemulsified cyclosporin and mycophenolate. METHODS:Cyclosporin was assayed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Nonlinear regression and MAP Bayesian estimation were performed using a home-made program and a previously designed pharmacokinetic model including an S-shaped absorption profile described by a gamma distribution. OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: MAP Bayesian estimation using the best limited sampling strategy (before administration, and 1 and 3 hours after administration) was compared with nonlinear regression (taken as the reference method) for the prediction of the different pharmacokinetic parameters and exposure indices. Median relative prediction error was -0.49 and -3.42% for area under the concentration-time curve over the administration interval of 12 hours (AUC12) and estimated peak drug concentration (Cmax), respectively (nonsignificant). Relative precision was 2.00 and 4.32%, and correlation coefficient (r) was 0.985 and 0.955, for AUC12 and Cmax, respectively. CONCLUSION: This paper reports preliminary results in a stable renal transplant patient population, showing that MAP Bayesian estimation can allow accurate prediction of AUC12 and Cmax with only three samples (0, 1 and 3 hours). Although these results require confirmation by further studies in other clinical settings, using other drug combinations, other analytical methods and commercially available pharmacokinetic software, the method seems promising as a tool for the therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin in clinical practice or for exposure-controlled studies.
Authors: J Debord; E Risco; M Harel; Y Le Meur; M Büchler; G Lachâtre; C Le Guellec; P Marquet Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2001 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: P Keown; B D Kahan; A Johnston; G Levy; S P Dunn; F Cittero; J M Grino; P F Hoyer; P Wolf; P F Halloran Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: M Oellerich; V W Armstrong; B Kahan; L Shaw; D W Holt; R Yatscoff; A Lindholm; P Halloran; K Gallicano; K Wonigeit Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: C Monchaud; A Rousseau; F Leger; O J David; J Debord; T Dantoine; P Marquet Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2003-03-06 Impact factor: 2.953