Literature DB >> 12657908

Mycophenolate mofetil for solid organ transplantation: does the evidence support the need for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring?

Victoria C Cox1, Mary H H Ensom.   

Abstract

The need for clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring (CPM) of the immunosuppressant mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been debated. Using a previously developed algorithm, the authors reviewed the evidence to support or refute the utility of CPM of MMF. First, MMF has proven efficacy for prevention of organ rejection in renal and cardiac transplant populations. In addition, the pharmacologically active form of MMF, mycophenolic acid (MPA), can be measured readily in plasma, and relationships between the incidence of rejection and MPA predose concentrations and MPA area under the curve (AUC) have been reported. A lower limit of the therapeutic range (MPA predose concentrations >1.55 microg/mL, as measured by enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique [EMIT], or MPA AUC >30 or 40 microg. h/mL, as measured by high-performance liquid chromatography [HPLC]) has been suggested to prevent rejection in renal allograft patients. Similarly, in cardiac transplant patients, decreased incidences of organ rejection have been reported in patients with MPA concentrations >2 or 3 microg/mL (using EMIT) and total AUC values >42.8 microg. h/mL (using HPLC). However, the relationship between pharmacokinetic parameters and adverse events in renal and cardiac transplant patients remains unclear. Due to the nature of antirejection therapy, the pharmacologic response of MMF is not readily assessable, and therapy is life-long. MPA pharmacokinetics exhibit large inter- and intrapatient variability and may be altered in specific patient populations due to changes in protein binding, concomitant disease states, or interactions with concurrent immunosuppressants. Therefore, on the basis of current evidence, CPM can provide more information regarding efficacy of MMF than clinical judgment alone in select patient populations. However, further randomized, prospective trials are required to clarify unresolved issues. Specifically, an upper limit of the therapeutic range, above which the risk of side effects is increased, needs to be elucidated for MMF therapy. Other future directions for research include determining a practical limited sampling strategy for MPA AUC; clarifying the relationship between free MPA concentrations, efficacy, and toxicity; and defining the pharmacodynamic relationship between activity of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (the enzyme inhibited by MPA) and risk of rejection or adverse effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12657908     DOI: 10.1097/00007691-200304000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ther Drug Monit        ISSN: 0163-4356            Impact factor:   3.681


  16 in total

Review 1.  Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients.

Authors:  Christine E Staatz; Susan E Tett
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  Population pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid during the first week after renal transplantation.

Authors:  Christine E Staatz; Stephen B Duffull; Bryce Kiberd; Albert D Fraser; Susan E Tett
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-07-28       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  Pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate mofetil after nonmyeloablative conditioning and unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Authors:  Luisa Giaccone; Jeannine S McCune; Michael B Maris; Theodore A Gooley; Brenda M Sandmaier; John T Slattery; Scott Cole; Richard A Nash; Rainer F Storb; George E Georges
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 22.113

Review 4.  Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium: tolerability profile compared with mycophenolate mofetil.

Authors:  Matthias Behrend; Felix Braun
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

5.  A double absorption-phase model adequately describes mycophenolic acid plasma profiles in de novo renal transplant recipients given oral mycophenolate mofetil.

Authors:  Aurélie Prémaud; Jean Debord; Annick Rousseau; Yannick Le Meur; Olivier Toupance; Yvon Lebranchu; Guillaume Hoizey; Chantal Le Guellec; Pierre Marquet
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 6.447

6.  Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of low dose mycophenolate mofetil in HIV-infected patients treated with abacavir, efavirenz and nelfinavir.

Authors:  Olga Millán; Mercè Brunet; Jaume Martorell; Felipe García; Elena Vidal; Isabel Rojo; Montserrat Plana; Teresa Gallart; Tomas Pumarola; Jose M Miró; Jose M Gatell
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 6.447

7.  The utility of trough mycophenolic acid levels for the management of lupus nephritis.

Authors:  Negiin Pourafshar; Ashkan Karimi; Xuerong Wen; Eric Sobel; Shirin Pourafshar; Nikhil Agrawal; Emma Segal; Rajesh Mohandas; Mark S Segal
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 5.992

8.  Pharmacokinetic role of protein binding of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolite in renal transplant recipients.

Authors:  Brenda C M de Winter; Teun van Gelder; Ferdi Sombogaard; Leslie M Shaw; Reinier M van Hest; Ron A A Mathot
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 2.745

9.  Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and estimation of exposure using multiple linear regression equations in Chinese renal allograft recipients.

Authors:  Pei-Jun Zhou; Da Xu; Zi-Cheng Yu; Xiang-Hui Wang; Kun Shao; Ju-Ping Zhao
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 6.447

10.  Population pharmacogenetic pharmacokinetic modeling for flip-flop phenomenon of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in kidney transplant recipients.

Authors:  Nayoung Han; Hwi-yeol Yun; In-Wha Kim; Yoon Jung Oh; Yon Su Kim; Jung Mi Oh
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.