Literature DB >> 19743888

Pharmacokinetic modelling and development of Bayesian estimators for therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in reduced-intensity haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Franck Saint-Marcoux1, Bernard Royer, Jean Debord, Fabrice Larosa, Faezeh Legrand, Eric Deconinck, Jean-Pierre Kantelip, Pierre Marquet.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil, a prodrug of mycophenolic acid (MPA), is used during non-myeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning haematopoetic stem cell transplantation (HCT) to improve engraftment and reduce graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). However, information about MPA pharmacokinetics is sparse in this context and its use is still empirical.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a pilot pharmacokinetic study and to develop maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimators (MAP-BEs) for the estimation of MPA exposure in HCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients administered oral mycophenolate mofetil 15 g/kg three times daily were included. Two consecutive 8-hour pharmacokinetic profiles were performed on the same day, 3 days before and 4 days after the HCT. One 8-hour pharmacokinetic profile was performed on day 27 after transplantation. For these 8-hour pharmacokinetic profiles, blood samples were collected predose and 20, 40, 60, 90 minutes and 2, 4, 6 and 8 hours post-dose. Using the iterative two-stage (ITS) method, two different one-compartment open pharmacokinetic models with first-order elimination were developed to describe the data: one with two gamma laws and one with three gamma laws to describe the absorption phase. For each pharmacokinetic profile, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) was calculated to evaluate model fitting. On the basis of the population pharmacokinetic parameters, MAP-BEs were developed for the estimation of MPA pharmacokinetics and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from 0 to 8 hours at the different studied periods using a limited-sampling strategy. These MAP-BEs were then validated using a data-splitting method.
RESULTS: The ITS approach allowed the development of MAP-BEs based either on 'double-gamma' or 'triple-gamma' models, the combination of which allowed correct estimation of MPA pharmacokinetics and AUC on the basis of a 20 minute-90 minute-240 minute sampling schedule. The mean bias of the Bayesian versus reference (trapezoidal) AUCs was <5% with <16% of the patients with absolute bias on AUC >20%. AIC was systematically calculated for the choice of the most appropriate model fitting the data.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic models and MAP-BEs for mycophenolate mofetil when administered to HCT patients have been developed. In the studied population, they allowed the estimation of MPA exposure based on three blood samples, which could be helpful in conducting clinical trials for the optimization of MPA in reduced-intensity HCT. However, prior studies will be needed to validate them in larger populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19743888      PMCID: PMC2975676          DOI: 10.2165/11317140-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet        ISSN: 0312-5963            Impact factor:   6.447


  35 in total

1.  Population pharmacokinetics of platinum after nedaplatin administration and model validation in adult patients.

Authors:  Toru Ishibashi; Yoshitaka Yano; Takayoshi Oguma
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Peripheral T-cell expansion and low infection rate after reduced-intensity conditioning and allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  F Larosa; C Marmier; E Robinet; C Ferrand; P Saas; E Deconinck; C-E Bulabois; P-S Rohrlich; K Ledu; P Helias; P Tiberghien; J-Y Cahn
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.483

3.  Efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil for the treatment of acute and chronic GVHD in bone marrow transplant recipient.

Authors:  N Basara; W I Blau; M G Kiehl; E Römer; M Rudolphi; M Bischoff; D Kirsten; H Sanchez; S Günzelmann; A A Fauser
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.066

4.  Incorporating prior parameter uncertainty in the design of sampling schedules for pharmacokinetic parameter estimation experiments.

Authors:  D Z D'Argenio
Journal:  Math Biosci       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 2.144

5.  Alternative approaches to estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters: comparison with the nonlinear mixed-effect model.

Authors:  J L Steimer; A Mallet; J L Golmard; J F Boisvieux
Journal:  Drug Metab Rev       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 4.518

6.  Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance.

Authors:  L B Sheiner; S L Beal
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1981-08

7.  Cyclosporine A and mycophenolate mofetil vs cyclosporine A and methotrexate for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after stem cell transplantation from HLA-identical siblings.

Authors:  F Neumann; T Graef; C Tapprich; M Vaupel; U Steidl; U Germing; R Fenk; A Hinke; R Haas; G Kobbe
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.483

8.  Mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine as graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after allogeneic blood stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  M Bornhäuser; U Schuler; G Pörksen; R Naumann; G Geissler; C Thiede; R Schwerdtfeger; G Ehninger; H M Thiede
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1999-02-27       Impact factor: 4.939

9.  A prospective randomized trial comparing cyclosporine and short course methotrexate with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil for GVHD prophylaxis in myeloablative allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.

Authors:  B Bolwell; R Sobecks; B Pohlman; S Andresen; L Rybicki; E Kuczkowski; M Kalaycio
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.483

10.  HLA-matched unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation after nonmyeloablative conditioning for patients with hematologic malignancies.

Authors:  Michael B Maris; Dietger Niederwieser; Brenda M Sandmaier; Barry Storer; Monic Stuart; David Maloney; Effie Petersdorf; Peter McSweeney; Michael Pulsipher; Ann Woolfrey; Thomas Chauncey; Ed Agura; Shelly Heimfeld; John Slattery; Ute Hegenbart; Claudio Anasetti; Karl Blume; Rainer Storb
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2003-06-05       Impact factor: 22.113

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Clinical mycophenolic acid monitoring in liver transplant recipients.

Authors:  Hao Chen; Bing Chen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Population pharmacokinetics and Bayesian estimators for intravenous mycophenolate mofetil in haematopoietic stem cell transplant patients.

Authors:  Marc Labriffe; Julien Vaidie; Caroline Monchaud; Jean Debord; Pascal Turlure; Stephane Girault; Pierre Marquet; Jean-Baptiste Woillard
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Comment on "Population Pharmacokinetics of Mycophenolic Acid: An Update".

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Woillard; Jean Debord; Pierre Marquet
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 4.  Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacogenomics of Immunosuppressants in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Part II.

Authors:  Jeannine S McCune; Meagan J Bemer; Janel Long-Boyle
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Population pharmacokinetics of nefopam in elderly, with or without renal impairment, and its link to treatment response.

Authors:  Zoubir Djerada; Aurélie Fournet-Fayard; Claire Gozalo; Chantal Lelarge; Denis Lamiable; Hervé Millart; Jean-Marc Malinovsky
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 6.  Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation of mycophenolic Acid area under the concentration-time curve: is this clinically useful for dosage prediction yet?

Authors:  Christine E Staatz; Susan E Tett
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 7.  The evolution of population pharmacokinetic models to describe the enterohepatic recycling of mycophenolic acid in solid organ transplantation and autoimmune disease.

Authors:  Catherine M T Sherwin; Tsuyoshi Fukuda; Hermine I Brunner; Jens Goebel; Alexander A Vinks
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.447

8.  Population pharmacokinetics and dose optimization of mycophenolic acid in HCT recipients receiving oral mycophenolate mofetil.

Authors:  H Li; D E Mager; B M Sandmaier; D G Maloney; M J Bemer; J S McCune
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 3.126

9.  Nonrelapse mortality and mycophenolic acid exposure in nonmyeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Authors:  Cara L McDermott; Brenda M Sandmaier; Barry Storer; Hong Li; Donald E Mager; Michael J Boeckh; Meagan J Bemer; Jennifer Knutson; Jeannine S McCune
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in children with lupus and clinical findings in favour of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Woillard; Brigitte Bader-Meunier; Rémi Salomon; Bruno Ranchin; Stéphane Decramer; Michel Fischbach; Etienne Berard; Vincent Guigonis; Jérôme Harambat; Olivier Dunand; Julie Tenenbaum; Pierre Marquet; Franck Saint-Marcoux
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.