AIMS: Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) monitoring strategies and clinical outcome were evaluated in enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS)-treated renal allograft recipients. METHODS: PK [mycophenolic acid (MPA)] and PD [inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) activity] data were analysed in 66 EC-MPS and ciclosporin A (CsA)-treated renal allograft recipients. Adverse events were considered in a follow-up period of 12 weeks. RESULTS: Analyses confirmed a limited sampling strategy (LSS) consisting of PK and PD data at predose, 1, 2, 3 and 4 h after oral intake as an appropriate sampling method (MPA r(2)= 0.812; IMPDH r(2)= 0.833). MPA AUC(0-12) of patients with early biopsy-proven acute rejection was significantly lower compared with patients without a rejection (median MPA AUC(0-12) 28 microg*h ml(-1) (7-45) vs. 40 microg*h ml(-1) (16-130), P < 0.01), MPA AUC(0-12) of patients with recurrent infections was significantly higher compared with patients without infections (median MPA AUC(0-12) 65 microg*h ml(-1) (range 37-130) vs. 37 microg*h ml(-1) (range 7-120), P < 0.005). Low 12-h IMPDH enzyme activity curve (AEC(0-12)) was associated with an increased frequency of gastrointestinal side-effects (median IMPDH AEC(0-12) 43 nmol*h mg(-1) protein h(-1)[range 12-67) vs. 75 nmol*h mg(-1) protein h(-1) (range 15-371), P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Despite highly variable absorption data, an appropriate LSS might be estimated by MPA AUC(0-4) and IMPDH AEC(0-4) in renal transplant patients treated with EC-MPS and CsA. Regarding adverse events, the suggested MPA-target AUC(0-12) from 30 to 60 microg*h ml(-1) seems to be appropriate in renal allograft recipients.
AIMS: Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) monitoring strategies and clinical outcome were evaluated in enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS)-treated renal allograft recipients. METHODS: PK [mycophenolic acid (MPA)] and PD [inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) activity] data were analysed in 66 EC-MPS and ciclosporin A (CsA)-treated renal allograft recipients. Adverse events were considered in a follow-up period of 12 weeks. RESULTS: Analyses confirmed a limited sampling strategy (LSS) consisting of PK and PD data at predose, 1, 2, 3 and 4 h after oral intake as an appropriate sampling method (MPA r(2)= 0.812; IMPDH r(2)= 0.833). MPA AUC(0-12) of patients with early biopsy-proven acute rejection was significantly lower compared with patients without a rejection (median MPA AUC(0-12) 28 microg*h ml(-1) (7-45) vs. 40 microg*h ml(-1) (16-130), P < 0.01), MPA AUC(0-12) of patients with recurrent infections was significantly higher compared with patients without infections (median MPA AUC(0-12) 65 microg*h ml(-1) (range 37-130) vs. 37 microg*h ml(-1) (range 7-120), P < 0.005). Low 12-h IMPDH enzyme activity curve (AEC(0-12)) was associated with an increased frequency of gastrointestinal side-effects (median IMPDH AEC(0-12) 43 nmol*h mg(-1) protein h(-1)[range 12-67) vs. 75 nmol*h mg(-1) protein h(-1) (range 15-371), P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Despite highly variable absorption data, an appropriate LSS might be estimated by MPA AUC(0-4) and IMPDH AEC(0-4) in renal transplantpatients treated with EC-MPS and CsA. Regarding adverse events, the suggested MPA-target AUC(0-12) from 30 to 60 microg*h ml(-1) seems to be appropriate in renal allograft recipients.
Authors: P Glander; K P Braun; P Hambach; S Bauer; I Mai; I Roots; J Waiser; L Fritsche; H H Neumayer; K Budde Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Manuel Pascual; Tom Theruvath; Tatsuo Kawai; Nina Tolkoff-Rubin; A Benedict Cosimi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-02-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Magdalena Korecka; Raman Venkataramanan; Lee Goldberg; Roy Bloom; Kenneth L Brayman Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M Shipkova; V W Armstrong; D Kuypers; F Perner; V Fabrizi; H Holzer; E Wieland; M Oellerich Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: M Mourad; J Malaise; D Chaib Eddour; M De Meyer; J König; R Schepers; J P Squifflet; P Wallemacq Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Lutz T Weber; Maria Shipkova; Victor W Armstrong; Natalie Wagner; Ekkehard Schütz; Otto Mehls; Lothar B Zimmerhackl; Michael Oellerich; Burkhard Tönshoff Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche; Bettina J Steffen; Alan M Hochberg; Robert D Gordon; Michael N Liebman; Jonathan A Morris; Bruce Kaplan Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-04-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Maurizio Salvadori; Herwig Holzer; Angelo de Mattos; Hans Sollinger; Wolfgang Arns; Federico Oppenheimer; Jeff Maca; Michael Hall Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Brenda C M de Winter; Teun van Gelder; Ron A A Mathot; Petra Glander; Helio Tedesco-Silva; Luuk Hilbrands; Klemens Budde; Reinier M van Hest Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: David K Metz; Nick Holford; Joshua Y Kausman; Amanda Walker; Noel Cranswick; Christine E Staatz; Katherine A Barraclough; Francesco Ierino Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Dwarakanathan Ranganathan; George T John; Helen Healy; Matthew J Roberts; Robert G Fassett; Jeffrey Lipman; Paul Kubler; Jacobus Ungerer; Brett C McWhinney; Aaron Lim; Megan Purvey; Reza Reyaldeen; Jason A Roberts Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 2.692