AIMS: Ciclosporin A (CsA) is used in the prophylaxis and treatment of acute and chronic graft vs. host disease after haematopoietic stem cell (HSCT) transplantation. Our objective was to build and compare three independent Bayesian estimators of CsA area under the curve (AUC) using a limited sampling strategy (LSS), to assist in dose adjustment. METHODS: The Bayesian estimators were developed using in parallel: two independent parametric modelling approaches (nonmem® and iterative two stage (ITS) Bayesian modelling) and the non-parametric adaptive grid method (Pmetrics®). Seventy-two full pharmacokinetic profiles (at pre-dose and 0.33, 0.66, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12h after dosing) collected from 40 HSCT patients given CsA were used to build the pharmacokinetic models, while 15 other profiles (n = 7) were kept for validation. For each Bayesian estimator, AUCs estimated using the full profiles were compared with AUCs estimated using three samples. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic profiles were well fitted using a two compartment model with first order elimination, combined with a gamma function for the absorption phase with ITS and Pmetrics or an Erlang distribution with nonmem. The derived Bayesian estimators based on a C0-C1 h-C4 h sampling schedule (best LSS) accurately estimated CsA AUC(0,12 h) in the validation group (n = 15; nonmem: bias (mean ± SD)/RMSE 2.05% ± 13.31%/13.02%; ITS: 4.61% ± 10.56%/11.20%; Pmetrics: 0.30% ± 10.12%/10.47%). The dose chosen confronting the three results led to a pertinent dose proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The developed Bayesian estimators were all able to predict ciclosporin AUC(0,12 h) in HSCT patients using only three blood with minimal bias and may be combined to increase the reliability of CsA dose adjustment in routine.
AIMS: Ciclosporin A (CsA) is used in the prophylaxis and treatment of acute and chronic graft vs. host disease after haematopoietic stem cell (HSCT) transplantation. Our objective was to build and compare three independent Bayesian estimators of CsA area under the curve (AUC) using a limited sampling strategy (LSS), to assist in dose adjustment. METHODS: The Bayesian estimators were developed using in parallel: two independent parametric modelling approaches (nonmem® and iterative two stage (ITS) Bayesian modelling) and the non-parametric adaptive grid method (Pmetrics®). Seventy-two full pharmacokinetic profiles (at pre-dose and 0.33, 0.66, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12h after dosing) collected from 40 HSCT patients given CsA were used to build the pharmacokinetic models, while 15 other profiles (n = 7) were kept for validation. For each Bayesian estimator, AUCs estimated using the full profiles were compared with AUCs estimated using three samples. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic profiles were well fitted using a two compartment model with first order elimination, combined with a gamma function for the absorption phase with ITS and Pmetrics or an Erlang distribution with nonmem. The derived Bayesian estimators based on a C0-C1 h-C4 h sampling schedule (best LSS) accurately estimated CsA AUC(0,12 h) in the validation group (n = 15; nonmem: bias (mean ± SD)/RMSE 2.05% ± 13.31%/13.02%; ITS: 4.61% ± 10.56%/11.20%; Pmetrics: 0.30% ± 10.12%/10.47%). The dose chosen confronting the three results led to a pertinent dose proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The developed Bayesian estimators were all able to predict ciclosporin AUC(0,12 h) in HSCT patients using only three blood with minimal bias and may be combined to increase the reliability of CsA dose adjustment in routine.
Authors: Michael N Neely; Michael G van Guilder; Walter M Yamada; Alan Schumitzky; Roger W Jelliffe Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Isabelle Etienne; Olivier Toupance; Jacques Bénichou; Antoine Thierry; Azmi Al Najjar; Bruno Hurault de Ligny; Yannick Le Meur; Pierre-François Westeel; Pierre Marquet; Arnaud François; Marie-France Hellot; Michel Godin Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Abraham J Wilhelm; Peer de Graaf; Agnes I Veldkamp; Jeroen J W M Janssen; Peter C Huijgens; Eleonora L Swart Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.335
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: Ferdows Atiq; Annoek E C Broers; Louise M Andrews; Jeanette K Doorduijn; Birgit C P Koch; Teun Van Gelder; Jorie Versmissen Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Femke de Velde; Brenda C M de Winter; Michael N Neely; Walter M Yamada; Birgit C P Koch; Stephan Harbarth; Elodie von Dach; Teun van Gelder; Angela Huttner; Johan W Mouton Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Femke de Velde; Brenda C M de Winter; Michael N Neely; Jan Strojil; Walter M Yamada; Stephan Harbarth; Angela Huttner; Teun van Gelder; Birgit C P Koch; Anouk E Muller Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 6.321