Thomas Vanhove1,2, Hylke de Jonge1,2, Henriëtte de Loor2, Pieter Annaert3, Ulf Diczfalusy4, Dirk R J Kuypers1,2. 1. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Drug Delivery and Disposition, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Clinical Chemistry, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: We compared the CYP3A4 metrics weight-corrected midazolam apparent oral clearance (MDZ Cl/F/W) and plasma 4β-hydroxycholesterol/cholesterol (4β-OHC/C) as they relate to tacrolimus (TAC) Cl/F/W in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: For a cohort of 147 patients, 8 h area under the curve (AUC) values for TAC and oral MDZ were calculated besides measurement of 4β-OHC/C. A subgroup of 70 patients additionally underwent intravenous erythromycin breath test (EBT) and were administered the intravenous MDZ probe. All patients were genotyped for common polymorphisms in CYP3A4, CYP3A5 and P450 oxidoreductase, among others. RESULTS: MDZ Cl/F/W, 4β-OHC/C/W, EBT and TAC Cl/F/W were all moderately correlated (r = 0.262-0.505). Neither MDZ Cl/F/W nor 4β-OHC/C/W explained variability in TAC Cl/F/W in CYP3A5 expressors (n = 29). For CYP3A5 non-expressors (n = 118), factors explaining variability in TAC Cl/F/W in a MDZ-based model were MDZ Cl/F/W (R2 = 0.201), haematocrit (R2 = 0.139), TAC formulation (R2 = 0.107) and age (R2 = 0.032; total R2 = 0.479). In the 4β-OHC/C/W-based model, predictors were 4β-OHC/C/W (R2 = 0.196), haematocrit (R2 = 0.059) and age (R2 = 0.057; total R2 = 0.312). When genotype information was ignored, predictors of TAC Cl/F/W in the whole cohort were 4β-OHC/C/W (R2 = 0.167), MDZ Cl/F/W (R2 = 0.045); Tac QD formulation (R2 = 0.036), and haematocrit (R2 = 0.032; total R2 = 0.315). 4β-OHC/C/W, but not MDZ Cl/F/W, was higher in CYP3A5 expressors because it was higher in CYP3A4*1b carriers, which were almost all CYP3A5 expressors. CONCLUSIONS: A MDZ-based model explained more variability in TAC clearance in CYP3A5 non-expressors. However, 4β-OHC/C/W was superior in a model in which no genotype information was available, likely because 4β-OHC/C/W was influenced by the CYP3A4*1b polymorphism.
AIMS: We compared the CYP3A4 metrics weight-corrected midazolam apparent oral clearance (MDZ Cl/F/W) and plasma 4β-hydroxycholesterol/cholesterol (4β-OHC/C) as they relate to tacrolimus (TAC) Cl/F/W in renal transplant recipients. METHODS: For a cohort of 147 patients, 8 h area under the curve (AUC) values for TAC and oral MDZ were calculated besides measurement of 4β-OHC/C. A subgroup of 70 patients additionally underwent intravenous erythromycin breath test (EBT) and were administered the intravenous MDZ probe. All patients were genotyped for common polymorphisms in CYP3A4, CYP3A5 and P450 oxidoreductase, among others. RESULTS:MDZ Cl/F/W, 4β-OHC/C/W, EBT and TAC Cl/F/W were all moderately correlated (r = 0.262-0.505). Neither MDZ Cl/F/W nor 4β-OHC/C/W explained variability in TAC Cl/F/W in CYP3A5 expressors (n = 29). For CYP3A5 non-expressors (n = 118), factors explaining variability in TAC Cl/F/W in a MDZ-based model were MDZ Cl/F/W (R2 = 0.201), haematocrit (R2 = 0.139), TAC formulation (R2 = 0.107) and age (R2 = 0.032; total R2 = 0.479). In the 4β-OHC/C/W-based model, predictors were 4β-OHC/C/W (R2 = 0.196), haematocrit (R2 = 0.059) and age (R2 = 0.057; total R2 = 0.312). When genotype information was ignored, predictors of TAC Cl/F/W in the whole cohort were 4β-OHC/C/W (R2 = 0.167), MDZ Cl/F/W (R2 = 0.045); Tac QD formulation (R2 = 0.036), and haematocrit (R2 = 0.032; total R2 = 0.315). 4β-OHC/C/W, but not MDZ Cl/F/W, was higher in CYP3A5 expressors because it was higher in CYP3A4*1b carriers, which were almost all CYP3A5 expressors. CONCLUSIONS: A MDZ-based model explained more variability in TAC clearance in CYP3A5 non-expressors. However, 4β-OHC/C/W was superior in a model in which no genotype information was available, likely because 4β-OHC/C/W was influenced by the CYP3A4*1b polymorphism.
Authors: Katherine A Barraclough; Nicole M Isbel; David W Johnson; Scott B Campbell; Christine E Staatz Journal: Drugs Date: 2011-08-20 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Ulf Diczfalusy; Jun Miura; Hyung-Keun Roh; Rajaa A Mirghani; Jane Sayi; Hanna Larsson; Karl G Bodin; Annika Allqvist; Mary Jande; Jong-Wook Kim; Eleni Aklillu; Lars L Gustafsson; Leif Bertilsson Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: K P Kanebratt; U Diczfalusy; T Bäckström; E Sparve; E Bredberg; Y Böttiger; T B Andersson; L Bertilsson Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-07-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Christopher Southan; Joanna L Sharman; Helen E Benson; Elena Faccenda; Adam J Pawson; Stephen P H Alexander; O Peter Buneman; Anthony P Davenport; John C McGrath; John A Peters; Michael Spedding; William A Catterall; Doriano Fabbro; Jamie A Davies Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 16.971