Diluk R W Kannangara1,2, Garry G Graham1,2, Daniel F B Wright3, Sophie L Stocker1,2, Ian Portek4, Kevin D Pile5, Murray L Barclay6,7, Kenneth M Williams1,2, Lisa K Stamp6, Richard O Day1,2,8. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 2. School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 3. School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 4. Department of Rheumatology, St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 5. Department of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. 7. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand. 8. St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of the study were to: 1) determine if a plasma oxypurinol concentration-response relationship or an allopurinol dose-response relationship best predicts the dose requirements of allopurinol in the treatment of gout; and 2) to construct a nomogram for calculating the optimum maintenance dose of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate (SU) concentrations. METHODS: A nonlinear regression analysis was used to examine the plasma oxypurinol concentration- and allopurinol dose-response relationships with serum urate. In 81 patients (205 samples), creatinine clearance (CLCR ), concomitant diuretic use and SU concentrations before (UP ) and during (UT ) treatment were monitored across a range of allopurinol doses (D, 50-700 mg daily). Plasma concentrations of oxypurinol (C) were measured in 47 patients (98 samples). Models (n = 47 patients) and predictions from each relationship were compared using F-tests, r2 values and paired t-tests. The best model was used to construct a nomogram. RESULTS: The final plasma oxypurinol concentration-response relationship (UT = UP - C*(UP - UR )/(ID50 + C), r2 = 0.64) and allopurinol dose-response relationship (UT = UP - D* (UP - UR )/(ID50 + D), r2 = 0.60) did not include CLCR or diuretic use as covariates. There was no difference (P = 0.87) between the predicted SU concentrations derived from the oxypurinol concentration- and allopurinol dose-response relationships. The nomogram constructed using the allopurinol dose-response relationship for all recruited patients (n = 81 patients) required pretreatment SU as the predictor of allopurinol maintenance dose. CONCLUSIONS:Plasma oxypurinol concentrations, CLCR and diuretic status are not required to predict the maintenance dose of allopurinol. Using the nomogram, the maintenance dose of allopurinol estimated to reach target concentrations can be predicted from UP .
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The aims of the study were to: 1) determine if a plasma oxypurinol concentration-response relationship or an allopurinol dose-response relationship best predicts the dose requirements of allopurinol in the treatment of gout; and 2) to construct a nomogram for calculating the optimum maintenance dose of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate (SU) concentrations. METHODS: A nonlinear regression analysis was used to examine the plasma oxypurinol concentration- and allopurinol dose-response relationships with serum urate. In 81 patients (205 samples), creatinine clearance (CLCR ), concomitant diuretic use and SU concentrations before (UP ) and during (UT ) treatment were monitored across a range of allopurinol doses (D, 50-700 mg daily). Plasma concentrations of oxypurinol (C) were measured in 47 patients (98 samples). Models (n = 47 patients) and predictions from each relationship were compared using F-tests, r2 values and paired t-tests. The best model was used to construct a nomogram. RESULTS: The final plasma oxypurinol concentration-response relationship (UT = UP - C*(UP - UR )/(ID50 + C), r2 = 0.64) and allopurinol dose-response relationship (UT = UP - D* (UP - UR )/(ID50 + D), r2 = 0.60) did not include CLCR or diuretic use as covariates. There was no difference (P = 0.87) between the predicted SU concentrations derived from the oxypurinol concentration- and allopurinol dose-response relationships. The nomogram constructed using the allopurinol dose-response relationship for all recruited patients (n = 81 patients) required pretreatment SU as the predictor of allopurinol maintenance dose. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma oxypurinol concentrations, CLCR and diuretic status are not required to predict the maintenance dose of allopurinol. Using the nomogram, the maintenance dose of allopurinol estimated to reach target concentrations can be predicted from UP .
Authors: Daniel F B Wright; Stephen B Duffull; Tony R Merriman; Nicola Dalbeth; Murray L Barclay; Lisa K Stamp Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Lisa K Stamp; Murray L Barclay; John L O'Donnell; Mei Zhang; Jill Drake; Christopher Frampton; Peter T Chapman Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Garry G Graham; Diluk R W Kannangara; Sophie L Stocker; Ian Portek; Kevin D Pile; Praveen L Indraratna; Indira Datta; Kenneth M Williams; Richard O Day Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Sarayut Janmahasatian; Stephen B Duffull; Susan Ash; Leigh C Ward; Nuala M Byrne; Bruce Green Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2005 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Eric E Kelley; Andrés Trostchansky; Homero Rubbo; Bruce A Freeman; Rafael Radi; Margaret M Tarpey Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Daniel Fb Wright; Matthew P Doogue; Murray L Barclay; Peter T Chapman; Nicholas B Cross; John H Irvine; Lisa K Stamp Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Richard O Day; Garry G Graham; Mark Hicks; Andrew J McLachlan; Sophie L Stocker; Kenneth M Williams Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Sophie L Stocker; Kenneth M Williams; Andrew J McLachlan; Garry G Graham; Richard O Day Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2008 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: P Richette; M Doherty; E Pascual; V Barskova; F Becce; J Castañeda-Sanabria; M Coyfish; S Guillo; T L Jansen; H Janssens; F Lioté; C Mallen; G Nuki; F Perez-Ruiz; J Pimentao; L Punzi; T Pywell; A So; A K Tausche; T Uhlig; J Zavada; W Zhang; F Tubach; T Bardin Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Diluk R W Kannangara; Garry G Graham; Daniel F B Wright; Sophie L Stocker; Ian Portek; Kevin D Pile; Murray L Barclay; Kenneth M Williams; Lisa K Stamp; Richard O Day Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-05-28 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Panagiota Drivelegka; Valgerdur Sigurdardottir; Anna Svärd; Lennart T H Jacobsson; Mats Dehlin Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.156