Can Hu1, Wen-Jun Yin1, Dai-Yang Li1, Jun-Jie Ding2, Ling-Yun Zhou1, Jiang-Lin Wang1, Rong-Rong Ma3, Kun Liu1, Ge Zhou1, Xiao-Cong Zuo4,5. 1. Department of Pharmacy, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410013, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Children's Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 100029, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Pharmacy, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, No. 137 Liyushan South Road, Urumqi, 830054, Xinjiang, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Pharmacy, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410013, People's Republic of China. zuoxc08@126.com. 5. Center of Clinical Pharmacology, The Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410013, People's Republic of China. zuoxc08@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Numerous studies have been conducted on the population pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in adult renal transplant recipients. It has been reported that the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5 genotype is an important cause of variability in tacrolimus pharmacokinetics. However, the predictive performance of population pharmacokinetic (PK) models of tacrolimus should be evaluated prior to their implementation in clinical practice. The aim of the study reported here was to test the predictive performance of these published PK models of tacrolimus. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases ultimately led to the inclusion of eight one-compartment models in our analysis. We collected a total of 1715 trough concentrations from 174 patients. Predictive performance was assessed based on visual and numerical comparison bias and imprecision and by the use of simulation-based diagnostics and Bayesian forecasting. RESULTS: Of the eight one-compartment models assessed, seven showed better predictive performance in CYP3A5 extensive metabolizers in terms of bias and imprecision. Results of the simulation-based diagnostics also supported the findings. The model based on a Chinese population in 2013 (model 3) showed the best and most stable predictive performance in all the tests and was more informative in CYP3A5 extensive metabolizers. As expected, Bayesian forecasting improved model predictability. Diversity among models and between different CYP3A5 genotypes of the same model was also narrowed by Bayesian forecasting. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, we recommend using model 3 in CYP3A5 extensive metabolizers in clinical practice. All models had a poor predictive performance in CYP3A5 poor metabolizers, and they should be used with caution in this patient population. However, Bayesian forecasting improved the predictability and reduced differences, and thus the models could be applied in this latter patient population for the design of maintenance dose.
PURPOSE: Numerous studies have been conducted on the population pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in adult renal transplant recipients. It has been reported that the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5 genotype is an important cause of variability in tacrolimus pharmacokinetics. However, the predictive performance of population pharmacokinetic (PK) models of tacrolimus should be evaluated prior to their implementation in clinical practice. The aim of the study reported here was to test the predictive performance of these published PK models of tacrolimus. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases ultimately led to the inclusion of eight one-compartment models in our analysis. We collected a total of 1715 trough concentrations from 174 patients. Predictive performance was assessed based on visual and numerical comparison bias and imprecision and by the use of simulation-based diagnostics and Bayesian forecasting. RESULTS: Of the eight one-compartment models assessed, seven showed better predictive performance in CYP3A5 extensive metabolizers in terms of bias and imprecision. Results of the simulation-based diagnostics also supported the findings. The model based on a Chinese population in 2013 (model 3) showed the best and most stable predictive performance in all the tests and was more informative in CYP3A5 extensive metabolizers. As expected, Bayesian forecasting improved model predictability. Diversity among models and between different CYP3A5 genotypes of the same model was also narrowed by Bayesian forecasting. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, we recommend using model 3 in CYP3A5 extensive metabolizers in clinical practice. All models had a poor predictive performance in CYP3A5 poor metabolizers, and they should be used with caution in this patient population. However, Bayesian forecasting improved the predictability and reduced differences, and thus the models could be applied in this latter patient population for the design of maintenance dose.
Entities:
Keywords:
Evaluation; Population pharmacokinetics; Renal transplant; Tacrolimus
Authors: Chaitali Passey; Angela K Birnbaum; Richard C Brundage; William S Oetting; Ajay K Israni; Pamala A Jacobson Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Franc Andreu; Helena Colom; Josep M Grinyó; Joan Torras; Josep M Cruzado; Nuria Lloberas Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Franc Andreu; Helena Colom; Laure Elens; Teun van Gelder; Ronald H N van Schaik; Dennis A Hesselink; Oriol Bestard; Joan Torras; Josep M Cruzado; Josep M Grinyó; Nuria Lloberas Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Yvonne S Lin; Amy L S Dowling; Sean D Quigley; Federico M Farin; Jiong Zhang; Jatinder Lamba; Erin G Schuetz; Kenneth E Thummel Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Anders Åsberg; Karsten Midtvedt; Mike van Guilder; Elisabet Størset; Sara Bremer; Stein Bergan; Roger Jelliffe; Anders Hartmann; Michael N Neely Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Moataz E Mohamed; David P Schladt; Weihua Guan; Baolin Wu; Jessica van Setten; Brendan J Keating; David Iklé; Rory P Remmel; Casey R Dorr; Roslyn B Mannon; Arthur J Matas; Ajay K Israni; William S Oetting; Pamala A Jacobson Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 8.086