| Literature DB >> 31772640 |
Dongdong Wang1, Xiao Chen1, Hong Xu2, Zhiping Li1.
Abstract
Pediatric patients with systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SOJIA) may be treated with tacrolimus. However, the therapeutic range for tacrolimus is narrow with considerable inter- and intra-individual variability, making it difficult to formulate an ideal dosage regimen for personalized treatment. The purpose of the present study was to set up a population pharmacokinetics (PPK) model of tacrolimus treatment for SOJIA to determine the optimal initial dosage. Patients with SOJIA were analyzed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling. Different regimens were analyzed using Monte Carlo simulation with concentration profiles. A first-order absorption and elimination one-compartment model was selected as the most appropriate model for SOJIA. Based on initial dosage recommendations, the regimen of 0.5 mg every 24 h (q24h) appeared to be most suitable for subjects with a body weight of 5 kg, while the 0.5 mg q12h regimen was most suitable for subjects with a body weight of 15-25 kg, the 1/0.5 mg q24h regimen was appropriate for the 26-35 kg group and the 1 mg q12h regimen was suitable for the subjects with a body weight of 36-50 kg. To the best of our knowledge, the present study established the first PPK model of tacrolimus treatment that may be used for the selection of the initial dose based on body weight of pediatric patients with SOJIA. Copyright: © Wang et al.Entities:
Keywords: initial dosage recommendations; personalized medicine; population pharmacokinetics; systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis; tacrolimus
Year: 2019 PMID: 31772640 PMCID: PMC6861867 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2019.8129
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1.Schematic of patient recruitment. SOJIA, systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis; TDM, therapeutic drug monitoring; NONMEM, nonlinear mixed-effects model.
Demographic data of the patients.
| Characteristic | Mean ± SD | Median (range) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 8.23±3.30 | 9.50 (3.20–14.60) |
| Weight (kg) | 29.83±10.66 | 33.60 (13.50–46.00) |
| Duration of treatment with tacrolimus (days) | 190.59±169.57 | 67.00 (5.00–535.00) |
| Daily dose of tacrolimus (mg) | 1.66±0.71 | 1.50 (1.00–4.00) |
| Alanine transaminase (IU/l) | 28.56±60.24 | 12.00 (2.00–458.00) |
| Aspartate transaminase (IU/l) | 21.01±26.82 | 15.00 (7.00–235.00) |
| Creatinine (µmol/l) | 35.36±10.32 | 35.50 (19.00–59.00) |
| Hematocrit (%) | 37.35±3.43 | 37.45 (30.30–44.40) |
| Hemoglobin (g/l) | 121.59±13.23 | 124.00 (90.20–152.00) |
| Mean corpuscular hemoglobin (pg) | 27.13±2.01 | 27.00 (21.00–31.00) |
| Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (g/l) | 324.58±15.22 | 323.00 (285.00–358.00) |
SD, standard deviation.
Drug combinations with tacrolimus.
| Drug/category | N |
|---|---|
| Ranitidine | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Hydroxychloroquine | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Ceftazidime | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Cefmetazole | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Ceftriaxone | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Cefprozil | |
| 0 | 13 |
| 1 | 4 |
| Cefixime | |
| 0 | 14 |
| 1 | 3 |
| Cefdinir | |
| 0 | 11 |
| 1 | 6 |
| Azithromycin | |
| 0 | 15 |
| 1 | 2 |
| Methylprednisolone | |
| 0 | 12 |
| 1 | 5 |
| Mycophenolate mofetil | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Prednisone | |
| 0 | 2 |
| 1 | 15 |
| Oxcarbazepine | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Levetiracetam | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Methotrexate | |
| 0 | 9 |
| 1 | 8 |
| Omeprazole | |
| 0 | 11 |
| 1 | 6 |
| Diltiazem | |
| 0 | 14 |
| 1 | 3 |
| Felodipine | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Montelukast | |
| 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 1 |
| Aspirin | |
| 0 | 15 |
| 1 | 2 |
| Loratadine | |
| 0 | 12 |
| 1 | 5 |
Categories: 0, without drug; 1, with drug. N, number of patients.
Figure 2.Visual inspection of routine diagnostic plots. (A) Observations vs. population predictions of tacrolimus blood concentrations. (B) Observations vs. individual predictions of tacrolimus blood concentrations. For (A) and (B), black solid lines represent the line of unity (the y=x line, where predications match observed values), and the red smooth line represents the trend of the data. Hence, the closer the red smooth line is to the black solid line, the more predictive the model is. (C) |iWRES| vs. individual predictions. |iWRES| is the difference between the individual predictions and the observed tacrolimus blood concentrations. (D) weighted residuals vs. the time of tacrolimus blood concentration. black solid line represents the line of unity (the y=0 line). For (C) and (D), the red smooth line represents the trend of the data, therefore the closer the red smooth line is to the line of unity (the y=0 line), the more predictive the model is. |iWRES|, individual weighted residuals.
Parameter estimates of final model and bootstrap validation.
| Bootstrap | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Estimate | SE (%) | Median | 95% CI | Bias (%) |
| CL/F (l/h) | 29.700 | 9.300 | 29.800 | (24.300, 36.400) | 0.340 |
| V/F (l) | 1120.000 | 27.900 | 1120.000 | (604.000, 2188.000) | 0 |
| Ka (1/h) | 4.480 (fixed) | – | – | – | – |
| θomeprazole | −0.362 | 16.800 | −0.371 | (−0.499, −0.192) | 2.490 |
| θloratadine | −0.322 | 23.800 | −0.326 | (−0.462, −0.081) | 1.240 |
| θdiltiazem | −0.307 | 34.200 | −0.307 | (−0.454, −0.006) | 0 |
| ωCL/F | 0.265 | 18.400 | 0.243 | (0.129, 0.352) | −8.300 |
| σ1 | 1.229 | 5.100 | 1.200 | (1.040, 1.326) | −2.360 |
95% CI was displayed as the 2.5th, 97.5th percentile of bootstrap estimates. SE, standard error; CL/F, apparent oral clearance (l/h); V/F, apparent volume of distribution (l); Ka, absorption rate constant (1/h); θomeprazole, coefficient of omeprazole; θloratadine, coefficient of loratadine; θdiltiazem, coefficient of diltiazem; ωCL/F, inter-individual variability of CL/F; σ1, residual variability, additive error. Bias, prediction error, calculated as Bias=(Median-Estimate)/Estimate ×100%.
Figure 3.Prediction-corrected visual predictive check for the final model. The middle solid line represents the median of the prediction-corrected concentrations. The lower and upper dashed lines are the 2.5 and 97.5th percentiles of the prediction-corrected concentrations, respectively. The data-points indicate the measured concentrations. Theoretically, inclusion of the measured concentration in the 95% confidence interval of predicted values indicates good predictability of the model. Pink areas indicate the confidence interval of the middle solid line, purple areas indicate the confidence interval of the lower and upper dashed lines.
Predicted median tacrolimus concentration (ng/ml), 95% CI and probability (%) of achieving the target concentration with respect to body weight for different dosing regimens.
| Body weight (kg) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regimen | 5 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 |
| 0.5 mg q24h | 2.57 (1.00–5.82) | 1.33 (0.59–2.74) | 1.11 (0.51–2.23) | 0.96 (0.45–1.90) | 0.86 (0.41–1.66) | 0.77 (0.37–1.48) | 0.71 (0.34–1.34) | 0.65 (0.32–1.23) | 0.61 (0.30–1.13) |
| 77.2% | 22.5% | 12.0% | 5.3% | 1.9% | 0.9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| 0.5 mg q12h | 7.59 (3.54–14.64) | 3.57 (1.77–6.52) | 2.92 (1.47–5.24) | 2.49 (1.27–4.42) | 2.19 (1.12–3.85) | 1.96 (1.01–3.41) | 1.78 (0.93–3.08) | 1.63 (0.85–2.81) | 1.51 (0.80–2.58) |
| 12.2% | 82.7% | 89.7% | 88.0% | 79.4% | 67.7% | 55.9% | 45.4% | 35.3% | |
| 1/0.5 mg q24h | 10.25 (4.45–20.66) | 4.94 (2.32–9.33) | 4.06 (1.94–7.54) | 3.48 (1.69–6.37) | 3.07 (1.50–5.55) | 2.75 (1.36–4.93) | 2.51 (1.25–4.45) | 2.31 (1.16–4.07) | 2.14 (1.08–3.75) |
| 4.9% | 50.9% | 71.6% | 83.1% | 87.9% | 89.1% | 87.5% | 83.3% | 77.1% | |
| 1 mg q12h | 15.18 (7.08–29.27) | 7.13 (3.54–13.03) | 5.83 (2.94–10.49) | 4.98 (2.53–8.85) | 4.37 (2.25–7.69) | 3.92 (2.03–6.83) | 3.56 (1.85–6.15) | 3.27 (1.71–5.61) | 3.03 (1.59–5.17) |
| 0.1% | 13.7% | 31.7% | 50.5% | 65.3% | 77.3% | 89.5% | 89.8% | 92.1% | |
95% CI was displayed as the 2.5–97.5th percentile. The frames indicate the optimal dose for the respective body weight. q24h, once every 24 h.