| Literature DB >> 31840222 |
Maaike A Sikma1,2, Erik M Van Maarseveen3, Claudine C Hunault4, Javier M Moreno5, Ed A Van de Graaf6, Johannes H Kirkels7, Marianne C Verhaar8, Jan C Grutters6,9, Jozef Kesecioglu10, Dylan W De Lange11,10, Alwin D R Huitema3,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31840222 PMCID: PMC7292814 DOI: 10.1007/s40262-019-00854-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet ISSN: 0312-5963 Impact factor: 6.447
Patient characteristics
| Characteristics | Median ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Male, | 15 (50) | – |
| Age, (years) | – | 43 (34; 60) |
| Bodyweight, (kg) | – | 73.5 (61; 86) |
| Length, (cm) | – | 173.5 (169; 176) |
| Reason for transplantation, | ||
| Heart ( | ||
| Ischemic CMP, | 5 (17) | – |
| Non-ischemic CMP, | 5 (17) | – |
| Lung ( | ||
| Cystic fibrosis, | 10 (33) | – |
| COPD, | 3 (10) | – |
| IPAH, | 2 (7) | – |
| Bronchectasis, | 1 (3) | – |
| Sarcoidosis, | 1 (3) | – |
| Langerhans cell histiocytosis, | 1 (3) | – |
| Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, | 2 (7) | – |
| Double lung transplantation, | 18 (90) | – |
| Parameters | ||
| Hta | ||
| Day 1 | 0.31 (0.28; 0.35) | |
| Day 2 | 0.28 (0.25; 0.30) | |
| Day 3 | 0.27 (0.25; 0.28) | |
| Day 4 | 0.27 (0.25; 0.29) | |
| Day 5 | 0.27 (0.24; 0.30) | |
| Day 6 | 0.28 (0.27; 0.29) | |
| Albb | ||
| Day 1 | 26.2 (22.5; 29.3) | |
| HDLc | ||
| Day 1 | 0.84 (0.70; 1.06) | |
| AAGd | ||
| Day 1 | 0.89 (0.76; 1.18) | |
| pHe | ||
| Day 1 | 7.39 (7.33; 7.43) | |
| Administration of packed red blood cells, (mL/day) | ||
| Day 1 | 275 (275; 550) | |
| Postoperative ECMO frequency, | 8 (27) | |
| Postoperative ECMO duration, (days) | 4 (2; 6) | |
AAG α1-acid glycoprotein, Alb albumin, CMP cardiomyopathy, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ECMO extracorporeal membrane oxygenator, HDL high-density lipoprotein, Ht hematocrit, IPAH idiopatic pulmonary arterial hypertension, Q quartile
Normal ranges: aHt; male 0.41–0.50, female 0.36–0.46
bAlb: 35–50 g/L
cHDL: male 0.90–1.70, female 1.10–2.00 mmol/L
dAAG: 0.5–1.2 g/L
epH: 7.35–7.45
Fig. 1Goodness-of-fit plots of predicted unbound tacrolimus plasma concentrations
Pharmacokinetic parameters
| Observed pharmacokinetics | Median (minimum–maximum) |
|---|---|
| Unbound tacrolimus plasma concentrations | |
| | 1.84 (0.42–11) |
| | 2.97 (0.51–12.2) |
| | 2.3 (1.2–14.0) |
| Total plasma concentrations | |
| | 282 (46–1373) |
| | 403.5 (61–2640) |
| | 2.25 (0.4–14.0) |
| Whole-blood tacrolimus concentrations | |
| | 9.5 (0.5–38.7) |
| | 18.5 (2.1–74.7) |
| | 1.6 (0.4–8.0) |
C12h concentration at 12 h after administration, Cmax maximum C12h, Tmax time to maximum concentration
Fig. 2a Tacrolimus unbound plasma concentrations (UPC) vs. tacrolimus whole-blood concentrations (WBC). The figure shows a non-linear relationship between UPC and WBC. b UPC vs tacrolimus total plasma concentrations (TPC). The figure shows a linear relationship between UPC and TPC
Fig. 3Schematic representation of the population-pharmacokinetic whole-blood concentration (WBC) model for tacrolimus. The central compartment, with volume V1, is swiftly in equilibrium with the peripheral compartment represented by volume V2. Drug transfer between this peripheral compartment and the central compartment is described with the inter-compartmental clearance parameter Q. ka is the absorption rate constant and CL is the whole-blood tacrolimus clearance. The unbound plasma concentration of tacrolimus (UPC) was computed using a non-linear model, as follows: UPC = (WBC × kd1)/(Bmax × Ht − WBC), where kd1 is the dissociation constant (fitted parameter), Bmax is the maximum binding capacity (fitted parameter), and Ht is the observed hematocrit (last observation carried forward). The total plasma concentration (TPC) was computed using a linear model, as follows: TPC Nplasma × UPC with Nplasma non-specific binding constant for total plasma concentrations (fitted parameter)
Final population-pharmacokinetic parameters with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on sampling importance resampling
| Parameter | Estimated value (95% CI) | IIV, (%) (95% CI) | IOV, (%) (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CL, (L/h) | 20.9 (16.8–24.7) | 42.1 (30–60) | |
| 220 (187–246) | 10 Fixed | ||
| 0.579 Fixed | 10 Fixed | 98.3 Fixed | |
| 72.0 (529–767) | 10 Fixed | ||
| 469 (399–579) | 10 Fixed | ||
| 2700 (1750–3835) | 27 (19–36) | ||
| 0.142 (0.087–0.195) | 3 Fixed | ||
| Nplasma | 137 (120–152) | 29 (22–41) | |
| 1 Fixed | 10 Fixed | 65 (58–84) |
AUC area under the curve, Bmax maximum binding capacity, IIV inter-individual variability, IOV inter-occasional variability, Cl clearance, F bioavailability, h hours, ka absorption constant rate, kd diffusion constant rate, Nplasma total plasma to unbound plasma coefficient, Q inter-compartmental clearance, R correlation coefficient, RUV residual unexplained variability, SD-PE standard deviation point estimate, T1/2 half-life, TPC total plasma concentration, UPC unbound plasma concentration, V distribution volume, WBC whole-blood concentration
Fig. 4Simulations of different hematocrit values with a fixed whole-blood concentration of 9 ng/mL. On the y-axis, the unbound tacrolimus plasma concentrations are plotted against hematocrit
| Tacrolimus is more than 99% associated with erythrocytes. This may result in diminished whole-blood concentrations when hematocrit decreases. |
| The whole-blood to unbound plasma concentration ratios differ with changes in hematocrit and show saturation in the higher range of whole-blood tacrolimus concentrations, which may increase toxicity in these higher concentration ranges. |
| Because of the complicated bio-analytical challenges, hematocrit-corrected whole-blood concentrations may be the most feasible and suitable surrogate for the prediction of clinical outcomes. |