AIMS: Intravenous mycophenolate mofetil (IV MMF), a prodrug of mycophenolic acid (MPA), is used during nonmyeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning haematopoetic stem cell transplantation (HCT) to improve engraftment and reduce graft-versus-host disease. The aims of this study were to develop population pharmacokinetic models and Bayesian estimators based on limited sampling strategies to allow for individual dose adjustment of intravenous mycophenolate mofetil administered by infusion in haematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. METHODS: Sixty-three MPA concentration-time profiles (median [min-max] = 6 [4-7] samples) were collected from 34 HCT recipients transplanted for 14 (1-45) days and administered IV MMF every 8 hours, concomitantly with cyclosporine. The database was split into development (75%) and validation (25%) datasets. Pharmacokinetic models characterized by a single compartment with first-order elimination, combined with two gamma distributions to describe the transformation of MMF into mycophenolic acid, were developed using in parallel nonparametric (Pmetrics) and parametric (ITSIM) approaches. The performances of the models and the derived Bayesian estimators were evaluated in the validation set. RESULTS: The best limited sampling strategy led to a bias (min, max), root mean square error between observed and modeled interdose areas under the curve in the validation dataset of -11.72% (-31.08%, 5.00%), 14.9% for ITSIM and -2.21% (-23.40%, 30.01%), 12.4% for Pmetrics with three samples collected at 0.33, 2 and 3 hours post dosing. CONCLUSION: Population pharmacokinetic models and Bayesian estimators for IV MMF in HCT have been developed and are now available online (https://pharmaco.chu-limoges.fr) for individual dose adjustment based on the interdose area under the curve.
AIMS: Intravenous mycophenolate mofetil (IV MMF), a prodrug of mycophenolic acid (MPA), is used during nonmyeloablative and reduced-intensity conditioning haematopoetic stem cell transplantation (HCT) to improve engraftment and reduce graft-versus-host disease. The aims of this study were to develop population pharmacokinetic models and Bayesian estimators based on limited sampling strategies to allow for individual dose adjustment of intravenous mycophenolate mofetil administered by infusion in haematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. METHODS: Sixty-three MPA concentration-time profiles (median [min-max] = 6 [4-7] samples) were collected from 34 HCT recipients transplanted for 14 (1-45) days and administered IV MMF every 8 hours, concomitantly with cyclosporine. The database was split into development (75%) and validation (25%) datasets. Pharmacokinetic models characterized by a single compartment with first-order elimination, combined with two gamma distributions to describe the transformation of MMF into mycophenolic acid, were developed using in parallel nonparametric (Pmetrics) and parametric (ITSIM) approaches. The performances of the models and the derived Bayesian estimators were evaluated in the validation set. RESULTS: The best limited sampling strategy led to a bias (min, max), root mean square error between observed and modeled interdose areas under the curve in the validation dataset of -11.72% (-31.08%, 5.00%), 14.9% for ITSIM and -2.21% (-23.40%, 30.01%), 12.4% for Pmetrics with three samples collected at 0.33, 2 and 3 hours post dosing. CONCLUSION: Population pharmacokinetic models and Bayesian estimators for IV MMF in HCT have been developed and are now available online (https://pharmaco.chu-limoges.fr) for individual dose adjustment based on the interdose area under the curve.
Authors: R Borrows; G Chusney; M Loucaidou; A James; J Lee; J V Tromp; J Owen; T Cairns; M Griffith; N Hakim; A McLean; A Palmer; V Papalois; D Taube Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: A Prémaud; L T Weber; B Tönshoff; V W Armstrong; M Oellerich; S Urien; P Marquet; A Rousseau Journal: Pharmacol Res Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 7.658
Authors: Stephen Harnicar; Doris M Ponce; Patrick Hilden; Junting Zheng; Sean M Devlin; Marissa Lubin; Melissa Pozotrigo; Sherry Mathew; Nelly Adel; Nancy A Kernan; Richard O'Reilly; Susan Prockop; Andromachi Scaradavou; Alan Hanash; Robert Jenq; Marcel van den Brink; Sergio Giralt; Miguel A Perales; James W Young; Juliet N Barker Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Stephen P H Alexander; Arthur Christopoulos; Anthony P Davenport; Eamonn Kelly; Alistair Mathie; John A Peters; Emma L Veale; Jane F Armstrong; Elena Faccenda; Simon D Harding; Adam J Pawson; Joanna L Sharman; Christopher Southan; Jamie A Davies Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: F Neumann; T Graef; C Tapprich; M Vaupel; U Steidl; U Germing; R Fenk; A Hinke; R Haas; G Kobbe Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: M Bornhäuser; U Schuler; G Pörksen; R Naumann; G Geissler; C Thiede; R Schwerdtfeger; G Ehninger; H M Thiede Journal: Transplantation Date: 1999-02-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Dirk R J Kuypers; Yannick Le Meur; Marcelo Cantarovich; Michael J Tredger; Susan E Tett; Dario Cattaneo; Burkhard Tönshoff; David W Holt; Jeremy Chapman; Teun van Gelder Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Reinier M van Hest; Jeanette K Doorduijn; Brenda C M de Winter; Jan J Cornelissen; Arnold G Vulto; Michael Oellerich; Bob Löwenberg; Ron A A Mathot; Victor William Armstrong; Teun van Gelder Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.681