Literature DB >> 9642517

Two-hour cyclosporine level determination is the appropriate tool to monitor Neoral therapy.

M Cantarovich1, J G Besner, J S Barkun, E Elstein, R Loertscher.   

Abstract

To assess the safety profile of Neoral dose adjustment using cyclosporine (CsA) trough levels (C0) compared with levels obtained 2 h after the morning dose (C2), 30 stable adult heart transplant patients 1 yr or more after surgery were converted from Sandimmune to Neoral. After a baseline visit (before conversion), initial follow-up included two visits (2 and 4-6 wk after conversion). After the first visit, patients were randomized to Group I (C0: 100-200 ng/ml) or Group II (C2: 200-400 ng/ml). Abbreviated pharmacokinetics were obtained for the estimation of the AUC0-4 h. Renal function was assessed by serum creatinine and the cimetidine-modified creatinine clearance. C2 correlated better than C0 with the AUC0-4 h (r = 0.91 vs. 0.63). Initial Neoral dose (mg/kg/d) was similar in both groups (2.8 +/- 0.5 and 2.8 +/- 0.8), and was lower in Group II at the second visit (2.0 +/- 0.7 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.6, p = 0.0001). C2 levels decreased in Group II from 912 +/- 438 to 555 +/- 271 ng/ml (p = 0.01), without evidence of acute rejection on endomyocardial biopsies. After the second visit,-both groups were monitored with C2, and the range was increased to 300-600 ng/ml. At the last visit (additional follow-up of 5 +/- 1 months), Neoral dose (mg/kg/d) was reduced to 2.0 +/- 0.3 in Group I (p < 0.001) and 1.8 +/- 0.4 in Group II. Serum creatinine was lower in Group II at the second visit (138 +/- 59 vs. 168 +/- 37 mumol/L, p = 0.01) and was similar in both groups at the last visit. Neoral dose reduction based on C2 levels was not associated with acute rejection. The better correlation with the AUC0-4 h suggests that C2 may be more reliable than C0 for Neoral dose adjustment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9642517

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Transplant        ISSN: 0902-0063            Impact factor:   2.863


  15 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacokinetic optimization of immunosuppressive therapy in thoracic transplantation: part II.

Authors:  Caroline Monchaud; Pierre Marquet
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 2.  Pharmacokinetic optimization of immunosuppressive therapy in thoracic transplantation: part I.

Authors:  Caroline Monchaud; Pierre Marquet
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 3.  Review article: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs used in inflammatory bowel disease treatment.

Authors:  E G Quetglas; A Armuzzi; S Wigge; G Fiorino; L Barnscheid; M Froelich; Silvio Danese
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  Routine Cyclosporine concentration - C2 level Monitoring. Is it helpful during the early post Transplant Period?

Authors:  A S Narula; Msn Murthy; Ksk Patrulu; V K Saxena
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

5.  Population pharmacokinetic model to predict steady-state exposure to once-daily cyclosporin microemulsion in renal transplant recipients.

Authors:  Franziska Schädeli; Hans-Peter Marti; Felix J Frey; Dominik E Uehlinger
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 6.447

6.  Population pharmacokinetics of ciclosporin in haematopoietic allogeneic stem cell transplantation with emphasis on limited sampling strategy.

Authors:  Abraham J Wilhelm; Peer de Graaf; Agnes I Veldkamp; Jeroen J W M Janssen; Peter C Huijgens; Eleonora L Swart
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 7.  The challenge of renal function in heart transplant children.

Authors:  Sylvie Di Filippo; Pierre Cochat; André Bozio
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 3.714

8.  Cyclosporin therapeutic drug monitoring--an established service revisited.

Authors:  Raymond G Morris
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2003-05

9.  Potential of dried blood self-sampling for cyclosporine c(2) monitoring in transplant outpatients.

Authors:  Alexander Benedikt Leichtle; Uta Ceglarek; Helmut Witzigmann; Gábor Gäbel; Joachim Thiery; Georg Martin Fiedler
Journal:  J Transplant       Date:  2010-06-27

10.  The impact of everolimus versus mycophenolate on blood and lymphocyte cyclosporine exposure in heart-transplant recipients.

Authors:  Finn Gustafsson; David Barth; Diego H Delgado; Meerna Nsouli; Jill Sheedy; Heather J Ross
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.