Dose Adjustment Strategy for Oral Microemulsion Formulation of Cyclosporine: Population Pharmacokinetics-Based Analysis in Kidney Transplant Patients

The present study aims to determine the population pharmacokinetic parameters of cyclosporine (CsA) after multiple oral administration of the microemulsion formulation, Neoral®, in kidney transplant patients and to propose a limited sampling strategy to predict AUC0–4h using them and the Bayesian method. The AUC0–4h is a parameter that has recently been recommended as an index for the dose adjustment in therapeutic drug monitoring of CsA. Blood samples were obtained at the trough level and at hourly intervals up to 5 hours from 125 patients (78 male and 47 female) who were receiving Neoral® twice daily, and whole-blood concentrations of CsA were measured. The population pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using the NONMEM computer program and a linear two-compartment model with first-order absorption. The observed AUC0–4h and concentrations at different sampling times were compared with those computer-predicted by the Bayesian method, using the population pharmacokinetic parameters and 2 or 3 concentrations from those at 0 h (C0), 1 h (C1), and 2 h (C2) after administration. Typical values for the absorption rate constant (ka), elimination rate constant (kel), apparent volume of distribution for the central compartment (Vd/F), and oral clearance (CL/F) calculated by population pharmacokinetic analysis were 2.16 hours−1, 0.547 hours−1, 43.3 L, and 23.7 L/h, respectively. The CsA concentrations predicted using either the 2-point or 3-point sampling strategy exhibited an excellent correlation with the observed values (R2 > 0.81), and accordingly, the predicted AUC0–4h values were in excellent agreement with those observed. The best predictability of AUC0–4h was found for the 3-point sampling strategy using C0, C1, and C2, closely followed by a 2-point sampling strategy using C1 and C2. The present findings suggest that a simplified strategy based on population pharmacokinetics can accurately predict AUC0–4h from concentrations at 2 or 3 sampling time points, providing an excellent method for the daily dose adjustment of Neoral® in routine clinical use for kidney transplant patients.

[1]  Lewis B. Sheiner,et al.  Estimation of population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters from routine clinical data , 1977, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[2]  R. Dahlqvist,et al.  Intraindividual variability in the relative systemic availability of cyclosporin after oral dosing , 2004, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[3]  M. Estenne,et al.  Bayesian Forecasting of Oral Cyclosporin Pharmacokinetics in Stable Lung Transplant Recipients With and Without Cystic Fibrosis , 2003, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[4]  F. Frey,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetic Model to Predict Steady-State Exposure to Once-Daily Cyclosporin Microemulsion in Renal Transplant Recipients , 2002, Clinical Pharmacokinetics.

[5]  P. Marquet,et al.  Maximum A Posteriori Bayesian Estimation of Oral Cyclosporin Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Stable Renal Transplants , 2002, Clinical Pharmacokinetics.

[6]  P. Marquet,et al.  Application of a Gamma Model of Absorption to Oral Cyclosporin , 2001, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[7]  K. West,et al.  Neoral monitoring by simplified sparse sampling area under the concentration-time curve: its relationship to acute rejection and cyclosporine nephrotoxicity early after kidney transplantation. , 1999, Transplantation.

[8]  J. Barkun,et al.  Comparison of neoral dose monitoring with cyclosporine through levels versus 2-hr postdose levels in stable liver transplant patients. , 1998, Transplantation.

[9]  H. Chung,et al.  Estimation of mean relative bioavailability of cyclosporine Sandimmune and Neoral using NONMEM in renal transplant recipients. , 1998, Transplantation proceedings.

[10]  J. Barkun,et al.  Two-hour cyclosporine level determination is the appropriate tool to monitor Neoral therapy. , 1998, Clinical transplantation.

[11]  N. Perico,et al.  Abbreviated kinetic profiles in area-under-the-curve monitoring of cyclosporine therapy. Technical note. , 1998, Kidney international.

[12]  D. Rush,et al.  A randomized, prospective multicenter pharmacoepidemiologic study of cyclosporine microemulsion in stable renal graft recipients. Report of the Canadian Neoral Renal Transplantation Study Group. , 1996, Transplantation.

[13]  B. Kahan,et al.  Abbreviated AUC strategy for monitoring cyclosporine microemulsion therapy in the immediate posttransplant period. , 1996, Transplantation proceedings.

[14]  J. Alexander,et al.  The Neoral formulation: improved correlation between cyclosporine trough levels and exposure in stable renal transplant recipients. , 1994, Transplantation proceedings.

[15]  J. Kovarik,et al.  The pharmacokinetics of Sandimmun Neoral: a new oral formulation of cyclosporine. , 1994, Transplantation proceedings.

[16]  A. Foradori,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of a new galenical formulation of oral cyclosporine A in stable kidney transplanted patients. , 1994, Transplantation proceedings.

[17]  J. Kovarik,et al.  Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in renal allograft recipients--a concentration-controlled comparison with the commercial formulation. , 1994, Transplantation.

[18]  W. Bennett,et al.  Efficacy of area under the curve cyclosporine monitoring in renal transplantation. , 1993, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[19]  B. Kahan,et al.  Influence of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics, trough concentrations, and AUC monitoring on outcome after kidney transplantation , 1993, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[20]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Population pharmacokinetics/dynamics. , 1992, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[21]  B. Kahan,et al.  Abbreviated kinetic profiles in area-under-the-curve monitoring of cyclosporine therapy. , 1991, Clinical chemistry.

[22]  R. Dahlqvist,et al.  A prospective study of cyclosporine concentration in relation to its therapeutic effect and toxicity after renal transplantation. , 1990, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[23]  B. Kahan,et al.  Cyclosporine Monitoring in Renal Transplantation: Area Under the Curve Monitoring Is Superior to Trough‐Level Monitoring , 1989, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[24]  B. Kasiske,et al.  The relationship between cyclosporine pharmacokinetic parameters and subsequent acute rejection in renal transplant recipients. , 1988, Transplantation.

[25]  L. Demers,et al.  Critical issues in cyclosporine monitoring: report of the Task Force on Cyclosporine Monitoring. , 1987, Clinical Chemistry.

[26]  A W Kelman,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetics Theory and Clinical Application , 1986, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[27]  C. V. van Buren,et al.  DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE PHARMACOKINETICS OF CYCLOSPORINE ESTIMATED BY RADIOIMMUNOASSAY , 1986, Transplantation.

[28]  H. Lithell,et al.  A longitudinal study of the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine A and in vitro lymphocyte responses in renal transplant patients. , 1986, Transplantation proceedings.

[29]  R. Venkataramanan,et al.  Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Cyclosporin , 1986, Clinical pharmacokinetics.

[30]  S. Flechner,et al.  The value of serial serum trough cyclosporine levels in human renal transplantation. , 1984, Transplantation proceedings.

[31]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Bayesian individualization of pharmacokinetics: simple implementation and comparison with non-Bayesian methods. , 1982, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[32]  N. Sinclair,et al.  IMMUNOLOGICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL MONITORING IN THE CLINICAL USE OF CYCLOSPORIN A , 1981, The Lancet.

[33]  A. Richens,et al.  Letter: Thymoxamine and spasticity. , 1974, Lancet.