Clinically useful limited sampling strategy to estimate area under the concentration-time curve of once-daily tacrolimus in adult Japanese kidney transplant recipients

English version

Autoři: Ryuto Nakazawa ^aff001; Miki Yoshiike ^aff001; Shiari Nozawa ^aff001; Koichiro Aida ^aff001; Yuichi Katsuoka ^aff001; Eisuke Fujimoto ^aff001; Masahiko Yazawa ^aff002; Eiji Kikuchi ^aff001; Yugo Shibagaki ^aff002; Hideo Sasaki ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Urology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan ^aff001; Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan ^aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225878

Souhrn

Background

An extended-release, once-daily, oral formulation of tacrolimus is currently used after kidney transplantation as a substitute for the conventional twice-daily formulation. The purpose of this study was to provide a limited sampling strategy with minimum and optimum sampling points to predict the tacrolimus area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) after administration of once-daily tacrolimus in de novo adult kidney transplant patients.

Methods

A total of 36 adult Japanese kidney transplant patients receiving once-daily tacrolimus were included: 31 were allocated to a study group to develop limited sampling strategy (LSS) model equations based on multiple stepwise linear regression analysis, and 5 were allocated to a validation group to estimate the precision of the LSS equations developed by the study group. Twelve-hour AUC (AUC_0-12) was calculated by the trapezoidal rule, and the relationship between individual concentration points and AUC_0-12 were determined by multiple linear regression analysis. The coefficient of determination (R²) was used to assess the goodness-of-fit of the regression models. Three error indices (mean error, mean absolute error, and root mean squared prediction error) were calculated to evaluate predictive bias, accuracy, and precision, respectively. Quality of the statistical models was compared with Akaike's information criterion (AIC).

Results

A four-point model using C₀, C₂, C₄ and C₆ gave the best fit to predict AUC_0-12 (R² = 0.978). In the three- and two-point models, the best fits were at time points C₂, C₄, and C₆ (R² = 0.973), and C₂ and C₆ (R² = 0.962), respectively. All three models reliably estimated tacrolimus AUC_0-12, consistent with evaluations by the three error indices and Akaike’s information criterion. Practically, the two-point model with C₂ and C₆ was considered to be the best combination, providing a highly accurate prediction and the lowest blood sampling frequency.

Conclusions

The two-point model with C₂ and C₆ may be valuable in reducing the burden on patients, as well as medical costs, for once-daily tacrolimus monitoring.

Klíčová slova:

Pharmacokinetics – Blood – Renal transplantation – Dose prediction methods – Approximation methods – Oral administration – Therapeutic drug monitoring

Zdroje

1. Peters DH, Fitton A, Plosker GL, Faulds D. Tacrolimus. A review of its pharmacology, and therapeutic potential in hepatic and renal transplantation. Drugs. 1993;46(4):746–794. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199346040-00009 7506654

2. Naesens M, Kuypers DR, Sarwal M. Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(2):481–508. doi: 10.2215/CJN.04800908 19218475

3. Kuypers DRJ, Claes K, Evenepoel P, Maes B, Vanrenterghem. Clinical efficacy and toxicity profile of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid in relation to combined long-term pharmacokinetics in de novo renal allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004;75(5):434–447. doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2003.12.009 15116056

4. Staatz CE, Tett SE. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tacrolimus in solid organ transplantation. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43(10):623–653. doi: 10.2165/00003088-200443100-00001 15244495

5. Ihara H, Shinkuma D, Ichikawa Y, Nojim M, Nagano S, Ikoma F. Intra- and inter-individual variation in the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus (FK506) in kidney transplant recipients—importance of trough level as a practical indicator. Int J Urol. 1995;2(3):151–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.1995.tb00444.x 8536129

6. Mathew BS, Fleming DH, Jeyaseelan V, Chandy SJ, Annapandian VM, Subbanna PK, et al. A limited sampling strategy for tacrolimus in renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;66(4):467–472. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2008.03251.x 18662286

7. Vlaminck H, Maes B, Evers G, Verbeke G, Lerut E, Damme BV, et al. Prospective study on late consequences of subclinical non-compliance with immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(9):1509–1513. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00537.x 15307839

8. Weng FL, Israni AK, Joffe MM, Hoy T, Gaughan CA, Newman M, et al. Race and electronically measured adherence to immunosuppressive medications after deceased donor renal transplantation. Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(6):1839–1848.

9. Cross SA, Perry CM. Tacrolimus once-daily formulation: in the prophylaxis of transplant rejection in renal or liver allograft recipients. Drugs. 2007;67(13):1931–1943. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200767130-00012 17722962

10. Krämer BK, Charpentier B, Bäckman L, Tedesco S Jr. Mondragon-Ramirez G, Cassuto-Viguier E, et al. Tacrolimus Prolonged Release Renal Study Group. Tacrolimus once daily (ADVAGRAF) versus twice daily (PROGRAF) in de novo renal transplantation: a randomized phase III study. Am J Transplant. 2010;10(12):2632–2643 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03256.x 20840480

11. Alloway R, Steinberg S, Khalil K, Miller J, Norman D, et al. Conversion of stable kidney transplant recipients from a twice daily Prograf-based regimen to a once daily modified release tacrolimus-based regimen. Transplant Proc. 2005;37(2):867–870. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.12.222 15848559

12. Van Boekel GAJ, Donders AR, Hoogtanders KEJ, Havenith TRA, Hilbrands LB, et al. Limited sampling strategy for prolonged-release tacrolimus in renal transplant patients by use of the dried blood spot technique. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71:811–816 doi: 10.1007/s00228-015-1863-6 25980838

13. Saint-Marcoux F, Debord J, Undre N, Rousseau A, Marquet P. Pharmacokinetic modeling and development of Bayesian estimators in kidney transplant patients receiving the tacrolimus once-daily formulation. Ther Drug Monit. 2010;32(2):129–135. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181cc70db 20110850

14. Benkali K, Rostaing L, Premaud A, Woillard JB, Saint-Marcoux F, Urien S, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and Bayesian estimation of tacrolimus exposure in renal transplant recipients on a new once-daily formulation. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49(10):683–692. doi: 10.2165/11535950-000000000-00000 20818834

15. Niioka T, Miura M, Kagaya H, Saito M, Numakura K, Habuchi T, et al. A limited sampling strategy to estimate the area under the concentration-time curve of tacrolimus modified-release once-daily preparation in renal transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit. 2013;35(2):228–232. doi: 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31827efe37 23296097

16. Yamaoka K, Nakagawa T, Uno T. Application of Akaike’S information criterion in the evaluation of linear pharmacokinetic equations. J Pharmacokinet Biopham 1978; 6(2):165–175.

17. van Hooff JP, Alloway RR, Trunečka P, Mourad M. Four-year experience with tacrolimus once-daily prolonged release in patients from phase II conversion and de novo kidney, liver, and heart studies. Clin Transplant. 2011;25(1):E1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2010.01377.x 21158926

18. Silva HT Jr, Yang HC, Abouljoud M, Kuo PC, Wesemankle K, Bhattacharya P, et al. One-year results with extended-release tacrolimus/MMF, tacrolimus/MMF and cyclosporine/MMF in de novo kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(3):595–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01661.x 17217442

19. Platz KP, Mueller AR, Blumhardt G, Bachmann S, Bechstein W, Kahl A, et al. Nephrotoxicity following orthotopic liver transplantation. A comparison between cyclosporine and FK506. Transplantation. 1994;58(2):170–178. 7518975

20. Holt DW. Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs in kidney transplantation. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2002;11(6):657–663. doi: 10.1097/00041552-200211000-00014 12394613

21. Heffron TG, Pescovitz MD, Florman S, Kalayoglu M, Emre S, Smallwood G, et al. Once-daily tacrolimus extended-release formulation: 1-year post-conversion in stable pediatric liver transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(6):1609–1615. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01803.x 17511684

22. Tanzi MG, Undre N, Keirns J, Fitzsimmons WE, Brown M, First MR. Clin Transplant. Review. Pharmacokinetics of prolonged-release tacrolimus and implications for use in solid organ transplant recipients. 2016;30(8):901–911.

23. Christians U, Jacobsen W, Benet LZ, Lampen A. Mechanisms of clinically relevant drug interactions associated with tacrolimus. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2002;41(11):813–851. doi: 10.2165/00003088-200241110-00003 12190331

24. Sato K, Amada N, Sato T, Miura S, Ohashi Y, Sekiguchi S, et al. Severe elevations of FK506 blood concentration due to diarrhea in renal transplant recipients. Clin Transplant. 2004;18(5):585–590. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2004.00232.x 15344965

25. Maezono S, Sugimoto K, Sakamoto K, Ohmori M, Hishikawa S, Mizuta K, et al. Elevated blood concentrations of calcineurin inhibitors during diarrheal episode in pediatric liver transplant recipients: involvement of the suppression of intestinal cytochrome P450 3A and P-glycoprotein. Pediatr Transplant. 2005;9(3):315–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2005.00315.x 15910387

26. Jain AB, Venkataramanan R, Cadoff E, Fung JJ, Todo S, Krajack A, et al. Effect of hepatic dysfunction and T tube clamping on FK 506 pharmacokinetics and trough concentrations. Transplant Proc. 1990;22(1):57–59. 1689900

27. Bekersky I, Dressler D, Alak A, Boswell GW, Mekki QA. Comparative tacrolimus pharmacokinetics: normal versus mildly hepatically impaired subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;41(6):628–635. doi: 10.1177/00912700122010519 11402631