Can the Area Under the Curve/Trough Level Ratio Be Used to Optimize Tacrolimus Individual Dose Adjustment?
Journal
Transplantation
ISSN: 1534-6080
Titre abrégé: Transplantation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0132144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2023
01 01 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
13
12
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
entrez:
12
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this work was to evaluate, in a large data set of renal transplant recipients, the intraindividual variability of the area under the curve (AUC)/predose concentration (C0) ratio in comparison with that of AUC, C0, AUC/dose, and C0/dose. Patients with at least 2 tacrolimus AUC estimation requests were extracted from the Immunosuppressant Bayesian dose Adjustment website, and relative variations between 2 consecutive visits for the different metrics were calculated and compared. Data from 1325 patients on tacrolimus (3827 measured C0 and estimated AUC) showed that the lowest mean relative variation between 2 consecutives visits was for the AUC/C0 ratio (95% confidence interval [CI] relative fold change = -43% to 44% for AUC/C0; 95% CI, -77% to 72% for AUC; 95% CI, -82% to 98% for AUC/dose; 95% CI, -81% to 80% for C0 and 95% CI, -94% to 117% for C0/dose. The correlation between 2 consecutive requests, whether close or far apart, was also best for the AUC/C0 ratio ( r = 0.33 and r = 0.34, respectively) in comparison with C0 ( r = 0.21 and r = 0.22, respectively) and AUC ( r = 0.19 and 0.28, respectively). Regression analysis between AUC0-24 and C0 showed that for some patients, the usual C0 targets translated into some very unusual AUC values. As the AUC/C0 ratio is quite stable during large periods, individualized C0 targets can be derived from the AUC targets, and an algorithm that estimates the individualized C0 was developed for situations in which prior AUC estimates are available or not. In this study, we confirmed in a large data set that the AUC/C0 ratio yields low intraindividual variability, whereas C0 shows the largest, and we propose to calculate individualized C0 targets based on this ratio.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of this work was to evaluate, in a large data set of renal transplant recipients, the intraindividual variability of the area under the curve (AUC)/predose concentration (C0) ratio in comparison with that of AUC, C0, AUC/dose, and C0/dose.
METHODS
Patients with at least 2 tacrolimus AUC estimation requests were extracted from the Immunosuppressant Bayesian dose Adjustment website, and relative variations between 2 consecutive visits for the different metrics were calculated and compared.
RESULTS
Data from 1325 patients on tacrolimus (3827 measured C0 and estimated AUC) showed that the lowest mean relative variation between 2 consecutives visits was for the AUC/C0 ratio (95% confidence interval [CI] relative fold change = -43% to 44% for AUC/C0; 95% CI, -77% to 72% for AUC; 95% CI, -82% to 98% for AUC/dose; 95% CI, -81% to 80% for C0 and 95% CI, -94% to 117% for C0/dose. The correlation between 2 consecutive requests, whether close or far apart, was also best for the AUC/C0 ratio ( r = 0.33 and r = 0.34, respectively) in comparison with C0 ( r = 0.21 and r = 0.22, respectively) and AUC ( r = 0.19 and 0.28, respectively). Regression analysis between AUC0-24 and C0 showed that for some patients, the usual C0 targets translated into some very unusual AUC values. As the AUC/C0 ratio is quite stable during large periods, individualized C0 targets can be derived from the AUC targets, and an algorithm that estimates the individualized C0 was developed for situations in which prior AUC estimates are available or not.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we confirmed in a large data set that the AUC/C0 ratio yields low intraindividual variability, whereas C0 shows the largest, and we propose to calculate individualized C0 targets based on this ratio.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36508648
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004405
pii: 00007890-202301000-00034
doi:
Substances chimiques
Tacrolimus
WM0HAQ4WNM
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e27-e35Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.
Références
Brunet M, van Gelder T, Åsberg A, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus-personalized therapy: second consensus report. Ther Drug Monit. 2019;41:261–307.
Woillard JB, Saint-Marcoux F, Debord J, et al. Pharmacokinetic models to assist the prescriber in choosing the best tacrolimus dose. Pharmacol Res. 2018;130:316–321.
Woillard JB, de Winter BCM, Kamar N, et al. Population pharmacokinetic model and Bayesian estimator for two tacrolimus formulations—twice daily Prograf and once daily Advagraf. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71:391–402.
Benkali K, Rostaing L, Premaud A, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and Bayesian estimation of tacrolimus exposure in renal transplant recipients on a new once-daily formulation. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49:683–692.
Woillard JB, Debord J, Monchaud C, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and Bayesian estimators for refined dose adjustment of a new tacrolimus formulation in kidney and liver transplant patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2017;56:1491–1498.
Saint-Marcoux F, Woillard JB, Jurado C, et al. Lessons from routine dose adjustment of tacrolimus in renal transplant patients based on global exposure. Ther Drug Monit. 2013;35:322–327.
Marquet P, Bedu A, Monchaud C, et al. Pharmacokinetic therapeutic drug monitoring of Advagraf in more than 500 adult renal transplant patients, using an expert system online. Ther Drug Monit. 2018;40:285–291.
Woillard JB, Labriffe M, Debord J, et al. Tacrolimus exposure prediction using machine learning. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110:361–369.
Marquet P, Albano L, Woillard JB, et al. Comparative clinical trial of the variability factors of the exposure indices used for the drug monitoring of two tacrolimus formulations in kidney transplant recipients. Pharmacol Res. 2018;129:84–94.
Villeneuve C, Rousseau A, Rerolle JP, et al. Adherence profiles in kidney transplant patients: causes and consequences. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103:189–198.
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Soft. 2019;4:1686.
Kuehl P, Zhang J, Lin Y, et al. Sequence diversity in CYP3A promoters and characterization of the genetic basis of polymorphic CYP3A5 expression. Nat Genet. 2001;27:383–391.
Vanhove T, Annaert P, Kuypers DRJ. Clinical determinants of calcineurin inhibitor disposition: a mechanistic review. Drug Metab Rev. 2016;48:88–112.
Ekberg H, Mamelok RD, Pearson TC, et al. The challenge of achieving target drug concentrations in clinical trials: experience from the Symphony study. Transplantation. 2009;87:1360–1366.
Gonzales HM, McGillicuddy JW, Rohan V, et al. A comprehensive review of the impact of tacrolimus intrapatient variability on clinical outcomes in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2020;20:1969–1983.
Laskow DA, Vincenti F, Neylan JF, et al. An open-label, concentration-ranging trial of FK506 in primary kidney transplantation: a report of the United States Multicenter FK506 Kidney Transplant Group. Transplantation. 1996;62:900–905.
Maes BD, Kuypers D, Messiaen T, et al. Posttransplantation diabetes mellitus in FK-506-treated renal transplant recipients: analysis of incidence and risk factors. Transplantation. 2001;72:1655–1661.
Brennan DC, Agha I, Bohl DL, et al. Incidence of BK with tacrolimus versus cyclosporine and impact of preemptive immunosuppression reduction. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:582–594.