Search

Increasing information suggests that absorption profiling may be superior to trough level monitoring for optimal concentration control of cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) therapy, and that CsA exposure early post-transplant may correlate significantly with reduced risk of acute graft rejection. This randomized, prospective, multicenter international concentration-controlled study was conducted in 21 renal transplant centers in 8 countries to test and compare the clinical feasibility, functionality, accuracy, precision and prediction of rejection by cyclosporine microemulsion absorption profiling to conventional trough-level drug monitoring. Primary or second renal allograft recipients treated with basiliximab, cyclosporine microemulsion and prednisone immunosuppression were randomized to two study groups in which cyclosporine microemulsion therapy was monitored using a multipointalgorithm or by trough levels. The two study arms were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics, treatment and clinical outcomes. Treatment failure, consisting of acute rejection, graft loss or death, occurred with equal incidence in the two groups (30% and 33%, respectively). Diagnostic feasibility, measured as the proportion of samples obtained within the designated time window, was marginally lower in area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) than in trough groups, but the therapeutic accuracy and precision were comparable or superior in the AUC group. Cox regression analysis performed across study groups showed a highly significant correlation between the predicted probability of acute rejection and cyclosporine (CsA) exposure measured by AUC over the entire 12-h dosage interval (AUC[0-12]) (p = 0.0068), AUC over the first 4 h of the 12-h dosage interval (AUC[0-4]) (p = 0.0014) or 2h post-dose (C2) CsA level (p = 0.0027). Day 3 dose- and weight-corrected C2 values (EMIT equivalent) separated patients into low (200 microg/L/mg/kg dose), intermediate (200-350 microg/L/mg/kg dose) and high absorber categories (350 microg/L/mg/kg dose), defining those at greatest risk. Within these categories, C2 values above approximately 1500 microg/L by day 3 post-transplant were associated with the lowest predicted probability of rejection. Comparable analysis by Cox regression using C0 levels did notreach statistical significance. Absorption profiling is a feasible, accurate and precise method for monitoring cyclosporine microemulsion therapy in clinical practice and, as shown in the companion article, may be simplified by the use of single-point C2 concentrations which accurately predict individual AUC[0-4] exposure levels. Both cyclosporine microemulsion relative absorption (i.e. dose- and weight-corrected exposure) and CsA exposure (measured by predicted AUC or C2 levels) are closely correlated with the risk of rejection, and define patients at high and low risk of acute graft rejection. Trough (C0) levels are not closely correlated with either CsA exposure or rejection risk, and should not be considered reliable for monitoring cyclosporine microemulsion therapy.

Recent data suggest that optimal cyclosporine (CsA) exposure early post-transplant significantly reduces the risk of acute graft rejection. They indicate that trough level monitoring is inadequate for precise concentration-controlled therapy, and suggest that absorption profiling may offer a superior approach for guiding clinical immunosuppression with Neoral. An international, prospective, multicenter study examined the feasibility, accuracy, precision and clinical utility of cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) absorption profiling in de novo renal transplant recipients receiving basiliximab immunoprophylaxis and cyclosporine microemulsion maintenance immunosuppression. The nested pharmacokinetic study reported here was conducted in 4 study centers in which full (11-point) pharmacokinetic profiles were performed on days 3, 7, 14 and 84 post-transplant to examine absorption profile and absorption efficiency, and to determine optimal sparse-sampling pharmacokinetic methods to predict Neoral exposure. Twenty-four patients had complete 12-h pharmacokinetic (PK) data on all 4 sampling days. Area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) over the first 4 h of the 12-h dosage interval (AUC[0-4]) and AUC over the entire 12-h dosage interval (AUC[0-12]) reached 3803 +/- 1033 and 7462 +/- 2120 microg.h/L respectively, by day 3, remained stable throughout the first 2 weeks, and declined to 2310 +/- 698 and 4062 +/- 1158 microg.h/L by day 84 (p0.001). AUC[0-4], capturing the drug absorption phase, represented 52% of the AUC[0-12] values across the four PK study days (mean R20.90). Between-patient variability was highest for C0 and C1 (mean coefficient of variation [c.v.] 36-47%), and lower for C2 (mean c.v. 28%) and subsequent time-points during the dosing interval. Mean relative CsA absorption, measured by dose- and weight-adjusted AUC[0-4] and AUC[0-12], increased significantly over time. The dose- and weight-corrected AUC[0-4h] (DWC.AUC[0-4]) rose by over 100% (p0.001) from 753 +/- 202 at day 3 to 905 +/- 232 at day 7, 1080 +/- 330 at day 14 and 1521 +/- 316 by day 84, while the dose-and weight-corrected AUC[0-12h] (DWC.AUC[0-12]) rose by over 80% (p0.001) from 1477 +/- 390 microg.h/L/ mg/kg on day 3, to 1721 +/- 426 on day 7, 2086 +/- 478 on day 14 and 2690 +/- 602 on day 84 (p0.001). Relative CsA absorption varied over 5-fold between patients at day 3, but patients tended to remain within the same quartiles over time. Sparse-sample modeling identified optimum 3-point, 2-point and 1-point predictors for AUC[0-4] and AUC[0-12]. C2 was the most accurate and robust .1-point predictor for AUC[0-4] (mean R2: 0.80), while C3 was superior for AUC[0-12] (mean R2: 0.75). C0 was not a good predictor of either AUC[0-4] or AUC[0-12] (mean R2: 0.13 and 0.24, respectively).Absorption profiling defines the heterogeneity in CsA exposure and relative absorption post-transplant. A 2-h post-dose blood sample is the most consistent, accurate and robust single-point predictor of the absorption phase measured by AUC[0-4] and should replace trough level monitoring for accurate concentration-control of Neoral therapy in the clinical setting. The use of additional samples at 1 and 3h is more complex and costly, but increases prediction accuracy and may be valuable in selected patients with erratic absorption.