medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-6014 (Print)
Órgano oficial de difusión de la Federación Mexicana de Patología Clínica, AC y de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Patología Clínica/Medicina de Laboratorio

2004, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Patol Clin Med Lab 2004; 51 (4)

Therapeutic monitoring of the cyclosporine: Current status

Garrido MJ

Language: Spanish
References: 36
Page: 200-204
PDF size: 50.67 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Since cyclosporine A (CsA) was formulated as Neoral®, multiple evidences suggest the greater usefulness of its two hours post-dosis levels (C2) for its therapeutic monitoring. Clinically, C2 therapeutic CsA monitoring better predicts acute post-transplant rejection episodes in heart, lung and kidney de novo patients, and detect overexposure in some maintenance patients who did not show this exposure in C0 (predose level), leading to a less dosis avoiding secondary effects. Likewise C2 shows shorter difference among values determined by different immunoassays because of the smaller metabolites/CsA parent drug ratio in C2. This fact would contribute to stablish a better guide for immunosuppressive CsA therapeutic levels in transplant recipients with independence of the assay used for its determination.


REFERENCES

  1. Borel JF. Cyclosporine. A present experimental status. Transplant Proc 1981; 13: 344-348.

  2. Schreiber SL. Chemistry and biology of the immunophilins and their immunosuppressive ligands. Science 1991; 251: 283-287.

  3. Chaudhuri B, Stephan C. Only in the presence of immunophilins can cyclosporine and FK 506 disrupt binding of calcineurin A to its autoinhibitors domain yet strengthen interaction between calcineurin A and B subunits. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1995; 215: 781-790.

  4. Britton S, Palacios R. Cyclosporine A usefulness, risks and mechanism of action. Immunol Rev 1982; 65: 5-22.

  5. Keown PA, Essery GL, Stiller CR et al. Mechanisms of immunosuppression by cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1981; 13: 386-389.

  6. Rosano TG, Freed BM, Pell MA et al. Cyclosporine metabolites in human blood and renal tissue. Transplant Proc 1986; 18 (suppl S): 35-40.

  7. Kovaric JM, Mueller EA, Niese D. Clinical development of a cyclosporine microemulsion in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 1996; 18: 429-434.

  8. Sells RA. A prospective randomized substitutive trial of cyclosporine as a prophylactic agent in human renal transplant rejection. Transplant Proc 1983; 15: 2495-2500.

  9. Barton CH, Vaziri ND. Cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Int J Artif Organs 1985; 8: 291-296.

  10. Atkinson K, Biggs J, Dodds A et al. Cyclosporine associated hepatoxicity after allogeneic marrow transplantation in man: Differentiation from other cause of postransplant liver disease. Transplant Proc 1983; 15: 2761.

  11. Kahan BD. Cyclosporine. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1725-1738.

  12. Mahalati K, Belitsky P, Sketris I. Neoral monitoring by simplified sparse sampling area under the concentration-time curve: its relationship to acute rejection and cyclosporine nephrotoxicity early after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 68: 55-62.

  13. Morris RG, Russ GR, Cervieeli MJ et al. Comparison of trough, 2-hour, and limited AUC blood sampling for monitoring cyclosporine neoral® at day 7 post-renal transplantation and incidence of rejection in the first month. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24: 479-486.

  14. Levy G, Burru P, Cavallari A et al. Improved clinical outcomes for liver transplant recipients using cyclosporine monitoring based on 2 hr postdose levels (C2). Transplantation 2002; 73: 953-959.

  15. Grant D, Kneteman N, Tchervenkov J et al. Peak cyclosporine levels (Cmax) correlate with freedom from liver graft rejection: results of a prospective, randomized comparison of neoral and sandimmune for liver transplantation (NOF-8). Transplantation 1999; 67: 1133-1137.

  16. Dunn SP, Falkenstein K, Cooney G. Neoral C2 monitoring in pediatric liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2001; 33: 3094-3095.

  17. Levy G. C2 monitoring strategy for optimizing cyclosporine immunosuppression from the Neoral® formulation. Bio Drugs 2001; 15(5): 279-290.

  18. Sindhi R, La Via MF, Paulling E et al. Stimulated response of peripheral lymphocytes may distinguish cyclosporine effect in renal transplant recipients receiving a cyclosporine + rapamycin regimen. Transplantation 2000; 15: 69: 432-436.

  19. Halloran PF, Helms LM, Kuny L et al. The temporal profile of calcineurin inhibition by cyclosporine in vivo. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1356-1361.

  20. Nashan B, Cole E, Levy G et al. Clinical validation studies of neoral C2 monitoring: A review. Transplantation 2002; 73 (9): S3-S11.

  21. Mahalati K, Belitsky P, West K et al. Approaching the therapeutic window for cyclosporine in kidney transplantation: A prospective study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 823-833.

  22. Midtvedt K, Fauchald P, Bergan S et al. C2 monitoring in maintenance renal transplant recipients: Is it worthwhile? Transplantation 2003, 76 (8): 1236-1238.

  23. Levy G, Thervet E, Lake J et al (CONCERT Group): Patient management by neoral C2 monitoring: And international consensus statement. Transplantation 2002; 73 (9): S12-S18.

  24. Andrews J, Cramb R. Cyclosporine; revisions in monitoring guidelines and review of current analytical methods. Ann Clin Biochem 2002; 39: 424-435.

  25. Schütz E, Svinarov D, Shipkova M et al. Cyclosporine whole blood immunoassays (AxSYM, CEDIA and EMIT); a critical overview of performance characteristics and comparison with HPLC. Clin Chem 1998; 44: 2158-2164.

  26. Steimer W. Performance and specificity of monoclonal immunoassays for cyclosporine monitoring: How specific is specific. Clin Chem 1999; 45: 371-381.

  27. Ruzicka K, Schweiger C, Szerkeres T. Evaluation of four automated methods for determination of whole blood cyclosporine concentration. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112: 358-365.

  28. Soldin S, Steele B, Witte D et al. Lack of specificity of cyclosporine immunoassays. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003; 127: 19-22.

  29. Johnston A, Chusney G, Schütz E et al. Monitoring cyclosporine in blood; between-assay differences at trough and 2 hours post-dose (C2). Ther Drug Monit 2003; 25: 167-173.

  30. Schütz E, Streit F, Dias V et al. Immunoassays in comparison to LC-MS/MS, is there a difference between trough (C0) and C2 levels? Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23: 471.

  31. Fernández-Marmiesse A, Hermida J, Tutor JC. Comparison of predose vs 2-hour postdose blood metabolites/cyclosporine ratios in kidney and liver transplant patients. Clin Biochem 2000; 33: 383-386.

  32. Garrido MJ, Hermida J, Tutor JC. Relationship between Cyclosporine Concentrations obtained using the Roche Cobas Integra and AbbottTDx monoclonal immunoassays in pre-dose and two hour post-dose blood samples from kidney transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24: 785-788.

  33. Kahan BD, Keown P, Levy GA et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs in clinical practice. Clin Therapeutics 2000; 24 (3): 1-21.

  34. Holt DW, Johnston A, Hahan BD et al. New approaches to cyclosporine monitoring raise further concerns about analytical techniques. Clin Chem 2000;46:872-874.

  35. Saint-Marcoux F, Rousseau A, Le Meur Y et al. Influence of sampling-time error on cyclosporine measurements nominally at 2 hours after administration. Clin Chem 2003; 49 (5): 813-815.

  36. Loor R, Pope L, Boyd R et al. Monitoring cyclosporine of pre-dose and post-dose samples using nonextraction homogeneus immunoassay. Ther Drug Monit 2004; 26(1): 58-67.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com