Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on July 19, 2007
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2007 22(12):3638-3645; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm468
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/12/3638    most recent
gfm468v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yau, W.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Chan, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yau, W.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Chan, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Is a standard fixed dose of mycophenolate mofetil ideal for all patients?

Wai-Ping Yau1, Anantharaman Vathsala2, Huei-Xin Lou3 and Eli Chan1

1Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, 2Department of Renal Medicine and 3Department of Pharmacy, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169608, Singapore

Correspondence to: Associate Prof. Eli Chan, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore. Email: phaelic{at}nus.edu.sg



   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Background. A standard fixed dose of 2 g/day of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), irrespective of total body weight (TBW), is recommended when used in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids in renal transplantation.

Methods. To determine the optimal MMF dose in a population with wide variation in TBW, steady-state pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid (MPA) was performed in 53 Asian (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian) renal transplant recipients (RTX) receiving MMF [250–1000 mg twice daily (BD)] for at least 3 months. Blood samples were collected at 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 6 h after the MMF dose and total MPA quantified using HPLC.

Results. Drug exposure, as evaluated by AUCss, 0–12, demonstrated a significant positive correlation with TBW-adjusted MMF dose (outliers omitted: r2 = 0.49, P < 0.0005). An AUCss, 0–12 of 45 mg h/l could be attained with an MMF dose of 12 mg/kg BD.

Conclusion. This study proposes that MMF should be dosed based on TBW rather than a fixed dose regimen in RTX.

Keywords: asian; cyclosporine; mycophenolic acid; pharmacokinetics; renal transplant; weight-adjusted dosing



   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, CellCept®, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Basel, Switzerland), the ester pro-drug of mycophenolic acid (MPA), is a potent immunosuppressant that is approved for the prophylaxis of organ rejection in renal, cardiac and hepatic transplant recipients. MMF is an anti-metabolite, used in combination with a calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine (CsA) [1–3] or tacrolimus [4–7]) or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (sirolimus) [8–12] and corticosteroids, for the prevention of rejection in various transplant populations. Three randomized, double blind, multi-centre clinical trials have demonstrated that MMF, administered in combination with CsA and corticosteroids, reduces the incidence of acute allograft rejection in renal transplantation [1–3].

In clinical practice, the dose of MMF prescribed currently is based on data from clinical trials carried out in America, Australia, Canada and Europe [1–3,13]. Although efficacy and toxicity of MMF are concentration dependent [14–22], a fixed dose of 2 g/day or 3 g/day of MMF, given in two divided doses, in combination with CsA and corticosteroids, is recommended for prophylaxis of rejection in adult Caucasian [1–3] or African-American [13] renal transplant recipients (RTX), respectively. On the other hand, MMF dosing based on body surface area (600 mg/m2 twice daily, with concomitant CsA and corticosteroid) has been recommended for paediatric transplant recipients [23]. Therefore in practice, a fixed dose of MMF is prescribed for adults and doses are reduced to toxic side effects of MMF, including leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, infections or gastrointestinal side effects. However, such a dosing strategy does not address dosing in populations with wide variation in total body weight (TBW), in whom a disproportionately higher MMF dose per kg TBW may expose the patient to higher risk for immunosuppressive complications of the drug.

Indeed, a randomized controlled trial conducted in an Asian RTX population suggested the need for MMF dosage reduction in this population so as to minimize the adverse effect of leucopenia; leucopenic patients receiving the standard fixed dose of 2 g/day had received higher doses of MMF in terms of mg per kg TBW [24]. Other studies among Chinese RTX have also suggested that MMF dosed at 1.5 g/day was comparable in efficacy to standard dosing [25,26] and may have been associated with fewer adverse effects [25]. Lower doses of MMF have also been prescribed for Thai (0.5–2 g/day) [27,28], Korean (1–1.5 g/day) [29] and Japanese (0.25–2 g/day) [30–33] RTX so as to reduce side effects. The feasibility of using lower MMF doses in the Asian RTX to reduce the incidence of adverse effects and yet provide comparable efficacy as that of the Western counterpart receiving 2 g/day may be in part due to the typically lower TBW of Asians. The mean TBW among the Asians in these studies is ~58 kg [26,27,29–31,33] while that of the Western populations in Europe (mainly Caucasian) is ~69 kg [1] and in America is ~74 kg for non-African American (mainly Caucasian) and 79 kg for African-Americans [13].

In order to address the optimal dosing strategy for MMF in a RTX population with wide variations in TBW, we examined MPA pharmacokinetics (PK) in our RTX population. In this present study, the objectives were 2-fold: first, to characterize the PK of MPA in RTX at our institution, of whom, the majority were of Chinese, Malay or Indian origin. These RTX had wide variation in TBW and were receiving variable doses of MMF as maintenance therapy for at least 3 months, with concomitant CsA-corticosteroid immunosuppression. Secondly, the aim was to determine the optimal MMF dose, based on TBW, in RTX on concomitant CsA, based on the PK results attained in this study.



   Subjects and methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Patients
The study population included deceased and live-donor RTX who were on follow-up at the Department of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital (SGH); all were receiving CsA-MMF-corticosteroid-based immunosuppression. Study subjects underwent CsA dose adjustments according to 2 h CsA levels and clinical circumstances, as previously described [34]. Doses of MMF were however not standard; some RTX had undergone MMF dose adjustments due to adverse effects at higher doses. Thus, patients were on maintenance twice daily (BD) MMF doses of 250, 500, 750 or 1000 mg.

The study was approved by the institutional review board at SGH and all patients were recruited after written and informed consent. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) immunosuppression with MMF, CsA and prednisolone for at least 3 months prior to recruitment into the study, (ii) maintenance on the same morning and night dose of MMF and (iii) maintenance on the same dosing regimen of MMF and CsA for at least one week before PK investigations. Patients were excluded from the study if they had (i) severe gastrointestinal disorders that interfered with their ability to receive or absorb oral medication, (ii) severe diarrhoea (more than five watery stools per day) and/or (iii) liver disease (seropositivity for hepatitis B surface antigen or anti-hepatitis C antibody or elevated alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase levels more than three times normal).

Study design
This was a prospective, open-labelled, single-centre study carried out in an outpatient setting. On the day of PK investigations, venous blood samples (3 ml) were collected into ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-containing Vacutainer® tubes over a 6 h period at the targeted time-points of 0 (pre-dose), 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 6 h after administration of the steady-state morning dose of MMF under supervision. Food and fluid intake by the study subjects were allowed without special restriction, after collection of the 0 h blood sample and MMF administration. For each blood sampling time-point, ±10 min were allowed. The exact times of MMF administration and blood sampling were recorded. The blood samples were centrifuged at 3000 r.p.m. (1380 g) for 10 min at 25°C using a Universal 32R Benchtop Centrifuge (Hettich, Germany) to harvest plasma that was transferred to polypropylene tubes and stored at –20°C until analysis.

Sample analysis
Plasma samples were analysed for the concentrations of total MPA using a previously established and validated reversed-phase ion-pair high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) assay [35].

Pharmacokinetic analysis
Based on the HPLC measurements of the plasma levels of MPA, 12 h PK profiles of MPA were constructed. The level of MPA at 12 h after drug administration was taken to be the same as the 0 h of the next dose. This assumption was made on the basis that steady state would have been reached as these patients had been on MMF for more than 3 months and maintained on the same dosing regimen for at least one week prior to sample collection. Moreover, their morning and evening doses of MMF were the same, so the trough levels (at 0 and 12 h after drug administration) of MPA would be theoretically the same.

The actual but not nominal sampling times were used for all PK calculations. The PK data for each of the patients were analysed by non-compartmental model using the WinNonlin Professional software (Version 5.0.1, Pharsight Corporation, Cary, NC, USA). The plasma concentration measured just before MMF administration (C0), the maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) and its corresponding sampling time (Tmax), were obtained directly from the plasma concentration–time profiles. The area under the plasma concentration–time curve at steady state within the dosing interval (AUCss, 0–12) was calculated from 0 to 12 h after MMF administration, using the linear trapezoidal method. The apparent oral clearance (CLoral) of MPA was calculated as the ratio of the MMF dose (expressed as dose of MPA) to the corresponding AUCss, 0–12.

Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 13.0 (SPSS Inc., USA). The one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to test for normality. As some demographic data were not normally distributed, patient demographics in Table 1 were all expressed as median (range). The PK parameters were normally distributed and hence, were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Linear regression was carried out to determine the relationships between TBW-adjusted MMF dose (mg/kg per dose) and MPA AUCss, 0–12 or C0. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Box plots were constructed for visual inspection of the relationships between MPA C0 or AUCss, 0–12 and TBW-adjusted MMF dose ranges. Outliers were defined as cases with values that were between 1.5 and 3 times the inter-quartile range away from the lower or upper quartile, while extreme outliers were defined as cases with values more than three times the inter-quartile range away from the lower or upper quartile.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Characteristics of study populationa

 


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Patient characteristics
Fifty-three stable RTX patients on oral dosing of MMF (250–1000 mg BD) for at least 3 months and on follow-up at SGH were recruited into the study. These subjects were all stable patients in terms of their transplantation condition. The majority of the patients (86.8%, Table 1) were prescribed MMF doses of <1000 mg BD. The demographic characteristics of these study subjects are summarized in Table 1. Notably, the TBW in our study population was wide, ranging from 33 to 108 kg. Creatinine clearance was calculated based on serum creatinine, age, gender and race using the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (aMDRD) formula [36].

All RTX were also on CsA (80–320 mg/day) and prednisolone (5–18 mg/day) immunosuppression and oral sulphamethoxazole-trimethoprim for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jiroveci infection. Other common oral medications administered by most of the patients included lipid-lowering agents, anti-hypertensives, calcium and iron supplements.

Pharmacokinetics of total MPA
The individual PK profiles of total MPA for the study subjects are depicted in Figure 1 and the mean PK data of total MPA are presented in Table 2. As stated earlier, the MMF doses in the study population were not standard and TBW was varied in these study subjects; thus, C0, Cmax and AUCss, 0–12 were normalized by MMF dose per kg TBW. The CLoral was also adjusted to TBW.


Figure 1
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1. Individual plasma concentration–time profiles of total mycophenolic acid (MPA) for 53 renal transplant patients on chronic dosing of mycophenolate mofetil with concomitant cyclosporine and corticosteroids.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters of total mycophenolic acid (MPA) in 53 renal transplant patients receiving variable doses of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) with concomitant cyclosporine and corticosteroids

 
A considerable inter-individual variability of all the PK data were observed, as shown by the large coefficients of variation (CV) (Table 2). The variability in C0 and AUCss, 0–12 and in CLoral was slightly reduced by normalization according to MMF dose per kg TBW and TBW, respectively (Table 2); however these were not significantly reduced and the CV of the PK parameters, normalized to dose or weight remained large.

Correlation of TBW-adjusted MMF dose with total MPA AUCss, 0–12 or total MPA C0
Drug exposure of MPA, as evaluated by the total AUCss, 0–12, demonstrated a weak but significant positive correlation with TBW-adjusted MMF dose (r2 = 0.30, P < 0.0005; Figure 2A). The correlation (r2 = 0.49, P < 0.0005) improved with the omission of outlying points (Figure 2B). On the other hand and in comparison to total MPA AUCss, 0–12, total MPA C0 demonstrated a much weaker though statistically significant positive correlation with TBW-adjusted MMF dose (r2 = 0.11, P = 0.017; Figure 3A). The correlation (r2 = 0.20, P = 0.001) improved only slightly with the omission of an extreme outlier (Figure 3B).


Figure 2
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2. Correlation of total mycophenolic acid (MPA) AUCss, 0–12 with total body weight-adjusted mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dose, (A) before and (B) after omission of outliers.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3. Correlation of total mycophenolic acid (MPA) C0 with total body weight adjusted mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dose, (A) before and (B) after omission of outliers.

 
The box plots of total MPA C0 against TBW-adjusted MMF BD dose showed that most patients would be able to attain the recommended target range of 1–3.5 mg/l for total MPA C0 [37], with an MMF dose of at least 5 mg/kg BD (Figure 4A). Furthermore, as demonstrated by the box plots of total MPA AUCss, 0–12 against TBW-adjusted MMF dose, an MMF dose of 5–15 mg/kg BD would achieve the recommended target range of 30–60 mg h/l for total MPA AUCss, 0–12 [37] (Figure 4B).


Figure 4
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4. Box plots of (A) total mycophenolic acid (MPA) C0 and (B) total MPA AUCss, 0–12 against total body weight adjusted mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dose. The circles and asterisk denote the outliers and extreme outlier, respectively. The broken lines indicate recommended target ranges of 1–3.5 mg/l and 30–60 mg h/l for total MPA C0 and AUCss, 0–12, respectively.

 
Thus, TBW-adjusted MMF dose demonstrated a stronger correlation with the total MPA AUCss, 0–12 than total MPA C0. The TBW-adjusted MMF dose required to achieve any particular total MPA AUCss, 0–12 could be estimated from the regression equations obtained (Table 3). In order to target a total MPA AUCss, 0–12 of 30–60 mg h/l, it is estimated that MMF administered at doses between 5 and 17 mg/kg BD would be required. An AUCss, 0–12 of 45 mg h/l, which is the mean of the recommended target therapeutic window of 30–60 mg h/l [37], could be attained with an average MMF dose of 11.5 mg/kg BD (Table 3). This may be rounded off to 12 mg/kg BD for simplicity in calculation in the clinical setting. The body mass index failed to demonstrate a stronger correlation to PK parameters than TBW (not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Estimated total body weight (TBW)-adjusted mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) doses based on the respective total mycophenolic acid (MPA) AUCss, 0–12 (30, 45 or 60 mg h/l) according to the derived regression equationsa,b

 


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
Acknowledgements
 References
 
Despite variations in body weight, MMF at a standard fixed dose of 1 g BD, irrespective of body weight, is recommended for prophylaxis of rejection in renal transplantation, when it is used in combination with CsA and corticosteroids. However, it is well established that MMF efficacy and toxicity are correlated with MPA concentrations. Based on the report of a roundtable discussion on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of MPA, the proposed desirable target ranges are 30–60 mg h/l for total MPA AUCss, 0–12, or 1–3.5 mg/l for total MPA C0, when measured using HPLC technique [37].

Our study has clearly demonstrated that although 87% of the 53 subjects were on MMF doses below the recommended dose of 1000 mg BD, the mean total MPA C0 (1.95 ± 1.06 mg/l) and AUCss, 0–12 (41.4 ± 14.2 mg h/l) (Table 2) were nonetheless within the recommended therapeutic ranges. This was also demonstrated in similar studies among Thai RTX receiving maintenance MMF in combination with CsA and prednisolone for at least 3 months. The mean total MPA C0 and AUCss, 0–12 were 2.75 ± 0.07 mg/l and 37.54 ± 0.80 mg h/l, respectively, for 16 Thai RTX on MMF 500 mg BD [27]; the median total MPA C0 and AUCss, 0–12 were 1.46 mg/l and 34.3 mg h/l, respectively, in another 45 Thai patients receiving MMF doses of 0.5–2 g/day [28]. The lower doses used in our patients and those from other studies in Asian patients were likely adequate to achieve therapeutic levels of MPA because the average body weight of Asians is smaller than that of the Western population.

As MPA exposure and TBW-adjusted MMF dose are correlated (Figure 2), our study supports the use of TBW-adjusted dose of MMF for RTX, rather than a standard fixed dose of 1 g BD for all patients. From the regression results, in order to target an average total MPA AUCss, 0–12 of 45 mg h/l in the maintenance period, MMF may be dosed based on TBW at ~12 mg/kg BD, rather than the standard fixed dose of 1 g BD. Indeed, a study carried out on Japanese RTX receiving MMF with tacrolimus and corticosteroids demonstrated that the MMF dose per kg TBW had an impact on the occurrence of acute rejection as the MMF dose per kg TBW was significantly lower in patients with acute rejection [31]. This provides evidence to support the use of TBW-adjusted MMF dosing to optimize clinical outcome.

On the market, MMF is available for oral administration as 250 mg capsule and 500 mg tablet and in some countries, also as 200 mg/ml oral suspension (supplied as powder to be constituted). From the practical viewpoint, the exact calculated dose based on 12 mg/kg BD would not be applicable precisely unless the oral suspension is available and accepted by the adult patient. Hence, doses prescribed according to the proposed recommendation of 12 mg/kg BD would have to be rounded off to the nearest 250 mg. This leveled dose would still be within the range of 5–17 mg/kg BD capable of achieving the desired therapeutic range of 30–60 mg h/l for total MPA AUCss, 0–12 (Table 3).

Currently, there are two other studies that analysed the correlation of total MPA C0 or AUCss, 0–12 with TBW-adjusted MMF dose in patients receiving MMF with concomitant CsA immunosuppression [38,39]. The poor correlation between total MPA C0 with TBW-adjusted MMF dose from the present study (r2 = 0.11 before omission of outliers; Figure 3A) was similarly observed in the studies by Behrend et al. (r = 0.09) [39] and Brunet et al. [38] (no correlation reported). However, the weak correlation between total MPA AUCss, 0–12 with TBW-adjusted MMF dose in the present study (r2 = 0.30 before omission of outliers; Figure 2A) was not observed by Brunet et al. [38] (no correlation reported). Due to the lack of conclusive data in the literature, future prospective controlled studies based on MMF dosing at 12 mg/kg BD, as proposed by the present study, would thus be necessary to determine the reliability of this proposed MMF dosing strategy in achieving the desired total MPA AUCss, 0–12 therapeutic range of 30–60 mg h/l for optimal clinical outcomes. Different ethnic populations could also be studied to investigate if this proposed dose could be extrapolated to all ethnic groups.

Although TBW-based MMF dosing may individualize initial strategy, the substantial inter-individual variability in the PK of MPA as reported herein and in the literature suggests that TDM of MPA may be necessary to further optimize efficacy and minimize toxicity.

In summary, the current recommended fixed dosing regimen of MMF may not be ideal for all patients. Although the TBW-adjusted MPA CLoral tended to be lower than that reported from the Western population, whether there are ethnic differences in mycophenolate disposition in the Asian populations needs further investigation. Studies are currently underway to determine if genetic differences in the drug metabolizing enzymes of MPA could be a contributing factor underlying the difference in dose requirement between Asian and Western populations. Nevertheless, the observed correlation between drug exposure and TBW-adjusted MMF dose suggests that MMF may be dosed based on body weight, rather than the standard fixed dose. Based on our results, to attain an average total MPA AUCss, 0–12 of 45 mg h/l, we propose that Asian patients on MMF with concomitant CsA may be initially dosed empirically at 12 mg/kg BD so as to reduce the potential complications of excessive immunosuppression, and doses subsequently adjusted based on TDM.



   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
References
 
This study was supported by the National University of Singapore Academic Research Grant (R-148-000-050-112). This study was presented in part at the American Transplant Congress 2005, Seattle, Washington, USA. Am J Transplant 5 [S11], 2005, 323 (Abstract 655).

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.



   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. European Mycophenolate Mofetil Co-operative Study Group. Placebo-controlled study of mycophenolate mofetil combined with cyclosporin and corticosteroids for prevention of acute rejection. Lancet (1995) 345:1321–1325.[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation (1995) 60:225–232.[Web of Science][Medline]
  3. The Tricontinental Mycophenolate Mofetil Renal Transplantation Study Group. A blinded, randomized clinical trial of mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation (1996) 61:1029–1037.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Scantlebury VP, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of tacrolimus/prednisone versus tacrolimus/prednisone/mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation (1999) 67:411–415.[Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Miller J, Mendez R, Pirsch JD, Jensik SC. Safety and efficacy of tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in cadaveric renal transplant recipients. FK506/MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group. Transplantation (2000) 69:875–880.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Johnson C, Ahsan N, Gonwa T, et al. Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation. Transplantation (2000) 69:834–841.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Jain A, Kashyap R, Dodson F, et al. A prospective randomized trial of tacrolimus and prednisone versus tacrolimus, prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil in primary adult liver transplantation: a single center report. Transplantation (2001) 72:1091–1097.[Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Kreis H, Cisterne JM, Land W, et al. Sirolimus in association with mycophenolate mofetil induction for the prevention of acute graft rejection in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation (2000) 69:1252–1260.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Flechner SM, Kurian SM, Solez K, et al. De novo kidney transplantation without use of calcineurin inhibitors preserves renal structure and function at two years. Am J Transplant (2004) 4:1776–1785.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Lo A, Egidi MF, Gaber LW, et al. Comparison of sirolimus-based calcineurin inhibitor-sparing and calcineurin inhibitor-free regimens in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation (2004) 77:1228–1235.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Hamdy AF, El-Agroudy AE, Bakr MA, et al. Comparison of sirolimus with low-dose tacrolimus versus sirolimus-based calcineurin inhibitor-free regimen in live donor renal transplantation. Am J Transplant (2005) 5:2531–2538.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Larson TS, Dean PG, Stegall MD, et al. Complete avoidance of calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation: a randomized trial comparing sirolimus and tacrolimus. Am J Transplant (2006) 6:514–522.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Neylan JF. Immunosuppressive therapy in high-risk transplant patients: dose-dependent efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in African-American renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation (1997) 64:1277–1282.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Krumme B, Wollenberg K, Kirste G, Schollmeyer P. Drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in the early period after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc (1998) 30:1773–1774.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Bullingham RE, et al. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther (1998) 64:672–683.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Weber LT, Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, et al. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for total and free mycophenolic acid in pediatric renal transplant recipients: a report of the German study group on mycophenolate mofetil therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol (2002) 13:759–768.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Lu YP, Lin B, Liang MZ, et al. Correlation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetic parameters with side effects in Chinese kidney transplant recipients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Transplant Proc (2004) 36:2079–2081.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Smak Gregoor PJH, Hesse CJ, van Gelder T, et al. Relation of mycophenolic acid trough levels and adverse events in kidney allograft recipients. Transplant Proc (1998) 30:1192–1193.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Hübner GI, Eismann R, Sziegoleit W. Relationship between mycophenolate mofetil side effects and mycophenolic acid plasma trough levels in renal transplant patients. Arzneimittelforschung (2000) 50:936–940.[Medline]
  20. Mourad M, Malaise J, Chaib Eddour D, et al. Correlation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetic parameters with side effects in kidney transplant patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Chem (2001) 47:88–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Mourad M, Malaise J, Chaib Eddour D, et al. Pharmacokinetic basis for the efficient and safe use of low-dose mycophenolate mofetil in combination with tacrolimus in kidney transplantation. Clin Chem (2001) 47:1241–1248.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Kuypers DR, Claes K, Evenepoel P, Maes B, Vanrenterghem Y. 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) 75:434–447.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Weber LT, Shipkova M, Lamersdorf T, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid (MPA) and determinants of MPA free fraction in pediatric and adult renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol (1998) 9:1511–1520.[Abstract]
  24. Suhail SM, Vathsala A, Lou HX, Woo KT. Safety and efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil for prophylaxis in Asian renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc (2000) 32:1757–1758.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Tsang WK, Tong KL, Yeung S, Lee W, Chan HW. Efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in different dosages in Asian renal allograft recipients. Transplant Proc (2000) 32:1755–1756.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Wang X, Tang X, Xu D. Immunosuppressive effect of mycophenolate mofetil with two different dosages in cadaveric renal transplantation: a short study. Transplant Proc (1998) 30:3573–3574.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Julasareekul W, Eiam-Ong S, Bejraputra O, Seublinvong T. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in kidney transplant recipients treated with a low dose (1 gram/day) of mycophenolate mofetil. J Med Assoc Thai (2003) 86:766–771.[Medline]
  28. Jirasiritham S, Sumethkul V, Mavichak V, Na-Bangchang K. The pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in Thai kidney transplant recipients. Transplant Proc (2004) 36:2076–2078.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Cho EK, Han DJ, Kim SC, Burchart GJ, Venkataramanan R, Oh JM. Pharmacokinetic study of mycophenolic acid in Korean kidney transplant patients. J Clin Pharmacol (2004) 44:743–750.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Naito T, Shinno K, Maeda T, et al. Effects of calcineurin inhibitors on pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolite during the maintenance period following renal transplantation. Biol Pharm Bull (2006) 29:275–280.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Satoh S, Tada H, Murakami M, et al. The influence of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine and mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics on the incidence of acute rejection and infectious complications after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc (2005) 37:1751–1753.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Sugioka N, Sasaki T, Kokuhu T, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in Japanese renal transplant recipients: a retrospective cohort study in a single center. Biol Pharm Bull (2006) 29:2099–2105.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Satoh S, Tada H, Murakami M, et al. Circadian pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and implication of genetic polymorphisms for early clinical events in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation (2006) 82:486–493.[Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Vathsala A, Lu YM. Abbreviated cyclosporine pharmacokinetic profiling in clinical renal transplantation: from principles to practice. Transplant Proc (2001) 33:3137–3139.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Yau WP, Vathsala A, Lou HX, Chan E. Simple reversed-phase ion-pair liquid chromatography assay for the simultaneous determination of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide metabolite in human plasma and urine. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci (2004) 805:101–112.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Pöge U, Gerhardt T, Palmedo H, Klehr H-U, Sauerbruch T, Woitas RP. MDRD equations for estimation of GFR in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant (2005) 5:1306–1311.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Shaw LM, Holt DW, Oellerich M, Meiser B, van Gelder T. Current issues in therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid: report of a roundtable discussion. Ther Drug Monit (2001) 23:305–315.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  38. Brunet M, Martorell J, Oppenheimer F, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolic acid in stable renal transplant recipients treated with low doses of mycophenolate mofetil. Transpl Int (2000) 13(Suppl 1):S301–S305.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Behrend M, Lueck R, Pichlmayr R. Mycophenolic acid and mycophenolic acid glucuronide trough levels after renal transplantation. Transplant Proc (1997) 29:2936–2938.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Received for publication: 16. 5.07
Accepted in revised form: 19. 6.07


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/12/3638    most recent
gfm468v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yau, W.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Chan, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yau, W.-P.
Right arrow Articles by Chan, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?