Longitudinal Pharmacokinetics of Tacrolimus in Elderly Compared With Younger Recipients in the First 6 Months After Renal Transplantation

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_DAVID-NETO_Longitudinal_Pharmacokinetics_of_Tacrolimus_in_Elderly_Compared_With_2017.PDF (484.36 KB)
Citações na Scopus
22
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI
Indexadores
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
TRANSPLANTATION, v.101, n.6, p.1365-1372, 2017
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background. Elderly (Eld) (>= 60 years) recipients are receiving renal transplants more frequently. The pharmacokinetics (PK) studies of immunosuppressive drugs in healthy volunteers, rarely, include old patients. Methods. We studied 208 12-hour tacrolimus (TAC) PK (0, 20, 40, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600, 720 min) in 44 Eld (65 +/- 3 years) and compared the results with 31 younger controls (Ctrl) (35 +/- 6 years) recipients, taking oral TAC/mycophenolate sodium (MPS)/prednisone, at 4 different timepoints: PK1 (8 +/- 2 days; n = 72), PK2 (31 +/- 4 days; n = 61), PK3 (63 +/- 6 days; n = 44), and PK4 (185 +/- 10 days; n = 31). Tacrolimus PK was measured by ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled to a mass spectrometer repetition and noncompartmental PKs were analyzed using Phoenix WinNonlin. Results. Mean TAC dose was lower in the Eld group than in Ctrl ones throughout timepoints either by total daily dose or adjusted (Adj) per body weight. Mean TAC trough level (Cmin), used to adjust daily dose, was not different between the 2 groups in all timepoints. AdjCmax and AdjTAC-area under the curve at dosing interval were both higher in the Eld compared to the Ctrl group in PKs1, 3, and 4. Estimated total body clearance normalized by dose and weight was lower in the Eld group compared with the Ctrl in all PKs and statistically lower at PKs 1 and 3. Similar to younger recipients TAC trough level has also a high correlation (R-2 = 0.76) with area under the curve at dosing interval. Conclusions. These data indicate that Eld recipients have a lower TAC clearance and therefore need a lower TAC dose than younger recipients.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/21490
Referências
  1. Anantharaju A, 2002, GERONTOLOGY, V48, P343, DOI 10.1159/000065506
  2. Andreu F, 2015, THER DRUG MONIT, V37, P246, DOI 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000134
  3. Anglicheau D, 2007, PHARMACOGENOMICS, V8, P835, DOI 10.2217/14622416.8.7.835
  4. Bergmann TK, 2014, THER DRUG MONIT, V36, P62, DOI 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31829f1ab8
  5. Danovitch GM, 2007, TRANSPLANTATION, V84, P285, DOI 10.1097/01.tp.0000275423.69689.dc
  6. David-Neto E, 2004, THER DRUG MONIT, V26, P53, DOI 10.1097/00007691-200402000-00012
  7. David E, 2007, TRANSPLANTATION, V84, P50, DOI 10.1097/01.tp.0000267647.03550.22
  8. Du SD, 2013, NUCL MED COMMUN, V34, P893, DOI 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328362e7c7
  9. First MR, 1996, CLIN TRANSPLANT, V10, P55
  10. Ginsberg G, 2005, ENVIRON HEALTH PERSP, V113, P1243, DOI 10.1289/ehp.7568
  11. Haubner R, 2013, EUR J NUCL MED MOL I, V40, P1245, DOI 10.1007/s00259-013-2397-8
  12. Hon YY, 2010, CLIN TRANSPLANT, V24, P557, DOI 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2009.01143.x
  13. Jacobson PA, 2012, AM J TRANSPLANT, V12, P3326, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04232.x
  14. Jacobson PA, 2011, TRANSPLANTATION, V91, P300, DOI 10.1097/TP.0b013e318200e991
  15. Klotz U, 2009, DRUG METAB REV, V41, P67, DOI 10.1080/03602530902722679
  16. Langer RM, 2012, TRANSPL INT, V25, P592, DOI 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01465.x
  17. Min SI, 2013, NEPHROL DIAL TRANSPL, V28, P3110, DOI 10.1093/ndt/gft300
  18. Miura M, 2009, EUR J CLIN PHARMACOL, V65, P1047, DOI 10.1007/s00228-009-0721-9
  19. Momper JD, 2011, AM J TRANSPLANT, V11, P1861, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03615.x
  20. Neylan JF, 1998, TRANSPLANTATION, V65, P515, DOI 10.1097/00007890-199802270-00011
  21. Niioka T, 2012, TRANSPLANTATION, V94, P1013, DOI 10.1097/TP.0b013e31826bc400
  22. Rostaing L, 2014, ANN TRANSPL, V19, P337, DOI 10.12659/AOT.890673
  23. Sotaniemi EA, 1997, CLIN PHARMACOL THER, V61, P331, DOI 10.1016/S0009-9236(97)90166-1
  24. van Duijnhoven EM, 2003, TRANSPLANT INT, V16, P721, DOI 10.1007/s00147-003-0615-1
  25. van Gelder T, 2015, TRANSPLANTATION, V99, P2269, DOI 10.1097/TP.0000000000000782
  26. van Hooff J, 2012, THER DRUG MONIT, V34, P46, DOI 10.1097/FTD.0b013e318244a7fd
  27. Vilas-Boas V, 2011, CYTOM PART A, V79A, P912, DOI 10.1002/cyto.a.21135
  28. WHO, 2007, PROP WORK DEF OLD PE
  29. Wlodarczyk Z, 2012, THER DRUG MONIT, V34, P143, DOI 10.1097/FTD.0b013e31824d1620
  30. Yano I, 2012, EUR J CLIN PHARMACOL, V68, P259, DOI 10.1007/s00228-011-1129-x
  31. Zeeh J, 2002, GERONTOLOGY, V48, P121, DOI 10.1159/000052829
  32. Zoli M, 1999, AGE AGEING, V28, P29, DOI 10.1093/ageing/28.1.29

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/03