-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Validation of sparse sampling strategies to estimate cyclosporine A area under the concentration-time curve using either a specific radioimmunoassay or high-performance liquid chromatography method
B Koristkova, M Grundmann, H Brozmanova, I Perinova, K Safarcik
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu práce podpořená grantem
Grantová podpora
1A8655
MZ0
CEP - Centrální evidence projektů
- MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- cyklosporin farmakokinetika krev terapeutické užití MeSH
- imunosupresiva farmakokinetika krev terapeutické užití MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- monitorování léčiv metody MeSH
- odběr vzorku krve MeSH
- plocha pod křivkou MeSH
- radioimunoanalýza MeSH
- transplantace ledvin MeSH
- vysokoúčinná kapalinová chromatografie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
INTRODUCTION: Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) has been advocated as a better parameter to monitor cyclosporine A than trough concentrations. Up to now, more than 100 equations to estimate AUC using a limited sampling strategy have been published, but not all have been validated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight equations for AUC0-12h and two for AUC0-8h were validated. Concentrations of cyclosporine A were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and a specific radioimmunoassay (RIA) method. Forty male renal transplant patients were included in the study. Blood samples were taken predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12 hours after the morning dose when the patient was in steady state. The percentage prediction error (%pe) was used for an assessment of the performance of the equations. Mean %pe less than + 15% and absolute %pe less than 30% in 95% of predictions were considered to be acceptable. Other possibilities such as %pe less than 25%, 20%, and 15% were also tested. RESULTS: Eight equations for AUC0-12h met the requirements using both assays, six in the HPLC set only and four in the RIA set only. The highest precision was obtained with AUC0-12h = 123.792 + 1.165*C1h + 3.021*C3h + 7.33*C8h proposed by de Mattos et al. The mean %pe was 1% + 8% (-16 to 19) for HPLC (values given as mean + standard deviation [range]) and -1 + 5 (-17 to 10) for RIA. Mean absolute %pe was 7 + 5 (0.0 to 19) for HPLC and 4 + 4 (0.0 to 17) for RIA. For clinical use, the most suitable equation was AUC0-12h = 363.078 + 8.77*C1h + 3.07*C3h proposed by Wacke et al, which produced the second lowest %pe and used two sampling points in the period of 1 to 3 hours after dose. The mean %pe was -7 + 10 (-25 to 25) for HPLC and 2.3 + 6 (-10 to 17) for RIA. Mean absolute %pe was 10 + 7 (0.4 to 25) for HPLC and 5 + 4 (0.0 to 17) for RIA. The equation: AUC0-8h = 55.37 + 2.89*C0h + 1.08*C1h0.9*C2h + 2.23*C3h proposed by Foradori et al met the criteria with 95% of prediction with absolute %pe less than 15% in the HPLC set and 10% in the RIA set. CONCLUSION: The validation of equations is of major importance for prediction precision, whereas the analytical method for limited sampling strategy proposals had no influence. Because of the wide interassay variability, it is also important to know which analytical method was used for AUC calculation when interpreting the results.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
Literatura
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc14050192
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20140331124415.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 140327s2010 xxu f 000 0eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 __
- $a 10.1097/ftd.0b013e3181ed59fe $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)20683391
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2 $b cze
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Kořístková, Blanka $7 xx0263946 $u Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Ostrava University Hospital and Medical Faculty, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. blanka.koristkova@seznam.cz
- 245 10
- $a Validation of sparse sampling strategies to estimate cyclosporine A area under the concentration-time curve using either a specific radioimmunoassay or high-performance liquid chromatography method / $c B Koristkova, M Grundmann, H Brozmanova, I Perinova, K Safarcik
- 504 __
- $a Literatura
- 520 9_
- $a INTRODUCTION: Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) has been advocated as a better parameter to monitor cyclosporine A than trough concentrations. Up to now, more than 100 equations to estimate AUC using a limited sampling strategy have been published, but not all have been validated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight equations for AUC0-12h and two for AUC0-8h were validated. Concentrations of cyclosporine A were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and a specific radioimmunoassay (RIA) method. Forty male renal transplant patients were included in the study. Blood samples were taken predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12 hours after the morning dose when the patient was in steady state. The percentage prediction error (%pe) was used for an assessment of the performance of the equations. Mean %pe less than + 15% and absolute %pe less than 30% in 95% of predictions were considered to be acceptable. Other possibilities such as %pe less than 25%, 20%, and 15% were also tested. RESULTS: Eight equations for AUC0-12h met the requirements using both assays, six in the HPLC set only and four in the RIA set only. The highest precision was obtained with AUC0-12h = 123.792 + 1.165*C1h + 3.021*C3h + 7.33*C8h proposed by de Mattos et al. The mean %pe was 1% + 8% (-16 to 19) for HPLC (values given as mean + standard deviation [range]) and -1 + 5 (-17 to 10) for RIA. Mean absolute %pe was 7 + 5 (0.0 to 19) for HPLC and 4 + 4 (0.0 to 17) for RIA. For clinical use, the most suitable equation was AUC0-12h = 363.078 + 8.77*C1h + 3.07*C3h proposed by Wacke et al, which produced the second lowest %pe and used two sampling points in the period of 1 to 3 hours after dose. The mean %pe was -7 + 10 (-25 to 25) for HPLC and 2.3 + 6 (-10 to 17) for RIA. Mean absolute %pe was 10 + 7 (0.4 to 25) for HPLC and 5 + 4 (0.0 to 17) for RIA. The equation: AUC0-8h = 55.37 + 2.89*C0h + 1.08*C1h0.9*C2h + 2.23*C3h proposed by Foradori et al met the criteria with 95% of prediction with absolute %pe less than 15% in the HPLC set and 10% in the RIA set. CONCLUSION: The validation of equations is of major importance for prediction precision, whereas the analytical method for limited sampling strategy proposals had no influence. Because of the wide interassay variability, it is also important to know which analytical method was used for AUC calculation when interpreting the results.
- 590 __
- $a bohemika - dle Pubmed
- 650 02
- $a plocha pod křivkou $7 D019540
- 650 02
- $a odběr vzorku krve $7 D001800
- 650 02
- $a vysokoúčinná kapalinová chromatografie $7 D002851
- 650 02
- $a cyklosporin $x farmakokinetika $x krev $x terapeutické užití $7 D016572
- 650 02
- $a monitorování léčiv $x metody $7 D016903
- 650 02
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 02
- $a imunosupresiva $x farmakokinetika $x krev $x terapeutické užití $7 D007166
- 650 02
- $a transplantace ledvin $7 D016030
- 650 02
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 02
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 02
- $a radioimunoanalýza $7 D011863
- 650 02
- $a časové faktory $7 D013997
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Grundmann, Milan, $d 1939- $7 nlk20010093222 $u Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Ostrava University Hospital and Medical Faculty, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Brozmanová, Hana $7 xx0103852 $u Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Ostrava University Hospital and Medical Faculty, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Peřinová, Ilona, $d 1975- $7 xx0094982 $u Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Ostrava University Hospital and Medical Faculty, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Šafarčík, Kristian, $7 mzk2006363477 $u Nuclear Medicine Clinic, Ostrava University Hospital and Medical Faculty, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic $d 1950-
- 773 0_
- $t Therapeutic Drug Monitoring $g Roč. 32, č. 5 (2010), s. 586-593 $p Ther Drug Monit $x 0163-4356 $w MED00004503
- 773 0_
- $p Ther Drug Monit $g 32(5):586-93, 2010 Oct
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $y 4 $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20140327113806 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20140331124452 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1017335 $s 848766
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BMC __
- $a 2010 $b 32 $c 5 $d 586-593 $i 0163-4356 $m Therapeutic drug monitoring $x MED00004503 $n Ther Drug Monit
- GRA __
- $a 1A8655 $p MZ0
- LZP __
- $a 2014-03/ewbo