European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 75, Issue 5, pp 677–686 | Cite as

Limited sampling strategy for the estimation of the area under the concentration-time curve for ganciclovir in Chinese adult renal allograft recipients

  • Wen-Bin Rui
  • Hui-Min An
  • Kun Shao
  • Xiao-Hui Zhai
  • Jia-Qian Lu
  • Shan-Shan Hu
  • Bing ChenEmail author
  • Pei-Jun ZhouEmail author
Pharmacokinetics and Disposition



Valganciclovir (VGCV) treatment is recommended for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in renal allograft recipients. The aim of the present study is to investigate the pharmacokinetic characteristics of ganciclovir (GCV) after administration of VGCV in Chinese adult renal allograft recipients and estimate the exposure to GCV using limited sampling strategy (LSS).


Forty Chinese renal allograft recipients were given 450 mg or 900 mg VGCV daily. Blood samples were drawn before treatment and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after 5 days of VGCV therapy, and the plasma concentrations of VGCV and GCV were determined using a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry assay. The major pharmacokinetic parameters for GCV and VGCV were determined using a noncompartmental assay. Multiple stepwise linear regression analysis was conducted to establish a model equation for the estimation of the GCV AUC0–24 h in Chinese patients using LSS.


In the 450 and 900 mg groups, the Cmax for VGCV was 0.2 ± 0.10 and 0.4 ± 0.16 mg/L, respectively; the Cmax for GCV was 4.2 ± 1.1 and 8.6 ± 1.6 mg/L, respectively; and the AUC0–24 h for GCV was 28.4 ± 8.4 and 60.7 ± 17.5 mg·h/L, respectively. For the establishment of LSS models, 40 patients were divided into the training group (n = 24) and validation group (n = 16). The model equations used for the calculation of AUC0–24 h for GCV were established in the training group by using multiple linear regression assay. Equations including AUC = 8.1 + 29.7 × C0 + 5.7 × C4 (r2 = 0.91) and AUC = − 0.4 + 11.0 × C0 + 2.1 × C2 + 13.7 × C8 (r2 = 0.98) were acceptable. The %MPE and %MAPE values obtained from the validation group for the two model equations were 5.89 ± 14.5% and 12.1 ± 9.53%, and − 1.30 ± 4.40% and 3.28 ± 3.11%, respectively.


The LSS models that included C0 and C4 or C0, C2, and C8 in the estimation of AUC0–24 h for GCV had favorable performance and can be used for therapeutic drug monitoring in the prevention of CMV infection using VGCV in Chinese renal allograft recipients.


Renal transplantation Valganciclovir (VGCV) Ganciclovir (GCV) Pharmacokinetics Limited sampling strategy Therapeutic drug monitoring 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 81473275) and Medical and Technology Intercrossing Research Foundation of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Grant Number: YG2016MS60).

Compliance with ethical standards

The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration. This study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Rui-Jin Hospital, which is affiliated with the Shanghai Jiao-Tong University School of Medicine, and informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Sagedal S, Hartmann A, Nordal KP, Osnes K, Leivestad T, Foss A, Degré M, Fauchald P, Rollag H (2004) Impact of early cytomegalovirus infection and disease on long-term recipient and kidney graft survival. Kidney Int 66(1):329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sagedal S, Nordal KP, Hartmann A et al (2000) A prospective study of the natural course of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 70:1166–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fishman JA, Rubin RH (1998) Infection in organ-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 338:1741–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hjelmesaeth J, Sagedal S, Hartmann A et al (2004) Asymptomatic cytomegalovirus infection is associated with increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus and impaired insulin release after renal transplantation. Diabetologia 47:1550–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nett PC, Heisey DM, Fernandez LA, Sollinger HW, Pirsch JD (2004) Association of cytomegalovirus disease and acute rejection with graft loss in kidney transplantation. Transplantation 78:1036–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosen HR, Corless CL, Rabkin J, Chou S (1998) Association of cytomegalovirus genotype with graft rejection after liver transplantation. Transplantation 66:1627–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sagedal S, Nordal KP, Hartmann A, Sund S, Scott H, Degre M, Foss A, Leivestad T, Osnes K, Fauchald P, Rollag H (2002) The impact of cytomegalovirus infection and disease on rejection episodes in renal allograft recipients. Am J Transplant 2:850–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sagedal S, Rollag H, Hartmann A (2007) Cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplant recipients is associated with impaired survival irrespective of expected mortality risk. Clin Transpl 21:309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Staras SA, Dollard SC, Radford KW et al (2006) Seroprevalence of cytomegalovirus infection in the United States, 1988-1994. Clin Infect Dis 43(9):1143–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang LJ, Hanff P, Rutherford C, Churchill WH, Crumpacker CS (1995) Detection of human cytomegalovirus DNA, RNA, and antibody in normal donor blood. J Infect Dis 171(4):1002–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kotton CN, Kumar D, Caliendo AM, Åsberg A, Chou S, Danziger-Isakov L, Humar A (2013) Transplantation society international CMV consensus group: updated internationalconsensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation. Transplantation 96:333–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh N (2001) Preemptive therapy versus universal prophylaxis with ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis 32:742–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim I, Chu XY, Kim S, Provoda CJ, Lee KD, Amidon GL (2003) Identification of a human valacyclovirase: biphenyl hydrolaselike protein as valacyclovir hydrolase. Biol Chem 278(28):25348–25356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Czock D, Scholle C, Rasche FM, Schaarschmidt D, Keller F (2002) Pharmacokinetics of valganciclovir and ganciclovir in renal impairment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 72:142–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Humar A, Lebranchu Y, Vincenti F, Blumberg EA, Punch JD, Limaye AP, Abramowicz D, Jardine AG, Voulgari AT, Ives J, Hauser IA, Peeters P (2010) The efficacy and safety of 200 days valganciclovir cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 10(5):1228–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Humar A, Limaye AP, Blumberg EA, Hauser IA, Vincenti F, Jardine AG, Abramowicz D, Ives JAL, Farhan M, Peeters P (2010) Extended valganciclovir prophylaxis in D+/R-kidney transplant recipients is associated with long-term reduction in cytomegalovirus disease:two-year results of the IMPACT study. Transplantation 90(12):1427–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiltshire H, Paya C, Pescovitz MD et al (2005) Pharmacodynamics of oral ganciclovir and valganciclovir in solid organ transplant recipients. Transplantation 79:1477–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao W, Fakhoury M, Fila M, Baudouin V, Deschênes G, Jacqz-Aigrain E (2012) Individualization of valganciclovir prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus infection in pediatric kidney transplant patients. Valganciclovir pediatria. Ther Drug Monit 34:326–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    David O, Johnston A (2000) Limited sampling strategies. Clin Pharmacokinet 39(4):311–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahmood (2003) Impact of random and fixed (optimal) sampling approach on the Bayesian estimation of clearance. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 41(9):392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Padullés CA, Colom H, Caldes A et al (2014) Optimal sparse sampling for estimating ganciclovir/valganciclovir AUC in solid organ transplant patients using NONMEN. Ther Drug Monit 36(3):371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perrottet N, Laurent A, Decosterd et al (2009) Valganciclovir in adult solid organ transplant recipients: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and clinical interpretation of plasma concentration measurements. Clin Pharmacokinet 48(6):399–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiltshire H, Hirankarn S, Farrell C, Paya C, Pescovitz MD, Humar A, Dominguez E, Washburn K, Blumberg E, Alexander B, Freeman R, Heaton N (2005) The valganciclovir solid organ transplant study group. Pharmacokinetic profile of ganciclovir after its oral administration and from its prodrug, valganciclovir, in solid organtransplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 44:495–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chamberlain CE, Penzak SR, Alfaro RM et al (2010) Pharmacokinetics of low and maintenance dose valganciclovir in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 8(6):1297–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Emery VC, Griffiths PD (2000) Prediction of cytomegalovirus load and resistance patterns after antiviral chemotherapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97(14):8039–8044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Limaye AP, Corey L, Koelle DM, Davis CL, Boeckh M (2000) Emergence of ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus disease among recipients of solid-organ transplants. Lancet 356(9230):645–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mcgavin JK, Goa KL (1998) Ganciclovir: an update of its use in the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients. Drugs 56(1):1153–1183Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sommadossi JP, Bevan R, Ling T et al (1988) Clinical pharmacokinetics of ganciclovir in patients with normal and impaired renal function. Rev Infect Dis 3(Supplement 3):S507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Faulds D, Heel RC (1990) Ganciclovir. A review of its antiviral activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in cytomegalovirus infection. Drugs 39(4):597–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rondeau E, Farquet C, Fries D et al (1991) Treatment of cytomegalovirus infections with ganciclovir in kidney transplant recipients. Clinical and pharmacokinetic study. Presse Méd 20(40):2030–2032Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wolfe EJ, Mathur V, Tomlanovich S et al (1997) Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolatemofetil and intravenous ganciclovir alone and in combination in renal transplant recipients. Pharmacotherapy 17:591–598Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brown F, Banken L, Saywell K, Arum I (1999) Pharmacokinetics of valganciclovir and ganciclovir following multiple oral dosages of valganciclovir in HIV- and CMV-seropositive.Volunteers. Clin Pharmacokinet 37(2):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Filler G, Lampe D, von Bredow MA, Lappenberg-Pelzer M, Rocher S, Strehlau J, Ehrich JH (1998) Prophylactic oral ganciclovir after renal transplantation-dosing and pharmacokinetics. Pediatr Nephrol 12(1):6–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mahmood I, Miller R (1999) Comparison of the Bayesian approach and a limited sampling model for the estimation of AUC and Cmax: a computer simulation analysis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 37:439–445Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ting LS, Villeneuve E, Ensom MH (2006) Beyond cyclosporine: a systematic review of limited sampling strategies for other immunosuppressants. Ther Drug Monit 28(3):419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Organ TransplantationRui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao-Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of PharmacyRui-Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of MedicineShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations