Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Immunosuppressive Therapy for Paediatric Transplant Patients

Pharmacokinetic Considerations

  • Review Articles
  • Special Populations
  • Published:
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Immunosuppressive therapy in paediatric transplant recipients is changing as a consequence of the increasing number of available immunosuppressive agents. Generic and other new formulations are now emerging onto the market, clinical experience is growing, and it is expected that clinicians should tailor immunosuppressive protocols to individual patients by optimising dosages and drugs according to the maturation and clinical status of the child. Most information about the clinical pharmacokinetics of immunosuppressive drugs in paediatrics is centred on cyclosporin, tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in renal and liver transplant recipients; data regarding other immunosuppressants and transplant types are limited.

Although the clinical pharmacokinetics of these drugs in paediatric transplant recipients are still under investigation, it is evident that the pharmacokinetic parameters observed in adults may not be applicable to children, especially in younger age groups. In general, patients younger than 5 years old show higher clearance rates irrespective of the organ transplanted or drug used. Another important factor that frequently affects clearance in this patient population is the post-transplant time. In accordance with these findings, and in contrast with the usual under-dosage in children, the need for higher dosages in younger recipients and during the early post-transplant period seems evident.

To achieve the best compromise between prevention of rejection and toxicity, dosage individualisation is required and this can be achieved through therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). This approach is particularly useful to ensure the costeffective management of paediatric transplant recipients in whom the pharmacokinetic behaviour, target concentrations for clinical use and optimal dosage strategies of a particular drug may not yet be well defined. Although TDM may be a tool for improving immunosuppressive therapy, there is little information concerning its positive contribution to clinical events, including outcomes, for paediatric patients. Substantial information to support the use of TDM exists for cyclosporin and, to a lesser extent, for tacrolimus, but a diversity of options affects their implementation in the clinical setting. The role of TDM in therapy with mycophenolate mofetil and sirolimus has yet to be defined regarding both methods and clinical indications. Pharmacodynamic monitoring appears more suited to other immunosuppressants such as azathioprine, corticosteroids and monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies. If coupled with pharmacokinetic measurements, such monitoring would allow earlier and more precise optimisation of therapy.

Very few population pharmacokinetic studies have been carried out in paediatric transplant patients. This type of study is needed so that techniques such as Bayesian forecasting can be applied to optimise immunosuppressive therapy in paediatric transplant patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Use of tradenames is for product identification only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Borei JF, Feurer C, Bubler HU, et al. Biological effects of cyclosporine A: a new antilymphocyte agent. Agent Actions 1976; 6: 468–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Calne RY, White DJG, Thiru S, et al. Cyclosporine A in patients receiving renal allografts from cadaver donors. Lancet 1978 Dec; II: 1323–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Transplant Patient Datasource. Richmond (VA): United Network for Organ Sharing [online]. Available from URL: http://www.patients.unos.org/data.htm [Accessed 2000 July 10]

  4. Burdelski M, Nolkemper D, Ganschow R, et al. Liver transplantation in children: long-term outcome and quality of life. Eur J Pediatr 1999 Dec; 158 Suppl. 2: S34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Braun F, Lorf T, Ringe B. Update of current immunosuppressive drugs used in clinical organ transplantation. Transpl Int 1998; 11(2): 77–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Keown PA. Therapeutic strategies for optimal use of novel immunosuppressants. Transplant Proc 1999 Jun; 31(4): 1790–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ettenger RB. New immunosuppressive agents in pediatric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 1956–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Benfield MR, Stablein D, Tejani A. Trends in immunosuppressive therapy: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). Pediatr Transplant 1999 Feb; 3(1): 27–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ettenger R, Blifeld C, Prince H, et al. The pediatric nephrologist s dilemma: growth after renal transplantation and its interactions with age as a possible immunologie variable. J Pediatr 1987 Dec; 111(6): 1022–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dharnidharka VR, Sullivan EK, Tejani AH, et al. Risk factors for post transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD): an analysis of the cases in the North American Pediatrie Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). American Association of Transplantation. Abstracts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.a-s-t.org/astpscope/abstracts99/835.htm [Accessed 2000 Sep 14]

  11. Tsunoda SM, Aweeka FT. The use of therapeutic drug monitoring to optimise immunosuppressive therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996 Feb; 30(1): 107–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yatscoff RW, Aspeslet LJ. The monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs: a pharmacodynamic approach. Ther Drug Monit 1998 Oct; 20(5): 459–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dumont RJ, Ensom MHH. Methods for clinical monitoring of cyclosporin in transplant patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000 May; 38(5): 427–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Venkataramanan R, Habucky K, Burckart GJ, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics in organ transplant patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 1989 Mar; 16(3): 134–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brodehl J. Consensus statements on the optimal use of cyclosporine in pediatric patients. Transplant Proc 1994 Oct; 26(5): 2759–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cooney GF, Habucky K, Hoppu K. Cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in paediatric transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997 Jun; 32(6): 481–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McDiarmid SV. The use of tacrolimus in pediatric liver transplantation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1998 Jan; 26(1): 90–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Mourik I, Kelly D. Immunosuppressive drugs in paediatric liver transplantation. Paediatr Drugs 2001; 3(1): 43–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wallemacq PE, Verbeeck RK. Comparative clinical pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in paediatric and adult patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40(4): 283–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnston A, Holt DW. Therapeutic monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999 Apr; 47(4): 339–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fahr A. Cyclosporin clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993 Jun; 24(6): 472–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yee GC. Recent advances in cyclosporine pharmacokinetics. Pharmacotherapy 1991; 11(5): 130S–4S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ptachcinski RJ, Burckart GJ, Venkataramanan R. Cyclosporine. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1985 Feb; 19(2): 90–100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Christians U, First MR, Benet LZ. Recommendations for bioequivalence of cyclosporine generics revisited. Ther Drug Monit 2000 Jun; 22(3): 330–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodighiero V. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin: practical applications and limitations. Clin Pharmacokinet 1989 Jan; 16(1): 27–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mochon M, Cooney G, Lum B, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine after renal transplant in children. J Clin Pharmacol 1996 Jul; 36(7): 580–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lares-Asseff I, Zaltzman S, Pérez Guillé MG, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine as a function of energy-protein deficiency in children with chronic failure. J Clin Pharmacol 1997 Mar; 37(3): 179–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Foradori A, Pinto MV, Elberg A. A critical appraisal of cyclosporine A pharmacokinetics in pediatric kidney transplantation using a microemulsion galenic formulation (Neo-ral). Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 1666–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. De Palma MT, Giordano M, Colella V, et al. Sandimmun and Neoral treatment: pharmacokinetics and kidney function in paediatric and adolescent renal transplant. Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 1677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Portman RJ, Meier-Kriesche HU, Swinford R, et al. Reduced variability of Neoral pharmacokinetic studies in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Nephrol 2000 15:2–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Keiles A, Herman J, Tjandra-Maga TB, et al. Sandimmune® to Neoral® conversion and value of abbreviated AUC monitoring in stable pediatric kidney transplant recipients. Pediatr Transplant 1999 Nov; 3(4): 282–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Medeiros M, Gómez AC, Urizar JP, et al. Bioavability of two oral formulations of cyclosporin A in uremie children before renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 1998 May; 2(2): 145–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gusmano R, Basile GC, Perfumo F, et al. Pharmacokinetics of oral cyclosporine microemulsion formulation (Neoral) in children awaiting renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 1985–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Melter M, Rodeck B, Kardorff R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in pediatric long-term liver transplant recipients converted from Sandimmun to Neoral. Transpl Int 1997; 10(6): 419–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Mourik IDM, Thomson M, Kelly DA. Comparison of pharmacokinetics of Neoral and Sandimmune in stable pediatrie liver transplant recipients. Liver Transp Surg 1999 Mar; 5(2): 107–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunn S, Cooney G, Sommerauer J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of an oral solution of the microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in maintenance pediatric liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 1997 Jun; 63(12): 1762–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Laine J, Hoppu K, Jalanko H, et al. Kidney function after 1:1 conversion to the cyclosporine microemulsion formulation in children with liver allografts. Transplantation 1997 Jun; 63(12): 1768–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Dunn SP, Kulinsky A, Falkenstein K, et al. Area under the concentration curve values in pediatric liver transplant recipients on cyclosporin microemulsion formulation. Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 1678–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Cooney GF, Dunn SP, Sommerauer J, et al. Improved cyclosporine bioavailability in black pediatric liver transplant recipients after administration of the microemulsion formulation. Liver Transpl Surg 1999 Mar; 5(2): 112–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Mourik IDM, Vilca Melendez H, Thomson M, et al. Efficacy of Neoral in the immediate postoperative period in children post-liver transplantation. Liver Transpl Surg 1998 Nov; 4(6): 491–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wallemacq PE, Reding R, Sokal EM, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of Neoral in pediatric recipients of primary liver transplants. Transpl Int 1997; 10(6): 466–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Schultz KR, Nevill TJ, Toze CL, et al. The pharmacokinetics of oral cyclosporin A (Neoral) during the first month after bone marrow transplantation. Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 1668–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Filler G, Mai I, Filler S, et al.. Abbreviated cyclosporine AUCs on Neoral —the search continues. Pediatr Nephrol 1999 Feb; 13(2): 98–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoyer PF. Cyclosporin A (Neoral) in pediatric organ transplantation. Neoral Pediatrie Study Group. Pediatr Transplant 1998 Feb; 2(1): 35–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Bunchman TE, Parekh RS, Flynn JT, et al. Neoral induction in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatr Nephrol 1998 Jan; 12(1): 2–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Humbert H, Guest G, Said MB, et al. Steady-state pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in renal transplant patients: does an influence of age or body weight exist? Transplant Proc 1994 Oct; 26(5): 2791–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Keiles A, Van Damme-Lombaerts R, Tjandra-Maga TB, et al. Long-term cyclosporin A pharmacokinetic profiles in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Transpl Int 1996; 9(6): 546–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Milanian I, Ghods AJ, Mahmoudian M, et al. Study of circadian variation of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics. Transplant Proc 1997 Nov; 29(7): 2930–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Dunn SP, Cooney GF, Kulinsky A, et al. Absorption characteristics of a microemulsion formulation of cyclosporine in de novo paediatric liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 1995 Dec; 60(12): 1438–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Cao S, Cox KL, Berquist W, et al. Increased dosage requirement and rejection after Neoral conversion in pediatric liver transplant patients. Transplant Proc 1998 Dec; 30(8): 4322–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Edreesi MA, Caillé G, Dupuis C, et al. Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic action of diltiazem in pediatric liver transplant recipients on cyclosporine. Liver Transpl Surg 1995 Nov; 1(6): 283–8

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pan SH, López RR, Sher LS, et al. Enhanced oral cyclosporine absorption with water-soluble vitamin E early after liver transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 1996 Jan; 16(1): 59–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Clardy CW, Schroeder TJ, Myre SA, et al. Clinical variability of cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in adult and pediatric patients after renal, cardiac, hepatic and bone-marrow transplants. Clin Chem 1988 Oct; 34(10): 2012–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Parke J, Charles BG. NONMEM population pharmacokinetic modeling of orally administered cyclosporine from routine drug monitoring data after heart transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 1998 Jun; 20(3): 284–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Yee GC, Lennon TP, Gmur DJ, et al. Age-dependent cyclosporine A pharmacokinetics in marrow transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1986 Oct; 40(4): 438–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Oellerich M, Armstrong VW, Kahan B, et al. Lake Louise consensus conference on cyclosporin monitoring in organ transplantation: report of the consensus panel. Ther Drug Monit 1995 Dec; 17(6): 642–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Warrens AN, Waters JB, Salam AD, et al. Improving the therapeutic monitoring of cyclosporin A. Clin Transplant 1999 Apr; 13(2): 193–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Morris R. Target concentration strategy for cyclosporine monitoring. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997 Mar; 32(3): 175–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Morris RG, Tett SE, Ray JE. Cyclosporin A monitoring in Australia: consensus recommendations. Ther Drug Monit 1994 Dec; 16(6): 570–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Shaw LM, Yatscoff RW, Bowers LD, et al. Canadian consensus meeting on cyclosporine monitoring: report of the consensus panel. Clin Chem 1990 Oct; 36(10): 1841–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Keown P, Kahan BD, Johnston A, et al. Optimization of cyclosporine therapy with new therapeutic drug monitoring strategies: Report from the International Neoral® TDM Advisory Consensus Meeting (Vancouver, November 1997). Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 1645–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Belitsky P, Dunn S, Johnston A, et al. Impact of absorption profiling on efficacy and safety of cyclosporin therapy in transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000 Aug; 39(2): 117–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. DelloStrologo L, Campagnano P, Federici G, et al. Cyclosporine A monitoring in children: abbreviated area under curve formulas and C2 level. PediatrNephrol 1999 Feb; 13(2): 95–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Medeiros M, Pérez-Urizar J, Muñoz R, et al. Limited sampling model for area-under-the-curve monitoring in pediatric patients receiving either Sandimmune® or Neoral® cyclosporin A oral formulations. Pediatr Transplant 1999 Aug; 3(3): 225–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. McDiarmid SV, Busulti RW, Ascher NL, et al. FK506 (tacrolimus) compared with cyclosporin for primary immunosuppression after pediatric liver transplantation. Results from the US multicenter trial. Transplantation 1995 Feb; 59(4): 530–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Plosker GL, Foster RH. Tacrolimus: a further update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in the management of organ transplantation. Drugs 2000 Feb; 59(2): 323–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Venkataramanan R, Swaminathan A, Prasad T, et al., Clinical pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995 Dec; 29(6): 404–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Hooks MA. Tacrolimus, a new immunosuppressant: a review of the literature. Ann Pharmacother 1994 Apr; 28(4): 501–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Christiaans M, Beysens T, Undre N, et al., The effect of food on the oral bioavailability of tacrolimus and the changes in pharmacokinetics with time post transplant in renal transplant patients. American Association of Transplantation. Abstracts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.a-s-t.org/astpscope/abstracts97/cg106184.htm [Accessed 2000 Sep 14]

  70. Sewing K-FR. Pharmacokinetics, dosing principles, and blood level monitoring of FK506. Transplant Proc 1994 Dec; 26(6): 3267–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Jusko WJ, Thomson AW, Fung J, et al. Consensus document: therapeutic monitoring of tacrolimus. Ther Drug Monit 1995 Dec; 17(6): 606–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Shapiro R. Tacrolimus in pediatric renal transplantation: a review. Pediatr Transplant 1998; 2: 270–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Wallemacq PE, Furlan V, Moller A, et al. Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus (FK506) in paediatric liver transplant recipients. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 1998 Jul; 23(3): 367–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Yasuhara M, Hashida T, Toraguchi M. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of FK506 in pediatric patients receiving living-related donor liver transplantations. Transplant Proc 1995 Feb; 27(1): 1108–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. García MJ, Manzanares C, Santos-Buelga D, et al. Covariate effects on tacrolimus apparent clearance in paediatric liver transplant patients under “conversion” therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40: 63–71

    Google Scholar 

  76. Filler G, Grygas R, Mai I, et al. Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus (FK 506) in children and adolescents with renal transplants. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997 Aug; 12(8): 1668–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Mehta P, Beltz S, Kedar A, et al. Increased clearance of tacrolimus in children: need for higher doses and earlier initiation prior to bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999 Dec; 24(12): 1323–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Jain A, Fung JJ, Venkataramam R, et al. Comparative study of cyclosporine and FK506 dosage requirement in adult and pediatric orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplant Proc 1991 Dec; 23(6): 2763–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Moreno M, Manzanares C, Castellano F, et al. Monitoring of tacrolimus as rescue therapy in pediatric liver transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 1998 Aug; 20(4): 376–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. McDiarmid SV, Colonna JO, Shaked A, et al. Differences in oral FK506 dose requirements between adult and pediatric liver transplant patients. Transplantation 1993 Jun; 55(6): 1328–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Cantarovich M, Fridell J, Barkun J, et al. Optimal time points for the prediction of the area-under-the-curve in liver transplant patients receiving tacrolimus. Transplant Proc 1998 Jun; 30(4): 1460–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Weber LT, Schütz E, Lamersdorf T, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid (MPA) and free MPA in paediatric renai transplant recipients: a multicentre study. The German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF) Therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999; 14 Suppl. 4: 33–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Shaw LM, Nowak I. Mycophenolic acid: measurement and relationship to pharmacologic effects. Ther Drug Monit 1995 Dec; 17(6): 685–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Jacqz Aigrain E, Khan Shaghaghi E, Baudouin V, et al. Pharmacokinetics and tolerance of mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant children. Pediatr Nephrol 2000 Feb; 14(2): 95–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Weber LT, Lamersdorf T, Shipkova M, et al. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve for total, but not for free, mycophenolic acid increases in the stable phase after renal transplantation: a longitudinal study in pediatric patients. German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil Therapy in Pediatrie Renal Transplant Recipients. Ther Drug Monit 1999 Oct; 21(5): 498–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Bullingham RES, Nicholls AJ, Kamm BR. Clinical pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998 Jun; 34(5): 429–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Sherbotie J, Bunchman T, Navarro M, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) oral suspension in pediatric renal transplantation. American Association of Transplantation. Abstracts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.a-s-t.org/astpscope/abstracts99/473.htm [Accessed 2000 Sep 14]

  88. 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. German Study Group on Mycophenolate Mofetil Therapy in Pediatric Renal Transplant Recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998 Aug; 9(8): 1511–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Filler G, Lampe D, Mai I, et al. Dosing of MMF in combination with tacrolimus for steroid-resistant vascular rejection in pediatric renal allografts. Transpl Int 1998; 11 Suppl. 1: S82–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Filler G, Zimmering M, Mai I. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil are influenced by concomitant immunosuppression. Pediatr Nephrol 2000 Feb; 14(2): 100–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Oellerich M, Shipkova M, Schtz E, et al. Pharmacokinetic and metabolic investigations of mycophenolic acid in pediatric patients after renal transplantation: implications for therapeutic drug monitoring. Ther Drug Monit 2000 Feb; 22(1): 20–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Dipchand AI, Biagio MD, Pietra A, et al. Mycophenolic acid (MPA) levels in pediatric heart transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate mofetil. American Association of Transplantation. Abstracts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.a-s-t.org/astpscope/abstracts99/472.htm [Accessed 2000 Sep 14]

  93. Zucker K, Rosen A, Tsaroucha A, et al. Unexpected augmentation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in combination therapy, and analogous in vitro findings. Transpl Immunol 1997 Sep; 5(3): 225–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Filler G, Mai I. Limited sampling strategy for mycophenolic acid area under the curve. Ther Drug Monit 2000 Apr; 22(2): 169–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Filler G, Ehrich J. Mycophenolate mofetil for rescue in acute renal transplant rejection in children should always be monitoring by measurement of trough concentration. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997 Feb; 12(2): 374–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Hale MD, Nicholls AJ, Bullingham RE, et al. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998 Dec; 64(6): 672–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Aigrain EJ, Shaghaghi EK, Baudouin V, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in eight pediatric renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 2000 Mar; 32(2): 388–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. De Mattos AM, Olyaei AJ, Bennett WM. Pharmacology of immunosuppressive medications used in renal diseases and transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 1996 Nov; 28(5): 631–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Chan GLC, Canafax DM, Johnson CA. The therapeutic use of azathioprine in renal transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 1987; 7(5): 165–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Escousse A, Guedon F, Mounie J, et al. 6-Mercaptopurine pharmacokinetics after use of azathioprine in renal transplant recipients with intermediate or high thiopurine methyl transferase activity phenotype. J Pharm Pharmacol 1998 Nov; 50(11): 1261–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. El-Yazigi A, Wohob FA. Pharmacokinetics of azathioprine after repeated oral and single intravenous administration. J Clin Pharmacol 1993 Jun; 33(6): 522–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Lennard L, Van Loon JA, Weinshilboum RM. Pharmacogenetics of acute azathioprine toxicity: relationship to thiopurine methyltransferase genetic polymorphism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989 Aug; 46(2): 149–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Chocair PR, Duley JA, Simmonds HA, et al. The importance of thiopurine methyltransferase activity for the use of azathioprine in transplant recipients. Transplantation 1992 May; 53(3): 1051–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Bergan S, Rugstad HE, Bentdal O, et al. Monitoring of azathioprine treatment by determination of 6-thioguanine nucleotide concentrations in erythrocytes. Transplantation 1994 Oct; 58(7): 803–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Schmiegelow K, Kriegbaum NJ. Thioguanine nucleotide accumulation in erythrocytes during azathioprine treatment for systemic connective tissue diseases: a possible index for monitoring treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 1993 Feb; 52(2): 152–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Vazquez MA. Southwestern Internal Medicine Conference. New advances in immunosuppression therapy for renal transplantation. Am J Med Sci 1997 Dec; 314(6): 415–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Tornatore KM, Walshe JJ, Reed KA, et al. Comparative methylprednisolone pharmacokinetics in renal transplant patients receiving double- or triple-drug immunosuppression. Ann Pharmacother 1993 May; 27(5): 545–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Keller F, Hemmen T, Schoneshofer M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of methylprednisolone and rejection episodes in kidney transplant patients. Transplantation 1995 Aug; 60(4): 330–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Jusko WJ, Ludwig EA. Corticosteroids. In: Evans WE, Schentag JJ, Jusko WJ, editors. Applied pharmacokinetics. Principles of therapeutic drug monitoring. 3rd ed. Vancouver: Applied Therapeutics, 1992; 27: 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  110. Wald JA, Law RM, Ludwig EA, et al. Evaluation of dose-related pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prednisolone in man. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1992 Dec; 20(6): 567–89

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Jusko WJ, Ferron GM, Mis SM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of prednisolone during administration of sirolimus in patients with renal transplants. J Clin Pharmacol 1996 Dec; 36(6): 1100–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Imani S, Jusko WJ, Steiner R. Diltiazem retards the metabolism of oral prednisone with effects on T-cell markers. Pediatr Transplant 1999 May; 3(2): 126–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. McDonald R, Donalson L, Emmett L, et al. A decade of living donor transplantation in North American children: the 1998 Annual Report of the North American Pediatrie Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). Pediatr Transplant 2000 Aug; 4(3): 221–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Hill MR, Szefler SJ, Ball BD, et al. Monitoring glucocorticoid therapy. A pharmacokinetic approach. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990 Oct; 48(8): 390–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Ferraris J, Krmar R, Flores D, et al. Pharmacokinetics of deflazacort in renal transplantated and hemodialyzed children. Clin Nephrol 1998; 30(3): 172–7

    Google Scholar 

  116. Ettenger RB. Antibody therapy as an induction regimen in pediatric renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1999 Sep; 31: 677–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Burk ML, Matuszewski KA. Muromonab-CD3 and antithymocyte globulin in renal transplantation. Ann Pharmacother 1997 Nov; 31(11): 1370–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Hooks MA, Wade CS, Millikan WJ. Muromonab CD-3: a review of its pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical use in transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 1991; 11(1): 26–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Vasquez EM, Pollak R. OKT3 therapy increases cyclosporine blood levels. Clin Transplant 1997; 11: 38–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Hyrose R, Roberts JP, Quan D, et al. Experience with daclizumab in liver transplantation. Transplantation 2000 Jan; 69(2): 307–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Beniamonovitz A, Itescu S, Lietz K, et al. Prevention of rejection in cardiac transplantation by blockade of the interleukin-2 receptor with monoclonal antibody. N Engl J Med 2000 Mar; 342(9): 613–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Nashan B, Light S, Hardie IR, et al. Reduction of acute renal allograft rejection by daclizumab. Daclizumab Double Therapy Study Group. Transplantation 1999 Jan; 67(1): 110–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Nevins T, Ettenger R, Potter D, et al. Daclizumab (Zenapax) in pediatric renal allografts: final data. American Association of Transplantation. Abstracts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.a-s-t.org/astpscope/abstracts99/469.htm [Accessed 2000 Sep 14]

  124. Kovarik JM, Moore R, Wolf P, et al. Screening for basiliximab exposure-response relationships in renal allotransplantation. Clin Transplant 1999 Feb; 13(1): 32–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Kovarik J, Breidenbach T, Gerbeau C, et al. Disposition and immunodynamics of basiliximab in liver allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998 Jul; 64(1): 66–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Kovarik JM, Melter M, Dunn S, et al. Disposition of basiliximab, an IL-2 receptor (CD25) chimeric monoclonal antibody, in pediatric liver transplant patients. American Association of Transplantation. Abstracts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.a-s-t.org/astpscope/abstracts99/470.htm [Accessed 2000 Sep 14]

  127. Mentre F, Kovarik J, Gerbeau C. Constructing a prediction interval for time to reach a threshold concentration based on a population pharmacokinetic analysis: an application to basiliximab in renal transplantation. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1999 Apr; 27(2): 213–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Kovarik JM, Kahan BD, Rajagopalan PR, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationship for basiliximab in kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1999 Nov; 68(9): 1288–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Vasquez EM. Sirolimus: a new agent for prevention of renal allograft rejection. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000 Mar; 57(7): 437–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Trepanier DJ, Gallant H, Legatt DF, et al. Rapamycin: distribution, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic range investigations: an update. Clin Biochem 1998 Jul; 31(5): 345–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Ferron GM, Mishina EV, Zimmerman JJ, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of sirolimus in kidney transplant patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997 Apr; 61(4): 416–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Gallant-Haidner HL, Trepanier DJ, Freitag DG, et al. Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of sirolimus. Ther Drug Monit 2000 Feb; 22(1): 31–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Ingle GR, Sievers TM, Holt CD. Sirolimus: continuing the evolution of transplant immunosuppression. Ann Pharmacother 2000 Sep; 34: 1044–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Tejani A, Alexander S, Koaut E, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetic profile of ascending single doses of an oral liquid sirolimus (rapamycin) in pediatric patients with stable chronic renal failure. American Association of Transplantation. Abstracts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.a-s-t.org/astpscope/abstracts99/475.htm [Accessed 2000 Sep 14]

  135. Kahan BD, Napoli KL. Role of therapeutic monitoring of rapamycin. Transplant Proc 1998 Aug; 30(5): 2189–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Shaw LM, Kaplan B, Brayman KL. Advances in therapeutic drug monitoring for immunosuppressants; a review of sirolimus: introduction and overview. Clin Ther 2000; 22 Suppl. B: 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Kahan BD, Napoli KL, Kelly PA, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus: correlations with efficacy and toxicity. Clin Transplant 2000 Apr; 14(2): 97–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Hong JC, Kahan BD. Sirolimus-induced thrombocytopenia and leukopenia in renal transplant recipients: risk factors, incidence, progression and management. Transplantation 2000 May; 69(10): 2085–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Hughes SE, Gruber SA. New immunosuppressive drugs in organ transplantation. J Clin Pharmacol 1996 Dec; 36(12): 1081–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. Takada K, Asada S, Ichikawa Y, et al. Pharmacokinetics of bredinin in renal transplant patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 24(4): 457–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Zaoui P, Serre Debeauvais F, Bayle F, et al. Clinical use of mizoribine (Bredinin) and pharmacologic monitoring assessment in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 1995 Feb; 27(1): 1064–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Kokado Y, Takahara S, Ishibashi M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mizoribine in renal transplant patients. Transplant Proc 1994 Aug; 26(4): 2111–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Ramos EL, Nadler SG, Grasela DM, et al. Deoxyspergualin: mechanism and pharmacokinetics. Transplant Proc 1996 Apr; 28(2): 873–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Joshi AS, King SY, Zajac BA, et al. Phase I safety and pharmacokinetics studies of brequinar sodium after single ascending oral doses in stable renal, hepatic, and cardiac allograft recipients. J Clin Pharmacol 1997 Dec; 37(12): 1121–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Lucien J, Dias VC, LeGatt DF, et al. Blood distribution and single-dose pharmacokinetics of leflunomide. Ther Drug Monit 1995 Oct; 17(5): 454–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Kahan BD. High variability of drug exposure: a biopharmaceutic risk factor for chronic rejection. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 1639–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Potter JM. Pharmacoeconomics of therapeutic drug monitoring in transplantation. Ther Drug Monit 2000 Jan; 22(1): 36–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  148. Swanson MA, Palmeri D, Vossler ED, et al. Noncompliance in organ transplant recipients. Pharmacotherapy 1991; 11(6): 1735–45

    Google Scholar 

  149. Sigfusson G, Fricker FJ, Bernstein D, et al. Long-term survivors of pediatric heart transplantation: a multicenter report of sixty-eight children who have survived longer than five years. J Pediatr 1997 Jun; 130(6): 862–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. Holford NHG. A size standard for Pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996; 30: 329–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the University of Salamanca, Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacy Department, University of Salamanca, Avda Campo Charro s/n, 37007, Salamanca, Spain

    María del Mar Fernández de Gatta, Dolores Santos-Buelga, Alfonso Domínguez-Gil & María José García

  2. Pharmacy Service, University Clinical Hospital, Salamanca, Spain

    Alfonso Domínguez-Gil

Authors
  1. María del Mar Fernández de Gatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dolores Santos-Buelga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alfonso Domínguez-Gil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. María José García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María José García.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

del Mar Fernández de Gatta, M., Santos-Buelga, D., Domínguez-Gil, A. et al. Immunosuppressive Therapy for Paediatric Transplant Patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 41, 115–135 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200241020-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200241020-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation