Pharmacokinetics and Adverse Reactions Assessment Among Different Dosage Forms of Mycophenolate Applied to Early Kidney Transplant Recipients
ZHANG Qi-wen1,2, JIA Meng-meng1,2, YANG Jing1,2*, YAO Zhi-hong3, QIN Zi-fei1,2,3*, ZHANG Xiao-jian1,2, YAO Xin-sheng3
1. Department of Pharmacy, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China; 2. Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou 450052, China; 3. Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Pharmacodynamic Constituents of TCM and New Drug Research, College of Pharmacy, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
Abstract:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the pharmacokinetic characteristics and adverse reactions among different dosage forms of mycophenolate applied to early kidney transplant recipients. METHODS One hundred and twenty-one early kidney transplant recipients were divided into four groups, and received oral administration of mycophenolate mofetil capsules (Xiaoxi, MMF) (500, 750 and 1 000 mg, respectively), mycophenolate mofetil dispersible tablets (Saikeping, MMF-T) (500, 750 and 1 000 mg, respectively), mycophenolate mofetil dispersible tablets (Guoyaochuankang, MMF-DT) (500 and 750 mg, respectively), and mycophenolate sodium enteric-coated tablets (Mifu, EC-MPS) (360, 540, 720 and 900 mg, respectively) twice per day, respectively. The blood samples were collected on postoperative day 7 before and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after oral administration of different dosage forms of mycophenolate, respectively. Ultra high-performance liquid chromatography equipped diode array detector (UHPLC-DAD) was employed to determine the plasma concentration of MPA. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of MPA were estimated by non-compartmental method using WinNoLin 6.3 software. RESULTS There were no significant differences of mean ρ0 values (1 to 3 μg·mL-1) among four dose groups. The ρmax values were between 4 and 12 μg·mL-1, and their respective tmax values ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 h. Their t1/2 values were between 4 and 9 h. In addition, the AUC0-12 h values for MMF-T group were less than 30 μg·h·mL-1, while AUC0-12 h values for other three groups fall in the therapeutic window of MPA (30 to 60 μg·h·mL-1). Furthermore, power regression results indicated that dose proportionality of AUC0-12 h was nonlinear, and the correlation of AUC0-12 h and ρ0, ρmax were not conclusively linear (r=0.591 to 0.817, P<0.01) for MMF, MMF-T, MMF-DT and EC-MPS groups within 500-1 000 mg (bid), 500-1 000 mg (bid), 500-750 mg (bid) and 360-900 mg (bid), respectively. Moreover, moderate anemia, abnormal blood pressure and diarrhea mainly occurred in early kidney transplant recipients. When AUC0-12 h values of MPA were less than 30 μg·h·mL-1 or over 60 μg·h·mL-1, the patients were more likely to have various adverse reactions. CONCLUSION PK parameters of MPA show marked individual difference among Chinese early kidney transplant recipients. There is a nonlinear relationship between drug dose and AUC0-12 h for MMF group (500-1 000 mg, bid), MMF-T (500-1 000 mg, bid), MMF-DT (500-750 mg, bid) and EC-MPS group (360-900 mg, bid), and their AUC0-12 h values are similar for different groups. There is inconclusively linear correlation between AUC0-12 h and ρ0, ρmax. There are few cases of adverse reactions in therapeutic window of MPA.
张绮雯, 贾萌萌, 杨晶, 姚志红, 秦子飞, 张晓坚, 姚新生. 不同剂型霉酚酸类药物在早期肾移植患者体内的药动学研究及不良反应分析[J]. 中国药学杂志, 2020, 55(17): 1460-1469.
ZHANG Qi-wen, JIA Meng-meng, YANG Jing, YAO Zhi-hong, QIN Zi-fei, ZHANG Xiao-jian, YAO Xin-sheng. Pharmacokinetics and Adverse Reactions Assessment Among Different Dosage Forms of Mycophenolate Applied to Early Kidney Transplant Recipients. Chinese Pharmaceutical Journal, 2020, 55(17): 1460-1469.
Branch of Organ Transplantation of Chinese Medical Association. Technical specification for clinical application of immunosuppressants in organ transplantation (2019 edition)[J]. Organ Transpl(器官移植), 2019, 10(3):213-226.
[2]
GAO J W, PENG Z H, SUN B, et al. Progress in therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid in clinical organ transplantation[J]. Chin Pharm J(中国药学杂志), 2009, 44(2):885-888.
[3]
STAATZ C E, TETT S E. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients[J]. Clin Pharmacokinet, 2007, 46(1):13-58.
[4]
WANG J, YANG J W, ZEEVI A, et al. IMPDH1 gene polymorphisms and association with acute rejection in renal transplant patients[J]. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2008, 83(5):711-717.
[5]
ZHOU P J, XU D, YU Z C, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and estimation of exposure using multiple linear regression equations in Chinese renal allograft recipients[J]. Clin Pharmacokinet, 2007, 46(5):389-401.
[6]
YANG S L, GAO X, WANG Q H, et al. Use of limited sampling strategy for estimating area under concentration-versus-time curve of mycophenolate sodium in renal allograft recipients[J]. Natl Med J China(中华医学杂志), 2013, 93(48):3841-3846.
[7]
LU X Y, HUANG H F, HUANG M Z, et al. Pharmacokinetics study of mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplantation patients[J]. Chin Pharm J(中国药学杂志), 2005, 40(16):1246-1248.
[8]
ZHANG J, JIA M M, ZUO L H, et al. Pharmacokinetics study of Mycophenolate Mofetil Dispersible Tablets in Early Renal Transplant Patients[J]. Chin Pharm J(中国药学杂志), 2017, 52(8):666-670.
[9]
ZHANG J, JIA M, ZUO L, et al. Nonlinear relationship between enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium dose and mycophenolic acid exposure in Han kidney transplantation recipients[J]. Acta Pharm Sin B(药学学报:英文版), 2017,7(3):347-352.
[10]
UNDRE N A, HOOFF J V, CHRISTIAANS M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of FK 506 and mycophenolic acid after the administration of a FK 506-based regimen in combination with mycophenolate mofetil in kidney transplantation[J]. Transplant Proc, 1998, 30(4):1299-1302.
[11]
YU G C. Comparison of pharmacokinetics and gastrointestinal symptoms among different formulations of mycophenolate applied to recipients after renal transplantation on early period[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2019.
[12]
ZHANG J, SUN Z, ZHU Z, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil and development of limited sampling strategy in early kidney transplant recipients[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2018, 9: 908.
[13]
LI P M, ZHANG X L, TANG L, et al. Determination of mycophenolic acid concentration in human plasma and its application to therapeutic drug monitoring in renal transplantation patient[J]. Chin Pharm J(中国药学杂志), 2007, 42(19):1490-1493.
[14]
MA Z R, WU S C, GUO W, et al. Establishment of a simplified sampling model to estimate the area under the curve of renal transplantation patients treated with enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium[J]. Chin J Lab Med(中华检验医学杂志), 2016, 39(3):228-230.
[15]
LIU S, LI J L, LIU L S, et al. Influence of donor physiological condition on pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid and its metabolite in the early period after renal transplantation[J]. Chin J Clin Pharmacol(中国临床药理学杂志), 2016, 32(5):402-405.
[16]
ZAHR N, ARNAUD L, MARQUET P, et al. Mycophenolic acid area under the curve correlates with disease activity in lupus patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil[J]. Arthritis Rheum, 2010, 62(7):2047-2054.
[17]
FILLER G, MAI I. Limited sampling strategy for mycophenolic acid area under the curve[J]. Ther Drug Monit, 2000, 22(2):169-173.
[18]
PICARD N, RATANASAVANH D, PREMAUD A, et al. Identification of the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms involved in mycophenolic acid phase Ⅱ metabolism[J]. Drug Metab Dispos, 2005, 33(1):139-146.
[19]
PICARD N, YEE S W, WOILLARD J B, et al. The role of organic anion transporting polypeptides and their common genetic variants in mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics[J]. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010, 87(1):100-108.
[20]
PATEL C G, OGASAWARA K, AKHLAGHI F. Mycophenolic acid glucuronide (MPAG) is transported by multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 (MRP2) and this transport is not inhibited by cyclosporine, tacrolimus or sirolimus[J]. Xenobiotica, 2013,43(3):229-235.
[21]
YANG J, LU J L, ZHANG A L, et al. Research progress on gene polymorphisms related to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolic acid[J]. Chin J Clin Pharm(中国临床药学杂志), 2016, 25(5):324-328.