Limited sampling strategies for tacrolimus exposure (AUC0-24) prediction after Prograf(®) and Advagraf(®) administration in children and adolescents with liver or kidney transplants.

To develop limited sampling strategies (LSSs) to predict total tacrolimus exposure (AUC0-24 ) after the administration of Advagraf(®) and Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma S.A, Madrid, Spain) to pediatric patients with stable liver or kidney transplants. Forty-one pharmacokinetic profiles were obtained after Prograf(®) and Advagraf(®) administration. LSSs predicting AUC0-24 were developed by linear regression using three extraction time points. Selection of the most accurate LSS was made based on the r(2) , mean error, and mean absolute error. All selected LSSs had higher correlation with AUC0-24 than the correlation found between C0 and AUC0-24 . Best LSS for Prograf(®) in liver transplants was C0_1.5_4 (r(2)  = 0.939) and for kidney transplants C0_1_3 (r(2)  = 0.925). For Advagraf(®) , the best LSS in liver transplants was C0_1_2.5 (r(2)  = 0.938) and for kidney transplants was C0_0.5_4 (r(2)  = 0.931). Excluding transplant type variable, the best LSS for Prograf(®) is C0-1-3 (r(2)  = 0.920) and the best LSS for Advagraf(®) was C0_0.5_4 (r(2)  = 0.926). Considering transplant type irrespective of the formulation used, the best LSS for liver transplants was C0_2_3 (r(2)  = 0.913) and for kidney transplants was C0_0.5_4 (r(2)  = 0.898). Best LSS, considering all data together, was C0_1_4 (r(2)  = 0.898). We developed several LSSs to predict AUC0-24 for tacrolimus in children and adolescents with kidney or liver transplants after Prograf(®) and/or Advagraf(®) treatment.

Conversion from Prograf to Advagraf in stable paediatric renal transplant patients and 1-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The conversion from Prograf to Advagraf on a 1:1 (mg:mg) basis has been questioned in light of the publication of studies showing a decrease in tacrolimus blood concentrations after the administration of Advagraf. METHODS: The bioavailability of Prograf and Advagraf was evaluated in an open-label conversion study in 21 stable renal transplant paediatric patients. Serial blood samples for determining tacrolimus levels were collected during a 24-h period before (on Prograf) and after (on Advagraf) conversion. Tacrolimus pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental approach and the relative bioavailability calculated. Clinical and analytical data were obtained at 30, 90, 180 and 360 days after study enrolment. RESULTS: The mean ratio and 90 % confidence interval (CI) for peak plasma drug concentration (C(max)) and the area under the time-concentration curve during the first 24 h (AUC(0-24)) were 81.54 (95 % CI 71.6-92.87) and 87.19 (95 % CI 79.91-95.13), respectively. Renal glomerular filtration rate remained stable over the course of the follow-up. Two patients presented clinical events unrelated to tacrolimus. Tacrolimus levels decreased in the first month, the dose/level ratio increased between months 1 and 6 and slight dose adjustments were required during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that Advagraf bioequivalence cannot be ensured in this population. Significant changes in tacrolimus levels and dose were observed on long-term follow-up.

Conversion from Prograf to Advagraf in adolescents with stable liver transplants: comparative pharmacokinetics and 1-year follow-up.

The recommended dose of Advagraf for conversion from Prograf is considered to be 1:1 on a milligram basis. However, the long-term equivalence of Prograf and Advagraf has been questioned. The relative bioavailability of Advagraf and Prograf was evaluated in a single-center, open-label study of Prograf-to-Advagraf conversion in 20 patients, ranging in age from 12 to 18 years, who had a stable liver transplant and were receiving Prograf. After the supervised administration of Prograf for 7 days, the patients were converted to Advagraf. On days 7 and 14, serial blood samples were obtained for tacrolimus determinations. The pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated with a noncompartmental approach, and the relative bioavailability of both formulations was calculated according to standard statistical methods. Polymorphisms in cytochrome P450 3A5 (rs776746), adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette B1 (rs1045642), POR*28 (rs1057868), and POR (rs2868177) were determined with standard methods. The clinical and analytical data from a 1-year follow-up period were collected for all patients 30, 90, 180, and 360 days after conversion. The mean ratios for Cmax and AUC0-24 were 96.9 (90% confidence interval = 85.37-110.19) and 100.1 (90% confidence interval = 90.8-112.1), respectively. No relationship was found between the patients' genotypes and the pharmacokinetic tacrolimus values. During the follow-up, biochemical parameters (aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, bilirubin, cystatin C, and creatinine) did not change significantly; 3 patients presented with relevant clinical events, but no event was considered to be related to tacrolimus. A decrease in tacrolimus blood levels and an increase in dose/level ratios were observed 3 and 6 months after conversion, but they returned to basal levels by month 12. In conclusion, conversion from Prograf to Advagraf with a 1:1 dose equivalence is appropriate as an initial guideline. Our 1-year follow-up showed a transient decrease in tacrolimus levels, so closer monitoring of tacrolimus levels may be required after conversion.