METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the reference lists of all articles, were searched to identify population PK models of tacrolimus developed from adult transplant recipients published from the inception of the databases to 29 February 2020.

RESULTS: Of the 69 studies identified, 55% were developed from kidney transplant recipients and 30% from liver transplant recipients. Most studies (91%) investigated the oral immediate-release formulation of tacrolimus. Few studies (17%) explained the effect of drug-drug interactions on tacrolimus PK. Only 35% of the studies performed an external evaluation to assess the generalizability of the models. Studies related variability in tacrolimus whole blood clearance among transplant recipients to either cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5 genotype (41%), days post-transplant (30%), or hematocrit (29%). Variability in the central volume of distribution was mainly explained by body weight (20% of studies).

METHODS: Population pharmacokinetic models of tacrolimus were selected (n=17) for evaluation from a recent systematic review. The models were transcribed and implemented in NONMEM version 7.4.3. Data from 85 heart transplant recipients (2387 tacrolimus concentrations) administered the oral immediate-release formulation of tacrolimus (Prograf®) were obtained up to 391 days post-transplant. The performance of each model was evaluated using (1) prediction-based assessment (bias and imprecision) of the individual predicted tacrolimus concentration of the fourth dosing occasion (MAXEVAL=0, FOCE-I) from 1-3 prior dosing occasions and (2) simulation-based assessment (prediction-corrected visual predictive check, pcVPC). Both assessments were stratified based on concomitant azole antifungal use.

RESULTS: Regardless of the number of prior dosing occasions (1-3) and concomitant azole antifungal use, all models demonstrated unacceptable individual predicted tacrolimus concentration of the fourth dosing occasion (n=152). The pcVPC graphics indicated these models inadequately predicted observed tacrolimus concentrations.

METHODS: A retrospective audit of heart transplant recipients (n = 87) treated with tacrolimus was performed. Relevant data were collected from the time of transplant to discharge. The concordance of tacrolimus dosing and monitoring according to hospital guidelines was assessed. The observed and software-predicted tacrolimus concentrations (n = 931) were compared for the first 3 weeks of oral immediate-release tacrolimus (Prograf) therapy, and the predictive performance (bias and imprecision) of the software was evaluated.

RESULTS: The majority (96%) of initial oral tacrolimus doses were guideline concordant. Most initial intravenous doses (93%) were lower than the guideline recommendations. Overall, 36% of initial tacrolimus doses were administered to transplant recipients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <60 mL/min/1.73 m despite recommendations to delay the commencement of therapy. Of the tacrolimus concentrations collected during oral therapy (n = 1498), 25% were trough concentrations obtained at steady-state. The software displayed acceptable predictions of tacrolimus concentration from day 12 (bias: -6%; 95%confidence interval, -11.8 to 2.5; imprecision: 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8.7-24.3) of therapy.

METHODS: Data from heart transplant recipients (n = 87) administered the oral immediate-release formulation of tacrolimus (Prograf®) were collected. Routine drug monitoring data, principally trough concentrations, were used for model building (n = 1099). A published tacrolimus model was used to inform the estimation of Ka , V2 /F, Q/F and V3 /F. The effect of concomitant azole antifungal use on tacrolimus CL/F was quantified. Fat-free mass was implemented as a covariate on CL/F, V2 /F, V3 /F and Q/F on an allometry scale. Subsequently, stepwise covariate modelling was performed. Significant covariates influencing tacrolimus CL/F were included in the final model. Robustness of the final model was confirmed using prediction-corrected visual predictive check (pcVPC). The final model was externally evaluated for prediction of tacrolimus concentrations of the fourth dosing occasion (n = 87) from one to three prior dosing occasions.

METHODS: Data from 43 lung transplant recipients (1021 tacrolimus concentrations) administered an immediate-release oral formulation of tacrolimus were used to evaluate the predictive performance of 17 published population pharmacokinetic models for tacrolimus. Data were collected from immediately after transplantation up to 90 days after transplantation. Model performance was evaluated using (1) prediction-based assessments (bias and imprecision) of individual predicted tacrolimus concentrations at the fourth dosing based on 1 to 3 previous dosings and (2) simulation-based assessment (prediction-corrected visual predictive check; pcVPC). Both assessments were stratified based on concomitant azole antifungal use. Model performance was clinically acceptable if the bias was within ±20%, imprecision was ≤20%, and the 95% confidence interval of bias crossed zero.

RESULTS: In the presence of concomitant antifungal therapy, no model showed acceptable performance in predicting tacrolimus concentrations at the fourth dosing (n = 33), and pcVPC plots displayed poor model fit to the data set. However, this fit slightly improved in the absence of azole antifungal use, where 4 models showed acceptable performance in predicting tacrolimus concentrations at the fourth dosing (n = 33).