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).
CONCLUSION: The effect of clinically significant drug-drug interactions and different formulations and brands of tacrolimus should be considered for any future tacrolimus population PK model development. Further work is required to assess the generalizability of existing models and identify key factors that influence both initial and maintenance doses of tacrolimus, particularly in heart and lung transplant recipients.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: All models evaluated were unable to adequately describe tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in adult heart transplant recipients included in this study. Further work is required to describe tacrolimus pharmacokinetics for our heart transplant recipient cohort.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus dosing and monitoring were discordant with the guidelines. The Bayesian forecasting software was suitable for guiding tacrolimus dosing after 11 days of therapy in heart transplant recipients. Understanding the factors contributing to the variability in tacrolimus pharmacokinetics immediately after transplant may help improve software predictions.
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.
RESULTS: Concomitant azole antifungal therapy reduced tacrolimus CL/F by 80%. Haematocrit (∆OFV = -44, P
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).
CONCLUSIONS: Although none of the evaluated models were appropriate in guiding tacrolimus dosing in lung transplant recipients receiving concomitant azole antifungal therapy, 4 of these models displayed potential applicability in guiding dosing in recipients not receiving concomitant azole antifungal therapy. However, further model refinement is required before the widespread implementation of such models in clinical practice.
METHODS: Published population pharmacokinetic models and the Australasian Neonatal Medicines Formulary were used to simulate antimicrobial concentration-time profiles in a virtual neonate population. Laboratory quality assurance data were used to quantify analytical variation in antimicrobial measurement methods used in clinical practice. Guideline-informed dosing recommendations based on drug concentrations were applied to compare the impact of analytical variation and nonanalytical factors on antimicrobial dosing.
RESULTS: Analytical variation caused differences in subsequent guideline-informed dosing recommendations in 9.3-12.1% (amikacin), 16.2-19.0% (tobramycin), 12.2-45.8% (gentamicin), and 9.6-19.5% (vancomycin) of neonates. For vancomycin, inaccuracies in drug administration time (45.6%), use of non-trough concentrations (44.7%), within-subject biological variation (38.2%), and dosing errors (27.5%) were predicted to result in more dosing discrepancies than analytical variation (12.5%). Using current analytical performance specifications, tolerated dosing discrepancies would be up to 14.8% (aminoglycosides) and 23.7% (vancomycin).
CONCLUSIONS: Although analytical variation can influence neonatal antimicrobial dosing recommendations, nonanalytical factors are more influential. These result in substantial variation in subsequent dosing of antimicrobials, risking inadvertent under- or overexposure. Harmonization of measurement methods and improved patient management systems may reduce the impact of analytical and nonanalytical factors on neonatal antimicrobial dosing.