4.6 Review

Population Pharmacokinetics of Cyclosporine in Transplant Recipients

期刊

AAPS JOURNAL
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 901-912

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12248-013-9500-8

关键词

cyclosporine; population pharmacokinetics; transplant patients

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A number of classical pharmacokinetic studies have been conducted in transplant patients. However, they suffer from some limitations, for example, (1) the study design was limited to intense blood sampling in small groups of patients during a certain posttransplant period, (2) patient factors were evaluated one at a time to identify their association with the pharmacokinetic parameters, and (3) mean pharmacokinetic parameters often cannot be precisely estimated due to large intraindividual variability. Population pharmacokinetics provides a potential means of addressing these limitations and is a powerful tool to evaluate the magnitude and consistency of drug exposure. Population pharmacokinetic studies of cyclosporine focused solely on developing limited sampling strategies and Bayesian estimators to estimate drug exposure, have been summarized before, and are, therefore, not a subject of this review. The major focus of this review is to describe factors (demographic factors, hepatic and gastrointestinal functions, drug-drug interactions, genetic polymorphisms of drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters) that have been identified to contribute to the large portion of observed variability in the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in transplant patients. This review summarizes and interprets the conclusions as well as the nonlinear mixed-effects modeling methodologies used in such studies. A highly diversified collection of structural models, variability models, and covariate submodels have been evaluated and validated using internal or external validation methods. This review also highlights areas where additional research is warranted to improve the models since a portion of model variability still remains unexplained.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据