Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18568053›Full record

ArticleThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2003

Cyclosporin therapeutic drug monitoring--an established service revisited.

Raymond G Morris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Raymond G MorrisDepartment of Cardiology and Clinical Pharmacology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the routine application of therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin (CsA) for two decades, there remain significant analytical issues. In addition, new developments have arisen in the delivery of this laboratory service as well as alternative clinical strategies for delivering optimal benefit to organ transplant recipients. Sample collection strategies are evolving away from the traditional pre-dose/trough (C0) sample in favour of estimates of the absorption phase in the first 4-6 hours after the oral dose of CsA. This is based on the recognition of the relatively poor relationship between C0 and CsA exposure indices, such as area under the blood CsA concentration versus time curve (AUC), especially in the first few hours after the dose. By collecting serial blood samples over this limited period (4 hr after the dose) and estimating the AUC(0-4), one can gain insight into how well CsA has been absorbed for each transplant recipient, and individualise CsA dosage. However, a recent survey of Australasian CsA laboratories revealed that such AUC(0-4) sampling strategies in the early post-dose period were poorly accepted in clinics across Australasia. The alternative that has proven to be more clinically acceptable is the use of a single sample 2-hours after the dose (C2). The C2 concentration has been demonstrated (particularly in kidney and liver transplant recipients) as correlating well with AUC(0-4), allowing it to be used as a surrogate index of CsA absorption and exposure. The laboratory survey also showed several areas of concern in the analytical sphere. The major one is that the majority of laboratories employ the two immunoassays that deliver the least specific result on C0 samples within the range of monoclonal methods, leading to high variability and clinically significant errors with patient samples. Laboratories have also adopted a range of dilution protocols for the significantly higher C2 concentrations, and this has proved a source of significant error. In addition, around 30% of laboratories were not involved in a proficiency-testing program. Thus there is clear opportunity to do much better analytically. Hence, there remain significant challenges ahead to deliver better quality CsA assay services and dosage individualisation to further improve outcomes for the organ transplant recipients that we care for.

Identifiers

PMID18568053
PMCPMC1855625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.