Observational studyMedicine2020
Pharmacokinetic evaluation of MFF in combinations with tacrolimus and cyclosporine. Findings of C0 and AUC.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Mycophenolate Mofetil in the Treatment of Pediatric Anti-NMDAR Encephalitis: A Retrospective Analysis of 6 Cases.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We hypothesized that area under the concentration time curve (AUC(0-12)) is more accurate pharmacokinetic predictor vs trough level of mycophenolic acid (C0).Study was performed at the University Hospital of Limoges (France) and included 238 renal recipients aged 22 to 82 years. Risk of nephropathy was evaluated by analyzing data of protocol biopsies according to the Banff 97 classification.Assessment of immunosuppressants' exposures was based on the calculation of the mean of AUC(0-12). The AUC(0-12) was estimated using a Bayesian estimator and a 3-point limited sampling strategy. Cyclosporine and tacrolimus analyses were performed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method. The measurement of total mycophenolic acid was performed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method with ultraviolet detection. IBM SPSS 20.0 was used for statistical analysis.The most accurate dosing of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was observed in patients receiving MMF with tacrolimus, 70.6% of patients' AUC(0-12) exposures were within the therapeutic range. The highest rates of low dosing were observed in patients receiving MMF with cyclosporine, 30.9% of patients had AUC(0-12) exposures below the therapeutic range. The assessment of AUC(0-12) revealed 38% of chronic nephropathy cases, while C0 enables to identify only 20% of chronic nephropathy cases.Probability test results showed that more likely AUC(0-12) and C0 will be maintained within the therapeutic width if patients receive MMF with tacrolimus vs MMF with cyclosporine: 0.6320 vs 0.6410 for AUC(0-12) determination and 0.8415 vs 0.4827 for C0 determination.Combination of MMF with tacrolimus is dosed more precisely vs dosing of MMF with cyclosporine. 72 (70.6%) patients AUC(0-12) and 79 (77.5%) patients C0 out of 102 patients were within the therapeutic range. The AUC(0-12) monitoring of mycophenolic acid in patients receiving MMF with tacrolimus or in patients receiving MMF with cyclosporine enabled to identify more overdosing and possible risky cases.Study results show that standard MMF dosing without monitoring and with mycophenolic acid level within the therapeutic width is possible and demonstrates less risky cases in patients receiving MMF with tacrolimus, while patients receiving MMF with cyclosporine should be intensively monitored to achieve the highest safety. However, AUC(0-12) monitoring is advised showing better compliance vs C0 monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.