Quality assessment of cyclosporine monitoring by 32 Canadian laboratories

Randomized, international study of cyclosporine microemulsion absorption profiling in renal transplantation with basiliximab immunoprophylaxis

Increasing information suggests that absorption profiling may be superior to trough level monitoring for optimal concentration control of cyclosporine microemulsion (Neoral) therapy, and that CsA exposure early post-transplant may correlate significantly with reduced risk of acute graft rejection. This randomized, prospective, multicenter international concentration-controlled study was conducted in 21 renal transplant centers in 8 countries to test and compare the clinical feasibility, functionality, accuracy, precision and prediction of rejection by cyclosporine microemulsion absorption profiling to conventional trough-level drug monitoring. Primary or second renal allograft recipients treated with basiliximab, cyclosporine microemulsion and prednisone immunosuppression were randomized to two study groups in which cyclosporine microemulsion therapy was monitored using a multipointalgorithm or by trough levels. The two study arms were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics, treatment and clinical outcomes. Treatment failure, consisting of acute rejection, graft loss or death, occurred with equal incidence in the two groups (30% and 33%, respectively). Diagnostic feasibility, measured as the proportion of samples obtained within the designated time window, was marginally lower in area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) than in trough groups, but the therapeutic accuracy and precision were comparable or superior in the AUC group. Cox regression analysis performed across study groups showed a highly significant correlation between the predicted probability of acute rejection and cyclosporine (CsA) exposure measured by AUC over the entire 12-h dosage interval (AUC[0-12]) (p = 0.0068), AUC over the first 4 h of the 12-h dosage interval (AUC[0-4]) (p = 0.0014) or 2h post-dose (C2) CsA level (p = 0.0027). Day 3 dose- and weight-corrected C2 values (EMIT equivalent) separated patients into low (< 200 microg/L/mg/kg dose), intermediate (200-350 microg/L/mg/kg dose) and high absorber categories (> 350 microg/L/mg/kg dose), defining those at greatest risk. Within these categories, C2 values above approximately 1500 microg/L by day 3 post-transplant were associated with the lowest predicted probability of rejection. Comparable analysis by Cox regression using C0 levels did notreach statistical significance. Absorption profiling is a feasible, accurate and precise method for monitoring cyclosporine microemulsion therapy in clinical practice and, as shown in the companion article, may be simplified by the use of single-point C2 concentrations which accurately predict individual AUC[0-4] exposure levels. Both cyclosporine microemulsion relative absorption (i.e. dose- and weight-corrected exposure) and CsA exposure (measured by predicted AUC or C2 levels) are closely correlated with the risk of rejection, and define patients at high and low risk of acute graft rejection. Trough (C0) levels are not closely correlated with either CsA exposure or rejection risk, and should not be considered reliable for monitoring cyclosporine microemulsion therapy.

Simultaneous quantification of cyclosporin A and its major metabolites by time‐of‐flight secondary‐ion mass spectrometry and matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry utilizing data analysis techniques: Comparison with high‐performance liquid chromatography

Simultaneous quantification of cyclosporin A (CsA) and its major metabolite (AM1) in blood has been achieved using time‐of‐flight secondary‐ion mass spectrometry (TOF‐SIMS) and matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (MALDI/TOF‐MS). Previous investigations indicated that spectral interferences exist in the analysis of CsA blood samples by the above methods. In TOF‐SIMS, interference is caused by overlap of the Ag‐cationized internal standard, cyclosporin D (CsD), with the Ag‐cationized metabolite, AM1. To resolve this interference and obtain quantitative information, cross‐correlation analysis was applied to the TOF‐SIMS data. Application of damped non‐linear least squares curve‐fitting was carried out to resolve an interference in the MALDI/TOF‐MS data due to multiple cationization products (i.e. Na and K). Measurement of standard samples indicates that the minimum accuracy (95% confidence level) of the TOF‐SIMS method was better than 9% for CsA and 13% for AM1 using only one standard curve'. Similarly, the minimum accuracy of the MALDI/TOF‐MS method was determined to be 14% for CsA and better than 25% for AM1. Blood samples obtained from transplant patients receiving CsA were analyzed by polyclonal fluorescence polarization immunoassay, high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and by both TOF‐MS methods. Both TOF‐MS results for CsA and mono‐hydroxylated CsA are in good agreement with the HPLC results.

A review of assay methods for cyclosporin. Clinical implications

Cyclosporin is a unique immunosuppressive agent with a narrow therapeutic range. The pharmacokinetics of the drug present substantial within- and between-patient variability and drug interactions can significantly alter blood cyclosporin concentrations. Monitoring of cyclosporin concentrations in blood is an invaluable and essential aid in adjusting dosage to ensure adequate immunosuppression while minimising toxicity. The principal rationale behind therapeutic monitoring of cyclosporin is the fact that the incidence of rejection is higher at low cyclosporin concentrations and toxicity occurs more often at high concentrations. In renal transplant recipients, cyclosporin concentrations help to discriminate between insufficient immunosuppression and cyclosporin-induced nephrotoxicity. There are several methods available, both specific and nonspecific, for the routine measurement of cyclosporin. Radioimmunoassay and fluorescence polarisation immunoassay are most widely employed, while high performance liquid chromatography remains the reference procedure. The allegedly specific immunoassays tend to slightly overestimate the actual blood cyclosporin concentrations. There is a need for assay systems capable of measuring the biological activity of cyclosporin. Cyclosporin concentrations should be determined by a specific method, using whole blood as the sample matrix. The routine monitoring of individual cyclosporin metabolites is not warranted, but characterising the metabolite pattern of cyclosporin by concomitant use of a nonspecific and a specific assay can be clinically useful in patients with cyclosporin-associated toxicity or impaired liver function. In organ transplantation, measurement of blood cyclosporin concentration should be continued periodically as long as the therapy continues, whereas monitoring is only indicated in special circumstances in patients with autoimmune and other nontransplant diseases. The assessment of a 'therapeutic window' for cyclosporin is complicated for several reasons and definite target ranges cannot be given. Cyclosporin concentrations should always be interpreted in conjunction with the recent blood concentration history and other relevant clinical and laboratory data.