Role of immunophilins in therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs

1998 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 381-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J Soldin
2001 ◽  
Vol 52 (S1) ◽  
pp. 89-96
Author(s):  
David J. Back ◽  
Saye H. Khoo ◽  
Sara E. Gibbons ◽  
Concepta Merry

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sneha Tandon ◽  
Raviraj Deshpande ◽  
Gaurav Narula ◽  
Maya Prasad ◽  
Amey Paradkar ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (06) ◽  
pp. 270-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Baldelli ◽  
Emilio Clementi ◽  
Dario Cattaneo

AbstractThe updated AGNP Consensus Guidelines for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) in Neuropsychopharmacology recently published in the journal have reinforced the key role of TDM to individualize psychoparmacological therapies in clinical practice. However, we believe, that these guidelines have missed the important opportunity to face with, and to provide useful information on, the emerging issue of long-acting injectable formulations of atypical antipsychotics. Specific therapeutic ranges also for these formulations should be included in the next AGNP guidelines.


F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1832
Author(s):  
Angela W.S. Fung ◽  
Michael J. Knauer ◽  
Ivan M. Blasutig ◽  
David A. Colantonio ◽  
Vathany Kulasingam

Background:  Therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressant drugs are used to monitor drug efficacy and toxicity and to prevent organ transplant rejection. This study evaluates the analytical performance of semi-automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassays (ECLIA) for cyclosporine (CSA), tacrolimus (TAC) and sirolimus (SRL) on the Roche cobas e 411 analyzer at a major transplant hospital to assess method suitability and limitations. Methods: Residual whole blood samples from patients undergoing immunosuppressant therapy were used for evaluation. Imprecision, linearity, functional sensitivity, method comparisons and lot-to-lot comparisons were assessed. Results: Total imprecision ranged from 3.3 to 7.1% for CSA, 3.9 to 9.4% for TAC, and 4.6 to 8.2% for SRL. Linearity was verified from 30.0 to 960.9 μg/L for CSA, from 1.1 to 27.1 μg/L for TAC, and from 0.5 to 32.3 µg/L for SRL. The functional sensitivity met the manufacturer’s claims and was determined to be <6.5 μg/L for CSA, 1.1 μg/L for TAC, and <0.1 µg/L for SRL (CV≤20%). Deming regression analysis of method comparisons with the ARCHITECT immunoassay yielded slopes of 0.917 (95%CI: 0.885-0.949) and r of 0.985 for CSA, 0.938 (95%CI: 0.895-0.981) and r of 0.974 for TAC, and 0.842 (0.810-1.110) and r of 0.982 for SRL. Deming regression analysis of comparisons with the LC–MS/MS method yielded slopes of 1.331 (95%CI: 1.167-1.496) and r of 0.969 for CSA, 0.924 (95%CI: 0.843-1.005) and r of 0.984 for TAC, and 0.971 (95%CI: 0.913-1.030) and r of 0.993 for SRL. Conclusions: The cobas e 411 ECLIA for CSA, TAC, and SRL have acceptable precision, linearity, and functional sensitivity. The method comparisons correlated well with the ARCHITECT immunoassay and LC–MS/MS and is fit for therapeutic drug monitoring


2011 ◽  
pp. 238-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Camps-Valls ◽  
J. D. Martin-Guerrero

Recently, important advances in dosage formulations, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), and the emerging role of combined therapies have resulted in a substantial improvement in patients’ quality of life. Nevertheless, the increasing amounts of collected data and the non-linear nature of the underlying pharmacokinetic processes justify the development of mathematical models capable of predicting concentrations of a given administered drug and then adjusting the optimal dosage. Physical models of drug absorption and distribution and Bayesian forecasting have been used to predict blood concentrations, but their performance is not optimal and has given rise to the appearance of neural and kernel methods that could improve it. In this chapter, we present a complete review of neural and kernel models for TDM. All presented methods are theoretically motivated, and illustrative examples in real clinical problems are included.


Bioanalysis ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Hofman ◽  
Mathieu S Bolhuis ◽  
Remco A Koster ◽  
Onno W Akkerman ◽  
Sander van Assen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document