The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus: correlations with efficacy and toxicity
Abstract
We sought to examine the potential benefits of therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus, a potent immunosuppressive agent that displays a pleiotropic array of side effects. Methods. A high‐performance liquid chromatography (LC) procedure combined with ultraviolet detection (UV) was used to measure serial concentrations of parent compound sirolimus in 150 renal transplant recipients over a period of 4 yr. Drug concentrations in whole blood at trough time, as well as within pharmacokinetic profiles, were correlated with clinical events using contingency tables, logistic regression analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results. The LC/UV method showed an excellent correlation with detection of LC‐resolved components by tandem mass spectrometry, demonstrating that the LC/UV method selectively detected parent compound. Sirolimus displayed the characteristics of a critical‐dose drug: Its concentration could not be predicted by a standard body or demographic measure, or by dose, and it showed high degrees of intra‐ and inter‐individual variability. However, there was a good correlation between trough and area‐under‐the‐curve measurements. There was a significant association between trough values expressed as either observed (<5 ng/mL) or dose‐corrected parameter (<1.7 ng/mL per mg administered drug) and the occurrence and severity of acute rejection episodes – despite the low overall incidence of 23 episodes among the cohort of 150 patients. Similarly, ROC functions showed a correlation of the occurrence of hypertriglyceridemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia, but not hypercholesterolemia, with trough concentrations above 15 ng/mL. Conclusion. Due to its behavior as a critical‐dose drug, therapeutic monitoring to measure sirolimus concentrations by a LC/UV method may provide clinicians with a tool to optimize outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kahan, B. D. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02480-6 · Cited by 913
Self-citationDean, P. G., Lund, W. J., Larson, T. S., Prieto, M., Nyberg, S. L., Ishitani, M. B., Kremers, W. K., & Stegall, M. D. (2004) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/01.tp.0000123082.31092.53 · Cited by 332
Morrisett, J. D., Abdel-Fattah, G., Hoogeveen, R., Mitchell, E., Ballantyne, C. M., Pownall, H. J., Opekun, A. R., Jaffe, J. S., Oppermann, S., & Kahan, B. D. (2002) · Journal of Lipid Research · doi:10.1194/jlr.m100392-jlr200 · Cited by 295
Self-citationAutophagy and ALS: mechanistic insights and therapeutic implications
Chua, J. P., De Calbiac, H., Kabashi, E., & Barmada, S. J. (2022) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2021.1926656 · Cited by 189
Kraig, E., Linehan, L. A., Liang, H., Romo, T. Q., Liu, Q., Wu, Y., Benavides, A. D., Curiel, T. J., Javors, M. A., Musi, N., et al. (2018) · Experimental Gerontology · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2017.12.026 · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Kahan, B., Napoli, K., Kelly, P., Podbielski, J., Hussein, I., Urbauer, D., Katz, S., & Van Buren, C.
- Venue
- Clinical Transplantation
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 97-109
- ISSN
- 0902-0063 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-0012
- OpenAlex
- W2064380726
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus: correlations with efficacy and toxicity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1399-0012.2000.140201.x
- The paper
- Kahan, B., Napoli, K., Kelly, P., Podbielski, J., Hussein, I., Urbauer, D., Katz, S., & Van Buren, C. (2000). Therapeutic drug monitoring of sirolimus: correlations with efficacy and toxicity. Clinical Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0012.2000.140201.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.