A Population Pharmacokinetic Model of Tocilizumab in Kidney Transplant Patients Treated for Chronic Active Antibody-Mediated Rejection: Comparison of Plasma Exposure Between Intravenous and Subcutaneous Administration Schemes

Background Tocilizumab prevents the clinical worsening of chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (CAAMR) in kidney transplant recipients. Following a global shortage of the intravenous pharmaceutical form in 2022, patients were switched from monthly intravenous administration of 8 mg/kg to weekly subcutaneous injection of 162 mg, raising the question of bioequivalence between these schemes of administration. Aims We aimed to compare the areas under the curve (AUC) of tocilizumab in virtual simulations of populations treated with the two administration schemes and to identify the covariates that could contribute to pharmacokinetic variability of tocilizumab in kidney transplant patients with CAAMR who received tocilizumab as salvage treatment. Methods This retrospective monocentric study included 43 kidney transplant patients (202 tocilizumab concentrations) with CAAMR treated with intravenous or subcutaneous tocilizumab between December 2020 and January 2023. We developed a population pharmacokinetic model using nonlinear mixed effects modeling and identified the covariates that could contribute to tocilizumab AUC variability. Monte Carlo simulations were then performed to assess the subcutaneous and intravenous tocilizumab AUC for 0–28 days (M1), 56–84 days (M3), 140–168 days (M6), and 308–336 days (M12). Bioequivalence was defined by SC/IV AUC geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between 0.80 and 1.25. Results A two-compartment model with parallel linear and nonlinear elimination best described the concentration–time data. Significant covariates for tocilizumab clearance were body weight, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), and inflammation status [C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 5 mg/L]. The GMR values and their 90% confidence intervals at M3, M6, and M12 were within the 0.8–1.25 margin for equivalence. Conversely, the 90% prediction intervals of the GMR were much wider than the 90% confidence intervals and did not fall within 0.8 and 1.25. Conclusions From month 3 of treatment, the subcutaneous and intravenous tocilizumab administration schemes provided average bioequivalent pharmacokinetic exposure at the population level but not at the individual level. Body weight, inflammation, ACR, and administration scheme should be considered to personalize the dose of tocilizumab for patients with CAAMR. Further studies are required to determine the target of tocilizumab exposure in kidney transplant patients with CAAMR.