Table 2.

Correlations between MDZ Cl/F/W, tacrolimus Cl/F/W, 4β‐OHC/C/W and EBT

	Oral MDZ Cl/F/W		IV MDZ Cl/F/W		TAC Cl/F/W		4β‐OHC/C/W		EBT C60
	Pearson r	P‐value	Pearson r	P‐value	Pearson r	P‐value	Pearson r	P‐value	Pearson r	P‐value
Oral MDZ Cl/F/W	1	‐	0.807a	<0.001	0.262	0.001	0.490	<0.001	0.299a	0.008
IV MDZ Cl/F/W	0.807	<0.001	1	‐	0.505a	<0.001	0.399a	0.001	0.410a	<0.001
TAC Cl/F/W	0.262	0.001	0.505a	<0.001	1	‐	0.408	<0.001	0.209a	0.066
4β‐OHC/C/W	0.490	<0.001	0.399a	0.001	0.408	<0.001	1	‐	0.176a	0.123
EBT C60	0.299a	0.008	0.410a	<0.001	0.209a	0.066	0.176a	0.123	1	‐

^aSubgroup of 70 patients who underwent IV MDZ probe and EBT

4β‐OHC/C/W, weight‐corrected 4β‐hydroxycholesterol/cholesterol; Cl/F/W, weight‐corrected apparent oral clearance; EBT C60, erythromycin breath test recovery at 60 min; IV, intravenous; MDZ, midazolam; TAC, tacrolimus