Tacrolimus: a further update of its use in the management of organ transplantation

Extensive clinical use has confirmed that tacrolimus (Prograf) is a key option for immunosuppression after transplantation. In large, prospective, randomised, multicentre trials in adults and children receiving solid organ transplants, tacrolimus was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure rates and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. Notably, the lower incidence of rejection episodes after renal transplantation in tacrolimus recipients was reflected in improved cost effectiveness. In bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients, the incidence of tacrolimus grade II-IV graft-versus-host disease was significantly lower with tacrolimus than cyclosporin treatment. Efficacy was maintained in renal and liver transplant recipients after total withdrawal of corticosteroid therapy from tacrolimus-based immunosuppression, with the incidence of acute rejection episodes at up to 2 years' follow-up being similar with or without corticosteroids. Tacrolimus provided effective rescue therapy in transplant recipients with persistent acute or chronic allograft rejection or drug-related toxicity associated with cyclosporin treatment. Typically, conversion to tacrolimus reversed rejection episodes and/or improved the tolerability profile, particularly in terms of reduced hyperlipidaemia. In lung transplant recipients with obliterative bronchiolitis, conversion to tacrolimus reduced the decline in and/or improved lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Tolerability issues may be a factor when choosing a calcineurin inhibitor. Cyclosporin tends to be associated with a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, hirsutism, gingivitis and gum hyperplasia, whereas the incidence of some types of neurotoxicity, disturbances in glucose metabolism, diarrhoea, pruritus and alopecia may be higher with tacrolimus treatment. Renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rates, was better in tacrolimus than cyclosporin recipients at up to 5 years' follow-up. CONCLUSION: Recent well designed trials have consolidated the place of tacrolimus as an important choice for primary immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation and in BMT. Notably, in adults and children receiving transplants, tacrolimus-based primary immunosuppression was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion treatment in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure and the incidence of acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. The reduced incidence of rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus translated into a better cost effectiveness relative to cyclosporin microemulsion treatment. The optimal immunosuppression regimen is ultimately dependent on balancing such factors as the efficacy of the individual drugs, their tolerability, potential for drug interactions and pharmacoeconomic issues.     

Cyclosporin microemulsion (Neoral). A pharmacoeconomic review of its use compared with standard cyclosporin in renal and hepatic transplantation.

Cyclosporin microemulsion (Neoral) is a self-emulsifying preconcentrate of cyclosporin which is more rapidly and consistently absorbed than the original oil-based formulation of cyclosporin (standard formulation; Sandimmun, Sandimmune). This superior pharmacokinetic profile suggests that cyclosporin microemulsion may be associated with improved therapeutic and economic outcomes compared with the standard formulation. Clinical studies comparing the 2 formulations of cyclosporin (using the recommended 1:1 dosage conversion factor) in de novo or stable renal and de novo liver transplant patients have demonstrated that cyclosporin microemulsion is as efficacious as the standard formulation. Rates of acute and chronic graft rejection are generally unaffected by the formulation of cyclosporin, although a trend toward fewer rejection episodes in cyclosporin microemulsion recipients was noted in several randomised studies (reaching statistical significance in 4 studies). Most transplant recipients experience adverse events during cyclosporin therapy, and with higher and more reliable maximum blood concentrations achieved by cyclosporin microemulsion, there is a potential risk of more drug-related adverse events. However, most studies have suggested that the frequency of drug-related adverse events (including nephrotoxicity) is not affected by the formulation of cyclosporin. Analyses of healthcare resource utilisation and associated costs in renal and liver transplant patients in Canadian and European studies have suggested that the cost of using cyclosporin microemulsion may be lower than the cost of using the standard formulation. Lower resource consumption among cyclosporin microemulsion recipients in several studies led to slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower overall healthcare costs in this group. The cost of cyclosporin itself was not included in most of these analyses; however, because the 2 formulations of cyclosporin are used in similar dosages and have similar acquisition costs, this was probably not an important factor in determining relative costs. A single cost analysis comparing cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus suggested that the 2 drugs were associated with similar overall costs. The available economic data on the use of cyclosporin microemulsion are subject to a number of important limitations. In particular, only partial results and study methodology have been reported for most analyses. Several studies were based on small patient groups (< 25) and short periods of follow-up (3 months), although some economic studies included larger patient groups receiving treatment for up to 1 year. Moreover, all of the analyses published to date were 'protocol driven' studies, and hence may not reflect resource use in usual clinical practice. CONCLUSION: In de novo and stable renal and de novo liver transplant recipients, cyclosporin microemulsion is as effective and well tolerated as the standard formulation of cyclosporin. Economic analyses comparing the 2 formulations indicate a consistent, although small and not statistically significant, reduction in overall healthcare costs associated with use of cyclosporin microemulsion.     

Tacrolimus once-daily formulation: in the prophylaxis of transplant rejection in renal or liver allograft recipients

Tacrolimus once-daily (OD) is a new oral formulation of the well established immunosuppressant tacrolimus. Tacrolimus OD provided equivalent steady-state systemic tacrolimus exposure to that achieved with standard oral tacrolimus twice daily in stable renal and liver transplant recipients. The two formulations also provided broadly similar steady-state systemic exposure in de novo renal and liver transplant recipients. In a large, randomised, nonblind, multicentre, three-armed, noninferiority trial in de novo renal transplant recipients, the efficacy failure rates (primary endpoint) [any patient who died, experienced graft failure, had a biopsy-confirmed acute rejection or was lost to follow-up] of tacrolimus OD (14.0%) and standard tacrolimus (15.1%) were noninferior to that of ciclosporin (cyclosporine) microemulsion (17.0%) at 1 year, when each was given in conjunction with corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil and basiliximab induction. Data from a pharmacokinetic study suggests that tacrolimus OD has similar efficacy to standard tacrolimus in de novo liver transplant recipients over 6 weeks of treatment. In noncomparative 2-year trials, tacrolimus OD was effective in stable renal and liver transplant recipients converted to tacrolimus OD from standard tacrolimus. The overall tolerability profile of tacrolimus OD appears to be similar to that of standard tacrolimus in de novo and stable renal and liver transplant patients.     

Mycophenolate mofetil: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in solid organ transplantation

Most pharmacoeconomic studies of mycophenolate mofetil have focused on its use as part of maintenance immunosuppression for renal transplantation, involving short-term (3 to 12 months) time frames. In general, mycophenolate mofetil reduced the treatment costs for rejection episodes and graft failure which offset its higher drug acquisition cost compared with azathioprine. Several cost analyses have been modelled on the large multicentre trials of adult renal transplant recipients. The use of mycophenolate mofetil was associated with either cost savings or no additional costs after 6 or 12 months in French, US and Canadian analyses of triple or quadruple immunosuppressant therapy. A further cost analysis utilising a registry database of renal transplant recipients in the US found mycophenolate mofetil to be cost saving compared with azathioprine after 6.4 years when evaluating costs due to graft loss only. Of the limited cost-effectiveness analyses with the drug, one US study modelled the 1- and 10-year cost effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil and various other immunosuppressants used in combined regimens. Long-term use of mycophenolate mofetil was less cost effective than other regimens, but the use of long-term mycophenolate mofetil in high-risk patients was shown to be a relatively cost-effective strategy. In another US analysis comparing mycophenolate mofetil with azathioprine as part of quadruple therapy, mycophenolate mofetil was associated with slightly lower costs during the first year after renal transplantation as well as improved clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Pharmacoeconomic studies support the use of mycophenolate mofetil as part of immunosuppressant therapy in renal transplantation, at least in the short term. Although the cost effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil in the long term is less clear, limited pharmacoeconomic data available appear promising. Among issues to be examined in future economic analyses in renal transplantation are the calcineurin-sparing potential of mycophenolate mofetil and the feasibility of using more efficient mycophenolate mofetil dosage regimens when using the drug on a long-term basis. Additional pharmacoeconomic analyses of mycophenolate mofetil are also needed in other types of solid organ transplantation.     

Effect of cyclosporine withdrawal on mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in kidney transplant recipients with deteriorating renal function: preliminary report.

Mycophenolic acid (MPA) concentrations are lower in transplant recipients receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and cyclosporine compared with MMF with tacrolimus. It is not clear whether this is due to an effect of cyclosporin or tacrolimus on MPA pharmacokinetics. To study this effect, kidney transplant recipients with deteriorating renal function (n = 5) receiving cyclosporin and steroids were given mycophenolate mofetil over 4 weeks during a run-in phase (1 g/d in week 1, 1.5 g/d in week 2, 2 g/d starting from week 3). From week 5 the cyclosporin dose was reduced, and it was completely withdrawn at week 10. Creatinine, MPA, and MPA glucuronide metabolites (MPAG, AcMPAG) were determined before (week 4) and after (week 11 and week 32) cyclosporin was withdrawn. Cyclosporin withdrawal was associated with increased MPA areas under the curve (AUCs) and predose concentrations in four of the five patients. In contrast, MPAG and AcMPAG AUCs as well as predose MPAG concentrations significantly decreased. Six months after cyclosporin withdrawal, MPA AUC and predose values tended to return to initial values, whereas metabolite concentrations remained low. Cyclosporin discontinuation caused an acute increase in MPA exposure and a concomitant reduction in metabolite concentrations. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that cyclosporin attenuates the enterohepatic recirculation of MPAG/MPA.     

Immunosuppressive drugs in paediatric liver transplantation

Orthotopic liver transplantation is established treatment for children with acute and chronic liver failure. Despite advances in pre- and postoperative management, innovative surgical techniques and new immunosuppressive drugs, acute and chronic rejection remains a problem. In addition, well established adverse effects of commonly used immunosuppressive drugs are no longer accept able. More potent, but less toxic, immunosuppressive agents have been developed and some novel compounds are now entering routine practice. Cyclosporin was the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy until the introduction of its novel pharmaceutical form (Neoral) with improved bioavailability, lower inter- and intraindividual pharmacokinetic variability and improved graft survival. Recently, tacrolimus, a macrolide drug with a similar mode of action, but much higher potency, was introduced and, at present, is the only agent which can successfully replace cyclosporin as a first-line immunosuppressive drug. Mycophenolate mofetil has recently been approved for use in adult and paediatric renal transplant recipients. It has a similar mode of action to cyclosporin and tacrolimus, but acts at a later stage of the T cell activation pathway. Administration with standard immunosuppressive drugs reduces the incidence of acute rejection and enables cyclosporin and tacrolimus dose reduction, thus reducing the risk of associated toxic effects. Phase I and II trials with sirolimus (rapamycin), a macrolide antibiotic, have shown comparable immunosuppressive action, when administered in conjunction with standard immunosuppressants. Further clinical trials need to be carried out to establish efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics in paediatric transplant recipients. Monoclonal antibody therapy (daclizumab and basiliximab) is an exciting new development whereby T cell proliferation is inhibited by selective blockade of interleukin (IL)-2 receptors. Preliminary results, when used in combination with a standard immunosuppressive regimen, are good with respect to incidence of acute graft rejection, host immune response and adverse effects. FTY720 is a novel synthetic immunosuppressive compound which induces a reduction in peripheral blood lymphocyte count through apoptotic T cell death or accelerated trafficking of T cells into lymphatic tissues. Experimental animal studies demonstrated synergistic action in combination with low dose cyclosporin or tacrolimus, potentiating their immunosuppressive effects. Further studies are being carried out to determine its potential for application in organ transplantation. Despite this rapid development of novel compounds, it will take many years before they may become part of standard protocols in paediatric transplantation medicine. Further development and research of efficacy and tolerability of existing drugs is, therefore, vital.     

The use of mycophenolate mofetil in liver transplant recipients

Mycophenolate mofetil is an important drug in the modern immunosuppressive arsenal. Mycophenolate mofetil is the semisynthetic morpholinoethyl ester of mycophenolate acid. Mycophenolate acid prevents T and B cell proliferation by specifically inhibiting a purine pathway required for lymphocyte division. This paper extensively reviews the experience of mycophenolate mofetil use in liver transplant recipients. In randomised trials, mycophenolate mofetil decreased the rate of acute rejection after liver transplantation, without a significant increase of septic complications. However, so far, there are no data indicating that mycophenolate mofetil increases liver transplant patient or graft survivals. Mycophenolate mofetil is interesting because of its particular side effects profile, which is very different from the other immunosuppressants. The absence of mycophenolate mofetil nephrotoxicity is of specific interest in liver recipients with impairment of renal function. The monitoring of mycophenolate acid area under the concentration time curve might be interesting to limit side effects and provide better clinical efficacy but the exact role of mycophenolate acid monitoring in liver recipients has yet to be further evaluated in large series.     

The use of mycophenolate mofetil in liver transplant recipients

Mycophenolate mofetil is an important drug in the modern immunosuppressive arsenal. Mycophenolate mofetil is the semisynthetic morpholinoethyl ester of mycophenolate acid. Mycophenolate acid prevents T and B cell proliferation by specifically inhibiting a purine pathway required for lymphocyte division. This paper extensively reviews the experience of mycophenolate mofetil use in liver transplant recipients. In randomised trials, mycophenolate mofetil decreased the rate of acute rejection after liver transplantation, without a significant increase of septic complications. However, so far, there are no data indicating that mycophenolate mofetil increases liver transplant patient or graft survivals. Mycophenolate mofetil is interesting because of its particular side effects profile, which is very different from the other immunosuppressants. The absence of mycophenolate mofetil nephrotoxicity is of specific interest in liver recipients with impairment of renal function. The monitoring of mycophenolate acid area under the concentration time curve might be interesting to limit side effects and provide better clinical efficacy but the exact role of mycophenolate acid monitoring in liver recipients has yet to be further evaluated in large series.     

Antibody-mediated rejection following renal transplantation

Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) accounts for 20-30% of all acute rejection episodes following renal transplantation. AMR is generally less responsive to conventional anti-rejection therapy, resulting in poor allograft survival. Introduction of C4d immunostaining of renal allograft biopsies and the demonstration of donor-specific antibodies in the recipients have increased our ability to diagnose AMR. Therapeutic options are evolving and include plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, immunoadsorption and rituximab, together with intensification of immunosuppression with a tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil combination. Future studies might further define optimal therapeutic approach in renal transplant recipients presenting with AMR.     

Pharmacology of immunosuppressive drugs

Immunosuppressive therapy of solid organ transplantation has become more potent, effective and selective since the results of earlier use of prednisone and azathioprine post renal transplantation. Calcineurin inhibitors and mycophenolate mofetil have been important additions to the effective antirejection armamentarium. Today, cyclosporin, tacrolimus, azathioprine, mycophenolate and prednisone are all effective immunosuppressive agents and are the cornerstone of immunosuppressive protocols used posttransplant. However, the use of these agents is hindered by a 20% rate of rejection, lack of selectivity and a high rate of major adverse drug reactions which ultimately lead to a decrease in patient and graft survival. A number of clinical trials are underway to compare efficacy, safety and tolerability of different combination protocols to improve patient and allograft survival and decrease adverse drug reactions. Clinical knowledge of the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse drug reactions and therapeutic drug monitoring of antirejection agents is essential for designing an effective immunosuppressive protocol for individual solid organ transplant recipients. The clinical application of pharmacotherapeutic principles into the clinical practice will improve both long-term patient and allograft survival while minimizing systemic toxicity of immunosuppressive drugs.     

Calcineurin inhibitors in pediatric renal transplant recipients

The calcineurin inhibitors, cyclosporine (ciclosporin) [microemulsion] and tacrolimus, are the principal immunosuppressants prescribed for adult and pediatric renal transplantation. For pediatric patients, both drugs should be dosed per body surface area, and pharmacokinetic monitoring is mandatory. While monitoring of the trough levels may suffice for tacrolimus, cyclosporine therapy that utilizes the microemulsion formulation requires additional monitoring (e.g. determination of 2-hour post-dose levels).In a well designed randomized study in children, as in studies in adults, there was no difference in short-term patient and graft survival with cyclosporine microemulsion and tacrolimus. However, tacrolimus was significantly more effective than cyclosporine microemulsion in preventing acute rejection after renal transplantation when used in conjunction with azathioprine and corticosteroids. With regard to long-term outcome, the difference in acute rejection episodes resulted in a better glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after transplantation and eventually in better graft survival 4 years after renal transplantation. Whether this difference persists when calcineurin inhibitors are used in combination with mycophenolate mofetil has not been determined. The prevalence of hypomagnesemia was higher in the tacrolimus group whereas hypertrichosis and gingival hyperplasia occurred more frequently in the cyclosporine group. In contrast with adults, the incidence of post-transplantation diabetes mellitus was not significantly different between tacrolimus- and cyclosporine-treated patients. There was also no difference with regard to post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder. Medication costs were similar, but in view of the lower rejection episodes and better long-term graft survival as well as the more favorable cosmetic side effect profile, tacrolimus may be preferable. The recommendation drawn from the available data is that both cyclosporine and tacrolimus can be used safely and effectively in children. We recommend that cyclosporine should be chosen when patients experience tacrolimus-related adverse events.     

Calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation: what is the best option?

Recently, new calcineurin inhibitors, such as tacrolimus (FK-506) and microemulsion cyclosporin, have been approved for maintenance immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients and short-term outcomes have been accumulating. In the majority of patients, these calcineurin inhibitors have been used in combination with new immunosuppressive drugs, such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or sirolimus. Under these circumstances, a comparison of cyclosporin and tacrolimus provides the answer to a very important controversial issue. Which drug should we choose in individual patients? In an attempt to answer this question, this review compared the use of tacrolimus and cyclosporin in modern immunosuppressive regimens, which have already been published in well designed clinical studies, and discusses how immunosuppression should be individualised in renal transplant patients.Overall, short-term patient and graft survival with cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus is almost identical. The incidence of acute rejection is generally lower in tacrolimus/azathioprine- than in cyclosporin/azathioprine-treated patients. However, in conjunction with MMF, the difference in the incidence of acute rejection between tacrolimus- and cyclosporin-treated patients became smaller. Adverse events, such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and cosmetic changes (gum hypertrophy, hirsutism) seem to be less frequent in tacrolimus-treated than in cyclosporin-treated patients. Recent randomised studies showed that the incidence of post-transplant diabetes mellitus was almost identical between low-dose tacrolimus- and cyclosporin-treated patients. According to the data discussed in this review, the recommendation on the choice of calcineurin inhibitors at this moment is that either cyclosporin or tacrolimus can be used safely and effectively for patients without any risk factors. However, at our centre, we prefer tacrolimus to cyclosporin in patients with a high risk for rejection, such as those with ABO-incompatibility, delayed graft function, sensitisation, and African American race and some other risk factors, such as hypertension and hyperlipidaemia. Moreover, tacrolimus may be preferable to cyclosporin for women because of hirsutism and for children because of the steroid-sparing effect. We consider that cyclosporin should be chosen when patients experience tacrolimus-related adverse events, such as severe chest pain, tremor, gastrointestinal symptoms and encephalopathy. In conclusion, well tolerated and effective immunosuppression is feasible with both cyclosporin and tacrolimus. In the current immunosuppressive regimens, a calcineurin inhibitor, either tacrolimus or cyclosporin, is the essential basic standard immunosuppressant. Clinicians need to decide the best means of optimising therapy for individual patients, based on various risk factors, such as risk of rejection, i.e. sensitisation, delayed graft function and ABO-incompatibility, and some adverse events, such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and cosmetic changes.     

肝移植术后他克莫司加泼尼松免疫抑制治疗的临床疗效

目的 :探讨肝移植术后他克莫司 (FK5 0 6 ) +泼尼松 (Pred)二联免疫抑制治疗方案的临床疗效及药物不良反应。方法 :对肝移植术后应用FK5 0 6 +Pred二联免疫抑制方案治疗的 2 5例患者 (A组 ,术后 2 4h即应用FK5 0 6 +Pred方案的 15例 ,以及因出现排斥反应或严重药物不良反应由CsA +MMF +Pred改为FK5 0 6 +Pred方案的 10例 )和应用环孢素 (CsA) +霉酚酸酯(MMF) +Pred三联免疫抑制方案治疗的 2 0例患者 (B组 )进行比较 ,临床观察 12mo。结果 :2组移植前后血Cr均无明显变化 ,但A组移植术后排斥反应及药物不良反应发生率显著低于B组 (P <0 0 1) ;由CsA +MMF +Pred改为FK5 0 6 +Pred方案的 10例患者 ,排斥反应和药物不良反应均得到有效控制。A组的主要药物不良反应有腹泻和神经系统毒性 ,仅有 2例分别于术后mo 1,2发生血糖升高。结论 :肝移植术后FK5 0 6 +Pred二联免疫抑制治疗方案是有效的     

The cost effectiveness of tacrolimus versus microemulsified cyclosporin: a 10-year model of renal transplantation outcomes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In 1983, the launch of cyclosporin was a significant clinical advance for organ transplant recipients. Subsequent drug research led to further advances with the introduction of cyclosporin microemulsion (cyclosporin ME) and tacrolimus. This paper presents the results from a long-term model comparing the clinical and economic outcomes associated with cyclosporin ME and tacrolimus immunosuppression for the prevention of graft rejection following renal transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: A model was developed to project the costs and outcomes over a 10-year period following transplantation. The model was based on the results of a prospective, randomised study of 179 renal transplantation recipients receiving either cyclosporin ME or tacrolimus, which was conducted by the Welsh Transplantation Research Group (median follow-up: 2.7 years). METHODS: The short-term costs and outcomes were the averages from the actual head-to-head trial data. From this, the long-term costs and outcomes were extrapolated based on the rate of change in patient and graft survival at 3, 5 and 10 years post transplant, as reported in the 1995 United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority Renal Transplant Audit. PERSPECTIVE AND YEAR OF COST DATA: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a UK transplant unit. Costs were at 1999 prices (pounds sterling 1 = dollars US 1.42 = Euro 1.5) and costs and outcomes were discounted at 6% and 1.5%, respectively. RESULTS: The model estimated that 10 years after transplantation, the proportion of patients surviving was 56% of the cyclosporin ME cohort and 64% of the tacrolimus cohort. The cumulative cost of maintenance therapy at 10 years was pounds sterling 23204 per patient maintained on cyclosporin ME versus pounds sterling 23803 per patient on tacrolimus. The cost per survivor at 10 years was pounds sterling 37000 (tacrolimus) versus pounds sterling 41000 (cyclosporin ME) and the cost per patient with a functioning graft was pounds sterling 39000 versus pounds sterling 45000. A Monte Carlo simulation of the model (10000 simulations) gave an average cost at 10 years of pounds sterling 23279 (SD pounds sterling 3457) for cyclosporin ME and pounds sterling 22841 (SD pounds sterling 3590) for tacrolimus. A (second order) probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also performed. The average cost at 10 years from a simulated cohort of 1000 was pounds sterling 23473 (SD pounds sterling 2154) for cyclosporin ME and pounds sterling 24087 (SD pounds sterling 2025) for tacrolimus. CONCLUSION: Renal transplant recipients maintained on tacrolimus have better short- and long-term outcomes than patients maintained on cyclosporin ME. The long-term use of tacrolimus is a more cost-effective solution in terms of the number of survivors, patients with a functioning graft and rejection-free patients.     

Tacrolimus: a further update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in the management of organ transplantation

Tacrolimus (FK-506) is an immunosuppressant agent that acts by a variety of different mechanisms which include inhibition of calcineurin. It is used as a therapeutic alternative to cyclosporin, and therefore represents a cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy in organ transplant recipients. Tacrolimus is now well established for primary immunosuppression in liver and kidney transplantation, and experience with its use in other types of solid organ transplantation, including heart, lung, pancreas and intestinal, as well as its use for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT), is rapidly accumulating. Large randomised nonblind multicentre studies conducted in the US and Europe in both liver and kidney transplantation showed similar patient and graft survival rates between treatment groups (although rates were numerically higher with tacrolimus- versus cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in adults with liver transplants), and a consistent statistically significant advantage for tacrolimus with respect to acute rejection rate. Chronic rejection rates were also significantly lower with tacrolimus in a large randomised liver transplantation trial, and a trend towards a lower rate of chronic rejection was noted with tacrolimus in a large multicentre renal transplantation study. In general, a similar trend in overall efficacy has been demonstrated in a number of additional clinical trials comparing tacrolimus- with cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in various types of transplantation. One notable exception is in BMT, where a large randomised trial showed significantly better 2-year patient survival with cyclosporin over tacrolimus, which was primarily attributed to patients with advanced haematological malignancies at the time of (matched sibling donor) BMT. These survival results in BMT require further elucidation. Tacrolimus has also demonstrated efficacy in various types of transplantation as rescue therapy in patients who experience persistent acute rejection (or significant adverse effect's) with cyclosporin-based therapy, whereas cyclosporin has not demonstrated a similar capacity to reverse refractory acute rejection. A corticosteroid-sparing effect has been demonstrated in several studies with tacrolimus, which may be a particularly useful consideration in children receiving transplants. The differences in the tolerability profiles of tacrolimus and cyclosporin may well be an influential factor in selecting the optimal treatment for patients undergoing organ transplantation. Although both drugs have a similar degree of nephrotoxicity, cyclosporin has a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, hirsutism and gingival hyperplasia, while tacrolimus has a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, some types of neurotoxicity (e.g. tremor, paraesthesia), diarrhoea and alopecia. Conclusion: Tacrolimus is an important therapeutic option for the optimal individualisation of immunosuppressive therapy in transplant recipients.     

Review of the proliferation inhibitor everolimus

Everolimus (Certican) is being developed for prevention of acute and chronic rejection of solid organ transplants. A novel proliferation inhibitor, everolimus synergies with cyclosporine to prevent and reverse acute rejection in preclinical models of kidney, heart or lung transplantation. The manifestations of chronic rejection that may contribute to graft loss are also inhibited by everolimus in preclinical models. Although everolimus is metabolised by the cytochrome P450 CYP3A isoenzyme, coadministration with cyclosporine does not alter the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine, but cyclosporine coadministration increases exposure to everolimus. Everolimus interacts with inhibitors and inducers of this system; its clearance is reduced in patients with hepatic impairment. In an immunosuppressive regimen with cyclosporine microemulsion formulation and corticosteroids, transplant recipients treated with everolimus show low rates of acute rejection and, in one heart and one renal trial, lower rates of cytomegalovirus infection. Acute rejection rates are lower than those seen with azathioprine in cardiac transplant recipients and similar to those seen with mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Low rates of acute rejection are maintained when everolimus is given as part of a quadruple immunosuppressive regimen with low-dose cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients, with the added benefit of better renal function compared with full-dose cyclosporine. Use of C(2) monitoring to optimise cyclosporine exposure and enhance efficacy and safety of everolimus is planned in future studies. Hypertriglyceridaemia and hypercholesterolaemia have been associated with everolimus, but these effects are not dose-limiting. There is no clear upper therapeutic limit of everolimus. However, thrombocytopenia occurs at a rate of 17% at everolimus trough serum concentrations above 7.8 ng/ml in renal transplant recipients. There are limited safety data available in patients with trough concentrations > 12 ng/ml. Studies suggest everolimus targets primary causes of chronic rejection by reducing acute rejection, allowing for cyclosporine dose reduction (which may lead to improved renal function relative to full-dose cyclosporine) and by reducing cytomegalovirus infection and inhibiting vascular remodelling.     

Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium for transplant immunosuppression.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, monitoring, and dosage and administration of enteric-coated (EC) mycophenolate sodium are reviewed. SUMMARY: EC mycophenolate sodium is the EC salt form of mycophenolic acid (MPA), the active component of the pro-drug, mycophenolate mofetil. EC mycophenolate sodium was developed to reduce the upper-gastrointestinal (GI) effects of mycophenolate mofetil. Unlike oral mycophenolate mofetil, which releases MPA in the stomach, EC mycophenolate sodium releases MPA in the small intestine. The absolute bioavailability of EC mycophenolate sodium is 72%. MPA undergoes hepatic metabolism by glucuronyl transferase to the inactive mycophenolic acid glucuronide (MPAG), the predominant metabolite. The majority of an administered dose of EC mycophenolate sodium is found as MPAG in the urine. The mean terminal half-life of MPA ranges from 8 to 16 hours. EC mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil have equivalent mechanisms of action and drug interaction profiles. Thus far, EC mycophenolate sodium has demonstrated similar efficacy and safety to mycophenolate mofetil in two Phase III clinical trials of adult renal transplant recipients. One study demonstrated improved health-related quality of life in patients switched from mycophenolate mofetil to EC mycophenolate sodium. Ongoing Phase IV studies are trying to further determine advantages of the EC product. CONCLUSION: EC mycophenolate sodium is a safe and effective immunosuppressive agent approved for use in the prevention of acute rejection after renal transplantation. It offers an excellent addition to the current armamentarium of immunosuppressive drugs for transplant immunosuppression.     

Basiliximab: a review of its use as induction therapy in renal transplantation

Basiliximab (Simulect), a chimeric (human/murine) monoclonal antibody, is indicated for the prevention of acute organ rejection in adult and paediatric renal transplant recipients in combination with other immunosuppressive agents.Basiliximab significantly reduced acute rejection compared with placebo in renal transplant recipients receiving dual- (cyclosporin microemulsion and corticosteroids) or triple-immunotherapy (azathioprine- or mycophenolate mofetil-based); graft and patient survival rates at 12 months were similar. Significantly more basiliximab than placebo recipients were free from the combined endpoint of death, graft loss or acute rejection 3 years, but not 5 years, after transplantation.The incidence of adverse events was similar in basiliximab and placebo recipients, with no increase in the incidence of infection, including cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Malignancies or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders after treatment with basiliximab were rare, with a similar incidence to that seen with placebo at 12 months or 5 years post-transplantation. Rare cases of hypersensitivity reactions to basiliximab have been reported.The efficacy of basiliximab was similar to that of equine antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and daclizumab, and similar to or greater than that of muromonab CD3. Basiliximab was as effective as rabbit antithymocyte globulin (RATG) in patients at relatively low risk of acute rejection, but less effective in high-risk patients. Numerically or significantly fewer patients receiving basiliximab experienced adverse events considered to be related to the study drug than ATG or RATG recipients. The incidence of infection, including CMV infection, was similar with basiliximab and ATG or RATG.Basiliximab plus baseline immunosuppression resulted in no significant differences in acute rejection rates compared with baseline immunosuppression with or without ATG or antilymphocyte globulin in retrospective analyses conducted for small numbers of paediatric patients. Limited data from paediatric renal transplant recipients suggest a similar tolerability profile to that in adults. Basiliximab appears to allow the withdrawal of corticosteroids or the use of corticosteroid-free or calcineurin inhibitor-sparing regimens in renal transplant recipients.Basiliximab did not increase the overall costs of therapy in pharmacoeconomic studies.CONCLUSION: Basiliximab reduces acute rejection without increasing the incidence of adverse events, including infection and malignancy, in renal transplant recipients when combined with standard dual- or triple-immunotherapy. The overall incidence of death, graft loss or acute rejection was significantly reduced at 3 years; there was no significant difference for this endpoint 5 years after transplantation. Malignancy was not increased at 5 years. The overall efficacy, tolerability, ease of administration and cost effectiveness of basiliximab make it an attractive option for the prophylaxis of acute renal transplant rejection.     

Review of the proliferation inhibitor everolimus

Everolimus (Certican^?) is being developed for prevention of acute and chronic rejection of solid organ transplants. A novel proliferation inhibitor, everolimus synergies with cyclosporine to prevent and reverse acute rejection in preclinical models of kidney, heart or lung transplantation. The manifestations of chronic rejection that may contribute to graft loss are also inhibited by everolimus in preclinical models. Although everolimus is metabolised by the cytochrome P450 CYP3A isoenzyme, coadministration with cyclosporine does not alter the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine, but cyclosporine coadministration increases exposure to everolimus. Everolimus interacts with inhibitors and inducers of this system; its clearance is reduced in patients with hepatic impairment. In an immunosuppressive regimen with cyclosporine microemulsion formulation and corticosteroids, transplant recipients treated with everolimus show low rates of acute rejection and, in one heart and one renal trial, lower rates of cytomegalovirus infection. Acute rejection rates are lower than those seen with azathioprine in cardiac transplant recipients and similar to those seen with mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients. Low rates of acute rejection are maintained when everolimus is given as part of a quadruple immunosuppressive regimen with low-dose cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients, with the added benefit of better renal function compared with full-dose cyclosporine. Use of C₂ monitoring to optimise cyclosporine exposure and enhance efficacy and safety of everolimus is planned in future studies. Hypertriglyceridaemia and hypercholesterolaemia have been associated with everolimus, but these effects are not dose-limiting. There is no clear upper therapeutic limit of everolimus. However, thrombocytopenia occurs at a rate of 17% at everolimus trough serum concentrations above 7.8 ng/ml in renal transplant recipients. There are limited safety data available in patients with trough concentrations > 12 ng/ml. Studies suggest everolimus targets primary causes of chronic rejection by reducing acute rejection, allowing for cyclosporine dose reduction (which may lead to improved renal function relative to full-dose cyclosporine) and by reducing cytomegalovirus infection and inhibiting vascular remodelling.     

Therapeutic monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in organ transplant recipients: is it necessary?

Adequate immunosuppression minimising the risk of organ rejection with acceptable tolerability of the used drugs is a crucial step in organ transplantation. The primary goal is to maintain a consistent time-dependent target concentration by tailoring individual dosage leading to the best efficacy and tolerability combination. The use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to optimise immunosuppressive therapy is routinely employed for maintenance drugs such as cyclosporin and tacrolimus. The question whether therapeutic monitoring of mycophenolic acid (MPA) in organ transplant recipients treated with mycophenolate mofetil is necessary is not definitely answered. The correlation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetic parameters with efficacy and toxicity makes the therapeutic monitoring of this drug promising. However, further studies are mandatory to draw the best guidelines in order to achieve higher levels of evidence that MPA-TDM may improve patient outcome.