FTY720 versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplantation: six-month results of a double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: FTY720 is a novel immunomodulator that was developed to produce optimal graft protection with improved safety and tolerability. Phase II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of FTY720 up to the doses of 2.5 mg with full-dose cyclosporine (FDC). METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, Phase IIb, randomized study evaluated the safety and efficacy of 5 mg FTY720 (n=87; Group 1) vs. 2.5 mg FTY720 (n=90; Group 2) vs. mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; n=94; Group 3) in de novo renal transplant patients receiving FDC and prednisone. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or premature study discontinuation (composite endpoint) within 6 months. The primary endpoint was superior in Group 1 (24%) and statistically noninferior in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (24.1% vs. 29.2% vs. 39.4%; P=0.025 and 0.0039, respectively). FTY720 plus FDC was generally well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events across all groups. FTY720 was associated with higher incidence of bradycardia (Group 1: 26.4%, P=0.0002 and Group 2: 15.6%, P=0.046, vs. Group 3: 6.4%), respiratory disorders (Group 1: 40.2%, not significant [P=NS] and Group 2: 34.4%, P=NS vs. Group 3: 28.7%). One macular edema occurred in Group 2. Lower creatinine clearances were observed with FTY720 versus MMF (Group 1: 52.4 ml/min, P=NS and Group 2: 51.7 ml/min, P=0.039 vs. Group 3: 62.5 ml/min). CONCLUSIONS: Although FTY720 with FDC provided adequate protection from acute rejection the safety profile was less favorable for adverse events than current standard immunosuppression in de novo renal transplant patients.

Therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus in kidney transplantation using 12-month exposure, efficacy, and safety data.

The aims of the current study were to determine whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) might benefit kidney transplant recipients receiving everolimus, and to establish dosage recommendations when everolimus is used in combination with cyclosporine and corticosteroids. The analysis was based on data from 779 patients enrolled in two 12-month trials. Everolimus trough concentrations >/=3 ng/mL were associated with a reduced incidence in biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) in the first month (p = 0.0001) and the first 6 months (p = 0.0001), and reduced graft loss compared with lower concentrations (4% vs. 20%, respectively). By contrast, cyclosporine in the standard concentration range had no impact on BPAR within the same timeframes. Most patients receiving everolimus 1.5 or 3 mg/d achieved trough concentrations above the therapeutic threshold of 3 ng/mL, regardless of reductions in cyclosporine dose. TDM simulation showed that just two dose adjustments would achieve median everolimus trough values >/=3 ng/mL in 95% of patients during the first 6 months. This investigation indicates that improved efficacy is likely when TDM is considered as an integral component of the immunosuppressive strategy of everolimus.

Therapeutic drug monitoring for everolimus in heart transplant recipients based on exposure-effect modeling.

Everolimus, a proliferation signal inhibitor, is an immunosuppressant that targets the primary causes of progressive allograft dysfunction, thus improving the long-term outcome after heart transplantation. The present study investigated whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of everolimus would benefit heart transplant patients. Data from a twelve-month phase III trial comparing everolimus (1.5 or 3 mg daily) with azathioprine were used to evaluate everolimus pharmacokinetics, exposure-efficacy/safety and TDM prognostic simulations. Everolimus trough levels were stable in the first year post-transplant and averaged 5.2 +/- 3.8 and 9.4 +/- 6.3 ng/mL in patients treated with 1.5 and 3 mg/day, respectively. Cyclosporine trough levels were similar in all treatment groups. Biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) was reduced with everolimus trough levels > or =3 ng/mL. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) analysis showed evidence of reduced vasculopathy at 12 months with increasing everolimus exposure. Unlike cyclosporine, increasing everolimus exposure was not related to a higher rate of renal dysfunction. The TDM simulation, which was based on two everolimus dose adjustments and an initial starting dose of 1.5 mg/day, showed that the simulated BPAR rate (with TDM) was 21% versus 26% in the group with fixed dosing. Therefore, TDM in heart transplantation could optimize immunosuppressive efficacy and reduce treatment-related toxicity.

Everolimus in pediatric de nova renal transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: The steady-state pharmacokinetics of everolimus were longitudinally assessed in pediatric de novo kidney allograft recipients during a 6-month period. METHODS: Nineteen patients received everolimus 0.8 mg/m2 (maximum 1.5 mg) twice daily as a dispersible tablet in water in addition to cyclosporine and corticosteroids. Everolimus and cyclosporine trough concentrations were obtained on days 3, 5, 6, and 7 and at months 1, 2, 3, and 6; an everolimus pharmacokinetic profile was obtained on day 7 and month 3. RESULTS: There were 9 boys and 10 girls with a median age of 9.9 (range, 1-16) years. Steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters were as follows (median, range): C(min) (trough level), 4.7 (2.3- 9.5) ng/mL; peak concentration, 13.5 (5.9-22.2) ng/mL; area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), 77 (53-147) ng x hr/mL; and apparent oral clearance, 10.2 (5.5-15.6) L/hr/m2. Clearance (unadjusted for demographic factors) was positively correlated with age (r=0.66), body surface area (r=0.68), and weight (r=0.67). There were no trends in C(min) or AUC versus patient age when everolimus was dosed on a mg/m2 basis. Everolimus C(min) were stable over time with median values of 3.9, 3.4, and 3.1 ng/mL at months 1, 3, and 6, respectively. Intra- and interpatient variability in AUC was 29% and 35%, similar to that in adults. During the observation period, eight patients maintained stable AUCs and nine patients had increases or decreases, generally between 30% and 50% compared with the AUC at week 1. The concurrent median cyclosporine C(min) were generally at the lower end of conventional target ranges: 156, 83, and 69 ng/mL at months 1, 3, and 6, respectively. There were no graft losses and only three mild or moderate, reversible rejection episodes occurred. Everolimus was generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of body surface area-adjusted dosing for everolimus in pediatric patients. Although exposure is generally stable over time with moderate variability in AUC, therapeutic monitoring would be a helpful adjunct for individualizing everolimus exposure, assessing regimen adherence, and adjusting doses as the child matures.