Drug therapy in the heart transplant recipient: part IV: drug-drug interactions

Antihypertensives for kidney transplant recipients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

In nontransplant populations, effects of different antihypertensive drug classes vary. Relative effects in kidney transplant recipients are uncertain. We performed a systematic review including random effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We identified 60 trials, enrolling 3802 recipients. Twenty-nine trials (2262 patients) compared calcium channel blockers (CCB) with placebo or no treatment, 10 trials (445 patients) compared angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) with placebo or no treatment, and seven studies (405 patients) compared CCB with ACEi. CCB compared with placebo or no treatment (plus additional agents in either arm as required) reduced graft loss (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57-0.99) and improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR; mean difference [MD] 4.5 mL/min, 95% CI 2.2-6.7). Data on ACEi versus placebo or no treatment were inconclusive for GFR (MD -8.1 mL/min, 95% CI -18.6-2.4) and inconsistent for graft loss, precluding meta-analysis. In direct comparison with CCB, ACEi decreased GFR (MD 11.5 mL/min, 95% CI 7.2-15.8), proteinuria (MD 0.28 g/day, 95% CI 0.10-0.47), hemoglobin (MD 11.5 g/L, 95% CI 7.2-15.8), and increased hyperkalemia (RR 3.7, 95% CI 1.9-7.7). Graft loss data were inconclusive (RR 7.4, 95% CI 0.4-140). These data suggest that CCB may be preferred as first-line agents for hypertensive kidney transplant recipients.

Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

In some nontransplant populations, effects of different antihypertensive drug classes vary. Relative effects in kidney transplant recipients are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess comparative effects of different classes of antihypertensive agents in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified studies were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any antihypertensive agent applied to kidney transplant recipients for at least two weeks were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted by two investigators independently. Study quality, transplant outcomes and other patient centred outcomes were assessed using random effects meta-analysis. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Stratified analyses and meta-regression were used to investigate heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 60 studies, enrolling 3802 recipients. Twenty-nine studies (2262 participants) compared calcium channel blockers (CCB) to placebo/no treatment, 10 studies (445 participants) compared angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) to placebo/no treatment and seven studies (405 participants) compared CCB to ACEi. CCB compared to placebo/no treatment (plus additional agents in either arm as required) reduced graft loss (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) and improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR), (MD, 4.45 mL/min, 95% CI 2.22 to 6.68). Data on ACEi versus placebo/no treatment were inconclusive for GFR (MD -8.07 mL/min, 95% CI -18.57 to 2.43), and variable for graft loss, precluding meta-analysis. In direct comparison with CCB, ACEi decreased GFR (MD -11.48 mL/min, 95% CI -5.75 to -7.21), proteinuria (MD -0.28 g/24 h, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10), haemoglobin (MD -12.96 g/L, 95% CI -5.72 to -10.21) and increased hyperkalaemia (RR 3.74, 95% CI 1.89 to 7.43). Graft loss data were inconclusive (RR 7.37, 95% CI 0.39 to 140.35). Other drug comparisons were compared in small numbers of participants and studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that CCB may be preferred as first line agents for hypertensive kidney transplant recipients. ACEi have some detrimental effects in kidney transplant recipients. More high quality studies reporting patient centred outcomes are required.

The efficacy and safety of ezetimibe for treatment of dyslipidemia after heart transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Statins, although the treatment of choice for dyslipidemia after heart transplantation (HT), are not always well tolerated or effective. In such cases, administration of ezetimibe may be useful.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe, with or without statins, after HT.

METHOD

Thirty-six HT patients, 97% of whom were males of overall mean age of 57 +/- 13 years, were all unable to reach target lipid levels with statins alone and/or were intolerant of statins. They were prescribed ezetimibe, with or without a statin. Efficacy and safety were evaluated after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were evaluated at 1 month and 12 months. Ezetimibe was prescribed to 27 patients (75%) because of statin inefficacy, and to 9 patients (25%) because of statin intolerance, manifested by myalgia in 4 cases (11%), hepatotoxicity in 2 cases (6%), and rhabdomyolysis in 3 cases (8%). Lipid levels (mg/dL; baseline vs 1 year) were as follows: cholesterol, 235 +/- 49 versus 167 +/- 32 (P = .013); LDL cholesterol, 137 +/- 47 versus 89 +/- 29 (P = .001); HDL cholesterol, 54 +/- 13 versus 51 +/- 10 (P = .235); and triglycerides, 243 +/- 187 versus 143 +/- 72 (P = .022). There were no cases of liver toxicity, renal dysfunction, or significant alteration of immunosuppressive pharmacokinetics. Ezetimibe was withdrawn from 2 patients because of hand edema or asymptomatic recurrence of rhabdomyolysis first caused by statins.

CONCLUSIONS

With or without a statin, ezetimibe was generally well tolerated, reducing total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels with no long-term alteration of HDL cholesterol levels. CPK surveillance is recommended because of a slight continued risk of adverse effects. Further studies should evaluate the benefit for survival.

Clinical relevance of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in cardiac critical care patients

Pharmacokinetics is a discipline aimed at predicting the best dosage and dosing regimen for each single drug in order to ensure and maintain therapeutically effective concentrations at the action sites. In cardiac critical care patients, various pathophysiological conditions may significantly alter the pharmacokinetic behaviour of drugs. Gastrointestinal drug absorption may be erratic and unpredictable in the early postoperative period, and so patients may be unresponsive to oral therapy; thus the intravenous route should be preferred for life-saving drugs whenever feasible. Variations in the extracellular fluid content as a response to the trauma of surgery and the fluid load or significant drug loss through thoracic drainages may significantly lower plasma concentrations of extracellularly distributed hydrophilic antimicrobials (beta-lactams, aminoglycosides and glycopeptides). Drug metabolism may be altered by the systemic inflammatory response and/or multiple organ failure and/or drug-drug pharmacokinetic interactions that can potentially occur during polytherapy, especially in immunosuppressed cardiac transplant patients. Instability of renal function may promote significant changes in body fluid concentrations of renally eliminated drugs, even in a brief period of hours. Finally, the application of extracorporeal circulation by means of cardiopulmonary bypass may significantly alter the disposition of several drugs during the operation because of acute haemodilution, hypoalbuminaemia, hypothermia and/or adsorption to the bypass equipment. Accordingly, to avoid either overexposure and the consequent increased risk of toxicity or underexposure and the consequent risk of therapeutic failure in critically ill cardiac patients, the dosing regimens of several drugs are expected to be significantly different from those suggested for clinically stable patients. Additionally, therapeutic drug monitoring may be helpful in the management of drug therapy and should be routinely used to guide individualized dose adjustments for (i) immunosuppressants whenever cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme inhibitors (e.g. macrolide antibacterials, azole antifungals) or inducers (e.g. rifampicin [rifampin]) are added to or withdrawn from the regimen; and (ii) glycopeptide and aminoglycoside antibacterials whenever haemodynamically active agents (such as dopamine, dobutamine and furosemide [frusemide]) are added to or withdrawn from the regimen, and also whenever significant changes of haemodynamics and/or of renal function occur.

Adverse drug reactions in patients with cardiovascular disease

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur frequently in modern medical practice, increasing morbidity and mortality and inflating the cost of care. Patients with cardiovascular disease are particularly vulnerable to ADRs due to their advanced age, polypharmacy, and the influence of heart disease on drug metabolism. The ADR potential for a particular cardiovascular drug varies with the individual, the disease being treated, and the extent of exposure to other drugs. Knowledge of this complex interplay between patient, drug, and disease is a critical component of safe and effective cardiovascular disease management. The majority of significant ADRs involving cardiovascular drugs are predictable and therefore preventable. Better patient education, avoidance of polypharmacy, and clear communication between physicians, pharmacists, and patients, particularly during the transition between the inpatient to outpatient settings, can substantially reduce ADR risk.

The first year post-heart transplantation: use of immunosuppressive drugs and early complications

A large number of heart transplants are performed annually in different transplant centers in the United States. This is partly because of the improved survival of patients who undergo cardiac transplantation, thus making it a more viable option in the management of end-stage heart failure. The survival benefit after heart transplantation is a result of newer immunosuppressive drug regimens and a better understanding of their effects and interactions. Several studies, mostly involving a small number of patients, describe use and comparison of the many distinct immunosuppressive drugs available to date. Interestingly, many transplant centers perform in-house typical induction treatment regimens because of their own experience and intra-institutional preference. This review summarizes current practices of immunosuppressive drug therapy in the first year post-heart transplant based on the available clinical evidence and discusses future options of heart transplant immunosuppressive drug therapies.

Interaction and transport characteristics of mycophenolic acid and its glucuronide via human organic anion transporters hOAT1 and hOAT3

The immunosuppressant mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) is frequently administered with calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids to recipients of organ transplantations. However, the renal handling of the active metabolite mycophenolic acid (MPA) and 7-O-MPA-glucuronide (MPAG) has been unclear. The purpose of the present study was to assess the interaction of MPA and MPAG with the human renal organic anion transporters hOAT1 (SLC22A6) and hOAT3 (SLC22A8), by conducting uptake experiments using HEK293 cells stably expressing these transporters. MPA and MPAG inhibited the time-dependent uptake of p-[(14)C]aminohippurate by hOAT1 and that of [(3)H]estrone sulfate by hOAT3. The apparent 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) of MPA for hOAT1 and hOAT3 was estimated at 10.7 and 1.5 microM, respectively. In the case of MPAG, the IC(50) values were calculated at 512.3 microM for hOAT1 and 69.1 microM for hOAT3. Eadie-Hofstee plot analyses showed that they inhibited hOAT1 noncompetitively and hOAT3 competitively. No inhibitory effects of tacrolimus, cyclosporin A and azathioprine on transport of p-[(14)C]aminohippurate by hOAT1 and of [(3)H]estrone sulfate by hOAT3 were observed. No transport of MPA by these transporters was observed. On the other hand, the uptake of MPAG into cells was stimulated by the expression of hOAT3, but not hOAT1. These findings propose the possibility that the administration of MMF decreases the renal clearance of drugs which are substrates of hOAT1 and hOAT3. Present data suggest that hOAT3 contributes to the renal tubular secretion of MPAG.