Sublingual Tacrolimus for Immunosuppression in Lung Transplantation

Population pharmacokinetics of sublingually administered tacrolimus in infants and young children with liver transplantation

AIMS

Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus after sublingual administration is not characterized in paediatric liver transplant patients. Therefore, we aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model of sublingually administered tacrolimus in patients who cannot swallow the capsules due to their age, sedation status and/or mechanical ventilation during the first weeks post-transplantation.

METHODS

Demographic, clinical and pharmacological variables, including tacrolimus whole blood concentrations obtained from therapeutic drug monitoring and data from dense-sampling pharmacokinetic profiles, were recorded in 26 paediatric patients with biliary atresia who underwent liver transplantation between 2016 and 2021. Population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed with NONMEM v7.4.

RESULTS

Disposition of tacrolimus was best characterized by a 2-compartment model with clearance achieving half of the maximum elimination capacity (CL_MAX  = 4.1 L/h) at 4.6 days post-transplantation (T₅₀ ). Compared to sedated patients, nonsedated status showed an increased first-order absorption rate constant (1.1 vs. 0.1 h^-1 ) and a 24% reduction in bioavailability (F_NS ) at 14 days post-transplant. The model was able to explain the oral absorption pattern in nonsedated patients as the result of gut bioavailability (0.9) and hepatic extraction ratio, with the latter being responsible for first-pass effects. Estimates of interindividual variability remained moderate (25.9% for the gut bioavailability) to high (79.8% for the apparent volume of distribution of the central compartment, and 101% for T₅₀ ).

CONCLUSION

A population pharmacokinetic model of sublingually administered tacrolimus in paediatric patients was developed to characterize different absorption mechanisms. Once the model is externally validated, the effect of post-transplant time on clearance and the sedation status may be considered in routine dosing management.

Safety and Efficacy of Perioperative Sublingual Tacrolimus in Pancreas Transplant Compared With Oral Tacrolimus

OBJECTIVES

Early posttransplant, the administration of oral or enteral medications in pancreas transplant is challenging because of the management of postoperative ileus and gastroparesis. The use of sublingual tacrolimus may offer a promising alternative. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics and perioperative outcomes between oral and sublingual tacrolimus in pancreas transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study of pancreas transplants between January 1, 2011, and July 1, 2018. We transitioned our tacrolimus protocol from oral to sublingual dosing in pancreas transplant patients beginning January 1, 2017.

RESULTS

This analysis included 54 pancreas transplant recipients, with 17 patients on sublingual tacrolimus matched to 37 patients on oral tacrolimus. Within the sublingual group, it took a mean of 3.2 days to achieve a therapeutic tacrolimus trough level (≥8 ng/mL) compared with a mean of 3.8 days in the oral group (P = .175). There was no difference in the incidence of hyperkalemia and supratherapeutic tacrolimus levels between groups. The conversion factor from sublingual to oral in this patient population was 0.67, which was different than what has been reported in other populations. Clinical outcomes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Sublingual tacrolimus use in pancreas transplant patients appears to be a safe and effective strategy to avoid oral or intravenous therapy in the perioperative period and may reduce the time to achieve therapeutic levels.

Determining the conversion ratios for oral versus sublingual administration of tacrolimus in solid organ transplant recipients

Tacrolimus is utilized as maintenance immunosuppression in solid organ transplant (SOT). Current literature has reported conflicting conversion ratios when transitioning between oral and sublingual tacrolimus, and the exact conversion ratio has not been fully established in SOT. The purpose of this study was to determine the conversion ratios between oral and sublingual tacrolimus needed to achieve equivalent whole blood concentrations in heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant recipients. A retrospective, single-center analysis was conducted at Mayo Clinic in Florida. One hundred and eighteen hospitalized SOT recipients who received oral and sublingual tacrolimus during the same inpatient admission from June 1, 2012, through June 1, 2017, were reviewed. The median conversion ratio of sublingual to oral tacrolimus was 1.34 (IQR: 1.03-1.93) in all SOT, 1.25 (IQR: 1.08-1.64) in heart transplant, 1.23 (IQR: 1.1-2.06) in kidney transplant, 1.64 (IQR: 1.27-2.29) in liver transplant, and 1.34 (IQR: 0.94-1.93) in lung transplant. A slightly higher dose of oral tacrolimus is needed in the majority of solid organ recipients in our population when converting between sublingual to oral tacrolimus administration.

Sublingual administration improves systemic exposure of tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients: comparison with oral administration

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus (TCR) is an immunosuppressive drug used by oral administration. Intravenous (IV) TCR administration is required under conditions of gastrointestinal diseases or abdominal surgery at the onset of paralytic ileus. The infusion formulation needs a large dilution and therefore a careful technical management during continuous infusion by 24 h and may determine anaphylaxis, cardiac arrhythmia, QT prolongation and torsades de pointes. Sublingual (SL) TCR administration was suggested as an alternative route.

DESIGN

The aim of this study was to compare in the same kidney transplanted patients the TCR pharmacokinetic profiles by both the routes coupled with the pharmacoeconomic analysis. The study enrolled eight subjects undergoing renal transplantation and treated with TCR and methylprednisolone. TCR was administered by oral route at the scheduled dosage while the 50% of oral dosage was used by SL route, taking into account the absence of liver first pass.

RESULTS

Except for AUC, which resulted significantly increased after oral administration, all exposure parameters were not significantly different between the two routes of administration. Analysis of dose-adjusted exposure parameters showed significant increases in AUC and Cmin after SL administration confirming a better bioavailability of the SL route compared with oral route. Cost saving was obtained using the SL rather than the IV route of TCR delivery.

CONCLUSION

When oral administration of TCR is not advised, SL delivery represents an attractive option to IV administration.

Sublingual tacrolimus as an alternative to oral administration for solid organ transplant recipients

PURPOSE

Available data regarding sublingual tacrolimus were analyzed to provide recommendations for solid organ transplant recipients.

SUMMARY

Tacrolimus is an immunosuppressive agent with a narrow therapeutic range that is commonly used in solid organ transplantation. Achieving and maintaining appropriate tacrolimus exposure are critical for preventing rejection and minimizing toxicity. A variety of clinical situations requiring nonoral medication delivery arise, presenting the need for reliable alternative routes of tacrolimus administration. A review of the currently available literature revealed nine reports of sublingual tacrolimus use in human subjects. Seven reported that sublingual administration could achieve comparable tacrolimus trough concentrations to oral administration, but none investigated the correlation between tacrolimus trough concentration and exposure. One study of lung transplant recipients found that approximately 50% of the oral dose was needed to obtain therapeutic trough concentrations when converted to sublingual administration. Another study of patients with end-stage renal disease identified a similar sublingual:oral dosing ratio of 1:2. When converted from oral tacrolimus in combination with clotrimazole to sublingual administration, the sublingual:oral dosing ratio was 1:1.

CONCLUSION

In addition to enteral tube and i.v. tacrolimus dosing, sublingual administration may be considered for short-term use in patients who are unable to receive medications orally. Based on the available data, it is reasonable to initiate sublingual tacrolimus at 50% of the current or anticipated oral dose in the absence of interacting medications. Dosing must be individualized, taking into consideration concomitant interacting medications, and adjusted to target levels based on therapeutic drug monitoring.

[Bariatric surgery, stomas and other digestive tract reductions: Insufficient data and recommendations to adapt medicines regimens in therapeutic practice]

Surgery modifying digestive tract may alter drugs pharmacokinetics. To maintain concentrations of active substance in their therapeutic ranges, a dosage adjustment or change of drug may be necessary. This is particularly important when no pharmacological or pharmacodynamic parameter reflecting the medication effectiveness is easily measurable. Our objective was to gather the information and documentary tools that can guide prescription in these patients with rearranged digestive tract. We searched information on the documentary portals of French agencies, on gray literature, on MEDLINE and in the summaries product characteristics. No information was found on the website of French agencies, sparse data were identified in gray literature. Some document are discordant, most are imprecise. One hundred and ten studies or case reports referenced on MEDLINE describe 79 medications pharmacokinetics after gastrointestinal surgery. Four are not available in France. Six literature reviews were found. Four summaries of product characteristics provided information related to drug absorption. No documentary tool adapted to clinical routine exists. This unsatisfactory situation is a barrier to optimal patients care. Information is available. It is however necessary to gather under an ergonomic shape adapted to clinical routine, bringing the surgery type, pharmacokinetic changes induced and what to do about the dose adjustment.

Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity of Tacrolimus Early After Heart and Lung Transplantation

Annually, about 8000 heart and lung transplantations are successfully performed worldwide. However, morbidity and mortality still pose a major concern. Renal failure in heart and lung transplant recipients is an essential adverse cause of morbidity and mortality, often originating in the early postoperative phase. At this time of clinical instability, the kidneys are exposed to numerous nephrotoxic stimuli. Among these, tacrolimus toxicity plays an important role, and its pharmacokinetics may be significantly altered in this critical phase by fluctuating drug absorption, changed protein metabolism, anemia and (multi-) organ failure. Limited understanding of tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in these circumstances is hampering daily practice. Tacrolimus dose adjustments are generally based on whole blood trough levels, which widely vary early after transplantation. Moreover, whole blood trough levels are difficult to predict and are poorly related to the area under the concentration-time curve. Even within the therapeutic range, toxicity may occur. These shortcomings of tacrolimus monitoring may not hold for the unbound tacrolimus plasma concentrations, which may better reflect tacrolimus toxicity. This review focuses on posttransplant tacrolimus pharmacokinetics, discusses relevant factors influencing the unbound tacrolimus concentrations and tacrolimus (nephro-) toxicity in heart and lung transplantation patients.

Immunosuppression and allograft rejection following lung transplantation: evidence to date

The enduring success of lung transplantation is built on the use of immunosuppressive drugs to stop the immune system from rejecting the newly transplanted lung allograft. Most patients receive a triple-drug maintenance immunosuppressive regimen consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor, an antiproliferative and corticosteroids. Induction therapy with either an antilymphocyte monoclonal or an interleukin-2 receptor antagonist are prescribed by many centres aiming to achieve rapid inhibition of recently activated and potentially alloreactive T lymphocytes. Despite this generic approach acute rejection episodes remain common, mandating further fine-tuning and augmentation of the immunosuppressive regimen. While there has been a trend away from cyclosporine and azathioprine towards a preference for tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, this has not translated into significant protection from the development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction, the main barrier to the long-term success of lung transplantation. This article reviews the problem of lung allograft rejection and the evidence for immunosuppressive regimens used both in the short- and long-term in patients undergoing lung transplantation.

Pharmacokinetic study of conversion from tacrolimus twice-daily to tacrolimus once-daily in stable lung transplantation

BACKGROUND

Tacrolimus twice-daily (TAC BID) is widely used in lung transplantation (LT), but there are little data on the use of tacrolimus once-daily (TAC QD) in this population. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of TAC BID and TAC QD in stable, adult LT patients.

METHODS

Phase II, open-label, single-center, single-arm, prospective pilot PK study. Nineteen LT recipients with more than 6 months of postoperative follow-up and on TAC BID-based therapy were converted to TAC QD on a 1:1 (mg/mg) basis. Patients had been stable during the previous 3 months, and cystic fibrosis patients were excluded. One 24-hr PK profile was obtained on day -14 while patients were under TAC BID. A second PK profile was obtained 14 to 28 days after switching (day 0) to the same dose of TAC QD. Pre- and post-switch 24-hr PK profiles were compared.

RESULTS

Mean AUC0-24 hr was 279.8 ng mL/hr for TAC BID and 278.7 ng mL/hr for TAC QD (P=0.92). AUC0-12 hr of TAC BID was higher than the AUC12-24 hr. There was a good correlation between AUC0-24 hr and C24 for both QD (r=0.96) and BID (r=0.94) formulations. There were no differences in the adverse events occurring with the two formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus bioavailability in steady state is similar in BID and QD formulations after conversion in stable LT recipients, excluding those with cystic fibrosis. Thus, our results indicate TAC BID can be safely switched to the more convenient QD formulation in this population.

Current trends in immunosuppressive therapies for renal transplant recipients

PURPOSE

Current trends in immunosuppressive therapies for renal transplant recipients are reviewed.

SUMMARY

The common premise for immunosuppressive therapies in renal transplantation is to use multiple agents to work on different immunologic targets. The use of a multidrug regimen allows for pharmacologic activity at several key steps in the T-cell replication process and lower dosages of each individual agent, thereby producing fewer drug-related toxicities. In general, there are three stages of clinical immunosuppression: induction therapy, maintenance therapy, and treatment of an established acute rejection episode. Only immunosuppressive therapies used for maintenance therapy are discussed in detail in this review. The most common maintenance immunosuppressive agents can be divided into five classes: (1) the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) (cyclosporine and tacrolimus), (2) costimulation blockers (belatacept), (3) mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus), (4) antiproliferatives (azathioprine and mycophenolic acid derivatives), and (5) corticosteroids. Immunosuppressive regimens vary among transplantation centers but most often include a CNI and an adjuvant agent, with or without corticosteroids. Selection of appropriate immunosuppressive regimens should be patient specific, taking into account the medications' pharmacologic properties, adverse-event profile, and potential drug-drug interactions, as well as the patient's preexisting diseases, risk of rejection, and medication regimen.

CONCLUSION

Advancements in transplant immunosuppression have resulted in a significant reduction in acute cellular rejection and a modest increase in long-term patient and graft survival. Because the optimal immunosuppression regimen is still unknown, immunosuppressant use should be influenced by institutional preference and tailored to the immunologic risk of the patient and adverse-effect profile of the drug.

Use of sublingual tacrolimus in lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

In lung transplant recipients (LTRs), tacrolimus is often utilized as a core component of immunosuppressive regimens. Although tacrolimus can be delivered orally or intravenously, oral tacrolimus is associated with fewer adverse effects. Various reports have suggested that sublingual tacrolimus may be used as an alternative to oral tacrolimus; however, information regarding converting between routes is limited. We aimed to identify a dose conversion ratio between oral and sublingual tacrolimus in LTRs.

METHODS

We identified adult LTRs at the University of California, San Francisco, who transitioned between oral and sublingual tacrolimus between 2005 and 2010 (n = 34). For tacrolimus, we obtained steady-state blood concentrations and total daily doses before and after the route conversion. Blood concentrations divided by daily doses were calculated for each route. The conversion ratio was then defined as: (blood concentration(sublingual)/daily dose(sublingual))/(blood concentration(oral)/daily dose(oral)). This ratio was tested in inpatient vs outpatient settings and in the presence of impaired gastric emptying. Adverse effects, including nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity and anaphylaxis, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The conversion ratio of sublingual to oral tacrolimus was 0.46 ± 0.20 (mean ± SD). The ratio was not associated with hospital setting (p = 0.82) or with impaired gastric emptying (p = 0.31). When comparing sublingual to oral tacrolimus administration, there were no differences in serum creatinine, liver function tests or anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus administered sublingually at approximately half of the oral dose achieves therapeutic blood concentrations and is safe in LTRs. Delivery via the sublingual route using this conversion ratio may aid clinicians in maintaining therapeutic tacrolimus blood concentrations while avoiding the need for intravenous administration.

Conventional and novel approaches to immunosuppression

Immunosuppressive therapy has contributed significantly to improved survival after solid organ transplantation. Nevertheless, treatment-related adverse events and persistently high risk of chronic graft rejection remain major obstacles to long-term survival after lung transplantation. The development of new agents, refinements in techniques to monitor immunosuppression, and enhanced understanding of transplant immunobiology are essential for further improvements in outcome. In this article, conventional immunosuppressive regimens, novel approaches to preventing graft rejection, and investigational agents for solid organ transplantation are reviewed.

Cost-effective immunosuppressive options for solid organ transplantation: a guide to lower cost for the renal transplant recipient in the USA

Of the numerous risks associated with immunotherapy for the prevention of rejection, cost is perhaps the most universal. In the USA and some other countries, the costs of immunosuppression make transplantation unavailable for some medically viable transplant candidates, and for others who receive a transplant, the long-term costs are economically crippling. Minimization and tapering of immunosuppression, use of generics, manipulation of metabolism, infection surveillance instead of prophylaxis, and advantageous routes of administration are some strategies that can be employed to reduce immunotherapy expense. Using these strategies, we describe an immunosuppression regimen for kidney transplantation that might be only a third of the cost of current 'standard' regimens in the USA. Such a regimen might allow some patients who might not otherwise qualify economically to safely receive a kidney transplant. The purpose of creating an alternative, lower-cost immunotherapy regimen is to give patients a choice. Responsible stewardship of scarce donor organs is the primary, and clearly appropriate, limiting factor.

Sublingual administration of tacrolimus in a renal transplant patient

Tacrolimus is used in renal and other organ transplantations for immunossupression therapy. Bioavailability of enterally administered tacrolimus is poor, and further reduced by gastrointestinal failure or enteral nutrition. In these situations, intravenous administration is necessary to prevent treatment failure. However, intravenous administration should be done in a continuous manner and it has been implicated in anaphylaxis, torsades de pointes, cardiac arrhythmia and other serious adverse events. Also it is more expensive than other routes of administration. Sublingual administration of tacrolimus has been used in some cases, and literature reports show that it provides therapeutic tacrolimus levels in lung and liver transplant recipients. Here, we report a first case of sublingual administration of tacrolimus in kidney transplantation.

Special considerations for patients with cystic fibrosis undergoing lung transplantation

This article reviews lung transplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Lung transplantation is commonly utilized for patients with end-stage CF. There are several characteristics of CF that present unique challenges before and after lung transplantation. There is new information available that can be utilized to predict outcomes in patients with end-stage CF, and therefore can help in decisions of referral and listing for lung transplantation. The new lung allocation score, which allocates organs to patients who are on the lung transplant waiting list in the United States, presents new challenges and opportunities for patients with end-stage CF. In addition, the effect of the presence of microbiological flora prior to lung transplantation has been better linked to outcomes after lung transplantation. It is now known that, other than those patients harboring Burkholderia cepacia in their lungs before transplantation, most CF patients can undergo transplantation successfully. Nutrition remains an important issue among CF patients, and diabetes is a common problem after lung transplantation. In contrast, liver disease does not usually present major problems but, if it is severe, can necessitate liver and lung transplantation. Mechanical ventilation prior to transplantation might not be an absolute contraindication for CF patients. CF lung transplant recipients have good outcomes after lung transplantation compared with those of other lung transplant recipients. Quality of life is dramatically improved. However, they are still prone to common complications that all lung transplant recipients are prone to, including primary graft dysfunction, acute and chronic rejection, a variety of infections and malignancies, and renal failure.

[Olanzapine use in cancer patients for refractory vomiting]

Recent investigations suggest the efficacy of olanzapine in cancer patients with intractable vomiting or chemotherapy-induced nausea. Olanzapine,indicated for schizophrenia in Japan, has an affinity for multiple neurotransmitter receptors including dopaminergic, serotonergic, histaminergic, adrenergic and muscarinic receptors. This pharmacological activity thus has a potential role in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. In the present study, olanzapine was given to five cancer patients with refractory vomiting to standard medications. In 3 cases, olanzapine resolved vomiting completely and also improved anorexia, In 2 cases, vomiting was controlled for a limited period. No adverse effect was observed. These results suggest olanzapine is a useful agent for the management of both vomiting and anorexia.

Buccal vs. nasogastric tube administration of tacrolimus after pediatric liver transplantation

Tacrolimus is an important drug for immunosuppression after liver transplantation. Bioavailability of enterally administered tacrolimus is poor, and further reduced by gastric residuals or by enteral nutrition. Buccal administration might be an alternative route especially in children. Tacrolimus trough levels (TTLs) obtained after buccal administration of tacrolimus after liver transplantation have not been reported. The aim of this study was to determine whether buccal administration of tacrolimus is feasible and to compare TTLs after nasogastric tube (NGT) administration with buccal administration. TTLs after NGT or buccal administration during the first week after pediatric liver transplantation were analyzed from 28 cadaveric liver transplants in 23 pediatric recipients between June 2002 and March 2004. Each level was scored within, under or above the target range. Buccal administration was well tolerated in all patients. A total of 149 TTLs were obtained of which nine were excluded because of incomplete information on target levels. Overall 27% of TTLs was adequate. The percentage of levels under, within and above the target range were comparable in both groups (chi-square test; p = 0.64). Both groups had a decrease in percentages within the target range on day 3 and 4 after liver transplantation with a subsequent rise. Buccal tacrolimus administration is feasible. Similar TTLs are achieved compared with NGT tacrolimus administration during the first week after pediatric liver transplantation.

Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and dose monitoring after lung transplantation for cystic fibrosis and other conditions

In cystic fibrosis (CF), absorption of tacrolimus through the gastrointestinal tract may be impaired due to fat malabsorption. The aim of this pilot study was to compare tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and inter- and intrasubject variability of exposure in stable lung transplant recipients with and without CF, and to determine the best single-time predictors of exposure. The study included 11 lung transplant recipients with CF and 11 without CF who received tacrolimus twice daily. Blood samples were obtained predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 h postdose on 3 separate days within 1 week. Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and inter- and intrasubject variability of exposure were similar in the two groups, though exposure-per-milligram-dose was approximately 50% lower in CF patients. Tacrolimus trough concentration did not accurately predict the area under the concentration curve (AUC(0-12)), but the concentration measured 3 h postdose (C(3)) was tightly correlated with the AUC(0-12) in both CF (r(2)= 0.86) and non-CF (r(2)= 0.92) patients. In summary, patients with CF have a higher tacrolimus oral clearance, but nonsignificant differences in short-term inter- and intrasubject variability of exposure compared to patients without CF. C(3) is tightly correlated with AUC(0-12) in lung transplant recipients with and without CF.