Use of Everolimus in Renal Transplant Recipients: Data From a National Registry

Model-informed precision dosing: State of the art and future perspectives

Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) stands as a significant development in personalized medicine to tailor drug dosing to individual patient characteristics. MIPD moves beyond traditional therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) by integrating mathematical predictions of dosing, and considering patient-specific factors (patient characteristics, drug measurements) as well as different sources of variability. For this purpose, rigorous model qualification is required for the application of MIPD in patients. This review delves into new methods in model selection and validation, also highlighting the role of machine learning in improving MIPD, the utilization of biosensors for real-time monitoring, as well as the potential of models integrating biomarkers for efficacy or toxicity for precision dosing. The clinical evidence of TDM and MIPD is discussed for various medical fields including infection medicine, oncology, transplant medicine, and inflammatory bowel diseases, thereby underscoring the role of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and specific biomarkers. Further research, particularly randomized clinical trials, is warranted to corroborate the value of MIPD in enhancing patient outcomes and advancing personalized medicine.

Influence of cyclosporine and everolimus on the main mycophenolate mofetil pharmacokinetic parameters: Cross-sectional study

The objective of the present study was to assess the effect of cyclosporine (CsA) on the pharmacokinetic parameters of mycophenolic acid (MPA), an active mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) metabolite, and to compare with the effect of everolimus (EVR).Anonymized medical records of 404 kidney recipients were reviewed. The main MPA pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC(0-12) and Cmax) were evaluated.The patients treated with a higher mean dose of CsA displayed higher MPA AUC(0-12) exposure in the low-dose MMF group (1000 mg/day) (40.50 ± 10.97 vs 28.08 ± 11.03 h mg/L; rs = 0.497, P < 0.05), medium-dose MMF group (2000 mg/day) (43.00 ± 6.27 vs 28.85 ± 11.08 h mg/L; rs = 0.437, P < 0.01), and high-dose MMF group (3000 mg/day) (56.75 ± 16.78 vs 36.20 ± 3.70 h mg/L; rs = 0.608, P < 0.05).A positive correlation was also observed between the mean CsA dose and the MPA Cmax in the low-dose MMF group (Cmax 22.83 ± 10.82 vs 12.08 ± 5.59 mg/L; rs = 0.507, P < 0.05) and in the medium-dose MMF group (22.77 ± 8.86 vs 13.00 ± 6.82 mg/L; rs = 0.414, P < 0.01).The comparative analysis between 2 treatment arms (MMF + CsA and MMF + EVR) showed that MPA AUC(0-12) exposure was by 43% higher in the patients treated with a medium dose of MMF and EVR than in the patients treated with a medium dose of MMF and CsA.The data of the present study suggest a possible CsA versus EVR influence on MMF pharmacokinetics. Study results show that CsA has an impact on the main MPA pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC(0-12) and Cmax) in a CsA dose-related manner, while EVR mildly influence or does not affect MPA pharmacokinetic parameters. Low-dose CsA (lower than 180 mg/day) reduces MPA AUC(0-12) exposure under the therapeutic window and may lead to ineffective therapy, while a high-dose CsA (>240 mg/day) is related to greater than 10 mg/L MPA Cmax and increases the likelihood of adverse events.

Variances in the Use of Everolimus in Kidney Transplantation: A 2-Year Registry of Everyday Practice

BACKGROUND

Everolimus (EVL)-based immunosuppressive strategies may permit the reduction of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and their side effects, while offering a safe and efficient treatment. Our aim was to describe our experience with EVL in everyday practice and provide information for its optimal utilization.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter study of 181 kidney transplant recipients treated with EVL as part of their immunosuppressive regimen, with a follow-up of 24 months. We studied demographic data, transplant characteristics, clinical information, drugs used, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), rejection episodes, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 181 renal transplant recipients were included. Of these, 30 (16.6%) received EVL de novo and 151 (83.4%) were converted; median time from transplantation to conversion was 10 (range, 1-312) months. Main reasons for conversion were prevention of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (23.9%), intolerance to immunosuppressants (11.1%), neoplasia (13.9%), nephrotoxicity (8.9%), and cytomegalovirus infections (8.3%). The eGFR values at baseline, months 12, and 24 were 46.4 ± 27.4 mL/min, 54.8 ± 22.9 mL/min, and 55.9 ± 26.5 ml/min, respectively. Two of 181 (1.1%) patients died, 5 of 181 (2.8%) lost their grafts, 12 of 181 (6.6%) had an episode of acute rejection, 13 of 181 (7.2%) had ≥1 serious event and infection, and 85 of 181 (49.9%) had ≥1 nonserious adverse event or infection. Multivariate analysis showed that increased eGFR at month 24 was associated with lower donor age, shorter time from transplant to EVL introduction, and a baseline eGFR ≥40 mL/min.

CONCLUSION

Through different strategies among centers, the inclusion of EVL improved renal function during the first 12 months.