Toxic serum levels of tacrolimus after topical administration in an infant with severe cutaneous graft-versus-host disease

Appropriateness of tacrolimus therapeutic drug monitoring timing in the emergency department

PURPOSE

Evaluate the appropriateness of the timing of serum samples collected in the emergency department (ED) for tacrolimus (TAC) measurement.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective review of TAC samples collected in the ED from September 1 to October 31, 2017. The primary evaluation was incidence of inappropriate sample collection for TAC measurement, defined as samples not collected 12 h (±2 h; 10-14 h) after the last dose, or within 2 h of the next dose if last known dose time was not documented. Incidence of repeat TAC measurements obtained within 24 h of ED presentation (if initial sample collection inappropriate), inappropriate TAC regimen adjustments, and healthcare costs of inappropriate TAC measurements was evaluated. Data collection included patient demographics, ED visit information, TAC measurement and timing related to last or next dose, changes to TAC regimen, and ED disposition. Descriptive data are reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were included. Forty-one (66%) initial TAC measurements were collected inappropriately in the ED. No patients had a regimen adjustment as a result of inappropriate concentration collection, but 32 patients (78%) did require a repeat measurement within 24 h of ED presentation due to initial inappropriate collection. Costs associated with incorrectly collected TAC measurements were $2,647.78 for the two-month time period and this is extrapolated to an estimated $15,886.68 annual expense for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate sample collection for TAC measurements was common in the ED, resulting in frequent repeat laboratory draws and increased healthcare costs.

Poisoning Through Pediatric Skin: Cases from the Literature

Poisoning through pediatric skin leading to acute systemic symptoms is a relatively uncommonly reported phenomenon. Systemic toxicity through the skin typically occurs by direct contact between therapeutic or non-therapeutic topical agents and the skin. Though uncommon, poisoning through pediatric skin can have significant consequences and must be recognized so the offending agent may be discontinued and appropriate treatment initiated. We performed a literature search for all article types between 1950 and April 2016 to provide a single source of detectable cases of acute toxicity in pediatric patients due to percutaneous exposure. This literature review discusses relevant pediatric skin physiology along with reports of poisoning events that resulted in systemic signs and symptoms and even death to provide a comprehensive report on causes of pediatric poisoning through the skin.

An Open-Label Phase II Randomized Trial of Topical Dexamethasone and Tacrolimus Solutions for the Treatment of Oral Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-agent dexamethasone or tacrolimus topical solution as first-line treatment for symptomatic oral chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). This was a prospective, single-center, open-label, randomized phase II trial of patients with symptomatic oral cGVHD without prior topical therapy. Subjects were randomly assigned 1:1 to either topical dexamethasone (.5 mg/mL) or tacrolimus (.5 mg/mL) solution and instructed to rinse with 5 mL for 5 minutes, 4 times a day, for 4 weeks. Oral cGVHD assessments (National Institutes of Health [NIH] criteria) were completed at baseline and end of treatment (NIH criteria, global response, and tolerability). The primary endpoint was the response rate defined as ≥3-point reduction in patient-reported sensitivity score (range, 0 to 10). A parallel 2-stage design was employed so that a less efficacious arm could be terminated early. The accrual goal was 60 evaluable patients; 30 in each arm), accruing 14 in the first stage and 16 in the second stage. If both arms were regarded as efficacious, a "pick-the-winner" method would be employed to choose a better treatment for future investigation. Forty-six subjects were randomized to receive either dexamethasone (n = 28) or tacrolimus (n = 18). Six subjects were excluded from the analysis because of changes in systemic immunosuppression (dexamethasone  = 1, tacrolimus  = 3) or lack of end-of-treatment visit (1 per arm). After the first stage evaluation, the tacrolimus arm was terminated because of lack of activity (3 of 14 responses; response rate, 21%). Twenty-six subjects in the dexamethasone arm completed both study visits and were included in the response analysis, with a 58% (15 of 26) response rate, compared with 21% (3 of 14) in the tacrolimus arm (P = .05). The response rates according to the NIH score in the dexamethasone and tacrolimus arms were 50% (13 of 26) and 2% (2 of 14), respectively (P = .04). From the onset of therapy, 31% versus 21% patients reported feeling "much better" and 38% versus 36% reported feeling "slightly better," giving an overall global response rate ("much better" or "slightly better") of 81% (21 of 26) versus 71% (10 of 14), in the dexamethasone and tacrolimus arms, respectively. Dexamethasone rinses were well tolerated and taste was reported as "very pleasant" or "tolerable" in most subjects (96%). Intensive topical therapy with dexamethasone solution is effective for managing patients with new-onset symptomatic oral cGVHD and should be considered for first-line therapy. Topical tacrolimus solution appears less effective, at least for first-line therapy.

Toxic tacrolimus levels after application of topical tacrolimus and use of occlusive dressings in two bone marrow transplant recipients with cutaneous graft-versus-host disease

Tacrolimus, a macrolide immunosuppressant, is used topically for the treatment of cutaneous manifestations of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) for rapid, symptomatic relief of pruritus and erythema. Despite the manufacturer's product information reporting minimal systemic effects of topical tacrolimus, this has not been evaluated in patients with cutaneous GVHD and with occlusive dressings. We describe two patients with cutaneous GVHD who developed toxic tacrolimus levels after receiving several applications of tacrolimus ointment along with occlusive dressings to enhance skin effectiveness. The first patient was a 62-year-old woman with a history of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) who underwent allogeneic bone marrow transplantation and developed chronic GVHD involving 70% of her body surface area. Her GVHD treatment plan consisted of oral corticosteroids, oral tacrolimus, topical corticosteroids, topical tacrolimus 0.1% ointment twice/day, emollient creams, intravenous rituximab, and photopheresis. The patient's tacrolimus trough levels rose rapidly over the course of 6 days from less than 2 ng/ml to 23 ng/ml, despite oral tacrolimus dosage adjustments. The second patient was a 25-year-old man who developed severe, chronic skin GVHD after undergoing allogeneic sibling bone marrow transplantation for AML. In addition to intravenous corticosteroids, corticosteroid creams, and oral tacrolimus, the patient also received topical tacrolimus twice/day with occlusive dressings. Over the course of 2 days, his tacrolimus trough levels increased from 7.10 ng/ml to 22.10 ng/ml. Although improvement was noted in both patients' skin GVHD with application of the occlusive dressings, the practice was discontinued due to increased and erratic systemic tacrolimus absorption. These case reports suggest that substantial use of topical tacrolimus with occlusive dressings in patients with cutaneous GVHD may contribute to increased systemic absorption resulting in toxic tacrolimus levels. Based on the findings from our two patients as well as published case reports, systemic absorption appears to increase with greater skin permeability, skin barrier dysfunction, amount of body surface area applied, and use of occlusive dressings. When one or more of these factors are present, it may be prudent to monitor tacrolimus levels.

How we treat oral chronic graft-versus-host disease

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is a major complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation that is associated with a diminished quality of life. The oral cavity is frequently affected, with a wide variety of signs and symptoms that can result in significant short- and long-term complications ranging from mucosal sensitivity and limited oral intake to secondary malignancy and early death. This article provides a comprehensive approach to the diagnosis and clinical management of patients with oral cGVHD, with particular attention to differential diagnosis, control of symptoms, and prevention of and screening for secondary complications. The clinical considerations and recommendations presented are intended to be practical and relevant for all clinicians involved in the care of patients with oral cGVHD, with the ultimate goal of improving care and outcomes.

Consensus conference on clinical practice in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD): first-line and topical treatment of chronic GVHD

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. First-line treatment of cGVHD is based on steroids of 1 mg/kg/day of prednisone. The role of calcineurin inhibitors remains controversial, especially in patients with low risk for mortality (normal platelets counts), whereas patients with low platelets at diagnosis and/or high risk for steroid toxicity may be treated upfront with the combination of prednisone and a calcineurin inhibitor. Additional systemic immunosuppressive agents, like thalidomide, mycophenolic acid, and azathioprine, failed to improve treatment results in the primary treatment of cGVHD and are in part associated with higher morbidity, and in the case of azathioprine, with higher mortality. Despite advances in diagnosis of cGVHD as well as supportive care, half of the patients fail to achieve a long-lasting response to first-line treatment, and infectious morbidity continues to be significant. Therefore, immunomodulatory interventions with low infectious morbidity and mortality such as photopheresis need urgent evaluation in clinical trials. Beside systemic immunosuppression, the use of topical immunosuppressive interventions may improve local response rates and may be used as the only treatment in mild localized organ manifestations of cGVHD.

Highly effective treatment with tacrolimus ointment in an adolescent with oral graft-versus-host disease

CASE

We report a case of acute oral graft-versus-host disease in an adolescent, which was successfully treated with tacrolimus 0.1% ointment.

CONCLUSION

Although tacrolimus ointment is not licensed for the indication of oral GvHD, this case report provides preliminary evidence for a potential effectiveness of using tacrolimus in case of failure when GvHD is resistant.

Pharmaceutical care in an inpatient pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant service

INTRODUCTION

Hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients represent a population at high risk for drug-related problems. Our objective is to describe pharmacist interventions in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant pediatric unit. METHODS AND PATIENTS. The Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Unit of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine performs around 50 hematopoietic stem cell transplants per year. During a pharmaceutical care specialized residency program, a French pharmacist participated in certain clinical activities. Drug-related problems and clinical interventions were compiled over 31 nonconsecutive days using a tool developed by the Société Française de Pharmacie Clinique. Data concerning patients, drugs, intervention, documentation, approval (if needed), and estimated impact were compiled.

RESULTS

During the 31-day period, 525 interventions were collected (16.9 +/- 3.7 per day), targeting 29 patients. The main drug-related problems were adverse drug reactions (N = 125, 23.8%), untreated indication (N = 92, 17.5%) and failure to receive drug (N = 89, 17.0%). The pharmacist's interventions concerned mainly dose adjustment (N = 174, 33.1%) and drug monitoring (N = 132, 25.1%). Among the 324 (61.7%) interventions requiring a physician's approval, 302 (93.2%) were accepted without any change.

CONCLUSION

A pharmacist is able to perform clinically relevant interventions in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant unit, given the complexity of the pharmacotherapy. Our description of drug-related problems and interventions may help other pharmacists already working or developing pharmaceutical care in a hematopoietic stem cell transplant unit to compare their practice and it is one of the few reported in the literature.