Evaluation of potential interactions between mycophenolic acid derivatives and proton pump inhibitors

Pharmacomicrobiomics: Immunosuppressive Drugs and Microbiome Interactions in Transplantation

The human microbiome is associated with human health and disease. Exogenous compounds, including pharmaceutical products, are also known to be affected by the microbiome, and this discovery has led to the field of pharmacomicobiomics. The microbiome can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, possibly resulting in side effects, toxicities, and unanticipated disease response. Microbiome-mediated effects are referred to as drug-microbiome interactions (DMI). Rapid advances in the field of pharmacomicrobiomics have been driven by the availability of efficient bacterial genome sequencing methods and new computational and bioinformatics tools. The success of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile has fueled enthusiasm and research in the field. This review focuses on the pharmacomicrobiome in transplantation. Alterations in the microbiome in transplant recipients are well documented, largely because of prophylactic antibiotic use, and the potential for DMI is high. There is evidence that the gut microbiome may alter the pharmacokinetic disposition of tacrolimus and result in microbiome-specific tacrolimus metabolites. The gut microbiome also impacts the enterohepatic recirculation of mycophenolate, resulting in substantial changes in pharmacokinetic disposition and systemic exposure. The mechanisms of these DMI and the specific bacteria or communities of bacteria are under investigation. There are little or no human DMI data for cyclosporine A, corticosteroids, and sirolimus. The available evidence in transplantation is limited and driven by small studies of heterogeneous designs. Larger clinical studies are needed, but the potential for future clinical application of the pharmacomicrobiome in avoiding poor outcomes is high.

Rational use of gastroprotectants in cats: An evidence-based approach

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE

Acid-related disorders including esophagitis and gastroduodenal ulceration are uncommon in the cat. However, when they occur, they can have devastating consequences and require targeted intervention, including the use of gastroprotectants. Careful consideration of the causes of esophagitis and gastroduodenal ulceration can help the clinician to determine which gastroprotectant to use, and when to begin and end gastroprotective therapy.

CLINICAL CHALLENGES

Gastroprotectants remain one of the most misused classes of drugs in veterinary and human medicine. There are very few studies evaluating the efficacy of gastroprotective agents in cats. Furthermore, goals for the degree of gastric acid suppression are extrapolated from studies performed in dogs and humans.

AIMS

This review provides a foundation for the logical approach to the choice of gastroprotectant as indicated by the disease process, and is aimed at all veterinarians who prescribe gastroprotectants for use in cats.

EVIDENCE BASE

The guidance provided in this review is supported by current literature, including consensus opinion from the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. Gaps in evidence for use of gastroprotectants in cats are filled by extrapolations from studies performed in dogs and humans.

ACVIM consensus statement on the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia in dogs and cats

Management of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in dogs and cats is evolving, but there are no evidence-based guidelines to assist clinicians with treatment decisions. Likewise, the overall goals for treatment of ITP have not been established. Immunosuppressive doses of glucocorticoids are the first line treatment, but optimal treatment regimens beyond glucocorticoids remain uncertain. Additional options include secondary immunosuppressive drugs such as azathioprine, modified cyclosporine, and mycophenolate mofetil, usually selected based on clinician preference. Vincristine, human IV immunoglobulin (hIVIg), and transfusion of platelet or red blood cell-containing products are often used in more severe cases. Splenectomy and thrombopoietin receptor agonists are usually reserved for refractory cases, but when and in which patient these modalities should be employed is under debate. To develop evidence-based guidelines for individualized treatment of ITP patients, we asked 20 Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) format questions. These were addressed by 17 evidence evaluators using a literature pool of 288 articles identified by a structured search strategy. Evidence evaluators, using panel-designed templates and data extraction tools, summarized evidence and created guideline recommendations. These were integrated by treatment domain chairs and then refined by iterative Delphi survey review to reach consensus on the final guidelines. In addition, 19 non-PICO questions covering scenarios in which evidence was lacking or of low quality were answered by expert opinion using iterative Delphi surveys with panelist integration and refinement. Commentary was solicited from multiple relevant professional organizations before finalizing the consensus. The rigorous consensus process identified few comparative treatment studies, highlighting many areas of ITP treatment requiring additional studies. This statement is a companion manuscript to the ACVIM Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis of Immune Thrombocytopenia in Dogs and Cats.

Comparing safety of proton-pump inhibitors versus H2-receptor antagonists in kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Multiple studies have been conducted to compare the safety of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) as acid-suppressive treatment in kidney transplant recipients with conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risk of adverse effects in kidney transplant patients receiving PPIs compared to those treated with H2RAs.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on the databases from inception to June 2021. The treatment effects were expressed as odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled by a random-effects model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Eight studies, consisting 4,844 patients, were included. Patients were followed for a mean duration of 23.57 months after transplantation. Compared with H2RAs, PPIs exposure was associated with similar rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) (OR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.83-1.34, p = 0.67), mortality (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.56-3.07, p = 0.533), graft loss (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.59-1.93, p = 0.842), Clostridioides difficile infection (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 0.49-3.85, p = 0.545) and pneumonia (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.95-3.52, p = 0.072). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 12 months was lower in patients who received PPIs than those treated with H2RAs (WMD = -1.01, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.12 ml/min/1.73m² , p = 0.02). The PPI-treated kidney transplant patients experienced higher rate of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.03-3.04, p = 0.039) and hypomagnesemia (OR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.46-3.20, p ˂ 0.001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS

Compared with H2RAs, PPIs were not associated with higher risks of BPAR, mortality, graft loss or infection-related outcomes. However, taking PPIs was associated with higher rates of AMR and hypomagnesemia, and lower eGFR at one year after transplantation. Further well-controlled studies are needed to assess the impact of acid-suppressive strategy on long-term outcomes in KTRs.

Proton pump inhibitors and adverse effects in kidney transplant recipients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The adverse renal effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are increasingly recognized in both the general population and patients with chronic kidney disease. Several pharmacokinetic studies have also raised concerns regarding the interaction between PPIs and immunosuppressive drugs in transplant patients. Whether the adverse effects of PPIs have a clinical significance in kidney transplant recipients remains unclear. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the risk of adverse effects in kidney transplant recipients on PPI compared with those without PPI exposure.

AIM

To investigate the risk of acute rejection, graft loss, hypomagnesemia, renal dysfunction, and overall mortality in kidney transplant recipients on PPI compared with those without PPI exposure.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception through October 2018 to identify studies that evaluated the adverse effects of PPIs in kidney transplant recipients, including biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, hypomagnesemia, renal function, and overall mortality. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random-effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. The protocol for this meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, No. CRD42018115676.

RESULTS

Fourteen observational studies with 6786 kidney transplant recipients were enrolled. No significant association was found between PPI exposure and the risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection at ≥ 1 year [pooled odds ratio (OR), 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.91, I² = 55%], graft loss at 1 year (pooled OR = 1.30, 95%CI: 0.75-2.24, I² = 0%) or 1-year mortality (pooled OR = 1.53, 95%CI: 0.90-2.58, I² = 34%). However, PPI exposure was significantly associated with hypomagnesemia (pooled OR = 1.56, 95%CI: 1.19-2.05, I² = 27%). Funnel plots and Egger regression asymmetry test were performed and showed no publication bias.

CONCLUSION

PPI use was not associated with significant risks of higher acute rejection, graft loss, or 1-year mortality. However, the risk of hypomagnesemia was significantly increased with PPI use. Thus, future studies are needed to assess the impact of PPIs on long-term outcomes.

ACVIM consensus statement: Support for rational administration of gastrointestinal protectants to dogs and cats

The gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal barrier is continuously exposed to noxious toxins, reactive oxygen species, microbes, and drugs, leading to the development of inflammatory, erosive, and ultimately ulcerative lesions. This report offers a consensus opinion on the rational administration of GI protectants to dogs and cats, with an emphasis on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine type-2 receptor antagonists (H2 RAs), misoprostol, and sucralfate. These medications decrease gastric acidity or promote mucosal protective mechanisms, transforming the management of dyspepsia, peptic ulceration, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. In contrast to guidelines that have been established in people for the optimal treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease, effective clinical dosages of antisecretory drugs have not been well established in the dog and cat to date. Similar to the situation in human medicine, practice of inappropriate prescription of acid suppressants is also commonplace in veterinary medicine. This report challenges the dogma and clinical practice of administering GI protectants for the routine management of gastritis, pancreatitis, hepatic disease, and renal disease in dogs and cats lacking additional risk factors for ulceration or concerns for GI bleeding. Judicious use of acid suppressants is warranted considering recent studies that have documented adverse effects of long-term supplementation of PPIs in people and animals.

Quantifying the medication burden of kidney transplant recipients in the first year post-transplantation

Background Kidney transplantation is an effective treatment, but it is not a cure. Since the risk of graft rejection and the presence of comorbid conditions remain for a lifetime, medications are necessary. Objective To examine the prescription medication burden of adult kidney transplant recipients from 3- to 12-months post-transplantation. Setting All five adult kidney transplant units in Victoria, Australia. Method As part of a larger intervention study, we conducted a retrospective review of prescription refill records and medical records containing the history of medication changes of 64 participants who completed the study. The complexity of the medication management was studied, and we looked at the burden of maintaining the medications supply. Outcome measures Pill burden, administration frequency, dose changes frequency, immunosuppressive medication changes, the estimated out-of-pocket costs of medications and frequency of pharmacy visits. Results At 3 months, the average daily pill burden was 22 (SD = 9) whilst at 12 months, it was 23 (SD = 10). Some participants required long-term prophylaxis of fungal infections up to 4 times a day whilst those with diabetes had to manage up to 4 insulin doses a day. The average out-of-pocket cost per person and the frequency of pharmacy visits at 6, 9 and 12 months post-transplantation remained relatively unchanged. Conclusion The medication regimen prescribed for kidney transplant recipients is complex and for most patients, it did not simplify over time post transplantation. Strategies are needed to support patients in managing the complexity of their medication regimen following kidney transplantation.

Renal Transplant Acute Rejection with Lower Mycophenolate Mofetil Dosing and Proton Pump Inhibitors or Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic data show reduced mycophenolic acid levels in renal transplant recipients taking mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) concomitantly. This reduced exposure could increase rejection risk. The typical initial MMF dose post renal transplantation is 2 g/day, which often requires dose reduction secondary to side effects. Existing studies have not shown significant acute rejection differences for patients taking MMF-PPI versus patients taking MMF-ranitidine.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes in renal transplant recipients receiving a lower MMF dose than previously studied (1.5 g/day) and either a PPI or histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult subjects receiving a renal transplant between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2013. Comparison groups were defined based on acid-suppressing therapy class prescribed at discharge from transplantation. The primary outcome was acute rejection incidence within 1 year posttransplantation.

RESULTS

Of 728 renal transplant recipients screened, 522 were included: 183 taking a PPI and 339 taking an H2RA. There was no significant difference in acute rejection within 1 year (H2RA 19% versus PPI 14%, p=0.12) or 3 months (4% vs 5%, p=0.44, respectively) posttransplantation. Maintenance immunosuppression (MMF dose and tacrolimus troughs) was similar between groups at 3 months and 1 year. Graft and patient survivals were favorable (> 95%), and graft function at 1 year was stable and similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite taking lower MMF doses than previously studied, subjects on a PPI compared to an H2RA were not at increased risk of acute rejection within 1 year posttransplantation.

Routine prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors and post-transplant complications in kidney transplant recipients undergoing early corticosteroid withdrawal

Surgical stress, corticosteroids, and mycophenolate may contribute to gastrointestinal ulcers/bleeding after kidney transplantation. Prophylactic acid suppression with H2RAs or PPIs is often utilized after transplantation, although unclear if truly indicated after early corticosteroid withdrawal (CSWD). PPIs have been associated with increased risks of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), pneumonia, and acute rejection. This retrospective cohort study investigated benefits and risks of prolonged PPI use following kidney transplantation and included 286 kidney recipients undergoing CSWD within five d of transplant who were maintained on tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil/sodium. Patients on PPI before transplant, H2RA before/after transplant, and/or those with pre-transplant GI complications were excluded. A total of 171 patients received PPI>30 d, mean duration 287 ± 120 d (PPI group); 115 patients were not maintained on acid suppression (No-PPI group). GI ulceration and bleeding events were rare in PPI group (1.2% and 2.3%, respectively) and not observed in No-PPI group (p = NS). The incidence of infectious or hematological complications was not significantly different between groups. The PPI group experienced more biopsy-proven acute rejection (9.4% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.03). No direct benefit was observed with PPI in reducing the incidence of GI ulcers and bleeding events in kidney transplant recipients undergoing early CSWD. Further studies are needed to investigate the association of PPI and acute rejection.

No relevant pharmacokinetic interaction between pantoprazole and mycophenolate in renal transplant patients: a randomized crossover study

AIMS

Mycophenolic acid (MPA) suppresses lymphocyte proliferation through inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH) inhibition. Two formulations have been approved: mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS). Pantoprazole (PAN) inhibits gastric acid secretion, which may alter MPA exposure. Data from healthy volunteers suggest a significant drug-drug interaction (DDA) between pantoprazole and MPA. In transplant patients, a decreased MPA area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) may lead to higher IMPDH activity, which may lead to higher acute rejection risk. Therefore this DDA was evaluated in renal transplant patients under maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

In this single-centre, open, randomized, four-sequence, four-treatment crossover study, the influence of PAN 40 mg on MPA pharmacokinetics such as (dose-adjusted) AUC0-12 h (dAUC) was analysed in 20 renal transplant patients (>6 months post-transplantation) receiving MMF (1-2 g day(-1) ) and EC-MPS in combination with ciclosporin. The major metabolite MPA glucuronide (MPAG) and the IMPDH activity were also examined.

RESULTS

MMF + PAN intake led to a lowest mean dAUC for MPA of 41.46 ng h ml(-1) mg(-1) [95% confidence interval (CI) 32.38, 50.54], while MPA exposure was highest for EC-MPS + PAN [dAUC: 46.30 ng h ml(-1) mg(-1) (95% CI 37.11, 55.49)]. Differences in dAUC and dose-adjusted maximum concentration (dCmax) were not significant. Only for MMF [dAUC: 41.46 ng h ml(-1) mg(-1) (95% CI 32.38, 50.54)] and EC-MPS [dAUC: 43.39 ng h ml(-1) mg(-1) (95% CI 33.44, 53.34)] bioequivalence was established for dAUC [geometric mean ratio: 101.25% (90% CI 84.60, 121.17)]. Simultaneous EC-MPS + PAN intake led to an earlier time to Cmax (tmax) [median: 2.0 h (min-max: 0.5-10.0)] than EC-MPS intake alone [3 h (1.5-12.0); P = 0.037]. Tmax was not affected for MMF [1.0 h (0.5-5.0)] ± pantoprazole [1.0 h (0.5-6.0), P = 0.928). No impact on MPAG pharmacokinetics or IMPDH activity was found.

CONCLUSION

Pantoprazole influences EC-MPS and MMF pharmacokinetics but as it had no impact on MPA pharmacodynamics, the immunosuppressive effect of the drug was not impaired.

An interprofessional approach to reducing the overutilization of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult medical and surgical intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Overutilization of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is common. Acid-suppressive therapies routinely used for SUP are best reserved for patients with greatest risk of clinically important bleeding as they have been associated with nosocomial pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection and increased hospital cost.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to reduce inappropriate utilization of SUP in 2 adult medical and surgical ICU settings at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. Secondary objectives included reduction of inappropriate continuation of SUP at ICU and hospital discharge.

METHODS

To attain the study objective, an interprofessional team developed a bundled quality improvement initiative, including an institution SUP guideline, pharmacist-led intervention, and an education and awareness campaign. To assess the impact of these interventions, we conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing data on prescribing practices at baseline before and after the intervention. Since computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) was implemented during this time frame, preintervention data collection consisted of 2 periods, one before and one after CPOE implementation.

RESULTS

The incidence of the inappropriate use of SUP was not significantly different between the pre-CPOE and post-CPOE groups (20 and 19 per 100 patient-days, respectively; P = .88), but the incidence of inappropriate use of SUP was significantly lower in the postintervention group versus the post-CPOE group (9 and 19 per 100 patient-days, respectively; P = .03). At ICU discharge, 4% of patients in the post-intervention group were discharged inappropriately on SUP compared with 8% in the post-CPOE group (P = .54). At hospital discharge, none of the patients in the postintervention group were discharged inappropriately on SUP compared with 7% in the post-CPOE group (P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an interprofessional bundled quality improvement initiative is effective in decreasing inappropriate use of SUP in adult medical and surgical ICUs at a university-affiliated, tertiary care academic medical center.

Update on immununosuppressive therapies for dogs and cats

Treatment of immune-mediated disease in dogs and cats continues to evolve as new therapies are introduced or adapted from human medicine. Glucocorticoids remain the first-line therapy for many of the immune-mediated or inflammatory diseases of cats and dogs. The focus of this article is to provide an update on some of the common immunosuppressive therapies used in small animal veterinary medicine. The goals of therapy are to induce disease remission through the inhibition of inflammation and the modulation of lymphocyte function.