Everolimus Based Immunosuppression Strategies in Adult Lung Transplant Recipients: Calcineurin Inhibitor Minimization Versus Calcineurin Inhibitor Elimination

Everolimus (EVE) provides an alternative to maintenance immunosuppression when conventional immunosuppression cannot be tolerated. EVE can be utilized with a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) minimization or elimination strategy. To date, clinical studies investigating EVE after lung transplant (LTx) have primarily focused on the minimization strategy to preserve renal function. The primary aim was to determine the preferred method of EVE utilization for lung transplant recipients (LTR). To undertake this aim, we compared the safety and efficacy outcomes of EVE as part of minimization and elimination immunosuppressant regimens. Single center retrospective study of 217 LTR initiated on EVE (120 CNI minimization and 97 CNI elimination). Survival outcomes were calculated from the date of EVE commencement. On multivariate analysis, LTR who received EVE as part of the CNI elimination strategy had poorer survival outcomes compared to the CNI minimization strategy [HR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.11-2.32, p=0.010]. Utilization of EVE for renal preservation was associated with improved survival compared to other indications [HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.97, p=0.032]. EVE can be successfully utilized for maintenance immunosuppression post LTx, particularly for renal preservation. However, immunosuppressive regimens containing low dose CNI had superior survival outcomes, highlighting the importance of retaining a CNI wherever possible.

Rescue Everolimus Post Lung Transplantation is Not Associated With an Increased Incidence of CLAD or CLAD-Related Mortality

Everolimus (EVE) has been used as a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) minimization/ elimination agent or to augment immunosuppression in lung transplant recipients (LTR) with CNI-induced nephrotoxicity or neurotoxicity. The long-term evidence for survival and progression to chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) is lacking. The primary aim was to compare survival outcomes of LTR starting EVE-based immunosuppression with those remaining on CNI-based regimens. The secondary outcomes being time to CLAD, incidence of CLAD and the emergence of obstructive (BOS) or restrictive (RAS) phenotypes. Single center retrospective study of 91 LTR starting EVE-based immunosuppression matched 1:1 with LTR remaining on CNI-based immunosuppression. On multivariate analysis, compared to those remaining on CNI-based immunosuppression, starting EVE was not associated with poorer survival [HR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.67-1.61, p = 0.853], or a statistically significant faster time to CLAD [HR 1.34, 95% CI: 0.87-2.04, p = 0.182]. There was no difference in the emergence of CLAD (EVE, [n = 57, 62.6%] vs. CNI-based [n = 52, 57.1%], p = 0.41), or the incidence of BOS (p = 0.60) or RAS (p = 0.16) between the two groups. Introduction of EVE-based immunosuppression does not increase the risk of death or accelerate the progression to CLAD compared to CNI-based immunosuppression.

Review: immunosuppression for the lung transplant patient

Lung transplantation (LTx) has evolved significantly since its inception and the improvement in LTx outcomes over the last three decades has predominantly been driven by advances in immunosuppression management. Despite the lack of new classes of immunosuppression medications, immunosuppressive strategies have evolved significantly from a universal method to a more targeted approach, reflecting a greater understanding of the need for individualized therapy and careful consideration of all factors that are influenced by immunosuppression choice. This has become increasingly important as the demographics of lung transplant recipients have changed over time, with older and more medically complex candidates being accepted and undergoing LTx. Furthermore, improved survival post lung transplant has translated into more immunosuppression related comorbidities long-term, predominantly chronic kidney disease (CKD) and malignancy, which has required further nuanced management approaches. This review provides an update on current traditional lung transplant immunosuppression strategies, with modifications based on pre-existing recipient factors and comorbidities, peri-operative challenges and long term complications, balanced against the perpetual challenge of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). As we continue to explore and understand the complexity of LTx immunology and the interplay of different factors, immunosuppression strategies will require ongoing critical evaluation and personalization in order to continue to improve lung transplant outcomes.

Long-term management of elderly patients taking immunosuppressive medications

BACKGROUND

General practitioners are increasingly likely to encounter elderly patients who are receiving immunosuppressants for the management of autoimmune diseases or solid organ transplants.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the long-term management of the elderly patient treated with immunosuppressants. Recommendations for monitoring, preventing and managing adverse effects of immunosuppressants are summarised.

DISCUSSION

Elderly patients prescribed immunosuppressants may present a number of unique challenges. Immunosenescence, altered pharmacokinetics and the presence of multiple comorbidities can all affect response to immunosuppressants. Through close collaboration with tertiary care providers and regular screening, the general physician is well placed to recognise medication-related complications.

Single-centre study of therapeutic drug monitoring of posaconazole in lung transplant recipients: factors affecting trough plasma concentrations

Objectives

This study describes therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of posaconazole suspension and modified release (MR) tablets in lung transplant (LTx) recipients and evaluates factors that may affect posaconazole trough plasma concentration (Cmin).

Methods

A single-centre, retrospective study evaluating posaconazole Cmin in LTx recipients receiving posaconazole suspension or MR tablets between January 2014 and December 2016.

Results

Forty-seven LTx patients received posaconazole suspension, and 78 received the MR tablet formulation; a total of 421 and 617 Cmin measurements were made, respectively. Posaconazole was concurrently administered with proton pump inhibitor in ≥ 90% of patients. The median (IQR) of initial posaconazole Cmin following 300 mg daily of posaconazole tablet was significantly higher than that of 800 mg daily of posaconazole suspension [1.65 (0.97-2.13) mg/L versus 0.81 (0.48-1.15) mg/L, P < 0.01]. Variability in posaconazole Cmin was apparent regardless of the formulations prescribed and dose adjustments were routinely undertaken to maintain therapeutic Cmin. A clear dose-response relationship was observed in patients receiving posaconazole MR tablets. Non-specific adverse events (fatigue, tremor, lethargy, sweating, nausea/vomiting and weight loss) were reported in 3/78 (4%) patients receiving posaconazole MR tablets. Posaconazole Cmin in these three patients was determined to be 9.6, 6.2 and 2.3 mg/L.

Conclusions

The current study has provided clinically important insights into the TDM of posaconazole in LTx recipients. Routine TDM should be undertaken in LTx recipients receiving posaconazole suspension and/or MR tablets.

Evolution to twice daily bolus intravenous tacrolimus: optimizing efficacy and safety of calcineurin inhibitor delivery early post lung transplant

BACKGROUND

Achieving therapeutic levels of cyclosporine (CSA) or Tacrolimus (TAC) early post lung transplantation (LTx) is challenging. Gut dysmotility, renal dysfunction and seizure risk are variably present and problematic. This study reports a single center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All adult LTx recipients from Aug 06-Aug 11 were divided into 4 cohorts: A) intravenous (IV) CSA twice daily (BD) 6 hr bolus then oral CSA, n=63; B) sub-lingual (SL) TAC BD then oral TAC, n=90; C) oral TAC BD, n=18; and D) IV TAC BD 4hr bolus then oral TAC, n=62. CSA/TAC trough levels were measured at days 1-7, 14 and 28 aiming for target trough levels >250 ng/ml and >8ng/ml respectively.

RESULTS

There were no differences in demographics, ICU and total length of stay between groups. Target trough levels were achieved in 13%*#, 26%*, 17% and 37%# of patients for Groups A-D respectively, (*#p<0.05) by day 7, increasing to 65%, 74%, 88% and 72% by day 14 (p=ns). Acute rejection at day 14 was seen in 3%*, 6%, 17%* and 5% respectively (*p<0.05) Acute rejection <90days was noted in 15%, 17%, 22% and 11% respectively (p=ns). No significant difference in neurotoxicity or acute nephrotoxicity was apparent across the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Early post LTx, SL and oral routes of immunosuppressive administration are less efficacious than intravenous. BD bolus IV TAC achieved significantly higher target levels earlier, with correspondingly lower acute rejection rates and acceptable safety of administration.