Differential effects of cyclosporine and tacrolimus on arterial function

Cardiovascular complications are the leading cause of death in renal transplant recipients and constitute one of the leading causes of graft failure. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) induce an acceleration of atherosclerotic processes in the arterial wall. There are conflicting data whether cyclosporine A (CsA) and tacrolimus (Tac) differ in their deleterious effects on arterial stiffening. The present study combines several measurement techniques to provide a global and reliable assessment of the differential effects of CNI on the gold‐standard parameters of arterial function. Pulse wave analysis was performed by the SphygmoCor (AtCor^®), HEM‐9000AI (Omron^®), and CR‐2000 device (Hypertension Diagnostics^®) in 56 stable renal transplant recipients (29 CsA, 27 Tac). Groups were homogeneous for age, gender, body mass index, time on dialysis prior to transplantation, and graft function. Whereas systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central aortic blood pressure, cardiac index, large and small artery compliance index (C₁ and C₂), and pulse wave velocity did not significantly differ between CsA and Tac, augmentation index (AI₇₅) was significantly lower in patients treated with Tac. This finding was consistent as assessed by two different measurement systems (P < 0.05). Compared to CsA, Tac has a favorable impact on augmentation index, a strong independent predictor for cardiovascular mortality.     

Renal function in patients with cadaveric kidney transplants treated with tacrolimus or cyclosporine

INTRODUCTION: Renal function predicts graft survival in kidney transplant patients. This study compared the 2-year evolution of renal function in patients treated with cyclosporine or tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and prednisone. METHODS: We studied 1558 cadaveric renal transplant recipients from 14 Spanish hospitals between January 2000 and December 2002. Of these, 1168 were treated with tacrolimus and 390 with cyclosporine. The primary efficacy endpoint was long-term renal function. Renal function was measured by serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by creatinine clearance calculated from the Cockcroft-Gault formula. This report summarizes the 2-year results. RESULTS: At 24 months the tacrolimus group showed significantly better serum creatinine (1.5 +/- 0.7 vs 1.8 +/- 0.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and GFR (60.5 +/- 20.9 mL/min vs 47.9 +/- 10.0, P < .001) than the cyclosporine group. Additionally, recipients with ideal graft donors (23.5 +/- 2.8 vs 24.0 +/- 2.9 years) had a better serum creatinine at 2 years (1.23 +/- 0.2 vs 1.5 +/- 0.4 mg/dL, P < .05). Multivariate analysis showed that tacrolimus was an independent factor associated with better renal function: odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval (1.2 to 2.2), P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a renal transplant treated with tacrolimus in combination with MMF and prednisone displayed better renal function at 2 years than those who received cyclosporine.     

Cinacalcet's effect on the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus, cyclosporine and mycophenolate in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The calcimimetic drug cinacalcet offers a novel therapeutic option to treat post-transplant hypercalcemia and hyperparathyroidism; however, the interaction with calcineurin inhibitors and mycophenolate has not been evaluated. METHODS: In the present study the effects of cinacalcet on the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine A (CsA), tacrolimus (Tac) and mycophenolate were investigated in 14 renal transplant recipients with stable renal function (mean creatinine 126.4 +/- 45.3 micromol/L). The patients were treated with either CsA (n = 8) or Tac (n = 6) in combination with mycophenolate/azathioprine and steroids. Twelve-hour pharmacokinetic investigations to measure CsA and its six main metabolites, Tac and mycophenolate concentrations were performed before and after 1-week treatment with 30 mg cinacalcet once daily. RESULTS: Cinacalcet treatment induced a significant 14.3 +/- 12.1% decrease in Tac AUC(0-12) (P = 0.039). Tac C(max), T(max) and T(1/2) also tended to decrease. The pharmacokinetics of CsA and mycophenolate were not significantly affected by concomitant treatment with cinacalcet. However, the secondary CsA metabolite, AM19, showed a significant increase of 9.0 +/- 9.5% during cinacalcet treatment (P = 0.040). Renal function decreased significantly from 78 +/- 11 to 72 +/- 12 mL/min (P = 0.019) and correlated with the increased levels of metabolite AM19 in the CsA group. Renal function was unchanged in the Tac group. CONCLUSION: Cinacalcet treatment showed a moderate effect on the Tac, but not CsA or mycophenolate, pharmacokinetics after 1-week concomitant treatment. This interaction appears to have minor clinical relevance. However, it is advisable to monitor renal function in CsA-treated patients due to the observed decrease in renal function.     

Improvement of impaired renal function in heart transplant recipients treated with mycophenolate mofetil and low-dose cyclosporine

BACKGROUND: Cyclosporine (CsA) nephrotoxicity is a common problem after cardiac transplantation. We have studied the impact of CsA dose reduction in association with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) treatment on renal function in heart transplant recipients with suspected CsA nephrotoxicity (serum creatinine level >2 mg/dl). METHODS: Twelve heart transplant recipients (11 men, 1 woman; 111 to 1813 days after transplantation) with CsA-based immunosuppression (plus azathioprine and/or steroids) and a serum creatinine level >2.0 mg/dl were started on a daily dose of 2000 mg of MMF. Dilated cardiomyopathy was the underlying disease in nine patients, ischemic cardiomyopathy in three patients. Mean patient age was 57 years (range 44-69 years). Azathioprine was discontinued and CsA slowly tapered. Creatinine clearance, serum creatinine level, urea nitrogen, and uric acid were monitored. CsA levels were measured, and CsA dose was adjusted for whole blood levels of 70-120 microg/L. Ten patients still had endomyocardial biopsies, whereas one had echocardiographic controls only. RESULTS: One grade 1B rejection episode according to ISHLT (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation) was observed until 1 year after the switch to MMF. One patient was excluded due to gastrointestinal side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion from azathioprine to MMF with consecutive reduction of CsA in heart transplant recipients with CsA-impaired renal function improves renal function as evidenced by lower serum creatinine, urea nitrogen, uric acid, and higher creatinine clearance.     

他克莫司与环孢素A在高致敏肾移植受者中的应用比较

目的 观察和比较高致敏肾移植受者应用他克莫司(FK506)与环孢素A(CsA)的有效性和安全性.方法 根据术后免疫抑制方案的不同,将147例高致敏肾移植受者(其中术前群体反应性抗体＞50%的首次肾移植受者59例,2次肾移植受者88例)分为FK506组(53例)和CsA组(94例),两组的免疫抑制方案分别为FK506(或CsA)+霉酚酸酯+泼尼松.观察并分析两组受者术后移植肾存活率、血肌酐水平以及并发症的发生率.结果 FK506组术后1、3和5年的移植肾存活率(86.8%、82.3%和75.3%)略高于CsA组(81.9%、75.4%和66.9%),但差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);FK506组术后1年时血肌酐水平为(100.72±15.88)μmol/L,CsA组为(117.29±11.77)μmol/L,两组比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);FK506组与CsA组相比,术后急性排斥反应、慢性排斥反应、肝功能损害、高血压和高血脂的发生率显著降低(P＜0.05),而高血糖的发生率明显升高(P＜0.01),两组移植肾功能延迟恢复和感染的发生率无明显差异(P＞0.05).结论 FK506与CsA相比,能有效降低高致敏受者肾移植术后急、慢性排斥反应的发生率,减少术后并发症的发生,提高移植肾的长期存活率,对高致敏肾移植受者是非常有效和安全的.     

Differential pharmacokinetic interaction of tacrolimus and cyclosporine on everolimus

OBJECTIVE: We characterized the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus and everolimus in a combined immunosuppressive regimen. METHODS: This was an open-label exploratory trial in eight maintenance renal transplant patients with calcineurin inhibitor intolerance initially receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus. At enrollment, MMF was discontinued and replaced with everolimus 1.5 mg twice a day in study period 1 (days 1 to 10). In period 2 (day 11 to month 3), tacrolimus dose was reduced by half. RESULTS: At study entry tacrolimus trough level (C0) was 7.9 +/- 3.9 ng/mL and area under the curve over a dosing interval (AUC) was 132 +/- 56 ng x h/mL. The addition of everolimus in period 1 did not change tacrolimus exposure: C0 8.4 +/- 4.0 ng/mL, AUC 134 +/- 70 ng x h/mL. Everolimus pharmacokinetics in the presence of tacrolimus in period 1 were: C0 3.3 +/- 1.2 ng/mL, Cmax 10.4 +/- 5.1 ng/mL, AUC 58 +/- 20 ng x h/mL. When compared to pharmacokinetic data from a previous study in 47 renal transplant patients receiving everolimus at the same fixed dose (1.5 mg twice a day) with cyclosporine, everolimus exposure was 2.5-fold higher with cyclosporine relative to the data in this study with tacrolimus. After tacrolimus dose reduction in period 2, there was no clinically relevant change in everolimus exposure: C0 3.0 +/- 1.1 ng/mL, Cmax 8.2 +/- 1.3 ng/mL, AUC 49 +/- 10 ng x h/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus appears to have a minimal effect on everolimus blood levels compared with the influence of cyclosporine. The dose of everolimus when combined with tacrolimus needs to be higher than when combined with cyclosporine in order to reach a given everolimus blood level.     

Comparative study of cyclosporine and tacrolimus vs newer immunosuppressants mycophenolate mofetil and rapamycin on coronary endothelial function.

BACKGROUND: Endothelial dysfunction contributes to the development of intimal hyperplasia in transplanted hearts by decreasing the protective effects of endothelial-derived nitric oxide. Immunosuppressive drugs may increase the dysfunction caused by rejection and further accelerate the development of graft coronary vasculopathy. This study compares the effect of cyclosporine and tacrolimus vs two newer immunosuppressive drugs, mycophenolate mofetil and rapamycin, on coronary endothelial function. METHODS: An in vitro model of drug incubation in Krebs-bicarbonate solution (4(o)C, 48 hours) using porcine epicardial coronary arteries was developed. Coronary endothelial function studies were performed in organ chamber experiments after incubation with cyclosporine (10(-4), 10(-7) mol/liter), tacrolimus (10(-4), 10(-7) mol/liter), mycophenolate mofetil (10(-4), 10(-7) mol/liter), rapamycin (10(-7), 10(-11) mol/liter), and their vehicles to assess effects on G-protein-mediated vasorelaxations leading to the release of nitric oxide. RESULTS: Exposure to cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil was associated with a dose-dependent decrease in endothelium-dependent relaxations to serotonin (an agonist that binds to 5-HT1D receptors coupled to Gi-protein) but no impairment of relaxations to bradykinin (an agonist that binds to B2 receptors coupled to Gq-proteins). Exposure to tacrolimus and rapamycin caused severe impairment of relaxations to serotonin and a lesser one to bradykinin. We observed alterations of relaxations to the calcium ionophore A23187 after exposure to mycophenolate mofetil and rapamycin. Exposure to rapamycin and mycophenolate mofetil vehicles impaired relaxation to all agonists. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil induce a dysfunction of the vasorelaxing properties of the endothelium that may lead to a decrease in the protective effects of nitric oxide on the vascular wall but that these drugs still have a more favorable vascular profile than do tacrolimus and rapamycin. Decreased endothelial function after mycophenolate mofetil and rapamycin exposure could be caused by their vehicles.     

Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Our clinical trial was designed to investigate the optimal combination of immunosuppressants for renal transplantation. METHODS: A randomized three-arm, parallel group, open label, prospective study was performed at 15 North American centers to compare three immunosuppressive regimens: tacrolimus + azathioprine (AZA) versus cyclosporine (Neoral) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus tacrolimus + MMF. All patients were first cadaveric kidney transplants receiving the same maintenance corticosteroid regimen. Only patients with delayed graft function (32%) received antilymphocyte induction. A total of 223 patients were randomized, transplanted, and followed for 1 year. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline demography between the three treatment groups. At 1 year the results are as follows: acute rejection 17% (95% confidence interval 9%, 26%) in tacrolimus + AZA; 20% (confidence interval 11%, 29%) in cyclosporine + MMF; and 15% (confidence interval 7%, 24%) in tacrolimus + MMF. The incidence of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy was 12% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 11% in the cyclosporine + MMF group, and 4% in the tacrolimus + MMF group. There were no significant differences in overall patient or graft survival. Tacrolimus-treated patients had a lower incidence of hyperlipidemia through 6 months posttransplant. The incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus requiring insulin was 14% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 7% in the cyclosporine + MMF and 7% in the tacrolimus + MMF groups. CONCLUSIONS: All regimens yielded similar acute rejection rates and graft survival, but the tacrolimus + MMF regimen was associated with the lowest rate of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy.     

Heart transplantation under cyclosporine or tacrolimus combined with mycophenolate mofetil or everolimus

Objective

In this study, we examined whether cyclosporine was effective when combined with everolimus in clinical heart transplantation (HT).

Patients and Methods

From August 2004 to July 2007, 108 adult patients underwent primary HT. The main exclusion criteria were: donors >60 years; cold ischemia times >6 hours; recipients of multiorgan transplantation or a previous transplantation; and panel-reactive antibodies ≥25%. The cyclosporine plus everolimus regimen (group CE, n = 32) was suggested first; upon refusal or if the recipient or donor was positive for hepatitis B surface antigen or PCR + hepatitis C infection, then patient was randomly assigned to success cyclosporine plus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; group CM, n = 24) or tacrolimus plus MMF (group TM, n = 25). All patients underwent similar operative procedures and postoperative care with protocol endomyocardial biopsies.

Results

No 30-day mortality was noted in any group. The efficacy failure rates were 3%, 25%, and 16% in groups CE, CM, and TM, respectively (P = .04 between groups CE and CM). The 1-year survivals were 96.7% ± 18.1%, 89.7% ± 29.8%, and 81.0% ± 35.5% for groups CE, CM, and TM, respectively (P = .04 between groups CE and TM). The 3-year survival rates were 91.9% ± 28.3%, 79.8% ± 46.0%, and 81.0% ± 35.5% in groups CE, CM, and TM, respectively.

Conclusions

The 3 immunosuppressive regimens offered good efficacy after HT. The cyclosporine plus everolimus regimen showed a significantly better result with less efficacy failure (compared with cyclosporine plus MMF: 3% vs 25%) and better 1-year survival compared with tacrolimus plus MMF: 96.7% vs 81.0%.     

Safety and efficacy of tacrolimus rescue therapy in 55 kidney transplant patients treated with cyclosporine

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conversion from cyclosporine to tacrolimus, we analyzed 55 kidney transplant patients who were converted due to cosmetic reasons in 42 patients, acute rejection in 2 patients, and other causes in 11 patients. At the doses and levels used, the development of diabetes mellitus was minimized. Disappearance of cosmetic side-effects and improvement of cardiovascular risk factors, together with conservation of renal function, encourage us to use tacrolimus as an efficacious and safe immunosuppressive therapy.     

Improved renal function after conversion from tacrolimus/sirolimus to tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil in kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the potential nephrotoxicity of sirolimus (SRL) and tacrolimus (TAC) in combination. METHODS: We reviewed the course of 97 kidney transplant patients treated with SRL and reduced-dose TAC. Conversion from SRL to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was prescribed in a minority (n = 19) for various nonrenal side effects. We compared outcomes of converted patients to those remaining on TAC/SRL (n = 78). RESULTS: TAC levels were increased in converters (P = 0.009). Rejection rates were similar between groups over 18 months (21% vs. 16%, p = ns). Serum creatinine (Cr) and MDRD glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were similar between groups at nadir and six-months, but at 18 months the percent change from six-month Cr was +17% in non-converters vs. -10% in converters (P = 0.004 for the difference). The difference in GFR between groups at 18 months was also significant (P = 0.01). By multivariate analysis, only conversion to MMF was associated with a greater percent change in Cr from 6 to 18 months (P = 0.015). Conversion to MMF also correlated with higher GFR at 18 months independent of rejection, delayed graft function, and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion from TAC/SRL to TAC/MMF led to improved renal function despite increased TAC exposure after conversion.     

Thyroid hormone status in patients with impaired kidney function

International Urology and Nephrology - We aimed to investigate the prevalence of thyroid hormone abnormalities and the relationship between free triiodothyronine (fT3), thyroid stimulating hormone...     

Randomized trial of tacrolimus + mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine versus cyclosporine + mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation: results at three years

METHODS: Two hundred twenty-three recipients of first cadaveric kidney allografts were randomized to receive tacrolimus (TAC) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), TAC + azathioprine (AZA), or cyclosporine (Neoral; CsA) + MMF. All regimens contained corticosteroids, and antibody induction was used only in patients who experienced delayed graft function (DGF). Patients were followed-up for 3 years. RESULTS: The results at 3 years corroborate and extend the findings of the 2-year results. Patients with DGF treated with TAC+MMF experienced an increase in 3-year allograft survival compared with patients receiving CsA+MMF (84.1% vs. 49.9%, P=0.02). Patients randomized to either treatment arm containing TAC exhibited numerically superior kidney function when compared with CsA. During the 3 years, new-onset insulin dependence occurred in 6, 3, and 11 patients in the TAC+MMF, CsA+MMF, and TAC+AZA treatment arms, respectively. Furthermore, patients randomized to TAC+MMF received significantly lower doses of MMF as compared with those who received CsA+MMF. CONCLUSION: All three immunosuppressive regimens provided excellent safety and efficacy. However, the best results overall were achieved with TAC+MMF. The combination may provide particular benefit to kidney allograft recipients with DGF. In patients who experienced DGF, graft survival was better at 3 years in those patients receiving TAC in combination with either MMF or AZA as compared with the patients receiving CsA with MMF.