SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Tacrolimus”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2005

Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus compared with cyclosporin A microemulsion in renal transplantation: 2 year follow-up results.

BACKGROUND: Comparison studies of calcineurin inhibitors as cornerstone immunosuppressants in renal transplantation have demonstrated that tacrolimus consistently reduces acute rejection rates and, in some studies, also improves long-term renal outcome in comparison to cyclosporin A (CsA). The aim of the present 2 year follow-up of the European Tacrolimus vs Cyclosporin A Microemulsion Renal Transplantation Study was to investigate long-term clinical outcome in terms of rate of acute rejection, graft and patient survival and graft function. METHODS: The European Tacrolimus vs Cyclosporin A Microemulsion Renal Transplantation Study was a randomized, comparative 6 month trial of the calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and CsA in combination with both azathioprine and steroids. The intent-to-treat population (ITT) consisted of 286 patients in the tacrolimus arm and 271 in the CsA microemulsion (CsA-ME) arm. Whereas whole blood level targets were 10-20 and 5-15 ng/ml for tacrolimus and 100-400 and 100-200 ng/ml for CsA during months 0-3 and 4-6, respectively, during the investigator-driven follow-up after termination of the main study (months 7-24) no specific calcineurin inhibitor target levels were required. Follow-up data were collected at 2 years post-transplantation from 237 (82.9% of the ITT population) patients who received tacrolimus and 222 (81.9% of the ITT population) patients who received CsA-ME. RESULTS: Calculated on ITT populations, mortality (2.0% vs 3.3%; P<0.05 in Kaplan-Meier analysis) was lower, but rate of graft loss (9.3% vs 11.2%; P = 0.12 in Kaplan-Meier analysis) was not significantly different after 2 years with tacrolimus- vs CsA-ME-based immunosuppression. Biopsy-proven acute rejection was significantly lower (19.6%) with tacrolimus than with CsA-ME (37.3%) during months 0-6 (P<0.0001), but was not significantly different during months 7-12 and 13-24 of follow-up (1.7% and 0.8% with tacrolimus and 4.7% and 0.9% with CsA-ME, respectively). A composite endpoint consisting of graft loss, patient death and biopsy-proven acute rejection occurred significantly more frequently in CsA-ME patients than in tacrolimus patients (42.8% vs 25.9%; P<0.001) during 24 months follow-up. Renal function 2 years post-transplant, measured by serum creatinine concentrations, was significantly better in tacrolimus-based compared with CsA-ME-based immunosuppression (136.9 vs 161.6 micromol/l; P<0.01). Cornerstone immunosuppression remained unchanged in 82.5% and 66.2% of patients treated with tacrolimus and CsA-ME, respectively. At 2 years, more patients in the tacrolimus arm were off steroids and received calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy, and fewer tacrolimus patients remained on a triple immunosuppressive regimen. The cardiovascular risk profile was affected favourably in the tacrolimus arm, with lower cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations (despite less use of cholesterol-lowering drugs); no significant difference in requirement for antidiabetic medication was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 year study results confirm that tacrolimus is a highly efficacious cornerstone immunosuppressant in kidney transplantation. Tacrolimus-based immunosuppression may induce long-term benefits with regard to graft function and graft survival. The overall side-effect profile is considered to be favourable.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Validation of methods to study the distribution and protein binding of tacrolimus in human blood.

INTRODUCTION: Tacrolimus is a macrolide immunosuppressant that has a narrow therapeutic index, displays considerable variability in response, and has the potential for serious drug interactions. Therapeutic drug monitoring and dose individualisation for tacrolimus is complicated but essential. Few studies have investigated the blood distribution and protein binding of tacrolimus and the results of these studies are conflicting. The aim of the present study is to establish and validate methods to investigate the distribution of tacrolimus in human blood. To conduct these studies at clinically relevant concentrations the use of 3H-dihydro-tacrolimus instead of tacrolimus was investigated. METHODS: The use of radiolabelled tacrolimus was validated by conducting studies with a mixture of both labelled and unlabelled drug where tacrolimus was analysed by LC-MS/MS. The in vitro distribution of tacrolimus and 3H-dihydro-tacrolimus was investigated in blood collected from healthy subjects using Ficoll-Paque reagent and density gradient ultracentrifugation, respectively. The unbound fraction of tacrolimus in plasma was studied using equilibrium dialysis conducted at 37 degrees C. RESULTS: In blood, tacrolimus was found to be mainly associated with erythrocytes (85.3+/-1.5%), followed by diluted plasma proteins (14.3+/-1.5%) and lymphocytes (0.46+/-0.10%). In plasma, tacrolimus was found to mainly be associated with the soluble protein fraction (61.2+/-2.5%), high-density lipoproteins (HDL, 28.1+/-5.4%), low-density lipoproteins (LDL, 7.8+/-1.6%), and very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL, 1.4+/-0.3%). The unbound fraction of tacrolimus was found to be only 1.2+/-0.12%. Statistical comparison indicated that there was no significant difference in the blood distribution and plasma protein binding of 3H-dihydro-tacrolimus when compared with tacrolimus. DISCUSSION: These results have important implications for therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus and subsequent studies of tacrolimus distribution in transplant recipients.

Chromatography↗

PubMed2001

Comparative clinical pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in paediatric and adult patients.

Tacrolimus is a potent immunosuppressive agent used to prevent allograft rejection. The pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus have been studied in healthy volunteers and transplant recipients, mostly by using immunoassays to measure tacrolimus in plasma or blood. However, because of the cross-reactivity for certain tacrolimus metabolites of the antibodies used, these methods often lack specificity. This should be carefully taken into account when interpreting pharmacokinetic results for tacrolimus. In adult patients, tacrolimus is generally rapidly absorbed following oral administration (the time to reach maximum concentration is 1 to 2 hours), but in some patients absorption is slow or even delayed. Because of presystemic elimination, the oral bioavailability is low (around 20%) but may vary between 4 and 89%. Tacrolimus is highly bound to erythrocytes. Its binding to plasma proteins varies between 72 and 98% depending on the methodology used. Because of the extensive partitioning of tacrolimus into erythrocytes, its apparent volume of distribution (Vd) based on blood concentrations is much lower (1.0 to 1.5 L/kg) compared with values based on plasma concentrations (about 30 L/kg). Tacrolimus is metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 to at least 10 metabolites, some of which retain significant activity. Biliary excretion is the route of elimination of the tacrolimus metabolites. Systemic plasma clearance of tacrolimus is very high (0.6 to 5.4 L/h/kg), whereas blood clearance is much lower (0.03 to 0.09 L/h/kg). The terminal elimination half-life (t1/2beta) of tacrolimus is approximately 12 hours (with a range of 3.5 to 40.5 hours). Only limited information is available on the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in paediatric patients. The rate and extent of tacrolimus absorption after oral administration do not seem to be altered in paediatric patients. The Vd of tacrolimus based on blood concentrations in paediatric patients (2.6 L/kg) is approximately twice the adult value. Blood clearance of tacrolimus is also approximately twice as high in paediatric (0.14 L/h/kg) compared with adult (0.06 L/h/kg) patients. Consequently, t1/2beta does not appear modified in children, but oral doses need to be generally 2-fold higher than corresponding adult doses to reach similar tacrolimus blood concentrations. More pharmacokinetic studies in paediatric patients are, however, needed to rationalise the use of therapeutic drug monitoring for optimisation of tacrolimus therapy in this patient population.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Time-related clinical determinants of long-term tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in combination therapy with mycophenolic acid and corticosteroids: a prospective study in one hundred de novo renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus is an efficient primary immunosuppressive drug in renal transplantation but its long-term use is associated with calcineurin-inhibitor-related toxicity. The specific characteristics of the inter-relationship between dose, concentration and clinical (side-)effects for tacrolimus have not yet been identified and extensive long-term pharmacokinetic studies are presently lacking. OBJECTIVE: To establish the characteristics of the long-term pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus, to determine the time-dependent factors that influence the pharmacokinetics within the first critical post-transplant year and to identify a more appropriate way of monitoring drug exposure in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective pharmacokinetic study of tacrolimus was conducted in 100 de novo renal allograft recipients during the first year post-transplantation. METHODS: Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) blood samplings for tacrolimus were performed on days 7, 42, 90, 180 and 360 for all patients. Model-independent pharmacokinetic parameters for tacrolimus were calculated and dose-corrected when appropriate: AUC12, peak plasma concentration (Cmax), pre-dose trough concentration (C0), time to Cmax, average steady-state blood concentration, steady-state total body clearance, terminal half-life, volume of distribution and an estimate for tacrolimus bioavailability was derived from additional steady-state intravenous clearance data. The association between tacrolimus pharmacokinetic parameters and different clinical variables was evaluated on days 7, 42, 90, 180 and 360. The clinical variables were either donor-related (e.g. donor age), transplantation-related (e.g. delayed graft function), recipient-related (e.g. bodyweight), biochemical (e.g. serum albumin), therapeutic variables (e.g. corticosteroid dose) or disease variables (e.g. liver dysfunction). RESULTS: Long-term tacrolimus dose-corrected exposure (AUC12, C0) is characterised by a late significant increase towards the end of the first year post-transplantation as the result of a significant increase in tacrolimus bioavailability (p < 0.05) and a slow decrease in tacrolimus steady-state clearance. Consequently, tacrolimus dose-requirements corrected for bodyweight decrease significantly in the first postoperative year (p < 0.05), in part because of the simultaneous tapering of the corticosteroid dose which significantly affects tacrolimus bioavailability (p < 0.05). Other clinical variables that significantly influenced tacrolimus administration, exposure and bioavailability in a time-related fashion were identified in this study (renal allograft function [p < 0.05], liver dysfunction [p < 0.05], diarrhoea [p < 0.05]), while the clinical relevance of other variables was considerably moderated by our findings (serum albumin, haematocrit). Time-unrelated variables proved to be of significant continuing clinical importance for tacrolimus dose-exposure pharmacokinetics throughout the first post-transplant year (recipient age [p < 0.05], gender [p < 0.01] and donor-receptor gender mismatch [p < 0.05]), while donor hypotension (p < 0.05) and cold ischaemia time (p < 0.05) also proved significant although at present the reasons for this are unknown. Finally, using multiple stepwise regression analysis we demonstrated that classical assessment of tacrolimus exposure by monitoring pre-dose trough blood concentration (or any other single concentration sampling timepoint) is not the most reliable method and that abbreviated AUC measurements may constitute a more accurate clinical tool for (therapeutic) monitoring of drug exposure. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in the first year after renal transplantation are characterised by a specific time-dependent evolution. The identification of clinical variables that determine tacrolimus pharmacokinetics is an important aid in the development of reliable drug monitoring strategies using abbreviated AUC measurements.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗

PubMed1996

Tacrolimus therapy for refractory acute renal allograft rejection: definition of the histologic response by protocol biopsies.

UNLABELLED: Protocol biopsies were performed to define the histologic response to tacrolimus therapy in patients with refractory acute renal allograft rejection. Renal allograft biopsies were performed at defined intervals after initiation of tacrolimus therapy. Protocol biopsies were performed before tacrolimus therapy (within 48 hr of initiation of therapy) and after 1 week of therapy. If the 1-week biopsy did not show rejection reversal, repeat protocol biopsies were obtained at 1- to 2-week intervals, until histologic reversal was observed. Additional biopsies were obtained at 4 weeks and at 8-12 weeks after initiation of tacrolimus therapy. Indicated biopsies were also performed to evaluate increases in serum creatinine. A total of 92 biopsies were performed in 23 patients (average 4.0 biopsies/ patient). Biopsies were performed in each patient immediately before starting tacrolimus therapy (23 biopsies), and 69 biopsies (3.0 biopsies/patient) were performed during tacrolimus therapy. Rejection diagnosis was based on strict Banff criteria. Pretacrolimus biopsies demonstrated mild acute rejection in 64% of patients and moderate acute rejection in 36%. One week after initiation of tacrolimus therapy, protocol biopsies revealed the following: no rejection (60%), improvement (13%), no change (20%), and worsening rejection (7%). Histologic changes at 1 week did not correlate with changes in renal function, as 63% of patients that showed histologic improvement or reversal during the first 2 weeks of therapy did not show improvement in serum creatinine. A lack of histologic improvement (or worsening) at 1 week was demonstrated in a significant proportion of patients (27%); increased tacrolimus dosing provided rejection reversal or improvement in 1-2 weeks in each of these patients. Recurrent rejection was diagnosed on eight biopsies in seven patients, however six episodes were diagnosed by protocol biopsies alone (i.e., in the absence of an elevation in serum creatinine). Delayed improvement in renal function, despite histologic reversal, was likely due to physiologic effects of tacrolimus (i.e., afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction), as histologic evidence of tacrolimus toxicity was not observed during the first 2 weeks of therapy. Histologic evidence of tacrolimus nephrotoxicity (nodular arteriolar hyalinosis) was found in 21% (15 of 69) of biopsies in 39% of patients (9 of 23) at a median time of 60 days (range 12-150 days). Tacrolimus dose and blood levels (by IMx assay) did not correlate with development of clinically silent or clinically evident nephrotoxicity. IN CONCLUSION: 1) protocol biopsies provide information that allows individualization of tacrolimus rejection therapy, 2) histologic resolution of rejection often precedes biochemical improvement, 3) histologic evidence of tacrolimus nephrotoxicity is seldom observed in the first 2 weeks of therapy, and 4) clinically silent recurrent rejection and clinically silent tacrolimus nephrotoxicity are observed with significant frequency during tacrolimus therapy for refractory renal allograft rejection.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2003

Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus-based combination therapies.

This paper reviews the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus, with special reference to its combination with adjunctive immunosuppressants. Oral bioavailability of tacrolimus, which is variable between patients, averages approximately 25%. This is largely due to extrahepatic metabolism of tacrolimus in the gastrointestinal epithelium. Nevertheless, intra-patient variability is low, as evidenced by the small number of dose changes required to maintain patients within the recommended tacrolimus target levels. Tacrolimus is distributed extensively in the body with most partitioned outside the blood compartment. Concentrations of tacrolimus in blood are used as a surrogate marker of clinically relevant concentration of the drug at the site(s) of action. Convenient whole-blood sampling within a +/-2-h window around 12 h post-dose (C(min)) is highly predictive of systemic exposure to tacrolimus and is thus used to optimise therapy. Sampling at other time-points offers no advantage over C(min) monitoring. The interactions of tacrolimus with other immunosuppressive agents are well characterized. After cessation of concomitant corticosteroid treatment, exposure to tacrolimus increases by approximately 25%. In contrast, there is no pharmacokinetic interaction between mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus. Therefore, systemic exposure to the active metabolite of MMF, mycophenolic acid, is higher with MMF-tacrolimus combination than with MMF-cyclosporin combination. Therefore, 1 g/day MMF may be an adequate maintenance dose in tacrolimus-based regimens. Co-administration of tacrolimus and sirolimus, while having no effect on exposure to sirolimus, results in reduced exposure to tacrolimus at sirolimus doses of 2 mg/day and above. In conclusion, tacrolimus levels should be monitored when sirolimus is co-administered at doses >2 mg/day and after cessation of corticosteroid treatment.

Drug Interactions↗

PubMed2006

Pharmacokinetic study of the combination of tacrolimus and fluconazole in renal transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: It was hypothesized that fluconazole in combination with tacrolimus can be used safely with an imitated area under curve (AUC) compared to tacrolimus. At every time point, this combination was presumed to correlate well with pre-intervention AUC, thus the dosage could be significantly reduced. MATERIAL AND METHOD: There were two groups of patients. Group I (n = 15) included patients who received tacrolimus at 0.1-0.3 mg/kg/day within one week after transplantation. These patients were studied for tacrolimus whole blood concentrations. The tacrolimus dosage was then reduced by 40% and given in combination with fluconazole at 100-200 mg/day for one week, tacrolimus whole blood concentrations were studied again. Group II (n = 8) included patients who had been transplanted for more than 3 months and had received a stable dosage of tacrolimus in combination with fluconazole for at least one month. RESULTS: In group I, before fluconazole combination, trough levels correlated well with AUC0-12. After fluconazole combination, trough levels still correlated well with AUC0-12. The after/before fluconazole-combination ratio of AUC0-12 and maximum tacrolimus concentration (Cmax) was 1.08 (90%CI; 0.98-1.19) and 1.17 (90%CI; 1.00-1.36), respectively. Correspondingly, the oral bioavailability, which was the after/ before fluconazole combination ratio of AUC0-12/dose and absorption rate (Cmax/dose/body weight), was significantly increased [2.08 (90%CI; 1.80-2.40) and 2.24 (90%CI; 1.99-2.51), respectively]. Tacrolimus clearance after the fluconazole combination was significantly reduced, compared with before the combination (14.74 vs 38.79 L/h, p = 0.001). Mean tacrolimus dosage in this group could be reduced from 10.7 mg/day before fluconazole combination to 5.7 mg/day after it and to 3.7 mg/day at 3 months after transplantation (p = 0.001). In group II, trough levels correlated well with AUC0-12 and the mean tacrolimus dosage in this group was only 2.9 mg/day. CONCLUSION: This present study showed a good correlation between tacrolimus trough levels and AUC, which occurred in monotherapy or in patients who received fluconazole. The tacrolimus trough levels could be trusted in monitoring patients who received a tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen. The combination to fluconazole was ascertained and it was safe to reduce the dose of tacrolimus.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Therapeutic monitoring of tacrolimus (FK506) with the first- and second-generation microparticle enzyme immunoassays: performance and results in four patient populations.

The performance of the first- and second-generation microparticle enzyme immunoassays for tacrolimus (Tacrolimus I and Tacrolimus II, respectively) was compared during 8 months routine drug monitoring. The minimum detection limit of the Tacrolimus II assay was lower: 1.4 versus 4.0 microg tacrolimus/l. There was also no overlap between results using 10 samples containing 0 and 1 microg tacrolimus/l in the Tacrolimus II assay (p < 0.001), with a corresponding significant difference achieved for the Tacrolimus I assay only at 0 and 4 microg/l. For control specimens, within-assay precision was superior for Tacrolimus II at 5 microg/l (7.3% vs. 31.5%), similar at 10 and 15 microg/l (6.3% versus 6.6% and 4.4% vs. 4.6%, respectively) but worse than Tacrolimus I at 25 microg/l (8.0% vs. 4.0%). Using three pools of blood samples from recipients of liver transplants (containing approximately 4, 10, and 20 microg tacrolimus/l) interassay precision (n > 20) was 14.2%, 10.4%, and 8.0% for Tacrolimus II and 42.4%, 13.8%, and 7.1%, for Tacrolimus I. The analytical times and stability of the calibration curves were similar for the two assays. Tacrolimus I and Tacrolimus II results were closely correlated using patients' blood samples (r approximately equal to 0.8 in 249 adult and 168 pediatric liver transplant samples, 161 renal transplant samples, and 61 samples from patients with autoimmune diseases). However, Tacrolimus II assay results were consistently lower (by a mean of 1.02 to 2.05 microg/l). The authors conclude that the Tacrolimus II assay retains the speed, accuracy, and precision of its predecessor and demonstrates an improved sensitivity, which should facilitate monitoring at less than 5 microg tacrolimus/l.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Interference of hematocrit in the tacrolimus II microparticle enzyme immunoassay.

The authors studied the effect of hematocrit, bilirubin, and alkaline phosphatase on microparticle enzyme immunoassay for tacrolimus II (MEIA II) using specimens of whole blood obtained from 33 patients undergoing cyclosporine treatment. Tacrolimus was added to these samples at a final concentration of 7.5 microg/L and 15 microg/L. Both coefficients of variation were over 20% (21% at 7.5 macrog/L of tacrolimus and 22% at 15 microg/L of tacrolimus). No correlation was found between bilirubin and tacrolimus concentrations or between alkaline phosphatase and tacrolimus concentrations. On the other hand, negative correlations were found between hematocrit values and tacrolimus concentrations (r2 = 0.47; P < 0.0001 at 7.5 microg/L tacrolimus, r2 = 0.54; P < 0.0001 at 15 microg/L tacrolimus). Negative correlations were also found between hematocrit and the tacrolimus concentration using normal human red blood cells diluted with physiological saline solution (r2 = 0.93; P < 0.0001 at 7.5 microg/L tacrolimus, r2 = 0.91; P < 0.0001 at 15 microg/L tacrolimus). The results showed that the hematocrit interferes with the MEIA II for tacrolimus, and the magnitude of the interference is clinically significant. Beyond the normal range of hematocrit values, caution should be exercised in interpreting results as one may need to compensate for the levels of tacrolimus.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Changes in tacrolimus distribution in blood and plasma protein binding following liver transplantation.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus is complicated by the conflicting evidence of a relationship between trough blood tacrolimus concentration and clinical outcome. This prospective study investigated the blood distribution and protein binding of tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients over the first 60 days after transplantation with a view to identifying possible predictors of clinical outcome. Blood samples were collected from 10 liver transplant recipients on days 1, 7, and 60 after the initiation of tacrolimus therapy, and the distribution of tacrolimus in blood and the plasma protein binding were investigated. The unbound concentration of tacrolimus in plasma was estimated. Graft status was assessed using liver function tests and liver biopsies. The association of tacrolimus with erythrocytes varied significantly (74.4 +/- 5.0% vs 80.4 +/- 3.4%; P = 0.034) from day 1 to day 60. In plasma, tacrolimus mainly associated with lipoprotein-deficient plasma (60.1 +/- 6.5%), followed by high-density lipoproteins (27.2 +/- 6.6%), low-density lipoproteins (10.0 +/- 4.2%), and very low-density lipoproteins (2.8 +/- 1.8%). The percentage of tacrolimus associated with leukocytes (1.10 +/- 0.40% vs 0.40 +/- 0.09%; P = 0.0003) and the unbound concentration of tacrolimus (0.70 +/- 0.19 vs 0.28 +/- 0.04 ng/L; P < 0.0001) were observed to be significantly lower during episodes of rejection. In patients experiencing tacrolimus-related side effects, only the unbound concentration of tacrolimus was found to be significantly higher (0.84 +/- 0.19 vs 0.53 +/- 0.19 ng/L; P < 0.0001), and blood concentrations were not different (9.2 +/- 2.2 vs 8.1 +/- 1.8 ng/mL; P = 0.1). Blood distribution and protein binding of tacrolimus vary significantly over the posttransplantation period, leading to changes in its unbound concentration. A prospective study in a larger cohort of patients is required to establish the role of blood distribution and protein binding of tacrolimus in its therapeutic drug monitoring.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Topical application of the immunosuppressant tacrolimus accelerates carcinogenesis in mouse skin.

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus, produced by the fungus Streptomyces tsukabaensis, is a potent macrolide immunosuppressant widely used in liver and kidney transplantation. Topical tacrolimus has recently been found to be an effective treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: Because of the well-known association between T-cell immunosuppression and an increased risk of carcinogenesis, we investigated the effect of topical tacrolimus on skin carcinogenesis in 117 mice. METHODS: Approximately 8 cm2 of the shaved dorsal skin of 7-week-old female CD-1 mice was treated with 7,12-dimethylbenz[alpha]anthracene (DMBA) dissolved in acetone, which is in general use as a tumour initiator, or acetone alone, on day 1 of the experiment, followed by promoting treatment with 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) with or without tacrolimus, or acetone with or without tacrolimus, for 20 weeks. The mice were divided into six treatment groups: (1) DMBA followed by acetone; (2) DMBA followed by TPA; (3) DMBA followed by acetone + tacrolimus; (4) DMBA followed by TPA + tacrolimus; (5) acetone followed by acetone + tacrolimus; and (6) acetone followed by acetone (control). RESULTS: The induction of skin tumours was significantly greater in the TPA-treated groups than in the absence of TPA. However, after 14 weeks there was marked synergy between tacrolimus and the DMBA/TPA regimen, with 0.47 +/- 0.13 (mean +/- SD) new tumours per mouse per week in group 4 vs. 0.10 +/- 0.025 in group 2 (P < 0.01), and 0.01 +/- 0.002 in group 3. A significant reduction in the CD4/CD8 ratio was found in axillary and inguinal lymph nodes in tacrolimus-treated mice, supporting the presumption that the immunosuppressive effect of the drug was responsible for its effect in promoting tumorigenesis. The major increase in tumours caused by topical tacrolimus was of papillomas, not squamous cell carcinomas. Papillomas are uncommon in humans, and are benign. However, 8.5% of the tumours found in the experiment were squamous cell carcinomas, and a considerable synergy between topical tacrolimus and conventional carcinogens was observed, raising the spectre of some risk of skin carcinogenesis in AD patients undergoing prolonged treatment with tacrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Caution and careful surveillance are required with regard to skin lesions in patients treated with tacrolimus for prolonged periods.

9,10-Dimethyl-1,2-benzanthracene↗

PubMed1997

Nifedipine interaction with tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the possible drug interaction between nifedipine and tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study was done comparing two groups of liver transplant recipients. The starting time for comparison was the same after transplant. One group (n = 22) consisted of hypertensive patients who were treated with nifedipine; the other group (n = 28) did not receive nifedipine. The two groups were compared over 1 year. The effect of nifedipine on tacrolimus was measured in terms of tacrolimus whole blood trough concentrations, daily tacrolimus dosages, and cumulative tacrolimus dosages at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. All patient charts were reviewed with regard to concurrent medication that could affect the metabolism of tacrolimus and eventually affect tacrolimus concentrations and dosages. DATA COLLECTION: All required information was retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between daily dosage requirements of tacrolimus at 90 (p = 0.03), 180 (p = 0.004), and 365 (p = 0.0004) days between the nifedipine and no-nifedipine groups. The tacrolimus daily dosage in the nifedipine group was decreased by 26%, 29%, and 38% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, compared with the dosage of the no-nifedipine group. Statistically significant differences in cumulative dosages of tacrolimus were observed at 180 (p = 0.02) and 365 (p = 0.003) days between the nifedipine and no-nifedipine groups, with cumulative dosage reduction of 25% and 31% by 6 and 12 months, respectively, in the nifedipine group compared with the no-nifedipine group. CONCLUSIONS: Nifedipine decreased the daily and cumulative dosage requirement of tacrolimus. The interaction observed between nifedipine and tacrolimus is the first reported in humans and is clinically important. As a result of this drug interaction, it is recommended that blood concentrations of tacrolimus be monitored during coadministration of these drugs and that the tacrolimus dosage be adjusted accordingly.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Diltiazem increases tacrolimus concentrations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a patient with increased tacrolimus concentrations due to a diltiazem drug interaction. CASE SUMMARY: A 68-year-old white man, four months following orthotopic liver transplantation secondary to hepatitis C and Laënnec's cirrhosis, was admitted to the intensive care unit for diarrhea, dehydration, and atrial fibrillation. He was stabilized on oral tacrolimus 8 mg twice daily, with a whole blood tacrolimus trough concentration of 12.9 ng/mL on admission. He was started on a continuous infusion of diltiazem for one day, followed by 30 mg orally every eight hours. Three days after admission, the patient became delirious, confused, and agitated; he was found to have a whole blood tacrolimus trough concentration of 55 ng/mL. The tacrolimus was withheld and diltiazem was discontinued. The tacrolimus concentrations fell over the next three days to 6.7 ng/mL, with a corresponding improvement in his mental status. The oral tacrolimus was restarted at 3 mg twice daily and increased gradually to 5 mg twice daily over the next four days; this produced tacrolimus trough concentrations between 9 and 10 ng/mL. DISCUSSION: Tacrolimus is known to be a substrate for P-glycoprotein and metabolized by CYP3A. Diltiazem inhibits CYP3A, P-glycoprotein, and tacrolimus metabolism in vitro. Although this interaction may have been predictable, this is the first detailed case report describing this clinically significant drug interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Diltiazem can dramatically increase tacrolimus concentrations and result in tacrolimus toxicity. Avoidance of this interaction or careful monitoring of tacrolimus concentrations along with tacrolimus dose reduction is recommended if diltiazem therapy cannot be avoided.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Pharmacokinetic considerations relating to tacrolimus dosing in the elderly.

Relaxation of the upper age limits for solid organ transplantation coupled with improvements in post-transplant survival have resulted in greater numbers of elderly patients receiving immunosuppressant drugs such as tacrolimus. Tacrolimus is a potent agent with a narrow therapeutic window and large inter- and intraindividual pharmacokinetic variability. Numerous physiological changes occur with aging that could potentially affect the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus and, hence, patient dosage requirements. Tacrolimus is primarily metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A enzymes in the gut wall and liver. It is also a substrate for P-glycoprotein, which counter-transports diffused tacrolimus out of intestinal cells and back into the gut lumen. Age-associated alterations in CYP 3A and P-glycoprotein expression and/or activity, along with liver mass and body composition changes, would be expected to affect the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in the elderly. However, interindividual variation in these processes may mask any changes caused by aging. More investigation is needed into the impact aging has on CYP and P-glycoprotein activity and expression. No single-dose, intense blood-sampling study has specifically compared the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus across different patient age groups. However, five population pharmacokinetic studies, one in kidney, one in bone marrow and three in liver transplant recipients, have investigated age as a co-variate. None found a significant influence for age on tacrolimus bioavailability, volume of distribution or clearance. The number of elderly patients included in each study, however, was not documented and may have been only small. It is likely that inter- and intraindividual pharmacokinetic variability associated with tacrolimus increase in elderly populations. In addition to pharmacokinetic differences, donor organ viability, multiple co-morbidity, polypharmacy and immunological changes need to be considered when using tacrolimus in the elderly. Aging is associated with decreased immunoresponsiveness, a slower body repair process and increased drug adverse effects. Elderly liver and kidney transplant recipients are more likely to develop new-onset diabetes mellitus than younger patients. Elderly transplant recipients exhibit higher mortality from infectious and cardiovascular causes than younger patients but may be less likely to develop acute rejection. Elderly kidney recipients have a higher potential for chronic allograft nephropathy, and a single rejection episode can be more devastating. There is a paucity of information on optimal tacrolimus dosage and target trough concentration in the elderly. The therapeutic window for tacrolimus concentrations may be narrower. Further integrated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies of tacrolimus are required. It would appear reasonable, based on current knowledge, to commence tacrolimus at similar doses as those used in younger patients. Maintenance dose requirements over the longer term may be lower in the elderly, but the increased variability in kinetics and the variety of factors that impact on dosage suggest that patient care needs to be based around more frequent monitoring in this age group.

Aged↗

PubMed1995

Clinical pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus.

Tacrolimus, a novel macrocyclic lactone with potent immunosuppressive properties, is currently available as an intravenous formulation and as a capsule for oral use, although other formulations are under investigation. Tacrolimus concentrations in biological fluids have been measured using a number of methods, which are reviewed and compared in the present article. The development of a simple, specific and sensitive assay method for measuring concentrations of tacrolimus is limited by the low absorptivity of the drug, low plasma and blood concentrations, and the presence of metabolites and other drugs which may interfere with the determination of tacrolimus concentrations. Currently, most of the pharmacokinetic data available for tacrolimus are based on an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method, which does not distinguish tacrolimus from its metabolites. The rate of absorption of tacrolimus is variable with peak blood or plasma concentrations being reached in 0.5 to 6 hours; approximately 25% of the oral dose is bioavailable. Tacrolimus is extensively bound to red blood cells, with a mean blood to plasma ratio of about 15; albumin and alpha 1-acid glycoprotein appear to primarily bind tacrolimus in plasma. Tacrolimus is completely metabolised prior to elimination. The mean disposition half-life is 12 hours and the total body clearance based on blood concentration is approximately 0.06 L/h/kg. The elimination of tacrolimus is decreased in the presence of liver impairment and in the presence of several drugs. Various factors that contribute to the large inter- and interindividual variability in the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus are reviewed here. Because of this variability, the narrow therapeutic index of tacrolimus, and the potential for several drug interactions, monitoring of tacrolimus blood concentrations is useful for optimisation of therapy and dosage regimen design.

Drug Interactions↗

PubMed1993

Tacrolimus. A review of its pharmacology, and therapeutic potential in hepatic and renal transplantation.

Tacrolimus (FK 506) is a macrolide immunosuppressant which possesses similar but more potent immunosuppressant properties compared with cyclosporin, inhibiting cell-mediated and humoral immune responses. Like cyclosporin, tacrolimus demonstrates considerable interindividual variation in its pharmacokinetic profile. This has caused difficulty in defining the optimum dosage regimen and has highlighted the usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring. Most clinical studies with tacrolimus have neither been published in their entirety nor subjected to extensive peer review; there is also a paucity of published randomised investigations of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin, particularly in renal transplantation. Despite these drawbacks, tacrolimus has shown notable efficacy as a rescue or primary immunosuppressant therapy when combined with corticosteroids in adult and paediatric recipients following liver or kidney transplantation. Indeed, graft salvage rates in patients experiencing rejection or drug-related toxicity were > or = 50%, although data in renal transplantation are limited. Compared with cyclosporin as a primary immunosuppressant, tacrolimus showed comparable or greater patient/graft survival rates in liver allograft recipients (where cost savings associated with reduced hospitalisation costs were evident in one study), and comparable patient/graft survival in patients following kidney transplantation. Worthy of note was the efficacy of tacrolimus as a primary immunosuppressant in patients who received en bloc kidney allografts. The incidence of rejection was largely reduced following rescue therapy with tacrolimus and was generally lower (notably for refractory rejection) than that observed for cyclosporin, at least in liver allograft recipients. This was reflected in less need for adjunct immunotherapy including antilymphocyte preparations for the treatment of rejection episodes. The potential for reduction or withdrawal of corticosteroid therapy with tacrolimus appears to be a distinct advantage compared with cyclosporin, and this may be enhanced by the reduced incidence of infectious complications and of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia reported by some investigators. In other respects, however, the tolerability profile of tacrolimus appears to be broadly similar to that of cyclosporin. Against this background, preliminary data indicate that tacrolimus provides a valuable therapeutic alternative to retransplantation in patients experiencing liver or kidney graft rejection or drug-related toxicity. Pending confirmation of initial randomised studies and preliminary results from large randomised investigations, tacrolimus may well be considered as an alternative primary immunosuppressant to cyclosporin in hepatic (particularly) and renal transplantation. Furthermore, the steroid-sparing effects of tacrolimus, although of benefit to all patient groups, may prove to be of particular worth in children and in en bloc kidney recipients. In these patients tacrolimus may well emerge as the drug of choice.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Tacrolimus. An update of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the management of organ transplantation.

Tacrolimus (FK 506) has been evaluated as immunosuppressive therapy in patients with a variety of solid organ and other transplants. Extensive data have now confirmed its efficacy as primary or rescue therapy in renal and hepatic transplantation. In prospective and historically controlled studies of primary therapy, tacrolimus generally demonstrated greater efficacy than the conventional formulation of cyclosporin for preventing episodes of acute rejection and allowed reduction of corticosteroid use. Chronic rejection rates were also significantly lower with tacrolimus in a large randomised liver transplantation trial. However, patient and graft survival rates were similar in both treatment groups (although numerically larger in adults with liver transplants). In children, rejection rates and corticosteroid requirements were usually lower with tacrolimus and patient and graft survival were generally similar with the 2 immunosuppressants. The finding of reduced corticosteroid requirements with tacrolimus may be of particular benefit in prepubertal children, who are still growing. A small amount of evidence has also accumulated regarding the use of tacrolimus as primary therapy in patients who have undergone bone marrow or heart and/or lung transplantation. Data are not conclusive, particularly in children, but tacrolimus appears to be useful for treating patients who have undergone these organ transplantations and may be associated with a lower incidence of obliterative bronchiolitis than cyclosporin in the latter group. Potential efficacy has also been shown in a limited number of patients with pancreas or pancreas-kidney, pancreatic islet and intestinal or multivisceral transplants, and in children who have undergone heart or heart-lung transplantation. Tacrolimus also has a use as rescue therapy in bone marrow, heart, lung and pancreatic transplantation, but data are currently insufficient for conclusions to be made. However, these results support the need for further study in these populations. Adverse effects occurring during tacrolimus therapy are generally of the type common to all immunosuppressive regimens. However, diabetes mellitus, neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity are more common in tacrolimus than cyclosporin recipients. Hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, hirsutism and gingival hyperplasia are more common with cyclosporin. In 2 large multicentre clinical trials (US liver and European renal), tacrolimus was discontinued more frequently during the first year because of adverse events. However, the tolerability of tacrolimus appears related to dosage, improving as the dose is reduced. Tacrolimus should be considered an effective primary immunosuppressant in renal and hepatic transplantation. The drug is also a useful agent for rescue therapy in patients experiencing rejection or poor tolerability to cyclosporin. Thus, tacrolimus provides the clinician with an effective option for patients requiring immunosuppression and, with a different tolerability and efficacy profile to cyclosporin, it will better allow the tailoring of therapy to meet the needs of individual patients.

Graft vs Host Disease↗

PubMed2003

Tacrolimus: a further update of its use in the management of organ transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Extensive clinical use has confirmed that tacrolimus (Prograf) is a key option for immunosuppression after transplantation. In large, prospective, randomised, multicentre trials in adults and children receiving solid organ transplants, tacrolimus was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure rates and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. Notably, the lower incidence of rejection episodes after renal transplantation in tacrolimus recipients was reflected in improved cost effectiveness. In bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients, the incidence of tacrolimus grade II-IV graft-versus-host disease was significantly lower with tacrolimus than cyclosporin treatment. Efficacy was maintained in renal and liver transplant recipients after total withdrawal of corticosteroid therapy from tacrolimus-based immunosuppression, with the incidence of acute rejection episodes at up to 2 years' follow-up being similar with or without corticosteroids. Tacrolimus provided effective rescue therapy in transplant recipients with persistent acute or chronic allograft rejection or drug-related toxicity associated with cyclosporin treatment. Typically, conversion to tacrolimus reversed rejection episodes and/or improved the tolerability profile, particularly in terms of reduced hyperlipidaemia. In lung transplant recipients with obliterative bronchiolitis, conversion to tacrolimus reduced the decline in and/or improved lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Tolerability issues may be a factor when choosing a calcineurin inhibitor. Cyclosporin tends to be associated with a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, hirsutism, gingivitis and gum hyperplasia, whereas the incidence of some types of neurotoxicity, disturbances in glucose metabolism, diarrhoea, pruritus and alopecia may be higher with tacrolimus treatment. Renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rates, was better in tacrolimus than cyclosporin recipients at up to 5 years' follow-up. CONCLUSION: Recent well designed trials have consolidated the place of tacrolimus as an important choice for primary immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation and in BMT. Notably, in adults and children receiving transplants, tacrolimus-based primary immunosuppression was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion treatment in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure and the incidence of acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. The reduced incidence of rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus translated into a better cost effectiveness relative to cyclosporin microemulsion treatment. The optimal immunosuppression regimen is ultimately dependent on balancing such factors as the efficacy of the individual drugs, their tolerability, potential for drug interactions and pharmacoeconomic issues.

Adolescent↗