Advertisement

Tacrolimus exposure early after lung transplantation and exploratory associations with acute cellular rejection

  • David R. DarleyEmail author
  • Lilibeth Carlos
  • Stefanie Hennig
  • Zhixin Liu
  • Richard Day
  • Allan R. Glanville
Clinical Trial
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

To (i) describe tacrolimus (TAC) pre-dose concentrations (C0), (ii) calculate apparent oral TAC clearance (CL/FHCT) adjusted for measured haematocrit (HCTi) and standardised to a HCT of 45%, across three observation time points and (iii) explore if low TAC C0 or high mean CL/FHCT are associated with an increased risk of rejection episodes early after lung transplantation.

Methods

TAC whole blood concentration-time profiles and transbronchial biopsies were performed prospectively at weeks 3, 6 and 12 after lung transplantation. The TAC pre-dose concentration (C0) was measured, and CL/FHCT was determined using non-compartmental analysis. The associations between TAC C0 and CL/FHCT and rejection status were explored using repeated measures logistic regression.

Results

Eighteen patients provided 377 TAC whole blood concentrations. Considerable variability around the median (IQR) CL/FHCT 6.8 (4.2–15.9) L h−1, and the median C0 12.7 (9.9–16.6) μg L−1 was noted. Despite adjustment for haematocrit, a significant decrease was observed in CL/FHCT in all patients over time: CL/FHCT 14 (5.4–23) at week 3, CL/FHCT 7.7 (4.5–12) at week 6 and CL/FHCT 3.9 (2.4–11) L h−1 at week 12 (p < 0.01). Seven (38.9%) patients experienced a single grade 2 rejection, whilst 11 (61.1%) patients experienced no rejection. Higher TAC C0 were associated with a reduced risk of rejection OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.51–0.91, p = 0.02), and greater mean CL/FHCT was associated with an increased risk of rejection OR 1.34 (95% CI 1.01–1.81 p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Monitoring TAC C0, HCT and CL/FHCT in patients after lung transplantation may assist clinicians in detecting patients at risk of acute rejection and may guide future research into TAC and HCT monitoring after lung transplantation.

Keywords

Tacrolimus Lung transplantation Exposure Clearance Rejection 

Abbreviations

TAC

Tacrolimus

CLAD

Chronic lung allograft dysfunction

TDM

Therapeutic drug monitoring

PK

Pharmacokinetics

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Ross Norris from St Vincent’s Pathology for performing the tacrolimus assays.

Author contributions

Dr. David Darley was the primary investigator and first author of the article. Lilibeth Carlos assisted with patient consent, data collection and analysis. Dr. Stefanie Hennig and Zhixin Liu assisted with data analysis. Prof Ric Day assisted with study design. All authors contributed to manuscript review. Prof Allan Glanville provided supervision and funding for the study.

Funding

Funding for the TAC assays was provided by the Department of Thoracic Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst.

Compliance with ethical standards

This material has not been published previously (except for interim results in abstract form), is not under consideration and has not been accepted for publication elsewhere. All authors listed on the manuscript have seen and approved the submission of this version of the manuscript. I believe the submission complies with the manuscript checklist. I will be serving as the principal author for correspondence purposes.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Venkataramanan R, Swaminathan A, Prasad T, Jain A, Zuckerman S, Warty V, McMichael J, Lever J, Burckart G, Starzl T (1995) Clinical pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus. Clin Pharmacokinet 29(6):404–430Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yusen RD, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, Benden C, Dipchand AI, Goldfarb SB, Levvey BJ, Lund LH, Meiser B, Rossano JW, Stehlik J (2015) The registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-second Official Adult Lung and Heart-Lung Transplantation Report—2015; focus theme: early graft failure. J Heart Lung Transplant 34(10):1264–1277Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martinu T, Chen DF, Palmer SM (2009) Acute rejection and humoral sensitization in lung transplant recipients. Proc Am Thorac Soc 6(1):54–65Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martinu T, Pavlisko EN, Chen DF, Palmer SM (2011) Acute allograft rejection: cellular and humoral processes. Clin Chest Med 32(2):295–310Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glanville AR, Aboyoun CL, Havryk A, Plit M, Rainer S, Malouf MA (2008) Severity of lymphocytic bronchiolitis predicts long-term outcome after lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 177(9):1033–1040Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verleden SE, Ruttens D, Vandermeulen E, Vaneylen A, Dupont LJ, van Raemdonck DE, Verleden GM, Vanaudenaerde BM, Vos R (2013) Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome and restrictive allograft syndrome: do risk factors differ? Transplantation 95(9):1167–1172Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wallemacq P, Armstrong VW, Brunet M, Haufroid V, Holt DW, Johnston A, Kuypers D, Meur YL, Marquet P, Oellerich M, Thervet E, Toenshoff B, Undre N, Weber LT, Westley IS, Mourad M (2009) Opportunities to optimize tacrolimus therapy in solid organ transplantation: report of the European consensus conference. Ther Drug Monit 31(2):139–152Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooks E, Tett SE, Isbel NM et al (2015) Population pharmacokinetic modelling and Bayesian estimation of tacrolimus exposure: is this clinically useful for dose prediction yet? Clin Pharmacokinet 55(11):1295–1335Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neurohr C, Huppmann P, Zimmermann G, Leuchte H, Baumgartner R, Hatz R, Frey L, Überfuhr P, Bittmann I, Behr J, Reichart B, for the Munich Lung Transplant Group (2009) Tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil as first line immunosuppression after lung transplantation. Transpl Int 22(6):635–643Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Treede H, Klepetko W, Reichenspurner H, Zuckermann A, Meiser B, Birsan T, Wisser W, Reichert B, Munich and Vienna Lung Transplant Group (2001) Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine after lung transplantation: a prospective, open, randomized two-center trial comparing two different immunosuppressive protocols. J Heart Lung Transplant 20:511–517Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Treede H, Glanville AR, Klepetko W, Aboyoun C, Vettorazzi E, Lama R, Bravo C, Knoop C, Aubert JD, Reichenspurner H, European and Australian Investigators in Lung Transplantation (2012) Tacrolimus and cyclosporine have differential effects on the risk of development of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome: results of a prospective, randomized international trial in lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 31:797–804Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zuckermann A, Reichenspurner H, Birsan T, Treede H, Deviatko E, Reichart B, Klepetko W (2003) Cyclosporine A versus tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil and steroids as primary immunosuppression after lung transplantation: oneyear results of a 2-center prospective randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 125:891–900Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scheffert JL, Raza K (2014) Immunosuppression in lung transplantation. J Thorac Dis 6(8):1039–1053Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallagher HM, Sarwar G, Tse T, Sladden TM, Hii E, Yerkovich ST, Hopkins PM, Chambers DC (2015) Erratic tacrolimus exposure, assessed using the standard deviation of trough blood levels, predicts chronic lung allograft dysfunction and survival. J Heart Lung Transplant 34(11):1442–1448Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ensor CR, Iasella CJ, Harrigan KM, Morrell MR, Moore CA, Shigemura N, Zeevi A, McDyer JF, Venkataramanan R (2018) Increasing tacrolimus time-in-therapeutic range is associated with superior one year outcomes in lung transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 18(6):1527–1533Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ragette R, Kamler M, Weinreich G et al (2004) Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in lung transplantation: new strategies for monitoring. J Heart Lung Transplant 20(9):1315–1319Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knoop C, Thiry P, Saint-Marcoux F, Rousseau A, Marquet P, Estenne M (2005) Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and dose monitoring after lung transplantation for cystic fibrosis and other conditions. Am J Transplant 5:1477–1482Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendez A, Berastegui C, Lopez-Mesegeur M et al (2014) Pharmacokinetic study of conversion from tacrolimus twice-daily to tacrolimus once daily in stable lung transplantation. Transplantation 97(3):358–362Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monchaud C, Marquet P (2009) Pharmacokinetic optimization of immunosuppressive therapy in thoracic transplantation: part I. Clin Pharmacokinet 48(7):419–462Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooks E, Tett SE, Isbel NM, Staatz CE (2016) Population pharmacokinetic modelling and Bayesian estimation of tacrolimus exposure: is this clinically useful for dosage prediction yet? Clin Pharmacokinet 55(11):1295–1335Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saint-Marcoux F, Knoop C, Debord J, Thiry P, Rousseau A, Estenne M, Marquet P (2005) Pharmacokinetic study of tacrolimus in cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis lung transplant patients and design of bayesian estimators using limited sampling strategies. Clin Pharmacokinet 44:1317–1328Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Monchaud C, de Winter BC, Knoop C, Estenne M, Reynaud-Gaubert M, Pison C, Stern M, Kessler R, Guillemain R, Marquet P, Rousseau A (2012) Population pharmacokinetic modelling and design of a bayesian estimator for therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus in lung transplantation. Clin Pharmacokinet 51(3):175–186Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Undre NA, van Hooff J, Christiaans M, Vanrenterghem Y, Donck J, Heeman U, Kohnle M, Zanker B, Land W, Morales JM, Andrés A, Schäfer A, Stevenson P (1999) Low systemic exposure to tacrolimus correlates with acute rejection. Transplant Proc 31:296–298Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis S, Gralla J, Klem P, Tong S, Wedermyer G, Freed B, Wiseman A, Cooper JE (2018) Lower tacrolimus exposure and time in therapeutic range increase the risk of de novo donor-specific antibodies in the first year of kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 18(4):907–915Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Egeland EJ, Robertsen I, Hermann M et al (2017) High tacrolimus clearance is a risk factor for acute rejection in the early phase after renal transplantation. Transplantation 101(8):273–279Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Størset E, Holford N, Hennig S, Bergmann TK, Bergan S, Bremer S, Åsberg A, Midtvedt K, Staatz CE (2014) Improved prediction of tacrolimus concentrations early after kidney transplantation using theory-based pharmacokinetic modelling. Br J Clin Pharmacol 78(3):509–523Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Størset E, Holford N, Midtvedt K, Bremer S, Bergan S, Åsberg A (2014) Importance of haematocrit for a tacrolimus target concentration strategy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 70(1):65–77Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bergmann TK, Hennig S, Barraclough KA, Isbel NM, Staatz CE (2014) Population pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in adult kidney transplant patients: impact of CYP3A5 genotype on starting dose. Ther Drug Monit 36(1):62–70Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cockcroft DW, Gault MH (1976) Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 16(1):31–41Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stewart S, Fishbein MC, Snell GI, Berry GJ, Boehler A, Burke MM, Glanville A, Gould FK, Magro C, Marboe CC, McNeil KD, Reed EF, Reinsmoen NL, Scott JP, Studer SM, Tazelaar HD, Wallwork JL, Westall G, Zamora MR, Zeevi A, Yousem SA (2007) Revision of the 1996 working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of lung rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 26:1229–1242Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Jonge H, Vanhove T, de Loor H, Verbeke K, Kuypers DRJ (2015) Progressive decline in tacrolimus clearance after renal transplantation is partially explained by decreasing CYP3A4 activity and increasing haematocrit. Br J Clin Pharmacol 80(3):548–559Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rey E, Treluyer JM, Pons G (1998) Drug disposition in cystic fibrosis. Clin Pharmacokinet 35:314–329Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zheng H, Zeevi A, Schuetz E, Lamba J, McCurry K, Griffith BP, Webber S, Ristich J, Dauber J, Iacono A, Grgurich W, Zaldonis D, McDade K, Zhang J, Burckart GJ (2004) Tacrolimus dosing in adult lung transplant patients is related to cytochrome P4503A5 gene polymorphism. J Clin Pharmacol 44(2):135–140Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuehl P, Zhang J, Lin Y, Lamba J, Assem M, Schuetz J, Watkins PB, Daly A, Wrighton SA, Hall SD, Maurel P, Relling M, Brimer C, Yasuda K, Venkataramanan R, Strom S, Thummel K, Boguski MS, Schuetz E (2001) Sequence diversity in CYP3A promoters and characterization of the genetic basis of polymorphic CYP3A5 expression. Nat Genet 27:383–391Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee SJ, Usmani KA, Chanas B, Ghanayem B, Xi T, Hodgson E, Mohrenweiser HW, Goldstein JA (2003) Genetic findings and functional studies of human CYP3A5 single nucleotide polymorphisms in different ethnic groups. Pharmacogenetics 13:461–472Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thompson EE, Kuttab-Boulos H, Witonsky D, Yang L, Roe BA, Di Rienzo A (2004) CYP3A variation and the evolution of salt-sensitivity variants. Am J Hum Genet 75:1059–1069Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kurose K, Sugiyama E, Saito Y (2012) Population differences in major functional polymorphisms of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodymamics-related genes in Eastern Asians and Europeans: implications in the clinical trials for novel drug development. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 27(1):9–54Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Blanco JG, Edick MJ, Hancock ML, Winick NJ, Dervieux T, Amylon MD, Bash RO, Behm FG, Camitta BM, Pui CH, Raimondi SC, Relling MV (2002) Genetic polymorphisms in CYP3A5, CYP3A4 and NQO1 in children who developed therapy-related myeloid malignancies. Pharmacogenetics 12:605–611Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gabrielson J, Weiner D (1994) Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data analysis. Swedish Pharmaceutical Press, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lledó-García R, Hennig S, Karlsson MO (2009) Comparison of dose-finding designs for narrow-therapeutic-index drugs: concentration-controlled vs. dose-controlled trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 86(1):62–69Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lung Transplant UnitSt Vincent’s Hospital DarlinghurstSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.UNSW MedicineSt Vincent’s Hospital Clinical SchoolSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PharmacySt Vincent’s Hospital DarlinghurstSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.School of PharmacyUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.Department of StatisticsUniversity of New South WalesKensingtonAustralia
  6. 6.Department of Clinical PharmacologySt Vincent’s Hospital DarlinghurstSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations