Drugs

, Volume 64, Issue 8, pp 861–872 | Cite as

Everolimus

Adis Drug Profile

Abstract

  • ▴ Everolimus is an immunosuppressant that blocks growth factor-mediated proliferation of haematopoietic and nonhaematopoietic cells.

  • ▴ Oral everolimus 0.75 or 1.5mg twice daily significantly reduced the incidence of the primary composite endpoint, efficacy failure 6 months after transplantation, compared with azathioprine 1–3 mg/kg/day, in adult cardiac transplant recipients. All patients also received baseline immunosuppression with ciclosporin and corticosteroids.

  • ▴ The incidence of efficacy failure remained significantly lower in everolimus recipients than in those receiving azathioprine 1 and 2 years after cardiac transplantation. However, graft and patient survival rates at 1 year were similar in patients receiving everolimus or azathioprine.

  • ▴ The incidence of graft vasculopathy 2 years after transplantation was significantly lower in cardiac transplant recipients receiving everolimus 0.75mg twice daily than in those receiving azathioprine.

  • ▴ The combined incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection, graft loss, death, or loss to follow-up was similar in adult patients receiving everolimus 1.5 or 3 mg/day or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 2 g/day 1 or 3 years after renal transplantation. Patients also received baseline immunosupression with ciclosporin and corticosteroids.

  • ▴ Compared with azathioprine and MMF, everolimus is associated with a lower incidence of cytome-galovirus infection in cardiac and renal transplant recipients. Everolimus has been associated with thrombocytopenia, leucopenia and elevated serum lipids and creatinine.

References

  1. 1.
    Sedrani R, Cottens S, Kallen J, et al. Chemical modification of rapamycin: the discovery of SDZ RAD. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2192–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nashan B. Early clinical experience with a novel rapamycin derivative. Ther Drug Monit 2002 Feb; 24(1): 53–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuler W, Sedrani R, Cottens S, et al. SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivative: pharmacological properties in vitro and in vivo. Transplantation 1997; 64: 36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nashan B. Review of the proliferation inhibitor everolimus. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2002 Dec; 11(12): 1845–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehler T, Waiser J, Schumann B, et al. The rapamycin analogue SDZ RAD inhibits LPS and anti-CD3mAb induced IL-10 synthesis in vitro and in human renal allograft recipients [abstract no. 957]. Transplantation 2000 Apr 27; 69 Suppl.: 360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bohler T, Waiser J, Budde K, et al. The in vivo effect of rapamycin derivative SDZ RAD on lymphocyte proliferation. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2195–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kovarik JM, Kaplan B, Tedesco Silva H, et al. Exposure-response relationships for everolimus in de novo kidney transplantation: defining a therapeutic range. Transplantation 2002 Mar 27; 73(6): 920–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schuurman HJ, Cottens S, Fuchs S, et al. SDZ RAD, a new rapamycin derivative: synergism with cyclosporine. Transplantation 1997; 64: 32–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nikolova Z, Hof A, Baumlin Y, et al. The peripheral lymphocyte count predicts graft survival in DA to Lewis heterotopic heart transplantation treated with FTY720 and SDZ RAD. Transpl Immunol 2000; 8(2): 115–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reis A, Megahed M, Reinhard T, et al. Coadministration of the new macrolide immunosuppressant RAD and mycophenolate mofetil in experimental corneal transplantation. Transplantation 2000; 70: 1397–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delaney MP, Higgins RM, Morris AG. FK506 and the rapamycin analogue, SDZ RAD do not have antagonistic effects on lymphocytes from renal transplant patients [abstract no. 657]. Am J Transplant 2001; 1 Suppl. 1: 301Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Viklicky O, Zou H, Muller V, et al. SDZ-RAD prevents manifestation of chronic rejection in rat renal allografts. Transplantation 2000; 69: 497–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schuurman HJ, Pally C, Weckbecker G, et al. SDZ RAD inhibits cold ischemia-induced vascular remodeling. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 1024–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cole OJ, Shehata M, Rigg KM. Effect of SDZ RAD on transplant arteriosclerosis in the rat aortic model. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2200–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matsumoto Y, Hof A, Baumlin Y, et al. Differential effect of cyclosporin A and SDZ RAD on neointima formation of carotid allografts in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice. Transplantation 2003 Oct 27; 76(8): 1166–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salminen US, Alho H, Taskinen E, et al. Effects of rapamycin analogue SDZ RAD on obliterative lesions in a porcine heterotopic bronchial allograft model. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 2204–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salminen US, Maasilta PK, Taskinen EI, et al. Prevention of small airway obliteration in a swine heterotopic lung allograft model. J Heart Lung Transplant 2000; 19: 193–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weckbecker G, Caballero V, Court M, et al. Differential effects of FTY720, RAD, and CsA on signs of chronic rejection in the rat tracheal allograft model. Graft 2002; 5(3): 145–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovarik JM, Kaplan B, Silva HT, et al. Pharmacokinetics of an everolimus-cyclosporine immunosuppressive regimen over the first 6 months after kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003 May; 3(5): 606–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kovarik JM, Hartmann S, Figueiredo J, et al. Effect of food on everolimus absorption: quantification in healthy subjects and a confirmatory screening in patients with renal transplants. Pharmacotherapy 2002 Feb; 22(2): 154–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pirron U, Kovarik JM, Eisen H, et al. Longitudinal pharmacokinetics of everolimus in de novo heart transplant patients and its influence on cyclosporine [abstract no. 0626]. Transplantation 2002 Aug 27; 74 Suppl.: 211Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kovarik JM, Sabia H, Rouilly M, et al. Influence of renal and hepatic impairment on everolimus pharmacokinetics: are dose adjustments necessary? [abstract no. 989]. Am J Transplant 2001; 1 Suppl. 1: 385Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kovarik JM, Kahan BD, Kaplan B, et al. Longitudinal assessment of everolimus in de novo renal transplant recipients over the first post-transplant year: pharmacokinetics, exposure-response relationships, and influence on cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 48–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobsen W, Serkova N, Hausen B, et al. Comparison of the in vitro metabolism of the macrolide immunosuppressants sirolimus and RAD. Transplant Proc 2001 Feb-2001 31; 33(1–2): 514–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kirchner GI, Vidal C, Winkler M, et al. LC/ESI-MS allows simultaneous and specific quantification of SDZ RAD and cyclosporine, including groups of their metabolites in human blood. Ther Drug Monit 1999; 21: 116–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirchner G, Mueller L, Winkler M, et al. Long-term pharmacokinetics of the metabolites of everolimus and cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2002 Sep; 34(6): 2233–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirchner GI, Winkler M, Mueller L, et al. Pharmacokinetics of SDZ RAD and cyclosporin including their metabolites in seven kidney graft patients after the first dose of SDZ RAD. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50(5): 449–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Neumayer HH, Paradis K, Korn A, et al. Entry-into-human study with the novel immunosuppressant SDZ RAD in stable renal transplant recipients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 694–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kahan BD, Wong RL, Carter C, et al. A phase I study of a 4-week course of SDZ-RAD (RAD) in quiescent cyclosporine-prednisone-treated renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999; 68: 1100–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kovarik JM, Sabia HD, Figueiredo J, et al. Influence of hepatic impairment on everolimus pharmacokinetics: implications for dose adjustment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001 Nov; 70(5): 425–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kovarik JM, Hsu CH, McMahon L, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of everolimus in de novo renal transplant patients: impact of ethnicity and comedications. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001 Sep; 70(3): 247–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kovarik JM, Kalbag J, Figueiredo J, et al. Differential influence of two cyclosporine formulations on everolimus pharmacokinetics: a clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction. J Clin Pharmacol 2002 Jan; 42(1): 95–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kovarik JM, Dantal J, Civati G, et al. Influence of delayed initiation of cyclosporine on everolimus pharmacokinetics in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Trans 2003; 3: 1576–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Curtis J, Nashan B, Kovarik JM, et al. RAD (everolimus) pharmacokinetics are unaltered with full-dose versus reduced-dose cyclosporine [abstract no. 651]. Am J Transplant 2001; 1 Suppl. 1: 299Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kovarik JM, Hartmann S, Figueiredo J, et al. Effect of rifampin on apparent clearance of everolimus. Ann Pharmacother 2002 Jun; 36(6): 981–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kovarik JM, Hartmann S, Hubert M, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessments of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors when coadministered with everolimus. J Clin Pharmacol 2002 Feb; 42(2): 222–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eisen HJ, Tuzcu EM, Dorent R, et al. Everolimus for the prevention of allograft rejection and vasculopathy in cardiac-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 2003 Aug 28; 349(9): 847–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hauck W, Delgado D, Perrone S, et al. Everolimus reduces cardiac allograft vasculopathy in de novo heart transplant recipients: 24 month follow-up [abstract no. 153]. Can J Cardiol 2003 Oct; 19 Suppl. A: 90AGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaplan B, Tedesco-Silva H, Mendez R, et al. North/South American, double-blind, parallel group study of the safety and efficacy of Certican. Am J Transplant 2001; 1 Suppl. 1: 475Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vitko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W, et al. International, double-blind, parallel group study of the safety and efficacy of Certican™ (RAD) versus mycophenolate mofetil in combination with Neoral® and steroids [abstract no. 1337]. Am J Transplant 2001; 1 Suppl. 1: 474Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oppenheimer F, Oyen O, Viljoen H, et al. 36-Month results of an international study with everolimus for the prevention of allograft rejection in de novo kidney transplant recipients [abstract no. 1201 plus oral presentation]. Am J Transplant 2003; 3 Suppl. 5: 459–1201Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Curtis J, Nashan B, Ponticelli C, et al. One year results of multicenter, open-label trial on safety and efficacy of Certican™ (RAD) used in combination with Simulect®, corticosteroids, and full or reduced dose Neoral® in renal transplantation [abstract no. 1335]. Am J Transplant 2001; 1 Suppl. 1: 474Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dantal J, Vitko S, Margreiter R, et al. Reduced incidence of CMV infection in kidney transplant recipients treated with everolimus (Certican, RAD) [abstract no. 0354]. Transplantation 2002 Aug 27; 74 Suppl.: 125Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kahan BD, Kaplan B, Lorber MI, et al. RAD in de novo renal transplantation: comparison of three doses on the incidence and severity of acute rejection. Transplantation 2001 May 27; 71(10): 1400–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eisen HJ. Everolimus in cardiac-transplant recipients [letter]. N Engl J Med 2003 Dec 4; 349(23): 2271–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Radeva JI, Reed SD, Kalo Z, et al. Economic evaluation of everolimus vs. azathioprine as part of triple immunosuppressive therapy in a phase III de novo heart transplant trial [abstract no. 287]. J Heart Lung Transplant 2003 Jan; 22 (1 Suppl. 1): 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Holmes MW, Chilcott JB, Walters SJ, et al. Economic evaluation of everolimus (Certican™1) versus mycophenolate mofetil as part of triple immunosuppressive therapy in de novo renal transplant recipients [abstract no. 2148; plus poster]. Transplantation 2002 Aug 27; 74 Suppl.: 435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Novartis. Summary of the product characteristics: everolimus. Novartis, 2003 DecGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. New Novartis drug Certican® approved in first European market [media release; online]. Available from URL: http://www.novartis.nl/pdf/nieuws/juli2003/pr230703certicanapprovalsweden.pdf [Accessed 2003 Nov 21]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adis International LimitedMairangi Bay, AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations