Drugs & Aging

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 715–737 | Cite as

Immunotherapy in Elderly Transplant Recipients

A Guide to Clinically Significant Drug Interactions
Review Article

Abstract

Currently, >50% of candidates for solid organ transplantation in Europe and the US are aged >50 years while approximately 15% of potential recipients are aged ≥65 years. Elderly transplant candidates are characterized by specific co-morbidity profiles that compromise graft and patient outcome after transplantation. The presence of coronary artery or peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, history of malignancy, chronic obstructive lung disease or diabetes mellitus further increases the early post-transplant mortality risk in elderly recipients, with infections and cardiovascular complications as the leading causes of death. Not only are elderly patients more prone to developing drug-related adverse effects, but they are also more susceptible to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions because of polypharmacy. The majority of currently used immunosuppressant drugs in organ transplantation are metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) or uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferases and are substrates of the multidrug resistance (MDR)-1 transporter P-glycoprotein, the MDR-associated protein 2 or the canalicular multispecific organic anion transporter, which predisposes these immunosuppressant compounds to specific interactions with commonly prescribed drugs. In addition, important drug interactions between immunosuppressant drugs have been identified and require attention when choosing an appropriate immunosuppressant drug regimen for the frail elderly organ recipient.

An age-related 34% decrease in total body clearance of the calcineurin inhibitor ciclosporin was observed in elderly renal recipients (aged >65 years) compared with younger patients, while older recipients also had 44% higher intracellular lymphocyte ciclosporin concentrations. Similarly, using a Bayesian approach, an inverse relationship was noted between sirolimus clearance and age in stable kidney recipients.

Ciclosporin and tacrolimus have distinct pharmacokinetics, but both are metabolized by intestinal and hepatic CYP3A4/3A5 and transported across the cell membrane by P-glycoprotein. The most common drug interactions with ciclosporin are therefore also observed with tacrolimus, but the two drugs do not interact identically when administered with CYP3A inhibitors or inducers. The strongest effects on calcineurin-inhibitor disposition are observed with azole antifungals, macrolide antibacterials, rifampicin, calcium channel antagonists, grapefruit juice, St John’s wort and protease inhibitors. Drug interactions with mycophenolic acids occur mainly through inhibition of their enterohepatic recirculation, either by interference with the intestinal flora (antibacterials) or by limiting drug absorption (resins and binders). Rifampicin causes a reduction in mycophenolic acid exposure probably through induction of uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferases. Proliferation signal inhibitors (PSIs) such as sirolimus and everolimus are substrates of CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein and have a macrolide structure very similar to tacrolimus, which explains why common drug interactions with PSIs are comparable to those with calcineurin inhibitors.

Ciclosporin, in contrast to tacrolimus, inhibits the enterohepatic recirculation of mycophenolic acids, resulting in significantly lower concentrations and hence risk of underexposure. Therefore, when switching from tacrolimus to ciclosporin and vice versa or when reducing or withdrawing ciclosporin, this interaction needs to be taken into account. The combination of ciclosporin with PSIs requires dose reductions of both drugs because of a synergistic interaction that causes nephrotoxicity when left uncorrected. Conversely, when switching between calcineurin inhibitors, intensified monitoring of PSI concentrations is mandatory.

Increasing age is associated with structural and functional changes in body compartments and tissues that alter absorptive capacity, volume of distribution, hepatic metabolic function and renal function and ultimately drug disposition. While these age-related changes are well-known, few specific effects of the latter on immunosuppressant drug metabolism have been reported. Therefore, more clinical data from elderly organ recipients are urgently required.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The author has acted as a consultant for and received honoraria and grants from Roche, Astellas, Novartis and Wyeth.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernardo JF, McCauley J. Drug therapy in transplant recipients. Drugs Aging 2004; 21(5): 323–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morales JM, Campistol JM, Andres A, et al. Immunosuppression in older renal transplant patients. Drugs Aging 2000 Apr; 16(4): 279–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Current U.S. waiting list: organ by age. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network [online]. Available from URL: http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/step2.asp [Accessed 2008 Dec 21]
  4. 4.
    Morrissey PE, Yango AF. Renal transplantation: older recipients and donors. Clin Geriatr Med 2006 Aug; 22(3): 687–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, et al. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2562–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kauffman HM, McBride MA, Cors CS, et al. Early mortality rates in older kidney recipients with co-morbid risk factors. Transplantation 2007 Feb; 83(4): 404–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weiss ES, Nwakanma LU, Patel ND, et al. Outcomes in patients older than 60 years of age undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation: an analysis of the UNOS database. J Heart Lung Transplant 2008 Feb; 27(2): 184–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dellon ES, Galanko JA, Medapalli RK, et al. Impact of dialysis and older age on survival after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2006 Sep; 6(9): 2183–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gutierrez C, Al-Faifi S, Chaparro C, et al. The effect of recipient’s age on lung transplant outcome. Am J Transplant 2007 May; 7(5): 1271–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilmer SN, Gnjidic D. The effects of polypharmacy in older adults. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009 Jan; 85(1): 86–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou SF, Xue CC, Yu XQ, et al. Clinically important drug interactions potentially involving mechanism-based inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4 and the role of therapeutic drug monitoring. Ther Drug Monit 2007 Dec; 29(6): 687–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christians U, Strom T, Zhang YL, et al. Active drug transport of immunosuppressants: new insights for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Ther Drug Monit 2006 Feb; 28(1): 39–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eberl S, Renner B, Neubert A, et al. Role of P-glycoprotein inhibition for drug interactions: evidence from in vitro and pharmacoepidemiological studies. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007; 46: 1039–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuypers DR. Influence of interactions between immunosuppressive drugs in therapeutic drug monitoring. Ann Transplant 2008; 13(3): 11–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwartz JB, Abernethy DR. Aging and medications: past, present, future. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009 Jan; 85(1): 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turnheim K. Drug therapy in the elderly. Exp Gerontol 2004 Nov–Dec; 39(11): 1731–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shi S, Mörike K, Klotz U. The clinical implications of ageing for rational drug therapy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008 Feb; 64(2): 183–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004 Jan; 57(1): 6–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paine MF, Ludington SS, Chen ML, et al. Do men and women differ in proximal small intestinal CYP3A and P-glycoprotein expression?. Drug Metab Dispos 2005; 33(3): 426–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lown KS, Mayo RR, Leichtman AB, et al. Role of intestinal P-glycoprotein (MDR1) in interpatient variation in the oral bioavailability of cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62(3): 248–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Canaparo R, Finnström N, Serpe L, et al. Expression of CYP3A isoforms and P-glycoprotein in human stomach, jejunum and ileum. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2007; 34: 1138–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uesugi M, Masuda S, Katsura T, et al. Effect of intestinal CYP3A5 on postoperative tacrolimus trough levels in living-donor liver transplant recipients. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2006; 16: 119–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fukudo M, Yano I, Yoshimura A, et al. Impact of MDR1 and CYP3A5 on the oral clearance of tacrolimus and tacrolimus-related renal dysfunction in adult living-donor liver transplant patients. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2008; 18:413–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moller A, Iwasaki K, Kawamura A, et al. The disposition of 14C-labeled tacrolimus after intravenous and oral administration in healthy human subjects. Drug Metab Dispos 1999; 27(6): 633–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    von Richter O, Burk O, Fromm MF, et al. Cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein expression in human small intestinal enterocytes and hepatocytes: a comparative analysis in paired tissue specimens. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004; 75: 172–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuehl P, Zhang J, Lin Y, et al. Sequence diversity in CYP3A promoters and characterization of the genetic basis of polymorphic CYP3A5 expression. Nat Genet 2001; 27: 383–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cotreau MM, von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ. The influence of age and sex on the clearance of cytochrome P450 3A substrates. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005; 44(1): 33–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwartz JB. Erythromycin breath test results in elderly, very elderly, and frail elderly persons. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 79(5): 440–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nankivell B, Borrows RJ, Fung CL, et al. The natural history of chronic allograft nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2326–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ojo AO, Held PJ, Port FK, et al. Chronic renal failure after transplantation of a nonrenal organ. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 931–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmucker DL. Liver function and phase 1 drug metabolism in the elderly: a review. Drugs Aging 2001; 18(11): 837–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gorski JC, Vannaprasaht S, Hamman MA, et al. The effect of age, sex, and rifampin administration on intestinal and hepatic cytochrome P450 3A activity. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003 Sep; 74: 275–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parkinson A, Mudra DR, Johnson C, et al. The effects of gender, age, ethnicity, and liver cirrhosis on cytochrome P450 activity in human liver microsomes and inducibility in cultured human hepatocytes. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2004; 199(3): 193–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuypers DR, de Jonge H, Naesens M, et al. Effects of CYP3A5 and MDR1 single nucleotide polymorphisms on drug interactions between tacrolimus and fluconazole in renal allograft recipients. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2008 Oct; 18(10): 861–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    DiMartini A, Fontes P, Dew MA, et al. Age, model for end-stage liver disease score, and organ functioning predict posttransplant tacrolimus neurotoxicity. Liver Transpl 2008 Jun; 14(6): 815–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhou XJ, Rakheja D, Yu X, et al. The aging kidney. Kidney Int 2008; 74: 710–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmucker DL. Age-related changes in liver structure and function: implications for disease? Exp Gerontol 2005; 40: 650–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kovaric JM, Koelle EU. Cyclosporin pharmacokinetics in the elderly. Drugs Aging 1999 Sep; 15(3): 197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lill J, Bauer LA, Horn JR, et al. Cyclosporine-drug interactions and the influence of patient age. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2000 Sep; 57: 1579–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fanta S, Jönsson S, Backmann JT, et al. Developmental pharmacokinetics of ciclosporin: a population pharmacokinetic study in paediatric renal transplant candidates. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007 Dec; 64(6): 772–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Falck P, Asberg A, Byberg KT, et al. Reduced elimination of cyclosporine A in elderly (>65 years) kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2008 Nov; 86(10): 1379–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Friedman AL, Goker O, Kalish MA, et al. Renal transplant recipients over aged 60 have diminished immune activity and a low risk of rejection. Int Urol Nephrol 2004; 36: 451–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    de Fijter JW. The impact of age on rejection in kidney transplantation. Drugs Aging 2005; 22(5): 433–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hugo C, Frei U, Margreiter R, et al. Elderly kidney transplant recipients are a high-risk group for death, infections and PTx diabetes: evidence from the Symphony study [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2007; 7Suppl. 2: 186Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Staatz CE, Tett SE. Pharmacokinetic considerations relating to tacrolimus dosing in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2005; 22(7): 541–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang W, Jin J, Zheng S, et al. Tacrolimus dose requirement in relation to donor and recipient ABCB1 and CYP3A5 gene polymorphisms in Chinese liver transplant patients. Liver Transpl 2006; 12: 775–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Op den Buijsch RAM, Christiaans MHL, Stolk LML, et al. Tacrolimus pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics: influence of adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette B1 (ABCB1) and cytochrome (CYP)3A polymorphisms. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2007; 21: 427–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Staatz CE, Tett SE. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tacrolimus in solid organ transplantation. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43(10): 623–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Le Guellec C, Bourgoin H, Büchler M, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and Bayesian estimation of mycophenolic acid concentrations in stable renal transplant patients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43(4): 253–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Staatz CE, Tett SE. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mycophenolate in solid organ transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007; 46(1): 13–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kovaric JM, Eisen H, Dorent R, et al. Everolimus in de novo cardiac transplantation: pharmacokinetics, therapeutic range, and influence on cyclosporine exposure. J Heart Lung Transplant 2003 Oct; 22(10): 1117–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zahir H, Keogh AM, Akhlaghi F. Apparent clearance of sirolimus in heart transplant recipients: impact of primary diagnosis and serum lipids. Ther Drug Monit 2006 Dec; 28(6): 818–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kirchner GI, Meier-Wiedenbach I, Manns MP. Clinical pharmacokinetics of everolimus. Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43(2): 83–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    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 Jan; 69(1): 48–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    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; 70: 247–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dansirikul C, Morris RG, Tett SE, et al. A Bayesian approach for population pharmacokinetic modeling of sirolimus. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62(4): 420–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Djebli N, Rousseau A, Hoizey G, et al. Sirolimus population pharmacokinetic/pharmacogenetic analysis and Bayesian modeling in kidney transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006; 45(11): 1135–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tornatore KM, Logue G, Venuto RC, et al. Cortisol pharmacodynamics after methyl prednisolone administration in young and elderly males. J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 37: 304–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stuck AE, Frey BM, Frey FJ. Kinetics of prednisolone and endogenous cortisol suppression in the elderly. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1988; 43(4): 354–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lew KH, Ludwig EA, Milad MA, et al. Gender-based effects on methylprednisolone pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 402–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Magee MH, Blum RA, Lates CD, et al. Prednisolone pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in relation to sex and race. J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 41: 1180–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tornatore KM, Gilliland-Johnson KK, Farooqui M, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic response of methylprednisolone in premenopausal renal transplant recipients. J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 44: 1003–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tornatore KM, Biocevich DM, Reed K, et al. Methylprednisolone pharmacokinetics, cortisol response, and adverse effects in black and white renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1995; 59: 729–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Miura M, Satoh S, Inoue K, et al. Influence of CYP3A5, ABCB1 and NR1I2 polymorphisms on prednisolone pharmacokinetics in renal transplant recipients. Steroids 2008; 73: 1052–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Asano T, Takahashi KA, Fujioka M, et al. ABCB1 C3435T and G2677T/A polymorphism decreased the risk for steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head after kidney transplantation. Pharmacogenetics 2003; 13: 675–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Aliabadi AZ, Zuckermann AO, Grimm M. Immunosuppressive therapy in older cardiac transplant patients. Drugs Aging 2007; 24(11): 913–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kuypers DR, Claes K, Bammens B, et al. Early clinical assessment of glucose metabolism in renal allograft recipients: diagnosis and prediction of posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM). Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008 Jun; 23(6): 2033–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ollech JE, Kramer MR, Peled N, et al. Post-transplant diabetes mellitus in lung transplant recipients: incidence and risk factors. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008 May; 33(5): 844–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Khamash HA, Wadei HM, Mahale AS, et al. Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy risk in kidney transplants: the influence of recipient age and donor gender. Kidney Int 2007 Jun; 71(12): 1302–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Garrido IP, Crespo-Leiro MG, Paniagua MJ, et al. Independent predictors of renal dysfunction after heart transplantation in patients with normal pretransplant renal function. J Heart Lung Transplant 2005 Sep; 24(9): 1226–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Canales M, Youssef P, Spong R, et al. Predictors of chronic kidney disease in long-term survivors of lung and heart-lung transplantation. Am J Transplant 2006 Sep; 6(9): 2157–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dehghani SM, Derakhshan A, Taghavi SA, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of renal dysfunction after liver transplant: a single-center experience. Exp Clin Transplant 2008 Mar; 6(1): 25–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yilmaz S, McLaughlin K, Paavonen T, et al. Clinical predictors of renal allograft histopathology: a comparative study of single-lesion histology versus a composite, quantitative scoring system. Transplantation 2007 Mar 27; 83(6): 671–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wong G, Chapman JR. Cancers after renal transplantation. Transplant Rev 2008 Apr; 22(2): 141–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Morton RL, Howard K, Webster AC, et al. The cost-effectiveness of induction immunosuppression in kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009 Jul; 24(7): 2258–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ekberg H, Grinyo J, Nashan B, et al. Cyclosporine sparing with mycophenolate mofetil, daclizumab and corticosteroids in renal allograft recipients: the CAESAR Study. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 560–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Abramowicz D, Del Carmen RM, Vitko S, et al. Cyclosporine withdrawal from a mycophenolate mofetilcontaining immunosuppressive regimen: results of a five-year, prospective, randomized study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16: 2234–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Vincenti F, Ramos E, Brattstrom C, et al. Multicenter trial exploring calcineurin inhibitors avoidance in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 71(9): 1282–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Vincenti F, Schena FP, Paraskevas S, et al., FREEDOM Study Group. A randomized multicenter study of steroid avoidance, early steroid withdrawal or standard steroid therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2008; 8(2): 307–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Barraclough KA, Landsberg DN, Shapiro RJ, et al. A matched cohort pharmacoepidemiological analysis of steroid free immunosuppression in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2009; 87: 672–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Russ G, Segoloni G, Oberbauer R, et al., for the Rapamune Maintenance Regimen Study Group. Superior outcomes in renal transplantation after early cyclosporine withdrawal and sirolimus maintenance therapy, regardless of baseline renal function. Transplantation 2005; 80(9): 1204–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Palomar R, Ruiz JC, Zubimendi JA, et al. Acute rejection in the elderly recipient: influence of age in the outcome of kidney transplantation. Int Urol Nephrol 2002; 33(1): 145–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Friedman AL, Goker O, Kalish MA, et al. Renal transplant recipients over age 60 have diminished immune activity and a low risk of rejection. Int Urol Nephrol 2004; 36: 451–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Heldal K, Hartmann A, Leivestad T, et al. Clinical outcomes in elderly kidney transplant recipients are related to acute rejection episodes rather than pretransplant comorbidity. Transplantation 2009; 87(7): 1045–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Pratschke J, Merk V, Reutzel-Selke A, et al. Potent early immune response after kidney transplantation in patients of the European senior transplant program. Transplantation 2009; 87(7): 992–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Masuda S, Inui K. An up-date review on individualized dosage adjustment of calcineurin inhibitors in organ transplant patients. Pharmacol Ther 2006; 112: 184–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lampen A, Christians U, Guengerich FP, et al. Metabolism of the immunosuppressant tacrolimus in the small intestine: cytochrome P450, drug interactions, and interindividual variability. Drug Metab Dispos 1995; 23: 1315–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Christians U, Jacobsen W, Benet LZ, et al. Mechanisms of clinically relevant drug interactions associated with tacrolimus. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 41(11): 813–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Okudaira T, Kotegawa T, Imai H, et al. Effect of the treatment period with erythromycin on cytochrome P450 3A activity in humans. J Clin Pharmacol 2007 Jul; 47(7): 871–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Niemi M, Backman JT, Fromm MF, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions with rifampicin: clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacokinet 2003; 42(9): 819–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Iwasaki K, Matsuda H, Nagase K, et al. Effects of twenty-three drugs on the metabolism of FK506 by human liver microsomes. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol 1993; 82: 209–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Tacrolimus (Prograft™, Astellas) [package insert]. Deerfield (IL): Astellas Pharma US, Inc., 2009 MayGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Chisholm MA, Mulloy LL, Jagadeesan M, et al. Coadministration of tacrolimus with anti-acid drugs. Transplantation 2003; 76(4): 665–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Garton T. Nefazodone and CYP450 3A4 interactions with cyclosporine and tacrolimus [letter]. Transplantation 2002 Sep; 74(5): 745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mori T, Aisa Y, Nakazato T, et al. Tacrolimus-azithromycin interaction in a recipient of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Transplant Int 2005; 18: 757–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Federico S, Carrano R, Capone D, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between levofloxacin and ciclosporin or tacrolimus in kidney transplant recipients: ciclosporin, tacrolimus and levofloxacin in renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006; 45(2): 169–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Xin HW, Wu XC, Yu AR, et al. Effects of Schisandra sphenanthera extract on the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in healthy volunteers. B J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 64(4): 469–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Teicher E, Vincent I, Bonhomme-Faivre L, et al. Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in hepatitis C virus and HIV co-infected liver transplant recipients in the ANRS HC-08 study. Clin Pharmacokinet 2007; 46(11): 941–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Schvarcz R, Rudbeck G, Söderdahl G, et al. Interaction between nelfinavir and tacrolimus after orthoptic liver transplantation in a patient coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Transplantation 2000 May; 69(10): 2194–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Falck P, Vethe NT, Asberg A, et al. Cinacalcet’s effect on the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus, cyclosporine and mycophenolate in renal transplant recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008; 23: 1048–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Merkle M, Wornle M, Rupprecht HD. The effect of sevelamer on tacrolimus target levels [letter]. Transplantation 2008; 80: 707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Saad AH, DePestel DD, Carver PL. Factors influencing the magnitude and clinical significance of drug interactions between azole antifungals and select immunosuppressants. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26: 1730–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Gibbs MA, Thummel KE, Shen DD, et al. Inhibition of cytochrome P-450 3A (CYP3A) in human intestinal and liver microsomes: comparison of Ki values and impact of CYP3A5 expression. Drug Metab Dispos 1999; 27: 180–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Floren LC, Bekersky I, Benet LZ, et al. Tacrolimus oral bioavailability doubles with coadministration of ketoconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62: 41–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Polasek TM, Miners JO. Quantitative prediction of macrolide drug-drug interaction potential from in vitro studies using testosterone as the human cytochrome P4503A substrate. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 203–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Westphal JF. Macrolide-induced clinically relevant drug interactions with cytochrome P-450 (CYP)3A4: an update focused on clarithromycin, azithromycin and dirithromycin. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50: 285–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Renders L, Haas CS, Liebelt J, et al. Tacrolimus and cerivastatin pharmacokinetics and adverse effects after single and multiple dosing with cerivastatin in renal transplant recipients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 56: 214–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Hedman M, Neuvonen PJ, Neuvonen M, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pravastatin in pediatric and adolescent cardiac transplant recipients on a regimen of triple immunosuppression. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004; 75: 101–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Aliabadi AZ, Mahr S, Dunkler D, et al. Safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients switched from cyclosporine A to sirolimus after cardiac transplantation. Transplantation 2008; 86(12): 1771–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Neuvonen PJ, Niemi M, Backman JT. Drug interactions with lipid-lowering drugs: mechanisms and clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 80: 565–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Ichimaru N, Takahara S, Kokado Y, et al. Changes in lipid metabolism and effect of simvastatin in renal transplant recipients induced by cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Atherosclerosis 2001; 158:417–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ronaldson KJ, O’Shea JM, Boyd IW. Risk factors for rhabdomyolysis with simvastatin and atorvastatin. Drug Saf 2006; 11: 1061–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Dunn CJ, Wagstaff AJ, Perry CM, et al. Cyclosporin: an updated review of the pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy and tolerability of a microemulsion-based formulation (Neoral) in organ transplantation. Drugs 2001; 61(13): 1957–2016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Cyclosporine (Neoral™) [package insert]. East Hanover (NJ): Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 2009 MarGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Cooney GF, Mochon M, Kaiser B, et al. Effects of carbamazepine on cyclosporine metabolism in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Pharmacotherapy 1995; 15(3): 353–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Yildiz A, Sever MS, Türkmen A, et al. Interaction between cyclosporine A and verapamil, felodipine, and isradipine. Nephron 1999; 81: 117–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Sketris IS, Methot ME, Nicol D, et al. Effect of calcium-channel blockers on cyclosporine clearance and use in renal transplant patients. Ann Pharmacother 1994 Nov; 28(11): 1227–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Brinkman K, Huysmans F, Burger DM. Pharmacokinetic interaction between saquinavir and cyclosporine. Ann Int Med 1998; 129(11): 914–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Tseng A, Nguyen M, Cardella C, et al. Probable interaction between efavirenz and cyclosporine. AIDS 2002; 16(3): 505–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Frassetto LA, Browne M, Cheng A, et al. Immunosuppressant pharmacokinetics and dosing modifications in HIV-1 infected liver and kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 2816–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Nägele H, Petersen B, Bonacker U, et al. Effect of orlistat on blood cyclosporin concentration in an obese heart transplant patient. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999 Nov; 55(9): 667–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Zhi J, Moore R, Kanitra L, et al. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of the possible interaction between selected concomitant medications and orlistat at steady state in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 42: 1011–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Picard N, Ratanasavanh D, Premaud A, et al. Identification of the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms involved in mycophenolic acid phase II metabolism. Drug Metab Dispos 2005; 33: 139–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Shipkova M, Strassburg CP, Braun F, et al. Glucuronide and glucoside conjugation of mycophenolic acid by human liver, kidney and intestinal microsomes. Br J Pharmacol 2001; 132: 1027–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Shipkova M, Armstrong VW, Kuypers D, et al. Effect of cyclosporine withdrawal on mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in kidney transplant recipients with deteriorating renal function: preliminary report. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23(6): 717–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Bullingham R, Nicholls AJ, Kamm BR. Clinical pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 64: 429–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Kobayashi M, Saitoh H, Kobayashi M, et al. Cyclosporin A, but not tacrolimus, inhibits the biliary excretion of mycophenolic acid glucuronide possibly mediated by multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 in rats. J Pharmacol Exper Ther 2004; 309: 1029–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Miura M, Satoh S, Inoue K, et al. Influence of SLCO1B1, 1B3, 2B1 and ABCC2 genetic polymorphisms on mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in Japanese renal transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007 Dec; 63(12): 1161–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Kuypers DR, Naesens M, Vermeire S, et al. The impact of uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A9 (UGT1A9) gene promoter region single-nucleotide polymorphisms T-275A and C-2152T on early mycophenolic acid dose-interval exposure in de novo renal allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 78: 351–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Naesens M, Kuypers DR, Verbeke K, et al. Multidrug resistance protein 2 genetic polymorphisms influence mycophenolic acid exposure in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 2006; 82(8): 1074–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Mycophenolate mofetil (Cellcept™) [package insert]. Palo Alto (CA): Roche, 2009 JunGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Mycophenolate sodium (Myfortic™) [package insert]. East Hanover (NJ): Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 2008 DecGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Naderer OJ, Dupuis RE, Heinzen EL, et al. The influence of norfloxacin and metronidazole on the disposition of mycophenolate mofetil. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45(2): 219–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Schmidt LE, Rasmussen A, Norrelykke MR, et al. The effects of selective bowel decontamination on the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2001; 7(8): 739–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Mudge DW, Atcheson B, Taylor PJ, et al. The effect of oral iron administration on mycophenolate mofetil absorption in renal transplant recipients: a randomized, controlled trial. Transplantation 2004; 77(2): 206–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Pieper AK, Buhle F, Bauer S, et al. The effect of sevelamer on the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine A and mycophenolate mofetil after renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19(10): 2630–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Cattaneo D, Bitto A, Baldelli S, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic drug interaction between rosiglitazone and mycophenolate mofetil in kidney transplantation: a case report. Transplantation 2008; 85(6): 921–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Kuypers D, Verleden G, Naesens M, et al. Drug interaction between mycophenolate mofetil and rifampicin: possible induction of uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 78: 81–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Naesens M, Kuypers DR, Streit F, et al. Rifampin induces alterations in mycophenolic acid glucuronidation and elimination: implications for drug exposure in renal allograft recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006 Nov; 80(5): 509–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Sirolimus (Rapamune™) [package insert]. Philadelphia (PA): Wyeth, 2009 MarGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Everolimus (Certican™) [package insert]. East Hanover (NJ): Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 2009 JunGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Zimmerman JJ. Exposure-response relationships and drug interactions of sirolimus. AAPS J 2004; 6(4): 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Fridell JA, Jain AKB, Patel K, et al. Phenytoin decreases the blood concentrations of sirolimus in a liver transplant recipient: a case report. Ther Drug Monit 2003; 25: 117–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Marty FM, Lowry CM, Cutler CS, et al. Voriconazole and sirolimus coadministration after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2006 May; 12(5): 552–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Kovarik JM, Beyer D, Bizot MN, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between verapamil and everolimus in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 60(4): 434–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Böttiger Y, Säwe J, Brattström C, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between single oral doses of diltiazem and sirolimus in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001 Jan; 69(1): 32–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Jain AKB, Venkataramanan R, Fridell JA, et al. Nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, increases sirolimus levels in a liver transplantation patient: a case report. Liver Transpl 2002 Sep; 8(9): 838–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Van Duijnhoven EM, Boots JM, Christiaans MH, et al. Increase in tacrolimus trough levels after steroid withdrawal. Transplant Int 2003; 16: 721–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Hesselink DA, Ngyuen H, Wabbijn M, et al. Tacrolimus dose requirement in renal transplant recipients is significantly higher when used in combination with corticosteroids. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 56(3): 327–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Shimada T, Terada A, Yokogawa K, et al. Lowered blood concentration of tacrolimus and its recovery with changes in expression of CYP3A and P-glycoprotein after high-dose steroid therapy. Transplantation 2002; 74: 1419–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Roberts P, Rollins K, Kashuba A, et al. The influence of CYP3A5 genotype on dexamethasone induction of CYP3A activity in African Americans. Drug Metab Dispos 2008 Aug; 36(8): 1465–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    McAlister VC, Mahalati K, Peltekian KM, et al. A clinical pharmacokinetic study of tacrolimus and sirolimus combination immunosuppression comparing simultaneous to separated administration. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24: 346–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Kuypers DRJ, Claes K, Evenepoel P, et al. Long-term pharmacokinetic study of the novel combination of tacrolimus and sirolimus in de novo renal allograft recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2003; 25(4): 447–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Undre NA. Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus-based combination therapies. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003; 18Suppl. 1: 12–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Brandhorst G, Tenderich G, Zittermann A, et al. Everolimus exposure in cardiac transplant recipients is influenced by concomitant calcineurin inhibitor. Ther Drug Monit 2008; 30(1): 113–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Kahan BD, for The Rapamune US Study Group. Efficacy of sirolimus compared with azathioprine for reduction of acute renal allograft rejection: a randomised multicentre study. Lancet 2000; 356: 194–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    MacDonald AS, for The RAPAMUNE Global Study Group. A worldwide, phase III, randomised, controlled, safety and efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary mismatched renal allografts. Transplantation 2001; 71(2): 271–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Nashan B, Curtis J, Ponticelli C, et al., for The 156 Study Group. Everolimus and reduced-exposure cyclosporine in de novo renal transplant recipients: a three-year phase II, randomized, multicenter, open-label study. Transplantation 2004; 78(9): 1332–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Wiseman AC, Kam I, Christians U, et al. Fixed-dose sirolimus with reduced dose calcineurin inhibitor: the University of Colorado experience. Transplant Proc 2003; 35Suppl. 3A: 122S–4SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Hong JC, Kahan BD. Use of anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody in combination with rapamycin to eliminate cyclosporine treatment during the induction phase of immunosuppression. Transplantation 1999; 68(5): 701–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Langer RM, Hong DM, Katz SM, et al. Basiliximabsirolimus-prednisone induction regimen followed by delayed low-dose cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients of living donors. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 3162–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Johnson RW, Kreis H, Oberbauer R et al. Sirolimus allows early cyclosporine withdrawal in renal transplantation resulting in improved renal function and lower blood pressure. Transplantation 2001; 72(5): 777–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Stepkowski SM, Napoli KL, Wang ME, et al. Effects of the pharmacokinetic interaction between orally administered sirolimus and cyclosporine on the synergistic prolongation of heart allograft survival in rats. Transplantation 1996; 62(7): 986–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Podder H, Stepkowski SM, Napoli KL, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions augment toxicities of sirolimus/cyclosporine combinations. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001; 12: 1059–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Napoli KL, Wang ME, Stepkowski SM, et al. Relative tissue distributions of cyclosporin and sirolimus after concomitant peroral administration in the rat: evidence for pharmacokinetic interactions. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20(2): 123–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Lorber M, Mulgaonkar S, Butt KMH, et al., for the B251 Study Group. Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in the prevention of rejection in de novo renal transplant recipients: a 3-year randomized, multicenter, phase III study. Transplantation 2005; 80(2): 244–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Vítko Š, Margreiter R, Weimar W, et al., for the RAD B201 Study Group. Three-year efficacy and safety results from a study of everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in de novo renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(10): 2521–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Lam S, Partovi N, Ting LSL, et al. Corticosteroid interactions with cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and sirolimus: fact or fiction?. Ann Pharmacother 2008; 42(7): 1037–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Zucker K, Rosen A, Tsaroucha A, et al. Unexpected augmentation of mycophenolic acid pharmacokinetics in renal transplant patients receiving tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil in combination therapy, and analogous in vitro findings. Transplant Immunol 1997; 5(3): 225–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    van Gelder T, Klupp J, Barten MJ, et al. Comparison of the effects of tacrolimus and cyclosporine on the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23(2): 119–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Hesselink DA, van Hest RM, Mathot RAA, et al. Cyclosporine interacts with mycophenolic acid by inhibiting the multidrug resistance-associated protein 2. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(5): 987–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Westley IS, Brogan LR, Morris RG, et al. Role of Mrp2 in the hepatic disposition of mycophenolic acid: effect of cyclosporin. Drug Metab Dispos 2006; 34(2): 261–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Kaplan B, Meier-Kriesche H-U, Minnick P, et al. Randomized calcineurin inhibitor cross over study to measure the pharmacokinetics of co-administered enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium. Clin Transplant 2005; 19(4): 551–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Kuypers DRJ, Ekberg H, Grinyo J, et al. Mycophenolic acid exposure after administration of mycophenolate mofetil in the presence and absence of cyclosporine in renal transplant recipients. Clin Pharmacokinet 2009; 48(5): 329–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Knight SR, Morris PJ. Does the evidence support the use of mycophenolate mofetil therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice? A systematic review. Transplantation 2008 Jun 27; 85(12): 1675–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Budde K, Arns W, Glander P, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of an initially intensified dosing regimen versus a standard dosing regimen of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) in renal transplant patients [abstract]. Transplantation 2008 Jul 27; 82(2S): 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Grinyo JM, Ekberg H, Mamelok RD, et al. The pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients receiving standard-dose or low-dose cyclosporine, low-dose tacrolimus or low-dose sirolimus: the Symphony pharmacokinetic substudy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009 Jul; 24(7): 2269–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Picard N, Prémaud A, Rousseau A, et al. A comparison of the effect of ciclosporin and sirolimus on the pharmacokinetics of mycophenolate in renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006 Oct; 62(4): 477–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Pescovitz MD, Vincenti F, Hart M, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil in combination with sirolimus or ciclosporin in renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007 Dec; 64(6): 758–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Cattaneo D, Perico N, Gaspari F, et al. Glucocorticoids interfere with mycophenolate mofetil bioavailability in kidney transplantation. Kidney Int 2002; 62(3): 1060–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    van Hest RM, Mathot RAA, Pescovitz MD, et al. Explaining variability in mycophenolic acid exposure to optimize mycophenolate mofetil dosing: a population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis of mycophenolic acid in renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 17: 871–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Gregoor PJ, de Sévaux RG, Hené RJ, et al. Effect of cyclosporine on mycophenolic acid trough levels in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 1999 Nov 27; 68(10): 1603–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, et al. A randomized long-term trial of tacrolimus and sirolimus versus tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) and sirolimus in renal transplantation: I. Drug interactions and rejection at one year. Transplantation 2004; 77(2): 244–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Wu F, Tsai M, Chen R, et al. Effects of calcineurin inhibitors on sirolimus pharmacokinetics during staggered administration in renal transplant recipients. Pharmacotherapy 2005; 25(5): 646–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Backman L, Kreis H, Morales JM, et al. Sirolimus steady-state trough concentrations are not affected by bolus methylprednisolone therapy in renal allograft recipients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 65–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Jusko W, Ferron G, Mis S, et al. Pharmacokinetics of prednisolone during administration of sirolimus in patients with renal transplants. J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 36(12): 1100–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Christians U, Schmitz V, Schöning W, et al. Toxicodynamic therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressants: promises, reality, and challenges. Ther Drug Monit 2008 Apr; 30(2): 151–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Kuypers DRJ, de Jonge H, Naesens M, et al. CYP3A5 and CYP3A4 but not MDR1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms determine long-term tacrolimus disposition and drug-related nephrotoxicity in renal recipients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 Dec; 82(6): 711–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Yamauchi A, Ieiri I, Kataoka Y, et al. Neurotoxicity induced by tacrolimus after liver transplantation: relation to genetic polymorphisms of the ABCB1 (MDR1) gene. Transplantation 2002; 74: 571–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nephrology and Renal TransplantationUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations