Stable Heart Transplant Recipients Research Articles

Temporal alteration in B-type natriuretic peptide expression predicts allograft failure in heart transplantation

Background: B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), secreted in response to ventricular wall stress, has been shown to correlate with outcome in patients with chronic heart failure. The correlation between hemodynamics and BNP levels in stable heart transplant recipients has been demonstrated. However, the predictive utility of rapid bedside BNP assay as a prognostic marker for cardiac dysfunction requiring hospitalization among heart transplant recipients is unknown.

Aberrant T-cell activation via CD95 and apoptosis in peripheral T lymphocytes in stable heart transplant recipients

Aberrant T-cell activation via CD95 and apoptosis in peripheral T lymphocytes in stable heart transplant recipients

Pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in heart transplant recipients receiving metabolic inhibitors

Background Inhibitors of cyclosporine metabolism are commonly co-administered with cyclosporine in transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to compare cyclosporine pharmacokinetics using the conventional formulation (Sandimmune) and after switching to the microemulsion (Neoral) formulation, in stable heart transplant recipients receiving various cyclosporine metabolic inhibitors. Methods Steady-state blood concentration–time profiles of Sandimmune were studied in 47 transplant recipients receiving either cyclosporine alone (Group A, n = 11) or in combination with diltiazem (120 mg/day, Group B, n = 11), ketoconazole (200 mg/day, Group C, n = 13), or both ketoconazole and diltiazem (200 and 120 mg/day, respectively, Group D, n = 12), and restudied 1 week after switching to Neoral. Results Neoral resulted in more rapid cyclosporine absorption as judged by the shorter absorption half-lives in all groups ( p < 0.05). The mean percentage increase in the values of area-under-the-concentration–time curve was 42% and 37.5% higher for Neoral compared with Sandimmune for Groups A and B, respectively, but only 5.4% higher for Group C and 9.5% higher for Group D. The mean morning trough concentration of cyclosporine was not significantly different after administration of Neoral compared with Sandimmune in any of the groups studied (179 vs 167 μg/liter for Group A; 171 vs 147 μg/liter for Group B; 189 vs 194 μg/liter for Group C; and 181 vs 201 μg/liter for Group D). Neoral did not alter serum concentrations of sodium, potassium, creatinine, and urea in any of the study groups. Conclusions The faster absorption and improved bioavailability of cyclosporine (around 40%) with Neoral compared with Sandimmune was not seen in patients receiving ketoconazole, where in fact cyclosporine bioavailability was already maximal. Mean morning trough levels of cyclosporine did not reflect the improvement in bioavailability seen in patients switching from Sandimmune to Neoral. Cyclosporine dose adjustment may be needed when switching from Sandimmune to Neoral for patients not receiving sparing agents or who receive diltiazem, but trough levels cannot necessarily be relied upon to determine the degree of adjustment needed. For patientson ketoconazole, the absorption profile is already optimized and no dosage alteration seems necessary.

Cyclosporin

Cyclosporin is a lipophilic cyclic polypeptide immunosuppressant that interferes with the activity of T cells chiefly via calcineurin inhibition. The original oil-based oral formulation of this drug (Sandimmun)l was characterised by high intra- and interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, with poor bioavailability in many patients; a novel microemulsion formulation (Neoral)1 was therefore developed to circumvent these problems. Studies show increases, attributable chiefly to improved absorption in patients who absorb the drug only poorly from the original formulation, in mean systemic exposure to cyclosporin with the microemulsion, with no clinically significant differences in tolerability or drug interaction profiles. Cyclosporin microemulsion is at least as effective as the oil-based formulation in renal, liver and heart transplant recipients, with trends towards decreased incidence of acute rejection with the microemulsion formulation in some (statistically significant in a few) trials. Cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus appear to have similar efficacy in preventing acute rejection episodes in most renal, pancreas-kidney, liver and heart transplant recipients. However, there are indications of superior efficacy for tacrolimus in some trials, particularly in the prevention of severe acute rejection and in Black transplant recipients. Current 12-month data also indicate equivalent efficacy of sirolimus in renal transplantation. Conversion from the oil-based to microemulsion formulation in stable renal, liver and heart transplant recipients is achievable with no change in acute rejection rates. The addition of an anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody and/or mycophenolate mofetil to cyclosporin microemulsion plus corticosteroids decreases rates of acute rejection; corticosteroid withdrawal without increased acute rejection rates was also achieved on the addition of these agents in some trials. Pharmacoeconomic analyses have shown savings in direct healthcare costs in kidney or liver transplantation when cyclosporin microemulsion is used in preference to the oil-based formulation, although studies incorporating indirect costs or expressing costs in terms of therapeutic outcomes are currently unavailable. The introduction of cyclosporin microemulsion has consolidated the place of the drug as a mainstay of therapy in all types of solid organ transplantation; research into optimisation of outcomes through more effective therapeutic monitoring in patients receiving this formulation is ongoing. Several novel immunosuppressants have been introduced in recent years: further clinical and pharmacoeconomic research will be needed to clarify the relative positioning of these agents, particularly with respect to specific patient groups. Other new drugs (basiliximab/daclizumab and mycophenolate mofetil) offer particular advantages when used in combination with cyclosporin.