RESUMEN
Measurement of pre-dose tacrolimus concentrations, also referred to as trough concentrations or C0 (in this paper the term C0 will be used), is the most frequently used parameter for therapeutic drug monitoring in patients after solid organ transplantation. C0 is relatively easy to obtain, and can be combined with other lab tests. C0 monitoring is convenient for patient and hospital staff. Adjusting the dose based on C0 assumes that the C0 has a good correlation with the overall exposure to the drug, as reflected in the area under concentration-time curve (AUC). However, C0 may not be the panacea it is suggested to be, and there are patients who may benefit from additional measurements to more precisely assess drug exposure. Especially in patients with a low C0/dose ratio, the peak tacrolimus concentrations after oral administration may be unexpectedly high, resulting in toxicity and (as has been shown already) in poor long-term graft survival. At the other extreme, patients who only need a very low dose to reach target C0 may have a low peak and also a low AUC and may be underexposed. In this paper, the limitations of C0 will be discussed, and the type of studies needed to provide the evidence for implementation of more sophisticated therapeutic drug monitoring. The paper focuses on treatment of adult kidney transplant recipients.
RESUMEN
Background: Ultrafiltration to target weight during haemodialysis is complicated by intradialytic hypotension-associated adverse events (IHAAEs) in 10-30% of dialysis treatments. IHAAEs are caused by critical reductions in absolute blood volume (ABV), due to the interaction of ultrafiltration, refill and compensatory mechanisms. Non-randomised studies have suggested that ABV-guided treatment, using an indicator dilution technique employing the blood volume monitor on the dialysis machine, could reduce the incidence of IHAAEs. Methods: We performed an open-label randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to adjustment of target weight guided by ABV measurements or standard care. The primary outcome was the change in the incidence of IHAAEs from baseline, defined as the percentage of treatment episodes in a 4-week period where the patient had a systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or symptoms of impending hypotension. ABV measurements were compared with anthropomorphometric estimation and the gold standard using isotope dilution. Results: A total of 56 patients were randomised, of whom 29 were allocated to ABV-guided treatment and 27 to standard care. Overall baseline incidence of IHAAEs was 26.0%. ABV-guided treatment significantly reduced the incidence of IHAAEs compared with standard care, with a mean change from baseline of -9.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) -17.3 to -1.8) versus 2.4% (95% CI -2.3-7.2). The adjusted difference between the groups was 10.5% (95% CI 1.3-19.8; P = .026). ABV measurement had moderate agreement with other methods to estimate blood volume. The sensitivity for the previously suggested threshold of a post-dialysis normalised blood volume of 65 ml/kg was observed to be 74% in this study. Conclusions: ABV-guided volume management significantly reduced IHAAEs compared with standard care. The clinical relevance of the previously suggested threshold of 65 ml/kg cannot be firmly concluded on the basis of our results. If confirmed in a larger trial, this intervention could potentially change dialysis practice and impact patient care in a clinically meaningful way.
