New-Onset Diabetes After Transplantation: Results From a Double-Blind Early Corticosteroid Withdrawal Trial.

New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is an important complication following kidney transplantation. Data from the 5-year early steroid withdrawal double-blind randomized trial were analyzed to determine if steroid avoidance reduced the NODAT risk. Incidence, timing and risk factors for NODAT were evaluated using eight definitions. By American Diabetes Association definition, 36.3% of patients on chronic corticosteroids (CCS) and 35.9% on early corticosteroid withdrawal (CSWD) were diagnosed with NODAT by 5 years. The definition combining fasting blood glucose ≥126 mg/dL on two occasions or treatment identified slightly more cases of NODAT: CCS (39.3%) and CSWD (39.4%). Through 5 years posttransplant, the proportion of NODAT patients requiring treatment were similar (CSWD 22.5% vs. CCS 21.5%); however, insulin therapy was lower with CSWD (3.7% vs. 11.6%; p = 0.049). By multivariate analysis, only age, but not corticosteroid use, was a significant risk factor for NODAT for more than one definition. Numerical, but not statistically significant trends toward lower NODAT rates with CSWD were observed through 5 years for insulin use, HbA1c ≥6.0% and ≥6.5% on two occasions. This prospective, randomized trial of CSWD indicates that CSWD has a limited impact in reducing NODAT when compared to low-dose prednisone (5 mg/day from month 6 to 5 years).

Effect of corticosteroid withdrawal on tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil exposure in a randomized multicenter study.

As corticosteroid-sparing protocols are increasingly utilized in kidney transplant recipients, it is crucial to understand potential drug interactions between tacrolimus (TAC) and the effect of corticosteroid withdrawal as well as to characterize dose adjustments of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in this setting. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study included 397 patients who were randomized on posttransplant day 8 to receive either placebo (CSWD) or corticosteroid continuance (CCS). TAC trough levels at week two posttransplant were significantly greater in the CSWD group whereas TAC doses were comparable to the CCS group. This interaction was not observed in the African American subgroup. Higher serum creatinine and potassium levels were also observed in the CSWD group. MMF dose was significantly reduced in the CSWD group by the investigators because of decreased WBC counts, mostly outside of study protocol criteria, despite similar incidence of neutropenia and reported cytomegalovirus infection. Understanding TAC and MMF exposure in the context of corticosteroid-sparing protocols should allow for improved dosing of immunosuppressants and better management of posttransplant patients.

Once-daily tacrolimus extended-release formulation: 1-year post-conversion in stable pediatric liver transplant recipients.

The pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a once-daily formulation of tacrolimus (tacrolimus extended-release formulation; XL formerly referred to as MR or MR4) were assessed in 18 stable pediatric liver transplant recipients who were converted from the twice-a-day formulation of tacrolimus (TAC) to XL. Patients received their twice-a-day dose of TAC on study days 1 through 7. Beginning on the morning of study day 8, patients were converted to XL on a 1:1 (mg:mg) basis for their total daily dose, and were maintained on a once-daily AM dosing regimen using the same therapeutic monitoring and patient care techniques employed with TAC. Based on pharmacokinetic profiles obtained on study days 7 (TAC) and 14 (XL), steady state exposure (AUC(0-24)) was equivalent between XL and TAC; the mean XL/TAC ratio for lnAUC(0-24) was 100.9% (90% CI: 90.8%, 112.1%). AUC(0-24) and C(min) were strongly correlated at steady state (correlation coefficient: XL 0.90, TAC 0.94). During the first year post-conversion, there were no cases of acute rejection, discontinuation of XL, graft loss or death. The safety profile of XL was consistent with that known for TAC. These results support the safe and convenient conversion of pediatric liver transplant recipients from twice-a-day TAC to once-daily XL.

One-year results with extended-release tacrolimus/MMF, tacrolimus/MMF and cyclosporine/MMF in de novo kidney transplant recipients.

Once-daily tacrolimus extended-release formulation (Prograf XL, formerly referred to as MR or MR4) was compared with the twice-a-day tacrolimus formulation (TAC) and cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA), all administered in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), corticosteroids and basiliximab induction, in a phase 3, randomized (1:1:1), open-label trial in 638 de novo kidney transplant recipients. In combination with MMF and corticosteroids, XL had an efficacy profile comparable to TAC and CsA. XL/MMF and TAC/MMF were statistically noninferior at 1-year posttransplantation to CsA/MMF for the primary efficacy endpoint, efficacy failure (death, graft loss, biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (BCAR) or lost to follow-up). One-year patient and graft survival were 98.6% and 96.7% in the XL/MMF group, 95.7% and 92.9% in TAC/MMF group and 97.6% and 95.7% in CsA/MMF group. The safety profile of XL in comparison with CsA was similar to that observed with TAC in this study and consistent with previously published reports of TAC in comparison with CsA. The results support the safety and efficacy of tacrolimus in combination with MMF, corticosteroids and basiliximab induction, as well as XL as a safe and effective once-daily dosing alternative.

Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or sirolimus vs. cyclosporine with MMF in cardiac transplant patients: 1-year report.

The most advantageous combination of immunosuppressive agents for cardiac transplant recipients has not yet been established. Between November 2001 and June 2003, 343 de novo cardiac transplant recipients were randomized to receive steroids and either tacrolimus (TAC) + sirolimus (SRL), TAC + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclosporine (CYA) + MMF. Antilymphocyte induction therapy was allowed for up to 5 days. The primary endpoint of >/=3A rejection or hemodynamic compromise rejection requiring treatment showed no significant difference at 6 months (TAC/MMF 22.4%, TAC/SRL 24.3%, CYA/MMF 31.6%, p = 0.271) and 1 year (p = 0.056), but it was significantly lower in the TAC/MMF group when compared only to the CYA/MMF group at 1 year (23.4% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.029). Differences in the incidence of any treated rejection were significant (TAC/SRL = 35%, TAC/MMF = 42%, CYA/MMF = 59%; p < 0.001), as were median levels of serum creatinine (TAC/SRL = 1.5 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 1.3 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 1.5 mg/dL; p = 0.032) and triglycerides (TAC/SRL = 162 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 126 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 154 mg/dL; p = 0.028). The TAC/SRL group encountered fewer viral infections but more fungal infections and impaired wound healing. These secondary endpoints suggest that the TAC/MMF combination appears to offer more advantages than TAC/SRL or CYA/MMF in cardiac transplant patients, including fewer >/=3A rejections or hemodynamic compromise rejections and an improved side-effect profile.

Conversion of stable kidney transplant recipients from a twice daily Prograf-based regimen to a once daily modified release tacrolimus-based regimen.

UNLABELLED: Modified release (MR) tacrolimus is an extended release formulation administered once daily (qD). The purpose of this pharmacokinetic (PK) study was to evaluate tacrolimus exposure in stable kidney transplant recipients converted from Prograf twice a day to MR tacrolimus qD. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter study with a crossover design. Eligible patients were 18 to 65 years of age, more than 6 months posttransplant with stable renal function, and received stable Prograf doses more than 2 weeks prior to enrollment. Patients received Prograf twice a day through day 7; 24-hour PK profiles were obtained on days 1 and 7. Patients were converted to the same milligram-for-milligram daily dose of MR tacrolimus qD in the morning on day 8; 24-hour PK profiles were obtained for MR tacrolimus on days 8, 14, and 21. Laboratory and safety parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: Most patients (67 of 70) completed all 5 PK profiles. The 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the MR tacrolimus vs Prograf comparison at steady state (days 14 and 21 vs days 1 and 7) were 90.7 and 99.4 for AUC0-24 and 82.7 and 91.9 for Cmin. MR tacrolimus was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to that of Prograf. AUC0-24 was highly correlated to Cmin for Prograf (day 1, r = 0.80; day 7, r = 0.84) and MR tacrolimus (day 14, r = 0.92; day 21, r = 0.86). Renal function remained stable after conversion to MR tacrolimus. CONCLUSION: The steady state PK of MR tacrolimus are equivalent to Prograf after a milligram-for-milligram conversion in stable kidney transplant recipients. The results provide evidence to support a safe 1:1 conversion from Prograf twice a day to MR tacrolimus.

Conversion of stable liver transplant recipients from a twice-daily Prograf-based regimen to a once-daily modified release tacrolimus-based regimen.

INTRODUCTION: Modified release (MR) tacrolimus is an extended release formulation administered once daily. The purpose of this pharmacokinetic (PK) study was to evaluate tacrolimus exposure in stable liver transplant recipients converted from Prograf twice a day to MR tacrolimus once daily. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter study with a single sequence, four-period crossover design. Eligible patients were 18 to 65 years of age, >6 months posttransplant with stable renal and hepatic function and receiving stable doses of Prograf twice a day for >2 weeks prior to enrollment. Patients received Prograf twice a day on days 1 to 14 and 29 to 42. Patients were converted to the same milligram-for-milligram daily dose of MR once daily on days 15 to 28 and 43 to 56. Twenty-four-hour PK profiles were obtained on days 14, 28, 42, and 56. Laboratory and safety parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of 70 patients, 62 completed all four PK profiles. The AUC0-24 of tacrolimus was comparable for Prograf twice a day (days 14 and 42) and MR tacrolimus once daily (days 28 and 56). The 90% confidence intervals for MR tacrolimus versus Prograf at steady state (days 28 and 56 vs days 14 and 42) was 0.85 to 0.92 for AUC0-24. MR tacrolimus was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to that of Prograf. AUC0-24 was highly correlated to Cmin for Prograf (day 14, r = .93; Day 42, r = .89) and for MR tacrolimus (day 28, r = .93; day 56, r = .92). Renal and liver function remained stable. One patient experienced acute rejection. CONCLUSION: The steady-state tacrolimus exposure of MR tacrolimus once daily is equivalent to Prograf twice a day after a milligram-for-milligram conversion in stable liver transplant recipients.

Randomized trial of tacrolimus plus mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine versus cyclosporine oral solution (modified) plus mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation: results at 2 years.

BACKGROUND: A previous report described the 1-year results of a prospective, randomized trial designed to investigate the optimal combination of immunosuppressants in kidney transplantation. Recipients of first cadaveric kidney allografts were treated with tacrolimus+mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclosporine oral solution (modified) (CsA)+MMF, or tacrolimus+azathioprine (AZA). Results at 1 year revealed that optimal efficacy and safety were achieved with a regimen containing tacrolimus+MMF. The present report describes results at 2 years. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-three recipients of first cadaveric kidney allografts were randomized to receive tacrolimus+MMF, CsA+MMF, or tacrolimus+AZA. All regimens contained corticosteroids, and antibody induction was used only in patients who experienced delayed graft function. Patients were followed up for 2 years. RESULTS: The results at 2 years corroborate and extend the findings of the previous report. Patients randomized to either treatment arm containing tacrolimus experienced improved kidney function. New-onset insulin dependence remained in four, three, and four patients in the tacrolimus+MMF, CsA+MMF, and tacrolimus+AZA treatment arms, respectively. Furthermore, patients with delayed graft function/acute tubular necrosis who were treated with tacrolimus+MMF experienced a 23% increase in allograft survival compared with patients receiving CsA+MMF (P=0.06). Patients randomized to tacrolimus+MMF received significantly lower doses of MMF compared with those administered CsA+MMF. CONCLUSIONS: All three immunosuppressive regi-mens provided excellent safety and efficacy. How-ever, the best results overall were achieved with tacrolimus+MMF. The combination may provide particular benefit to kidney allograft recipients who develop delayed graft function/acute tubular necrosis. Renal function at 2 years was better in the tacrolimus treatment groups compared with the CsA group.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus in pediatric liver transplant patients.

The clinical utility of tacrolimus monitoring in adults has been well documented. The present study compared tacrolimus monitoring in a pediatric population of 34 liver transplant patients in four US centers with an adult population of 111 patients in six US centers. Subjects (adult and pediatric) were evaluated, at defined intervals over 12 weeks post-transplantation (Tx), for tacrolimus trough concentrations and 12 additional laboratory chemistries. Pediatric patient and graft survival for the 12 weeks were 91% and 88%, respectively, as compared to 97% and 93%, respectively, for the adult population. The mean oral dosage of tacrolimus for pediatric patients was 0.13 +/- 0.1 mg/kg/day at week 1, increased to 0.30 +/- 0.3 mg/kg/day by week 3 and remained constant for the remainder of the study. These dosages were two- to three-fold higher than the dosage used in the adult population. In contrast, the mean whole-blood trough concentration, as determined by PRO-Tractrade mark II enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), decreased from 11.3 +/- 5.1 ng/mL at week 1 to 6.3 +/- 3.7 ng/mL by week 12 and was not significantly different from the trough concentration in adults. The incidence and distribution of the clinical end-points for the pediatric subjects (rejection, nephrotoxicity, death, re-Tx) were different from those observed in adults. The total percentage of pediatric subjects reaching any end-point was 74%, as compared to 54% in the adult population. These data indicate several differences between the adult and pediatric populations in their response to tacrolimus.

Clinical utility of monitoring tacrolimus blood concentrations in liver transplant patients.

The relationship between the dose of tacrolimus, trough tacrolimus blood concentration, and selected clinical endpoints (acute rejection, nephrotoxicity, and other toxicities) were examined in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial to validate the use of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for monitoring whole-blood concentrations of tacrolimus in liver transplant patients. A total of 111 subjects from six transplant centers were evaluated over 12 weeks posttransplantation. In addition to trough tacrolimus blood concentrations, hematocrit, ALT, AST, GGTP, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, serum creatinine, BUN, serum potassium, serum magnesium, blood glucose, and serum albumin were also measured. The relationship between trough tacrolimus blood concentrations and clinical endpoints was analyzed using both a logistic regression model and a Cox proportional hazard model. By logistic regression analysis, a statistically significant (p = 0.0465) relationship between increasing trough tacrolimus blood concentrations and decreasing risk of acute rejection was demonstrated over a 7-day time window. Nephrotoxicity and other toxicities also demonstrated statistically significant relationships with trough tacrolimus blood concentrations. The results of the Cox analysis were consistent with the logistic regression analysis. Using receiver operator characteristic curves, trough tacrolimus concentrations as measured by the ELISA method were able to differentiate the occurrence of nephrotoxicity and toxicity from nonevents. To minimize nephrotoxicity of tacrolimus, it is necessary to maintain trough blood concentrations below 15 ng/ml. This study demonstrates that the ELISA method used to measure tacrolimus blood concentrations in this study provides information of predictive value for managing the risk of nephrotoxicity, other toxicity, and rejection in liver transplant patients.

Nonclinical and early clinical development of tacrolimus ointment for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

Tacrolimus ointment, formulated for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, is the first in a class of topical immunomodulators. Its mechanism of action is based on calcineurin inhibition, which results in suppression of antigen-specific T-cell activation and inhibition of inflammatory cytokine release. Animal and human studies have shown that topically applied tacrolimus is minimally absorbed into the systemic circulation, the fraction that is absorbed is extensively distributed, and tacrolimus does not accumulate in tissues following repeated topical application. In addition, tacrolimus ointment is not inherently irritating, sensitizing, phototoxic, or photoallergenic when applied to intact skin. Unlike some topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus ointment does not cause a decrease in collagen synthesis or skin thickness, nor does it produce skin abnormalities or depigmentation. In animal studies, repeated daily application of tacrolimus ointment up to 1 year is associated with dermal findings similar to those following vehicle application (mild to moderate dermal irritation and microscopic findings of acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, and superficial inflammation). In a 52-week study with Yucatan micropigs, no noteworthy macroscopic or microscopic changes (either dermal or systemic) related to the application of tacrolimus ointment (0.03% to 0.3% concentrations) were observed. Tacrolimus ointment was shown to be safe and effective in phase 2 and early phase 3 studies. Significant improvements in atopic dermatitis were observed in the majority of patients treated with tacrolimus ointment. The most common adverse events associated with its use were a transient burning sensation and pruritus at the site of application. Blood tacrolimus concentrations were below the limit of quantitation in most patients.

Assessment of myocardial hypertrophy by echocardiography in adult patients receiving tacrolimus or cyclosporine therapy for prevention of acute GVHD.

The incidence of myocardial hypertrophy was determined in a comparative study of tacrolimus-based immunosuppression with cyclosporine-based immunosuppression for prevention of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation. Patients were evaluated for clinical and echocardiographic abnormalities at baseline (prior to pretreatment conditioning and the first dose of study drug) and at 5-8 weeks after transplant when stable levels of oral tacrolimus or cyclosporine had been achieved. Left ventricular geometry and performance were assessed by echocardiography which included 2-D measurements and one Doppler measurement. Derived echocardiographic measurements and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) were also determined. A cut-off of <111 g/m(2) was used for the upper limit of normal for LVMI. Forty-four patients were included in this study (21 tacrolimus and 23 cyclosporine), of which 31 were evaluable for a comparison with both baseline and post-transplant values. There was no significant difference in the changes from baseline for mean left ventricular mass (LVM) or LVM index (LVMI) between treatment groups. Also, within the tacrolimus group there were no significant changes for these variables from baseline to post-transplant evaluations. Within the cyclosporine group there were significant increases from baseline for mean LVM (P = 0.011) and LVMI (P = 0.007). The incidence of myocardial hypertrophy (change of LVMI from <111 g/m(2) baseline to >111 g/m(2) post transplant) was 20% in the tacrolimus group and 56% in the cyclosporine group (P = 0.109). Changes in the LVMI from baseline to post baseline were greater with cyclosporine than with tacrolimus therapy, and there was no evidence that tacrolimus causes myocardial hypertrophy or significant clinical changes in adult bone marrow transplant patients. The increase in LVMI after transplant in the cyclosporine group was greater than in the tacrolimus group but was not associated with any significant clinical events.

Phase 3 study comparing methotrexate and tacrolimus with methotrexate and cyclosporine for prophylaxis of acute graft-versus-host disease after marrow transplantation from unrelated donors.

After the transplantation of unmodified marrow from human leukocyte antigen-matched unrelated donors receiving cyclosporine (CSP) and methotrexate (MTX), the incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is greater than 75%. Tacrolimus is a macrolide compound that, in previous preclinical and clinical studies, was effective in combination with MTX for the prevention of acute GVHD. Between March 1995 and September 1996, 180 patients were randomized in a phase 3, open-label, multicenter study to determine whether tacrolimus combined with a short course of MTX (n = 90), more than CSP and a short course of MTX (n = 90), would reduce the incidence of acute GVHD after marrow transplantation from unrelated donors. There was a significant trend toward decreased severity of acute GVHD across all grades (P =.005). Based on the Kaplan-Meier estimate, the probability of grade II-IV acute GVHD in the tacrolimus group (56%) was significantly lower than in the CSP group (74%; P =.0002). Use of glucocorticoids for the management of GVHD was significantly lower with tacrolimus than with CSP (65% vs 81%, respectively; P =. 019). The number of patients requiring dialysis in the first 100 days was similar (tacrolimus, 9; CSP, 8). Overall and relapse-free survival rates for the tacrolimus and CSP arms at 2 years was 54% versus 50% (P =.46) and 47% versus 42% (P =.58), respectively. The combination of tacrolimus and MTX after unrelated donor marrow transplantation significantly decreased the risk for acute GVHD than did the combination of CSP and MTX, with no significant increase in toxicity, infections, or leukemia relapse.

Compromised kidney graft rejection response in Vervet monkeys after withdrawal of immunosuppressants tacrolimus and sirolimus.

BACKGROUND: In nonprimates, organ allografts are often not rejected after withdrawal of immunosuppression. In this study, we examined whether such a phenomenon also occurs in primates. METHODS: Vervet monkeys were transplanted with renal allografts and treated for 60 days with tacrolimus, or tacrolimus plus sirolimus. The drugs were totally withdrawn on day 61. The survival of the monkeys was monitored, and their response to donor- or third party-derived alloantigens was examined in vivo and in vitro. RESULTS: The majority (80-100%) of the grafts survived for at least additional 30 days with no signs of acute rejection. The compromised rejection is donor-specific, because recipient monkeys failed to reject a donor-derived skin graft, but a third-party skin graft was rejected. In vitro mixed lymphocyte reaction and interleukin-2 production in the mixed lymphocyte reaction between the recipients and their donors or between the recipients and a third party had no discernable patterns, and thus did not reflect the in vivo status of the immune system. Although the recipients could not reject the graft acutely after drug withdrawal, the kidney grafts and the donor-derived skin grafts had pathological findings of chronic rejection. CONCLUSIONS: The rejection response of the monkeys to an established graft after withdrawal of immunosuppression is compromised. The compromised rejection is specific and is not due to a permanent alteration of the immune system by the initial drug treatment. The allografts are not inert but have low levels of interaction with the recipient immune system.

Effect of tacrolimus (FK506) and sirolimus (rapamycin) mono- and combination therapy in prolongation of renal allograft survival in the monkey.

BACKGROUND: Our previous studies confirmed that tacrolimus (FK506) and sirolimus [rapamycin (RAPA)], in combination, are not antagonistic but are synergistic in the prolongation of heart and small bowel grafts in the rodent. The aim of this study was to confirm further the synergistic effect of combined FK506 and RAPA in the more clinically relevant model, kidney transplantation in monkeys. METHODS: A total of 60 male Vervet monkeys were randomly assigned to 10 groups (n> or =5). Monkeys with renal allografts were treated with different doses of FK506 and/or RAPA orally for 60 days. Graft survival, body weight, clinical biochemistry determinations, oral glucose tolerance test, trough levels of the two drugs, and histopathology were investigated. RESULTS: Low doses of FK506 (1 or 4 mg/kg) combined with RAPA (0.5 mg/kg) produced synergistic effect in the prolongation of renal graft survival [combination index (CI) = 0.292, 0.565]. There were no additive or synergistic drug-associated toxicities such as hyperglycemia, nephrotoxicity, and hyperlipidemia. There also was no pharmacological antagonism. CONCLUSION: Concomitant therapy of low-dose (drug-optimal) FK506 and RAPA produced a synergistic effect in the prolongation of kidney allograft survival in Vervet monkeys without additive drug-associated toxicities.

Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Our clinical trial was designed to investigate the optimal combination of immunosuppressants for renal transplantation. METHODS: A randomized three-arm, parallel group, open label, prospective study was performed at 15 North American centers to compare three immunosuppressive regimens: tacrolimus + azathioprine (AZA) versus cyclosporine (Neoral) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus tacrolimus + MMF. All patients were first cadaveric kidney transplants receiving the same maintenance corticosteroid regimen. Only patients with delayed graft function (32%) received antilymphocyte induction. A total of 223 patients were randomized, transplanted, and followed for 1 year. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline demography between the three treatment groups. At 1 year the results are as follows: acute rejection 17% (95% confidence interval 9%, 26%) in tacrolimus + AZA; 20% (confidence interval 11%, 29%) in cyclosporine + MMF; and 15% (confidence interval 7%, 24%) in tacrolimus + MMF. The incidence of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy was 12% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 11% in the cyclosporine + MMF group, and 4% in the tacrolimus + MMF group. There were no significant differences in overall patient or graft survival. Tacrolimus-treated patients had a lower incidence of hyperlipidemia through 6 months posttransplant. The incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus requiring insulin was 14% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 7% in the cyclosporine + MMF and 7% in the tacrolimus + MMF groups. CONCLUSIONS: All regimens yielded similar acute rejection rates and graft survival, but the tacrolimus + MMF regimen was associated with the lowest rate of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy.

Tacrolimus vs. cyclosporine immunosuppression: results in advanced-stage disease compared with historical controls treated exclusively with cyclosporine.

A phase HI comparative trial of tacrolimus- vs. cyclosporine-based graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation showed less GVHD but poorer survival in the tacrolimus arm. To test the comparability of the two treatment arms with respect to baseline survival prognosis, a matched control study using exclusively cyclosporine-treated patients from the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR) database was performed. Controls were matched (2:1) based on age (within 5 years), disease, and pretransplant disease status. Two-year survival for tacrolimus-treated clinical trial patients was similar to that of their cyclosporine-treated matched controls (27 and 24%, respectively), and 2-year survival of the cyclosporine-treated clinical trial patients was similar to that of their cyclosporine-treated matched IBMTR controls (42 and 45%, respectively). Consistent with the clinical trial results, the cyclosporine-treated IBMTR controls matched to the tacrolimus group had significantly poorer 2-year survival than the cyclosporine-treated IBMTR controls matched to the cyclosporine group (24 and 45%, respectively; p < 0.01). No significant difference was seen in GVHD between the cyclosporine-treated clinical trial patients and their matched controls; however, the tacrolimus-treated clinical trial patients had significantly less GVHD than their cyclosporine-treated IBMTR controls (p < 0.01). These results support the hypothesis that the survival difference in the phase III trial resulted from an imbalance in the underlying risk factors for death in the two groups rather than from the randomized immunosuppressive regimen.

Relationship of tacrolimus whole blood levels to efficacy and safety outcomes after unrelated donor marrow transplantation.

Tacrolimus has proved effective for preventing acute graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) after unrelated donor marrow transplantation, but the therapeutic window is apparently narrow. Therapeutic drug monitoring could potentially be used to guide dose modifications, but the optimal target range of tacrolimus blood concentrations is unknown. We determined whether acute GVHD and renal dysfunction correlated with tacrolimus whole blood levels as measured by the IMx assay. Data were analyzed for 97 adults treated in a multicenter trial of tacrolimus and methotrexate or methylprednisolone as GVHD prophylaxis after unrelated donor marrow transplantation. The rate of grades II-IV GVHD was 49%; 81% of patients had a doubling of the serum creatinine; and 61% had a serum creatinine <2 mg/dL. The initial tacrolimus target range for the clinical trial was 10-60 ng/mL. Tacrolimus blood levels were averaged over a 14-day period, and Cox models were used with averaged blood levels as a time-dependent covariate. No significant change was observed in the risks of acute GVHD, doubling of creatinine, need for dialysis, or death over a tacrolimus blood level range of 5-40 ng/mL, but there was a direct correlation between risk of developing a creatinine <2 mg/dL and increasing tacrolimus blood levels (4.7% increased risk for each 1 ng/mL increase in blood concentration, p < 0.001). When the tacrolimus level exceeded 20 ng/mL, there was a 2.2-fold increase in the rate of renal toxicity (p < 0.001), a trend for an increase in mortality (relative risk 3.9, p=0.08), and no impact on the risk of GVHD. This analysis supports 10-20 ng/mL as the therapeutic range of tacrolimus whole blood steady state or trough levels for unrelated donor marrow transplantation.

Phase III study comparing methotrexate and tacrolimus (prograf, FK506) with methotrexate and cyclosporine for graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis after HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation.

We report the results of a phase III open-label, randomized, multicenter trial comparing tacrolimus/methotrexate to cyclosporine/methotrexate for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after HLA-identical sibling marrow transplantation in patients with hematologic malignancy. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence of moderate to severe (grade II-IV) acute GVHD. Secondary objectives were to compare the relapse rate, disease-free survival, overall survival, and the incidence of chronic GVHD. Patients were stratified according to age (<40 v >/=40) and for male recipients of a marrow graft from an alloimmunized female. There was a significantly greater proportion of patients with advanced disease randomized to tacrolimus arm (P = . 02). The incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was significantly lower in patients who received tacrolimus than patients in the cyclosporine group (31.9% and 44.4%, respectively; P = .01). The incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD was similar, 17.1% in cyclosporine group and 13.3% in the tacrolimus group. There was no difference in the incidence of chronic GVHD between the tacrolimus and the cyclosporine group (55.9% and 49.4%, respectively; P = .8). However, there was a significantly higher proportion of patients in the cyclosporine group who had clinical extensive chronic GVHD (P = . 03). The relapse rates of the two groups were similar. The patients in the cyclosporine arm had a significantly better 2-year disease-free survival and overall survival than patients in the tacrolimus arm, 50.4% versus 40.5% (P = .01) and 57.2% versus 46.9% (P = .02), respectively. The significant difference in the overall and disease-free survival was largely the result of the patients with advanced disease, 24.8% with tacrolimus versus 41.7% with cyclosporine (P = .006) and 20.4% with tacrolimus versus 28% with cyclosporine (P = .007), respectively. There was a higher frequency of deaths from regimen-related toxicity in patients with advanced disease who received tacrolimus. There was no difference in the disease-free and overall survival in patients with nonadvanced disease. These results show the superiority of tacrolimus/methotrexate over cyclosporine/methotrexate in the prevention of grade II-IV acute GVHD with no difference in disease-free or overall survival in patients with nonadvanced disease. The survival disadvantage in advanced disease patients receiving tacrolimus warrants further investigation.