Johnson‐Davis, Kamisha L.

Abstract Toxicology testing for drugs associated with scenarios such as recreational use or substance use disorder can be performed in support of the emergency department (ED) for specific patient populations such as pediatrics and trauma. These compounds were historically referred to as drugs of abuse (DOA); although the word “abuse” is recognized as potentially stigmatizing, no replacement terminology for DOA has emerged in current guidelines. This document refers to these compounds as drugs or substances of misuse, and acknowledges the need for less-stigmatizing language that more fully encompasses the range of uses for these drugs. This literature-driven, consensus guidance document provides recommendations primarily targeted to US hospital-based laboratories performing urine drug testing (UDT) in support of the ED. Indications for ordering UDT and related testing in both pediatric and adult populations are summarized. Further, recommendations are made for testing that should be available at all facilities with rapid turnaround, and how to perform and report testing. The advantages and disadvantages of immunoassays and mass spectrometry, as well as common challenges, are reviewed. Indications for mass-spectrometry assays and more extensive testing (e.g., novel psychoactive substances) are also provided. Future directions for improvements in laboratory technology to improve the utility of this testing are outlined. All laboratories should collaborate with ED leadership, medical toxicologists and poison control centers to optimize and update test menus to reflect local drug use patterns, ensure test methodologies and results meet clinical needs, and educate clinical staff regarding assay limitations and accurate test interpretation.

Abstract: The Immunosuppressive Drugs Scientific Committee of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology established the second consensus report to guide therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of everolimus (EVR) and its optimal use in clinical practice 7 years after the first version was published in 2016. This version provides information focused on new developments that have arisen in the last 7 years. For the general aspects of the pharmacology and TDM of EVR that have retained their relevance, readers can refer to the 2016 document. This edition includes new evidence from the literature, focusing on the topics updated during the last 7 years, including indirect pharmacological effects of EVR on the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 2 with the major mechanism of direct inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1. In addition, various concepts and technical options to monitor EVR concentrations, improve analytical performance, and increase the number of options available for immunochemical analytical methods have been included. Only limited new pharmacogenetic information regarding EVR has emerged; however, pharmacometrics and model-informed precision dosing have been constructed using physiological parameters as covariates, including pharmacogenetic information. In clinical settings, EVR is combined with a decreased dose of calcineurin inhibitors, such as tacrolimus and cyclosporine, instead of mycophenolic acid. The literature and recommendations for specific organ transplantations, such as that of the kidneys, liver, heart, and lungs, as well as for oncology and pediatrics have been updated. EVR TDM for pancreatic and islet transplantation has been added to this edition. The pharmacodynamic monitoring of EVR in organ transplantation has also been updated. These updates and additions, along with the previous version of this consensus document, will be helpful to clinicians and researchers treating patients receiving EVR.

Abstract Objectives Urine drug testing (UDT) is a critical tool used in medical, forensic, and occupational settings, but interpreting results can be challenging. We performed a study to assess the ability of health care professionals to interpret UDT results accurately. Methods In total, 911 clinical and laboratory professionals in the United States and Canada responded to a survey with questions gauging expertise in UDT interpretation. Responses were analyzed to identify knowledge gaps. Results Toxicologists and laboratory PhD scientists performed well, with means of 4.82 and 4.63 questions answered correctly (out of 6 possible), respectively. Physicians specializing in pathology, emergency medicine, primary care, and internal medicine, however, displayed concerning knowledge gaps, as did laboratorians with nondoctoral degrees. Experience and training correlated with interpretation accuracy. Identification of simulated compliance as well as understanding opioid exposure, metabolism, and immunoassay cross-reactivity were among the most clinically significant knowledge gaps. More than 30% of survey respondents indicated that they would seek UDT information from the internet or peers rather than clinical or laboratory experts. Conclusions The study highlighted the need for targeted education and better collaboration between clinical and laboratory experts and other health care professionals to ensure that when physicians order UDT, they can accurately interpret results and reduce harm.

Abstract: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) consists of a peptidomimetic inhibitor (nirmatrelvir) of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease and a pharmacokinetic enhancer (ritonavir). It is approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. This combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir can mediate significant and complex drug–drug interactions (DDIs), primarily due to the ritonavir component. Indeed, ritonavir inhibits the metabolism of nirmatrelvir through cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) leading to higher plasma concentrations and a longer half-life of nirmatrelvir. Coadministration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs) is particularly challenging given the major involvement of CYP3A in the metabolism of most of these drugs and their narrow therapeutic ranges. Exposure of ISDs will be drastically increased through the potent ritonavir-mediated inhibition of CYP3A, resulting in an increased risk of adverse drug reactions. Although a decrease in the dosage of ISDs can prevent toxicity, an inappropriate dosage regimen may also result in insufficient exposure and a risk of rejection. Here, we provide some general recommendations for therapeutic drug monitoring of ISDs and dosing recommendations when coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Particularly, tacrolimus should be discontinued, or patients should be given a microdose on day 1, whereas cyclosporine dosage should be reduced to 20% of the initial dosage during the antiviral treatment. Dosages of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (m-TORis) should also be adjusted while dosages of mycophenolic acid and corticosteroids are expected to be less impacted.

Abstract: When mycophenolic acid (MPA) was originally marketed for immunosuppressive therapy, fixed doses were recommended by the manufacturer. Awareness of the potential for a more personalized dosing has led to development of methods to estimate MPA area under the curve based on the measurement of drug concentrations in only a few samples. This approach is feasible in the clinical routine and has proven successful in terms of correlation with outcome. However, the search for superior correlates has continued, and numerous studies in search of biomarkers that could better predict the perfect dosage for the individual patient have been published. As it was considered timely for an updated and comprehensive presentation of consensus on the status for personalized treatment with MPA, this report was prepared following an initiative from members of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT). Topics included are the criteria for analytics, methods to estimate exposure including pharmacometrics, the potential influence of pharmacogenetics, development of biomarkers, and the practical aspects of implementation of target concentration intervention. For selected topics with sufficient evidence, such as the application of limited sampling strategies for MPA area under the curve, graded recommendations on target ranges are presented. To provide a comprehensive review, this report also includes updates on the status of potential biomarkers including those which may be promising but with a low level of evidence. In view of the fact that there are very few new immunosuppressive drugs under development for the transplant field, it is likely that MPA will continue to be prescribed on a large scale in the upcoming years. Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects is relatively common, increasing the risk for late rejections, which may contribute to graft loss. Therefore, the continued search for innovative methods to better personalize MPA dosage is warranted.

Abstract: Ten years ago, a consensus report on the optimization of tacrolimus was published in this journal. In 2017, the Immunosuppressive Drugs Scientific Committee of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicity (IATDMCT) decided to issue an updated consensus report considering the most relevant advances in tacrolimus pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacogenetics (PG), pharmacodynamics, and immunologic biomarkers, with the aim to provide analytical and drug-exposure recommendations to assist TDM professionals and clinicians to individualize tacrolimus TDM and treatment. The consensus is based on in-depth literature searches regarding each topic that is addressed in this document. Thirty-seven international experts in the field of TDM of tacrolimus as well as its PG and biomarkers contributed to the drafting of sections most relevant for their expertise. Whenever applicable, the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations were graded according to a published grading guide. After iterated editing, the final version of the complete document was approved by all authors. For each category of solid organ and stem cell transplantation, the current state of PK monitoring is discussed and the specific targets of tacrolimus trough concentrations (predose sample C 0 ) are presented for subgroups of patients along with the grading of these recommendations. In addition, tacrolimus area under the concentration–time curve determination is proposed as the best TDM option early after transplantation, at the time of immunosuppression minimization, for special populations, and specific clinical situations. For indications other than transplantation, the potentially effective tacrolimus concentrations in systemic treatment are discussed without formal grading. The importance of consistency, calibration, proficiency testing, and the requirement for standardization and need for traceability and reference materials is highlighted. The status for alternative approaches for tacrolimus TDM is presented including dried blood spots, volumetric absorptive microsampling, and the development of intracellular measurements of tacrolimus. The association between CYP3A5 genotype and tacrolimus dose requirement is consistent (Grading A I). So far, pharmacodynamic and immunologic biomarkers have not entered routine monitoring, but determination of residual nuclear factor of activated T cells–regulated gene expression supports the identification of renal transplant recipients at risk of rejection, infections, and malignancy (B II). In addition, monitoring intracellular T-cell IFN-g production can help to identify kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of acute rejection (B II) and select good candidates for immunosuppression minimization (B II). Although cell-free DNA seems a promising biomarker of acute donor injury and to assess the minimally effective C 0 of tacrolimus, multicenter prospective interventional studies are required to better evaluate its clinical utility in solid organ transplantation. Population PK models including CYP3A5 and CYP3A4 genotypes will be considered to guide initial tacrolimus dosing. Future studies should investigate the clinical benefit of time-to-event models to better evaluate biomarkers as predictive of personal response, the risk of rejection, and graft outcome. The Expert Committee concludes that considerable advances in the different fields of tacrolimus monitoring have been achieved during this last decade. Continued efforts should focus on the opportunities to implement in clinical routine the combination of new standardized PK approaches with PG, and valid biomarkers to further personalize tacrolimus therapy and to improve long-term outcomes for treated patients.

AbstractDrug screening during pre-transplant evaluations can have major implications for patient care, particularly because drug abuse has been associated with poor transplant outcomes. Although urine drug screening is usually preferred, serum testing is available for situations such as anuria due to end stage renal disease. However, there are few studies evaluating serum drug screening in specific populations such as patients undergoing kidney transplant evaluation. All serum drug screens ordered between January 2015 and November 2017 on patients being evaluated for renal transplant were compared against a large population of serum drug screens ordered from other institutions. Cocaine screening and confirmation results were evaluated to determine false positives. Cocaine screens were positive in 23 of 537 (4.3%) pre-transplant samples, and 211 of 5,115 (4.1%) comparison samples. Confirmation testing demonstrated that 14 (60.9%) pre-transplant samples were false positives, which was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than the rate of false positives in the comparison group (47/211, 22.3%). No common medication or other cross-reacting substance could be identified in the pre-transplant cohort to explain the false-positive results. Although serum cocaine screening had a low overall false-positive rate, the proportion of false positives was significantly higher in pre-transplant patients. Given the poor transplant outcomes associated with drug abuse, failure to properly interpret screening results as being false positives could negatively affect patient care. All members of the transplant team should recognize the importance of confirmation testing in this setting, to avoid unintended consequences due to false-positive screening results.