Venkataramanan, Raman

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: 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.

Background: COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory distress (SARS)-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several therapeutic options are currently emerging but none with universal consensus or proven efficacy. Solid organ transplant recipients are perceived to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 because of their immunosuppressed conditions due to chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs). It is therefore likely that solid organ transplant recipients will be treated with these experimental antivirals. Methods: This article is not intended to provide a systematic literature review on investigational treatments tested against COVID-19; rather, the authors aim to provide recommendations for therapeutic drug monitoring of ISDs in transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 based on a review of existing data in the literature. Results: Management of drug–drug interactions between investigational anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs and immunosuppressants is a complex task for the clinician. Adequate immunosuppression is necessary to prevent graft rejection while, if critically ill, the patient may benefit from pharmacotherapeutic interventions directed at limiting SARS-CoV-2 viral replication. Maintaining ISD concentrations within the desired therapeutic range requires a highly individualized approach that is complicated by the pandemic context and lack of hindsight. Conclusions: With this article, the authors inform the clinician about the potential interactions of experimental COVID-19 treatments with ISDs used in transplantation. Recommendations regarding therapeutic drug monitoring and dose adjustments in the context of COVID-19 are provided.