Schaik, Ron HN van

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.

Background We aimed to identify patients with subphenotypes of postacute coronary syndrome (ACS) using repeated measurements of high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein, and growth differentiation factor 15 in the year after the index admission, and to investigate their association with long‐term mortality risk. Methods and Results BIOMArCS (BIOMarker Study to Identify the Acute Risk of a Coronary Syndrome) was an observational study of patients with ACS, who underwent high‐frequency blood sampling for 1 year. Biomarkers were measured in a median of 16 repeated samples per individual. Cluster analysis was performed to identify biomarker‐based subphenotypes in 723 patients without a repeat ACS in the first year. Patients with a repeat ACS (N=36) were considered a separate cluster. Differences in all‐cause death were evaluated using accelerated failure time models (median follow‐up, 9.1 years; 141 deaths). Three biomarker‐based clusters were identified: cluster 1 showed low and stable biomarker concentrations, cluster 2 had elevated concentrations that subsequently decreased, and cluster 3 showed persistently elevated concentrations. The temporal biomarker patterns of patients in cluster 3 were similar to those with a repeat ACS during the first year. Clusters 1 and 2 had a similar and favorable long‐term mortality risk. Cluster 3 had the highest mortality risk. The adjusted survival time ratio was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.44–0.93; P =0.018) compared with cluster 1, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.39–1.32; P =0.281) compared with patients with a repeat ACS. Conclusions Patients with subphenotypes of post‐ACS with different all‐cause mortality risks during long‐term follow‐up can be identified on the basis of repeatedly measured cardiovascular biomarkers. Patients with persistently elevated biomarkers have the worst outcomes, regardless of whether they experienced a repeat ACS in the first year.

Abstract The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the gene-drug interaction of CYP2C9 and HLA-B with phenytoin, HLA-A and HLA-B with carbamazepine and HLA-B with oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine. A systematic review was performed and pharmacotherapeutic recommendations were developed. For CYP2C9 intermediate and poor metabolisers, the DPWG recommends lowering the daily dose of phenytoin and adjust based on effect and serum concentration after 7–10 days. For HLA-B*15:02 carriers, the risk of severe cutaneous adverse events associated with phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine is strongly increased. For carbamazepine, this risk is also increased in HLA-B*15:11 and HLA-A*31:01 carriers. For HLA-B*15:02, HLA-B*15:11 and HLA-A*31:01 positive patients, the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative anti-epileptic drug. If not possible, it is recommended to advise the patient to report any rash while using carbamazepine, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine or phenytoin immediately. Carbamazepine should not be used in an HLA-B*15:02 positive patient. DPWG considers CYP2C9 genotyping before the start of phenytoin “essential” for toxicity prevention. For patients with an ancestry in which the abovementioned HLA-alleles are prevalent, the DPWG considers HLA-B*15:02 genotyping before the start of carbamazepine, phenytoin, oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine “beneficial”, as well as genotyping for HLA-B*15:11 and HLA-A*31:01 before initiating carbamazepine.

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.

Tamoxifen is biotransformed by CYP2D6 to 4‐hydroxytamoxifen and 4‐hydroxy N‐desmethyl tamoxifen (endoxifen), both with greater antiestrogenic potency than the parent drug. Patients with certain CYP2D6 genetic polymorphisms and patients who receive strong CYP2D6 inhibitors exhibit lower endoxifen concentrations and a higher risk of disease recurrence in some studies of tamoxifen adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer. We summarize evidence from the literature and provide therapeutic recommendations for tamoxifen based on CYP2D6 genotype.