Influence of nicardipine on renal function and plasma cyclosporin in renal transplant patients

Evaluation of drug interaction between cyclosporine and lercanidipine: a descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

Cyclosporine is an immunosuppressive drug with a high potential for drug interactions that is frequently used in renal transplant patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the change in cyclosporine concentration in patients taking cyclosporine and lercanidipine concurrently.

METHODS

The potential drug interactions in renal transplant patients who received lercanidipine and cyclosporine concurrently in a university hospital between January 2008 and January 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients had renal transplantation from deceased donors or living related donors. The Drug Interaction Probability Scale (DIPS) criteria were used to assess the causality of cyclosporine and lercanidipine drug interaction.

RESULTS

The study included six renal transplant patients. The median cyclosporine concentration before lercanidipine use was 325 ng/mL (min-max 101-356) and 592.5 ng/mL (min-max 198-799) thereafter (p=0.028). Serum creatinine and proteinuria levels did not change significantly during lercanidipine treatment (p=0.686 and p=0.116, respectively). According to the DIPS evaluation, cyclosporine and lercanidipine interaction was classified as "possible (score 3)".

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of cyclosporine and lercanidipine increases the concentration of cyclosporine, which may result in side effects during effective treatment in renal transplant patients. Therefore, cyclosporine concentrations should definitely be monitored while patients are taking lercanidipine.

Interaction between tacrolimus and intravenous nicardipine in the treatment of post-kidney transplant hypertension at pediatric hospitals

TAC is commonly prescribed in KTX recipients, though overexposure can be nephrotoxic. CIVN, used to treat post-KTX hypertension, may inhibit TAC metabolism resulting in overexposure and potential toxicity. We present two case reports and analysis of 2068 KTXs from the PHIS to characterize post-KTX intravenous anti-hypertensive use and to determine whether CIVN in TAC-treated patients would predict "immunosuppressive drug causing adverse effects in therapeutic use" (E-code E9331). CIVN was ordered in 11% of KTXs and prescribing increased from 6.2% in 2003 to 10.3% in 2008 (p=0.003, Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test). AEI were reported in 7.1% of TAC-treated patients with CIVN orders compared to 3% of those without (p=0.003, chi-square test). In univariate analysis using GEEs, AEI were twofold more likely in patients with CIVN orders than patients without (AOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.03-4.17) and threefold more likely than patients with orders for other continuous intravenous anti-hypertensives (AOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.09-9.08). In multivariate analysis, only CIVN significantly predicted AEI (AOR 2.8, 95% CI 1.29-6.04). Thus, until clinical studies to fully characterize this interaction are completed, CIVN should be used with caution in TAC-treated individuals.

The interaction of the diltiazem with oral and intravenous cyclosporine in rats

This study investigated the effect of diltiazem on the bioavailability of oral and intravenous cyclosporine (CsA) in rats. While control rats received normal saline, experimental groups received 60 or 90 mg/kg diltiazem orally for 3 days. Each group divided into 2 equal groups that received a single oral dose or i.v. injection of CsA. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed by nonparametric analysis of variance. Pretreatment with 60 or 90 mg/kg diltiazem decreased the area under the blood CsA concentration-time curve (AUC) of oral CsA compared to control group (54.5% and 65.5% for AUC(0-24), 57.6% and 62.2% for AUC(0-infinity), respectively, p<0.05). Mean CsA maximum concentration (Cmax) decreased from 0.4 +/- 0.1 microg/ml to 0.1 +/- 0.0 microg/mL in rats pretreated with 90 mg/kg diltiazem (p<0.05). The absolute bioavailability after oral administration (F(p.o.)) in the 60 or 90 mg/kg diltiazem groups were lower than the control group (9.6% and 8.5% versus 22.6%). Pretreatment with 90 mg/kg but not 60 mg/kg of diltiazem increased the AUC(0-infinity), elimination half-life (t1/2) of intravenous CsA (116.0%, 219.2%, respectively, p<0.05) and decreased the intravenous CsA clearence (CL(i.v.)) (62.9%, p<0.05). Diltiazem decreased the bioavailability of oral CsA, while it increased the bioavailability of intravenous CsA. One must consider this interaction when administering oral or intravenous CsA concomitantly with diltiazem.

Clinically significant drug interactions with cyclosporin. An update

Since its approval in 1983 for immunosuppressive therapy in patients undergoing organ and bone marrow transplants, cyclosporin has had a major impact on organ transplantation. It has significantly improved 1-year and 2-year graft survival rates, and decreased morbidity in kidney, liver, heart, heart-lung and pancreas transplantation. Several studies have supported the efficacy of cyclosporin in preventing graft-versus-host disease in bone marrow transplantation. Cyclosporin is also possibly effective in treating diseases of autoimmune origin and as an antineoplastic agent. The introduction of therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin was extremely useful because of the wide inter- and intraindividual variability in the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporin after oral or intravenous administration. Optimal long term use of cyclosporin requires careful monitoring of the blood (or plasma) concentrations. Sustained and clinically significant drug-drug interactions can occur during long term therapy with cyclosporin. The coadministration of multiple drugs with cyclosporin could result in graft rejection, renal dysfunction or other undesirable effects. Any interaction that leads to modified cyclosporin concentrations is of potential clinical importance. Cyclosporin itself may have significant effects on the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of coadministered drugs, such as digoxin, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and antineoplastic drugs affected by multidrug resistance. Many drugs have been shown to affect the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of cyclosporin. Interactions between cyclosporin and danazol, diltiazem, erythromycin, fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, metoclopramide, nicardipine, verapamil, carbamazepine, phenobarbital (phenobarbitone), phenytoin, rifampicin (rifampin) and cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) are well documented in a large number of patients. Other interactions (such as those with aciclovir, estradiol and imipenem) are documented only in isolated case studies.

Drug interactions in transplantation

Cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate are selective immunosuppressive agents commonly prescribed to prevent organ rejection. Drug interactions that increase their blood levels could expose transplant recipients to serious side effects, while drug interactions that decrease their blood levels may cause rejection episodes as a result of inadequate immunosuppression. Cyclosporine and tacrolimus are metabolized by the cytochrome P-450 enzyme system. Drugs that induce, inhibit, or compete for the same cytochrome P-450 enzyme could affect blood levels of these immunosuppressive agents.

The interaction of the calcium channel blockers verapamil and nifedipine with cyclosporin A in pediatric renal transplant patients

The elimination of cyclosporin A was assessed in eight pediatric renal transplant patients who received calcium channel blockers concomitantly with their immunosuppressive therapy. In three children, verapamil decreased the rate of elimination of cyclosporin A. In five children who received nifedipine, cyclosporin A elimination was also impaired, which contrasts with the reports in adult patients indicating that this calcium channel blocker has no effect on cyclosporin A elimination. When both calcium channel blockers were used on separate occasions in the same patient, nifedipine was less potent than verapamil in depressing cyclosporin A elimination. Although the number of subjects studied is small, these results likely indicate that nifedipine, as well as other calcium channel blocking drugs, must be used with caution in pediatric renal transplant patients.

Pharmacokinetic interactions with calcium channel antagonists (Part II)

Since calcium channel antagonists are a diverse class of drugs frequently administered in combination with other agents, the potential for clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions exists. These interactions occur most frequently via altered hepatic blood flow and impaired hepatic enzyme activity. Part I of the article, which appeared in the previous issue of the Journal, dealt with interactions between calcium antagonists and marker compounds, theophylline, midazolam, lithium, doxorubicin, oral hypoglycaemics and cardiac drugs. Part II examines interactions with cyclosporin, anaesthetics, carbamazepine and cardiovascular agents.

The role of cytochromes P-450 in cyclosporine metabolism

In most patients, the rate-limiting step in the elimination of cyclosporine from the body is its conversion to metabolites by cytochrome P-450 IIIA enzymes in the liver and, possibly, intestine. The significant differences found among patients in the daily dose of cyclosporine required to attain target blood levels has been attributed directly to corresponding interpatient differences in the catalytic activities of P-450 IIIA enzymes. Competitive inhibition or induction of P-450 IIIA activity appears to explain most of the clinically significant interactions of drugs with cyclosporine metabolism that have been reported. The critical importance of P-450 IIIA in the body's handling of cyclosporine has made it possible to identify potential drug interactions before they are reported. Future investigations in this field are likely to result in reduction in the cost and toxicity associated with cyclosporine therapy.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with cyclosporin (Part II)

Part I of this article, which appeared in the previous issue of the Journal, considered the potential mechanisms of drug interactions with cyclosporin, and divided the interacting drugs into 2 categories. Drugs that decrease cyclosporin concentrations (e.g. anti-convulsants, rifampicin, etc.) were dealt with first; the authors then moved on to consider the second category, those that increase cyclosporin concentration (macrolide antibiotics, azole antifungal drugs). Part II continues the survey of this category.