Effects of simvastatin in hyperlipidemic renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporine

Factor Analysis for Body Mass Index Changes in Kidney Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing changes in the body mass index (BMI) of kidney transplant (KT) patients and provide data for the management of the BMI of patients who have undergone KT.

METHOD

The participants were 106 patients who underwent KT at a single center from August 2014 to June 2017. BMIs were compared and analyzed for 6 months and 24 months after KT, and the survey details were collected through medical records. Analysis was performed between 2 groups, one with increased BMI and the other without. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors related to an increase in BMI.

RESULTS

BMI increased from 22.60 ± 2.72 kg/m² at 6 months to 23.18 ± 3.06 kg/m² 2 years after KT. The group with increased BMI (n = 39) had more patients with higher low-density cholesterol levels at the time of KT (low-density cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL; 34 [54.0%] vs 10 [26.3]; P = .008) and without statin drug use than the other group (n = 67) (statin drug use, 48 [70.6%] vs 34 [87.2%], P = .044). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that age >50 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.942; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.075-8.055; P = .036), low-density lipoprotein >100 mg/dL at KT (OR = 6.618; 95% CI, 2.225-19.682; P = 0.001), and no statin drugs (OR = 5.094; 95% CI, 1.449-17.911, P = .011) were the risk factors for an increased BMI after KT.

CONCLUSIONS

After KT, to prevent an increase in the BMI, clinicians should strongly recommend the use of drugs to treat hyperlipidemia, especially in elderly patients with high low-density lipoprotein levels before KT.

Effects of Immunosuppressive Drugs on Serum Lipid Levels in Renal Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Hyperlipidemia is an important metabolic disorder that is common among renal transplant recipients. This study investigated the possible effects of transplantation and immunosuppressive drugs on lipid profiles in this patient group.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the records of 179 patients who underwent renal transplantation between 1996 and 2000, recording lipid profile findings-total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc), and triglyceride (TG)-before and at least 6 months after transplantation. We also recorded patient demographics, underlying renal disorder, and immunosuppressive drug regimens.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine (38.5%) patients were women and 110 men (61.5%). The mean age (+/- SD) of the 179 recipients was 35.7 +/- 11.8 years (range, 11 to 62 years). The respective pre- versus posttransplantation lipid profile findings were: TC, 171.6 +/- 42.4 mg/dL versus 204.7 +/- 45.3 mg/dL, P < .001; LDLc, 114.5 +/- 34.5 mg/dL versus 142.2 +/- 39.7 mg/dL, P < .001; HDLc, 46.7 +/- 13.6 mg/dL versus 42.5 +/- 12.3 mg/dL, P = .001; TG, 142.9 +/- 55.7 mg/dL versus 178.8 +/- 71.8 mg/dL, P < .001. Increased lipid levels were found to be independent of patient age, sex, donor type, and immunosuppressive drug regimen.

CONCLUSION

The results suggested that antihyperlipidemic drugs should be administered routinely to renal transplant recipients irrespective of the immunosuppressive drug regimen or graft source.

Preventing cardiovascular outcome in patients with renal impairment: is there a role for lipid-lowering therapy?

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), ranging from modest renal impairment to dialysis and transplant, have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with CKD have both traditional and non-traditional risk factors for CVD. The role of lipids as risk factors for CVD in these populations has not been firmly established. In a recent prospective controlled trial, it was established that atherogenic lipids are indeed strong risk factors for CVD in renal transplant recipients, and that treatment with a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor reduced the incidence of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. For patients receiving dialysis, the association between serum lipid levels and cardiovascular outcome is uncertain and there is no evidence from controlled trials that lipid-lowering therapy does have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular outcome in these patients. Atherogenic lipids are probably a risk factor for patients with mild or moderate CKD, and five subgroup analyses have indicated a favorable effect of lipid-lowering therapy on cardiovascular outcome, although we still lack prospective controlled trials in these patients. CVD in patients with CKD has been a neglected area of research.

Rhabdomyolysis after concomitant use of cyclosporine, simvastatin, gemfibrozil, and itraconazole

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of rhabdomyolysis in a patient receiving cyclosporine, simvastatin, gemfibrozil, and itraconazole.

CASE REPORT

Rhabdomyolysis occurring in transplant patients receiving both cyclosporine and the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor lovastatin has been well documented. The exact mechanism by which this interaction leads to rhabdomyolysis is unknown. Experience with newer agents of the statin drug class in transplant patients is limited. Since the interaction between cyclosporine and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors involves the CYP3A4 enzyme system, the possibility of amplifying this interaction exists when other drugs affecting the same enzyme system are coprescribed. We describe a case in which a heart transplant recipient stable on a drug regimen that included cyclosporine, simvastatin, and gemfibrozil developed rhabdomyolysis after initiation of the antifungal agent itraconazole.

DISCUSSION

Drug-drug interactions due to shared metabolism via the CYP3A4 pathway can result in significant adverse outcomes. This article discusses concurrent use of an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor with other drugs that inhibit the CYP3A4 isoenzyme, leading to a case of possible fatal rhabdomyolysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians must be aware of drugs metabolized via cytochrome P450 isoenzymes and identify those requiring risk-versus-benefit analysis before prescribing. Patients need to be educated as to signs and symptoms requiring immediate physician intervention.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fluvastatin in heart transplant recipients taking cyclosporine A

During the last decades, transplantation has become an established tool for the treatment of terminal organ failure. Beside immunological factors, hyperlipidemia is the main problem after heart transplantation, causing rapid transplant coronary artery disease (TxCAD) and poor long-term prognosis at the beginning of the transplantation. Heart transplant recipients are now effectively treated with lipid lowering substances, of which HMG-CoA-reductase inhibitors are the most potent. However, treatment with these substances correlates with an increased risk for the development of rhabdomyolysis due to therapy with the immunosuppressive cyclosporine A. Our study monitored the safety and efficacy of treatment with the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor fluvastatin in heart transplant recipients compared to healthy controls. We investigated 10 patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy consisting of cyclosporine A, prednisone, and azathioprine who had increased concentrations of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), and 10 age-matched healthy controls. The patients were treated with 40 mg/day fluvastatin for 4 weeks and 20 mg/day for 4 additional weeks. Control individuals received 40 mg/day fluvastatin for 4 weeks only. Parameters of fluvastatin pharmacokinetics (maximum concentration of the drug (C(max.)), time (t(max.)) to reach C(max.), area under the concentration vs. time curve (AUC(0h-24h)), elimination half-life time (t(1/2))), apparent total body clearance (CL), blood cyclosporine A concentration, plasma lipids, and safety parameters were determined in both study groups at the beginning of the study and after 4 weeks. The latter were determined in the patient group also after 8 and 12 weeks. Treatment with 40 mg/day fluvastatin caused a significant decrease in total cholesterol (patients: 5.47 +/- 1.32 mmol/L vs. 7.30 +/- 1.83 mmol/L; controls: 4.69 +/- 0.64 mmol/L vs. 5.81 +/- 0.72 mmol/L), LDL-C (patients: 3.28 +/- 1.25 mmol/L vs. 5.00 +/- 1.85 mmol/L; controls: 2.58 +/- 0.63 mmol/L vs. 3.50 +/- 0.70 mmol/L), and triglycerides (patients: 1.99 +/- 0.77 mmol/L vs. 2.50 +/- 1.00 mmol/L; controls: 1.24 +/- 0.46 mmol/L vs. 1.72 +/- 0.67 mmol/L) in both study groups, whereas HDL-C was not significantly changed (patients: 1.29 +/- 0.35 mmol/L vs. 1.17 +/- 0.32 mmol/L; controls: 1.55 +/- 0.30 mmol/L vs. 1.53 +/- 0.26 mmol/L). Values of C(max.) and AUC(0h-24h) were higher in the patient group than in the control group (day 1, patients vs. controls, C(max.): 869.4 +/- 604.0 ng/mL vs. 211.9 +/- 113.9 ng/mL; AUC(0h-24h): 1948.8 +/- 1347.9 ng/mL*h vs. 549.4 +/- 247.4 ng/mL*h), whereas the corresponding value of CL was lower in the patient group (33.3 +/- 24.5 L/h vs. 107.9 +/- 95.8 L/h), and the values of t(max.) and t(1/2) showed no differences. In addition, values of C(max.) and AUC(0h-24h) after administration of 40 mg/day fluvastatin for 4 weeks in both groups were slightly higher than at the beginning, whereas the value of CL was slightly lower (day 28, patients vs. controls, C(max.): 1530.4 +/- 960.4 ng/mL vs. 254.7 +/- 199.8 ng/mL; AUC(0h-24h): 2615.3 +/- 1379.4 ng/mL*h vs. 841.8 +/- 421.4 ng/mL*h; CL: day 28, 21.4 +/- 15.3 L/h vs. 61.5 +/- 36.6 L/h). Except for an intermittent increase of creatine kinase, safety parameters showed no increases within the observation period. Our data suggest that fluvastatin effectively lowers plasma concentrations of cholesterol and LDL-C in patients after heart transplantation, however, the metabolism of fluvastatin is affected by concomitant therapy with cyclosporine A. Serum concentrations of fluvastatin should be monitored in cases of concomitant therapy with other substances interfering in the metabolism by competing cytochrome enzymes.

Effects of fluvastatin on cardiac events in renal transplant patients: ALERT (Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation) study design and baseline data

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials of primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease have demonstrated that lowering plasma cholesterol with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitors ('statins') reduces morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease in diverse patient populations.

STUDY AIMS

The aim of the present ALERT (Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation) study is to determine whether renal transplant recipients would also benefit from statin therapy. ALERT is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of fluvastatin in renal transplant recipients with mild-to-moderate hypercholesterolaemia. The primary objective is to investigate the effects of fluvastatin on major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In addition, the effects on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as renal function, will be addressed.

STUDY POPULATION

The study population contains patients with functioning renal allografts of more than 6 months' duration, recruited from 75 centres in Northern Europe and Canada. Patients of both sexes, aged 30-75 years, with a total cholesterol level of 4.0-9.0 mmol/l (155-348 mg/dl) were included, except for those with a history of myocardial infarction, where the upper limit for inclusion was 7.0 mmol/l (270 mg/dl).

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 2100 patients were recruited by the end of October 1997 and will be followed for up to 6 years. This report presents the design features of the study (recruitment, follow-up, sample size, data analysis and study organization), along with baseline results. ALERT is the first large-scale prospective, randomized, double-blind study to address the prevention of cardiovascular mortality in renal transplant patients receiving an HMGCoA reductase inhibitor.

Efficacy and drug interactions of the new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors cerivastatin and atorvastatin in CsA-treated renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Hyperlipidaemia is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease in renal transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy and possible drug-drug interactions of the new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) atorvastatin and cerivastatin in cyclosporin A (CsA)-treated renal transplant patients. Subjects and methods. Thirty patients with stable graft function and LDL cholesterol of 130 mg/dl were randomly assigned to active treatment groups (10 mg atorvastatin or 0.2 mg cerivastatin), or a control group. CsA blood trough levels were controlled on a weekly basis and adapted if they changed more than 25% from baseline values (100-150 ng/ml). Lipid levels and routine laboratory parameters before and after a treatment period of 3 months were compared.

RESULTS

In the group treated with cerivastatin no significant changes in CsA blood trough levels occurred (CsA 116+/-21 ng/ml vs 110+/-20 ng/ml). In contrast, in the group treated with atorvastatin, four of 10 patients had a rise in CsA blood trough levels of more than 25% within 7-14 days of starting therapy. In the remaining patients no significant changes in CsA drug levels occurred. After therapy with atorvastatin or cerivastatin, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were significantly lower compared with baseline conditions. No changes of CsA or lipoprotein levels were present in the control group.

CONCLUSION

In our study population both statins were very effective in lowering elevated LDL cholesterol levels. Cerivastatin did not influence CsA blood trough levels, whereas atorvastatin increased CsA levels in four of 10 patients. Further research in a larger study is necessary in order to confirm these results and to investigate the possible reasons for this drug interaction.

Metabolism and drug interactions of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors in transplant patients: are the statins mechanistically similar?

3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase (EC 1.1.1.88) inhibitors are the most effective drugs to lower cholesterol in transplant patients. However, immunosuppressants and several other drugs used after organ transplantation are cytochrome P4503A (CYP3A, EC 1.14.14.1) substrates. Pharmacokinetic interaction with some of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, specifically lovastatin and simvastatin, leads to an increased incidence of muscle skeletal toxicity in transplant patients. It is our objective to review the role of drug metabolism and drug interactions of lovastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, atorvastatin, and cerivastatin. In the treatment of transplant patients, from a drug interaction perspective, pravastatin, which is not significantly metabolized by CYP enzymes, and fluvastatin, presumably a CYP2C9 substrate, compare favorably with the other statins for which the major metabolic pathways are catalyzed by CYP3A.

Accumulation of lovastatin, but not pravastatin, in the blood of cyclosporine-treated kidney graft patients after multiple doses

OBJECTIVES

To study pravastatin and lovastatin pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects and their interactions with cydosporine (INN, ciclosporin) in kidney transplant patients after single and multiple doses.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of administration of 20 mg/day oral pravastatin and lovastatin for 28 days and their interactions with cyclosporine (2 to 6 mg/kg/day) were studied in a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group multicenter trial in 44 stable kidney graft recipients.

RESULTS

The median area under the curve [AUC(0-24)] of pravastatin was 249 microg x hr/L (range, 104 to 1026 microg x hr/L) after a single dose (day 1) and 241 microg x hr/L (114 to 969 microg x hr/L) after multiple doses (day 28) and was fivefold higher than values reported in the absence of cyclosporine. The median AUC(0-24) of lovastatin was 243 microg x hr/L (105 to 858 microg x hr/L) on day 1 and 459 microg x hr/L (140 to 1508 microg x hr/L) on day 28. Besides a significant accumulation during the study period (p < 0.001), the lovastatin AUC(0-24) values were twentyfold higher than values reported without cyclosporine. Coadministration of pravastatin or lovastatin did not alter cyclosporine pharmacokinetics. In this study, 20 mg/day doses of both drugs resulted in a significant improvement of the lipid profile and were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to lovastatin, pravastatin did not accumulate over the study period, which is probably one of the reasons rhabdomyolysis has been reported in lovastatin-treated but not pravastatin-treated transplant patients receiving cyclosporine immunosuppression.