Tools for a personalized tacrolimus dose adjustment in the follow-up of renal transplant recipients. Metabolizing phenotype according to CYP3A genetic polymorphisms versus concentration-dose ratio.

Immunosuppression Inmunosupresión Kidney transplantation Monitorización terapéutica Pharmacogenetics Polymorphisms Tacrolimus Therapeutic drug monitoring Trasplante renal

Journal

Nefrologia
ISSN: 2013-2514
Titre abrégé: Nefrologia (Engl Ed)
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101778581

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 01 02 2022
accepted: 10 12 2022
medline: 14 4 2024
pubmed: 14 4 2024
entrez: 13 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The strategy of the concentration-dose (C/D) approach and the different profiles of tacrolimus (Tac) according to the cytochrome P450 polymorphisms (CYPs) focus on the metabolism of Tac and are proposed as tools for the follow-up of transplant patients. The objective of this study is to analyse both strategies to confirm whether the stratification of patients according to the pharmacokinetic behaviour of C/D corresponds to the classification according to their CYP3A4/5 cluster metabolizer profile. 425 kidney transplant patients who received Tac as immunosuppressive treatment have been included. The concentration/dose ratio (C/D) was used to divide patients in terciles and classify them according to their Tac metabolism rate (fast, intermediate, and slow). Based on CYP3A4 and A5 polymorphisms, patients were classified into 3 metabolizer groups: fast (CYP3A5*1 carriers and CYP34A*1/*1), intermediate (CYP3A5*3/3 and CYP3A4*1/*1) and slow (CYP3A5*3/*3 and CYP3A4*22 carriers). When comparing patients included in each metabolizer group according to C/D ratio, 47% (65/139) of the fast metabolizers, 85% (125/146) of the intermediate and only 12% (17/140) of the slow also fitted in the homonym genotype group. Statistically lower Tac concentrations were observed in the fast metabolizers group and higher Tac concentrations in the slow metabolizers when compared with the intermediate group both in C/D ratio and polymorphisms criteria. High metabolizers required approximately 60% more Tac doses than intermediates throughout follow-up, while poor metabolizers required approximately 20% fewer doses than intermediates. Fast metabolizers classified by both criteria presented a higher percentage of times with sub-therapeutic blood Tac concentration values. Determination of the metabolizer phenotype according to CYP polymorphisms or the C/D ratio allows patients to be distinguished according to their exposure to Tac. Probably the combination of both classification criteria would be a good tool for managing Tac dosage for transplant patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION UNASSIGNED
The strategy of the concentration-dose (C/D) approach and the different profiles of tacrolimus (Tac) according to the cytochrome P450 polymorphisms (CYPs) focus on the metabolism of Tac and are proposed as tools for the follow-up of transplant patients. The objective of this study is to analyse both strategies to confirm whether the stratification of patients according to the pharmacokinetic behaviour of C/D corresponds to the classification according to their CYP3A4/5 cluster metabolizer profile.
MATERIALS AND METHODS METHODS
425 kidney transplant patients who received Tac as immunosuppressive treatment have been included. The concentration/dose ratio (C/D) was used to divide patients in terciles and classify them according to their Tac metabolism rate (fast, intermediate, and slow). Based on CYP3A4 and A5 polymorphisms, patients were classified into 3 metabolizer groups: fast (CYP3A5*1 carriers and CYP34A*1/*1), intermediate (CYP3A5*3/3 and CYP3A4*1/*1) and slow (CYP3A5*3/*3 and CYP3A4*22 carriers).
RESULTS RESULTS
When comparing patients included in each metabolizer group according to C/D ratio, 47% (65/139) of the fast metabolizers, 85% (125/146) of the intermediate and only 12% (17/140) of the slow also fitted in the homonym genotype group. Statistically lower Tac concentrations were observed in the fast metabolizers group and higher Tac concentrations in the slow metabolizers when compared with the intermediate group both in C/D ratio and polymorphisms criteria. High metabolizers required approximately 60% more Tac doses than intermediates throughout follow-up, while poor metabolizers required approximately 20% fewer doses than intermediates. Fast metabolizers classified by both criteria presented a higher percentage of times with sub-therapeutic blood Tac concentration values.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Determination of the metabolizer phenotype according to CYP polymorphisms or the C/D ratio allows patients to be distinguished according to their exposure to Tac. Probably the combination of both classification criteria would be a good tool for managing Tac dosage for transplant patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38614890
pii: S2013-2514(24)00077-4
doi: 10.1016/j.nefroe.2024.03.019
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.

Auteurs

Anna Vidal-Alabró (A)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Helena Colom (H)

Departamento de Farmacia y Tecnología Farmacéutica, y Físico-química, Unidad de Biofarmacia y Farmacocinética, Facultad de Farmacia y Ciencias de la Alimentación, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Pere Fontova (P)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Gema Cerezo (G)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Edoardo Melilli (E)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Nuria Montero (N)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Ana Coloma (A)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Anna Manonelles (A)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Alex Favà (A)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Josep M Cruzado (JM)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Joan Torras (J)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.

Josep M Grinyó (JM)

Departamento de Ciencias Clínicas, Unidad de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

Nuria Lloberas (N)

Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: nlloberas@ub.edu.

Classifications MeSH