Sirirat Anutrakulchai1, Cholatip Pongskul1, Kittrawee Kritmetapak1, Chulaporn Limwattananon2, Suda Vannaprasaht3. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. 3. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Abstract
AIMS: Although cytochromeP450(CYP)3A5 gene polymorphism affects personalized tacrolimus doses, there is no consensus as to whether CYP3A5 genotypes should be determined to adjust the doses. The aims were to compare the therapeutic ranges and clinical outcomes between the conventional and genotype-guided tacrolimus doses. METHODS: This randomized controlled study compared 63 cases of the conventional tacrolimus dose group (0.1 mg/kg/day) with 62 cases of thegenotype-guided doses group of 0.125, 0.1 and 0.08 mg/kg for CYP3A5*1/*1, *1/*3, and *3/*3 genotypes for the initial 3 days of kidney transplantation. After day 3, dose adjustment occurred in both groups to achieve therapeutic concentrations. RESULTS: The genotype-guided group had an increased proportion of patients with tacrolimus concentrations in the therapeutic range at the steady state on day 3 (40.3 vs 23.8%, P = .048). A lower proportion of over-therapeutic concentration patients was noted in the genotype-guided group in the CYP3A5*3/*3 genotype (9.7 vs 27%, P = .013). Unexpectedly, more delayed graft functions (DGFs) were in the genotype-guided group (41.9 vs 22.2%, P = .018) especially in the CYP3A5*1/*1 participants who might have had an aggravated DGF by a longer ischaemic time and higher serum donor creatinine levels than in the control group. There were no significant differences of glomerular filtration rates or graft or patient survivals over a median 37-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of the CYP3A5 genotype improved therapeutic range achievement. CYP3A5*1/*1 patients who have high risks of DGF should be closely monitored because of an increased risk of DGF and reduced glomerular filtration rate with high tacrolimus doses.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: Although cytochromeP450(CYP)3A5 gene polymorphism affects personalized tacrolimus doses, there is no consensus as to whether CYP3A5 genotypes should be determined to adjust the doses. The aims were to compare the therapeutic ranges and clinical outcomes between the conventional and genotype-guided tacrolimus doses. METHODS: This randomized controlled study compared 63 cases of the conventional tacrolimus dose group (0.1 mg/kg/day) with 62 cases of the genotype-guided doses group of 0.125, 0.1 and 0.08 mg/kg for CYP3A5*1/*1, *1/*3, and *3/*3 genotypes for the initial 3 days of kidney transplantation. After day 3, dose adjustment occurred in both groups to achieve therapeutic concentrations. RESULTS: The genotype-guided group had an increased proportion of patients with tacrolimus concentrations in the therapeutic range at the steady state on day 3 (40.3 vs 23.8%, P = .048). A lower proportion of over-therapeutic concentration patients was noted in the genotype-guided group in the CYP3A5*3/*3 genotype (9.7 vs 27%, P = .013). Unexpectedly, more delayed graft functions (DGFs) were in the genotype-guided group (41.9 vs 22.2%, P = .018) especially in the CYP3A5*1/*1 participants who might have had an aggravated DGF by a longer ischaemic time and higher serum donorcreatinine levels than in the control group. There were no significant differences of glomerular filtration rates or graft or patient survivals over a median 37-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of the CYP3A5 genotype improved therapeutic range achievement. CYP3A5*1/*1 patients who have high risks of DGF should be closely monitored because of an increased risk of DGF and reduced glomerular filtration rate with high tacrolimus doses.
Authors: P Kuehl; J Zhang; Y Lin; J Lamba; M Assem; J Schuetz; P B Watkins; A Daly; S A Wrighton; S D Hall; P Maurel; M Relling; C Brimer; K Yasuda; R Venkataramanan; S Strom; K Thummel; M S Boguski; E Schuetz Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Landry K Kamdem; Frank Streit; Ulrich M Zanger; Jürgen Brockmöller; Michael Oellerich; Victor W Armstrong; Leszek Wojnowski Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-06-10 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: E Thervet; M A Loriot; S Barbier; M Buchler; M Ficheux; G Choukroun; O Toupance; G Touchard; C Alberti; P Le Pogamp; B Moulin; Y Le Meur; A E Heng; J F Subra; P Beaune; C Legendre Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Iain A M Macphee; Salim Fredericks; Tracy Tai; Petros Syrris; Nicholas D Carter; Atholl Johnston; Lawrence Goldberg; David W Holt Journal: Transplantation Date: 2002-12-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vincent Haufroid; Michel Mourad; Valérie Van Kerckhove; Jeremie Wawrzyniak; Martine De Meyer; Djamila Chaib Eddour; Jacques Malaise; Dominique Lison; Jean-Paul Squifflet; Pierre Wallemacq Journal: Pharmacogenetics Date: 2004-03
Authors: T Yashwanth Raj; M Edwin Fernando; N D Srinivasa Prasad; S Sujit; K Thirumal Valavan; T S Harshavardhan; Arvind Ramanathan Journal: Indian J Nephrol Date: 2022-05-07
Authors: Dana R Pierce; Patricia West-Thielke; Zahraa Hajjiri; Sujata Gaitonde; Ivo Tzvetanov; Enrico Benedetti; Alicia B Lichvar Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-05-18